Still we persist. [View all]
I came across some text in the following paper that is illustrative of exactly how clueless we are, which is not to say that the rest of the paper isn't clueless itself.
The paper:
Assessing Best Practices in Natural Gas Production and Emerging CO2 Capture Techniques to Minimize the Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation Ryan Cownden and Mathieu Lucquiaud Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (47), 20906-20917
This paper is open to the public, anyone can read it. It's about how to make dangerous natural gas "green," sort of like making hydrogen "green," or so called "renewable energy" "green." Or maybe it's about rattling on about the same damn thing over and over and over and over, no matter what the resulting numbers say.
The text in question:
Worldwide wind and photovoltaic power generation have both grown substantially since the Paris Agreement was signed (+4.6 and +3.8 EJ, respectively, in 2022 compared to 2015), yet fossil fuel consumption has also increased: +19.3 EJ for natural gas (NG), +7.2 EJ for oil, and +4.3 EJ for coal. (9) While costs for wind and photovoltaic electricity generation have decreased considerably, balancing generation and demand becomes more challenging and costly as the share of intermittent renewable generation increases. (10) Electricity production from fossil fuels can provide important dispatchable generation and inertial services for power grids. (11) Based on current government energy policies, fossil fuels are expected to continue supplying most human energy consumption over the next 30 years (6080% in 2050 (12,13)), but the associated GHG emission forecasts are inconsistent with commitments to mitigate climate change. Limiting global warming (GW) within the Paris Agreement goals would require faster growth in low-carbon energy than is currently forecast. (13)
State-of-the-art combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) generate electricity with direct CO2 emissions of approximately 334 kgCO2/MWh (14) and also cause substantial indirect GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. (15−17) Postcombustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) can effectively mitigate most direct emissions and is technologically ready for widespread deployment; (10,14,18) however, CCS increases other environmental impact intensities, primarily due to higher NG consumption. (15−17) Similarly, wind and photovoltaic power installations generate electricity with no direct emissions but impact the environment through their supply chains and land occupation. (10,16,17) Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an effective tool to evaluate and compare the emissions and impacts caused by electricity generation technologies at all stages of production. (10,16)
I added the bold.
You mean that gas, oil, and coal are growing faster than so called "renewable energy" collectively by an order of magnitude? You're kidding? Seriously? Who could have known?
Here, in my opinion, is how to make dangerous natural gas "green: " Stop using it.
Here, in my opinion, is how to make electricity reliable without releasing carbon dioxide, so one doesn't need natural gas: Generate it with reliable systems that don't release carbon dioxide, of which there is one, and only one form, nuclear energy.
Oh and we can stop pretending that so called "renewable energy" has anything to do with arresting fossil fuels. The cause of the trillion dollars squandered on it was, is, and always will be to attack nuclear energy.
Oh, and we can stop pretending that hydrogen made from natural gas, coal and oil is "green." It isn't; it's a shell game that wastes energy.
In a way, I'm kind of relieved that the end of my life approaches; I won't live to see the worst of it.
Chanting is
not superior to thinking.
The quoted section of this open sourced paper demonstrates, unambiguously, while the authors did not intend it as such, that so called "renewable energy"
entrenches the use of fossil fuels, that it cannot do anything to displace their use.