Posted on 02/13/2020 2:12:34 PM PST by navysealdad
Gettin’ closer every day .. are ya skeert yet ??
As others have noted, that’s the natural consequence of replacing coal with methane as a carbon-based fuel. And that was probably done as much based on economic considerations (we’re rolling in natural gas) as environmental ones (despite continual efforts to make coal fuel non grata).
When you burn coal, almost all the energy comes from breaking carbon-carbon bonds and replacing them with stronger carbon oxygen bonds - each of those transformations leads to the formation of a CO2.
When you burn methane, most of the energy comes from replacing carbon-hydrogen bonds with oxygen-hydrogen bonds (of water); you also convert carbon-hydrogen bonds to the carbon-oxygen bonds of CO2, but the fraction of energy coming from CO2 is much less with the methane of natural gas.
I’m not of the belief that our reduction of CO2 emissions makes a damn bit of difference in the global climate, but if combusting methane leads to less CO2 than combusting coal, and it’s more economical, that’s fine by me.
Now we just need to find somebody who can explain the science to Greta, AlGore and all their little friends.
Good luck with that, even if their tiny little brains would listen long enough :-))
“natural gas don’t send out massive amounts of oxides of nitrogen and xulfur, particulates and heavy metals like burning coal does”
That’s what I don’t like about coal.
The real agenda is about getting American $$$. The climate has nothing to do with it other than as an excuse.
Why should we take credit for a CO2 reduction that is not needed?
Well, I’ll be a Monkey’s Uncle.
Thanks to the ingenuity of the American oil and gas industry.
Cleaning up our air, reducing CO2 and saving us money!
When do we get a Nobel Prize?
Good explanation, thanks.
I figured it had to do with less coal use, but didn’t know any details.
At this point, power production via controlled nuclear fusion is no more speculative than AGW.. . . and actually safe power production via nuclear fission is a near certainty in the here-and-now.
To be fearful of AGW and simultaneously hostile to nuclear power is to be incoherent. At least in scientific terms, if not in scaremongering terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.