It's cleaner than coal and oil. If you upgrade a coal plant to a gas plant, that's a step forward against climate change.
Yes, we'd be much better off with wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear reactors, but a step forward is a step forward.
Countries like Poland, running mostly on coal, would get cleaner air and contribute less to global warming if they were to upgrade their power plants to anything non-coal.
Replace them with nuclear generators and they'd also significantly reduce the amount of radiation people would be exposed to.
It's not that gas is that good, it's more that coal is that bad.
Clever use of the adjective “cleaner”. Try replacing it with “less dirty, but still pollutant and toxic” to see an alternative, correct version of what you have written.
A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot.
Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2).
I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.
Nuclear produces constant amount of energy (while consumption is not stable), Solar and Wind are highly unstable, with peaks not matching consumption. Adding gas (which is fast to adjust/turn on/turn off) for maneuvers makes whole system cheaper and more stable
Except, most regions don't need constant supply, it's actually even harmful for the grid. German grid for example seems to have become significant better since the last nuclear plants were removed.
Gas isn’t climate friendly just because of its debatable attractiveness vs coal. And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate. Let’s not pretend it’s some panacea. Renewables are better than both.
> And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate
Those are still very low compared to fossil fuels. I mean in hindsight if that was something people cared about 40-50 years ago we'd be in a much better place climate change wise.
What is climate friendly about natural gas?
It's cleaner than coal and oil. If you upgrade a coal plant to a gas plant, that's a step forward against climate change.
Yes, we'd be much better off with wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear reactors, but a step forward is a step forward.
Countries like Poland, running mostly on coal, would get cleaner air and contribute less to global warming if they were to upgrade their power plants to anything non-coal.
Replace them with nuclear generators and they'd also significantly reduce the amount of radiation people would be exposed to.
It's not that gas is that good, it's more that coal is that bad.
Clever use of the adjective “cleaner”. Try replacing it with “less dirty, but still pollutant and toxic” to see an alternative, correct version of what you have written.
2 replies →
A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot.
[1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...
So not climate friendly.
4 replies →
Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2).
I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.
> Every form of energy generation releases CO2
…except nuclear, hydro, solar… They are stable once built.
“Natural gas” is a fossil fuel and adds CO2 that was locked away.
1 reply →
Much better to have CO2 than methane in the atmosphere
Even better to have neither.
3 replies →
I tried telling that to my brother but he won't quit releasing methane.
Nuclear produces constant amount of energy (while consumption is not stable), Solar and Wind are highly unstable, with peaks not matching consumption. Adding gas (which is fast to adjust/turn on/turn off) for maneuvers makes whole system cheaper and more stable
Except, most regions don't need constant supply, it's actually even harmful for the grid. German grid for example seems to have become significant better since the last nuclear plants were removed.
What ? They just dumped a lot of money into grid safety after the nuclear exit . Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Because of the nuclear exit they had to build Grid stabilization plants e.g in Marbach.
Wasn't gas what killed nuclear in the 80s (in addition to the moral panic)?
Gas isn’t climate friendly just because of its debatable attractiveness vs coal. And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate. Let’s not pretend it’s some panacea. Renewables are better than both.
Fun fact: The US achieved more for the climate with fracking gas than Germany did with its "Energiewende".
Do you care to explain more, id be interested :)
54 replies →
> And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate
Those are still very low compared to fossil fuels. I mean in hindsight if that was something people cared about 40-50 years ago we'd be in a much better place climate change wise.