Natural gas is cleaner and a valuable bridge fuel. It has helped to significantly lower U.S. emissions. Far bette than any of the Paris Accord countries. Why are you so down on lower emissions?
member Shady, you need to exercise caution in your broad, sweeping reliance on the term "bridge"... the bridge-to-nowhere labeling still applies to natural gas, save certain conditions being met in terms of, for example, methane leakage, impacts on aquifers, fracturing impacts, waste management, water diversion/reduction, etc..
'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation
notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).
Home
Contact
Login
Register