Natural Gas Is A Bad Investment. Invest instead in Magical Green Unicorn Farts.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Mind-numbing. Another hit piece on how Natural Gas is literally destroying the planet (ZOMG WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE !)  and no viable alternative solution to natural gas is offered by these nitwits.

Their so-called "Clean Energy" dream is pie in the sky dreaming.  The civilized world simply cannot run solely on solar, wind and hydro power.

Their scaremongering grows tedious.

 

Natural Gas Is A Bad Investment

Natural gas is the fastest growing energy source in the U.S., and that’s a big problem. Last year, gas was the number one contributor to the growth in U.S. carbon emissions. When gas infrastructure leaks, it also emits methane, a gas that recent research shows is even worse for the climate than previous dire estimates showed. And according to a new report from shareholder advocacy group As You Sow and policy think-tank Energy Innovation, it’s not even a good investment.

The U.S. is on track to spend some $US1 ($2) trillion on new gas-fired power plants and fuel by 2030, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute. And while natural gas been dubbed a bridge fuel by some (centrists), the time to be across that bridge is here. The new analysis shows that the nation’s energy sector’s gas buildout is putting utility investors at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars.

The climate crisis, which natural gas fuels, poses risks for investors. Extreme weather physically threatens energy infrastructure, as evidenced by the 1.1 million people in and around New York lost power during and after Hurricane Sandy or the damage the 2018 California fires caused to power lines.

Investing in clean energy is not only the better option for the climate, it’s also increasingly more affordable and, frankly, financially safer. As governments and companies make more commitments to kick fossil fuels, gas infrastructure assets are increasingly at risk of becoming stranded, and they could soon become worthless.

The report argues that investors should play their part to stop the buildout of natural gas. It suggests they directly ask companies to analyse emerging risks, join influential investor coalitions such as Climate Action 100+ and Climate Majority Project (major investment firms like BlackRock have done this), and push to shift the regulations to encourage the transition to clean energy. At least some firms have turned away from the most damaging types of extraction like Arctic oil, but there’s clearly a lot more work to do.

Shareholders can play an important role in pushing that transition, as they’re well positioned to encourage utilities to reduce the financial risks that natural gas poses. But to be clear, we shouldn’t phase out of fossil fuels like natural gas because they’re a bad investment. We should stop extracting and burning them because they’re ruining ecosystems, destroying people and the planet. Still, the new report is just more evidence that we need to stop building new natural gas infrastructure, fast.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Here's another one.

Why CenterPoint Energy is pushing to test ‘renewable’ natural gas. And some environmental groups are so skeptical of it.

Electricity and vehicles powered by fossil fuels have faced scrutiny from clean power advocates and state officials looking to slash carbon emissions in Minnesota. But the future of natural gas used to heat two-thirds of homes and power appliances has also become a growing subject of debate.

As environmentalists call to replace the fossil fuel with electricity in buildings, CenterPoint Energy, the largest gas utility operating in Minnesota, has been pushing to test “renewable natural gas” (RNG) and other alternative fuels to bring down emissions.

The Houston-based company’s newest effort to use cleaner gas — created primarily by capturing methane from food waste and other organic matter or using electricity to create hydrogen that can be mixed with traditional natural gas — comes in the form of a bill that could help CenterPoint launch a new RNG program. The measure has support from several Republican and Democratic state lawmakers.

“On the electric side, we’ve had a strong history of reducing carbon and we believe that there is potential to serve our customers’ energy demands with lower carbon resources on the gas side,” Amber Lee, CenterPoint’s director of regulatory affairs, said during a Senate committee hearing in February.  ...

 

... But opponents like the Sierra Club, the state Department of Commerce and Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office questioned the price, CenterPoint’s lack of in-state supply and weak verification systems.

Comments submitted on the pilot plan by Sierra Club and the nonprofits Fresh Energy and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the potential for RNG to fully replace natural gas is low and a switch to electric heating and appliances can make use of an power grid that is becoming cleaner.

The organizations cited research by the American Gas Foundation that found America’s supply of RNG could meet up to 10 percent of 2015 natural gas demand, though that amount could vary regionally. Lee, CenterPoint’s regulatory affairs director, said hydrogen could replace 5 percent of natural gas, though she said that could rise to as much as 15 percent in the next decade with advances in technology.

“Developing a stronger renewable natural gas market … risks slowing the pace of building electrification and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from Minnesota’s building sector,” says the filing written by environmental groups for the PUC.  ...

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

This is mind-numbingly (is that a word 🤔) stupid....

[markslawson + 1,042]

12 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Mind-numbing. Another hit piece on how Natural Gas is literally destroying the planet (ZOMG WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE !)  and no viable alternative solution to natural gas is offered by these nitwits.

I can only agree - stupid.. what do these activists want? The switch from coal to nature gas is a marked feature of the US energy scene and one of the reasons for the overall reduction in emissions.. the article refers to the growth in gas emissions but forgets to point out there has been an overall decline due to the switch away from coal.. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 3/7/2020 at 5:02 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Mind-numbing. Another hit piece on how Natural Gas is literally destroying the planet (ZOMG WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE !)  and no viable alternative solution to natural gas is offered by these nitwits.

Their so-called "Clean Energy" dream is pie in the sky dreaming.  The civilized world simply cannot run solely on solar, wind and hydro power.

Their scaremongering grows tedious.

 

Natural Gas Is A Bad Investment

Natural gas is the fastest growing energy source in the U.S., and that’s a big problem. Last year, gas was the number one contributor to the growth in U.S. carbon emissions. When gas infrastructure leaks, it also emits methane, a gas that recent research shows is even worse for the climate than previous dire estimates showed. And according to a new report from shareholder advocacy group As You Sow and policy think-tank Energy Innovation, it’s not even a good investment.

The U.S. is on track to spend some $US1 ($2) trillion on new gas-fired power plants and fuel by 2030, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute. And while natural gas been dubbed a bridge fuel by some (centrists), the time to be across that bridge is here. The new analysis shows that the nation’s energy sector’s gas buildout is putting utility investors at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars.

The climate crisis, which natural gas fuels, poses risks for investors. Extreme weather physically threatens energy infrastructure, as evidenced by the 1.1 million people in and around New York lost power during and after Hurricane Sandy or the damage the 2018 California fires caused to power lines.

Investing in clean energy is not only the better option for the climate, it’s also increasingly more affordable and, frankly, financially safer. As governments and companies make more commitments to kick fossil fuels, gas infrastructure assets are increasingly at risk of becoming stranded, and they could soon become worthless.

The report argues that investors should play their part to stop the buildout of natural gas. It suggests they directly ask companies to analyse emerging risks, join influential investor coalitions such as Climate Action 100+ and Climate Majority Project (major investment firms like BlackRock have done this), and push to shift the regulations to encourage the transition to clean energy. At least some firms have turned away from the most damaging types of extraction like Arctic oil, but there’s clearly a lot more work to do.

Shareholders can play an important role in pushing that transition, as they’re well positioned to encourage utilities to reduce the financial risks that natural gas poses. But to be clear, we shouldn’t phase out of fossil fuels like natural gas because they’re a bad investment. We should stop extracting and burning them because they’re ruining ecosystems, destroying people and the planet. Still, the new report is just more evidence that we need to stop building new natural gas infrastructure, fast.

When I run into nitwits like this, I try to stoke their fears as much as possible.  At some point in the conversation, I make it obvious that I'm just screwing with them.  Once they have that epiphany, their brains switch into critical thinking mode, a state which is conveniently not specific to their discussion with me.  Depending on how much brain they have left, I can redirect their critical thinking to the problem at hand. 

They don't enjoy this, of course, but schadenfreude is my fee for educating them. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Deductive Reasoning for Tree Huggers:

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Douglas, I do so adore Monty Python's "whacking my head with a board" intro to the witch hunt logic.

[specinho + 440]

On 3/7/2020 at 7:11 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

The Houston-based company’s newest effort to use cleaner gas — created primarily by capturing methane from food waste and other organic matter or using electricity to create hydrogen that can be mixed with traditional natural gas — comes in the form of a bill that could help CenterPoint launch a new RNG program. The measure has support from several Republican and Democratic state lawmakers.

i did a small scale experiment, not sure how reliable the result is but...... it might be difficult to capture methane, as there will always be other gases around. The conversion is likely not high but could be costly to do it. A more stable component might be ethanol......

I'm not certain why natural gas is such a taboo compared to renewable gas out of waste....... From one of my tasks assigned many years ago to reduce costs of electricity and enhance water security at a resort, i found out that gas convertible is highly economic compared to electrified appliances. We have NPV (natural gas powered vehicle) here which, i was told, is so much cheaper and cleaner to run in comparison.......

Doomsday warning might have come too early....... after petroleum, there is natural gas, renewable gas and of course solar, hydro, nuclear energy.

Was in a course conducted by reknown institution mentioning how policies and grants should target to enhance the usages of renewable energy which is ~ 10 - 20% of the market. However, a check on the web dictates that this might be a miscalculation or misinformation. Most of the electricity in the world might be powered by 60-80% hydro, 30-50% nuclear; 20-30% solar and wind. If this is too many words to read, would like to present you a summary:

Edited March 15, 2020 by specinho