3 ms·

Or leave it in the ground and find alternatives. An awkward option, but it is an option.

• JimTheMan 6y ago
  At the moment, burning methane may be a favourable alternative to burning Coal until something better turns up. Coal is terrible for the environment.
  • rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
    >Until something better turns up Are you seriously ignoring all the renewable energy alternatives and only considering the worst possible fossil fuel to try to make natural gas a seemingly good option? FYI, in the first half of 2020, renewables generated 40% of the EU-27’s electricity, whereas fossil fuels generated 34%. Things are moving fast now, and neither gas nor coal are part of the future (source: https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/ https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fue...)
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      You don't need to jump down his throat because he chose to not to be specific about what would/will replace coal.
    • JimTheMan 6y ago
      I don't think gas is a good option but I consider it a lesser of a few evils until renewables come along with a good solution to generate a base load. I'm not trying to invalidate what the EU is doing, but they are still burning fossil fuels and if I have to choose between a few I choose gas. I'm in a country with a lot of coal you see. Coal is the default option and I would really like it not to be. Especially given we have a lot of aging powerplants that are going to need replacement shortly... I know that nuclear is an option, but I am generally unimpressed by the cost*construction_time/power ratio.