Yeah, and the LNG terminal expansion isn’t really that bad for the environment either. Developing countries still have a few decades to switch to complete renewables.
Natural gas is the most environmentally friendly non renewable energy source out there. I mean it does emit CO2 (which is bad ofc, but it emits around 50%), but that’s all it emits. The other ones are even worse. That’s why Europe switched to natural gas as an intermediary source of energy (especially for backup power, when solar can’t generate anything). It’s highly likely that Asia would want to do the same.
Someone has to supply this. That “someone” is us. The LNG terminal expansion helps us do this.
Oooh thank you so much for linking it! Was quite an interesting watch.
Here’s a resource from the Canadian government in regards to this. Basically, the government says it has improved regulations to reduce methane emissions and that it is taking actions to enforce these regulations better (through improved methane emissions detection) and is cooperating with international partners (which includes the EU) for the same.
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on this and would love an opinion piece from a climate researcher who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. However, to my untrained eye, it looks like the “good bridge fuel” isn’t totally a con (at least for Canadian gas?).
Yeah, and the LNG terminal expansion isn’t really that bad for the environment either. Developing countries still have a few decades to switch to complete renewables.
Natural gas is the most environmentally friendly non renewable energy source out there. I mean it does emit CO2 (which is bad ofc, but it emits around 50%), but that’s all it emits. The other ones are even worse. That’s why Europe switched to natural gas as an intermediary source of energy (especially for backup power, when solar can’t generate anything). It’s highly likely that Asia would want to do the same.
Someone has to supply this. That “someone” is us. The LNG terminal expansion helps us do this.
The issue with LNG is that the environmental math doesn’t account for all the natural gas that escapes into the air before it’s burned.
I know a video of this length is a hard ask, but it’s very well done and I think worth your time: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw
Oooh thank you so much for linking it! Was quite an interesting watch.
Here’s a resource from the Canadian government in regards to this. Basically, the government says it has improved regulations to reduce methane emissions and that it is taking actions to enforce these regulations better (through improved methane emissions detection) and is cooperating with international partners (which includes the EU) for the same.
Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on this and would love an opinion piece from a climate researcher who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. However, to my untrained eye, it looks like the “good bridge fuel” isn’t totally a con (at least for Canadian gas?).