Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Natural Gas Is Scamming America | Climate Town" video.

It's the latter. China controls the market in Solar panels and they use a lot of coal in production. But even then it's more efficient than burning coal for power, and importantly this isn't inherent to solar.
36
UPVOTE SUPER LIKE THIS^^^^ Higher lifecycle emissions that gasoline, soil loss, fertilizer and pesticide run off, more cost, more expensive food, biodiversity loss. Indonesia aims to run half its liquid fuel on palm oil. Biodiesel and corn ethanol are the most atrocious industries.
18
The loss of Nord stream doesn't make Europe more dependent, the closing of gas lines across Poland and the choice to stop buying Russian gas through Turk Stream and the Ukraine pipeline did. Europe (Germany) made itself dependent on Russia and now is funding new source.
7
It should also be noted how many LNG projects in South East Asia were cancelled due to new European demand and the 2022 price spike making it clear that the market wasn't reliable
5
I fully agree with getting NG out of Space heating and stoves. Residential networks are expensive to maintain and leak. But I disagree with the LNG point. China's main alternative is Central Asia and Russia, and Europe's is Russia. Amd beyond the political impact, the leaks associated from production are much higher. As for electrical generation, I think NG is fairly unavailable in the short term, and will probably have a small role in the longer term, although renewables and battery storage are undoubtedly the faster. But in terms of industrial heating there isn't an alternative commercially available or even widely discussed.
4
Solar actually correlates very well. Look at heat waves in the South. And in much of the world it's highly reliable. The issue really is the "rich" areas of the world are the worst for Solar.
4
I think the issue with "being against" NG because "it leaks" is it creates pressure not to invest in NG instead of investing in addressing the leaks. Compression stations for example are actually easily addressed with electrification, and requiring electrification of turbines (instead of burning the NG) would cut nearly a quarter of leaks. And even if we get rid of all the stoves and space heating and power generation, that still needs to be done to address industry high grade heat and exports.
3
I think you're missing industrial heat, but otherwise I agree. NG is a problem, particularly in space heating where it's unneeded and the large distribution networks and home appliances leak aggressively. And we need to address compressor stations in particular by requiring electrification. But LNG is being targetted blindly here, particularly when you look at how Russia and central Asia leak.
3
@jayzbreemo Look up methane leaks in Yamal. It's the main point of production. Russia has no concerns around mathane or GHG pollution. As for China, the country produces very little NG, it's mainly an importer. But it imports heavily from central Asian. Turkestan in particular may have conventional gas but it pollutes far more than any other country.
2
@jayzbreemo according to IEA, Russia emits 25MT of methane in 2021 vs 30MT for the US, but the US produces 20% more. That would argue intensities are on par (although I'd suggest methane leaks in the arctic circle are a bigger issue all else being equal) Look up this article "Over-polluting and under-reporting: A look inside Russia’s dirty fossil fuel industry"
2
Agreed and it does. The highly regional effect of leaks I think deserves more attention as well.
2
@Inaf1987 1. The Congo, the country, has Cobalt. But it's not in The Congo, the jungle/River. It's in the south. There is no reason to be against mining or industry in an undeveloped country. This is no where near the issue of Brazilian beef or surface mining bitumen along the Athabasca. 2. Light and medium duty vehicle are over half of US transport emissions. Medium and heavy trucks about a quarter. So that's just blatantly wrong. 3. CAPITALIZING random words NEVER makes your point more compelling it just makes you come off as an offensive lunatic. Which I'm not saying you are, just a critic of your writing style. 4. I disagree on the farming point, in many ways tractors and farm equipment is quite ideal for electrification. Slow moving short overall distances. Battery weight is the issue. But hydrogen does have a lot of potential for large vehicles, maybe including farm equipment, I agree.
2
I would say Cattle, particularly beef, is unreasonably targetted. Brazilian beef is an issue, just like Chinese solar panels, but that's not equivalent to beef or solar being bad. Also it's certainly not 25% of GHGs globally it's not even 25% of methane.
2
@LexYeen 1) the profit from LNG is actually quite low, the market is saturated and the massive 2022 price spike was gone within a year. That's why Biden is creating export permit restrictions is people weren't actually building. 2) I disagree with the core concept, just like I think government provided safe drugs should be available to kick out the cartel or why prohibition was bad 3) Even ignoring that, Russia has far higher emissions for Methane leaks than the US does, and is using the profits to destroy nuclear and hydro plants alongside of course fund a massive war in Europe.
1
It should be mentioned that Coal also is a large source of fugitive methane. If we need to tip the balance back the NG (not that NG isn't a massive issue).
1
The good news about the government money that went into getting NG out of the ground is it also went a ling way to advance Geothermal. The bad news is under Trump that money went away as Fracking became profitable.
1
@thomgizziz Source? The issue is nuclear costs far more and doesn't peak well. Solar on the other hand, where most of the global population lives (the global south, where clouds are rare and Cooling demand high or growing), peaks very well Hydro has very limited expansion available, and can have just as serious an impact as coal depending on where it's built. I have no issue with either and think nuclear will be important. But Solar is by far the cheapest.
1
@MiguelAngel-gn3ht Why it's true that there are biofuels that aren't awful, waste oils or sugar cane ethanol in Brazil, the vast majority of biofuels currently produced are that waste of farm land. I have hope for algie or cellulose on the future, but realistically it's further away than perfect carbon capture and in the same vein marketed as a way not to change any existing infrastructure. But I hope you're work pays off! I hope one day "town gas" means NG from waste treatment plants.
1
@MilwaukeeF40C Actually, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is the closest thing to a sustainable biofuel at scale. Unlike beef it's not linked to deforestation.
1