Timeline for How can the EU leaders assure their commitment to the climate goals while they keep investing so much money on fossil fuels?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2022 at 7:23 | comment | added | actual_kangaroo | @fluidcode Just because USA is a net gas exporter doesn't mean that all engineering publications coming out of the US are just "publicity stunts". If you think like that, it will be very hard indeed to find an answer that you can accept. | |
| Jun 3, 2022 at 15:30 | comment | added | FluidCode | @roo2 An engineering style language does not prevent them to choose the setup for the measurement that better suits them. So I repeat that the claim of a 50% reduction is just a publicity stunt created by the biggest gas producing nation. BTW all the gas produced in many other countries is traded in Wall Street, so the US is making money on the majority of the gas produced and sold worldwide, this is a very strong incentive to doctor the numbers | |
| Jun 2, 2022 at 3:40 | comment | added | actual_kangaroo | from the first article "The consumption of natural gas results in about 52 million metric tons of CO2 for every quadrillion British thermal units (MMmtCO2/quad Btu), while coal's carbon intensity is about 95 MMmtCO2/quad Btu". That is an engineering claim that can stand alone, regardless of which country or institution provided it. If you think that the "MMmtCO2/quad Btu" value for burning natural gas or coal is different from what they provide, you should find another source. It seems like something that would be possible to independently verify. | |
| Jun 1, 2022 at 11:56 | comment | added | FluidCode | @roo2 All the sources that you are linking about the claimed efficiency of gas rely on data provided by the US public or private institutions. But the US is the world biggest gas producer, that is not an unbiased source. | |
| May 31, 2022 at 23:04 | comment | added | actual_kangaroo | @FluidCode, this other site says coal is 82% higher carbon density per unit of energy than natural gas eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27552. Another site I found says natural gas is50% to 60% more CO2 efficient overall when comparing new plants gasvessel.eu/news/natural-gas-vs-coal-impact-on-the-environment. Both seem believable to me. What makes you think that 50% reduction in CO2 is "Fake"? | |
| May 31, 2022 at 10:51 | comment | added | FluidCode | This answer is a repetition of the usual propaganda. Gas might emit less CO2, but 50% reduction is a fake. Now Europe is already using a lot of gas, increasing the reliance on gas will not offset enough, but it will increase our dependence on foreign supplies. | |
| May 31, 2022 at 10:44 | comment | added | FluidCode | @Roland Heating is one of the issues that raised my doubts. Some years ago there was a plan to encourage district heating as a way to exploit unused renewable and night-time production. But few countries and in few areas decided to invest on it. Paris made great promises about district heating powered by geothermal power, but it turns out to be a small project. Now this plan makes no mention of district heating. So eventually many areas are still prioritising gas over renewable (and unused night-time production) for household heating. | |
| May 31, 2022 at 7:23 | comment | added | Roland | ... Currently, heating and cooling of buildings emits about 500 Mt CO2-eq. in Europe. About 30 % of energy in this sector is from fossil gas. It seems unlikely that coal and oil will be fully replaced by electricity, gas heating seems more achievable in old buildings. So, some kind of gas will probably play a role, possible even a larger role than currently. | |
| May 31, 2022 at 7:23 | comment | added | Roland | I don't have time to search for published studies. Here is a report (see Table 1) with a 2050 szenario that is extremely optimistics regarding mitigation of emissions from agriculture and increased carbon sequestration in the LULUCF sector. This document gives a lower potential for the 2050 LULUCF sink, but is still very optimistic. ... | |
| May 31, 2022 at 6:46 | history | edited | actual_kangaroo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2022 at 6:43 | comment | added | actual_kangaroo | @Roland would you provide a link for this "there won't be sufficient carbon-offsets for anything beyond actual unavoidable emissions (from agriculture and a few industry processes like cement production)". good point about the hydrogen power reusing the same infrastructure | |
| May 31, 2022 at 6:09 | comment | added | Roland | No, there won't be sufficient carbon-offsets for anything beyond actual unavoidable emissions (from agriculture and a few industry processes like cement production). Natural gas can't be used for heating if net-zero is to be achieved. It has been proposed to replace natural gas with green hydrogen, which would allow to keep using the infrastructure. | |
| May 31, 2022 at 5:59 | history | edited | actual_kangaroo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2022 at 5:53 | history | answered | actual_kangaroo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |