It’s official: LNG fuel cycle is 33% more destructive than coal. This should be being screamed from the rooftops of every nuclear advocate.
This is a Cornell University study used to determine the GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS impact “ONLY.” This doesn’t research the acute health effects caused by millions of people in the United States and globally who breathe in, drink, or are topically exposed to ozone, benzine, methane, mercury, dioxins, NORM, and other known carcinogens, neuro-toxins and poisons that are EXEMPT from the the clean-air act, the clean-water act, the SuperFund act, and a dozen other keystone environmental health regulations.
I personally believe the morality of killing children and elderly the respiratory disease and the increasing rates of cancer found in correlation with the “shale fracking revolution” is a much more serious matter.. and I say that knowing that the existential threat posed by climate disruption to could end organized civilization in less than a century.
A lot of the utilities here in the U.S. that have PWRs and BWRs in their portfolio also have a lot of fracking and LNG.. but it’s time to be vocal.. to educate.. to organize.. to act.. until the public-pressure builds to the point where they are proud to announce the planned closure of their natural-gas cycle peaker plants and infrastructure, while embracing the public demand for safe and reliable modern nuclear technology.. but if that reality is to come to fruition, if preventing asthma and neuro-myopathy, lymphoma and leukemia in children and people in the Pennsylvania forests, Colorado plateau, East-Texas tall-grass and every other state (pollution knows no borders) and around the world is surely enough.. if the existential threat to human civilization from green-house gas emissions is surely enough..
…but what is not enough – is those of us with the heads and hearts to understand the context and solution ☢️ to this problem is we need to educate, organize, act a HELL of A LOT more than we are already doing in order to force the conversation and public consciousness. Almost every positive change in history takes place, not because of the benevolence of power but because of the reluctant acceptance by power of the public pressure to do the right thing. Solar and wind technology are crucial, but only the reliability, acute safety and chronic long-term climate safety of energy reliability, which will be needed to end most of the synthesized petro-chemical revolution and current agriculture-hydrocarbon intersections NEED an abundance of non-intermittent electricity to make easy. There is simply nothing more misunderstood than the economic, safety and record of nuclear technology.. but it’s all being replaced with gas under the fossil fuel corporation lie that “it’s greener”
We need to stop it and embrace the correct energy portfolio..or our neighbors will get sicker and our great grand children will inherit a biosphere destroyed in totality for human life and organized civilization.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/biden-lng-coal
by PrismPhoneService
2 comments
Depending on escaped methane and interpretation of methane affect on climate, loss of 1.5 to 3 percent methane to the atmosphere is just as bad as coal.
I worked as a chemical engineer on some of the largest LNG plants for 8 years (design/startup) and pivoted to clean technologies a few years ago.
It was generally accepted that about 8-10% of methane is lost in the liquefaction process (making gas into a liquid). Then there are shipping losses then maybe 2% is lost during re- gasification, then yes there are pipeline losses and probably some percent loss at the initial upstream platform.
It had always appeared to me that this HAD to be true over the full life cycle (despite being told the opposite many times) – that LNG is worse than coal. Thank you for sharing because it validated something I think I knew all along.
In my mind after designing LNG plants, walking LNG plants there is no requirement for additional capacity. They should be sunsetted and replaced with cleaner fuels which are now economically competitive.
Edit: Another thing I wanted to add when you build a new LNG plant you are banking on a 20-30 year operating life. They are multibillion dollar mega projects. Breakeven especially if there is a cost overrun may not occur for the first 15 years. They are not compatible with humanity’s climate goals whatever number you pick.