3 ms·

I was extremely surprised in claim that Natural gas is nearly as dirty as coal as that contradicted my intuition. So I did some Googling and was not able to fin

I was extremely surprised in claim that Natural gas is nearly as dirty as coal as that contradicted my intuition. So I did some Googling and was not able to find supporting evidence. Below is a quote from: https://www.gasvessel.eu/news/natural-gas-vs-coal-impact-on-the-environment/ https://www.gasvessel.eu/news/natural-gas-vs-coal-impact-on-... > Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas-power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. From the above natural gas power plants do produce a surprising amount of CO2, but is far far better than new coal plants. Legacy coal plants also are a significant air pollution source, so if we get out of coal power plants by building out natural gas seems like a win. Finally I checked renewables for South Australia and they seems to be doing really great at 53%, compare to U.S. at ~23%: https://indaily.com.au/news/science-and-tech/2021/01/27/sa-renewables-peak-in-2020/ https://indaily.com.au/news/science-and-tech/2021/01/27/sa-r... List of currently operating power plants and the ones under constructions corroborates renewable energy percentage and actually suggests that South Australia is doing great on renewables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_South_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Sout...

0xy 6y ago
>Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide You're comparing the absolute best natural gas plant to the average coal plant? The source also isn't neutral. >Finally I checked renewables for South Australia and they seems to be doing really great At the expense of the poor and minorities, which I guess are acceptable collateral damage in this crusade. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920209/
- lurgburg 6y ago
  Are you just generally writing about green energy, or about the Telsa battery (the subject of this discussion)? As the ancestor comment noted, the battery saved money, and saving money doesn't increase costs.
- TrainedMonkey 6y ago
  >You're comparing the absolute best natural gas plant to the average coal plant? The source also isn't neutral. Source claims comparison is for new plants in both directions. Concur it is likely not neutral, do you have a better one? > At the expense of the poor and minorities, which I guess are acceptable collateral damage in this crusade. [1] Disproportional impact of higher energy prices is absolutely a factor... What I do not get is how much better South Australia could have done?
wombatmobile 6y ago
The trouble with natural gas is not so much at the site of combustion at the power generating plant - it is at the point of extraction, where methane leaks into the atmosphere unchecked. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/super-potent-methane-in-atmosphere-oil-gas-drilling-ice-cores https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/super-pot...
- TrainedMonkey 6y ago
  Great point, I assumed that natgas was oil industry byproduct and basically free.
  - Andys 6y ago
    Thats what the industry says :-)
aussiegreenie 6y ago
Nat Gas Greenhouse emissions are under reported a lot. The trouble is we do not know by how much. As a person who has spent decades in measuring CO2 my personal guess is 2-3 orders of magnitude. I also both coal and oil emissions are underreported a well. It is not in people's interest to actually know the correct answer than major changes would be required.

0xy 6y ago

>Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide You're comparing the absolute best natural gas plant to the average coal plant? The source also isn't neutral. >Finally I checked renewables for South Australia and they seems to be doing really great At the expense of the poor and minorities, which I guess are acceptable collateral damage in this crusade. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920209/

lurgburg 6y ago
Are you just generally writing about green energy, or about the Telsa battery (the subject of this discussion)? As the ancestor comment noted, the battery saved money, and saving money doesn't increase costs.
TrainedMonkey 6y ago
>You're comparing the absolute best natural gas plant to the average coal plant? The source also isn't neutral. Source claims comparison is for new plants in both directions. Concur it is likely not neutral, do you have a better one? > At the expense of the poor and minorities, which I guess are acceptable collateral damage in this crusade. [1] Disproportional impact of higher energy prices is absolutely a factor... What I do not get is how much better South Australia could have done?

wombatmobile 6y ago

The trouble with natural gas is not so much at the site of combustion at the power generating plant - it is at the point of extraction, where methane leaks into the atmosphere unchecked. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/super-potent-methane-in-atmosphere-oil-gas-drilling-ice-cores https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/super-pot...

TrainedMonkey 6y ago
Great point, I assumed that natgas was oil industry byproduct and basically free.
- Andys 6y ago
  Thats what the industry says :-)

aussiegreenie 6y ago

Nat Gas Greenhouse emissions are under reported a lot. The trouble is we do not know by how much. As a person who has spent decades in measuring CO2 my personal guess is 2-3 orders of magnitude. I also both coal and oil emissions are underreported a well. It is not in people's interest to actually know the correct answer than major changes would be required.