TailingsPond + 877 GE 10 hours ago 18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: a Canadian-based defense analyst You really need to stop looking to oilprice articles for "real analysis." The guy is not even based in the USA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,242 er 5 hours ago 5 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You are on record of loving coal. You now accept coal is "dirtier?" Please explain "dirtier". Both pollute, in different ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,464 DL 4 hours ago (edited) 6 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You are on record of loving coal. You now accept coal is "dirtier?" It looks like Trump's plans for increased oil and gas output will actually mean a massive reduction in global CO2 levels. However, I doubt that Trump is motivated by this objective, and understandably so. But it keeps the anti-CO2 agitators happy. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/How-Trumps-Energy-Plan-Could-Actually-Benefit-the-Environment.html "A second Trump administration's focus on increasing US natural gas production and exports could lead to a decrease in global CO2 emissions. US natural gas exports can displace coal and other dirtier energy sources, particularly in developing nations. Trump's energy plan includes faster permitting for pipelines and LNG terminals, facilitating the export of US natural gas to meet global energy needs." "...when Trump fulfills his campaign promises to increase U.S. oil and gas production and removes President Biden’s pause on new liquid natural gas exports, global emissions will likely decline rather than rise. This is because exports of U.S. natural gas generally displace coal, reducing global CO2 emissions. Even Germany, Europe’s largest manufacturer, is using lignite coal (rather than the less-polluting bituminous coal) to deal with shortages of renewables now that it has closed its nuclear power plants and Russian gas is no longer available. About 3 billion people in emerging economies lack electricity and running water, and cook over wood and dung. Natural gas power plants would reduce particulates from wood and dung and make the air cleaner. " It is the latter emissions from indoor fuels which are responsible for most of the health problems emerging from energy resources, which would also decline drastically when transitioned into natural gas. Edited 4 hours ago by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,464 DL 4 hours ago (edited) 6 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You really need to stop looking to oilprice articles for "real analysis." The guy is not even based in the USA. I have linked science articles here which were written by European scientists...I guess they are not real scientists? Or maybe you are not a real scientist. Edited 4 hours ago by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,540 36 minutes ago 5 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said: Please explain "dirtier". Both pollute, in different ways. Anywhere between 5% and 10% of the coal (by mass) you toss into a firebox is "real estate" that doesn't burn. It's called ash. What ash does NG leave in the firebox? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites