Why we need to ditch natural gas (asap)
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Natural gas is abundant, versatile - and much cleaner than coal. It lets us keep the lights on AND reduce emissions. That's great, right? Well, yes. If it wasn't for one small detail: it's still a fossil fuel.
Reporter: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
Video Editor: Frederik Willmann
Supervising Editor: Joanna Gottschalk & Kiyo Dörrer
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #NaturalGas #FossilFuels
Read More:
Burning the Gas "Bridge Fuel" Myth: priceofoil.org/content/upload...
The Production Gap Report: productiongap.org/2021report/
The "carbon bombs" set to trigger a catastrophic climate breakdown: www.theguardian.com/environme...
Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Permian Basin study: pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/...
International Gas Union: www.igu.org/
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers: www.iogp.org/
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
01:01 The natural gas boom
02:33 Bridge fuel argument
04:04 Methane leaks
07:15 Still a fossil fuel
10:11 What to do instead?
You know what doesn’t help? Turning off already built nuclear power plants that still have usable years left in them… especially when you know who is having you know what sanctioned over invading you know where.
Right on, now the whole union will have to pay for Germany ‘gas’ mistake..
Well said.
Yes, especially knowing there’s no clean energy as of now.
Voldemort?
@@LiquidShivaz ?
Why is nuclear energy not even mentioned?!! Come on, it's a great alternative that doesn't have emissions. Unbelievable that nuclear energy is always completely overlooked
Hi Jan, we have done a video on nuclear before. You can watch it here: czcams.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/video.html
And, if you're interested in the topic of nuclear fusion, you can watch our video here: czcams.com/video/eyHovWQ49MI/video.html
1 accident is enough to destroy and contaminate an entire city. Can Europe afford it considering how small EU countries are ? An accident would completely contaminate a country of the size of Belgium or Netherlands. Even an earthquake could trigger an accident.
Fukushima? Chernobyl? Three mile island?
@@oregonwoodwizard All three combined have had minuscule casualties compared to even hydroelectric or wind power, not to mention oil and gas.
@@oregonwoodwizard See nuclear reactors are like airplanes and cars are like coal powered plants.
How? The proportion of people killed in plane crash is extremely small compared to the people killed in car crash.
Yet many people believe planes are scary due to extreme media attention every plane crash receives.
Same goes for coal powered plants which kills so many more people compared nuclear powered ones.
I think that the best bridge we can use right now is actually nuclear, but a lot of people have an irrational fear towards it.
Yeah in America we do because if we didn't we would have had the first chernobyl at 3 mile island in Pennsylvania. We don't trust the industry not the power source keep in mind.
That wouldn't be the bridge but the solution. Since high amount of energy storage is still really bad anything that relies on the sun or wind is unreliable.
@@Bergerons_Review which is why I would consider it a good bridge while we're still waiting for more development on battery technologies
@@GustavoGarufi except there is nothing wrong with nuclear energy.
@@Bergerons_Review i mean to a certain extent. I would still prefer other methods in the long run (we're talking a couple decades in the future) because seeing how our energy consumption raises year after year, nuclear waste on a completely 100% nuclear powered society tomorrow would start to become a problem.
It sounds like the EU just ditched Nat Gas. I’m looking forward to seeing how this is going to work out for them
aged like fine wine...
Because we have no other choice. We don't have that big fields of natural gas like the us or russia. And since we can't import it from russia anymore we have to look for alternatives. In germany its coal now...
@@moritzbecker131 yes… it’s coal now after spending $2 trillion on windmills and solar panels. Germany had plenty of electricity that worked and elected to shut it down in favor of sources that just don’t.
We should ditch that awful natural gas. You go first.
@@moritzbecker131 why can't you import?
Saying that this video is ironic would be an understatement since only yesterday Germany kind of forced the EU parliament to label gas as "green" so that there can be more investments made in the natural gas infrastructure. What is even more sad and disturbing is the unending demonization of nuclear energy. I maybe probably would have understood the decision not to build new nuclear plants after Fukushima, but actively stopping the plants before their lifecycle is just bonkers. And guess how that shortfall is being made up? It's not only gas, but also the worst quality of coal from Hambach.
You ask "What do you do instead?"
Start investing in nuclear energy, and get the nuclear plants back up, by using the money that is right now being directed to fossil fuel companies and gas infrastructure. You spent almost 10 billion Euros on pipe that will probably never be used, maybe invest 1/10th of that and see where nuclear can take you?
Of course, solar and wind are good, but for base energy capacity, Hydro and Nuclear are much much better compared to setting up more mines, coal and gas plants.
Interesting, do you have any more info on this move on Germany's part? I would like to learn more about it.
Thanks for your comment! We are a group of independent journalists who are also concerned with the German government's choices, hence the video 🙃
You might be interested in our story "Why Germany isn't as green as you think," link 👉czcams.com/video/PqSGEmSLfWE/video.html
If you're interested in other timely, critical, investigative journalism pieces, be sure to subscribe to our channel! 📺
@@DWPlanetA Instead of listening to these bunch of idiots, read Vaslav Smil. He has much more realistic, sustainable and pragmatic views on natural gas!!
Nuclear power as it is now is just too risky, seeing how Russians shelled and occupied Ukrainian Nuclear power plants which could potentially trigger a meltdown whether accidentally or purposely and render a huge swath of land uninhabitable for decades should already be a cautionary tale for nuclear power. Until humans are immune to radiation damage, nuclear energy is too big of a risk, furthermore uranium is unevenly distributed, has to be mined and refined which creates a lot of hazardous waste and is in limited quantity as well, we'll just be trading oil shortage for uranium shortage in the coming decade, and there will be wars fought for uranium and with it probably nuclear war as well.
@@tofuking7720 Yes, it's better to just burn coals and heat the planet + suffocate people slowly until everyone dies, right?!
Next video aimed at the Germans:
Do we really need to be warm in the winter???
OMG I hope Europe has the coldest, most brutal winter in the last 500 years. They deserve it.
😄
So much wrong with this video. 1) calling CO2 pollution is wrong. Aside from a (likely overhyped) effect on the climate, CO2 is not bad for the environment and good for the biosphere as it allows more plants to grow. 2) calling methane an x times stronger greenhouse gas ignores that its infrared absorption spectrum has a lot of overlap with water vapor, which already saturates a lot of the absorption spectrum in the atmosphere. It is a half-truth that is effectively an untruth. 3) under the influence of oxygen and sunlight, methane in the atmosphere gets broken down in about 8.4 years so methane doesn't accumulate over longer periods of time.
This guy literally said bio gas is greener than natural gas. They literally share the same chemical structure lol
Yes, but where does the carbon in those molecules come from? For biogas, you literally have to grow crops that capture the carbon from the atmosphere, while natural gas was geologically trapped and now we're pumping it out of the Earth's crust and into the atmosphere.
it doesn't fit the narrative lol
@@guilhermetorresj Burning biogas and later reclaiming it does magically make burning biogas greener. One could grow giant trees to reclaim carbon and later store them to make nat gas just as "green"
@@akihitokoizumi2474 Bad line of logic. The trees would stay there unless someone cuts them down. Where are the the bio gas will be made where we use it or not but unlike the trees leaving it be will just let it get into the air and it will act as a green house gas.
By using it we are dealing with a waste product and helping the environment where as cutting down trees is similar to any other bio fuel.
So in short Bio Gas is waste management where as natural gas has to be pumped from the ground. So unless that natural gas was just going to be burn leaving it in the ground is better.
It's "bio"....that makes it cleaner. If you said "green bio gas" then it would be extra gooder.
Nuclear in combination with renewables is the key to ditch fossil fuels and have a stable electric grid.
Actually Thorium based Nuclear Reactors + renewables is the key to ditch Fossil fuels.
Precisely 🙋🏼♀️ also geothermal energy plants and hydroelectric dams.
@@petrbelohoubek6759 I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the information. I prefer nuclear power plants and geothermal energy plants. I'm not a fan of hydroelectric power plants. Although, that's for other reasons, such as the problems experienced in Indochina because of the massive dams in China.
good luck making chemicals and pharmaceuticals with nuclear energy without fossil fuels
Right. So why are the Greenies shutting down their Nuclear power plants?
So, what's your reaction to the EU's decision to label fossil gas as "green" in their energy taxonomy?
Hypocrites.
Proof that the fossil fuel industry has a lot of control over EU politicians.
Transitional policy, the goal was always to use the infrastructure from natural gas to use for hydrogen in the future. The large underground storage for natural gas, the pipes that lead throughout the whole continent.
Hydrogen has a much lower energy content per cubic metre than natural gas. Pipelines would need to be about 3 times as big for the same amount of energy transported. It has a much lower boiling point than liquid natural gas so existing LNG transport and storage facilities could not be used for liquid hydrogen. Mixtures of hydrogen in air can explode when the hydrogen content is as low as 4%. A more logical way to go would be to use carbon capture at the hydrogen generating site and make synthetic natural gas..
@@mike160543 True. Here in the UK the government goes on about hydrogen being a like for like replacement for natural gas. It's nonsense because, as you say, the distribution network would have to be ripped up and replaced. They're taking the line directly from the fossil fuel companies that sponsor the all party parliamentary group in hydrogen, whilst ignoring their own experts in the Climate Change Committee. Oil and gas is promoting hydrogen because it all comes from natural gas in the end. The tiny proportion from renewable electricity hydrolysis is just a smokescreen.
And then battery production emits more than everything else 😂
According to what source? I"m just curious.
Go educate yourself cheers
The main problem is that batteries near the end of their life span start to even out carbon emissions but then you need a new battery if your car even lasts that long.
Batteries require massive land destruction to mine for materials, solar panels have a limited lifespan before needing replaced and they are not green to make or dispose of. Windfarms have a limited lifespan and again are not green to make or dispose of while also needing electricity from the grid to keep it spinning when wind is not enough or they break.
Natural gas is the cleanest fuel and should be used for the time being. Also needed to be expanded to close down more coal plants.
Also who hurts the most from pushing "green power?" The poor. Elites will always have their needs and wants met.
Wind turbines are carbon intensive to produce and don't save enough CO2 to justify production
@@allanyoung6231 Is that your feelings or you got that fact from somewhere?
If the climate change lobby continues to refuse discussing nuclear power, I don´t believe there is a climate change issue.
I agree, in fact the so called politicians more then likely got shares in gas/coal production and by making the supply smaller can up prices/profits.
Indeed, Nuclear is cleaner than Solar and Wind! It's because we control the pollutants instead of putting it into land fields (manly PV which contains nasty stuff).
There is no "climate issue", there is only an attempt to force Western countries to transition to socialism!
That’s my view on it. Solar, wind, hydro are great but they only benefit China financially and are not enough. I mean, look at California right now.
Nuclear is the way or a carbon capture technology to reuse the carbon emitted from coal plants. But why not both?
@@ValMartinIreland Just like your brain, it doesn't exist.
The attitude that it is for gas companies to meet demand and governments to decide that demand is worrying in more than one way.
It’s interesting ppl don’t mention nuclear and fusion. Wind and solar aren’t enough, and most batteries use lithium, which comes with some environmental and ethical problems.
Fusion wont be here in anyones lifetime who was borne this year. The worlds largest battery could only power our UK bational grid at 3:00 am for a few minutes....if it could support that draw (which it can't) we need nuckear.
Fusion will never happen. It's always 20 years away.
are you seriously implying nuclear doesn't have its own enviromental problems? remember that time when Europe almost became unhabitable? weird fever dream huh?
@@nashooo5903 gross negligence, lax regulation, corruption and a crappy design were the cause of Chernobyl
saying Europe almost became uninhabitable is ridiculous hyperbole
@@ironspaghett oh yeah, because we learnt our lesson and nowadays we don't have any of those things right? hey, remember Fukushima? that was 25 years later...
And if it weren't for the sacrifices of the liquidators, Chernobyl would've absolutely destroyed most of Europe. That's not an exaggeration.
I am so tired of seeing people intentionally ignoring absolute necessity of fossil fuels in our everyday lives and current prosperity that never like before in human history while exaggerating minor downsides of them which can be prevented or improved. These people almost blindly accept so called "renewable" energy and try very hard to ignore all negative things about them.
So you think we should continue using fossil fuels. Why?
@@anxiousearth680 Even if you don't burn it you still need oil. Moving parts need lubrication and the world will quite literally grind to a halt without it.
Hands up everyone that can live and run a business on about 7% of the energy they currently using??? this will be the world without coal, oil and gas
@@anxiousearth680 yes, you use its derivatives every single day and 90% of your quality of life is thanks to fossil fuels. Now, please move to Burundi if you want to have the smallest possible carbon footprint and forget about everything you take for granted in your daily life which was produced using fossil fuels.
Will you also report on all the issues with switching from the current mining industries to those for batteries and materials needed to create solar panels and wind mills?
You should also report on the disposals of all of these products.
Looking forward to your balanced and unbiased reporting.
These people are not capable of looking that far ahead. They'll be attacking the mining industry as soon as they destroy the gas and oil industry.
Forget it. You won't.
This channel is dedicated to the globalists.
I heat my house and water with firewood (I plant two trees for each one I burn), produce electricity with PV panels and battery, do not need air conditioning as I restored an 18th century home with thick brick walls and added insulation and good windows. I'm not totally off grid, but year round I sell to the grid a net amount of electricity. What we need is to plan our lives according to our goals, you don't need to be rich... you just have to be focused.
@@b_uppy I already do that with poplars and plantains, thanks. ;-)
Be careful with the smoke. Ultrafine particles from wood stoves are one of the major causes of lung cancer.
I hope you have a very effective filter system for your chimney. Burning wood might be carbon neutral if you replant, but the emissions are very dirty and unhealthy.
With all due respect, you clearly are rich. This is entirely unaffordable!
@@b_uppy ...and a huge upfront investment, and some remote job to pay for it all while you live in the middle of nowhere, and a metric ton of CO2 emissions on trips to get the rest of your family to whereever they need to go (school, say).
But even if most people tried to live like loner hermits, then land prices for the huge estates in the middle of nowhere that this requires would shoot up through the roof.
I live in a rather fertile river delta, there are zero plots of affordable land anywhere nearby. I'd need to drive something like 200 miles to get anywhere even vaguely "remote" and I bet even there land prices for this kind of project would be rather high. And even there... if it's not farmland, it's likely a nature reserve or park or something; not some place up for sale for peanuts. Oh, and farmland around here is utterly unaffordable except to the rich. Even farmers often lease it.
The best nearby chance is probably some ex-industrial region, and accept the supreme ugliness and possible soil contamination in return for low prices. And then hope zoning laws allow for this whole plan. A friend of mine got a rather good deal on a plan kind of like that, but then there's possible lead poisoning on a good chunk because apparently in the past people used to leave leaky car batteries to rust, and on another chunk there's lots of car oil in the ground. Unsurprisingly, he's not growing any food crops there.
i just replaced an old tank water heater with on demand and installed a new gas furnace in my basement and garage. also switching to gas stove top. the cost of electric is 4 or 5 times that of gas to heat the house and cook food. im also looking to switch my electric dryer to gas. i am considering solar panels next year but while 110v is reasonable, to get high amperage 220V circuits off solar - it quickly doubles or triples the cost of the system.
electric prices are skyrocketing and solar is still crazy expensive.
Have a look at the United Nations study done on one of the largest gas fields in Australia in 2021. They over flew the Surat basin with methane sniffing probs and found that 50 % of the methane was coming from feedlots ! There was also a large amount detected leaking from swamps and the rest from gas wells past and present.
I live in Saskatoon, a very cold winter, and natural gas is the ONLY way people can heat their homes here.
Wood?
@@miked8227 there's a wood shortage and it's expensive
Hydro energy?
@@jhutfre4855 no , way too expensive
Flaring is _burning_ methane to release CO², not dumping methane into the atmosphere.
You can see methane in the infrared. Pull the IR filter off almost any camera sensor and it will show up.
We should be investing in renewable storage and nuclear, but undermining coal by using natural gas today is still a net positive.
By far the best thing we could do is support developing economies in moving directly into renewables so they don't make the same mistake wealthy "first world" nations have.
Next brig technology could be replacing home gas heating with heat pumps. Per unit of gas it gives out more heat to burn it in a power planet and then use electricity for heat pumps. + waist heat could be used for district heating, given it is above 60C (not sure how those plants are set up).
Other thing it would do is reduce amount of gas leaking as no joint is perfect and reducing gas grid significantly will have a noticeable impact on energy usage.
Solar water heating is also a very good way to reduce grid demand. And then use heat pump for additional heating if needed.
It was worth it to build primary generation gas power stations 20 years ago, but it is too late now. Wind and solar need to be the main source in most locations with gas used just as a backup for when those can't produce enough.
The energy demand in developing countries is so high that switching directly into pure renewables will blackout half the country . In Asia , just like the west, gas is being termed as the " transition fuel " , the only difference is in the future part whereby Nuclear is being actively pursued instead of wind & solar
Yes, they were clearly wrong on that point. I think that shipping companies would have gone to LNG to make International Maritime Organization requirements for 2030, but they seem more focused on 2050. It is going to take time and money, but the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.
Guess what oil and gas industry is going away from flaring. We captur everything now. The company I work for our capture rate is 97-99% including tank vaper. But, that Co2 our lungs expelled we better start taxing people for air we breath. Better put that camera on that mouth. 🤣😉
Four main sectors are supplied by gas natural, which are: plastic, cement, fertilizers and steel. Those main sector provide the elements for keep the status for what we call modern civilization. Try to avoid the use of natural gas in Europe in winter and you'll see the froozen consequences. There Is not a short term sustitute for this hydrocarbon. And if you find it, for sure wont be cheaper for the contries.
steel and fertilisers can be made using renewable techniques. And we should be drastically lowering our plastic consumption regardless
@@ebbeb9827 True. We should have banned single use plastic bottles long before we banned plastic straws.
@@ebbeb9827 Like you said it's pretty easy. The world has to learn to survive on 1/10 of the amount of fertilizer.
@@taco7043 Easily said until the shelves at your store are empty. And, the supply chain has been so damaged now that you must see the start of that process already. People who were born post Great Depression/Post World War II have no concept whatsoever about what a day of real hunger is. The ideological possession won't survive the first true "Hunger Winter" you are almost eagerly inviting.
Oh look, more Russian CZcams comments prophesising our inevitable doom, we must have hurt their feelings somehow
Solar and wind are great till you got to heat your home during a snow storm. When a lot of energy is needed but the sun isn't shining and the windmills are all iced up.
Bio gas can be used as an alternative to natural gas in cooking, heating & transportation. While for electricity generation solar energy, wind energy, nuclear energy can be used.
I am curious about power plants that use the methane produced from our garbage. The methane from our garbage will supposedly leak into our atmosphere anyway, so is it better to have that methane be tapped for fuel? We have a power plant here that does exactly that, and I am curious about how safe it is.
Good question! As for depending on the safety of your local power plant, we cannot say. BUT we do have a video on waste-to-energy plants that might interest you - czcams.com/video/OPVUrO-_7SM/video.html
Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments :)
Waste to energy plants are great, but since they have to be built somewhat close to landfills that kind of limits where we can put them.
@@killman369547 Landfills are not the only source of reclaimable bio gas. sewage treatment plants and animal farms are other good sources. there are many sources of bio waste that can be used to make bio gas. AKA natural gas but we don't harvest most of them. The nice part of any of them that don't have other contaminates like land fills is you can get fertilizer as a waste product.
I think district heating networks should be a priority. I know in the UK gas is very popular for heating (85% of homes). But we're also highly urbanised (80%+ live in cities), so use mid day solar to power air/water/ground source heat pumps which in turn heat water in a network of insulated tanks and pipes that are pumped into all our homes like drinking water & sewage.
I don't know what the split is for gas use in terms of electricity production or heating but I'm sure stopping leaks will be easier if the 'gas network' is maybe just 6 pipelines going to power stations rather than the 280,000km of pipe network we currently have to service tens of millions of homes and businesses.
A heating network would be incredible. Can you imagine the energy savings? So much of what we do produces heat as waste.
You could make a power station that produces electricity and then use that to power heat pumps, way more efficient and during few cold nights burn i directly so every apartment can have about 15C temperature. Later the whole thing could be replaced by bio mas that was collected from city parks during entire year. Would be an interesting system concept
@@fulconandroadcone9488 this is very close to what Cogeneration does and it is indeed super interesting!
I think that some form of network heating like what you describe is definitely in our future. Maybe it’ll cost too much to hookup every home to it, but even just having 25-50% of homes hooked up would do wonders for our energy usage!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I haven't heard of term co-generation before. Nice to know it is idea worth having a name.
How I see it is if we half fossil fuel usage by half we increase usage of renewables by two times.
Also switching to DC grid might have some worth too. Most things can be powered by 400V DC, at least in 230-240V AC systems. and would reduce current by about half which would reduce power losses in wires by factor of about 4. Or would need 3 times less metal for wiring in a home which would be significant saving on cooper. Not to mention losses during mains rectification step in all the power supplies. Saved cooper could also be used for electric bikes, and trams and buses, maybe a few cars here and there.
Now that I think about it, doesn't take a long time to ask yourself why are we not implementing these things to save energy, instead up until few month back Germany was looking to import even more gas.
So here's the real problem: Nothing is burned efficiently.
Take that gas, pressurize it and burn it in a confined space where you can control the fuel/air ratio. That way you can maximize burn temp, control burn off, and heat far more rapidly. If you REALLY wanted to get into it though, it's never going to be efficient until we can coordinate better grid efficiency. Use the most efficient burn methods for energy generation, and better control our use of electricity.
Also, making companies responsible for "carbon capture" would either 1: Slap them with huge fines, or 2: Lose them rights to drill. I'm sure another company would love the chance to "responsibly" make money selling fuel. It's not like putting a methane capture tent over a pipe will kill the bank account...
Also, use biogas, produced from sewage and food waste. :) Several European and American companies are working on collecting gas from sewers, farm waste and landfills and converting it to natural gas (Renewable Natural Gas/RNG, or biogas). For other things, increase burn efficiency, or switch to electric stovetops powered by wind, hydroelectric dams or solar panels. The next best thing you could do, is during the winter, set your thermostat down to 65°F (18°C) instead of the typical 68°F (20°C) during the day, and 60°F (15°C) while at work. If you are cold, wear thicker clothing or add more blankets. For long durations away from your house (> 3 days), set the thermostat to 55°F (12.5°C). If your city is powered by fossil natural gas, set your summer air conditioner to 76-78°F (25°C) during the day, instead of the typical 72°F (22.5°C) and 80°F (26.5°C) while at work. If your guests feel uncomfortable at 78°F (25.5°C), temporarily set the cooling to 75°F (24°C), and return to a more efficient setting when they leave. For long periods away from your house, set the A/C thermostat to 82-84°F (28.5°C), but not to hot to damage the walls or house plants inside. If you have pets, set temperature colder. I have lower gas and electric bills compared to the city average because of these things that I do. I am guilty of taking somewhat long showers (6-12 min), but have cut them to < 5 min recently, except when I feel not well.
Why would we invest in a tech that we have to stop using in 10 years anyway?
@@michaelrch Do we have to stop using it? If I can use a bio-digester in my own yard then I'll be using a slow compressor to make CNG for heat and energy power off of a compost bin.
It would be nice to see investment in carbon scrubbing for smoke stacks and exhaust pipes... At that point, it wouldn't matter anyway.
@@charlesdarwin4780
The problem with biogas is that it starts out as something made using waste material, but almost immediately, businesses start using scarce land and resources to grow crops specifically to make it. That puts pressure in food supplies and ends up requiring more land to be cleared, which means large release of CO2 and loss of carbon sinks. A lot like ethanol from corn.
As for CCS, this has already received billions of investment over decades, much of it public money sucked up by the fossil fuel industry who want to keep selling their product no matter what.
It has not been demonstrated to work at scale anywhere. Indeed it often produces more CO2 in the production of the energy to run the system than it can actually remove CO2 from smoke stacks. There is no future in it. It's a dangerous distraction.
@@michaelrch We don't need to clear land for more waste when people already throw out so much. We've proven that recycling trucks and garbage trucks can make money in some places, all it needs is a compost fleet to adapt and profit. Maybe improvise some form of funding to cap and utilize land fills, it all adds up with small cheap efforts.
"battery technology is advancing fast and quickly becoming a viable alternative" (to nat gas power plants running at night/when wind isn't blowing)
no.
The actual reason for this video: “We need as much natural gas for fertilizer as possible”
Organic farming is so much better vs fossil fertilizer and pesticide
@@NicholasLittlejohn Not in this industrial world
@@kaymish6178 I think "organic" farming is an incredibly weak term, for partly this reason. It sounds nice, but hiding under that nice name it can still have pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, tillage, monocropping, etc. All of these very bad, harmful practices.
But, at the same time, current industrial agricultural techniques, while high-yielding, are incredibly unsustainable. And not just in terms of land use and climate change; industrial agriculture destroys the soil at an alarming rate, such that we will deplete global agricultural topsoils by 2060 at our current rate. It feeds the world currently, yes, but it also comes at the cost of being able to feed the world in just a few decades.
Clearly, another approach is needed.
As I see it, there are two possible approaches:
1) Create a high-tech farming system that uses very little land (relatively) and doesn't rely on topsoils. This would be things like hydroponics, aquaponics, etc.
2) Create low-tech sustainable farming (way beyond organic farming) that, despite using more land, isn't incredibly harmful to the land it uses. This idea is counter to our typical assumption that agricultural land use is inherently at odds with the environment. But if we used techniques like forest gardening, polycultures, no-till, regenerative agriculture, and incorporated livestock in an intelligent way for nutrient cycling and pest control, we could extract yields from land without destroying the local environment. Combine this with reducing industrial meat and biofuels like ethanol, and you can save a tremendous buttload of land anyways to help counter the increased land use.
@@NicholasLittlejohn That's what the Sri Lanka president thought... oh wait ex-president
@@NicholasLittlejohn Sri Lanka tried this and saw output fall by 50%. They are now currently in famine with families skipping meals.
Even funnier is that LNG trucks vent out right in the atmosphere to adjust fuel tank pressures
Those don't have a chose. Outher "option" is overpressuring tanks with possibility of losing whole truck not to mention all of stored LNG.
So let’s all freeze to death for a couple decades, have a lovely winter!
Impossible to ditch natural gas at this time. If the US were to build 60 new nuclear power plants we could start thinking about it, but remember, a lot of natural gas usage is for home heating, and to replace that with electic heat, you need even more nuclear power plants. If you want to charge electic cars that will replace gasoline powered cars, you need to add even more. When you total it up, we should be building about 100 new nuclear power plants. The longer we wait, the worse the problem will get.
I lived where fossil fuel industries were basically determining the government policies. I noticed one thing in this video, no mention of either tidal wave or "run of the rivers" power generation.
The fossil fuel industries, especially natural gas, don't want to be shut down. They're the main sources of the plastic industries. We're all aware of the massive amounts of plastics, the pollution from natural gas, plastics, especially methane.
Flaring, by the way, emits over 100 toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, none of those are "scrubbed" out of the flaring stacks.
Look at "Cancer Alley" in Louisiana and Texas. People there live with tonnes of toxic chemicals daily from the refineries and flaring.
"Sour Gas" was frequently drilled for and the byproduct was sulphuric acid, or pikes if sulphur I personally saw lying in open fields, no cover or protection. I actually picked up chunks of sulphur from one field myself. Obviously no fencing or warning.
"Recycle" was and is used by petrochemical corporations to put the onus on us instead of stopping the production of plastics. Guess who came up with this? The fossil fuel industries.
The fossil fuel industry is also the industry serious pushing for hydrogen as that's their way to continue existing.
The fossil fuel industry also pushed the reduce, reuse, recycle motto whilst knowing that the plastic recycling process is very water intensive which poses another concern and that plastics can only be recycled once or twice, before being incinerated
On top of that, the majority of plastic isn't even recycled just once, given they tend to be contaminated. Virgin plastics are cheaper than recycled plastics too.
Plastic, even single use plastic, is awesome and has vastly improved our standard of living and especially our food hygiene.
So what are the benefits of gas. Keeping people warm in winter. Making electricity. Making fertilizer used for FOOD. Of yes plastic do nothing for human prosperity he says while typing on his cell phone made from recyclable banana peels. Of I get it. Windmills aka bird Cuisinarts. Solar. 8 zillion acres of space with solar cells that have a bad habit of not working at what scientists call night. Maybe they're working on that. Please we need to stop the wishful thinking. Stop thinking like children. We need fossil fuels. We need nuclear. Both work. Renewables aren't there and nothing says they will ever work. I hope they do ..at cost...but I don't like the odds.
Except that they have mentioned tidal power. Just not in this video. If they had to mention every single renewable power source at length, the video would be a damn mess. They're not ignoring anything, just staying on topic.
In the part of the world where I live, previous generations invested heavily in hydro-electricity; they built huge dams and now our electricity is cheap and relatively clean.
Even though they can create a lot of problems during their building period, dams could still be a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Until drought dries up water source....also ie a problem for fish et al habitat.
@@BCSTS Hum, I wonder how big of a problem coal power plants are for fish and all habitats…
In our apartment we still use butane bottles as we had no other option for heating. But now we have had an offer to a install natural gas line into the apartment, but was hessitant in doing so. But after looking at the contamination between the two, I understand that in our case natural gas is better.
Pump storage is an old and proven solution for storage. Since the relationship between wind and power generated is exponential. Variable pump speed as well as variable generation could provide for greater wind penetration and less curtailment on the grid .Different countries often have different peak winds and different demand times. Improved interconnection here coupled wit storage would be helpful.
Pumped storage is expensive, hard to site, and is fully developed technology (so costs aren't likely to significantly drop).
And it takes so much energy to pump water uphill and upon releasing it, I'll bet generates a small fraction of the power needed to put it up there. Complete waste.
@@robertbell525 80% efficiency ,long operational life.
@@richdobbs6595 Yes you are right but variable pump speed is a recent improvement. It will be there long after batteries.
At the end of the day, the best solutions for our homes are electric induction heaters, heat pumps, and solar panels (if you live in a sunny region)!
Some people are trying to sell hydrogen gas as a replacement, but it really won’t work. This is because hydrogen gas burns in a very different manner so we can’t use pure hydrogen gas. Instead, we need to mix it with methane gas, and the Union of Concerned Scientists has already said that there is not enough sustainable methane in order to support this.
I just like to bring this up whenever possible because I was totally unaware of these facts until I did the research on Hydrogen Fuel for a video on my channel.
Wow, is the reaction I have everytime I watch a DW investigation. Thank you for all the hard work.
Personally I believe Nuclear has a bad reputation because of the fossil fuel industry. 3rd and 4th gen Nuclear stations are where the planet as a whole need to be. Save the oil for the lube. because we've been getting shafted without it for decades.
great comment. that last sentence was HILARIOUS though
Right, i am sure Chernobyl, 9 mile island and Fukashima have NOTHING to do with it. Yes, lets use something that has radioactive waste that will remain dangerous for a BILLION years.
It's not the oil industry against nuclear it's the environmental folks.
Or nuclear has a bad reputation because it has a lot of following costs that are mostly paid by the tax payer and nobody has a plan to store the waste for centuries.
Or these two big accidents that shown the feel of control is a hoax and the possible negative side effects are huge.
Nah, it has to be some lobbying of other industry.
@@rayshepherd2479 They are not mutually exclusive.
The problem with transitional technologies is that they come to stay more often than not.
There also is nuclear power plant, pilotable and 12 gCO2eq/kWhe (and less than 5.6 gCO2eq/kWhe in France). If you had that with renewable energies it could work much better...
Geothermal energy can be used instead of gas, right now: the tech exist and it works 24/7 and it can be used both for heat and electricity.
Parts of Northern Europe have geothermal heat, but in our part of the world the water is not hot enough to produce electricity. But happily we can use to produce hot water for the district heating network, and this way it can replace some gas.
Geothermal is awesome, but there is no single perfect solution. I’m actually currently working on a video about this topic.
Instead of one perfect solution we need to be ok with ending up with a bit of a soup of various solutions which all leverage natural resources in specific regions. For instance, we’ll likely get the bulk of our power from solar and wind just because their generation per cost is so high, but they have obvious intermittency issues.
Luckily, there’s plenty of options which can solve these issues! Geothermal is one, waste generation of methane to burn is another, cogeneration can drastically reduce the cost of heating water, tidal generation is amazing, nuclear is also great as well, etc.
But my point is that each of these methods of generation has slightly different pros and cons depending on different regions. So we’ll have to be ok with one region relying on a method which is least expensive in their area while another region will use something completely different!
Like I said at the beginning: there is no one perfect solution.
Fusion will be the one thing that replaces all other types of electricity production currently in use. It is the holy grail of energy production. However we are not there yet.
Precisely 🙋🏼♀️ with the development of laser drilling it will be possible to build geothermal plants almost anywhere and retrofit fossil fuel power plant into geothermal plants.
@@Drakey_Fenix TBH, I think fusion is a pipe dream and we should focus on geothermal plants, solar panels, wind turbines, and backup battery storage facilities. Even thorium salt nuclear reactors would be better. As we have the technology now.
Gas is most efficient when used directly for heating rather than converting it to power.
I did this with a dutch oven in bed, the wife didn't agree, that my natural gas was warming.
Leaking and venting/flaring during the gathering, processing and transportation stages can be controlled through regulations and improved technology. The fact of methane leaks does not negate its value as a bridge fuel.
Lmao Germans approriate timing considering vlad is about to leave you in the dark. Hahaha enjoy winter!
Why is there no mention of elephant in the room? Nuclear is best solution
Nuclear is realy good.
Exept that it takes way longer to build and is more costly then reneables.
100% right.
but governments have been closing them down and chasing wind and solar and batteries.
yesh.
or the newer version theyre working on , but i bet with that technology maybe new weapons also.
You are dead right.
Biogas and other biofuels also have to be shelved for emergencies or periods of high demand when no other solutions are available...policy wise that'd be the most feasible.
We can make petroleum with heat and pressure now from food waste, sewage, algae, and farm waste now, Canada and Australia are already commercializing it
Why would you replace coal fired power plants with fossil gas power plants, when you can replace it with nuclear?
Then your emissions per KWh will not only halves, but goes way below solar and similar to wind or hydro.
You can also use it for district heating.
It is reliable (not like solar and wind), no need for energy storage, (battery breakthrough is just wishful thinking, hydrogen is very expensive and ineffective), you are not depending on dictatorships, and once a plant is fuelled up, it can run for years 24/7/365. It also produces way less toxic waste than solar on KWh base.
You can say wind and solar are cheap, but if you add all the extra cost of infrastructure (transition lines, storage, fossils gas backup etc.) it will be way more expensive than nuclear.
Also there's no way that you can store enough energy from the sunny summer till the dark and cold winter.
If you don't believe me, get your own calculator and do the math.
The only reason nuclear reactors aren't everywhere is because the world's nuclear powers are so paranoid that they are actively curtail the sharing of thorium reactor technology, which can't even be used to make nukes.
Because you can't afford the capital investment required to build the nuclear power plant. Doh!
@@richdobbs6595
Can't afford? LOL!
It is estimated that by 2025, the cost of "Energiewende" will reach 520 billion euros. From that money Germany could have build 18 Hinkley Point C. (probably more due to economy of scale).
That could provide Germany 58GW carbon free electricity 24/7/365. No windmills, no farmlands turned to giant solar fields, no air pollution due to burning coal, no deforestation in the name of biomassa and most importantly no dependency on Russian gas.
Doh!
@@bigsmall246
It can be used, but way too expensive and more difficult to handle.
Also molten salt reactors have a serious corrosion problem, which needs to be solved first. When that's done, we will see much more of those hopefully.
Anyway, you do not need a nuclear power reactor to make nukes.
For Uranium based bomb, you need only an enrichment facility with lot's of centrifuges.
I recommend the "Getting to the Good Stuff (Uranium Enrichment)" from the channel: Illinois EnergyProf
Lot's of good stuff about nuclear.
@@solutionrebellion Yeah, Germany or USA could definitely afford the investment, but not China, India or Nigeria. The problem in Germany, USA, or Austria is politics.
It's great as an emergency power backup, as long as the carbon is recaptured at some point. Expensive, but as I said, only for emergencies.
If we need to use less gas - what should we use instead?
Ask trump. He told you what was gonna happen with your current energy supplier.
Bio gas?
Electricity, I'd say
Nuclear? Oh no sorry it's a German channel, forget what I wrote, please don't beat me.
@@VoiceActorYourNameHere electricity requires a fuel source to generate. lol
Dear Planet A team, why not to make a video about closed-loop toshiba gas turbine first-fired in La Porte, Texas? It runs on methane and pure oxygen, produces a stream of CO2 without nitrogen and has the characteristics to be geologically sequestered.
We grow plants with it. Co2 is not a pollutant. Co2 is plant food. Green things grow in a greenhouse.
Basically, green hydrogen plants directly paired with renewables need to be built in parallel to renewables build outs to power the grid.
This green hydrogen would then be used to displace the natural gas that is used as a hydrogen feedstock or energy source in industry, and can also be used to power backup/peaker power plants for the grid.
Note, I don't really advocate for using hydrogen for home heating or general transport, however it may make sense for some industrial or commercial vehicles to utilize it is some form.
Renewables like what? Wind and Solar? Well good luck with that since the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time. Green hydrogen will only be truly green if it's made from nuclear hydro geothermal and renewables. Not renewables when they work and natural gas when they don't.
@@TheSonic1685 And why would you need your green hydrogen plant to always be running at full capacity? The reason you build it and directly pair it to your renewable plant is precisely because solar and wind is intermittent.
By directly making fuel from unreliable intermittent power (a process which you can ramp up and down based on your supply of energy), you are turning that unreliable source of energy into a reliable fuel, which can be used either as an industrial ingredient/commodity or to shore up the intermittent problems of renewables on the grid as a backup supply of energy
.
Yes there is value to having your synthesis plant always running at full capacity to take full advantage of the costs of the infrastructure, but ultimately it comes down the the cost of the input energy for if it is worthwhile or not. If the unregulated power from wind/solar can be produced at around 1/3 the cost of nuclear/hydro/geothermal then solar/wind is likely as good, or even a better source of this power. Otherwise, perhaps this power should come from the other sources.
Curious, that this video comes out a few days after Russia stopped/decreased supply of natural gas to European countries including Germany.
Nuclear energy is the way to go in the future.
The video didn't mention that Asia is leading the renewable energy race because it didn't double down on natural gas. In energy density and reliability, coal is still king, but in cost renewables are around the same range as coal. The currently being built and opened coal and natural gas powerplants in Asia are because they were planned years ago and cancelling those deals right would lead in investor dissatisfaction. Asia knowing that natural gas is just a transitional energy source for renewables, why not go renewables now since the cost now is in the same range as coal. Most of the recently agreed and future powerplant deals are now in renewables and nuclear.
Is there something powerful and stable enough to replace natural gas?
BTW the majority of LNG ships burn the “off gas” product of the liquefied gas for power and/or propulsion. It doesn’t just “leak” out. And those containers store gas quite efficiently.
I agree with what you said in the video but one big asterisk around electric heating elements is that they are only better than gas if the electricity is coming from renewable energy sources. It is more efficient to use gas as heat then use it as heat to boil water to spin a turbine to generate electricity to transport it and then for your stove to use it. At least the stove will use it 100% efficiently but you lose a lot of energy in the other steps.
Modern heat pumps typically have an efficiency of 400%. This means that you can use 1kWh of electrical energy to transport 4kWh of thermal energy from the outside in to your house. So if your power plant has an efficiency above 25%, then the heat pump can still be the most efficient solution.
A heat pump in your home is more efficient than a gas heater, even if the electricity is generated by burning gas.
Everything will be fine.
Improve out energy systems absolutely but the world isn’t going to end in 10 years due to natural gas or carbon. We are adapting fine
Considering European dependence on Russian LNG and the energy crisis it caused along with the war in Ukraine, be sure Europe is doing what it can to get out of it even if it means burning even dirtier fuels.
Here's an ideia that would work well on Portugal! We're a small country and have a lot of big fires. We could gather the biomass and keep forest clear of fuel, and burn this on decommissioned coal power plants.
This way we would have less fires and produce electricity with neutral carbon.
i see natural gas more as a "transition" fuel and not something that we can call "green" fuel
The lifecycle emissions of fossil gas are only marginally better than coal. It releases about 40% less CO2 on combustion but the methane leakage during extraction, transport and processing reduces the GHG saving to only about 20%.
As the IEA and IPCC have both stated very explicitly, ANY new investment in fossil fuels is incompatible with a stable liveable climate.
I am a little disappointed that there was no mention at all at how much natural gas is used in our agriculture. You can switch energy generation from natural gas to solar and wind, but you can't replace the atoms we need to make fertilisers.
Brian Lim said,
"...but you can't replace the atoms we need to make fertilizers."
You **must** find a way to stop the CO2 released into the atmosphere when natural gas - methane - is made into hydrogen, then hydrogen is made into ammonia and then fertilizer. If you cannot, then you must not use methane! It's simple: no = *zero* - CO2 released into the atmosphere!
Hydrogen is easily made from water and electricity, without CO2. That's how it should be done.
Because fertilizers do not need hydrocarbon chains like natural gas methane (CH₄) which obviously only provide carbon and hydrogen atoms. These atoms are readily available in the environment from CO₂ and H₂O molecules which plants can readily use directly.
Yes, natural gas can be used to help create the very important fertilizer *ammonia* (NH₃) but that's not the only way.
To your point, ammonia can be created from direct plentiful atmospheric nitrogen and hydrogen made via H₂O hydrolysis using *renewable electricity*. Look up "green ammonia". Although our atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, plants cannot absorb nitrogen from the air and must take it from the ground and thus ammonia is an important fertilizer.
Other inorganic elements plants need are phosphorous and potassium not related to methane either.
Check what is CBM or maybe I will do this now. It states for Coal Bed Methane. Very few mines are capturing it, normally high metane content coal seams are fracked and all gases are removed via ventilation system.
That means burning coal you have twice as much CO2 but also lots of methane. That sucks.
Natgas and biogas are essentially the same thing. I am a citizen scientist who researches and developes systematic methods for decomposition. There is still a ton of efficiency issues at current biogas plants, that can be easily improved upon. I think once these problems are resolved biogas will completely replace fossil gas, the transportation infrastructure is already there so its easily scalable. Not to mention the resulting media from biogas generation is of high nitrogen content, which can be used for farming, negating the need for the extremely carbon intensive Haber process for nitrogen extraction.
Building gas powerplants is a good thing in my mind. Because first you go from coal to gas, which lowers the amount of co2 on the short term. In the coming years we have to build green hydrogen plants. But the beauty of a gas grid is that it can be used as a grid for hydrogen. Also the gas powerplants can be used by hydrogen instead of gas. By Building now gas powerplants, we have the infrastructure in place when we are ready to switch to hydrogen.
Hydrogen isn't an energy source like gas is. It is an energy storage system like a battery, but much less efficient. You need to put in twice as much electricity to make it as you get out. And you don't burn it, you run it through a fuel cell to get the best efficiency. The main legitimate way to use gas today is as a backup for wind and solar because gas is fairly easy to store, and gas peaker plants can turn on and off quite quickly as need arises. CCS should be added to these to minimise the CO2 output. In the future Hydrogen may be used to store some of the excess energy from wind and solar in salt caverns and similar to use over the winter when demand is much higher and solar production is low. Hydrogen may also be useful in some applications such as trucks and maybe aircraft. I think ships will be better off with ammonia though. Hydrogen is never going to be a major component of generation though.
I love natural gas. I burn propane, coal and acetylene. You see I'm a Blacksmith. I am a Knife maker, tool maker and teacher. I help everyone who comes into my shop. What do you think happens when there isn't a Blacksmith around when SHTF? YOU ARE IN THE STONE AGE! Any questions?
blacksmiths are not the backbone of industry these days, get with the times. what is being discussed is the use of natural gas for electricity production and for residential and industrial heating. you can keep your gas, nobody is interested in taking it away from you.
Lol
I mean…I’m glad you have a hobby
How many solar panels does it take to smelt steel?
Why do you mention solar, wind, and everything else besides nuclear? It's the one sourse that works 24/7. The output is enormous. Major issues are incredibly rare. It is our most viable and powerful option for a green future.
It's better for developed countries to start focus on providing the necessary funding to third world countries so that they can start to transition from a fossil based economy into a RE based economy as early as possible.
Three reasons:
1) Third World countries want their people to get rich by developing their economies.
2) They usually adopt fossil fuels in ensuring that they develop the economy since it's more affordable than other energy options.
3) As both the economy and population in these countries grow more demands for fossil fuel will be created.
If the developed world only cared about telling third world countries to stick to their climate goals or make better ones without proper financial or human capacity support. No one is gonna make a move and we will get ourselves to nowhere but a 4°C world.
Up!
@@petrbelohoubek6759 China, in the last century
Europe, for the last 3 centuries. Still china is better although having much larger population than a continent and the richest country combined
I think it should be a shared responsibility rather than all things are China's fault.
In fact, I think that China should not be more responsible than the West when you look on their historical emission and the sheer population they will need to support.
China took over the solar cell market and lowered the cost. They were one of the main drivers for making solar power cost effective. Right now we just need somebody to do the same for energy storage.
@@petrbelohoubek6759 China's per capita CO2 usage is half that of the US. They will be carbon neutral long before the US too.
The real question is what energy will Germany use this winter to warm up your houses? Will it be enough to survive?
Isn't that clear already? Shut down the nukes. Shit down the coal fired power plants. Shut down the gas fired power plants. What are you left with? Renewable power, and that's it!
Europe is carrying out the green agenda on a crash basis. This winter they should expect to have only the renewable power recommended by environmentalists.
You say that wont be enough? Tough. Environmentalists have promised only an end to using fossil fuels (and nukes, and hydro, and anything else they don't like) And that agenda is happening.
Just remember, environmentalists never promised cheap, reliable power. Only an end to fossil fuel, And that is what Europe is going to get.
You say the lights will go out and factories close? Tough. Reliable power is so.... 20th century! Get used to the future ----it is happening now.
Texas winter Feb 2021. A deep winter ice storm that intruded far into Texas froze up the Windmill system and the sudden loss of that power took down the entire Texas grid. The death 3-4 day toll from hypothermia, and ancillary in peoples homes has been pegged at 243 dead. Imagine windmill, and solar dependent euro countries hit with the coming hard winter, and no natural gas for home heating.
@@boxwoodgreen Texas windmills were not designed to withstand the frost. Design flaw.
We need a NEW and CLEAR solution if you catch my drift.
Or work on fixing the leakages by monitoring facilities for leakage
Interesting, given methane is the byproduct of decay and that particular process is ubiquitous are we going to find a way to end entropy?
Having worked in the industry there is leakage however that can be mitigated with technology. As for phasing out all fossil fuels, not going to happen. We can reduce it and mitigate the effect but there will always be a use. Methane is complicated because it occurs in agriculture and by natural process. Even if you shut it all down, it will still be there.
Rare earth metals and the disposal of highly toxic materials are going to complicate EV scaling. That's not something we have a solution for.
It's possible to phase out fossil fuels. 80% of the world population has to die though. Oddly enough that's also beneficial to reducing carbon emissions and I feel like it's what the greenies are trying to do anyways.
Wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels until there is a way to store the energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Just look what has happened n Germany. Nuclear could do it but the greenies are against it. They have increased the regulations to the point that it has made it uneconomic. Finally NIMBY delays/kills many wind, solar and battery installations.
I’m glad that biogas was mentioned. It is one of the least exploited methods that could really help. As it stand now, most naturally occurring methane emissions from the seemingly infinite organic matter we are surrounded by are being wasted because they’re not being captured and burned in place of all mined fossil fuels. We could have base electrical power generation, fuel for cooking and heating etc.all from organic sources - but we have to really want this to make it happen.
I fully agree with you. Something you micht find interesting is the conversion of Hydrogen and CO2 into Methane. This can be done as a form of biogas upgrading. The CO2 fraction that is formed in biogas systems can so be removed resulting in a higher calorific gas and more gas. Methane has a higher energy content per volume then Hydrogen and can be used through existing pipelines.
Interesting research articles about this subject are:
Production of high-calorific biogas from food waste by integrating two approaches: Autogenerative high-pressure and hydrogen injection. (Kim et al 2021)
Recent progress towards in-situ biogas upgrading technologies. (Zhao et al 2021)
We have 300 years of coal, unlimited gas and oil because the earth MAKES IT all the time.
Stop watching CNN
Biogas and LNG are the same thing, i was disturbed that mined gas was called LNG i am like excuese me ? LNG-menthane, ethane. LPG- propane, butane. Well a biogas plant each year produces 14 000 tones of gas. The thing is gas is less energy dense. In order to match the same energy lv of buringing one 1kg of coal you need 50 kg of cng. biogas has 2% efficiancy of coal. Well with gas there is less energy loss, so it is a better energy fuel in general. In a cow stomach there are microbs that eat up organic matter and they spit out biogas aka methane. In a big mixer they mix cow dung plus organic matter the best organic matter of lng production is wheat. You can get 60 kg of cng out of 1 kg of wheat. 14 000 tones of gas are about the same as 280 tones of coal. A added benefit of LNG or CNG or methane in general is that you can produce fertelizers with it. The talk that we should ditch methane is at this point not realistic
@@cikosonly1698 Now lets talk NITROGEN BAN. PEople thing we breath OXEGYN. We really breath NOTROGEN - YEAAAA< lets ban THAT!
@@cikosonly1698 Total agree these uneducated greenies think buying electric car is somehow clean, they forget down the road at the power station they are burning more coal then ever to power said car.
Battery tech has major mining and disposal problems. Hydro from rivers would be a great way to go.
It completly dosen't matter, how clean the Energy is, what matter's is how afforable Energy is...
Coal recieved a six fold increase in Price, because of Demand Explosion for Coal, that mean's we will build a lot of new Coal Mine's and a lot of new Coal Power Plant's...
It's only the Price for Energy that matters.
Good, you can shiver through winter and burn firewood instead
Which is significantly worse for the environment 😂 they can always ask Europe this winter how it goes
Here on the uk we are told we need 1,000,000 new homes , every one will have a gas boiler for heating and hot water. Almost none have solar panels as standard. The uk government has missed a huge opportunity; I bet they have come under pressure from the big house builders. It’s enough to make you cry!
Electric smart kitchen and electric smart heating using keramic panels are far more comfortable then using old gas staff.
Can't we filter coal when it's burned??
Carbon is nothing to worry about when natural gas is literally just another word for Methane.
We don't use much natural gas here in South Africa but we have a huge coal problem (well, I'd say Corruption is the real issue) Above all else Solar, Hydro electric & Wind should be prioritized
Natural gas does burn cleaner with far less soot thanks to its extremely simple hydrocarbon molecules. But it doesn't mean we generate less CO2 with it, because it still burns.
Natural methane generation is massive compared to any leakage from the gas industry. Methane also has a short half-life in the atmosphere, compared to co2. It’s also not true that wind and solar are cheaper. They are still much much more expensive than any fossil fuel.
I think the consumers play a key role in this. We should all get long term contracts for (true) renewable energy. We should also buy a heat pump. Change the demand bottom up.
I agree and I have done that - small house, max insulation, electric car with low usage, solar panels with net metering, heat pump mini split system for heating and cooling (in Ontario, Canada) it wasn’t that expensive or difficult to do - now I sleep like a baby
knowing I’ve done my part 😉
Things are not really changed bottom-up. If politicians don't rule in this direction, everything is in hands of 'voluntarily taken decisions' that don't usually go in the direction of the most ecologist decisions. Because ecology is economically a bit more expensive in short term.
just another scam in the name of sustainability 😂
the best way to reduce carbon footprint is by planting trees and increasing forest
I've never heard a greenie address base load as the main problem with "renewables". Batteries are the answer they say but its doesn't seem like they take into account the production of these as well as the fact that they can't hold enough power to be useful on large scales.
Hey there! We did a video on alternative batteries you could be interested in. Check it out 👉czcams.com/video/-vobMl5ldOs/video.html
@@DWPlanetA I will
I actually like these DW videos and follow them regularly but the ones like this one cleverly avoid critical facts about the necessity for natural gas right now.
So what you say and show in this video is true, but you fail to acknowledge certain facts:
1) The energy capacity of natural gas compared to the renewables is much higher. So although for households renewables are a viable option, there is no chance to power the industries with them right away.
2) People often forget how fossil fuels are responsible for manufacturing raw material necessary for solar panels and windmills, and they themselves are raw materials too (don't forget where your clothes come from people!)
It is absolutely necessary to increase the development and implementation of renewables, but the fact is that a 100% usage on a global level is not gonna happen overnight (if ever)! The only long-term solution is to create a smart energy mix, consisting of all types of energy and adaptable to different requirements and different times.
Typical greenie tactic. Tell the truth, but not the whole truth.
Could'nt of said it better, the irony is lost on most people that without fossil fuels, we can't create green energy. The goal should not to eliminate fossil fuels 100% but to use them wisely.
We need a heating infrastructure that allows us to switch between heat sources on the fly. So instead of residential gas burners we should be using district heating networks or heat pumps.
You seem to be replying perfectly reasonably, but to a different video. Nowhere does the video imply gas is not a bridge, in fact they say exactly that many times to make the argument that it must be a bridge to somewhere.
Here is my solution:-
Phase 1: (Action right NOW)
1.1 Build solar farms that can produce 2 times energy than demand.
1.2 Make many hydrogen plants that can produce and store hydrogen with excess solar energy and use it to produce electricity when sun is not shining. (You don't have to cut forests to mine lithium)
1.3 Use natural gas only when hydrogen runs out (mostly after long time of cloudy weather). And with time, replace these natural gas plants with nuclear plants. (We need hydrogen because we can't instantly turn on/off nuclear plants)
[In simple sence,
If sun shines, use solar and make hydrogen.
If there is night/clouds, use hydrogen.
If there won't be sun for a long time, use hydrogen to switch on nuclear plants.]
1.4 Connect the grid effectively. (It's possible that two areas nearby have different amounts of sunshine)
Phase 2: (Research and policies)
2.1 Make regulations, build infrastructure, promote start up and research such that 100% recycling of solar panel is possible.
2.2 Build universities for sole purpose of research in 1. Nuclear fuel recycling 2. Renewable energy 3. Energy efficiency
2.3 stop (or atleast reduce significantly) people from from buying things they don't need or that requires lot of energy.
2.4 make new cities and make illegal to build infrastructure that is car friendly. i.e. more public transport. Also buses or trams running by overhead electric wires.
Solution costly but definitely lot cheaper than our existence.
Perfect idea, although 2.4 could be less extreme, electric cars replacing carbon cars. In general, this is a really good idea and I hope it gets notice by governments
Gas companies where I live do yearly leak surveys and fix all leaks immediately.
I drove through a windfarm in the Michigan countyside. Some people see angel saviors. I see hulking Godzillas that ruin the natural beauty. A homeowner told me that they glow red at night creating a hellish red glare from the aircraft warning lights. That is not country.
It's funny at the 30 second mark the narrator blames the fossil fuel industry for 50% of all industrial green house gas emissions. He accepts no responsibility and ignores the fact that if he and consumers like him stopped using fossil fuel energy, that industry would have no reason to produce it. If no one bought it, there would be no point to sell it. The reality is there is an insatiable demand for energy by narrator and the global population. No one is forced to turn on lights, a coffee maker, drink clean water, heat or cool their home, eat fresh produce, where clothes, use transportation, get medical care... or any other good or service produced with fossil fuel energy. It's a choice. Solar and wind solutions are available. They are expensive and not particularly reliable, but nothing is stopping him or anyone else from converting.
In the US the oil companies were evil climate terrorists, until the price of gas hit $6 a gallon... and they became price gouging capitalists... who are evil :-)
The fossil fuel companies produce it, but we are the ones who burn it.
Yeah thought the same thing😂
In a way you're a hundred percent right, it's our consumption driving demand for energy. On the other hand you're also wrong it that so much fossil fuel is used because large-scale investments only the state or the largest companies are able to make are not being done. US could decrease their CO2 emissions by 60-70 percent without losing any kind of welfare if only they used low-carbon sources to a larger extent. And as an individual it's very hard to fight these structural problems.
Realistically, natural gas will be replaced by natural gas + more regulations in the short-to-medium term. More satellite monitoring and more inspections to detect and prevent leaks. Mandatory carbon capture and storage (CCS) on plants. Finally, long-term, a reduction in demand by electrifying households and buildings, and economic grid storage (maybe even retro-fitting those natural gas plants to burn green hydrogen).
There is NO time for this. We are already seeing the effects of climate change at work. Even if we stop emitting CO2 and methane at this very moment, best case scenario we will be stuck in our current circumstances.
- More unpredictable, more violent weather, with hight temperatures and droughts all over the world.
- Hurricanes with stronger winds and more rain leading to loss of life, property destruction and flooding.
- Stronger tornadoes, in places which already have them like Texas, which will appear with even more frequency and tornado seasons that lasts longer and longer.
- Tornadoes in places that had not been seen before like the coast of Lower Saxony and the Netherlands.
- Mega-fires like the one firefighters are fighting in France as we speak.
- Sudden droughts which will kill off crops followed by torrential rain, which will lead to devastating floods (like the ones in Australia not too long ago) capable of, as worse case scenario, erasing villages off the face of the earth.
- Famine because of the destruction of crops both in the places were the destruction hit and in every other place that depended on those crops.
- Extended droughts in places like Utah, where the lack of water will sooner or later result in cities in desert areas being abandoned. This will result in internal and external migration, as people flee the unlivable conditions.
- Day temperatures so hot that people die from the heat. This is especially a danger if it is humid heat. Above a certain temperature and with enough ambient humidity the body is no longer capable of cooling down and people will almost literaly boil in their own fluids.
None of the above is alarmism. It is the very painful truth.
And that is assuming that the current temperatures do not end up melting the permafrost which will release even more methane in the atmosphere. And this is happening as we speak so it is not some imaginary scenario. If that happens we will end up in a greenhouse loop where every cubic cm of methane released heats the atmosphere even more. And unless you can somehow collect all the methane and CO2 back from the atmosphere there is no way to stop a greenhouse loop. And every 0.1° of heating even stronger destruction like the one I mentioned before will occur. And in this case, because there is no way to stop the greenhouse loop sort of removing all the extra methane and CO2 from the atmosphere, the sea-level will rise by 300 or so meters as all the world's glaciers and polar ice melts. This means the disappearence of all of the words costal cities, where the majority of the Earth's population lives. Maimi, New York, (actually most of Florida), London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Athens, Alexandria etc. All will be covered by the sea. And so will all low lying places like for example a significant portion of the German Lower Saxony and the entire Netherlands.
We do not need to become carbon neutral. We need to become CARBON NEGATIVE. And we need to do it RIGHT THIS MINUTE. Not in 30 years. By then it will be too late.
As the situation there is a high risk that your house will be destroyed either in a fire, in flood, in an avalance of stones as the mountains above you crumble, in a tornado, in a hurricane. Or the area that you live in might become unlivable when the day and night temperatures remain above 30° C and there is not enough water because the rivers have run dry and there is not enough ground water to provide water for everyone.
And before you or anyone else here asks where I know all this from. I am an atmospheric physics scientist. So I know what I am talking about.
And we scientists are sick and tired of warning people for the past 40 or so years who really do not want to listen because it is too inconvienient or too unprofitable for them.
And I will admit we were wrong. Those effects we have been warning you about, they are here today rather than the 100 or so years past studies predicted. It is not only your children's or children's future that is at stake. It is your own present life.
Not that it would have made any difference anyway since apparently most people like yourself just do not want to listen.
@@Estel4565 People are more and more fed up of your garbage, so please take your alarmism somewhere else. The most urgent action today is to cut off funds from junk science.
Well if you really wish to look at natural gas then you have to include the flexibility of electrical generation compared to bunker c oil, coal and nuclear. With those three sources that dominate electrical production you have to boil water to make steam to drive turbines . That process can take as much as 24 hours before u get electricity. With natural gas the exhaust drives turbine and that can happen in mere minutes. Natural gas is the solution to renewables unreliable production.
Methane is messy. Methanol I think is the option that will be good for energy storage , because it is the liquid cleaner ethanol, as an energy backup in cold places, and it can be used for CONTAINING methane. But we need to get off methane because it still acts as a climate accelerator.
Renewables aren’t a panacea. Nuclear fission is crucial
I learned a lot from this video. Thank you for this, DW =)
You best forget all you learn, Germany just declared fossil gas as a green energy source.
@@geigertec5921 oh damn, where can I read about this? I tried to look it up on Google but didn't get much
crap i wish i had bought an electric cooktop when i did my kitchen 10 yrs ago. i should have known what was coming. i will have to wait for subsidies to replace the NG furnace with an electric heat-pump to an air handler but i look forward to the chance.
Funny how now we are having this conversation (at least when it comes to DW), when there's a conflict with the main gas supplier of Europe.
This should have been considered from much earlier. As well as countries should have invested much more in nuclear energy. Instead we saw how Germany was celebrating the nuclear shutdown of the country, it being one of the most power hungry countries around.
Exactly. Scrolled to far to find a comment like this, it surprises me how that fact crosses nobodies mind. Tomorrow they are going to talk about bad side effects of nuclear energy and lithium processing for the batteries. But today we'll talk about going all electric, that's what's cool right now.
Maybe going all-electric is better, but what we're missing: the tank (reservoir) for gas or natural gas costs environment almost nothing, while the "tank" (the battery) costs environment a lot. Though, sure it's good for the developed countries.
@@samirzahirovic8440 Thanks for taking your time to find and read my comment :)
Good point. The idea of green hydrogen, of producing hydrogen while using wind or solar when it is available, it is also another way that can help complement nuclear, but I am reasonable and I know that there is still a long way to go, as we need to do a lot of spending if we want to get the technology fast outside of the experimentation stage and into production levels. I would imagine that storing hydrogen would be less damaging for the environment than the Lithium batteries.