Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
You are the one ignoring new facts as they come to light. If you are the one considering yourself an expert while talking down to others presenting modern information, perhaps it's your expertise that is the issue? And what "whataboutism" have I presented? I'm sorry the facts don't suit your narrative.
And FTR, I think using NG in Alberta over coal, and a lot of other places makes all sorts of sense. If you followed my other posts here, you would know I am one of the most critical about replacing baseload with unreliable renewables. But recent information is telling us it's not always a straightforward when when we talk about moving that gas halfway around the planet.
|
What facts are you referring to? I haven't seen you put an actual argument together other than intangible and unquantifiable conjecture and articles with vague percentages and no context.
Let's even look at "recent facts" that you've provided, from this link you provided, it indicates that methane emissions are 48-76% higher than EPA estimates (which is your primary reason that natural gas is just as bad as coal):
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/methane...es-study-finds
Let's now again look at the sources of total emissions, which says that "Total U.S. emissions for 2019 totaled 6,558 million metric tons of CO2e", with 79% of that being CO2 and 11% being methane.
https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/
Now 11% of total emissions is 6,558 million metric tons total * 11% = 0.721 million metric tons of CO2e. If we even take the higher number that methane emissions should be 78% higher, that number goes to 1,284 million metric tons, so your total emissions now are 7,121 million metric tons. So in total emissions is understated by 9%, and methane rises to 18% of total emissions. CO2 drops to 73% of total emissions. Does that at all change anything I've said?
Here's another link you posted that states that natural gas produces half of the amount of CO2 as coal when burned.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN25E1DR
So again, which one has more of an impact? Even increasing the amount of methane leakage by double or more still will not have the impact that reducing CO2 will. I am not the one adjusting things to this narrative, you are. You mentioned transportation, pipelines, gasification, etc. as further reasons natural gas emits more than you think - does that mean coal doesn't need to be transported anywhere? Is transporting coal on trucks and trains less energy intensive than natural gas pipelines?
You keep quoting things as recent facts and information, but you haven't actually spoken to any of it.