Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.

On 10/30/2024 9:31 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:

On 10/29/2024 8:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

>
>
On 10/29/24 17:41, Someone claiming to be 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!

>
      More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

>
I'd like to see some numbers on this.
>
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
>
But:
>
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
has started mapping the problem:
>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
>
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
>
AND
>
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
>
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only  lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
>
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
>
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.
>

 In addition, one must account for the energy required to
liquify methane.
    "The energy required to chill, ship, and regasify the
    fossil fuel makes it far more carbon-intensive and
    increases the potential for leakage of dangerous methane."
 https://www.nrdc.org/stories/liquefied-natural-gas-101
    "LNG exports put upward pressure on gas bills for U.S.
    consumers, forcing them to compete with overseas customers
    for gas produced in this country."
 Lynn will, of course, dismiss these criticisms as they are
counterproductive to his bottom line.

The process of liquefaction for LNG uses about 6% of the natural gas liquefied.  The newest LNG plants cost about $12 billion and there are around 50 ??? of them in the world.  The USA has 23 ??? operating LNG plants in Texas and Louisiana.
The price of natural gas today is less than $3/mmbtu in the USA.  That is a bargain as it is the same price that natural gas was in the 1980s in the USA.  My employer at the time, TXU, one of the largest users of natural gas in the USA, paid about $2.35/mmbtu in the 1980s.  I know it well from when I worked in short term dispatch (1 week to 52 weeks) from 1986 to 1989.
Four years ago during The Koof shutdown, over 2/3rds of the natural gas only wells were shutdown in the USA.  We have about 1/2 of the natural gas only wells still shutdown in the USA.  We are swimming in the stuff.
Asia is paying about $35/mmbtu.  Europe is paying about $30/mmbtu.  The countries of Qatar, Trinidad, Australia, and the USA are providing LNG to the rest of the world not in the middle East.
BTW, an mmbtu is a million btus, an energy dimensional unit.
Lynn