By incorporating both in baseload, independently operating microgrids, it is an 80% GHG reduction from coal, and 40% reduction from gas only.
This was published in 2010, in WorldWatch Issue 184, (available on request)but it was buried. The Wind Industry was not interested in acknowledging the need, and considered us heretics for mentioning it.
Over the last decade of my naivety I’ve come to empathize with Galileo, when he was trying to get the Roman Catholic Church to recognize that the universe does not revolve around the earth.
This time the “church” is mainstream media, renewable energy equipment companies and the petroleum producers, and merchants
And one of many voices is Matt Egan, of CNN news, said in an Article aimed at discrediting the long term viability of LNG
“While those investments make sense today, they will likely be derailed in the longer run by a combination of plunging renewable energy costs and rising climate change concerns, according to the Global Energy Monitor, a network of researchers tracking fossil fuel projects.” WRONG!
This is only one of a flock of articles that are continuing to imply that “Renewable energy” can power the world.
Renewable energy cannot power the world! Even if it were free, it could not provide the essential reliability an ever more electrified world will need. Electricity is only 18% of the energy consumed in the United States.
Let me highlight a more climate friendly interpretation.
If we spread natural gas powered electricity generation, over to start replacing the inefficient and much dirtier petroleum distillate applications, it will double our progress.
Both renewables, and natural gas can play seamlessly together to make the Reliable electricity our economies must have.
And, through that hybridization we can triple the amount of renewable energy because it’s now built in to a baseload quality electricity supply.
This is how we can start dropping CO2 emissions at triple the rate the current model is heading toward.
Natural Gas, and renewables are NOT competitors. Together we have the most powerful tools for GHG reduction in history.
And, with the advent of scaleable LNG, whole microgrids can have 10x the “grid out” capacity that batteries alone can rationally provide.
©William Ross Williams 2019
I feel morally obligated to call bullshit on this fear-mongering by people who have no idea how our energy system works.
Bashing natural gas pipelines, virtual, or in the ground is the equivalent of bashing climate progress. What do they propose we do? Go back to burning wood? Stay with the fuel oils that put toxic particulates in the air in addition to CO2?
Could it be that the “Many environmental groups” know that this is a very positive interim solution for getting the cleanest possible fuel to homes and industries?
And, it’s even more damaging than that.
The natural gas that cannot get to markets one way or another is not processed to clean pipeline quality gas and ends up being burned in flares with whatever sulfur or other components that would have been removed if the gas could get to markets.
So we want to just leave the unprocessed gas-burning near the wells, or do we want to use it as the cleanest fuel possible to burn?.
“Many environmental groups appear unaware of the topic, virtual pipelines have received virtually no national media attention”
- in Accelerating the Transition, Africa, Air Pollution, Electricity consumers, Electricity Users, Energy, Energy consumers, LNG, LNG Transition, Low Carbon Future, microgrids, poverty alleviation, economic growth, entrepreneurship, global warming, climate, Sustainability, Toxic emissions, Transition to lower carbon
- Leave a comment
Whenever I bring up the topic of using natural gas in Integrated Gas, Wind, Solar (IGWS) configurations that will provide “baseload” reliability, and low cost, I know there is a whole gallery of folk just waiting to throw rocks at the idea to use “fossil fuel” in a low carbon scenario.
What the heck, that’s happening anyway no matter what I or anyone else thinks. The “grids” are now installing flexible gas generation to maintain stability when the weather decides not to cooperate.
But, with the advent of LNG, and virtual pipelines that can get the fuel to more remote areas that can bring all the technologies together, there’s something else my observations are waving a flag about.
Globally there is enough “waste gas” being flared to more than supply the whole area that either has no electricity or unreliable at best. And it’s just burning and burning and emitting CO2, SO2, and particulates.
Just, burning and burning. Nobody to use it.
Plus, diesel is the go-to fuel for reliability, on top of the burning flare gas and that’s making urban areas deadly with pollution.
But, if we capture the gas that’s just flaring away, compress it or turn it into LNG, and then use that reliable fuel to make electricity, the overall effect is below net zero. Not only are we not causing any “new” combustion, but we’re making net negative,pollution-free electricity.
And this electricity can eliminate the need for indoor pollution, from cooking with wood, dung, or charcoal that’s killing at least 4.6 million people per year.
My simple mind is saying, “we have no additional CO2 emission from gas, and the byproduct is clean electricity to save lives wherever we can make this available.”
Since the compressed or liquified gas can be handled like, and replace diesel fuel, we can start doing this with microgrids that are immune to outages.
We don’t have to build new pipelines or new grid transmission lines, and we have exclusive control of our energy supply, no government goof ups, corrupt “tollgates” and “poof” those people are healthy and can work adding new income to the economy.
I have some friends in this space, and I hope we can collaborate to get one or two, or three done.
Once established, it should start blossoming, I’m never the only one to think of this stuff so if my friends aren’t the first then who cares.
Let’s stop dirty waste, and start providing clean upward mobility.
©Wm Ross Williams Copyright 06232019
- in Accelerating the Transition, Air Pollution, Blocking correlation, Covert Deceptions, Electricity Users, Energy, Energy storage, Fake Green Misdirection, Indirect undermining, Is it true?, LNG Transition, Lobby and Covert anti progress legislation, Low Carbon Future, Manipulating Content, microgrids, New Looks at Old news., Nuclear, Numbing our consciousness., Overt Deceptions, poverty alleviation, economic growth, entrepreneurship, global warming, climate, Renewable Based Thermal Energy, Renewable Energy, Solar, Sorting the lies, Sustainability, The Great Deception, Transition to lower carbon
- Leave a comment
Bantering about the pro and cons of nuclear energy is as fruitful as Galileo refuting the “absolute truth” of the Roman Catholic Church which, in the 1500s, insisted that the universe does revolve around the earth.
To think otherwise remained “heresy” of some degree until Pope John Paul declared the findings of these early scientists to be great works in 1992.
When it comes to society, “beliefs” are what rule, regardless of established facts to the contrary.
Today, there are likely to be more people who believe Nuclear power is dangerous than there are members of the Christan faith.
That makes the belief that Nuclear is bad, bad, bad today’s “Absolute Truth.”
Details like the 4.6 million people dying annually from air pollution just don’t count.
The power of “absolute truth” has been demonstrated over millennia. About 400 BC it was illustrated by Socrates execution. Socrates was sentenced to death for questioning the “Absolute Truth” of the Greco-Roman philosophy and religion 400 years BC. He was often caught referring to “God” rather than the Gods.
Similar results were demonstrated when first Copernicus, then Galileo were banished by the Roman Catholic Church for challenging the “Absolute Truth” of the church that God created the universe in a way that made it revolve around the earth.
Today, what has become an “absolute truth”as established by global commerce is the danger of nuclear power. This is the prevailing belief of most of the people on earth that are privy to modern media.
Let’s look at the opposing realities regarding Nuclear generated electricity:
- Pro. If we switched to nuclear as rapidly as possible we would have enough energy to power electricity based and mostly digital civilization and stop killing the 4.6 million people who die from air pollution every year.
- Con.The 6 Trillion dollars of global trade that depends on the continuing consumption of fossil fuels would lose 80% of its trade revenues.
If there is one global “religion” today that crosses all cultures, regardless of religious beliefs it is TRADE.
And espousing paths that would jeopardize that 6-8 trillion dollars of fossil fuel related TRADE are a nonstarter. We now have the ability to electrify the world without coal. So, what?
Considering Absolute truths ©Wm Ross Williams 2019
- Exploring the Link Between Pollution and COVID-19 Mortality | Department of Biostatistics | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
- If you’re serious about stopping “climate change”please read this: All of it.
- The question “Can Technology alone define the future of renewables?” is indicative of how much value is hiding unnoticed.
- An Agenda for Genuine Financial Reform – CAPITAL INSTITUTE
- A Blueprint for Rural Electrification: Building a Market for Mini-Grids in Niger | by Power Africa | Aug, 2020 | Medium
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- April 2015
- September 2012
- January 2012