Q: How should Americans think about the energy transition to natural gas?
 |
| Dirty coal |
A: Natural gas isn't all that clean. It is no magic bullet.
The Union of Concerned Scientists describe their mission to be one of using science as the basis for creating a better, safer world.
Southern Oregon is facing a political question, the passage of a natural gas pipeline through the region to enable natural gas produced in central North America to get to a facility which would liquify it so it can be exported to Asia. Presumably, sold under long term contracts, it would allow China to reduce its dependence on coal to create electricity.
Natural gas is cleaner than coal, right?
Natural gas is cleaner than coal, right?
 |
| Not so clean natural gas |
Win-win, right?
Americans and Canadians sell something we have in abundance (win for the economy), China replaces a dirty energy source with a cleaner one (win for the world), and win for southern Oregon (tax receipts from an expensive project which processes the gas.)
Information provided by the staff and personnel of the Union of Concerned Scientists reveal a problem with the presumed "magic bullet" transitional fuel, supposedly clean natural gas. The problem is the inevitable methane leakage.
Methane has 25 times the greenhouse effect as does carbon dioxide. That factor dramatically changes the calculation of injury. In some areas of life, something being 99% leak free--or Ivory Soap being "99 and 44/100 percent pure," creates an impression of adequacy. The problem is that fracking, transportation, and condensing natural gas is not leak-free. It leaks, and leaks really matter when it comes to methane. Multiply by 25.
Methane has 25 times the greenhouse effect as does carbon dioxide. That factor dramatically changes the calculation of injury. In some areas of life, something being 99% leak free--or Ivory Soap being "99 and 44/100 percent pure," creates an impression of adequacy. The problem is that fracking, transportation, and condensing natural gas is not leak-free. It leaks, and leaks really matter when it comes to methane. Multiply by 25.
But isn't it better than coal? Isn't anything better than coal? No. It is mostly just a wash, and Trump administration rules have been relaxing acceptable emissions. It is getting worse, not better.
 |
| Click: Union of Concerned Scientists |
A great many Americans (56%) think climate change is an issue--84% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans--but it is less clear that Americans are willing to change their behavior or pay more to accomplish this. Some 42% of Americans said they would be unwilling to spend even $1/month actually to reduce emissions.
Natural gas was the potentially easy solution, the kind that could be accomplished in a democracy. Gain with minimal pain, with natural gas as the "clean" fossil fuel. Whether one believes climate change is real or fake, a change to reduced greenhouse emissions is easier to accomplish if consumers and taxpayers simply experience a seamless, invisible change in the fossil fuel mix.
But there is a problem. Natural gas isn't very clean
7 comments:
For generating electricity, natural gas offers many features coal and hydro or nuclear can’t offer. It can be built and sited quickly, The units can be cycled for need quickly. Natural gas generators are essentially a jet engine and can be operated as such. Integrating gas turbines with solar and wind power allows for load demand management when combined the solar and wind power. Fracking and new gas fields allow the US to be or approach energy independence. Selling the stuff overseas is the sticking point. The supply and demand curve kicks in. Currently, electricity generated and vehicles fueled by natural gas find their operating to be the least costly of fossil fuels. Further, as the planet warms more gas will be released as oceans and tundra warm. In short, natural gas, used with thought of progressing to zero emissions, is the bridge to zero emissions unless commodity traders start treating it like tulip bulbs it can be win-win.
Exactly, LNG is not a fix, simply an alternative fossil fuel.
The problem is that oil energy production is a for profit enterprise, unlike electricity or water, and we should socialize it. Then profits can be used to fund AE research. Opponents do not trust the industry, and naturally feel violated by the efforts to build yet another pipeline that will provide questionable benefits locally while increasing the risk of environmental damage. The only cheerleading we are seeing is from industry funded promotion. (BTW the ads they are running insult our intelligence.)
Politically, our leaders are sitting on their hands, calculating the public mood. Selling our resources to China is geopolitically advantageous, and may help combat climate change, but such a complex transaction needs to be fully transparent.
The proposed Jordan Cove LNG pipeline is not for our use, but we get to suffer from the fracking, the damage and potential damage from pipes bursting, for few local continuing jobs, and little county revenue. But the gas is exported to Asia, and the profits go to a Canadian company! This kind of makes us a third world country, being exploited for our resources.
Also, the courts will say that for what is seen as the public good, eminent domain may be used. The courts might (hopefully) say that eminent domain to take private property for foreign profit and benefit is unacceptable.
I wish you had attended, and were writing up, the Jackson County Commissioners' Smoke forum last night!
The Union of Concerned Scientists is to Science what Oregon conservation 'groups' are to conservation. It's purely a political for profit wack job organization. Find yourself a new science officer. With respect to natural gas it is much cleaner. It burns free with near zero particulates and is as almost equally energy dense as coal or oil. Neither of the latter are particulate free and coal spews radiation into the air and leaves it behind in coal ash which has to be disposed. It also kills people, more people than any fossil fuel on the planet. Yes natural gas becomes co2 when burned but at least it's clean c02 and it's plentiful, reliable and a homegrown commodity. Take a trip to India, China or Mexico. The coal plant at lazaro cardenas smokes out the bottom half of mexico on a daily basis. Long and short of it don't buy into the bullshit. You want to keep selling out the state for the alleged good of mankind then enjoy paying for the plebes in town below the castle on the hill you live in.
Anonymous. You missed most of the point of this post, and of my comment. This specific pipeline is not for our use! The gas is going to Asia. I might care that Asia gets off coal, but not at the price we are being asked to pay! The hazards of spills, explosions, and the uprooting of land on this long stretch across the state of Oregon are too great for us to bare, when we reap so little benefit. You have not factored all of that in your equation supporting gas use.
Natural gas spill? Natural gas leaks? You're joking right? Pick up a science book and in the meantime if you'd like me to come over and turn off your gas or natural gas derived electrical energy I'll be happy to do it no charge.
Post a Comment