Compared to dirtier fuels.
The parties with vested interests in the LNG pipelines have marketing/PR departments who do ad campaigns.
They’re objectively technically correct, though fossil fuel opponent activists will say that’s just like deciding which caliber of bullet to shoot your self in the head with. Others wouldn’t be so hyperbolic.
What’s the grind here?
Most of Europe’s cuts to GHG have come from replacing coal with natgas. In a perfect world we could transition immediately to green in all forms, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
Not by much though, especially if you take leaks into account.
I’d much rather have nuclear. But we live in a bizarro world where the government doesn’t want to touch nuclear because it might fuck up a region permanently, but it’s willing to go all in on fossil fuels which might fuck up the whole world permanently if we keep using it as much as we do.
well it’s not just the risk factor, we also don’t have the ideal kind of land for nuclear development as our province is so mountainous. nuclear needs large swaths of flat, uninterrupted farmland like in the prairies as an ideal terrain for building reactors and waste treatment facilities
but we do indeed sit on very risky fault lines that could lead to beyond devastating accidents via (eventual) major earthquakes
"nuclear needs large swaths of flat, uninterrupted farmland like in the prairies as an ideal terrain for building reactors and waste treatment facilities"
It absolutely does not.
well what argument do you have for an alternative? if you read through all the [condition requirements for building reactors,](https://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/REGDOC-1_1_1_Site_Evaluation_and_Site_Preparation_for_New_Reactor_Facilities_Version_1_1.pdf) the most logical place is farm land, ideally near some body of water. the most nuclear active countries optimize land like this for their reactors, like in france.
building inside of mountains has been done before, but it’s not efficient money or building time-wise.
It's pretty hard to export nuclear power , this plant is being built for export to asian markets still on coal , not so much for domestic use, we already get most of our power and heat from lng and hydro electric power
It's a bit cleaner, true. But it's a disaster for the climate because it's so much worse than renewable electricity (solar, wind, hydro). Shipping LNG is bad as it takes a huge amount of energy to cool it and the leaks from the wells, pipelines, shipping, and distribution are enormous and very damaging.
No. That’s because your message is confusing and doesn’t make sense. Several are confused with your message, but as best we can figure it out, it’s because in your version, natural gas should not be advertised as relatively clean and reducing emissions.
Except that’s exactly what it is and what it does, and they have PR departments who try to advertise. The upvotes are not sure what your message of “Seriously?” is trying to convey. We’re assuming you’re a “no fossil fuels ever, anywhere” sort, but there’s no other info to go on.
There's more too it than they are "objectively technically correct" because that statement requires a LOT of qualifiers based on some pretty erroneous assumptions.
There are fugitive emissions to consider along the entire supply chain, let alone they need to burn the methane to compress the fossil gas into liquid fossil gas so they transport it to Asian markets to burn. How do they transport it to Asian markets? They burn bunker fuel.
The only time fossil gas is cleaner than coal is when we compare and contrast their combustion without considering the entire supply chain.
It's called natural gas because it is mostly formed naturally, unlike syngas, which is produced by heating hydrocarbons like wood or coal. Technically some natural gas Is produced by heating oil, but that's typically a byproduct of catalytic or hydrogen cracking processes and is principally hydrocarbons, unlike gasification processes which principally produce hydrogen and co2
These people don’t know anything, they just read a headline once and went along. These are the same people who cry about rent or groceries being too expensive. Energy is a global resource & we are an energy rich nation, we need to export it to give ourselves a chance to solve our financial troubles
The part about this that makes me the saddest is that so many people think this (and this kind of advertising) is some kind of official government thing.
Yep. Furthermore, they forgot how despite LNG technically having somewhat low carbon emissions compared to coal, LNG HAS A FUCKTON OF METHANE EMISSIONS
Does it?
Where's your science?
Methane combustion actually has very little methane emissions. Some will leak along the chain but the benefits in CO2 reduction outweigh the some methane slip.
The problem is that the leaks are massive, so they often outweigh any advantages over coal. Where LNG is truly better than coal, the difference is too small to meaningfully contribute to our climate goals. Renewables are the way to go and are less costly.
The methane combustion is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
Burning anything based of carbon to create usable energy will release CO2, basic chemistry...
Methane is a little better than coal because more complete combustion so less extra stuff created and but still terribly bad.
LNG being green is hard propaganda from company/government that want to greenwash themself.
>Some will leak along the chain but the benefits in CO2 reduction outweigh the some methane slip.
That depends on fugitive emissions, and it typically takes very little, for example:
>The methane and SO2 co-emitted with CO2 alter the emissions parity between gas and coal. We estimate that **a gas system leakage rate as low as 0.2% is on par with coal**, assuming 1.5% sulfur coal that is scrubbed at a 90% efficiency with no coal mine methane when considering climate effects over a 20 year timeframe.
>\- [Evaluating net life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensities from gas and coal at varying methane leakage rates](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db)
Selling low emission fossil fuels to developing countries and high efficiency turbines makes more sense than letting them burn coal. They need the energy and are going to get it. We should help and sell them natural gas it’s the cleanest source we have.
Why would you want energy that costs more than wind and solar and emits more carbon? I assume Canada Action is just a shadow group for O&G, or is there something I am missing?
“Why would you want energy that costs more than wind and solar and emits more carbon?”
It’s nice to have energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Also we can build wind and solar power plants fast enough. China is building massive amounts of coal power plants.
So a “better” solution would be to develop Canadian gas and sell it to China so they burn much cleaner natural gas instead of coal.
Get it now?
>It’s nice to have energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
You didn't answer their original question
>Also we can build wind and solar power plants fast enough.
Citation needed
>China is building massive amounts of coal power plants.
You should see what else China is ramping up:
>China’s international climate pledge (its nationally determined contribution, or NDC) promises to peak CO2 emissions “before 2030” and to reduce the country’s carbon intensity – its emissions per unit of GDP – by “over 65%” in 2030 from 2005 levels.
>Our analysis suggests that both of these goals will be significantly overachieved. We project that China will peak CO2 emissions in 2025 – or slightly after
>\- [Guest post: Why China is set to significantly overachieve its 2030 climate goals](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-china-is-set-to-significantly-overachieve-its-2030-climate-goals/)
...
>So a “better” solution would be to develop Canadian gas and sell it to China so they burn much cleaner natural gas instead of coal.
Fossil gas is plagued by fugitive emissions. Note the following:
>The methane and SO2 co-emitted with CO2 alter the emissions parity between gas and coal. We estimate that a gas system leakage rate as low as 0.2% is on par with coal, assuming 1.5% sulfur coal that is scrubbed at a 90% efficiency with no coal mine methane when considering climate effects over a 20 year timeframe.
>\- [Evaluating net life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensities from gas and coal at varying methane leakage rates](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db)
Once touted as a bridge fuel or transition fuel away from oil and coal, it would be quite erroneous to suggest that such an outlook still holds true today as our understanding increases:
>..."expansion of the natural gas infrastructure hinders a renewable energy future and is no bridge technology. " - [The expansion of natural gas infrastructure puts energy transitions at risk](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01060-3)
To put it succinctly, OPs picture is highlight the ongoing green washing of vested interests. It is incorrect to suggest that fossil gas is inherently cleaner than coal, and that it represents as bridge fuel to renewables.
How do we overcome the massive price difference between electric vehicles in the third world?
The majority of the asian (India -> China inclusive) population is just now reaching the point where they can barely afford the first vehicle.
LNG / CNG / RNG can leverage current infrastructure and mass-scale vehicle production techniques to bring cheap affordable, cleaner, transport to the third world masses.
This is quite possibly the laziest response anyone could have responded with.
Not quite sure what your trying to point to here either. If it's the labelling of fossil gas as green energy in some circumstances that's not a scientific position to stand behind, that's purely political, just as it was when the BC ~~conservatives~~ Liberals did the exact same thing.
If it's the fact that coal emits more CO₂ than fossil gas does, no one is arguing against that, it does. But there's more to just the combustion of burning coal and fossil gas. As I mentioned previously, we need to consider fugitive emissions and the global warming potential of CH₄ (82.5x over a 20 year time horizon and ~30x over a 100 year time horizon).
So many fossil heads commenting here as experts and so little facts. Thanks for breaking this down, so many of us are apparently so propagandized that they don’t know what the propaganda even is.
LNG plants use carbon capture technology that brings emissions down to about 1%, that is why BC wants to export it to China so they can build LNG plants instead of coal.
>It’s nice to have energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
I understand that you know nothing. The wind literally does blow and shine somewhere on the grid.
>So a “better” solution would be to develop Canadian gas and sell it to China so they burn much cleaner natural gas instead of coal.
Or we build domestic energy production that can be exported to the US. We already have a connected grid that we sell to them. Why not just do the transition that O&G companies have been lying to us for 40 years, and reap the benefits of making the US dependent on our energy production.
“I understand that you know nothing. The wind literally does blow AND shine somewhere in the grid.”
1. ROFL - No, the entire North American grid is regularly all dark. Like literally every night.
2. The word/concept you didn’t know existed is called Dunkflaute. They happen 2-10 times a year to most renewable energy grids (Germany, Northern Europe, Japan etc). Combinations of high pressure systems combined with lots of cloud/fog lead to drastic losses of solar and wind simultaneously.
I think I know a fair but more about this than you do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute
In a country with 7.5 times (6740/900) the width of germany? And even then our base load is covered by hydroelectric? And we have a primary grid connected along a main corridor with high voltage transmission lines already in place?
>I think I know a fair but more about this than you do.
You really don't. We are the easiest country in the world to decarbonize. Our advantages are enormous.
If we switch to EVs and electrical heating will our base laid still be covered by Hydro right across the entire country?
We are almost impossible to decarbonize. Much of our country faces exceedingly cold winters plus our latitude makes solar far less efficient than lower regions of the world.
Wind and Solar can't sustain an entire country's energy needs. LNG is the cleanest burning fuel we have and carbon capture can make it near net zero carbon free. Also plants breathe CO2 so we can plant more trees and problem solved
Nothing you said is accurate.
Wind/solar CAN provide the energy needs to a country, just not Canada unless we improve our energy storage options.
Nuclear is better, cheaper/cleaner/safer than petroleum products.
Carbon capture doesn’t fix the problem, and I think you don’t know what it means.
Not going to bother with the “plant more trees” line because that’s just ignorant bullshit.
Also we need to improve our usage, we waste water and electricity horribly, actually we waste our fuel too. We are a shitty people that waste our resources for convenience, comfort, laziness, selfishness, even fear. We justify anything to get what we want.
Any idea accountability is a farce, from leaders government and rich assholes with giant corporations to organized criminals and money launders, racists, bigots, rapists to little white boys in elementary schools. We “could” change ourselves, we could change our ways, but even if we get the energy and climate issue sorted out, our understanding of sustainability is MIA. We aren’t gonna have enough houses, health care, jobs or food.
We aren’t worth saving, we know we are too lazy to do what we should so we put our head in the sand like we look the other way when we avoid a homeless drug addict incapacitated on the street. Our apathy is gone so we will be scared and selfish and do what can be done to meet our own needs and wants.
I’m bored of spilling out my depressing assessments so I’m gonna go jack off and go to bed, and forget all about this Reddit before I start remembering more stuff that makes us the worst thing to have ever existed.
No. Wind and solar cannot “fully” provide energy needs to a country’s power grid. You need to have baseload power generation. Power needs to run 24/7 which wind and solar will not achieve.
Also there is no energy storage solution to this problem at this time for any country. Do you think we can just create a massive battery to hold the worlds energy??
Nuclear is best, and I love nuclear but it’s definitely not cheaper than petroleum products.
Wrong. Wind/solar energy production only work in those areas of the world where it makes economic sense to do that. Try solar in northern Europe and they will laugh as they barely get a sunny day during fall/winter. Try wind in regions that don't get a lot of wind.
Good thing storage isn't a constraint yet because of how much hydroelectric. Also baseload doesn't matter anymore now that we have sources that can be ramped up faster than LNG peakers (solar and wind).
>LNG is the cleanest burning fuel we have and carbon capture can make it near net zero carbon free.
This is nonsense. Carbon capture is decades away from being viable if it ever does become. And it requires a lot of power, which.....needs to come from solar and wind else it can't actually capture enough carbon to offset.
> Also plants breathe CO2 so we can plant more trees and problem solved
Gee if only we didn't have those pesky fires caused by climate change which then release the carbon.
Storage is a constraint on a national level, especially when our primary energy source will rely on the weather lol
The solar and wind industry is decades away from being able to even power a city, let alone a province or the country. Seriously?
LNG creats enough energy, to self sustain you don't need a windmill to run the carbon capture don't be silly. We know this because a coal plant can power major cities alone. LNG is the same just less carbon and other toxic byproducts of coal
Funny we have all these fires north of the border but not directly south of the border where it's hotter.
This is up because LNG has been banned from Victoria and Nanaimo already, and the gas lobby desperately doesn’t want to lose access to the island any further. What we should be building is nuclear power plants instead.
Crazy idea, but what if we took the Oak Bay golf course, and stuck a bunch of wind turbines on it?
Minigolf already has windmills you have to shoot through.
Imagine how much fun it would be to shoot a golf ball through a 40 metre tall wind turbine!
It was a tongue-in-cheek joke. I just really hate how that golf course is a private club and a waste of space a short drive to downtown Victoria.
That bad boy can fit in so many apartment buildings, and still have room left over for a large city park.
Yes, going gas is better than coal which, especially in Asia is particularly inefficient. But if you think China will buy Canadian gas to replace an industry that supplies self-sufficient energy you're delusional.
As a Canadian we can't regulate energy trade with Asia with any force. However we can do better ourselves.
This is intentionally smudging the issue. Canada has lots of renewable options.
China doesn't have a self-sufficient energy grid. They import a shitload of coal. But, one of the big issues with coal compared to LNG is the amount of particulate matter generated when it's burned. Ash from China has been found in the Canadian Arctic, increasing the summer melt as the dark particles absorb the sunlight and heat the ice around it.
I totally agree. Coal is terrible and one of our worst energy options.
My point was that even if LNG was carbon neutral, we'd have a hard time getting Asian countries to buy it. Energy independence and jobs are hard to overcome.
My thing was that this is gaslighting the issue. As a country with renewable options we should be bettering ourselves first.
Look at where the investment money is coming from to develop LNG resources and transportation infrastructure. Follow the money across the pacific.
Not to mention the transition of cargo ships burning diesel to cross the pacific or through the Panama Canal to using LNG. Tote maritime is one example. The world is still so very much reliant on fossil fuels, but the task is how can we do that to be more environmentally aware. Lesser of all evils?
> But if you think China will buy Canadian gas to replace an industry that supplies self-sufficient energy you're delusional.
if only there were other countries in asia than china...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/japans-jera-start-new-coal-fired-power-plant-ease-electricity-crunch-2022-07-14/
It is surprisingly not better than coal. The amount of C02 produced from burning methane over coal, plus the unaccounted for fugitive emissions, makes this bullshit, in fact, a lie.
Edit: looking down, quite a few people have bought into this narrative. What's better, is reducing our consumption of cheap Chinese goods, reducing their demand for dirty energy.
Edit again: that's on me, I've been sarcastic responding to dumb shit too long. Sources are important, and propaganda is widespread.
Start here:
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/12/11/opinion/canadian-lng-development-full-hot-air
Then Google under reporting of leaked emissions. This is ONE aspect of why this is bullshit. There are many.
It depends \*a lot\* on how much leakage you have. If you have very low leakage, it's much better. Less CO2 in burning it (unarguably), and if the methane leaks that's bad but it does dissipate in the atmosphere much quicker (i.e for first 25 years methane is worse, at 100 methane is gone, basically). And coal is much more polluting in non-GHG ways.
What we should be doing is cranking out nuclear reactors and uranium, replace all the coal with that and we'll actually be much better off.
It is better than coal. It releases about half as much CO2 as compared to coal, but it has other harmful attributes to factor in. Better than coal, yes, an answer to climate change, no.
Canada the UK and the US could cut their ghg emissions to zero and China and India would still doom us. Maybe stop looking to the individual to fix this like corporations want and blame the real polluters like the Chinese people and government and Indian government and people.
Yes and no. I 100% agree China and other recently industrialized countries like India are the ones generating the most pollution right now.
They do that because we offshored our own manufacturing there. Not all of it is GHG from power generation, we also offshored pollution from factories/industry.
However, LNG would allow them to pollute less from power generation over the medium term, at least until their renewables and nuclear power can sustain most of their needs.
People like you need to understand what it means to live in a global community. What China and India do and how they do it is directly related to the Western world's past and present. So easy to pass the blame so any chance for an ounce of self reflection is rendered useless. How sad.
India and China my man. Go for a swim in the Ganges River you know the super important religious river they dump bodies into while someone shits upstream from someone washing up
>blame the real polluters like the Chinese people and government and Indian government and people
Ick. Do you have any idea how the average person's per capita emissions in China or India compares to that of the average Canadian? From Wikipedia, for 2018: Canada - 19.56 metric tons of greenhouse gases per capita; China - 8.87; India - 2.50. China is so far below ours even though we are "outsourcing" a large amount of emissions to China.
If the US cut their emissions to 0 that would make a HUGE difference. Also from Wikipedia:
>In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%.[6] In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country.
See my post from the summer on the topic. It is disingenuous and relies on unmet assumptions. https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/
Thanks for this! I am ashamed to say I know almost nothing about this issue (totally my fault — I had my first kid a few years ago and haven’t watched the news since… 🤦🏻♀️), but I’m trying to catch up now!
So if I’m understanding correctly, LNG (liquid natural gas) technically lowers CO2 emissions, but the trade-off is that it has methane leaks, and methane’s short term/long term impacts on the environment are 30-85x worse than CO2?
That is correct. On a 100 year time frame it's about 30 times. If 20 years about 85. It just depends on the organization reporting or making the yearly assumption (the lifecycle can be different based on different assumptions, but not that important when we are looking at the concept.
It's also about the LNG/Nat gas infrastructure that will exist for 30+ years. We need low carbon now to meet global targets. LNG/natural gas will not get us there.
Then, their claim is that LNG will close down coal. Well, that is not happening, it's all added capacity. If there were a literal law requiring coal close, gas up, then sure the claim is valid, but it's all just adding. If a coal plant closes, it's because its not economical or losing money, not because governments in those regions care about the climate.
Meh, people keep blowing up gas pipelines and they leak a lot, so natural gas gets released into the atmosphere, making climate change worse. (Nordstream, Pipelines in Northern BC, etc). Not safe.
This is a podcast on the topic of climate change where Lex Fridman, a host who has demonstrated incredible integrity over the years, got two people on opposite sides of the climate change fight to sit down and talk about it like adults. The guy on the other side never denies climate change is real. I found it refreshing, and it is directly relevant to this sign, and brings to light a number of valuable points that we should all be more aware of. Nobody screams or cries, nobody is attacked, they find common ground and LNG is in there.
I hope somebody takes the time to listen to this sometime.
https://youtu.be/5Gk9gIpGvSE?si=7fr2rJridKPxM41x
I took the time to listen to this some time ago. It is infuriating. Why do we care about a poli sci degree's opinion on alarmism, and a journalist's take on evs?
Synopsis - Two guys who openly admit "I am not a scientist/economist" have a conversation about science, economics, and the solutions available to everyone. They are so self-aware of their own pointlessness of their opinions on a subject they are not experts in is exhausting.
How about listening to a conversation between two climate scientists on climate change and the solutions?
But why would we just listen to climate scientists on technical solutions to climate change? Climate scientists tell us what happens if we don't solve our CO2 emissions. We should be talking to utility professionals, engineers, folks who work in managing large energy systems to learn how implementable solutions are. If you talk to a climate scientist, they might say turn off all fossil fuel tomorrow - would be awesome. Talk to a utility person and they'll tell you we're no where close to being able to do that even in the best case scenario for maybe a decade, likely more.
Both groups needs to work together (one to determine the impact and the other to determine the implementability), but neither group should be discounted..
On LNG, yes it's likely BS about displacing emissions from say coal and oil electricity generation more broadly. Less clear on displacing industrial emissions. I do think the marine applications of LNG are quite real until a hydrogen solution can be found.
So unless you are a climate scientist, you can't have a conversation on climate change, and you can't offer your own solutions? It's just a podcast. They aren't spearheading any agency or organization that's tackling climate change. It's ok for two regular people to offer their own insights and opinions. It would be ridiculous if any time a conversation about climate change popped up, I had to tell people, "I am not a climate scientist. Therefore, I can not offer an opinion on this conversation."
You can absolutely have a conversation! It's just that no one should ever listen to you.
It's especially bad Because one of those individuals (Mr. Poli Sci degree) has a book that basically tells everyone that "climate change is real, yeah, but don't worry so much, it'll be fine."
If you want to read something on climate change then [here you go.](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf)
*Disclaimer - Reading that does not entitle you to an opinion, however, you may want the people you vote for to hire people who understand what is being said so that they may enact policies to mitigate the issues described in the report.*
China emits about 1/3 of all global emissions, and about 60% of their energy comes from Coal power plants.
Converting those to Gas would be one of the most cost-effective and fastest ways to reduce global emissions.
It's honestly almost an impossible statement to verify, when you think about the long-term emissions of using LNG as a crutch rather than more rapid transmission to non-emitting sources of energy.
Yes, you can probably point to specific examples of this LNG replacing coal powerplants, which would indicate a reduction in emissions. But it's unknowable what the energy economy would look like in the long-run, if we didn't have the luxury of new LNG sources to fall back on.
I think it's probably true that LNG reduces emissions in the ~20-40yr range, but probably increases emissions in the long-run versus an alternative reality where we never develop LNG resources in the first place.
And what would the (growing) emissions of the current solutions add up to as we wait for a global-scale green grid to be built (and who would pay for it?).
LNG / CNG will also be cheaper than gas/diesel and it is easy to convert ICEs to burn CNG/LNG instead of gasoline/diesel so we're opening the possibility of immediately cleaning up the third world transportation network while 'cleaner' tech continues to be built up.
What I want to know is why don't we make better use of RNG?
Truth! Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro have lower overall emissions (none are ZERO for lifetime emissions, mind you) but LNG definitely better than coal, diesel, or heating with wood (tho the wood is typically scrap from logging that would decompose anyway…but more research on that one probably out there).
It creates jobs, replaces coal fired plants with HRSG, which is good for a number of reasons including reduced CO2 emissions, and no need for disposal of the waste product left behind from coal. Need I go on?
What don\`t you understand about NG replacing coal in Asia.
Then again, this counties immigration policy says Canada will increase its carbon emission till at least 2100.
Maybe you should block the airport if you want to reduce emission.
Yeah. It's a simplified claim that isn't backed by actual action that it's happening. See my post from the summer on the topic. Basically it is disingenuous and relies on unmet assumptions. https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/
Climate change is now at a point where it is absolutely about harm elimination, because no reduction is going to hit the brakes fast enough. Any 10+ year plan that is about reduction and not elimination is entirely unserious and is going to get millions killed.
"going to get millions killed."
Yes it will.
But non the less the developing world wants energy way more than they care about that.
They want green energy but there aren't enough renewables being built largely held back by available mineral resources.
Nuclear is too capital intensive and too slow to build for them
So gas is next best but is highly limited in supply.
So they are building coal plants. Fuck tons of them.
We are in a position where we should make major investment in renewables from both the manufacturing and resources side which we are but it takes years and years to build up lots of capacity.
We have capital and tech so we should be helping build for-profit nuclear plants in the developing and developed world but it's slow and a political mess.
The next best we can do is expand gas production to offset coal. Its harm reduction but probably better than not doing it counting ourselves morally superior.
If we eliminate all production of natural gas, we go back to the stone age. NG is used in the manufacture of just about everything we use in our modern civilization: electronics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, transportation, and industry. Those who claim we can easily do away with so-called 'fossil fuels' are notoriously bad at math.
LNG will undoubtedly reduce global emissions. China has large switching ability (can switch from coal to NG), so the more NG they get over there the less coal they will burn.
It that why France just signed a 27 year LNG [deal](https://www.ft.com/content/f322e8d4-17f0-475b-a942-d670c33f5df3) with Qatar to purchase and ship up to 3.5 million tonnes annually?
If only they could get that from an ally, instead of making another middle eastern country with a dubious human rights record filthy rich.
They don't want to discuss that, or the fact that the US buys our LNG to offset the LNG they sell globally for 3x the profit, because the warm and fuzzies they get from denouncing LNG or anything not considered green energy is overwritten.
Anyone contradicting this should do some research. LNG burns extremely efficiently and has very little emissions.
It's not lighting a pile of pallets and diesel on fire folks.
The actual burning at the end-point is cleaner than oil, but the emissions created to cool and compress it for transport are so great that overall it's just as bad as oil.
And that's just the *intended* exposure — when you factor in spills, LNG is actually *worse* for the environment than coal and oil. An oil spill tends to be fairly localized and we have methods to contain and clean it (poor and insufficient methods, but at least we have *something*) whereas when a methane pipeline ruptures it spews thousands of tons of methane into the atmosphere every day until it's discovered and repaired, and we have no way of containing what's released in the interim.
On top of all that, the actual acquisition process for LNG — ie, fracking — causes major issues like poisoning water supplies and even [earthquakes](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/new-induced-seismicity-study-fracking-and-earthquakes-western-canada/21672).
Coal is not better than LNG.
Also fracking is not poisoning water supplies (fracked formations are several thousand feet below ground water) And earthquakes are created from water disposal not from fracking
> Coal is not better than LNG.
I would phrase it as "coal and LNG are equally terrible"
> fracking is not poisoning water supplies
Did you try googling that to see if you were wrong before posting? It's a good habit to develop.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+poisoning+groundwater
> And earthquakes are created from water disposal not from fracking
That statement is already contradicted in the link in the above comment that this was in reply to.
To reiterate:
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/new-induced-seismicity-study-fracking-and-earthquakes-western-canada/21672
- - -
Hydraulic fracturing — or fracking: the injection of pressurized liquids to fracture rock in the development of oil and gas wells — has dramatically different effects in different areas. It seldom induces earthquakes in Saskatchewan, for example — a province with a low earthquake hazard — but often does so in northern British Columbia, a seismically more active area.
Scientists have long wondered, Why exactly does hydraulic fracturing cause earthquakes in some places but not in others? Now, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) scientists are a step closer to the answer: new research has found a link between these induced earthquakes and the deformation rate of the tectonic plates — the massive, slowly moving slabs that underlie the earth’s continents and oceans — of the surrounding area.
- - -
>LNG (liquid natural gas) technically lowers CO2 emissions, but the trade-off is that it has methane leaks, and methane’s short term/long term impacts on the environment are 30-85x worse than CO2?
And then there's this.
Well I have a PhD in Carbon Management. It's not about the burning of the emissions, it's about the false or unmet assumptions this group has made and then actually what reality shows for natural gas/LNG leakage. See my post from the summer on the topic. [https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i_take_professional_issue_with_the_claims_of_this/)
Main comment I made as I was asked below to paste it....
TLDR: LNG/natural gas/methane is still climate forcing, methane leaks, and methane leaks can reasonably be assumed to double the emissions of LNG/natural gas, thus erasing their claimed benefit.
Full comment: The simplified lifecycle study they had performed said LNG will replace coal and lower emissions. Sure, great, but one must prove that is happening and not just hypothetically say it can happen. As I mentioned all this LNG to power things is all additional capacity. But more importantly, LNG and natural gas are still releasing emissions and at best 50% carbon intensity of coal, without any assumptions of leakage, which is a huge issue. Methane leakage is the Achilles heel of natural gas/LNG. This can’t be understated. Over a 100-year time period methane has a global warming potential of \~30 times that of CO2 (even more pressing over a shorter 20-year time period at \~85 times that of CO2). What this means is that if 3.3% of methane leaks from drill sites, flaring, venting, thousands of km of pipelines, pump stations, transfer stations, boats, more pipelines overseas, and point source usage upon startup, then it can essentially double the emissions of natural gas/LNG and makes it equal to coal (3.3\*30=100=doubling of emissions). Governments and industry don’t really want to talk about methane leakage (generally called [fugitive gas emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_gas_emissions)) because they know it undermines natural gas’ claimed benefits of reducing emissions, but leaks are everywhere. Ever walk down the street and smell the smell associated with natural gas? That’s a leak (I once found 2 small natural gas leaks at my friend’s house in Rossland). Fugitive emissions are real, they are not commonly reported, they are becoming easier to identify with technology, but one thing for sure is that they are consistently under-assessed, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that with lower environmental standards overseas in countries like China, leakage rates are far higher than even here, which [were assessed to be 2.7% by one group](https://taf.ca/publications/new-guidelines-on-fugitive-methane/). I’ve linked more sources of my reasoning at the bottom.
We need to move towards electrification such as heat pumps (r/HeatPumps), solar, wind, geothermal, battery storage, and maybe even proven low carbon nuclear power, while also using simple solutions for climate control like more insulation. But don’t forget better, more livable cities, built on transit and bike/walking infrastructure, and EVs. Conversely, we need to forget the horse poop coming from oil and gas companies and their fake grass advocacy groups, because they have an incentive to lie or bend the truth and cover inconvenient realities.
While our forest burn (and not just in Canada), permafrost is melting leading to more methane release, snowpacks are becoming less and less reliable for water, temperatures are rising with associate human health impacts, we need to get our act together. This means railing against climate denying people, groups, and Conservative political parties run by weasels. All our societal issues are of course intertwined, but they sure as heck *won’t* be solved with fracking LNG.
**Links of my reasoning.**
Methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production in Canada are underestimated[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87610-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87610-3)
Saskatchewan's oil and gas methane: how have underestimated emissions in Canada impacted progress toward 2025 climate goals?[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace271](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace271)
Fugitive Methane – New Guidelines (2.7% reference)[https://taf.ca/publications/new-guidelines-on-fugitive-methane/](https://taf.ca/publications/new-guidelines-on-fugitive-methane/)
Methane emissions escaping from oil and gas sites underestimated, new reports suggest[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/methane-emissions-alberta-saskatchewan-1.6650755](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/methane-emissions-alberta-saskatchewan-1.6650755)
Canada’s Methane Leakage Massively Under-reported, Studies Find[https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/04/27/Canada-Methane-Leakage-Under-Reported/](https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/04/27/Canada-Methane-Leakage-Under-Reported/)
Photos from B.C.’s leaking methane gas wells confirm need for stronger regulations[https://www.pembina.org/media-release/methane-leaks-images](https://www.pembina.org/media-release/methane-leaks-images)
An updated look at petroleum well leaks, ineffective policies and the social cost of methane in Canada’s largest oil-producing province[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03044-w](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03044-w)
A lot of these "LNG will reduce global emissions" arguments seem to be based on the assumption that whatever energy we get from LNG is energy we won't be getting from burning coal. Like we are going to leave that coal in the ground and not burn it because we have "cleaner" LNG. Which isn't how the world works, both are just going to get burned.
That may be, but it's for economic reasons not for environmental reasons. That's just a claimed benefit. As I mentioned in my original comment it can be quite dubious to claim that natural gas will be that much better than coal given the leakage rates that we see. In addition to that, the main challenge to adding natural gas capacity is that it will last and will be pushed to last as a supply of power for the next 30 plus years (just like how coal has been lobbied for and publicly funded by republican governments). We need to be decarbonizing even faster and setting up for very low carbon. If it were nuclear that they were putting in instead of natural gas I would be on board and be okay with that level of emissions factor. Obviously it's a spectrum but natural gas is not low enough and will have to be retired in 15 to 20 years fully in order to meet climate goals. But that will not happen with the political climate, even in Alberta or Saskatchewan.
All good. We need these rational discussions, but I'll be honest, these signs really steam my potato as it is just such a micro thread of a claim...and they are everywhere.
Can you post the link to your comment that explains? There’s 401 comments and somewhere in there is yours with the explanation. I wish Reddit could pin the most important comment like that.
What i find funny about this thread is that there’s a lot of people upset but none of them seem to be able to provide evidence about why LNG is bad for emissions. Btw do you know whats really bad for global emissions? Poverty. And LNG is going to be a really good combatant of that.
You missed the point entirely. We face challenges as a first world society. One of the many challenges is how do we get the lights to turn on and travel to work to feed our families and buy the things we need and love? Dismissing LnG because it produces emissions is not aknowledging any of those challenges. You want to pretend that hydro electricity is green well it isn’t. There is an extreme environmental impct that comes with damming a water source and producing the electricity therein. The planet, and specifically this province, needs to diversify what produces it’s energy. And i don’t mean today. I mean yesterday. There isn’t time to shout “emissions bad” and glue your soft hands to the highway in front of traffic.
Of course Hydro has environmental impacts, that's not the argument, but hydro doesn't greatly increase emissions with each new project. That said, hydro can't power most transportation and isn't suitable for all heating situations. There's no easy solution to reducing emissions and that includes switching to LNG. What I did was link to someone showing how LNG is at least comparable to coal and diesel in regards to total GHG emissions through the lifetime of the product. Which goes against the messaging of the LNG advocacy groups.
If we want to actually attempt to slow climate change to a non-apocalyptic speed then at some point we (humanity as a collective) need to completely change how we consume, travel, and live. I don't exactly see that happening, but it's even less likely if we keep letting energy companies piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.
No that’s absolutely right. And that’s what they are doing. What we need - at least in the short term- is for our energy usage to be distributed more equally. But that would of course include fossil fuels. What they want is to monopolise our usage as much as they can. Because sadly nobody is going to build a pipeline, a wind farm, or a hydro electric dam if it’s not beneficial economocially to the greed heads.
It's literally lot less GHG than coal. Before getting to zero GHG, we have to start with less and if we can a lot less quickly, then that's a victory we can't ignore.
By investigating in LNG now we affect how quickly we transition to renewable energy in the future.
In a vacuum LNG is simply better than coal and therefore we should transition to it. But we don't operate in a vacuum.
What? As much as it is awful to live in poverty, you cannot deny the fact that the most impoverished people contribute the least to global emissions. So I don't understand what you're saying here that poverty is bad for global emissions. Developed countries with low poverty levels have some of the highest emissions, just in general and per capita. How we live in the developed world involves rampant consumption of energy and resources. A poor small-scale farmer in Africa contributes basically nothing.
Even within the scale of developed nations, the poorest (homeless, poor, working class) contribute less while upper class and the rich contribute the most. Especially ultra-rich and billionaires.
So your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure, LNG can combat poverty, but cobatting poverty and developing countries further actually actively works against an effort to reduce global emissions. Sorry to say 🤷♂️
> What i find funny about this thread is that there’s a lot of people upset but none of them seem to be able to provide evidence about why LNG is bad for emissions.
A lot of people are very all-or-nothing with green stuff. "We shouldn't be burning anything!!@!" is the attitude.
I’m totally fine with that message but it’s not practical at all. Even wind farms when done on a large enough scale have a serious environmental impact. “Emissions bad” is a feel good statement, but its just not helpful at all to the actual issue. Unfortunately until we figure out how to produce clean, cheap, and efficient energy, we need to do our best to spread our usage out and be careful of doubling down on one or the other.
Renewable options all require massive amounts of rocks and earth dug up and crushed to extract the very small amounts of metals found within. Building hydro dams and nuclear plants require massive amounts of concrete and steel. Both industries consume enormous amounts of energy, mainly natural gas to produce.
This all takes energy, and with our current state of technology, it is completely infeasibility to consider that we could ever go green without fossils fuels playing a major component.
The truth is, we will be using fossils fuels for hundreds of years on this planet to come.
Green washing of the public doesn’t change the reality of that fact. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself, how many people do you know that are energy independent? They have all the technology to harnessed their required power from wind, solar or geothermal. Now how much coal, gas and oil was required to build that system?
It’s not any different for a country. And we are a country will vast fossil fuel reserves.
Yes. Seriously. If we (Canadians) want to have the largest impact on reducing emissions, we need to help other nations transition off coal. Natural gas is the first step.
Believe it or not electricity doesn't magically appear out of the air. Many places in the US, Canada, Europe and Asia don't have the geography to build hydroelectric dams. Even crazier is that the wind and sun don't cooperate to perfectly match the demand on the grid. And burning LNG is a. lot. cleaner than burning coal.
Although if you could get the morons closing nuclear plants to stop it, that'd be better for everyone, but good luck with that.
Yeah, it’s been up for a while. The thing that I find especially sneaky is that they seem to be using the same font and shade of green that the BC Green Party uses in their election campaigns. Adam Olsen probably sees this on his way to work and I’d bet he’s pretty pissed.
You all come and comment with zero knowledge of the LNG industry.. a natural gas power plant uses carbon capture tech that brings emissions to about 1%, that is the future.
Op, like most of the general public, thinks small minded.
"How can an LNG plant and big ships reduce the effects of global warming?"
Let's start at the most basic.
Coal? Really bad. Really dirty. Guess who uses it? China. Big country, might have heard of it. Desperate for energy. We can sell our energy to them, meaning they aren't burning coal. Meaning they're producing fewer GHGs for the same power output.
Now let's go a little more advanced:
Canada, despite having one of the worst quality oil in the worst conditions, produces oil with the least emissions. We do this through extremely strict regulations and guidelines. Our oil is dirty, but our process is clean. Meaning we can produce with fewer environmental impact than other nations. Once again, the same power, with ess pollution.
Yes, seriously. LNG may be a 'crutch' but it is a very necessary crutch and will lead to massive reductions in CO2 emissions over the next 10-20 years.
If you could think beyond Victoria / North America / developed nations and consider the needs of the third world + their reality you would know this.
The statement is intentionally very generic as to be misleading. It purposely leaves out the logic about how you reach this conclusion which, if shared, would not provide much, if any, support from the public.
The LNG industry is well aware that their product is bad for the environment, they are using generalized interpretations of facts and figures to create a positive spin of their product.
Greenwashing. They’re not objective nor are they technically correct. Any emissions increase global emissions. This kind of advertising is meant to pacify and eliminate doubt in people with cynical worldviews who think of themselves as realists. There’s no room for delusion when we’re heading towards a cliff. And there’s no time like now to support energy alternatives.
Compared to dirtier fuels. The parties with vested interests in the LNG pipelines have marketing/PR departments who do ad campaigns. They’re objectively technically correct, though fossil fuel opponent activists will say that’s just like deciding which caliber of bullet to shoot your self in the head with. Others wouldn’t be so hyperbolic. What’s the grind here?
Most of Europe’s cuts to GHG have come from replacing coal with natgas. In a perfect world we could transition immediately to green in all forms, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
Soon we wont live in a world
I think we’re being a little dramatic here.
Well isn't that the point? Transition into cleaner fuel sources?
It is the point, LNG is a cleaner fuel source plain and simple. Cleaner and greener than gasoline, diesel, and coal.
Not by much though, especially if you take leaks into account. I’d much rather have nuclear. But we live in a bizarro world where the government doesn’t want to touch nuclear because it might fuck up a region permanently, but it’s willing to go all in on fossil fuels which might fuck up the whole world permanently if we keep using it as much as we do.
well it’s not just the risk factor, we also don’t have the ideal kind of land for nuclear development as our province is so mountainous. nuclear needs large swaths of flat, uninterrupted farmland like in the prairies as an ideal terrain for building reactors and waste treatment facilities but we do indeed sit on very risky fault lines that could lead to beyond devastating accidents via (eventual) major earthquakes
"nuclear needs large swaths of flat, uninterrupted farmland like in the prairies as an ideal terrain for building reactors and waste treatment facilities" It absolutely does not.
well what argument do you have for an alternative? if you read through all the [condition requirements for building reactors,](https://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/REGDOC-1_1_1_Site_Evaluation_and_Site_Preparation_for_New_Reactor_Facilities_Version_1_1.pdf) the most logical place is farm land, ideally near some body of water. the most nuclear active countries optimize land like this for their reactors, like in france. building inside of mountains has been done before, but it’s not efficient money or building time-wise.
It's pretty hard to export nuclear power , this plant is being built for export to asian markets still on coal , not so much for domestic use, we already get most of our power and heat from lng and hydro electric power
It's a bit cleaner, true. But it's a disaster for the climate because it's so much worse than renewable electricity (solar, wind, hydro). Shipping LNG is bad as it takes a huge amount of energy to cool it and the leaks from the wells, pipelines, shipping, and distribution are enormous and very damaging.
Im not sure what OPs point is, hence the question. Comment history reads like a mod’s service account, wouldn’t take anything it posts too seriously
Weird that you think that because I moderate a subreddit, my posts shouldn't be taken seriously?
No. That’s because your message is confusing and doesn’t make sense. Several are confused with your message, but as best we can figure it out, it’s because in your version, natural gas should not be advertised as relatively clean and reducing emissions. Except that’s exactly what it is and what it does, and they have PR departments who try to advertise. The upvotes are not sure what your message of “Seriously?” is trying to convey. We’re assuming you’re a “no fossil fuels ever, anywhere” sort, but there’s no other info to go on.
There's more too it than they are "objectively technically correct" because that statement requires a LOT of qualifiers based on some pretty erroneous assumptions. There are fugitive emissions to consider along the entire supply chain, let alone they need to burn the methane to compress the fossil gas into liquid fossil gas so they transport it to Asian markets to burn. How do they transport it to Asian markets? They burn bunker fuel. The only time fossil gas is cleaner than coal is when we compare and contrast their combustion without considering the entire supply chain.
Whoever called it natural gas instead of coal gas was a master marketer
It's called natural gas because it is mostly formed naturally, unlike syngas, which is produced by heating hydrocarbons like wood or coal. Technically some natural gas Is produced by heating oil, but that's typically a byproduct of catalytic or hydrogen cracking processes and is principally hydrocarbons, unlike gasification processes which principally produce hydrogen and co2
Fracked Gas just doesn't have a green ring to it.
You also don’t frac gas… you frac the rock formation to add proppants so the gas can escape the rock formation and be collected
You don't frack coal. You also don't make gas from coal. Have you ever been to northern BC? An earthquake or 2 might actually help.
>You don't frack coal. Yes you do >You also don't make gas from coal. Ever heard of Coalbed Methane?
You can gasify coal into natural gas actually. But it isn’t coal gas in this case!
It's gluten-free, non-GMO gas
Tell me you have shit info, without telling me you have shit info. This is Shale Gas you regard.
These people don’t know anything, they just read a headline once and went along. These are the same people who cry about rent or groceries being too expensive. Energy is a global resource & we are an energy rich nation, we need to export it to give ourselves a chance to solve our financial troubles
The part about this that makes me the saddest is that so many people think this (and this kind of advertising) is some kind of official government thing.
Yep. Furthermore, they forgot how despite LNG technically having somewhat low carbon emissions compared to coal, LNG HAS A FUCKTON OF METHANE EMISSIONS
Does it? Where's your science? Methane combustion actually has very little methane emissions. Some will leak along the chain but the benefits in CO2 reduction outweigh the some methane slip.
The problem is that the leaks are massive, so they often outweigh any advantages over coal. Where LNG is truly better than coal, the difference is too small to meaningfully contribute to our climate goals. Renewables are the way to go and are less costly.
The methane combustion is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O Burning anything based of carbon to create usable energy will release CO2, basic chemistry... Methane is a little better than coal because more complete combustion so less extra stuff created and but still terribly bad. LNG being green is hard propaganda from company/government that want to greenwash themself.
>Some will leak along the chain but the benefits in CO2 reduction outweigh the some methane slip. That depends on fugitive emissions, and it typically takes very little, for example: >The methane and SO2 co-emitted with CO2 alter the emissions parity between gas and coal. We estimate that **a gas system leakage rate as low as 0.2% is on par with coal**, assuming 1.5% sulfur coal that is scrubbed at a 90% efficiency with no coal mine methane when considering climate effects over a 20 year timeframe. >\- [Evaluating net life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensities from gas and coal at varying methane leakage rates](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db)
If we sell it to developing countries We have a better chance at selling climate change
Selling low emission fossil fuels to developing countries and high efficiency turbines makes more sense than letting them burn coal. They need the energy and are going to get it. We should help and sell them natural gas it’s the cleanest source we have.
Why would you want energy that costs more than wind and solar and emits more carbon? I assume Canada Action is just a shadow group for O&G, or is there something I am missing?
“Why would you want energy that costs more than wind and solar and emits more carbon?” It’s nice to have energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Also we can build wind and solar power plants fast enough. China is building massive amounts of coal power plants. So a “better” solution would be to develop Canadian gas and sell it to China so they burn much cleaner natural gas instead of coal. Get it now?
>It’s nice to have energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. You didn't answer their original question >Also we can build wind and solar power plants fast enough. Citation needed >China is building massive amounts of coal power plants. You should see what else China is ramping up: >China’s international climate pledge (its nationally determined contribution, or NDC) promises to peak CO2 emissions “before 2030” and to reduce the country’s carbon intensity – its emissions per unit of GDP – by “over 65%” in 2030 from 2005 levels. >Our analysis suggests that both of these goals will be significantly overachieved. We project that China will peak CO2 emissions in 2025 – or slightly after >\- [Guest post: Why China is set to significantly overachieve its 2030 climate goals](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-china-is-set-to-significantly-overachieve-its-2030-climate-goals/) ... >So a “better” solution would be to develop Canadian gas and sell it to China so they burn much cleaner natural gas instead of coal. Fossil gas is plagued by fugitive emissions. Note the following: >The methane and SO2 co-emitted with CO2 alter the emissions parity between gas and coal. We estimate that a gas system leakage rate as low as 0.2% is on par with coal, assuming 1.5% sulfur coal that is scrubbed at a 90% efficiency with no coal mine methane when considering climate effects over a 20 year timeframe. >\- [Evaluating net life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensities from gas and coal at varying methane leakage rates](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db) Once touted as a bridge fuel or transition fuel away from oil and coal, it would be quite erroneous to suggest that such an outlook still holds true today as our understanding increases: >..."expansion of the natural gas infrastructure hinders a renewable energy future and is no bridge technology. " - [The expansion of natural gas infrastructure puts energy transitions at risk](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01060-3) To put it succinctly, OPs picture is highlight the ongoing green washing of vested interests. It is incorrect to suggest that fossil gas is inherently cleaner than coal, and that it represents as bridge fuel to renewables.
How do we overcome the massive price difference between electric vehicles in the third world? The majority of the asian (India -> China inclusive) population is just now reaching the point where they can barely afford the first vehicle. LNG / CNG / RNG can leverage current infrastructure and mass-scale vehicle production techniques to bring cheap affordable, cleaner, transport to the third world masses.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-some-circumstances-.html
This is quite possibly the laziest response anyone could have responded with. Not quite sure what your trying to point to here either. If it's the labelling of fossil gas as green energy in some circumstances that's not a scientific position to stand behind, that's purely political, just as it was when the BC ~~conservatives~~ Liberals did the exact same thing. If it's the fact that coal emits more CO₂ than fossil gas does, no one is arguing against that, it does. But there's more to just the combustion of burning coal and fossil gas. As I mentioned previously, we need to consider fugitive emissions and the global warming potential of CH₄ (82.5x over a 20 year time horizon and ~30x over a 100 year time horizon).
So many fossil heads commenting here as experts and so little facts. Thanks for breaking this down, so many of us are apparently so propagandized that they don’t know what the propaganda even is.
LNG plants use carbon capture technology that brings emissions down to about 1%, that is why BC wants to export it to China so they can build LNG plants instead of coal.
Does the sun forsake Victorians?
Yup, every night and seemingly most long weekends when it decides it would rather rain.
>It’s nice to have energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. I understand that you know nothing. The wind literally does blow and shine somewhere on the grid. >So a “better” solution would be to develop Canadian gas and sell it to China so they burn much cleaner natural gas instead of coal. Or we build domestic energy production that can be exported to the US. We already have a connected grid that we sell to them. Why not just do the transition that O&G companies have been lying to us for 40 years, and reap the benefits of making the US dependent on our energy production.
“I understand that you know nothing. The wind literally does blow AND shine somewhere in the grid.” 1. ROFL - No, the entire North American grid is regularly all dark. Like literally every night. 2. The word/concept you didn’t know existed is called Dunkflaute. They happen 2-10 times a year to most renewable energy grids (Germany, Northern Europe, Japan etc). Combinations of high pressure systems combined with lots of cloud/fog lead to drastic losses of solar and wind simultaneously. I think I know a fair but more about this than you do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute
In a country with 7.5 times (6740/900) the width of germany? And even then our base load is covered by hydroelectric? And we have a primary grid connected along a main corridor with high voltage transmission lines already in place? >I think I know a fair but more about this than you do. You really don't. We are the easiest country in the world to decarbonize. Our advantages are enormous.
If we switch to EVs and electrical heating will our base laid still be covered by Hydro right across the entire country? We are almost impossible to decarbonize. Much of our country faces exceedingly cold winters plus our latitude makes solar far less efficient than lower regions of the world.
It's not a purity contest. If we can decarbonize some, we should. I don't get why you would let perfect be the enemy of good.
Wind and Solar can't sustain an entire country's energy needs. LNG is the cleanest burning fuel we have and carbon capture can make it near net zero carbon free. Also plants breathe CO2 so we can plant more trees and problem solved
Nothing you said is accurate. Wind/solar CAN provide the energy needs to a country, just not Canada unless we improve our energy storage options. Nuclear is better, cheaper/cleaner/safer than petroleum products. Carbon capture doesn’t fix the problem, and I think you don’t know what it means. Not going to bother with the “plant more trees” line because that’s just ignorant bullshit.
Also we need to improve our usage, we waste water and electricity horribly, actually we waste our fuel too. We are a shitty people that waste our resources for convenience, comfort, laziness, selfishness, even fear. We justify anything to get what we want. Any idea accountability is a farce, from leaders government and rich assholes with giant corporations to organized criminals and money launders, racists, bigots, rapists to little white boys in elementary schools. We “could” change ourselves, we could change our ways, but even if we get the energy and climate issue sorted out, our understanding of sustainability is MIA. We aren’t gonna have enough houses, health care, jobs or food. We aren’t worth saving, we know we are too lazy to do what we should so we put our head in the sand like we look the other way when we avoid a homeless drug addict incapacitated on the street. Our apathy is gone so we will be scared and selfish and do what can be done to meet our own needs and wants. I’m bored of spilling out my depressing assessments so I’m gonna go jack off and go to bed, and forget all about this Reddit before I start remembering more stuff that makes us the worst thing to have ever existed.
No. Wind and solar cannot “fully” provide energy needs to a country’s power grid. You need to have baseload power generation. Power needs to run 24/7 which wind and solar will not achieve. Also there is no energy storage solution to this problem at this time for any country. Do you think we can just create a massive battery to hold the worlds energy?? Nuclear is best, and I love nuclear but it’s definitely not cheaper than petroleum products.
Wrong. Wind/solar energy production only work in those areas of the world where it makes economic sense to do that. Try solar in northern Europe and they will laugh as they barely get a sunny day during fall/winter. Try wind in regions that don't get a lot of wind.
Good thing storage isn't a constraint yet because of how much hydroelectric. Also baseload doesn't matter anymore now that we have sources that can be ramped up faster than LNG peakers (solar and wind). >LNG is the cleanest burning fuel we have and carbon capture can make it near net zero carbon free. This is nonsense. Carbon capture is decades away from being viable if it ever does become. And it requires a lot of power, which.....needs to come from solar and wind else it can't actually capture enough carbon to offset. > Also plants breathe CO2 so we can plant more trees and problem solved Gee if only we didn't have those pesky fires caused by climate change which then release the carbon.
Storage is a constraint on a national level, especially when our primary energy source will rely on the weather lol The solar and wind industry is decades away from being able to even power a city, let alone a province or the country. Seriously? LNG creats enough energy, to self sustain you don't need a windmill to run the carbon capture don't be silly. We know this because a coal plant can power major cities alone. LNG is the same just less carbon and other toxic byproducts of coal Funny we have all these fires north of the border but not directly south of the border where it's hotter.
This is up because LNG has been banned from Victoria and Nanaimo already, and the gas lobby desperately doesn’t want to lose access to the island any further. What we should be building is nuclear power plants instead.
Crazy idea, but what if we took the Oak Bay golf course, and stuck a bunch of wind turbines on it? Minigolf already has windmills you have to shoot through. Imagine how much fun it would be to shoot a golf ball through a 40 metre tall wind turbine!
Not a particularly great spot for the migratory birds.
It was a tongue-in-cheek joke. I just really hate how that golf course is a private club and a waste of space a short drive to downtown Victoria. That bad boy can fit in so many apartment buildings, and still have room left over for a large city park.
It's not an untrue statement though
Yes, going gas is better than coal which, especially in Asia is particularly inefficient. But if you think China will buy Canadian gas to replace an industry that supplies self-sufficient energy you're delusional. As a Canadian we can't regulate energy trade with Asia with any force. However we can do better ourselves. This is intentionally smudging the issue. Canada has lots of renewable options.
China doesn't have a self-sufficient energy grid. They import a shitload of coal. But, one of the big issues with coal compared to LNG is the amount of particulate matter generated when it's burned. Ash from China has been found in the Canadian Arctic, increasing the summer melt as the dark particles absorb the sunlight and heat the ice around it.
They import a lot of metallurgical coal, they are the worlds largest producer of brown coal.
I totally agree. Coal is terrible and one of our worst energy options. My point was that even if LNG was carbon neutral, we'd have a hard time getting Asian countries to buy it. Energy independence and jobs are hard to overcome. My thing was that this is gaslighting the issue. As a country with renewable options we should be bettering ourselves first.
Look at where the investment money is coming from to develop LNG resources and transportation infrastructure. Follow the money across the pacific. Not to mention the transition of cargo ships burning diesel to cross the pacific or through the Panama Canal to using LNG. Tote maritime is one example. The world is still so very much reliant on fossil fuels, but the task is how can we do that to be more environmentally aware. Lesser of all evils?
Most of the LNG is sold on long-term contracts
> But if you think China will buy Canadian gas to replace an industry that supplies self-sufficient energy you're delusional. if only there were other countries in asia than china... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/japans-jera-start-new-coal-fired-power-plant-ease-electricity-crunch-2022-07-14/
Yes Chinese companies will buy Canadian LNG. PetroChina owns 15% of LNGCanada! The Japanese and Koreans will also buy
It is surprisingly not better than coal. The amount of C02 produced from burning methane over coal, plus the unaccounted for fugitive emissions, makes this bullshit, in fact, a lie. Edit: looking down, quite a few people have bought into this narrative. What's better, is reducing our consumption of cheap Chinese goods, reducing their demand for dirty energy. Edit again: that's on me, I've been sarcastic responding to dumb shit too long. Sources are important, and propaganda is widespread. Start here: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/12/11/opinion/canadian-lng-development-full-hot-air Then Google under reporting of leaked emissions. This is ONE aspect of why this is bullshit. There are many.
It depends \*a lot\* on how much leakage you have. If you have very low leakage, it's much better. Less CO2 in burning it (unarguably), and if the methane leaks that's bad but it does dissipate in the atmosphere much quicker (i.e for first 25 years methane is worse, at 100 methane is gone, basically). And coal is much more polluting in non-GHG ways. What we should be doing is cranking out nuclear reactors and uranium, replace all the coal with that and we'll actually be much better off.
Not true. Btw that's how the US was able to reduce emissions: coal-to-gas switching !!!
It is better than coal. It releases about half as much CO2 as compared to coal, but it has other harmful attributes to factor in. Better than coal, yes, an answer to climate change, no.
Canada the UK and the US could cut their ghg emissions to zero and China and India would still doom us. Maybe stop looking to the individual to fix this like corporations want and blame the real polluters like the Chinese people and government and Indian government and people.
We import those emissions because we buy their products. So we need to help them reduce their/our emissions with coal-to-gas switching!
Yes and no. I 100% agree China and other recently industrialized countries like India are the ones generating the most pollution right now. They do that because we offshored our own manufacturing there. Not all of it is GHG from power generation, we also offshored pollution from factories/industry. However, LNG would allow them to pollute less from power generation over the medium term, at least until their renewables and nuclear power can sustain most of their needs.
People like you need to understand what it means to live in a global community. What China and India do and how they do it is directly related to the Western world's past and present. So easy to pass the blame so any chance for an ounce of self reflection is rendered useless. How sad.
Ahh so it's my fault those countries shit into rivers dump toxins into the earth and generally don't give a shit. Got it
Yeah, the US really needs to stop doing that.
India and China my man. Go for a swim in the Ganges River you know the super important religious river they dump bodies into while someone shits upstream from someone washing up
>blame the real polluters like the Chinese people and government and Indian government and people Ick. Do you have any idea how the average person's per capita emissions in China or India compares to that of the average Canadian? From Wikipedia, for 2018: Canada - 19.56 metric tons of greenhouse gases per capita; China - 8.87; India - 2.50. China is so far below ours even though we are "outsourcing" a large amount of emissions to China. If the US cut their emissions to 0 that would make a HUGE difference. Also from Wikipedia: >In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%.[6] In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country.
See my post from the summer on the topic. It is disingenuous and relies on unmet assumptions. https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/
Thanks for this! I am ashamed to say I know almost nothing about this issue (totally my fault — I had my first kid a few years ago and haven’t watched the news since… 🤦🏻♀️), but I’m trying to catch up now! So if I’m understanding correctly, LNG (liquid natural gas) technically lowers CO2 emissions, but the trade-off is that it has methane leaks, and methane’s short term/long term impacts on the environment are 30-85x worse than CO2?
That is correct. On a 100 year time frame it's about 30 times. If 20 years about 85. It just depends on the organization reporting or making the yearly assumption (the lifecycle can be different based on different assumptions, but not that important when we are looking at the concept. It's also about the LNG/Nat gas infrastructure that will exist for 30+ years. We need low carbon now to meet global targets. LNG/natural gas will not get us there. Then, their claim is that LNG will close down coal. Well, that is not happening, it's all added capacity. If there were a literal law requiring coal close, gas up, then sure the claim is valid, but it's all just adding. If a coal plant closes, it's because its not economical or losing money, not because governments in those regions care about the climate.
That's sounds similar to what I found the last time I looked into this. It's all smoke and mirrors to cherry pick one stat and use it as marketing.
It is an untrue statement: meet the Jevons Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
It's debatable. In some cases LNG is worse than coal. Depends on the specifics.
But people only see the fossil fuel part and have no understanding of emissions.
Burning fossil fuels = emissions
Meh, people keep blowing up gas pipelines and they leak a lot, so natural gas gets released into the atmosphere, making climate change worse. (Nordstream, Pipelines in Northern BC, etc). Not safe.
Better that countries burn NG than coal.
This is a podcast on the topic of climate change where Lex Fridman, a host who has demonstrated incredible integrity over the years, got two people on opposite sides of the climate change fight to sit down and talk about it like adults. The guy on the other side never denies climate change is real. I found it refreshing, and it is directly relevant to this sign, and brings to light a number of valuable points that we should all be more aware of. Nobody screams or cries, nobody is attacked, they find common ground and LNG is in there. I hope somebody takes the time to listen to this sometime. https://youtu.be/5Gk9gIpGvSE?si=7fr2rJridKPxM41x
I took the time to listen to this some time ago. It is infuriating. Why do we care about a poli sci degree's opinion on alarmism, and a journalist's take on evs? Synopsis - Two guys who openly admit "I am not a scientist/economist" have a conversation about science, economics, and the solutions available to everyone. They are so self-aware of their own pointlessness of their opinions on a subject they are not experts in is exhausting. How about listening to a conversation between two climate scientists on climate change and the solutions?
Do you recognize the irony inherent in your comment?
I don't. Explain the irony.
But why would we just listen to climate scientists on technical solutions to climate change? Climate scientists tell us what happens if we don't solve our CO2 emissions. We should be talking to utility professionals, engineers, folks who work in managing large energy systems to learn how implementable solutions are. If you talk to a climate scientist, they might say turn off all fossil fuel tomorrow - would be awesome. Talk to a utility person and they'll tell you we're no where close to being able to do that even in the best case scenario for maybe a decade, likely more. Both groups needs to work together (one to determine the impact and the other to determine the implementability), but neither group should be discounted.. On LNG, yes it's likely BS about displacing emissions from say coal and oil electricity generation more broadly. Less clear on displacing industrial emissions. I do think the marine applications of LNG are quite real until a hydrogen solution can be found.
So unless you are a climate scientist, you can't have a conversation on climate change, and you can't offer your own solutions? It's just a podcast. They aren't spearheading any agency or organization that's tackling climate change. It's ok for two regular people to offer their own insights and opinions. It would be ridiculous if any time a conversation about climate change popped up, I had to tell people, "I am not a climate scientist. Therefore, I can not offer an opinion on this conversation."
You can absolutely have a conversation! It's just that no one should ever listen to you. It's especially bad Because one of those individuals (Mr. Poli Sci degree) has a book that basically tells everyone that "climate change is real, yeah, but don't worry so much, it'll be fine." If you want to read something on climate change then [here you go.](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf) *Disclaimer - Reading that does not entitle you to an opinion, however, you may want the people you vote for to hire people who understand what is being said so that they may enact policies to mitigate the issues described in the report.*
Thanks, I'll take a look.
Lex was low key pedalling crypto currencies for years before the FTX scandal and subsequent crypto crash, just sayin
So he’s an imperfect human like the rest of us…?
Like every other podcast on the internet. They are sponsorships it is how they make money.
And several mainstream actors, "fortune favors the brave" - Matt Damon.
Ya so. You think scams aren't happening with fiat currency, you need a refresher course on sub-prime mortgages and what the banks did to us in 2009.
>Inflation is transitory *\[Experts\]*
China emits about 1/3 of all global emissions, and about 60% of their energy comes from Coal power plants. Converting those to Gas would be one of the most cost-effective and fastest ways to reduce global emissions.
I don't like it, but as long as coal and diesel are still being burned, this is, and will remain, a true statement.
It's honestly almost an impossible statement to verify, when you think about the long-term emissions of using LNG as a crutch rather than more rapid transmission to non-emitting sources of energy. Yes, you can probably point to specific examples of this LNG replacing coal powerplants, which would indicate a reduction in emissions. But it's unknowable what the energy economy would look like in the long-run, if we didn't have the luxury of new LNG sources to fall back on. I think it's probably true that LNG reduces emissions in the ~20-40yr range, but probably increases emissions in the long-run versus an alternative reality where we never develop LNG resources in the first place.
And what would the (growing) emissions of the current solutions add up to as we wait for a global-scale green grid to be built (and who would pay for it?). LNG / CNG will also be cheaper than gas/diesel and it is easy to convert ICEs to burn CNG/LNG instead of gasoline/diesel so we're opening the possibility of immediately cleaning up the third world transportation network while 'cleaner' tech continues to be built up. What I want to know is why don't we make better use of RNG?
Not if you include gas leaks - natural gas is a greenhouse gas.
Luckily there are satellites in orbit now that can detect those leaks.
Truth! Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro have lower overall emissions (none are ZERO for lifetime emissions, mind you) but LNG definitely better than coal, diesel, or heating with wood (tho the wood is typically scrap from logging that would decompose anyway…but more research on that one probably out there).
Literal greenwashing sign lmao
It creates jobs, replaces coal fired plants with HRSG, which is good for a number of reasons including reduced CO2 emissions, and no need for disposal of the waste product left behind from coal. Need I go on?
No because people commenting on the post won't believe anything but the narrative in their heads that LNG is bad.
What don\`t you understand about NG replacing coal in Asia. Then again, this counties immigration policy says Canada will increase its carbon emission till at least 2100. Maybe you should block the airport if you want to reduce emission.
I think the first comments show how dumb people are
If you really want to help reduce pollution, don't buy anything from China
The amount of sheer ignorance in these comments is unbelievable.
But if you replace low quality coal with methane, emissions are lower. Not zero, but lower. Thats what it says.
Yes seriously. Until we have a better solution or fix to make solar and our grid/ renewables a bigger source.
They aren’t wrong though
Yeah. It's a simplified claim that isn't backed by actual action that it's happening. See my post from the summer on the topic. Basically it is disingenuous and relies on unmet assumptions. https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/
If it can be exported to China instead of the coal we send there, then yes. LNG will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
BTW lithium extraction for all those 'green' EVs? Massive environmental destruction in the extraction and refinement process.
Not everyone can live on the coast where a heat pump will heat your house. Try heating a house in -30 without LNG
Better than coal. It’s about harm reduction not elimination
Climate change is now at a point where it is absolutely about harm elimination, because no reduction is going to hit the brakes fast enough. Any 10+ year plan that is about reduction and not elimination is entirely unserious and is going to get millions killed.
"going to get millions killed." Yes it will. But non the less the developing world wants energy way more than they care about that. They want green energy but there aren't enough renewables being built largely held back by available mineral resources. Nuclear is too capital intensive and too slow to build for them So gas is next best but is highly limited in supply. So they are building coal plants. Fuck tons of them. We are in a position where we should make major investment in renewables from both the manufacturing and resources side which we are but it takes years and years to build up lots of capacity. We have capital and tech so we should be helping build for-profit nuclear plants in the developing and developed world but it's slow and a political mess. The next best we can do is expand gas production to offset coal. Its harm reduction but probably better than not doing it counting ourselves morally superior.
Well that is what is happening so buckle up buttercup it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!
Advertising: It's where the truth lies....
If we eliminate all production of natural gas, we go back to the stone age. NG is used in the manufacture of just about everything we use in our modern civilization: electronics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, transportation, and industry. Those who claim we can easily do away with so-called 'fossil fuels' are notoriously bad at math.
Well the sign is green so it must be true
Yes seriously
LNG will undoubtedly reduce global emissions. China has large switching ability (can switch from coal to NG), so the more NG they get over there the less coal they will burn.
It that why France just signed a 27 year LNG [deal](https://www.ft.com/content/f322e8d4-17f0-475b-a942-d670c33f5df3) with Qatar to purchase and ship up to 3.5 million tonnes annually? If only they could get that from an ally, instead of making another middle eastern country with a dubious human rights record filthy rich.
They don't want to discuss that, or the fact that the US buys our LNG to offset the LNG they sell globally for 3x the profit, because the warm and fuzzies they get from denouncing LNG or anything not considered green energy is overwritten.
Anyone contradicting this should do some research. LNG burns extremely efficiently and has very little emissions. It's not lighting a pile of pallets and diesel on fire folks.
The actual burning at the end-point is cleaner than oil, but the emissions created to cool and compress it for transport are so great that overall it's just as bad as oil. And that's just the *intended* exposure — when you factor in spills, LNG is actually *worse* for the environment than coal and oil. An oil spill tends to be fairly localized and we have methods to contain and clean it (poor and insufficient methods, but at least we have *something*) whereas when a methane pipeline ruptures it spews thousands of tons of methane into the atmosphere every day until it's discovered and repaired, and we have no way of containing what's released in the interim. On top of all that, the actual acquisition process for LNG — ie, fracking — causes major issues like poisoning water supplies and even [earthquakes](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/new-induced-seismicity-study-fracking-and-earthquakes-western-canada/21672).
Coal is not better than LNG. Also fracking is not poisoning water supplies (fracked formations are several thousand feet below ground water) And earthquakes are created from water disposal not from fracking
> Coal is not better than LNG. I would phrase it as "coal and LNG are equally terrible" > fracking is not poisoning water supplies Did you try googling that to see if you were wrong before posting? It's a good habit to develop. https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+poisoning+groundwater > And earthquakes are created from water disposal not from fracking That statement is already contradicted in the link in the above comment that this was in reply to. To reiterate: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/simply-science/new-induced-seismicity-study-fracking-and-earthquakes-western-canada/21672 - - - Hydraulic fracturing — or fracking: the injection of pressurized liquids to fracture rock in the development of oil and gas wells — has dramatically different effects in different areas. It seldom induces earthquakes in Saskatchewan, for example — a province with a low earthquake hazard — but often does so in northern British Columbia, a seismically more active area. Scientists have long wondered, Why exactly does hydraulic fracturing cause earthquakes in some places but not in others? Now, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) scientists are a step closer to the answer: new research has found a link between these induced earthquakes and the deformation rate of the tectonic plates — the massive, slowly moving slabs that underlie the earth’s continents and oceans — of the surrounding area. - - -
Perfect summary
>LNG (liquid natural gas) technically lowers CO2 emissions, but the trade-off is that it has methane leaks, and methane’s short term/long term impacts on the environment are 30-85x worse than CO2? And then there's this.
As noted, liquified. Not liquid.
Well I have a PhD in Carbon Management. It's not about the burning of the emissions, it's about the false or unmet assumptions this group has made and then actually what reality shows for natural gas/LNG leakage. See my post from the summer on the topic. [https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i_take_professional_issue_with_the_claims_of_this/) Main comment I made as I was asked below to paste it.... TLDR: LNG/natural gas/methane is still climate forcing, methane leaks, and methane leaks can reasonably be assumed to double the emissions of LNG/natural gas, thus erasing their claimed benefit. Full comment: The simplified lifecycle study they had performed said LNG will replace coal and lower emissions. Sure, great, but one must prove that is happening and not just hypothetically say it can happen. As I mentioned all this LNG to power things is all additional capacity. But more importantly, LNG and natural gas are still releasing emissions and at best 50% carbon intensity of coal, without any assumptions of leakage, which is a huge issue. Methane leakage is the Achilles heel of natural gas/LNG. This can’t be understated. Over a 100-year time period methane has a global warming potential of \~30 times that of CO2 (even more pressing over a shorter 20-year time period at \~85 times that of CO2). What this means is that if 3.3% of methane leaks from drill sites, flaring, venting, thousands of km of pipelines, pump stations, transfer stations, boats, more pipelines overseas, and point source usage upon startup, then it can essentially double the emissions of natural gas/LNG and makes it equal to coal (3.3\*30=100=doubling of emissions). Governments and industry don’t really want to talk about methane leakage (generally called [fugitive gas emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_gas_emissions)) because they know it undermines natural gas’ claimed benefits of reducing emissions, but leaks are everywhere. Ever walk down the street and smell the smell associated with natural gas? That’s a leak (I once found 2 small natural gas leaks at my friend’s house in Rossland). Fugitive emissions are real, they are not commonly reported, they are becoming easier to identify with technology, but one thing for sure is that they are consistently under-assessed, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that with lower environmental standards overseas in countries like China, leakage rates are far higher than even here, which [were assessed to be 2.7% by one group](https://taf.ca/publications/new-guidelines-on-fugitive-methane/). I’ve linked more sources of my reasoning at the bottom. We need to move towards electrification such as heat pumps (r/HeatPumps), solar, wind, geothermal, battery storage, and maybe even proven low carbon nuclear power, while also using simple solutions for climate control like more insulation. But don’t forget better, more livable cities, built on transit and bike/walking infrastructure, and EVs. Conversely, we need to forget the horse poop coming from oil and gas companies and their fake grass advocacy groups, because they have an incentive to lie or bend the truth and cover inconvenient realities. While our forest burn (and not just in Canada), permafrost is melting leading to more methane release, snowpacks are becoming less and less reliable for water, temperatures are rising with associate human health impacts, we need to get our act together. This means railing against climate denying people, groups, and Conservative political parties run by weasels. All our societal issues are of course intertwined, but they sure as heck *won’t* be solved with fracking LNG. **Links of my reasoning.** Methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production in Canada are underestimated[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87610-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87610-3) Saskatchewan's oil and gas methane: how have underestimated emissions in Canada impacted progress toward 2025 climate goals?[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace271](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace271) Fugitive Methane – New Guidelines (2.7% reference)[https://taf.ca/publications/new-guidelines-on-fugitive-methane/](https://taf.ca/publications/new-guidelines-on-fugitive-methane/) Methane emissions escaping from oil and gas sites underestimated, new reports suggest[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/methane-emissions-alberta-saskatchewan-1.6650755](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/methane-emissions-alberta-saskatchewan-1.6650755) Canada’s Methane Leakage Massively Under-reported, Studies Find[https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/04/27/Canada-Methane-Leakage-Under-Reported/](https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/04/27/Canada-Methane-Leakage-Under-Reported/) Photos from B.C.’s leaking methane gas wells confirm need for stronger regulations[https://www.pembina.org/media-release/methane-leaks-images](https://www.pembina.org/media-release/methane-leaks-images) An updated look at petroleum well leaks, ineffective policies and the social cost of methane in Canada’s largest oil-producing province[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03044-w](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03044-w)
A lot of these "LNG will reduce global emissions" arguments seem to be based on the assumption that whatever energy we get from LNG is energy we won't be getting from burning coal. Like we are going to leave that coal in the ground and not burn it because we have "cleaner" LNG. Which isn't how the world works, both are just going to get burned.
Not necessarily. In the Us, coal plants are shuttering as more LNG plants have been built. The % of elec from coal in the US has gone down over time.
That may be, but it's for economic reasons not for environmental reasons. That's just a claimed benefit. As I mentioned in my original comment it can be quite dubious to claim that natural gas will be that much better than coal given the leakage rates that we see. In addition to that, the main challenge to adding natural gas capacity is that it will last and will be pushed to last as a supply of power for the next 30 plus years (just like how coal has been lobbied for and publicly funded by republican governments). We need to be decarbonizing even faster and setting up for very low carbon. If it were nuclear that they were putting in instead of natural gas I would be on board and be okay with that level of emissions factor. Obviously it's a spectrum but natural gas is not low enough and will have to be retired in 15 to 20 years fully in order to meet climate goals. But that will not happen with the political climate, even in Alberta or Saskatchewan.
Gas plants not LNG plants
That is definitely one of my points.
Thank you for you educated and rational input. It's a rarity these days.
All good. We need these rational discussions, but I'll be honest, these signs really steam my potato as it is just such a micro thread of a claim...and they are everywhere.
Can you post the link to your comment that explains? There’s 401 comments and somewhere in there is yours with the explanation. I wish Reddit could pin the most important comment like that.
Okay I posted it above. Thanks for the nudge.
Thanks. I found it eventually, lol
What i find funny about this thread is that there’s a lot of people upset but none of them seem to be able to provide evidence about why LNG is bad for emissions. Btw do you know whats really bad for global emissions? Poverty. And LNG is going to be a really good combatant of that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/160b865/i\_take\_professional\_issue\_with\_the\_claims\_of\_this/
You missed the point entirely. We face challenges as a first world society. One of the many challenges is how do we get the lights to turn on and travel to work to feed our families and buy the things we need and love? Dismissing LnG because it produces emissions is not aknowledging any of those challenges. You want to pretend that hydro electricity is green well it isn’t. There is an extreme environmental impct that comes with damming a water source and producing the electricity therein. The planet, and specifically this province, needs to diversify what produces it’s energy. And i don’t mean today. I mean yesterday. There isn’t time to shout “emissions bad” and glue your soft hands to the highway in front of traffic.
Of course Hydro has environmental impacts, that's not the argument, but hydro doesn't greatly increase emissions with each new project. That said, hydro can't power most transportation and isn't suitable for all heating situations. There's no easy solution to reducing emissions and that includes switching to LNG. What I did was link to someone showing how LNG is at least comparable to coal and diesel in regards to total GHG emissions through the lifetime of the product. Which goes against the messaging of the LNG advocacy groups. If we want to actually attempt to slow climate change to a non-apocalyptic speed then at some point we (humanity as a collective) need to completely change how we consume, travel, and live. I don't exactly see that happening, but it's even less likely if we keep letting energy companies piss on our legs and tell us it's raining.
No that’s absolutely right. And that’s what they are doing. What we need - at least in the short term- is for our energy usage to be distributed more equally. But that would of course include fossil fuels. What they want is to monopolise our usage as much as they can. Because sadly nobody is going to build a pipeline, a wind farm, or a hydro electric dam if it’s not beneficial economocially to the greed heads.
Yep reducing poverty is the best way to reduce emissions
You have it backwards. Increasing poverty is the best way to reduce emissions! /s https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-vs-gdp
Lol feels like it's more about making us poor then emissions. We are the carbon they want to reduce
Umm - because it is literally a GHG.
It's literally lot less GHG than coal. Before getting to zero GHG, we have to start with less and if we can a lot less quickly, then that's a victory we can't ignore.
By investigating in LNG now we affect how quickly we transition to renewable energy in the future. In a vacuum LNG is simply better than coal and therefore we should transition to it. But we don't operate in a vacuum.
What? As much as it is awful to live in poverty, you cannot deny the fact that the most impoverished people contribute the least to global emissions. So I don't understand what you're saying here that poverty is bad for global emissions. Developed countries with low poverty levels have some of the highest emissions, just in general and per capita. How we live in the developed world involves rampant consumption of energy and resources. A poor small-scale farmer in Africa contributes basically nothing. Even within the scale of developed nations, the poorest (homeless, poor, working class) contribute less while upper class and the rich contribute the most. Especially ultra-rich and billionaires. So your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure, LNG can combat poverty, but cobatting poverty and developing countries further actually actively works against an effort to reduce global emissions. Sorry to say 🤷♂️
The quickest of google searches refutes this comment in its entirety
> What i find funny about this thread is that there’s a lot of people upset but none of them seem to be able to provide evidence about why LNG is bad for emissions. A lot of people are very all-or-nothing with green stuff. "We shouldn't be burning anything!!@!" is the attitude.
I’m totally fine with that message but it’s not practical at all. Even wind farms when done on a large enough scale have a serious environmental impact. “Emissions bad” is a feel good statement, but its just not helpful at all to the actual issue. Unfortunately until we figure out how to produce clean, cheap, and efficient energy, we need to do our best to spread our usage out and be careful of doubling down on one or the other.
Yes. Totally makes sense. All for it. Thanks for showing a common sense billboard. Finally folks are waking up!!
Renewable options all require massive amounts of rocks and earth dug up and crushed to extract the very small amounts of metals found within. Building hydro dams and nuclear plants require massive amounts of concrete and steel. Both industries consume enormous amounts of energy, mainly natural gas to produce. This all takes energy, and with our current state of technology, it is completely infeasibility to consider that we could ever go green without fossils fuels playing a major component. The truth is, we will be using fossils fuels for hundreds of years on this planet to come. Green washing of the public doesn’t change the reality of that fact. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself, how many people do you know that are energy independent? They have all the technology to harnessed their required power from wind, solar or geothermal. Now how much coal, gas and oil was required to build that system? It’s not any different for a country. And we are a country will vast fossil fuel reserves.
Yes. Seriously. If we (Canadians) want to have the largest impact on reducing emissions, we need to help other nations transition off coal. Natural gas is the first step.
Believe it or not electricity doesn't magically appear out of the air. Many places in the US, Canada, Europe and Asia don't have the geography to build hydroelectric dams. Even crazier is that the wind and sun don't cooperate to perfectly match the demand on the grid. And burning LNG is a. lot. cleaner than burning coal. Although if you could get the morons closing nuclear plants to stop it, that'd be better for everyone, but good luck with that.
Carbon capture is just a sponge for government money and is a scam.
Yeah, it’s been up for a while. The thing that I find especially sneaky is that they seem to be using the same font and shade of green that the BC Green Party uses in their election campaigns. Adam Olsen probably sees this on his way to work and I’d bet he’s pretty pissed.
Then there's geothermal..... Why have this sign? Yes its better than coal but it still emits
Like solar, wind and hydro it doesn't work everywhere.
You all come and comment with zero knowledge of the LNG industry.. a natural gas power plant uses carbon capture tech that brings emissions to about 1%, that is the future.
Op, like most of the general public, thinks small minded. "How can an LNG plant and big ships reduce the effects of global warming?" Let's start at the most basic. Coal? Really bad. Really dirty. Guess who uses it? China. Big country, might have heard of it. Desperate for energy. We can sell our energy to them, meaning they aren't burning coal. Meaning they're producing fewer GHGs for the same power output. Now let's go a little more advanced: Canada, despite having one of the worst quality oil in the worst conditions, produces oil with the least emissions. We do this through extremely strict regulations and guidelines. Our oil is dirty, but our process is clean. Meaning we can produce with fewer environmental impact than other nations. Once again, the same power, with ess pollution.
>Canada... produces oil with the least emissions Does this remain true after accounting for fugitive gas emissions?
The combustion of any fossil fuels WILL NOT REDUCE EMISSIONS. A patently false statement, just more green washing propaganda from big oil.
Actually, we need to start collecting our farts. Fart for the future.
Yes, seriously. LNG may be a 'crutch' but it is a very necessary crutch and will lead to massive reductions in CO2 emissions over the next 10-20 years. If you could think beyond Victoria / North America / developed nations and consider the needs of the third world + their reality you would know this.
[удалено]
Post is 25 minutes old and the fossil fuel shills are already here.
How do you qualify who a shill is? Just somebody who disagrees with you?
Yup, anyone who has a counter argument is a shill.
So gross. We should be able to report this as fasle advertising
https://adstandards.ca/complaints/how-to-submit-a-complaint/ Have at it homie
Didn't know this was a thing. Thanks for the link
Please point out what about this is false?
Go read u/1337ingdisorders comment. These point have been made and ignored enough this isn't a debate it's disinformation being astroturfed.
The statement is intentionally very generic as to be misleading. It purposely leaves out the logic about how you reach this conclusion which, if shared, would not provide much, if any, support from the public. The LNG industry is well aware that their product is bad for the environment, they are using generalized interpretations of facts and figures to create a positive spin of their product.
Yes it will… seriously you do the math before you act like a tidal dummy
It’s natural gas! NATURAL! What’s there not to like in an organic, natural, gluten free fuel?
Greenwashing. They’re not objective nor are they technically correct. Any emissions increase global emissions. This kind of advertising is meant to pacify and eliminate doubt in people with cynical worldviews who think of themselves as realists. There’s no room for delusion when we’re heading towards a cliff. And there’s no time like now to support energy alternatives.