Natural Gas is worse than coal for global warming

[Binkie The Clown]

[Nitram]

1. How about the environmental effects of mountain top removal?

Of mercury dropping into the water supply and on the food supply? Global warming is not the only criterion we should consider.

[Binkie The Clown]

2. Yup. The human species is under attack from every direction. n/t

[Nitram]

16. Rather, the human species is destroying itself from every direction.

[hunter]

11. Fracking messes up our water too.

[Progressive dog]

3. Not according to a vast majority of scientists

Methane actually present--now-- in the atmosphere has a warming potential over the next century of only about 13% of the carbon dioxide. Natural sources of methane account for 36% and fossil fuels account for only 1/3 of the remainder. One of the fossil fuel sources is coal mining.
http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions
Coal is the worst, by far, of the fossil fuels for climate warming.

[Binkie The Clown]

4. I saw a YouTuibe video this morning that claimed the "vast majority of scientists"

think global warming is no big deal.

I didn't see anything in that website you linked to that said "vast majority of scientists". And the papers quoted in that article are anywhere from 6 o 16 years old, well before this new research on the extent and seriousness of methane leaks. The video is from this year, and contains much more up-to-date data showing it's much worse that previously thought.

You can't falsify new data by quoting obsolete data.

[Progressive dog]

5. So you found an incorrect video on youtube

Both sides have propaganda that have nothing to do with actual science.
Those measurements in your video have as little to do with causes of climate change as a big snow storm in Illinois. Likewise, measurements of carbon dioxide near coal fired power plants can't be extrapolated to the planet and neither can methane numbers measured in proximity to gas wells. That may be data, but it isn't science. In fact, it sounds dishonest to me.

[Binkie The Clown]

6. Whatever. We're screwed no matter how you look at it, so

arguing about what to order for lunch on the Titanic is really pointless.

I know I'm right. You know you're right.
I won't convince you. You won't convince me.
We're both wrong. We're both right.
Your data is "science", my data is "not science".
Your data is old, my data is new.
My data includes measurement of gas leaks over major metropolitan areas (not just gas wells).
I won't look at your data. You won't look at my data.
We believe what we want to believe.
Truth has nothing to do with anything.
There's no way I'm ever going to change my mind, so stop talking to me.
There's no way you're ever going to change your mind, so I'll stop talking to you.
And in the end, we're on the road to extinction and Mother Nature doesn't give a shit.

[Progressive dog]

7. I did a little google and found a more recent study

on global warming summarized in the Washington Post. I'll let you read it, if it still matters to you, since "We're screwed" anyway.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/atmospheric-levels-of-methane-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas-are-spiking-scientists-report/
BTW Why don't you stop thinking that pro coal propaganda should be allowed to be posted without dispute.
Besides, I don't choose data based on belief and I don't think most of us do.

[Binkie The Clown]

8. "pro-coal?" I'm seriously anti-coal.

I can't imagine what gave you the impression I was pro coal.

I am, however, anti-"magic-bullet-that-will-cure-all-our-problems". Including those who promote the idea that natural gas will cure all our problems. I'm anti-wishful thinking.

Research shows that very nearly ALL of us choose data based on what we prefer to believe. I know that about myself, and it helps me to counter that natural tendency.

Yes, I AM biased.

[Progressive dog]

9. Your post title claims that "natural gas is worse than coal"

That is factually incorrect and leaves the impression that you would choose coal over natural gas.

[Binkie The Clown]

10. Drinking cynanide is worse than drinking raw sewage, and I'm not pro-sewage drinking.

And, as you pointed out, my facts aren't "science" to you.
So let's just let it go with the fact that we don't agree on what "factually correct" means.

[kristopher]

12. The technical term for your arguments would be 'hogwash'.

Each watt generated by natgas vs coal is at least a 60% reduction in carbon emissions.

Since that technology is mature and inexpensive...

Since that technology is compatible with a baseload system...

Since that technology *also* functionally meets the sliding need for dispatchable power as variable renewable penetration increases its penetration...

And since that technology can remain economically viable as it's level of use decreases proportionate to increased renewable penetration....

It is idiotic to argue that, displacing coal with natural gas is a bad step at this point and time.


Also in the news
******************************************
China Is About to Bury Elon Musk in Batteries
Factories are adding enough capacity to power the equivalent of nearly 1.5 million Model S vehicles



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-to-bury-elon-musk-in-batteries

*******************************************

South Korea scraps plants, signals shift from nuclear energy

South Korea, one of the world's largest nuclear electricity producers, will scrap plans to add nuclear power plants, its president said Monday, signaling a shift in decades of reliance on nuclear energy.

President Moon Jae-in said South Korea will move away from nuclear energy and will not seek to extend the life of existing plants.

He also vowed to cut South Korea's reliance on coal. South Korea will shut 10 old coal power plants and stop building more coal power plants.

"So far South Korea's energy policy pursued cheap prices and efficiency. Cheap production prices were considered the priority while the public's life and safety took a backseat," Moon said at a ceremony marking the shutdown of the country's oldest power plant, Kori 1, in Busan, home to South Korea's largest cluster of nuclear power plants.

"But it's time for a change."

...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-korea-scrap-building-nuclear-power-plants-48124775

**********************************

Hinkley Point C: watchdog confirms fears of political vanity project

NAO report condemns ‘risky and expensive’ nuclear project that went ahead despite the economic case crumbling

he National Audit Office does not use excitable phrases like “utter shambles.” But the spending watchdog’s verdict on Hinkley Point C, the nuclear power plant in Somerset that is supposedly inevitable, amounts to the same thing. The government “has locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.

The 80-page report confirms one’s worst fears about how ministers fell in love with Hinkley. First, they wedded themselves to an inflexible financial model. Then they agreed commercial terms with developer EDF in 2013, when energy prices were sky-high, and ploughed on regardless when the economic case for Hinkley started to crumble.

The first error is the easier to understand. Ministers followed a standard model in which the developer bears the construction risks in return for a state guarantee on the price of the electricity eventually produced. But Hinkley, scheduled to provide 7% of the nation’s electricity, was never a normal project. It is bigger than anything ever seen before and the price guarantee – to be funded via consumers’ bills – extends over 35 years....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jun/23/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-energy-risky-expensive-national-audit-office

[Progressive dog]

15. You can keep your alternative facts as

long as you don't try to spread them.

[mackdaddy]

13. Burning coal does have some counter global warming effects.

Burning coal releases and maintains a degree of particulates in the high atmosphere, mostly sulfur dioxide, but some others. This layer acts something as a reflective shield, and reduces the solar energy reaching the ground. When we stop burning coal completely this global dimming effect ends with a matter of days. Some have predicted up to a 2C increase in global warming within weeks. A significant measurable increase in average temperature over the US was measured just with the halt in all air travel immediately after 9/11. So yes we are putting 3 pounds of CO2 in the air for every pound of coal we burn and will take many centuries to totally clear, but we also get some minor offset from the dimming effect from burning the coal.

Methane when first released has a greenhouse effect of 100 to 150 times that of CO2 for the first few weeks and months until it breaks down completely over a couple of decades ( breaks down Into CO2). This release from the gas industry is especially bad as it is directly into the atmosphere. At least the arctic releases are somewhat either absorbed by the ocean waters or broken down by soil bacteria. Although recent studies have shown an 8fold or more increase in the MEASURED methane released in the arctic. More likely to have an effect is loosing 17% of the methane drilled is a big waste of Money. If the oil and gas companies can make greater profit by fixing some of the leaks there is some hope of their doing something about it.

But yes burning gas is not great leap over the burning of coal. Kind of like would you rather be stabbed in the spleen or stabbed in the kidney. Our answer as a society seems to be being stabbed in both. All of the above and all.

[kristopher]

14. This isn't correct: "burning gas is not great leap over the burning of coal"

That's addressed in post 12 above. Your conclusion is superficial as it omits the divergent functional roles that are possible for coal and natgas.

Natural gas serves the same baseload role as coal but natural gas is also excellent for load matching variable renewable sources in a way that is impossible for coal or nuclear.

A centralized generating system using natural gas as a fuel has no problem accommodating a steadily increasing amount of wind and solar. The more wind and solar you add, the greater the reduction in CO2e emissions.

In 2005, the generating mix being heavily weighted to coal meant that the load balancing issue was a major obstacle for adding high levels of renewables to the grid. Now, with the half the present generating mix having moved from coal to natural gas, there is a clear path away from carbon with few technological obstacles. We are seeing the effects in steadily increasing commitments by utilities and investors in renewable energy sources.