@FluidCode how do you compare coal vs natural gas combustion emissions? See for example the numbers on the US Energy Information Administration website, those get close to 50% considering just carbon dioxide.

@MikeScott there are some numbers on the website of a German professor of renewable energy at HTW Berlin (listing his own book and Germany's UBA as the source). It lists emissions as 55,82 kg CO2/GJ for natural gas and 94,6 kg CO2/GJ. That's a 41% reduction considering only CO2.

@Zeus actually, there are plenty who dispute that: See this research summary discussing leaks in natural gas infrastructure, including this finding: "[R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other 'abnormal' operating conditions. The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants operating in 2015, they found."

@LShaver yes, but that's a very different point. I tried to touch on that by distinguishing between methane as a green house gas when directly released into the air (e.g. through leaks) and the products of combustion. The later is relatively clean, and the goal is of course to transport the gas without leaks. The strategy paper at the start of my answer also deals with leaks, though they're probably not doing as much as they could do on that (yet).

I don't think it's "very different" -- it's nuance. The research indicates that to produce power today, in terms of GHG emissions, there may be little functional difference between coal and natural gas.

@LShaver I'm not sure if that nuance applies everywhere equally. Last year one of the largest energy companies here in Europe decided against a US LNG contract because of concerns over methane leaks, in the US. As I understand it, leaks can be a problem but they don't have to be. The EU's political choice is to use natural gas (during the transition) and to prevent leaks through legislation and enforcement.

"during the transition" is the part that's hard to swallow. If natural gas wasn't labeled as a green fuel, the transition would happen faster. And the leaks are a clear indication that the "bridge fuel" has plenty of it's own problems, of which the EU is already aware.

@LShaver from a political perspective I think the main problem with natural gas is that the EU has to get (some of) it elsewhere: Russia or the US. I disagree with you on the labelling issue. If it's not labelled a green fuel then that keeps coal plants in business for longer (because moving everything to truly green solutions at once isn't feasible). Feel free to discuss this further in chat, I think it's now less about the answer and more a general energy transition discussion.

@JJJ coal is already less profitable than natural gas. It's a shrinking industry. I suppose you could argue that improving profitability of NG would make it shrink faster, but not doing so certainly wouldn't prolong it.

Labeling NG as a green fuel is essentially a government subsidy of natural gas. This money and political capital should rather be spent on solar, wind, batteries, and electric infrastructure.

NG infrastructure lasts 20 to 30 years or more. We need to be carbon neutral within 20 to 30 years, so there's only one correct choice.

@LShaver It's an interesting answer you wrote. I don't disagree with the way you portray the oil companies, but I don't think it's the main reason for using natural gas as an intermediate. As I understand it, moving to renewables requires a much greater investment for things like heating. How would you do that without coal or gas? That requires even greater investments right?

Yes. But there's one pot of money. You can spend it on natural gas, or you can spend it on things like heating.

It's like putting $1000 every month into a failing car because you don't have the $10,000 you need to replace it with a better one.

@LShaver Okay, so let's say we're in charge. How are we going to heat homes? Over here we have the gas infrastructure already. We have the gas, it doesn't leak (except maybe at the source in case of some foreign gas). It's cheap and reliable (no minimum temperature etc.). Are wind and solar going to provide enough energy even in winter? What would you spend it on instead?

All of the technology that is needed is available today -- air source heat pumps for heating and cooling homes, for instance, and induction stoves for cooking.

@LShaver you mean just air pumps? No pipes into the ground?

yes.

or water-source for large buildings, or using district heating/cooling plants in dense urban areas

Wind and solar can easily produce sufficient energy. The challenge is getting the energy where it's needed at the right times, but electrifying vehicle fleets can address this problem, as well as investment in large-scale batteries.

Okay, but then you still rely on a few things. You need the electric energy (what's the source in winter?) and you need an upgraded energy network to support the increased capacity required.

We only need a paradigm shift to cause the investment shift -- just like when ozone depleting refrigerants were banned.

No alternatives existed at the time. Today, there are dozens of alternatives to choose from, all of which are higher performing and less expensive than those which were banned in 1989.

The difference is that refrigeration systems are built on timescales of 10 years or less, but power infrastructure is built on timescales of 30 years or more.

@LShaver but the investment cost is a lot higher right? I have one of those air heat pump systems (actually an airco which also does heating with heatpump technology). I haven't made the calculation in detail, but I think gas is still cheaper (at least until our current contract expires). Of course there are more efficient systems which use ground water, but they require a steep investment and they're already coming under fire here.

If you're interested www-installatie-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/…

Right, but why is it cheaper? Because fossil fuels are subsidized, and carbon emissions are not priced correctly.

And the investment cost is higher today. If the EU (and others) did not label natural gas a green fuel, that puts pressure on the market.

I'm not sure they are subsidised here. Both types of energy are taxed and I think gas is taxed more here. it's € 0,09428 per kWh or € 0,34856 per m³ of gas. From what I just googled, 1 m³ of gas is about 10 kWh. But the electricity isn't necessarily from green sources.

Yeah, but it's a global industry, and globally it's massively subsidized: nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

@LShaver Sure, but if that means many people are left out in the cold, then isn't this a better solution? Even with gas as the cheaper option we have many people with so called energy poverty.

And subsidies are insidious. In the U.S. we subsidize ethanol production, which sounds like a good thing, except that you can use it just like gasoline... which means that gasoline-powered stuff ends up being cheaper, which means people buy more gasoline, etc.

isn't the same true for renewables? I think we have subsidy on solar panels and heat pumps here too. Many people already buy them. It's not like we're only doing gas over here. ;P

Right. But how does pretending natural gas is green solve energy poverty?

@LShaver it helps get investments for infrastructure for places where they would otherwise stick with coal. And since gas needs to be transported, even other countries which already use gas might get cut off if infrastructure in other places stops working.

Personally I'm opposed to all subsidies, but that's a whole other discussion ;)

But if people can't pay their energy bills, why not just give them the money for that?

@LShaver that's what they're doing right? Over here there's an energy tax reduction because of the increase in energy prices, and extra money is reserved for those who are in more extreme energy poverty. Like elderly who can't heat their house or even get a hot meal a day. The more structural way to help them is to start by insulating their homes.

But yeah, I think we mostly agree that more should be done to get the energy transition going to renewables fast. I think that's also what VP Timmermans wants, it's just easier said than done. And remember that the EU doesn't have executive authority to say how things should be done. It mostly comes back to the member states who have to agree.

@LShaver Regarding subsidies. I think you're right about that but it applies somewhat differently. So over here there are a lot of energy subsidies, but they're mostly not for consumers. For example there's a tax break for aviation fuel, for heating in greenhouses, industrial processes, etc. So there are a lot of tax breaks, but they don't apply to consumers directly. And taking them away hurts businesses, so that's a big step too.

Source on relevant numbers www-mejudice-nl.translate.goog/artikelen/detail/…

@JJJ agreed! but it's late here, I'm off to bed.

Sure, good night!