Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fossil fuel (employment, illegal, Canada)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zealots in government bureaucracies are making foolish and expensive decisions in order to please other bureaucrats, not to solve any environmental problems.
As a matter of foreign policy the United States supports the building of new nuclear power plants around the world, including in Iran and China. Yet our own government leaders -- elected by us, the People -- are opposed to new nuclear plants in our own country.
The climate is global yet we support new coal burning plants and nuclear plants as long as we can't see them from our house. We saddle ourselves with expensive renewable energy technologies that are inefficient, and the building blocks of which are produced in China.
This is a political issue, not a technology issue.
Data source is from eGRID
The lowest carbon emissions in the country are from upstate New York, but California is in 2nd place followed by New England and parts of Alaska. The final percentage is the percent of electricity generated from Natural gas.
NYUP 29% NPCC Upstate NY 25.9%
CAMX 63% WECC California 47.1%
NEWE 65% NPCC New England 53.2%
AKMS 65% ASCC Miscellaneous 7.4%
NWPP 73% WECC Northwest 18.5%
SRVC 76% SERC Virginia/Carolina 38.9%
NYCW 78% NPCC NYC/Westchester 69.1%
RFCE 80% RFC East 50.3%
SRMV 90% SERC Mississippi Valley 63.6%
U.S. 100% average 40.5%
ERCT 100% ERCOT All 50.2%
SRTV 102% SERC Tennessee Valley 28.1%
FRCC 102% FRCC All 75.3%
AZNM 103% WECC Southwest 49.7%
SRSO 105% SERC South 54.8%
SPSO 114% SPP South 46.4%
SPNO 117% SPP North 11.7%
MROW 120% MRO West 10.9%
RFCW 120% RFC West 29.4%
AKGD 134% ASCC Alaska Grid 54.3%
HIMS 140% HICC Miscellaneous 0.0%
RMPA 140% WECC Rockies 28.7%
RFCM 141% RFC Michigan 41.3%
NYLI 147% NPCC Long Island 86.4%
SRMW 181% SERC Midwest 14.9%
MROE 187% MRO East 33.9%
PRMS 196% Puerto Rico Miscellaneous 30.9%
HIOA 202% HICC Oahu 0.0%
It is possible to show the same data by State but it is somewhat less useful. Some states use electricity from other states. For instance Vermont has very few electrical generation facilities within the state.
3% VT
26% WA
26% ID
27% ME
30% NH
41% SD
42% OR
51% NY
55% CA
60% NJ
62% SC
64% CT
68% IL
69% TN
75% IA
78% MD
79% VA
79% NC
85% PA
86% OK
87% NV
88% AL
88% GA
90% AZ
92% DE
93% LA
93% MN
98% KS
98% DC
100% U.S.
101% RI
103% FL
104% TX
106% MA
109% MS
111% MT
114% MI
116% AR
117% AK
145% WI
146% NE
148% CO
152% OH
153% NM
168% ND
185% HI
188% IN
190% UT
196% PR
196% MO
204% KY
233% WV
241% WY
Last edited by PacoMartin; 05-12-2022 at 09:22 PM..
All interesting stuff.
If you measure the pollution per capita the story looks a lot different. When measured that way NY City is the most efficient, cleanest place in America - all that mass transit and multi family dwellings, and so forth.
The worst way to live in terms of pollution per capita is on the family farm..
I think we should drill everywhere, burn everything, use dams where we can, build nuclear reactors, use solar power, use wind, and throw all the zealots who are against everything but their pet projects, off the Golden Gate Bridge.
Clean burning or not, just like gasoline, NG prices are currently spiked. Over the last decade (when there was a glut) prices were in the range of $2-4 per million BTUs. Today the price is around $7.80, and the DoE forecasts that for the 2nd half of 2022 it will average $8.60.
Quote:
The growth of LNG exports has not only increased demand for U.S. gas, but also tied domestic gas market more closely to those in Europe and Asia where prices are much higher, said Francisco Blanch, head of commodities research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch
When prices in some European countries move higher, as they did recently when the United Kingdom was paying $24 per million Btu in September — more than three times the current U.S. cost — traders feel confident that they can bid up the cost of U.S. gas well past the point most Americans would consider normal and still make a profit overseas.
“The correlation between domestic and international prices has grown exponentially,” Blanch said. “Four or five years ago there was very little link. But now you’ve seen a huge uptake in the correlation.”
Taking a step back, each step up in energy density offers less pollution and fallout than using the less dense option.
So, biomass burning (wood) pollutes more and destroys more habitat than coal does, coal is an improvement over chopping down all the trees for the energy produced. Oil is cleaner than coal, a better combustion, less CO2, less strip mining etc... Same can be said from oil to Natural Gas, which I think is the cleanest form of fossil fuels....Like solar & wind, biomass is a niche solution, not a universal solution. We need an "all of the above" plan.
Now, Fission power is done kind of sloppy at the moment, old designs, weapons treaty issues, lots of fuel left over in the rods that turns into radioactive waste etc. There IS a better way to do fusion, it just really hasn't been implemented fully and the 70s design reactors come with problems as mentioned. And of course, the holy grail is Fusion, which will happen with the advances they are making, it's just a really hard problem.
Here's the path of human energy advancement: Biomass > Coal > Oil > Natural Gas > Fission > Fusion
Where's the renewables in there? That would be a sidestep from Oil / Natural Gas. They fix the carbon problem but are worse on the habitat front and are a step down in density. They are a necessary evil / a crutch until we figure out better tech in the future on the nuclear front.
The big thing to me is that moving people from biomass to coal / oil is a gain, as much as moving from oil to renewables. Looking holistically, with habitat preservation in mind, we should be as focused on moving the developing world towards better fossil fuels and eliminate biomass completely as we are in offloading developed countries energy to renewables.
Good post...I'll only suggest one correction-- biomass can be made very clean by using gassification furnaces, and biomass is completely renewable. We could also be diverting a good deal of our waste currently going into landfills for use as fuel in power generating plants....Like solar and wind, this is a niche solution, not a universal solution. We need an "all of the above" plan.
Energy usage is a proxy measure of standard of living. While conservation (waste not, want not) is always good policy, we don't want to significantly curtail energy availability....
Fossil fuels are ultimatley in finite supply, ergo, they WILL become depleted at some point, so we need to plan for that. The "co2 problem" is a false one, thanks to the phenomena of extinction of absorbtion and the exponential nature of the GHG Effect.
Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation.
Although by year 2021 California has made remarkable progress in generation of electricity by Wind (14,216 GWh) and solar (31,614 GWh) they are still very reliant on Natural Gas (97,350 GWh) out of a total instate generation (193,569 GWh). As there is only one nuclear power plant, nuclear contributed only (16,477 GWh) in 2021,
Nationwide the use of natural gas for electricity generation in 2020 is 269% the amount for the year 2000. In California natural gas generated electricity is down 17% in 20 years.
In February 2022 the average price of a MWh of residential electricity is:
$255.90 California
$131.80 Nevada
$126.90 Arizona
$109.20 Oregon
$105.90 Utah
$100.30 Washington
$97.50 Idaho
The decision has already been made to end nuclear generation in California by the year 2025. But do you think the law to end production of electricity by natural gas by the year 2045 should stand?
There are really two things we need to do.
1. Shut down coal fired power plants as quickly as we can and build no more. I'm fine with these being replaced by natural gas and nuclear power plants. The nuclear waste disposal problem has always been over-emphasized. Remember that radioactive elements like uranium are mined all the time. It would seem to me that nuclear waste could be put back in the same places.
2. Continue rapid development of electric vehicles.
After that happens, America has really done what it can about climate change. Other nations are going to have to do their share if we are going to solve this problem. I don't worry so much about Europe. I worry very much about China and other developing countries in Asia.
All interesting stuff.
If you measure the pollution per capita the story looks a lot different. When measured that way NY City is the most efficient, cleanest place in America - all that mass transit and multi family dwellings, and so forth.
That's very true.
62.4% of people who live in NY State live in NY City, Long Island and Westchester County
49.9% of people who live in NY State live in NY City & Nassau County
State New York State Rank by Energy usage per capita (all forms of energy, not just electricity)
#27 Commercial
#44 Residential
#49 Industrial
#49 Transportation
#48 Total Energy
I think if we can power the entire worldwide grid with Natural Gas (more of it for now, potentially in decreasing share later), Nuclear Fission (and hopefully eventually Fusion), hydro and renewables where applicable (though they're largely overrated and environmentally destructive) and totally eliminate burning biomass/coal/oil (all the fossil fuels except natural gas), and all the vehicles (including planes) being powered off said grid by those things and not running oil, then I think that would be immense progress in every way, and a solid compromise. And totally fine, not right or wrong or moral or immoral. Just humans using our resources to live a good life that we want to live. Nothing wrong with that inherently.
Climate change/global warming would happen a little bit, it would cause some problems, and the sea levels will rise a little bit. But the planet would be fine, and remain livable. And then when increasingly cleaner and better Nuclear energy tech takes off, it gets even better, and we can at that point completely retire all fossil energy.
What kills me is the fear-mongering about nuclear. That Chernobyl documentary showed me that nuclear is safe, because the problem happened due to complete idiocy at every level. If you simply design it to be extremely safe and careful (and don't put it where natural disasters/tidal waves can take it out), then there's no issue.
But, to answer your question, I do not believe the law to end production of electricity by natural gas should stand, as I do not believe it is the government’s job to mandate what kind of electricity can and cannot be used in their state. Let the free market decide.
In California, the public decides law though propositions which the public writes themself. California created law though proposition which limited energy rate increases. Which resulted in power shortages that lasted years.
I think if we can power the entire worldwide grid with Natural Gas (more of it for now, potentially in decreasing share later), Nuclear Fission (and hopefully eventually Fusion), hydro and renewables where applicable (though they're largely overrated and environmentally destructive) and totally eliminate burning biomass/coal/oil (all the fossil fuels except natural gas), and all the vehicles (including planes) being powered off said grid by those things and not running oil, then I think that would be immense progress in every way, and a solid compromise.
The entire worldwide grid is growing every year, but the US has been running relatively static for over a decade. EVs and the elimination of natural gas for home heating may result in a dramatic change in upcoming years.
In theory it should be relatively easy to replace coal with natural gas, but there are intense lobbying efforts to maintain coal in
US for year 2020 - Created: 1/27/2022 by EIA
19.6% Nuclear
.
19.3% Coal
40.5% Gas
0.7% Oil
0.3% Other Fossil
0.1% Other unknown/ purchased fuel
.
7.0% Hydro
.
12.50% Renewables
8.4% Wind
2.2% Solar
1.5% Biomass
0.4% Geo- thermal
Coal burning states as % of production and as multiple of national average
88.6% WV 4.59
79.4% WY 4.11
71.2% MO 3.69
68.7% KY 3.56
61.5% UT 3.19
58.1% ND 3.01
53.0% IN 2.75
50.9% NE 2.64
38.7% WI 2.01
37.6% NM 1.95
37.2% OH 1.93
36.4% MT 1.89
36.1% CO 1.87
31.1% KS 1.61
28.2% AR 1.46
26.2% MI 1.36
24.8% MN 1.28
23.7% IA 1.23
19.3% U.S. 1.00
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
