| ▲ | mritterhoff 6 days ago |
| While Meta has a non-binding promise to build more renewable energy, the Louisiana Legislature passed a new law that adds natural gas to the definition of green energy, allowing Zuckerberg and others to count Entergy’s gas turbines as “green.” As much as I prefer burning gas over coal, conflating it with zero(-ish) emission energy sources like wind, solar, and nuclear is bad. |
|
| ▲ | juujian 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Due to all the methane leaks, gas isn't even as much cleaner than coal as it was purported to be... But hey monitoring programs got cut so I guess that solves the problem... |
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | From a purely greenhouse gas accounting, sure. Anyone who has to live in a fairly closed system (i.e. this planet) in which fossil fuels are burned for power would be beyond a fool to not strongly prefer gas over coal seeing as their greenhouse emissions are close enough to be within arguing distance. It's all the other stuff coming out that's the problem with coal. | | |
| ▲ | PaulStatezny 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you might have a typo. Reading your comment literally, it doesn't make sense. Summarized: Anyone would be a fool not to prefer gas or coal, because their emissions are nearly equal. One doesn't follow from the other, can you correct/elaborate? | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the point is: "you'd be a fool not to prefer gas, because while the greenhouse emissions are about the same, for everything else coal is much worse" | |
| ▲ | marcusb 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They said gas over coal. If you accept the claim that GHG emissions from gas and coal are roughly equal, their claim is the other pollutants from burning coal make gas far more preferable. | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If their greenhouse emissions are even close only a moron would not pick gas over coal because the former's emissions lack all the other nasty byproducts that are present in the latter's emissions. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mritterhoff 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree methane leaks (and monitoring programs cuts) are a problem. But even with them, methane burns much more cleanly than coal. The former primarily emits CO2 and H2O, while the latter emits SO2, NOx, heavy metals and more. | | |
| ▲ | mikeyouse 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | These definitions always get muddled when flipping between CO2 emissions or pollution... coal is definitely worse from a pollution standpoint, is likely worse from a carbon standpoint, but much of the methane produced from natural gas production is just released into the atmosphere and has a dramatically higher warming effect compared to CO2 -- on the order of 80x more warming potential over 20 years and at least 20x over 100 years. So only looking at the byproducts of methane combustion is also misleading since nat. gas plants largely aren't burning methane - and blanket statements for all natural gas are also misleading since e.g. the gas from Canada is extremely 'Sour' and releases a ton of sulfur compounds when burned, often with fewer scrubbers than coal plants. | | |
| ▲ | GOD_Over_Djinn 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This is a really interesting comment. Do you have a reference for the 80x figure, or the “sour” Canadian gas? Would love to read more about this | | |
| ▲ | mikeyouse 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Methane mostly disassembles into CO2 but it takes 12+ years. When thinking about global warming potential, everything is compared to CO2 which we’ve normalized as “1”. So something with a GWP of 2 is twice as bad as CO2 in equal volumes. Methane will eventually break down into CO2, so if you look at the GWP for years 13-100, it’s 1. The weighted average for years 1-100 is over 20x, so it follows that if you look only at a shorter time frame, it would be dramatically higher and is indeed - somewhere north or 80 for a 20-year time frame. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... As far as sour gas is concerned - not all natural gas formations are created equal. If you look at any serious pollution evaluation, they take into account which formation the gas was harvested from. Texas gas is pretty ‘sweet’ with low sulfur and acid content but much of the oil/gas in Western Canada or the Gulf is ‘sour’ and must be treated and refined prior to being sold as fuel. So it also follows here that flaring methane from sour fields is going to release a bunch of the souring compounds and have a much stronger environmental
impact as compared to sweet formations. https://nsrp.vn/latest-article/sour-crude-oil-and-sweet-crud... |
|
| |
| ▲ | chaos_emergent 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the problem is that methane is 20x more powerful a GHG than CO2 | | |
| ▲ | dpkirchner 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Laugh in the face of anyone suggesting CO2 capture technology. We won't even capture the more-valuable methane. | |
| ▲ | hippo22 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | chris_va 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As an aside, methane leaks from coal mines can be worse than upstream leaks from O&G. | |
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | maxehmookau 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Adding natural gas to the definition of green energy is absolutely wild. How on earth did that pass? |
| |
| ▲ | dublinben 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Louisiana has a long history of political corruption, and the petrochemical industry is a major part of their economy. | | | |
| ▲ | jjice 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have to imagine it's just a complete lack of care and classifying it as "green" helps push through something that they're being lobbied to push. I can't imagine this is anything but nonsense. | |
| ▲ | yoyohello13 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We all know how it passed. Legislators have lots of money in natural gas I’m sure. |
|
|
| ▲ | h1fra 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| burning fossil fuel and depleting the local water aquifer, I'm starting to miss the greenwashing era |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Behaving a certain way to pretend being virtuous, it turns out, is almost as good as actually being virtuous. | |
| ▲ | jandrese 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is there really a concern that the datacenter is going to drink up all the water in Louisiana? I was much more concerned that it will be expensive to cool because it's situated in a state with a lot of hot and humid days. | |
| ▲ | gosub100 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Redefining words to fit their narrative and premise...hmm where have I seen that before? |
|
|
| ▲ | matthewdgreen 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Who is this non-binding promise being made to, and why make one? |
| |
|
| ▲ | barbazoo 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Meta has a non-binding promise to build more renewable energy Also the people working for that company. Unimaginable wealth, both at the corporate and personal level, everyone aware at this point that the climate is breaking down and yet, they just can't do the right thing because they are just too damn greedy. |
|
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | digdugdirk 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Looks like Louisiana is all aboard the "internal colonialism" that seems to be all the rage at the state level lately. In this case, flouting national/international renewable energy policy so the good people of Louisiana can get the long term benefit of... Having to deal with the fallout of another datacentre project? Come on Louisiana legislature, at least make them pay for resurfacing a highway or something. |
| |
| ▲ | lupusreal 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > Having to deal with the fallout of another datacentre project? I don't understand. What are the specific risks facing the people of Louisiana? |
|
|
| ▲ | babypuncher 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | m101 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| None of those energy source is zero-ish. They all require upfront releases of CO2 to create, and end of life release to recycle. Nuclear for base load and gas for peak/flexible demand is the most climate friendly solution available. |
| |
| ▲ | digdugdirk 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Look, I love to be pedantic as much as the next person on this site, but let's not miss the forest for the trees. State level legislature relabeling fossil fuels so they count as "green" is not the path to a better future. | |
| ▲ | timeon 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They all require upfront releases of CO2 to create, and end of life release to recycle. All of them require that; but not all of them require it during the production. Some, like natural gas, do. | | |
| ▲ | m101 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but that's not the point is it. The point is: what are total emissions? |
|
|
