Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Titus G wrote:

Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that   A side benefit
of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
>

I'm glad you asked! But first let me add that climate change is a natural phenomenon where any impact by humans is small to non-existent.
When it comes to the age old debate of LNG versus coal to understand why coal is considered worse for the environment than liquefied natural gas
(LNG), we need to analyze several factors, including greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants, and the overall lifecycle impacts of both energy sources.
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Coal combustion releases a significant amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a major greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. When burned, coal emits approximately 2.2 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated. In contrast, natural gas, including LNG, emits about half as much CO2 when combusted—approximately 1.2 pounds per kWh. This difference in emissions has led to the scientific consensus that natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal.
2. Air Pollutants
Coal-fired power plants are significant sources of various air pollutants beyond CO2, including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM). These pollutants contribute to smog formation and respiratory problems in humans and can lead to severe environmental issues such as acid rain.
In comparison, LNG combustion produces fewer harmful air pollutants. While it still emits some NOx and PM, the levels are considerably lower than those from coal combustion. This reduction in air pollution contributes to better air quality and public health outcomes in areas where natural gas replaces coal as an energy source.
3. Lifecycle Impacts
The lifecycle analysis of both fuels also plays a crucial role in understanding their environmental impacts. The extraction, processing, transportation, and combustion phases all contribute to the overall emissions profile of each fuel type.
Coal mining can result in significant land degradation and habitat destruction through surface mining techniques like mountaintop removal. Additionally, coal ash—a byproduct of burning coal—can contaminate water supplies if not managed properly.
On the other hand, while LNG production involves processes such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that can have local environmental impacts (e.g., water usage and contamination), its overall lifecycle emissions are lower than those associated with coal.
Conclusion
In summary, coal is scientifically proven to be worse for the environment than LNG due to its higher carbon dioxide emissions during combustion, greater release of harmful air pollutants, and more significant negative impacts on land and water resources throughout its lifecycle. What the world must do, is to move to nuclear power and de-regulate the nuclear industry. In addition, all taxes on nuclear must be abolished in order to make sure that energy, which is the foundation of civilization, like spice, can flow freely.