Climate change- what’s next- natural gas

[doublehaul]

Natural gas is now not clean enough

It’s banned in new homes

In California city


https://weather.com/science/environm...climate-change

[Trochu]

I have a hard time believing people are that dumb, but I've read this from multiple news sources. Can't really see it working out so well for the politician that pushes for natural gas bans in Canada, but you never know.

[CaberTosser]

A: It's California, they really are that dumb

B: As dumb as I think it is I will concede that they have a vastly different heat load requirement than we do so they don't need nearly as much BTU's, even in their coldest weather.

C: This still sucks for the chefs who probably prefer cooking over gas.

[Sundog57]

So here's the deal
Natural Gas produces about 20% less CO2 per GJ of energy produced and something to the tune of 30% less than coal.
On top of this if the exhaust stream is run through a catalytic combuster the only exhaust gas products are H2O and CO2, no SO2, no soot, no heavy metals.
So you would think that running thermal power plants on NG would be a no brainer.

When I think about them banning NG thermal plants in Ontario under McGuinty and some of the Boy Wonder's comments, I think that the emphasis here is on the no brain part..

Interestingly enough the Quebec Government is all in on transformation to LNG as transport fuel (using Alberta gas and fracc'd gas from the States - but no fraccing in Quebec of course because it's not green)
GazMetro opened a second liquifaction train in Anjou east of Montreal a couple of years ago (financed by the QPP)
The new Quebec ferries all run on LNG and at least one major trucker in Quebec has a significant proportion of their tractor fleet running on it (at about 2/3 the cost of diesel)
BC ferries is going down the same road as are a large number of short haul operators in Europe and a number of truckers as well

[NCC]

All of the garbage trucks on Long Island (and I think all of New York City) also run on natural gas.

[expedition]

Devils advocate here . Isn't freedom gas (natural gas ) 40 to 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 ?

[bessiedog]

Damn it.

They’re gonna wind up banning me... my butt’s NOT climate friendly. My wife’ll start writing letters.

[Wes_G]

Only if the natural gas comes from Alberta. Natural gas coming from anywhere else is fine though, kind of like oil.

[fishtank]

No big deal it’s always sunny in California ... too bad the utility company going bankrupt and cutting off the power .

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by fishtank

No big deal it’s always sunny in California ... too bad the utility company going bankrupt and cutting off the power .

California is bankrupt and running on ideology, they just haven't figured it out yet.

Grizz

[Sundog57]

Originally Posted by expedition

Devils advocate here . Isn't freedom gas (natural gas ) 40 to 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 ?

Not sure what freedom gas is?
But as for Methane, 26x I think, but that's only that if you release it directly to the atmosphere, which would kind of defeat the intent.
It's CH4 so if you burn it it turns into 1 x CO2 + 2 x H2O

[RZR]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I have a hard time believing people are that dumb, but I've read this from multiple news sources. Can't really see it working out so well for the politician that pushes for natural gas bans in Canada, but you never know.

There are a lot of stupid people in Canada that would believe this!

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by RZR

There are a lot of stupid people in Canada that would believe this!

One does not have to look far to see shining examples of said people...

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I have a hard time believing people are that dumb, but I've read this from multiple news sources. Can't really see it working out so well for the politician that pushes for natural gas bans in Canada, but you never know.

Natural gas is primarily the evil methane. Criticize methane emissions and you have to be anti natural gas. Too bad you're freezing your butt off at the same time.

Grizz

[dmac]

[QUOTE=Sundog57;4055246]So here's the deal
Natural Gas produces about 20% less CO2 per GJ of energy produced and something to the tune of 30% less than coal.
On top of this if the exhaust stream is run through a catalytic combuster the only exhaust gas products are H2O and CO2, no SO2, no soot, no heavy metals.
So you would think that running thermal power plants on NG would be a no brainer.

When I think about them banning NG thermal plants in Ontario under McGuinty and some of the Boy Wonder's comments, I think that the emphasis here is on the no brain part..

FYI - the issue in Ontario had nothing to do with the fuel itself, more to do with the construction of new plants in Mississauga and Oakville, in order to replace power lost with the closure of the coal fired plant in Mississauga. There is NO ban on NG fired electricity generation.

[Sundancefisher]

There are some interesting groups out their.

One that just jets around the world to scream at you to sacrifice your lifestyle to save the earth.

Another that jets around the world, organizing sit downs cry sessions, collapses to the ground, ties themselves to pipelines, bridges and covers themselves in oil with signs telling you to sacrifice for the earth

There is a group making billions on the climate change panic. They mostly remain quietly in the background

There is a group of professional protestors paid to travel the world.

There is an army of bloggers attacking denial threads.


I am sure others can think of groups that have missions.

They all say they do it carbon neutral however the media never grinds that out.

[sharpstick]

It would be interesting if the media went around to all the houses of the people that voted in favor of this in Berkley and see how many of their houses are NG free... My guess is there would be a handful of hypocrites.

[Sundog57]

How Dare You

[barbless]

Originally Posted by Sundog57

How Dare You

Exactly. How much world ending emission comes out every time she opens her mouth. Now she's got more spewing her crap and damaging our air. Like I said before go to the counties doing a lot worse than we do and see where that gets ya. I like NG for my home heating. I like coal for my BBQ most times. I don't mind methane cause it provides me with the Alberta beef I love so much. Gas for my boat, car, truck and all the small engines I use. Diesel keeps me working my job.

[KinAlberta]

Alberta’s main enemy fracing/fracking may be doing more harm to our economy’s prospects than we thought.

All of which, like those imbecilic anti-Greta stickers, only serves to cause the world to target Alberta’s oil and CO2 emissions even more (letting worse offenders fly under the radar).

Methane Emissions Could Cancel Out Progress on Carbon Dioxide - Bloomberg

“Fossil fuel production also contributes to methane emissions, and some studies have pointed to hydraulic fracturing, especially in the U.S., as the likely cause behind the recent spike in emissions. It’s certainly suspicious that fracking got underway in a big way around 2007, just as the methane surge began. However, other recent studies dispute this conclusion, and they suggest that U.S. methane emissions have changed little over the past 15 years.“

...

“Many other sources of methane shouldn’t be too hard to tackle, especially emissions from production of coal and gas, urban gas leaks, landfills and sewage plants. New technological devices such as vehicle-mounted leak detectors and drones are making it much easier to locate the biggest sources of emissions, which can then be eliminated. Landfills can be covered. Fuel industries must also recognize the need to reduce leaks of natural gas to preserve its reputation as a green energy source. Methane emissions can also be reduced by not burning crop waste, as is common in Africa and in South and East Asia.“

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...carbon-dioxide

Great article that brings other global warming causes and mitigation issues into a more balanced focus:

 Motor Mouth: The hypocrisy of armchair environmentalism
Climate change activists are always saying that we need to listen to scientists — perhaps it’s time they paid attention, too

by DAVID BOOTH, NOVEMBER 8, 2019



“ For instance, with the incredible amount of attention paid to such high-profile emitters like cars and cow farts, I was absolutely gobsmacked to discover that more effective disposal of the chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration — supposedly 1,000 to 9,000 more deleterious to global warming than carbon dioxide — would represent the greatest boon to greenhouse gas reduction, the reduction of 89.74 gigatons of CO2 (equivalents) projected almost nine times what the authors predict electric vehicles will save.”

“ Want more hard, scientific proof that we’re not barking up the right tree? Well, picture this: All of the carbon dioxide reductions that Drawdown is projecting for the entire global transportation industry — cars, trucks, mass transit, electric bicycles, and yes, Greta, the airplanes you so assiduously denigrate — is barely more than half the amount (45.68 gigatons) we’d save if we just built more windmills (84.60 gigatons). The same is true of simply reducing the amount of food we waste — ...”


https://postmediadriving.wordpress.c...vironmentalism

On the methane leak issue, much of the onus on solving the problem seems to be in the hands of others in other provinces and other countries. They need to be stepping up to do their part rather than just targeting Alberta’s oil sands and blocking pipelines. A big part of the solution may be in their own back yards.




—-

[bloopbloob]

Originally Posted by expedition

Devils advocate here . Isn't freedom gas (natural gas ) 40 to 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 ?

Here you go!

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.

CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/und...ing-potentials

[KinAlberta]

So it would make sense to take on the easy wins especially if those wins reduce highly potent gasses, and thus buy the world time.

Mothball or minimally run coal plants and only use them as short term solutions and backup sources

Stop gas leaks wherever possible (reduces waste and well)

Stop burning of fields ...

[gunluvr]

Co2 doesn't raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Rising temperatures allow higher levels of co2. A naturally warming earth allows co2 levels to rise. Also it's been scientifically proven that co2 concentrations in the atmosphere are too small to affect climate by any degree. .04% actually. It's a fact but nearly no one cares. And of that .04% only .00125% of atmospheric co2 is considered man-made. Don't take my word for it, look it up.
Apparently climate scientists aren't good at math.
If someone wanted to destroy the global economy they should have picked a more relevant gas. But the masses choose to believe in co2 anyway. We humans are unbelievably gullible. We seem to need a righteous cause no matter the consequences.
I've said it before, the only way out of this mess has to be a global war so humans realize what priorities actually are.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Damn it.

They’re gonna wind up banning me... my butt’s NOT climate friendly. My wife’ll start writing letters.

yup a can of stag chilli gets'er going!!!!…..could heat my house for a week on one can.....maybe I am onto something

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Damn it.

They’re gonna wind up banning me... my butt’s NOT climate friendly. My wife’ll start writing letters.

I hear ya, my friend...

[Chuck_Wagon]

Oil Free Greta

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks.

“What’s this?” she asked.
“Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother.

“What happened to the carpet?” she asked.
“The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response.

Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fiber bristles.
“Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.”

“Where’s the water?” asked Greta.
“Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it.”

“Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish.
“Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for duckies and tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . .

“What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting.
“Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.”

“How-so raw?” inquired Greta.
“Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore.
“But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.

“Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.”
“What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.”

“Not anymore,” explained godmother. “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing - being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.”
This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fiber boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet.

Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocaine is synthesized.

[AndrewM]

People are so stupid. We focus on oil and gas and everything else rather than look at the main problem. We have turned into a disposable society. Appliances, electronics, etc. Start forcing companies to give warranty for 5-10 years and it will be amazing how much better quality items we would get. You can't even fix things anymore as it costs more money to fix then it does to replace the item!

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

People are so stupid. We focus on oil and gas and everything else rather than look at the main problem. We have turned into a disposable society. Appliances, electronics, etc. Start forcing companies to give warranty for 5-10 years and it will be amazing how much better quality items we would get. You can't even fix things anymore as it costs more money to fix then it does to replace the item!

I would support legislation to this effect. Anything made should be built to be repaired and parts support should remain for 15 - 20 years. This is speaking in terms of major appliances. Even countertop appliances could be much better built for a mere $10 more.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

Co2 doesn't raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Rising temperatures allow higher levels of co2. A naturally warming earth allows co2 levels to rise. Also it's been scientifically proven that co2 concentrations in the atmosphere are too small to affect climate by any degree. .04% actually. It's a fact but nearly no one cares. And of that .04% only .00125% of atmospheric co2 is considered man-made. Don't take my word for it, look it up.
Apparently climate scientists aren't good at math.
If someone wanted to destroy the global economy they should have picked a more relevant gas. But the masses choose to believe in co2 anyway. We humans are unbelievably gullible. We seem to need a righteous cause no matter the consequences.
I've said it before, the only way out of this mess has to be a global war so humans realize what priorities actually are.

Finally! Some sense!

[6.5 shooter]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

One does not have to look far to see shining examples of said people...

..most won't get it!!