this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
70 points (89.8% liked)

World News

39011 readers
2773 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13941188

The paper is here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] marcos@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yet another study that didn't bother looking at emissions in mining and processing of coal, just on the ones from natural gas.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is this true? Can someone cross-check it?

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's stated right there on the paper's abstract.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Maybe I'm stupid but I don't see that in the abstract. I just see a GWP_20 potential for coal in the abstract. Further down there's this table:

It seems like they're not just counting the combustion emissions in that number.

Then there's also this, which explicitly talks about fuel development emissions:

The carbon-dioxide emissions just from combustion are substantially greater for coal, 99 g CO2/MJ versus 55 g CO2/MJ for LNG. Total carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, including emissions from developing and transporting the fuel, are also greater than for LNG, but the difference is less, 102.4 g CO2/MJ for coal versus 83.1 g CO2/MJ for LNG (Table 4). This is because of greater energy costs and, therefore, higher emissions of carbon dioxide for developing and transporting the LNG compared with coal. Methane emissions for LNG are substantially larger than for coal, 76.5 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG compared with only 17.3 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4). As presented in Section 2, this result for methane emissions for coal is quite robust across regions, including China and Poland.55, 56 Consequently, total greenhouse gas emissions are 33% larger for LNG than for coal for the cases of average tanker-cruise lengths, 160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG versus 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4).

Did you look at the paper or am I grossly misunderstanding something?

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Posting this further up for visibility.

Maybe I'm stupid but there's this table:

It seems like they're not just counting the combustion emissions in that number.

Then there's also this, which explicitly talks about fuel development emissions:

The carbon-dioxide emissions just from combustion are substantially greater for coal, 99 g CO2/MJ versus 55 g CO2/MJ for LNG. Total carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, including emissions from developing and transporting the fuel, are also greater than for LNG, but the difference is less, 102.4 g CO2/MJ for coal versus 83.1 g CO2/MJ for LNG (Table 4). This is because of greater energy costs and, therefore, higher emissions of carbon dioxide for developing and transporting the LNG compared with coal. Methane emissions for LNG are substantially larger than for coal, 76.5 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG compared with only 17.3 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4). As presented in Section 2, this result for methane emissions for coal is quite robust across regions, including China and Poland.55, 56 Consequently, total greenhouse gas emissions are 33% larger for LNG than for coal for the cases of average tanker-cruise lengths, 160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG versus 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4).

Did you look at the paper or am I grossly misunderstanding something?

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What emissions are there from drilling natural gas, aside from aquifer and river pollution?

The main concern with natural gas are that the leaks cause 81x the greenhouse effect than if the gas was just burned. And liquifying methane and tanking it onto ships causes a lot of leaks, more than the leaks caused normally by pipelines. Natural gas is just as bad as coal if not worse.

https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?feature=shared&t=71

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Coal mining releases a great deal of methane and other green-house gasses. It's not clear whether it's more or less than the LPG entire chain.

A serious paper would compare the entire picture of both. Or at least look at one and refrain from opining about the other.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

Natural gas is absolutely not as bad or worse than coal, if you look at the whole picture. The big problem with coal wasn't the greenhouse emissions, it was all the other emissions. Radioactive particulates anyone?