A few thoughts on this issue
by EmilT76 (2024-01-30 17:31:41)

In reply to: There's a Fight Brewing over LNG.  posted by EricCartman

Cannot Reply Return to Political


There are a lot of dimensions to natural gas policy, so here are some observations

1) The battle against coal (the worst green house gas emitter from a lbs of CO2 per unit of energy perspective) is mostly won in the United States. Next down the list is natural gas as it also produces a good amount of CO2 when burned
2) It turns out natural gas, especially the majority methane component, is itself a green house gas. This aspect comes into play with fugitive emissions from gas wells, pipelines, in town distribution systems, and factories and homes. Using a first 20 year greenhouse gas impact, methane is 80 times worse than CO2. Therefore the fugitive emissions can have a significant global warming impact. Belching cows also contribute.
3) As a result of the global warming potential of methane and natural gas, jurisdictions are hoping to ban new home construction that use natural gas for cooking/heat, and phase out its use entirely over time. Perhaps you have seen California and some cities taking this approach. The LNG export industry is a natural, and easy, target for the environmentalists.
4) The other side of the coin is that natural gas is the logical transition fuel as solar and wind power start to play a larger role in the grid. How do we get electricity when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. The answer is quick response natural gas combined cycle power plants. (Of course nuclear power doesn't have the intermittency problem and is really the better solution, but is pretty pricey to build)
5) Europe, especially the European Community, has some pretty serious targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Their grid is getting pretty heavy in wind and solar power so they definitely need the LNG to power the natural gas combined cycle plants to cover for the shortfalls.
6) From my perspective, in the next few decades the production of natural gas and LNG actually aids the transition to a low carbon future. The decision of the Biden administration is pretty short sighted, if not outright dumb, in that context. It is worth noting there has been a lot of technology developed to monitor fugitive natural gas emissions, and "big oil" has virtually eliminated the problem from their natural gas production and fracking operations.

Excellent post (as usual)
by SixShutouts66  (2024-01-30 19:56:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

What seems to get lost in the global warming discussion is that it should involve science plus engineering and economics. All too often I see zealous and well-meaning efforts to transition very rapidly to renewable energy. In many cases it seems tyhat large-scale production is not ready yet or the costs to transition too soon outweigh the benefits (e.g. all-electric heating).

As a side note, the linked article mentioned one reason for the delay is to try and ensure exportds don't create LNG shortages within the US.

The zealous efforts are not always well-meaning.
by SorinBasement  (2024-01-31 09:58:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

This is a political football, with much political capital at stake, both literally and figuratively. The cost of a rapid and sudden change to green energy is high, which means there are those who stand to gain from it. Their political influence is a source of concern.
I was somewhat glad to not have all-electric heat here
by ravenium  (2024-01-31 00:03:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

During our ice storm. We were toasty and our fireplace was awesome. Our power never went out but if it had (like much of the metro area) we'd have been in trouble. I like the idea of heat pumps but I'm pondering the idea of a gas heat backup one.

Rant:

From an overall layman's viewpoint, it always feels like I'm torn in a push-pull between climate deniers and climate alarmists.

In this corner, we have people who breathlessly post articles about how we're 7 years from a point of no return, which quite frankly is pretty spooky (if taken on the face). We get demonstrative protests from the Thunbergs of the world, who appear to be immune from any criticism. Every major weather event is "extreme" and must be accompanied by a lecture. We must immediately go 110% all in tomorrow or we're doomed. It's never corporations' fault, it's consumers - stoves, lawns. No baby steps are acceptable.

In the other corner, we have "naaah, it's all hyperbole" people who have decided we don't have to do anything to reduce our climate impact lest we upset or change industries. Everything is apparently some economic scam or hoax. And if the Democrats like it, it must be bad (etc).

Somewhere in between is reality. Technology should march forward and improve our lives. We should strive to reduce our impact on the planet in achievable ways. We should constantly be looking for ways to improve.

We must also look at how we're going to adapt. If we truly are not the masters of our own destiny, we must. For example, certain weather events are discernibly trending worse - forest fires in particular thrive on hotter and drier weather. Rather than print the 80th article about "climate refugees", how about we talk about how we can reduce the impact of forest fires?

Some other ranty suggestions:

- gas is still better than petroleum for the environment. Ask the cruise ship industry. Stop attacking any measures other than absolute ones.
- Move away from single use containers of all types where possible.
- Review and improve recycling efforts. No more of this "nah, we tried" can kicking about plastic.
- Nuclear. Finger wagging about EVs when your state's electricity runs on coal is hypocritical.