4 ms·

Errr, probably you should read it again? Natural gas has about half the CO2 emissions per unit of energy as coal. Maybe this[1] or this[2] is clearer. [1] htt

by phonon 6y ago

Errr, probably you should read it again? Natural gas has about half the CO2 emissions per unit of energy as coal. Maybe this[1] or this[2] is clearer. [1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html

brabel 6y ago
You are correct, parent commenter misunderstood the table they are referring to. That table says there's slightly more kWh generated from natural gas (1,246,847) than from coal (1,124,638). I assumed they read this wrongly and thought this was CO2 emissions per kWh. The best number to read from that table is the last column, "CO2 emissions - pounds per kWh": Natural Gas: 0.92 Coal: 2.21 So yeah, natural gas's CO2 emissions are much lower.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map illustrates this for the world, it offers estimates for types of electricity generation in each country and where a country or region offers real-ish time data on power generation it reflects that. Countries/ regions that show dark brown are mostly relying heavily on coal. Getting on for 1 gram per watt-hour of CO2, which is ludicrous. In a few cases they've managed to find something even less environmentally responsible to burn than coal, such as oil or the most pants-on-head crazy electrical generation method - peat†, which unless somebody starts a national project of shooting endangered animals and then burning the corpses as fuel ought to stand as the least responsible way to make power. † In theory burning wood could be sustainable because you really could grow enough wood quickly enough to power a not insubstantial electricity plant forever. You probably shouldn't but you could. Peat does not form quickly enough for that to ever be practical.
cwojno 6y ago
Yup. I derped it. My bad

by phonon 6y ago

brabel 6y ago

You are correct, parent commenter misunderstood the table they are referring to. That table says there's slightly more kWh generated from natural gas (1,246,847) than from coal (1,124,638). I assumed they read this wrongly and thought this was CO2 emissions per kWh. The best number to read from that table is the last column, "CO2 emissions - pounds per kWh": Natural Gas: 0.92 Coal: 2.21 So yeah, natural gas's CO2 emissions are much lower.

tialaramex 6y ago
https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map illustrates this for the world, it offers estimates for types of electricity generation in each country and where a country or region offers real-ish time data on power generation it reflects that. Countries/ regions that show dark brown are mostly relying heavily on coal. Getting on for 1 gram per watt-hour of CO2, which is ludicrous. In a few cases they've managed to find something even less environmentally responsible to burn than coal, such as oil or the most pants-on-head crazy electrical generation method - peat†, which unless somebody starts a national project of shooting endangered animals and then burning the corpses as fuel ought to stand as the least responsible way to make power. † In theory burning wood could be sustainable because you really could grow enough wood quickly enough to power a not insubstantial electricity plant forever. You probably shouldn't but you could. Peat does not form quickly enough for that to ever be practical.

cwojno 6y ago

Yup. I derped it. My bad