this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
946 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59559 readers
4012 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

The only thing that's keeping carbon-free power from growing faster is natural gas, which is the fastest-growing source of generation at the moment, going from 40 percent of the year-to-date total in 2022 to 43.3 percent this year. (It's actually slightly below that level in the October data.) The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years.

Uh... So, listen. I work in the Nat Gas sector. And while I'm happy to confirm that its far cleaner, easier/safer to transport, and more efficient than coal and liquid oil, I'm going to have to pump the breaks on the enthusiasm. We are definitely not "emissions-free". One of the larger investments we've made, in the last few years, has been in detecting gas leaks along our existing lines and plugging them. And we definitely still flare off excess and lose reserves during transit as circumstances dictate.

Way back in the 1970s a small upstart energy company known as Exxon had one of its engineering departments estimate the ecological impact of drilling into the East Natuna gas field off the coast of Indonesia. This was primarily a natural gas reserve, accessible without the modern fracking and cracking techniques used throughout the Permian and Delphi Basins.

Senior scientist of Exxon, James Black, authored a report estimating the impact of drilling and burning off the fuel in the East Natuna reserve, and concluded it would result in a significant increase in global temperatures. This lead Exxon to commission further studies, in the late 70s and early 80s, to estimate the full impact of their drilling and refining practices. The end result was a model of climate change that has mapped neatly to current climate trends

I say this because while natural gas is relatively cleaner, it is by no means clean. And with the increasing rate of energy consumption occurring globally, our reliance on natural gas is decidedly not contributing to an emissions free future.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that natural gas is emissions-free.

6% Solar + 6% Hydro + 10% Wind + 18% Nuclear = 40% "emissions-free"

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They certainly exist. There was a Dutch guy in another post bragging about his micro-nation being 100% emissions free because he kept seeing his government bragging about being "100% green energy," while the supermajority of their electricity was generated with natural gas (being the only significant fossil fuels they had and it being relatively easy to source from neighbors)

The point isn't there was one guy who fell for it, the point is there will be people mistaking natural gas for actual green energy instead of just being less harmful, or being unaware of what's actually producing their electricity simply because there is a deliberate effort to mislead people about it by, among other things, conflating terminology like "green" and "emission free."

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the 40%, you have to infer it. But when you do, it isn't natural gas, but solar + wind + hydro + nuclear.

This is actually fantastic news. 40% renewable, 40% natural gas, and 20% coal is a huge step in the right direction.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the 40%

I thought the chart was pretty clear. Although I guess they could’ve color coded it.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I think color coding it would've helped a bit yeah. Especially if they used the same color for wind and hydro and solar and nuclear. Otherwise you read 40% in the headline and the first thing which draws your attention is 44% natural gas

[–] Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Here's some overtime graphs up to 2020:

image

image

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks for continuing to prove why weevils are the best beetles.