40% of US electricity is now emissions-free(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
40% of US electricity is now emissions-free
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/40-of-us-electricity-is-now-emissions-free/
214 comments
The story with coal is that it has been replaced mostly by natural gas. Probably a lot to do with the shale gas boom.
I wonder, does nat gas release less CO2 per MWh or sth? Because coal is mostly carbon, which can only get burnt to CO2, but eg methane is one carbon, four hydrogens per molecule. Still mostly carbon by weight I guess...
In principle yes, but methane leakage over the natgas supply chain eats that advantage up.
Interesting, can you recommend a source on this?
The science is still ongoing: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-co...
Just an anecdote, but I once reported (by phone to the local gas company) a smelly local gas pipeline/junction that I noticed after cycling by on the road the next to it, so the leak could not have been all that small. I then reported it some weeks later because the smell was still just as strong (but still "faint" at the distance to the road).
Apparently no one cares about the little leaks everywhere (or they cannot be fixed cheaply). Later on I noticed that other gas pipeline junctions -- the type that are scattered around subdivisions -- often smelled faintly of gas. I wonder if these small leaks can be avoided with better engineering or if perfectly sealed pipe fittings in the outdoors are impractical.
Apparently no one cares about the little leaks everywhere (or they cannot be fixed cheaply). Later on I noticed that other gas pipeline junctions -- the type that are scattered around subdivisions -- often smelled faintly of gas. I wonder if these small leaks can be avoided with better engineering or if perfectly sealed pipe fittings in the outdoors are impractical.
According to 2019 EIA figures (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296), Natural gas plants in the US release about 43% the CO2 per unit energy of US coal plants. This is both because of higher energy per unit CO2 (would be about 56% per MJ or Btu or whatever) and better conversion efficiency. The highest thermal efficiency possible from a modern CCGT plant running at its ideal output is something like 60%, as there is a second steam cycle capturing the heat from the exhaust of the first turbine for more electricity. The numbers given for the efficiency of the fleet of gas plants in that article translate to about 44%, and 32% for coal.
Yes, apparently natural gas emits almost 50% less CO2 than coal.
It is also cleaner. Emissions are pretty much pure CO2 whereas coal also emits other compounds, e.g. sulfur, and particulates. This even includes a level of radioactive elements. So it is very polluting.
It is also cleaner. Emissions are pretty much pure CO2 whereas coal also emits other compounds, e.g. sulfur, and particulates. This even includes a level of radioactive elements. So it is very polluting.
Methane is also a very potent greenhouse gas.
It does. The gas often comes together with crude oil, which is getting burnt elsewhere anyways, so gas is not a saviour. It's more of a "subsidy" of oil.
Hopefully electricity use will soon start to climb as more sectors are electrified.
> 2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since.
What’s even wilder about this is the population of earth just hit an estimated 8 billion total. The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet, but one of the largest superpowers balancing out despite further planetary growth is a great sign.
What’s even wilder about this is the population of earth just hit an estimated 8 billion total. The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet, but one of the largest superpowers balancing out despite further planetary growth is a great sign.
“The US population isn’t 100% indicative of the whole planet” is an excellent point to keep in mind. The US economy has trended towards exporting services and importing goods, and the electricity used to produce imported goods does not contribute to domestic usage.
Those are interesting indeed. I would have thought cryptocurrency farming might have made a blip on there somehow but seems not.
I wonder how those charts compare with the rest of the world?
I wonder how those charts compare with the rest of the world?
Crypto mining in the US consumes 1-1.5% of electricity [1]. This is very small to show on graphs like these ones.
If there is a downward trend on electricity consumption it probably just dampens it slightly.
Now, with EVs on the other hand, consumption will probably pick up a lot.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact....
Now, with EVs on the other hand, consumption will probably pick up a lot.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact....
No idea why you were downvoted. Crypto has had a significant impact on electricity demand, I'd be interested to see if it was visible too.
Because it's totally unsubstantiated, there is no law in the universe that says we can't have a much, much more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy and have consumption too. Obviously what people consume, the frequency etc will have to some what change, but there is no reason through innovation, incentives, education that we can't do it.
I think the idea that this is "impossible" and the only way to get there is to go back to the stone ages is actually the reason why we're not there yet.
Rather than spend time just improving things, we like to have a bitch about it.
I think the idea that this is "impossible" and the only way to get there is to go back to the stone ages is actually the reason why we're not there yet.
Rather than spend time just improving things, we like to have a bitch about it.
> there is no law in the universe that says we can't have a much, much more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy and have consumption too.
Unfortunately there is. See [1] and [2] for an introduction to the topic and [3] for the concept of ecological overshoot. It’s simply not possible to have infinite growth in a finite world.
Humanity have first exceeded the annual carrying capacity of Earth in 1971, first year when Earth Overshoot Day happened.
1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xr9rIQxwj4
2: https://www.collapsemusings.com/overshoot-why-its-already-to...
3: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/media-backgr...
Unfortunately there is. See [1] and [2] for an introduction to the topic and [3] for the concept of ecological overshoot. It’s simply not possible to have infinite growth in a finite world.
Humanity have first exceeded the annual carrying capacity of Earth in 1971, first year when Earth Overshoot Day happened.
1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xr9rIQxwj4
2: https://www.collapsemusings.com/overshoot-why-its-already-to...
3: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/media-backgr...
I personally never mentioned infinite growth.
Infinite growth is a sily idea and I doubt the majority of people really think this is a worthwhile / desirable thing to shoot for anyway goal anyway.
I don't see why we can't have tech, sustainable travel (more rail, even intercontinental high speed trains), renewable energy industries and innovation, and more driving a sustainable economy?
Infinite growth is a sily idea and I doubt the majority of people really think this is a worthwhile / desirable thing to shoot for anyway goal anyway.
I don't see why we can't have tech, sustainable travel (more rail, even intercontinental high speed trains), renewable energy industries and innovation, and more driving a sustainable economy?
You're right, "We can't have infinite growth" meaning "We can't grow more sustainably/We should stop growth in order sustainable existence of human population" would make much more sense 50 years ago. We're far past sustainable thresholds at this point.
> I don't see why we can't have tech ...
The article I linked ("Overshoot: Why It's Already Too Late To Save Civilization") explains why we can't, there simply isn't enough resources on planet Earth now. If the humanity were to follow the platonic utopian ideal of strictly sustainable development of technology over past centuries, sure, why not? We could mine the asteroids and whatnot. There was enough resources and a sufficiently intact biosphere, atmosphere etc. to allow it. But the Earth-system at this point is simply fucked up beyond repair. Reread this last sentence. For a person who sees his purpose in this world and has hopes to achieve something in this world (read: most people in the West), this is the most depressing and hopeless thing he can ever think of, even more depressing than "I am mentally/physically fucked up beyond repair."
I am a Muslim, so everything I do is ultimately oriented for my afterlife, and all deeds (and sins) of mine are recorded and will be carried with me to the day of Judgement, where I will face God's absolute justice and hopefully mercy for all what I did. This world is no longer than a blink of an eye relative to my eternal life. Thus I am not depressed by the situation the world is in. What matters is what I do here in my time. YMMV based on your faith/beliefs/lack of them.
The article is a long but enlightening read, I even translated it to my native lang and published it even though I am no writer or translator.
> I don't see why we can't have tech ...
The article I linked ("Overshoot: Why It's Already Too Late To Save Civilization") explains why we can't, there simply isn't enough resources on planet Earth now. If the humanity were to follow the platonic utopian ideal of strictly sustainable development of technology over past centuries, sure, why not? We could mine the asteroids and whatnot. There was enough resources and a sufficiently intact biosphere, atmosphere etc. to allow it. But the Earth-system at this point is simply fucked up beyond repair. Reread this last sentence. For a person who sees his purpose in this world and has hopes to achieve something in this world (read: most people in the West), this is the most depressing and hopeless thing he can ever think of, even more depressing than "I am mentally/physically fucked up beyond repair."
I am a Muslim, so everything I do is ultimately oriented for my afterlife, and all deeds (and sins) of mine are recorded and will be carried with me to the day of Judgement, where I will face God's absolute justice and hopefully mercy for all what I did. This world is no longer than a blink of an eye relative to my eternal life. Thus I am not depressed by the situation the world is in. What matters is what I do here in my time. YMMV based on your faith/beliefs/lack of them.
The article is a long but enlightening read, I even translated it to my native lang and published it even though I am no writer or translator.
The article I linked ("Overshoot: Why It's Already Too Late To Save Civilization") explains why we can't, there simply isn't enough resources on planet Earth now.
Tomorrow won't be the same as today, look at the advances in AI, which will likely benefit many aspects of science. More will be done with less.
so everything I do is ultimately oriented for my afterlife, and all deeds (and sins) of mine are recorded and will be carried with me to the day of Judgement
In my opinion this is why you hold such a bleak outlook on everything. Try changing that and it might feel a bit better.
Thus I am not depressed by the situation the world is in
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you're being honest with yourself.
Tomorrow won't be the same as today, look at the advances in AI, which will likely benefit many aspects of science. More will be done with less.
so everything I do is ultimately oriented for my afterlife, and all deeds (and sins) of mine are recorded and will be carried with me to the day of Judgement
In my opinion this is why you hold such a bleak outlook on everything. Try changing that and it might feel a bit better.
Thus I am not depressed by the situation the world is in
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you're being honest with yourself.
> More will be done with less.
I don’t doubt this. But the technological advancements required to sustain the current population are either not even in the horizon, or are outright physically impossible. AGI leading hopefully rapidly to ASI can probably solve a lot of things with advanced materials science, but aside from that possibility the future does look pretty bleak. Please read the article yourself and you’ll understand, there’s just too many crises cornering humanity, each of them currently with seemingly no way to solve.
> I'm not sure you're being honest with yourself.
I’m sorry, no. The only reason I mentioned the relation with depression is because I know from experience (friends, sample size < 10) an awful lot ratio of Western people tend to get serious depression at least temporarily after seeing the current true situation of the world.
I don’t doubt this. But the technological advancements required to sustain the current population are either not even in the horizon, or are outright physically impossible. AGI leading hopefully rapidly to ASI can probably solve a lot of things with advanced materials science, but aside from that possibility the future does look pretty bleak. Please read the article yourself and you’ll understand, there’s just too many crises cornering humanity, each of them currently with seemingly no way to solve.
> I'm not sure you're being honest with yourself.
I’m sorry, no. The only reason I mentioned the relation with depression is because I know from experience (friends, sample size < 10) an awful lot ratio of Western people tend to get serious depression at least temporarily after seeing the current true situation of the world.
I'm not sure how you got any of those conclusions from my comment. I was just curious why crypto didn't cause a blip on the graph.
Maybe you should calm down.
Maybe you should calm down.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I like the term “emissions-free”.
It keeps our eyes on the target - not emitting CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere.
Other qualities like “renewablility” or “greenness” are cherries in the top. Nice to haves!
It keeps our eyes on the target - not emitting CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere.
Other qualities like “renewablility” or “greenness” are cherries in the top. Nice to haves!
CO2 and methane ("emissions") is one target. A very important one, but let's not forget the other concerns altogether - plastic pollution, contamination of the environment through mineral extraction, etc.
The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?
The only path forward is a drastic reduction in overall consumption. Even if we reach 100% emissions-free electricity, we'll end up with an unlivable planet anyway if we don't focus on the other issues too. If we limit warming to 1,5°C — which isn't even realistic anymore — what good will it do to us if our water and arable land are contaminated beyond repair?
Great, when are you giving up your computer and internet connection?
I know this comment was made in bad faith. "You're not living as an ermite so you're a hypocrite and you have no business suggesting that consumption should be reduced" is an obvious fallacy that gets old quick. But let me entertain you a little. My computer and internet access is essential to my job and to a large part of my personal life. But I do cut down my consumption there (reduce power usage through several different methods, e.g., no power-hungry video games, low resolution videos, low-powered laptop) and in other areas of my life (eating, travel, clothing, and so on).
Now, your turn: what are you doing to help avoid global ecological catastrophe, even a little bit?
Now, your turn: what are you doing to help avoid global ecological catastrophe, even a little bit?
But well, the goal is about increasing consumption. No matter if we like it or not, it will increase massively - probably more than an order of magnitude overall - this century, simply because countries that are now poor, will no longer be so once massive amounts of renewable energy become the norm. We have to decrease pollution while also quickly increasing consumption - probably at same rate as in the "main" fossil fuel era - in 1870..1970, between oil becoming a thing, and Arab embargo.
If you take as an axiom that the core cause of the current destruction of our planet is inevitable, then there's isn't much we can discuss.
I agree. Also, our planet is limited. Thinking that we can increase production infinitely ( good economist point of view), is just physically impossible
0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +...
Seems physically possible to me.
Seems physically possible to me.
With 10^27 g of Earth (without utilizing extra-planetary resources) each of which can be broken down into around 10^23 mol/g of stuff (without significantly altering the material composition) your infinite string of numbers will only be about 50 digits long.
That's rather "infinitesimally", not "infinitely".
We're talking about infinite time, not infinite space.
But well this is the whole reason of existence of humankind and civilisation, the meaning of life: consumption. I struggle to understand how this can be doubted.
I must say, that's quite a depressing outlook. Sure, we consume a lot, but "the meaning of life?" Damn! I sleep a lot too, arguably even more than I consume, but I wouldn't argue that's my whole reason for existing...
Maybe you mean "we need to consume to live," which I agree with a whole lot more. Even then, there's no reason we need to maximize consumption. Food is definitely critical to our existence, but pre-peeled oranges in individual plastic packaging are not.
Maybe you mean "we need to consume to live," which I agree with a whole lot more. Even then, there's no reason we need to maximize consumption. Food is definitely critical to our existence, but pre-peeled oranges in individual plastic packaging are not.
If that is the case, we are fucked anyway.
There is no way 80% of the planet is willing to give up any comfort to stave off future ecological problems they cannot feel yet. We saw how much effort it took with global warming, and I doubt that will have made subsequent changes for the better easier. In fact, I suspect a lot of 'what, there is another thing wrong according to the scientific bozo's even though I can't see it' that will make people more resistant.
Actually reducing consumption globally won't happen. Not until it is too late. The best we can do is slow down consumption, and make consumption better. We have seen decent improvements in plastic free packaging. And power draw of devices is also getting much more attention. One big point here is pricing in externalities. That will push people into the less damaging choices.
Not to say that we should give up, nor to say that we should be quiet about other issues, nor even to say that people shouldn't reduce their consumption. My point is that a global reduction of consumption isn't going to happen voluntarily, and therefore shouldn't be the solution we pursue.
There is no way 80% of the planet is willing to give up any comfort to stave off future ecological problems they cannot feel yet. We saw how much effort it took with global warming, and I doubt that will have made subsequent changes for the better easier. In fact, I suspect a lot of 'what, there is another thing wrong according to the scientific bozo's even though I can't see it' that will make people more resistant.
Actually reducing consumption globally won't happen. Not until it is too late. The best we can do is slow down consumption, and make consumption better. We have seen decent improvements in plastic free packaging. And power draw of devices is also getting much more attention. One big point here is pricing in externalities. That will push people into the less damaging choices.
Not to say that we should give up, nor to say that we should be quiet about other issues, nor even to say that people shouldn't reduce their consumption. My point is that a global reduction of consumption isn't going to happen voluntarily, and therefore shouldn't be the solution we pursue.
[deleted]
upvoted you not because I 100% agree but your (completely reasonable) comment looks to have been downvoted very heavily.
I do feel there needs to be space to discuss what kinds of reductions of consumption make sense, esp for rich countries.
I do feel there needs to be space to discuss what kinds of reductions of consumption make sense, esp for rich countries.
i agree, but i also dislike the term "natural gas" sure its natural just like everything in the universe is -- just a bit of greenwashing to go with our CO2 emissions
Saying that it is “greenwashing” is ridiculous. The gas is called natural because when it was discovered it came from nature, not from manufacturing by heating coal. This name is older than marketing or green politics and it is quite natural way to call this gas.
The origin of the term doesn't mean that the term isn't an effective form of greenwashing that creates false perceptions around its harmful effects.
The obvious fix for this is better education and a good understanding of the meaning of words ind different contexts. It is a way better than broadly applying various labels to the point when they become completely void of any special meaning.
Greenwashing is an intentional effort to portray greenhouse gas emissions as safe by relativizing their contribution to the climate change. Calling natural gas natural according to an old tradition is not the same.
Greenwashing is an intentional effort to portray greenhouse gas emissions as safe by relativizing their contribution to the climate change. Calling natural gas natural according to an old tradition is not the same.
Would it be wrong of me to coin the terms Natural Organic Oil and Natural Coal? They are both, in fact, natural and organic after all. Adding a prefix like Natural or Organic definitely resonates with a lot of people and builds a perception that it’s “clean.” It’s not ridiculous to point out this fact, it was clearly chosen with intent to mislead. The problem with Oil and Coal is that it’s hard to sell it this way because they’re already widely known to be disastrous for the environment.
If you could do that in a letter exchange with Humphry Davy, Lavoisier or other scientist in 1750-1850, that would be fine, though they would probably ask why. There were scientific reasons for giving the name to natural gas (to differentiate from manufacturing process). Can you suggest any reason for your terms?
Anyway, if you would do it today, it is really hard to justify, not least because there exist new meanings of the words now and there exist already sufficiently good classifications. Context does matter.
Anyway, if you would do it today, it is really hard to justify, not least because there exist new meanings of the words now and there exist already sufficiently good classifications. Context does matter.
its greenwashing in the sense that its a convenient historical term used to mislead the average (contemporary) punter that its ok for the environment. so it has less emissions than coal, doesnt make it safe... just call it gas and drop the natural.
If you think that the emphasis of the name "natural gas" over other just "gas" or other common terms for it isn't intentional, then you are quite naive.
Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.
Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.
>If you think that the emphasis of the name "natural gas" over other just "gas" or other common terms for it isn't intentional, then you are quite naive.
Assumption about my personality doesn’t make your statement right or make sense. Of course it was intentional, just not the way you suggest here. The name “natural gas” exists in many languages, literally means “coming from nature” and is being used for centuries. Major suppliers outside USA use this name in contracts etc. Nobody is going to rename it just because American education system is so bad that people are getting confused.
>Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.
Proof link? What factors were controlled in that research?
Assumption about my personality doesn’t make your statement right or make sense. Of course it was intentional, just not the way you suggest here. The name “natural gas” exists in many languages, literally means “coming from nature” and is being used for centuries. Major suppliers outside USA use this name in contracts etc. Nobody is going to rename it just because American education system is so bad that people are getting confused.
>Education does not change how these sorts of tricks affect our brains. Research has shown that using the term "Natural Gas" creates false impressions of the its environmental impact.
Proof link? What factors were controlled in that research?
While the name was not coined as a form of greenwashing, the industry has a long history of greenwashing and outright lies. It is naive to think this industry hasn't considered what label to use for this product and how that affects public perception. It absolutely effects their efforts to dismiss for accurate alternative labels.
Not exactly hard to find, but here you go. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/should-it...
Do you have proof that this association or this type of association is correlated with education?
Not exactly hard to find, but here you go. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/should-it...
Do you have proof that this association or this type of association is correlated with education?
>It is naive to think this industry hasn't considered what label to use for this product
It is not a label, it is scientifically established and accurate name that nobody except some woke and poorly educated Americans wants to change.
The associations of the name with other terms are not correlated with education, they are caused by it, ergo the only proof needed is logical. If you know what it is, you describe it exactly as it really is — clean when burning if compared to coal, producing even stronger greenhouse effect when directly released to atmosphere.
It is not a label, it is scientifically established and accurate name that nobody except some woke and poorly educated Americans wants to change.
The associations of the name with other terms are not correlated with education, they are caused by it, ergo the only proof needed is logical. If you know what it is, you describe it exactly as it really is — clean when burning if compared to coal, producing even stronger greenhouse effect when directly released to atmosphere.
> It is not a label, it is scientifically established and accurate name
Not all all. To someone who only understands the meanings of the individual words, the term is extremely ambigous. "Natural gas" could simply mean "air" or could refer to any gas that is naturally occuring in our atmosphere.
The reason why "natural gas" has the meaning that it does is purely convention and has no scientific basis or justification.
> The associations of the name with other terms are not correlated with education, they are caused by it
Education is not how we learn language. We learn language primarily contextually based on experience. While learning additional languages can be assisted by education, contextual experiencea are required for mastery.
> ergo the only proof needed is logical.
That's not how logic works...at all
> nobody except some woke and poorly educated Americans wants to change.
Scientists at Yale are "poorly educated"...? Throwing that accusation out pair with the word 'woke' exposes you as a partisan who has no intrest in learning or constructive discussion
That's not how logic works. Go learn about how logic and science are used together.
Not all all. To someone who only understands the meanings of the individual words, the term is extremely ambigous. "Natural gas" could simply mean "air" or could refer to any gas that is naturally occuring in our atmosphere.
The reason why "natural gas" has the meaning that it does is purely convention and has no scientific basis or justification.
> The associations of the name with other terms are not correlated with education, they are caused by it
Education is not how we learn language. We learn language primarily contextually based on experience. While learning additional languages can be assisted by education, contextual experiencea are required for mastery.
> ergo the only proof needed is logical.
That's not how logic works...at all
> nobody except some woke and poorly educated Americans wants to change.
Scientists at Yale are "poorly educated"...? Throwing that accusation out pair with the word 'woke' exposes you as a partisan who has no intrest in learning or constructive discussion
That's not how logic works. Go learn about how logic and science are used together.
> someone who only understands the meanings of the individual words…
This person probably has a communication disability if they are not able to use language properly. We are not speaking in individual words, we use sentences and grammar, metaphors and homonyms, we have a lot of context even in low-context cultures. All of this can be learned and this is what education is for.
> Scientists at Yale are "poorly educated"...?
Maybe. Ivy League university or scientific degree is not a seal of quality. When you design such research only to control for political affiliation, that’s a bad science.
This person probably has a communication disability if they are not able to use language properly. We are not speaking in individual words, we use sentences and grammar, metaphors and homonyms, we have a lot of context even in low-context cultures. All of this can be learned and this is what education is for.
> Scientists at Yale are "poorly educated"...?
Maybe. Ivy League university or scientific degree is not a seal of quality. When you design such research only to control for political affiliation, that’s a bad science.
[deleted]
So what do you think we should rename it to?
It has become popular to refer to it as "fossil gas".
In some countries it is also called "city gas"
City gas was obtained from distilling hard coal or, later, from gasoline. So not the same thing as natural gas.
oil gas?
carbon gas?
fuel gas?
fossil gas?
"Natural Gas" is 97% methane, so it's probably most direct to just refer to it by it's primary component...
"natural gas" is a historical term, to contrast with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas
What does natural gas have to do with greenwashing? It is naturally occurring gas; different from other hydrocarbon gas that is man-made.
"Natural gas (also called fossil gas, methane gas or simply gas) is a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane in addition to various smaller amounts of other higher alkanes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Alright, so it goes by several names but it's sold to consumers as "Natural Gas". I'm not sure if it was green washing, but obviously the marketers were going for the most palatable name for consumers.
Alright, so it goes by several names but it's sold to consumers as "Natural Gas". I'm not sure if it was green washing, but obviously the marketers were going for the most palatable name for consumers.
but obviously
Predicated upon what?
Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries. And the name is valid, it's mostly in its natural form, compared to 'gasoline aka gas', which required loads of processing to create it from oil.
And the name comes from a time before most of the population had even heard of global warming, at a time before people cared about using fossil fuels. There was in no way any attempt to greenwash, because absolutely no one cared one iota back then!
And the same is true for being palatable. It was just fuel. There was no reason to make it sound better. This was the age when most homes were heated by heating oil, or wood, or coal even!
People didn't get "triggered" back then, not in the 1950s or whatever. No one really cared except in the most extreme of cases. The earliest marketing concern over a name I know of, is "canola" oil, created by Canadian research programs, first on market I believe in the 70s, which is rapeseed oil.
(Rapeseed oil was added to cattle feed before this, but was considered too bitter for people until processing improvements were developed.)
It was thought that women would associate rapeseed with rape, and not buy it. This was in North America, the rest of the world generally, at the time, just called it rapeseed oil.
Predicated upon what?
Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries. And the name is valid, it's mostly in its natural form, compared to 'gasoline aka gas', which required loads of processing to create it from oil.
And the name comes from a time before most of the population had even heard of global warming, at a time before people cared about using fossil fuels. There was in no way any attempt to greenwash, because absolutely no one cared one iota back then!
And the same is true for being palatable. It was just fuel. There was no reason to make it sound better. This was the age when most homes were heated by heating oil, or wood, or coal even!
People didn't get "triggered" back then, not in the 1950s or whatever. No one really cared except in the most extreme of cases. The earliest marketing concern over a name I know of, is "canola" oil, created by Canadian research programs, first on market I believe in the 70s, which is rapeseed oil.
(Rapeseed oil was added to cattle feed before this, but was considered too bitter for people until processing improvements were developed.)
It was thought that women would associate rapeseed with rape, and not buy it. This was in North America, the rest of the world generally, at the time, just called it rapeseed oil.
> Natural gas was merely a name to differentiate between 'gasoline', short form 'gas' for many english speaking countries.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with gasoline. Other languages, e.g. Russian, which don’t use the word gasoline also call it natural gas (coming from nature). This extra confusion is a late American thing.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with gasoline. Other languages, e.g. Russian, which don’t use the word gasoline also call it natural gas (coming from nature). This extra confusion is a late American thing.
[deleted]
> but was considered too bitter for people
also toxic
also toxic
The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.
I tend to agree with this - there is a dichotomy here, but it is "natural" vs. "supernatural" - not "natural" vs "synthetic". I think it would be fine if for most cases we simply said "man-made" vs "not man-made" as it succinctly describes the dichotomy we're aiming for.
The "greenwashing" here is that you _could_ call anything that's not a ghost or a god "natural" by a certain definition...
I tend to agree with this - there is a dichotomy here, but it is "natural" vs. "supernatural" - not "natural" vs "synthetic". I think it would be fine if for most cases we simply said "man-made" vs "not man-made" as it succinctly describes the dichotomy we're aiming for.
The "greenwashing" here is that you _could_ call anything that's not a ghost or a god "natural" by a certain definition...
> The argument is that humans are part of nature and therefore anything made by humans is still natural.
Sure, if you completely disregard the context. “Natural” when talking in the context of humans is “nature vs man”.
A beaver dam is nature. The Hoover dam is man-made. If you want to red herring you could say “but man is part of nature” - there’s no point to doing so other than to argue semantics, but you could.
Sure, if you completely disregard the context. “Natural” when talking in the context of humans is “nature vs man”.
A beaver dam is nature. The Hoover dam is man-made. If you want to red herring you could say “but man is part of nature” - there’s no point to doing so other than to argue semantics, but you could.
It's often dubbed as "clean energy"
That's true, but the term itself is archaic; at the time (early 19th century) the most widespread gaseous fuel was coal gas, also known as "town gas" because we piped it to urban homes for lighting. There's not much need for the distinction anymore, plus "methane" aligns with the other trade names for other fossil gases (propane, butane).
Natural gas is not pure methane, it’s a mix.
There is a grain of truth in the previous speaker's comments.
"Naturally occurring gas" does not magically transform itself into energy. The process along the way from being a resource to being usable as energy is usually anything other than "natural" and "green."
"Naturally occurring gas" does not magically transform itself into energy. The process along the way from being a resource to being usable as energy is usually anything other than "natural" and "green."
It's because Americans use the term "gas" to mean the liquid fuel they put in their cars. In the UK it's just "gas".
It would be far better if we called it methane, but that's not really accurate either. It might contain ethane, propane, butane pentane and hexane. A lot of that stuff is condensed out before use, but not all.
It would be far better if we called it methane, but that's not really accurate either. It might contain ethane, propane, butane pentane and hexane. A lot of that stuff is condensed out before use, but not all.
People’s perceptions around the word “natural” has always been a bit unnatural to me. Plenty of things, good, bad, and every gradation in-between are “natural”, but the word itself got greenwashed somewhere along the way.
Having a few terms like “natural gas” as a way to counteract people’s perceptions of the niceness of “natural” isn’t so bad.
Having a few terms like “natural gas” as a way to counteract people’s perceptions of the niceness of “natural” isn’t so bad.
> "natural gas"
Gas can be created by many other means (combustion, chemistry, etc). Natural gas means it's gas that is found "as is" without any kind of synthesis.
Gas can be created by many other means (combustion, chemistry, etc). Natural gas means it's gas that is found "as is" without any kind of synthesis.
[deleted]
If only you folks would stop using the word “gas” for car fuel, which isn't a gas at all, then you could drop the prefix “natural” without confusion like in the rest of the world.
electric cars are greenwashing. not that CO2 is actually a problem, but if it were and it was even mildly urgent you would be rightly yelling for more natural gas. because that actually kills coal plants while electric cars are responsible for increased coal usage
Try to look beyond 10 years. Calling for more nat gas over anything else will just lead to 60% Nat gas and 0% coal in a decade. Ok, now what? Still 60% high emissions and ICE cars according to you. No, we should be yelling for solar, electric cars, wind, batteries, and nuclear. Our priority is not a half measure that helps a bit now but makes nat gas stick around even longer.
Policies like generation shifting encourage movement from coal to gas. They have been implemented in the US but were then undone by Trump and later declared unconstitutional by conservative supreme court justices.
palemoonale(2)
marginallen(2)
it downplays the negative impacts of dams. dams prevent sediment from flowing to the ocean which leads to sand loss and erosion
We can do without beaches. We can give up some land, and some spawning grounds for fish. If it means we can help against global warming, it is clearly the lesser of two evils.
New water reservoirs initially emit a lot of GHGs due to decaying organic matter, it takes decades for them to become carbon neutral.
Which isn't trivial but there is no perfect solution, even wind and solar have externalities. We will always have some impact on the planet, but I will take erosion over a totally broken ecosystem. Erosion is inevitable over time, and if we don't reduce emissions and the seas rise, erosion will be abit of a moot point.
Every choice we make has compromises, but I think coal pollution is magnitudes worse than soil erosion.
One affects the entire environment with air pollution, and the other affects a localized area by modifying terrain.
One affects the entire environment with air pollution, and the other affects a localized area by modifying terrain.
I wonder what is worse: the consumption of sand for manufacturing, construction, and man-made islands & beaches or the loss of sand generation that dams cause.
Also btw about dams: they kill! a great deal of a lot more death and also lost land because of dams than all deaths and land loss issues with nuclear.
As a counter point, the danger of damns stops when the damn is empty. The danger of nuclear waste is on a longer time-scale. Hence it might be that there are future deaths due to current nuclear power that are not being counted.
I say might, because there is no way of knowing how many deaths will occur (or even statistically should be expected to occur) simply because we don't know what will happen to the nuclear waste.
I favor nuclear, but I'd love to see hard numbers on the 'headroom' nuclear has on deaths/GWH compared to dams, with some argument about whether long-term nuclear waste storage is likely to be less deadly than that headroom.
I say might, because there is no way of knowing how many deaths will occur (or even statistically should be expected to occur) simply because we don't know what will happen to the nuclear waste.
I favor nuclear, but I'd love to see hard numbers on the 'headroom' nuclear has on deaths/GWH compared to dams, with some argument about whether long-term nuclear waste storage is likely to be less deadly than that headroom.
Assuming this includes solar panels, windmills, dams, et al. their ecological negatives are very conveniently evaded with such terminology.
Good. We need to solve global warming a lot more than we need to reduce the kind of ecological damage done by dams, panels, and windmills.
If we refuse to choose the lesser of two evils, we will be fucked.
If we refuse to choose the lesser of two evils, we will be fucked.
The ecological impact of windmills and dams do not present a threat to the existence of human civilization as we know it.
> I like the term “emissions-free”.
Because it's false? Nothing is emissions-free: making solar panels and wind turbines create emissions, and since they are all made in China, just transporting them around the world where they are used cause emissions as well. And when they become garbage they are shipped once more around the world to be disposed (and not recycled). So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.
Because it's false? Nothing is emissions-free: making solar panels and wind turbines create emissions, and since they are all made in China, just transporting them around the world where they are used cause emissions as well. And when they become garbage they are shipped once more around the world to be disposed (and not recycled). So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.
> So it's only "emissions-free" if you ignore the whole supply chain.
Actually, burning natural gas does result in emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2).
About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil.
Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-...
The article also specifically says that natural gas is not emissions-free: "The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years."
Actually, burning natural gas does result in emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2).
About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil.
Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-...
The article also specifically says that natural gas is not emissions-free: "The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years."
Well everything that burns fossil fuels also needs to be built, therefore also is part of the problem, the difference is they have ongoing emissions where as something like a wind turbine doesn’t.
This argument lacks substance. Are you suggesting the benefits of emissions-free operation are set-off, wholly or to a substantial degree, by the emissions produced in the manufacture of those products? The answer is clearly "no". There is a net benefit. That is all that is needed, and it's not a marginal benefit, it's significant.
I think the term's used for "emissions-free when running", not "emissions free during manufacturing".
it's pretty obvious that that's exactly what it means. i'm not sure why thy parent commenter posted what they did.
I think this concern is often vastly exaggerated. Even with current "dirty" production and transport, renewables have orders of magnitude lower lifetime emissions than fossil fuels. And this will only get better once production and transport increasingly use renewable energy.
[deleted]
I don't understand the arguments that "solar panels and wind turbines use mined resources and are transported around the world". And coal, oil, and gas waft down into our arms from trees in the backyard?
The argument being made is that solar and wind aren't "emission free" .. that they don't waft into our neighbourhood from trees in our backyard.
Everybody (one would hope) understands that about coal, oil, and natural gas.
Many people (it seems) overlook that for wind, solar, and battery technology.
It's akin to ignoring | being wilfully ignorant of what happens to material in the recycle bin.
Think of it more as a plea to remember that all this clean energy comes with a boatload of waste that needs addressing, that is often in other people's backyards, and the you don't get $64 billion US worth of copper without the digging up of what some consider to be sacred ground.
Everybody (one would hope) understands that about coal, oil, and natural gas.
Many people (it seems) overlook that for wind, solar, and battery technology.
It's akin to ignoring | being wilfully ignorant of what happens to material in the recycle bin.
Think of it more as a plea to remember that all this clean energy comes with a boatload of waste that needs addressing, that is often in other people's backyards, and the you don't get $64 billion US worth of copper without the digging up of what some consider to be sacred ground.
All good points.
What is the action this realization is supposed to help us come to though? Should we stop the transition to cleaner energy until we find a 100% clean energy source throughout its life cycle before we begin the transition? It is simple really. Wind, solar, and so on are cleaner than fossil fuel sources of energy, so we should gradually transition to them. Cleaner mining and responsible recycling and reuse of the infra we build can be worked on over time.
What is the action this realization is supposed to help us come to though? Should we stop the transition to cleaner energy until we find a 100% clean energy source throughout its life cycle before we begin the transition? It is simple really. Wind, solar, and so on are cleaner than fossil fuel sources of energy, so we should gradually transition to them. Cleaner mining and responsible recycling and reuse of the infra we build can be worked on over time.
We are where we are because the 1970s kicked a can down the road rather than take action on C02 when it was clear there was a problem.
In another 50 years we will have a pile of toxic waste as a direct result of scaling solar and wind up from the sliver it is now to enough to replace fossil fuels in world electricty production and replace fossil fuels in transport and build out enough batteries to ride out at least 10 hours of global demand.
> Cleaner mining and responsible recycling and reuse of the infra we build can be worked on over time.
How's that going so far - I can point to a few examples of mine reclaimation .. these are dwarfed by the majority that are left as problems for later on.
It's simple really, high consumers should consume less and as resources are used there should be focus on remediation and harm reduction from the outset.
Typically the worst offenders greenwash the nasty away and tut-tut about waste piling up in third world | southernn economies.
In another 50 years we will have a pile of toxic waste as a direct result of scaling solar and wind up from the sliver it is now to enough to replace fossil fuels in world electricty production and replace fossil fuels in transport and build out enough batteries to ride out at least 10 hours of global demand.
> Cleaner mining and responsible recycling and reuse of the infra we build can be worked on over time.
How's that going so far - I can point to a few examples of mine reclaimation .. these are dwarfed by the majority that are left as problems for later on.
It's simple really, high consumers should consume less and as resources are used there should be focus on remediation and harm reduction from the outset.
Typically the worst offenders greenwash the nasty away and tut-tut about waste piling up in third world | southernn economies.
Most wind turbines are made in China, because China is installing most wind turbines. Nobody ships 120m long blades around the world, it's hard enough to ship them within one country.
it's referring to "marginal emissions" per unit energy produced
> since they are all made in China
High grade bullshit stated with confidence.
High grade bullshit stated with confidence.
China produces about 80% of all solar panels in the world. Coindicentally or not, it is also the #1 country by coal production; it has the largest number of coal plants of any country (in absolute terms), and the government has recently been ramping up the rate of new coal plant construction after a few years of trying to keep it more or less in check. Most of electricity in China comes from coal (>60%, compared to US’s <20%).
Based on cursory checks of https://ourworldindata.org/energy, https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribu..., whatever sources they use.
Based on cursory checks of https://ourworldindata.org/energy, https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribu..., whatever sources they use.
The astonishing amount of gas being flared off from US shale production can be seen from space. Nobody is actually reducing emissions as far as I can tell, we are running the experiment of far more that 2°C increases in temperature. What should we expect to happen at say 3.5°C?
Anything about 2C is extremely risky for civilised society. It’s likely that we’ve already surpassed the tipping point for the West Antarctic ice sheet which over time will lead to meters of sea level rise. Changing weather patterns and simultaneous breadbasket failures will mean food becomes a lot more expensive - if you’re lucky enough to have access to it at all. At 3.5C many places on the planet become uninhabitable. People aren’t able to work outside for much of the year due to wet bulb temperatures. Regular storm surge causes a large percentage of the planets population to migrate. Salination of ground water and water for crop irrigation becomes a serious problem. Mountain glaciers that provide clean drinking water for millions of people dry up. In all, it’s hard to see a situation where we’d be able to maintain a reasonable quality of life under the conditions of >2C of warming.
>At 3.5C many places on the planet become uninhabitable
Which places in particular? Here in the middle east temperatures regularly get up to 45-50 degrees celsius in the summer and people get by okay. Most places have average temperatures much lower than that, so how would a rise of just 3-4 degress make then uninhabitable?
Which places in particular? Here in the middle east temperatures regularly get up to 45-50 degrees celsius in the summer and people get by okay. Most places have average temperatures much lower than that, so how would a rise of just 3-4 degress make then uninhabitable?
Humidity is a big factor in whether heat is bearable or not, and 3.5C is an average over the entire globe. Some places will get much hotter than just 3.5C, some places won't.
There is also humidity. The desert is dry, so you can still perspire and cool down that way; but in a humid place like, say, India it is possible that temperatures will rise high enough that the human body cannot perspire to cool down via evaporation, at which point it would be dangerous to be outside.
Indeed "Wet-bulb temperature" is likely to be the thing that will make several densely populated places in Asia uninhabitable.
Bangladesh alone is +170M people. Dispacing these people will be a refugee crisis on an unseen scale.
Bangladesh alone is +170M people. Dispacing these people will be a refugee crisis on an unseen scale.
+3.5C mean global temperatures means swings of, say, +- 10C in various places at various times.
A 3.5 degree global average increase is much more pronounced on land.
It used to confuse me too..now I think I get it.
The issue isn't all thermometers going up by 3.5 degC. The issue is that it also brings a host of other changes, and it's those things that kill you. They include:
- higher variability of temperatures. So your +3.5 degC actually makes heatwaves of +10/+15 more likely
- changing rainfall patterns, taking rain away from some places that rely on it.
- rising sea level, where the small average temperature changes are sufficient for a significant increase.
I actually think the focus on global average temperature increase is a major failure of public science communication, precisely because everyone mentally adds the increase to their local climate and thinks "meh".
The issue isn't all thermometers going up by 3.5 degC. The issue is that it also brings a host of other changes, and it's those things that kill you. They include:
- higher variability of temperatures. So your +3.5 degC actually makes heatwaves of +10/+15 more likely
- changing rainfall patterns, taking rain away from some places that rely on it.
- rising sea level, where the small average temperature changes are sufficient for a significant increase.
I actually think the focus on global average temperature increase is a major failure of public science communication, precisely because everyone mentally adds the increase to their local climate and thinks "meh".
>temperatures regularly get up to 45-50 degrees celsius in the summer and people get by okay
Largely because the 45-50 degree temperature do not last very long. And partly because AC loss due to prolonged blackouts has not happened during such heat - yet.
A 3-4 degree increase in average temperature means that 45-50 degree temperature periods may go from lasting 1-3 days to 2-3 weeks. And that's a whole new ball game.
Largely because the 45-50 degree temperature do not last very long. And partly because AC loss due to prolonged blackouts has not happened during such heat - yet.
A 3-4 degree increase in average temperature means that 45-50 degree temperature periods may go from lasting 1-3 days to 2-3 weeks. And that's a whole new ball game.
A quick summary of the takeaways of Vecellio et al.'s recent (October 2023) paper (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305427120) indicate that at +3.5 °C GMST we should expect high exposure to uncompensable heat stress every year primary around the Indus River Valley (India and surrounding countries) and the highly populated cities in eastern China. In North America, there is some exposure starting at +3°C but until +4 °C those exposures do not become substantial in the typical year.
Another thing noted is that urban features such as green spaces, water features, and increased shade may work where exceedance is typically nonhumid (i.e., North America, Middle East, Australia), these factors may not be as effective or even actively detrimental in more humid environments due to the added humidity.
Another thing noted is that urban features such as green spaces, water features, and increased shade may work where exceedance is typically nonhumid (i.e., North America, Middle East, Australia), these factors may not be as effective or even actively detrimental in more humid environments due to the added humidity.
> astonishing amount of gas being flared off from US shale production can be seen from space
Everything can be seen from space...
Everything can be seen from space...
Okay, if you want to be pedantic, 1.3% of all CO2 emissions come from gas flaring (500 Million Tonnes annually on roughly 37.15 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted). Seems like a lot to me at a time when we are meant to be reducing all greenhouse gasses. It might be better to build power stations near these shale deposits to reduce coal and use this resource rather than pollution for no gain.
Except for things covered with e.g. tree canopy.
Diffraction limits truly prevent seeing an ant from space.
At visible wavelengths. Far ultraviolet may help, and of course inference techniques such as image stacking are commonplace in reconnaissance satellites.
We're nowhere near any such levels. Temperature trends are roughly 0.13C per decade and have not accelerated in spite of the bigger issue of nations like China and India expanding global coal demand.
Climate scientists disagree, see for example the IPCC reports. Or here https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
The IPCC has continually overestimated warming for the last 3 decades [5].
23 years ago, climate scientists were predicting that, "snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is" [1], in Britain.
In 2008, James Hansen, an influential climate scientist at Columbia predicted the Arctic would be ice free in the summer by 2018 [3]. Instead, the sea ice trend reversed in 2012 and since rebounded to higher levels than when Hansen made the prediction [4].
Furthermore, the predictions of dire consequences as a result of CO2 increase or mild warming have not materialized. Instead global biomass has dramatically increased and crop yields continue to achieve record highs, which is what you would predict as a result of increased plant growth from CO2 fertilization [2].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http:/www.indepen...
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization...
[3] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...
[4] https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-...
[5] https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projecti...
23 years ago, climate scientists were predicting that, "snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is" [1], in Britain.
In 2008, James Hansen, an influential climate scientist at Columbia predicted the Arctic would be ice free in the summer by 2018 [3]. Instead, the sea ice trend reversed in 2012 and since rebounded to higher levels than when Hansen made the prediction [4].
Furthermore, the predictions of dire consequences as a result of CO2 increase or mild warming have not materialized. Instead global biomass has dramatically increased and crop yields continue to achieve record highs, which is what you would predict as a result of increased plant growth from CO2 fertilization [2].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http:/www.indepen...
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization...
[3] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...
[4] https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-...
[5] https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projecti...
[deleted]
First you claim to care about CO2 emissions, then you're mad when natural gas emits a bit of light pollution while eliminating coal and wood burning
Natural gas flaring requires you to consider two things:
1. Flaring isn't efficient. You only burn about 90% of the gas, the rest leaks into the atmosphere.
2. Gas includes Methane. Methane is a 10x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though it lasts considerably less long (about 10y i believe).
This means that a single well flaring methane is emitting just as much as 10 wells just releasing co2 into the air. To combat this, we need to install an internal combustion engine attached to something to bleed the energy generated by the engine into something else.
Traditionally, this is not something affordable. There is a significant upfront cost, and very few solutions to use the energy, as most of these installations are far removed from the grid.
Luckily, there is a new solution that can make this a profitable situation for everyone. It is rapidly seeing more interest, and it is even powering a system that can benefit everyone in the world: Bitcoin mining.
Bitcoin mining requires cheap, dependable energy. It doesn't require a grid connection, and adding a satellite connection is enough to start mining. You can drive a single container full of mining ASICs onsite, and maintenance is mostly possible off-site.
1. Flaring isn't efficient. You only burn about 90% of the gas, the rest leaks into the atmosphere.
2. Gas includes Methane. Methane is a 10x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though it lasts considerably less long (about 10y i believe).
This means that a single well flaring methane is emitting just as much as 10 wells just releasing co2 into the air. To combat this, we need to install an internal combustion engine attached to something to bleed the energy generated by the engine into something else.
Traditionally, this is not something affordable. There is a significant upfront cost, and very few solutions to use the energy, as most of these installations are far removed from the grid.
Luckily, there is a new solution that can make this a profitable situation for everyone. It is rapidly seeing more interest, and it is even powering a system that can benefit everyone in the world: Bitcoin mining.
Bitcoin mining requires cheap, dependable energy. It doesn't require a grid connection, and adding a satellite connection is enough to start mining. You can drive a single container full of mining ASICs onsite, and maintenance is mostly possible off-site.
"Half of the difference is due to flares that aren’t burning[ at all]." So it's not flaring that's the problem--it's non-flaring.
You could do the same analysis for wind turbines that don't turn, solar panels that don't sol. What we do know is that natural gas beats the shit out of coal on every measure climate bros claim to care about and it doesn't require digging up half the world's minerals to waste on early-stage renewable technology that is almost certain to require far less cobalt and God-knows-what else when the technology matures.
You could do the same analysis for wind turbines that don't turn, solar panels that don't sol. What we do know is that natural gas beats the shit out of coal on every measure climate bros claim to care about and it doesn't require digging up half the world's minerals to waste on early-stage renewable technology that is almost certain to require far less cobalt and God-knows-what else when the technology matures.
Flaring does not eliminate coal or wood burning, it does not generate electricity or heat. We burn usable natural gas for no direct benefit in order to produce more oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_petroleum_gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_petroleum_gas
I'm confused, GP didn't say anything about CO2 emissions specifically. GP said "emissions". Methane emissions are bad too.
> What should we expect to happen at say 3.5°C?
More meetings and deliberations
More meetings and deliberations
Global barrels per day demand globally still going up, not flatlining, not going down. It’s great that demand isn’t rising at a faster rate.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php
eVinci™ Microreactor
Westinghouse is currently developing the eVinci™ Microreactor, a next-generation, micro-modular reactor for decentralized remote applications.
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-mi...
Will be interesting when we start hitting the storage binding constraint.
2008 is the raise of china and that might be a key reason for the decline of industrial use of electricity. You export your pollution etc to the communist and think that it is ok. It is not.
Good thing ! 60 % to go urgently.
The US has the biggest responsability on this planet, being the largest rich country, having emitted more than twice the CO2 per capita of Europe in the recent decades.
Can't expect pour countries to go quicker than the US.
The US has the biggest responsability on this planet, being the largest rich country, having emitted more than twice the CO2 per capita of Europe in the recent decades.
Can't expect pour countries to go quicker than the US.
Much more than 60% to go, as all the non-electricity fossil fuel use (heating, transport, industry) will also need to be replaced by emissions free electric alternatives.
On the bright side, this makes intermediate progress simpler in some ways.
You can replace say, gas powered heating with heat pumps and transfer the gas to storage for use in electric generators for when demand and supply diverge.
These transitions can be done in parallel but once you hit a certain degree of carbon free electricity it makes sense to redirect focus to shift towards electrification as things that may have been borderline become viable.
You can replace say, gas powered heating with heat pumps and transfer the gas to storage for use in electric generators for when demand and supply diverge.
These transitions can be done in parallel but once you hit a certain degree of carbon free electricity it makes sense to redirect focus to shift towards electrification as things that may have been borderline become viable.
It doesn't have to be electric, thermal is fine too where appropriate.
Yes, but that doesn't really change my point much.
What is both thermal and appropriate?
Solar water heaters. And district heating that uses waste heat. (E.g. waste heat from data centers or industrial processes).
Besides that you could run smelting ovens, internal combustion engines, and other furnaces of hydrogen. Though that hydrogen will probably come from electricity if it isn't polluting.
Besides that you could run smelting ovens, internal combustion engines, and other furnaces of hydrogen. Though that hydrogen will probably come from electricity if it isn't polluting.
Geothermal heating too.
Yeah I roughly guesstimate we need about 4 to 5 times as much as we currently have installed. Bright side is the various technologies we need are developed and in production.
This is just wrong. Looking at 2016, the US isn't even in the top 10 per capita, and it's behind 4 EU states.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
[deleted]
Great. How about the % of energy consumption?
Being careful to use "final energy" not "primary energy" as the measure. You don't want to be worrying about replacing all the energy that is currently wasted as heat when electrification can be 4x as efficient partly by avoiding that waste entirely.
[deleted]
runarberg(3)
DeathArrow(2)
No, it's not.
What's the next target once all our electricity is "emissons-free" but climate continues to get worse?
Work on the other sources of greenhouse gases, ie transport, construction, industry, agriculture etc. Many of which will depend on clean electricity in order to decarbonize successfully.
Improve infrastructure, make humanity more resilient.
And massively invest in research to find realistic ways to improve the situation (aka not the current concept of carbon capture)
And massively invest in research to find realistic ways to improve the situation (aka not the current concept of carbon capture)
We switch sectors that still burn fossil fuels to use electricity or hydrogen instead.
Pina2bo! A big ol gun shooting sulfur into the atmosphere.
Capture co2
More taxes and bailouts to green companies. Gods of climate ask for that
Can you name some bailouts to green companies so far? I've never heard of that.
If you blur the lines between 'bailout' and 'wouldn't exist without subsidies' there are plenty of green subsidies that you could call a bail-out.
If you use words when you meant other words, then sure, I'm the queen of England. Nobody can have a discussion if words can just mean anything.
The 40% electricity is emissions free, but it has more adverse effects on environment than fossil fuels. Solar panels, once they break down its difficult to dispose of them without harming the environment. The metals in batteries like lithium, cobalt etc are very harmful for people and environment when they are mined. So not something much to be happy about. We need more innovation.
In contrast fossil fuels are created in Santa‘s workshop by elves and have no environmental impact at all.
> The metals in batteries like lithium, cobalt etc are very harmful for people and environment when they are mined.
How harmful are they exactly? Like how many deaths/how much damage in $ per ton mined - and how does it compare to other metals or coal?
How harmful are they exactly? Like how many deaths/how much damage in $ per ton mined - and how does it compare to other metals or coal?
While ground and water pollution are bad, air pollution is critical. Let's worry about reducing air pollution now and worry about ground and water pollution secondarily.
Nonsense, solar panels are recyclable and mostly consist of silicon. Batteries are recyclable and are in fact being recycled. Even lead batteries are recycled. And lithium batteries are a lot more valuable to recycle. Cobalt free batteries are now quite common.
Compared to the staggering amounts of emissions, pollution, and environmental destruction; and indeed countless of people whose health is destroyed by that caused by the fossil fuel industry, mining related to batteries is nothing. It doesn't register as anywhere near similar in scope or impact. Most mining and mineral extraction is coal. Then you get a bit of iron ore and other metals. And then some long way into the long tail of mining you'll find lithium extraction. The amount of lithium mined per year is measured in the hundreds of thousands of tonnes. The amount of coal mined per year is billions of tonnes. All of that is burned. The lithium on the other hand is nearly 100% recyclable. Once extracted, it stays useful.
Compared to the staggering amounts of emissions, pollution, and environmental destruction; and indeed countless of people whose health is destroyed by that caused by the fossil fuel industry, mining related to batteries is nothing. It doesn't register as anywhere near similar in scope or impact. Most mining and mineral extraction is coal. Then you get a bit of iron ore and other metals. And then some long way into the long tail of mining you'll find lithium extraction. The amount of lithium mined per year is measured in the hundreds of thousands of tonnes. The amount of coal mined per year is billions of tonnes. All of that is burned. The lithium on the other hand is nearly 100% recyclable. Once extracted, it stays useful.
> but it has more adverse effects on environment than fossil fuels
Does it really? Or are your claims just baseless fearmongering? What are your sources that back up those claims?
Does it really? Or are your claims just baseless fearmongering? What are your sources that back up those claims?
1. We reached peak coal in 2007. Coal generation has declined since.
2. We reached a consumption plateau also in 2007. Electricity use has been more or less level since.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
The neighboring chart that tracks renewables since 1950 is also interesting. Growth in renewables really started around 2007 with growth in wind being the primary contributor. Growth in solar has made a smaller but significant contribution in the past decade or so.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...