3 ms·
That sounds perfect. Except natural gas is a hydrocarbon, isn't it? Which means the processing is dirty at source? This idea of natural gas as a clean energy is
by jaggs 10mo ago
That sounds perfect. Except natural gas is a hydrocarbon, isn't it? Which means the processing is dirty at source? This idea of natural gas as a clean energy is rather the same as clean coal. In other words it's greenwashing.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> Except natural gas is a hydrocarbon, isn't it? Why is that disqualifying? The problem is combustion’s emission of sequestered carbon. If you don’t have that you don’t have this problem.
- jaggs 10mo agoNice job conveniently ignoring the dirty processing problem.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> ignoring the dirty processing problem You concluded it’s processed dirtily at the source based on that premise (“which means”). If you’re independently asserting that, you’d have a point.
- cmrdporcupine 10mo agoThe problems with natural gas are definitely not confined to combustion. Methane leakage is a huge problem. That and if you just encourage more exploration, and it's cheaper to just burn the stuff anyways, guess what happens in the price conscious free market?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- adrianmonk 10mo agoThis also produces carbon nanotubes, which they claim can be used in construction. Given that construction currently uses a huge amount of concrete, and given that concrete emits huge amounts of CO2[1], if this could partially replace concrete in construction, it might actually be clean. At least compared to what we're doing now. I doubt foundations are going to be made out of carbon nanotubes, but they might be useful for the structure (columns, beams, etc.). --- [1] "4-8% of total global CO2" according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...