Eh. Methane is worse when it’s released as a gas than when it’s burned and released as carbon dioxide. If you drive by oil refineries in Beaumont, TX, you’ll see them burning off methane–flaring–because it’s a byproduct of oil refining. Is any of this great, or even good? No; any way you slice it, it’s all greenhouse gasses. OTOH, there are far fewer other pollutants with LNG than there are from coal-fired plants, and we don’t yet have the capacity to generate sufficient power using renewables or nuclear. (Meanwhile, a lot of hydro power is at risk because climate change has shifted rain and snow patterns so that rivers and reservoirs are drying up so that we’re losing that source of renewable power.)
the impacts of methane releases which spike with burnoff impact the atmosphere for decades. we’re continuing to feed it.
coal - for all it’s wretched problems from heavy metals to black lungs - added particulates that cut down on absorbed heat in the atmosphere.
we’re seeing the same unanticipated effect with the move from the worst bunker fuel (high sulphate) may let in more heating energy because we’re taking the worst fine particulate exhausts out… carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping…
some times you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. That said, both the transition to cleaner fuel and the end of coal need to happen, but also we need to start planning for the end of LNG as well.
I remember the 80s when high sulphur coal was the norm, and we had problem with the sulphur emissions causing acid rain; I def. don’t want to return to that…
Related - I saw a science alert that speculated that we could buy time to cut carbon emissions by seeding the atmosphere with superfine diamond dust; it would both block and reflect solar radiation. The downside? About $250T in cost.
ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You misspelled methane the natural gas that kills the populous is lng.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Eh. Methane is worse when it’s released as a gas than when it’s burned and released as carbon dioxide. If you drive by oil refineries in Beaumont, TX, you’ll see them burning off methane–flaring–because it’s a byproduct of oil refining. Is any of this great, or even good? No; any way you slice it, it’s all greenhouse gasses. OTOH, there are far fewer other pollutants with LNG than there are from coal-fired plants, and we don’t yet have the capacity to generate sufficient power using renewables or nuclear. (Meanwhile, a lot of hydro power is at risk because climate change has shifted rain and snow patterns so that rivers and reservoirs are drying up so that we’re losing that source of renewable power.)
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
yeeeah but:
the impacts of methane releases which spike with burnoff impact the atmosphere for decades. we’re continuing to feed it.
coal - for all it’s wretched problems from heavy metals to black lungs - added particulates that cut down on absorbed heat in the atmosphere.
we’re seeing the same unanticipated effect with the move from the worst bunker fuel (high sulphate) may let in more heating energy because we’re taking the worst fine particulate exhausts out… carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping…
some times you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. That said, both the transition to cleaner fuel and the end of coal need to happen, but also we need to start planning for the end of LNG as well.
good luck, have fun friends
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I remember the 80s when high sulphur coal was the norm, and we had problem with the sulphur emissions causing acid rain; I def. don’t want to return to that…
Related - I saw a science alert that speculated that we could buy time to cut carbon emissions by seeding the atmosphere with superfine diamond dust; it would both block and reflect solar radiation. The downside? About $250T in cost.