New EPA Rule Means the End of Natural Gas-Fueled Electricity

Please consider An EPA Death Sentence for Fossil-Fuel Power Plants

Progressives groused that the Inflation Reduction Act lacked “enforcement mechanisms” to punish fossil fuels. Well, the White House took care of that Thursday with a new 681-page Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule that amounts to a death sentence for fossil-fuel power plants.

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act says the EPA can regulate pollutants from stationary sources through the “best system of emission reduction” that is “adequately demonstrated.” Yet the EPA wants to require that fossil-fuel plants adopt carbon capture and green hydrogen technologies that aren’t currently cost-effective or feasible, and may never be. Only one commercial-scale coal plant in the world uses carbon capture to reduce emissions, and no gas-fired plants do.

Even if power plants implemented carbon capture, their cost of generation would double, rendering them less competitive against subsidized wind and solar power. There’s also the not-so-small problem of permitting. Thousands of miles of pipelines would have to be built to transport carbon to geologic structures where it can be injected.

Natural gas plants might be able to comply with the rule by blending hydrogen into fuel. But almost all hydrogen today is produced from natural gas, so this wouldn’t result in a net reduction in CO2. Hence, EPA wants to make gas plants use “low-greenhouse gas” hydrogen produced from renewable electricity, which is three to four times more expensive.

Blending more hydrogen into gas also increases NOx emissions and puts plants out of compliance with other EPA regulation. To reduce NOx, power plants would have to install new turbines and other equipment, some of which is only now being developed.

Alternatively, power plants can shut down, as most probably will.

But the clean energy future is still the future, and the technologies that EPA wants to mandate don’t exist. Forcing fossil-fuel plants to shut down prematurely will endanger grid reliability. Don’t worry, EPA says, plants won’t have to fully comply for seven to 12 years. But their owners and utilities must make economic investment calculations today.

Five Things About the EPA Proposal

  1. Costs would soar
  2. Energy reliability would dive
  3. Ending natural gas would not do a damn thing for the environment because the US only produces 13 percent of the global carbon
  4. Permitting all of the new carbon pipelines is a big deal. We are already seeing backlash against size of wind farms.
  5. It’s not even constitutional 

The courts have already struck down many Biden’s unconstitutional power grabs. Student debt cancellation is on the deck and this one is sure to get a hearing.  

Biden Rulings Struck Down by the Courts

Biden Agenda Takes Hit From High Court

Please consider Biden Agenda Takes Hit From High Court

The 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, primarily derails the EPA’s plan to shift power generation away from fossil-fuel plants to cleaner sources. But it also took a swipe at the entire executive branch’s ability to regulate other areas of American life. It cemented the majority’s perspective that Congress must explicitly give agencies the power to regulate “major questions” with significant economic or political implications.

“The constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,” Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Samuel Alito, wrote in a concurring opinion.

The Thursday ruling serves as a glaring warning shot to Biden, who throughout his presidency has drawn scrutiny from the high court for seeking to create change through regulation in the absence of action from Congress. In limiting the EPA’s authority, the justices gave conservatives a playbook to target a range of Biden’s more ambitious regulations, including those governing how companies compete, the availability of vaping devices, and production of untraceable guns, administrative law professors told Bloomberg Law.

Try, Try, Again

“The constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,” Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Samuel Alito, wrote in a concurring opinion.

Undaunted by previous Supreme Court rulings, the Biden EPA wrote a massive 681-page rule that amounts to a death sentence for fossil-fuel power plants.

The president is doing everything in his power (and many things that aren’t) to drive up inflation for ridiculous ideas that will not do much of anything for the climate even if implemented.

Pulling CO2 From the Air, a Giant Sucking Sound of Environmental Madness

On April 10, I commented Pulling CO2 From the Air, a Giant Sucking Sound of Environmental Madness

Thanks to government subsidies, Occidental is making a billion dollar bet on using tennis court sized fans to suck carbon dioxide from the air.

Battles Rage Over Biden’s Clean Energy Projects as the Size and Cost Jump

On May 8, I commented Battles Rage Over Biden’s Clean Energy Projects as the Size and Cost Jump

A NIMBY backlash has begun as the scope of the Inflation reduction act is too much for local communities.

One woman was offered $10,000 to have electric lines cross her property. She turned it down. Another said “not over my dead body”. 

Yet, we are to believe new carbon pipelines will run all over the place so we can pump CO2 into the bedrock and hope it doesn’t escape. 

All of this madness is only possible because of insane EPA rulings, massive subsidies, unconstitutional actions, and forced willingness to depend on wind and solar projects that are not reliable because storage technology is woefully insufficient.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

69 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
The peoples representatives pass laws that are too vague and imprecise to be useful until they are massaged by the Executive and the Agencies. We need to acknowledge and directly address the fourth branch of Government – the bureaucratic – which is appointed not elected and been in power far too long.
wmjack50
wmjack50
2 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
The Senior Executive Service in the Administrative State is the power in the Swamp—they went after TRUMP as he was going to bring them out from under the civil service rules and subject them to firing–
Directed Energy
Directed Energy
2 years ago
Fossil fuel energy is the far and away #1 reason for human advancement the past 150 years. I care about my advancement, not the earth. The earth will take care of itself and it will be here for billions more years, I’ll only be here about 40 more. I care about myself and fossil fuels a hell of a lot more than the planet!
Lunatic_Fringe
Lunatic_Fringe
2 years ago
Ending natural gas in the US will not do a damn thing in regards to the climate because at present atmospheric concentrations CO2 is not a driver of temperature. People who think CO2 is the climate control knobs are useful idiots or crooks. Those are the two choices.
And besides, China and India are adding fossil fuel plants at a rate that guarantee atmospheric CO2 will increase no matter what the west does.
Envir
Envir
2 years ago

Ending natural gas would not do a damn thing for the environment because the US only produces 13 percent of the global carbon

Sorry Mish that is an absurd argument. Each country on earth obviously contributes only a small amount to global warming. So..your argument is that no country should do anything?

Lunatic_Fringe
Lunatic_Fringe
2 years ago
Reply to  Envir
China and India are adding fossil fuel plants at a rate that far surpasses our ability to subtract them. CO2 emissions will never go down.
Directed Energy
Directed Energy
2 years ago
Reply to  Envir
Yes! Energy is societies primary driver. The earth will take care of itself.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
The world will be using fossil fuels to generate electricity for many more decades. Mostly because we cannot build renewables fast enough to keep up with growing demand for electricity, let alone replace generation from fossil fuels. Reducing emissions from the generation of electricity from fossil fuels is a worthwhile endeavour, but it is secondary to the actual generation. This was demonstrated in Europe recently when they were willing to burn more dirty coal, just to keep the lights on.
Eventually (perhaps sometime in this century), most of the world’s
electricity will be from renewables. But that is many decades away.
In the meantime we will continue to use more oil and gas every year. And as supplies tighten, prices will rise.
Lunatic_Fringe
Lunatic_Fringe
2 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Solar and wind are stupid due to their intermittent nature and require being backed up by a reliable power plant operating in standby mode for the plentiful times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Doubling up capacity like this is a major reason why electricity costs soar everywhere solar and wind plants are plentiful.
Solar and wind are ridiculously stupid.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
Reply to  Lunatic_Fringe
Lol! You chose the right name; Lunatic-Fringe.
As worldwide demand continues to grow for ever more energy, countries are expanding ALL types of electric generation, including renewables. In 2021 renewables accounted for 28.7% of worldwide electricity. And renewables will only grow over the coming years, no matter what your opinion is. Without renewables, coal, oil and gas demand and prices would be substantially higher.
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
7 of the 10 fastest growing counties are driven by windmills. It’s good business. Annual lease payments and jobs for rural areas.
Hansa Junchun
Hansa Junchun
2 years ago
The only green thing about the green movement is the money. Green grifters made out like bandits under Obama when Solyndra and its imitators took vast loans from the government, squandered the money, and walked away from empty steel buildings with gleaming marble bathrooms. Nobody ever went to jail. This time, the con is even bigger. These swine in the alt energy sector are positioning to enrich themselves by fleecing everyone in America for overpriced energy that could never be sold if their government goons weren’t there to crush the cheaper competition. They aren’t even greener in terms of carbon, considering how much is expelled to make complex parts from exotic materials!
The best carbon capture is what is known as a tree. It captures carbon and releases oxygen. Plant a billion of them in the Sahel, vastly expand herds of cattle to stomp their manure into the soil, and watch the desert bloom into a forest that captures all the “excess” industrial carbon in the world in a few decades.
But that would solve the problem without enriching a pack of corrupt locusts, leeches, and parasites — so it will never happen.
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
Reply to  Hansa Junchun
There are over 3 trillion trees on the planet already, a billion is a rounding error. Maybe go 500 billion.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
Reply to  Hansa Junchun
Oh stop. While planting trees is good and can be part of the solution, it is only a small part. Plant a trillion trees (not just a billion for f sakes) and it will certainly help over the next hundred years. But to think that is all we need to do is comical.
Lunatic_Fringe
Lunatic_Fringe
2 years ago
Reply to  Hansa Junchun
Maybe we should determine if CO2 is actually a problem before we start planting billions of trees.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
Reply to  Lunatic_Fringe
Sigh. Of course its a problem. Where have you been for the last 3 decades (at the minimum)? It’s why 195 countries signed on to the climate accords. Its why the boards and executives of all the major corporations in the world have policies to reduce emissions. Its why militaries all over the world have contingency plans to deal with climate issues. Its why tens of thousands of scientists work in the field. Its why the world has been attempting a transition to more renewable energy for the last 3 decades. Its why oil and gas companies have been reducing their capex for the last decade because they don’t want to end up with a lot of stranded assets in the future. And its why I remain heavily invested in those oil and gas companies because they are going to make a crap load of money over the next decade as the price of oil and gas go up.
That’s the great thing about “problems”. They provide opportunities for the astute
to profit from them.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I am tired of all this green climate crap.
I am fighting back.
I am refusing to fertilize my lawn.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Sorry. We are just in the top of the first inning when it comes to climate problems. Rather than fighting back with a poor quality lawn, you should be figuring out ways to take advantage of the problem.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“Progressives groused that the Inflation Reduction Act lacked ‘enforcement mechanisms’ to punish fossil fuels.”
They grouse until it affects them negatively. In England, students wanted a university to divest from fossil fuel companies, until they were told the university could shut off the heat in the dorms, to cut fossil fuel use. In Los Angeles, natural gas bills doubled this winter, as it was colder along with some other issues with availability. Local news had stories of people complaining. “Progressives” are for open borders, complain when it drives up rent, then demand rent control.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
You’re just sore the government won’t send you free horse paste.
PeterEV
PeterEV
2 years ago
According to Exxon Mobil, World Natural Gas production is due to peak around 2050. It’s a really useful resource. Should we be using it to take long hot showers, cooking (maybe switching to induction ranges) and generating electricity as opposed to using it to make fertilizer, glass, etc.?
Solar is getting cheaper. Same with battery storage. This is the alternative going forward. Now to make it even cheaper.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  PeterEV
When the fertilizer runs out, people starve. We’re using oil to feed a population the land can’t support without fertilizer.
Lunatic_Fringe
Lunatic_Fringe
2 years ago
Reply to  PeterEV
Solar is not cheap when you factor in the fact that it needs to be backed up by a reliable generating plant operating in standby mode for the times when the sun doesn’t shine… which is at least 50% of the time.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  Lunatic_Fringe
Solar is not cheap when you consider that it is not any more sustainable than anything else.
Entropy always wins.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  PeterEV
We should be taking hot showers all the time so we can tell the grandchildren we once had as much hot water as we wanted whenever we wanted.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Five Things About the EPA Proposal”
1. You will own nothing and be happy.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
You will own nothing and be a paranoid schizophrenic.
hmk
hmk
2 years ago
What perplexes me is why not push nuclear to replace all at some point. Why waste time and money on bs like solar and wind. It doesn’t make any sense at all. The money would be better spent helping third world countries pollute less. If we, USA, went totally green it would have a neglible effect of greenhouse gases.
Avery
Avery
2 years ago
Reply to  hmk
At Argonne National Labs in the 90s they developed a nuclear reactor the size of an office desk.
Algore killed it.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  Avery
At Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the 60s they developed a safe nuclear reactor with very little long=lived radioactive wastes.
wmjack50
wmjack50
2 years ago
BRIBERY IN DC is rampant—ALONG WITH CORRUPTION—WHO KNOWS IF THE CCP IS BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE HISTERIA I WHILE THEY BUILD MORE COAL POWER PLANTS AND WE OUTLAW NATURAL GAS POWER PLANTS–THE ADMINISRATIVE STATE ALL PARASITES—
NO CONSUQUENCES WILL CAUSE THE PEOPLE TO DRAIN THE SWAMP
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  wmjack50
I can appreciate you frustration – but please don’t shout.
Ultracrepidarian
Ultracrepidarian
2 years ago
This proposal shows a general lack of understanding of how things work. Natural gas electricity generation is the only form of electricity generation which can respond within seconds to changes in electricity demand. Currently almost 40% of electricity is produced with natural gas as fuel during peak demand situations. (versus less than 2% solar panel and less than 7% wind)
Hydrogen cannot be mixed with natural gas in a boiler without very expensive major modifications, and then it must always be available in the future, the boiler cannot go back. And, well, there just isnt any free hydrogen around anywhere anyway.
This rule would simply bring down the US electric grid, immediately and permanently, if allowed to go into effect.
The spot price of natural gas rose by over 5% today, mainly because summer heat is coming early, bringing early use of air conditioning, also all the new Teslas are starting to have a material impact on the grid, even threatening rolling blackouts this summer as things stand now.
It will be interesting to see what happens, since I live in another country where people in power know a bit more about reality……
Avery
Avery
2 years ago

Indeed.Base load.Peaking plant.Etc.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Congress needs to defund EPA and/or severely restrict its powers.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
They are already restricted in that manner.
It’s just that Brandon is using every department he can to push his personal decrees through to avoid congress and the senate voting and rejecting them. Recall his attempt to use OSHA to mandate the vax for workers health reasons – LOL.
Lunatic_Fringe
Lunatic_Fringe
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
No, the agency needs to be defunded. They have way too much power… they can go after fossil fuels in other ways (i.e. PM2.5 particulates) if pursuing CO2 emissions fails. These people are zealots, they aren’t logical or data driven and they’re a huge danger to us all.
Christoball
Christoball
2 years ago
It is stated that anthropogenic methane, or that produced by man exceeds natural methane releases. What is not included in the calculus is loss of naturally occurring methane through loss of habitat, that would otherwise be released by nature. There is such a lack of wild animals in this world and their numbers have been replaced by people and domesticated animals. A friend of mine mentioned you don’t even see bugs on the windshield like you used too. Natural habitats sequester CO2 and methane as a natural balancing act. The focus on CO2 and methane production is looking in the wrong direction. What needs to be enhanced is the natural world and the interface of man with the natural world. Not as a tourist appreciating it, or watching a few reruns of Marlin Perkins on Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. but as a fellow sojourner with the Natural Kingdom. Methane and CO2 are natural elements that need to be used by nature rather than eliminated by man. There is no better solution than to enhance the Natural Biosphere.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
2 years ago
These mandates make a lot more sense when you look at the easily found by anyone agendas on the UN site. By making it more expensive to produce electricity, via their mandates and the utility companies less than wholehearted efforts to encourage people to produce electricity, the grid will become even more unstable. This will make it easier to mandate the movement of people from rural to ghetto.
Matt3
Matt3
2 years ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
That’s correct. You will live in your small apartment, walk to your crappy job and be constrained to the 15 minute ghetto. To see and experience the world, you will put on VR glasses and maybe a suit. Travel and the real world will be for the important people. You will have access to recreational drugs. You’re going to be happy – or else!
Welcome to the “Brave New World”.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
2 years ago
Reply to  Matt3
Hopefully they’ll upload my conscious into the cloud! Klown world really only survives because so many fools are so desperate to be deceived.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  Matt3
You will own nothing and become paranoid schizophrenic.
Jojo
Jojo
2 years ago
The solution to all our energy problems is on the horizon!
——
This startup says its first fusion plant is five years away. Experts doubt it.
Helion, backed by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, has already lined up Microsoft as its first customer.
James Temple
May 10, 2023
A startup backed by Sam Altman says it’s on track to flip on the world’s first fusion power plant in five years, dramatically shortening the timeline to a carbon-free energy source that’s eluded scientists for three-quarters of a century.
Helion Energy’s announcement that it’s on the verge of commercializing the process that powers the sun is an astounding claim—and a questionable one, according to several nuclear experts. That’s mainly because the company hasn’t said and won’t comment on whether it’s passed the first big test for fusion: getting more energy out of the process than it takes to drive it.
Nevertheless, the 10-year-old company, which is based in Everett, Washington, has already lined up its first customer for the planned commercial facility, striking a power purchase agreement with the software giant Microsoft. Helion expects that the plant will be built somewhere in the state of Washington, go online in 2028, and reach its full generating capacity of at least 50 megawatts within a year.
That’s small as power plants go: the generating capacity of a typical US natural-gas plant is now well over 500 megawatts. But if Helion pulls it off, it would be a big deal: economical commercial fusion plants could deliver a steady stream of clean electricity, without the intermittency challenges of solar and wind power or the controversies and concerns associated with the technology’s nuclear cousin, fission. It could make it cheaper and easier to eliminate the greenhouse gases driving climate change from the power sector, and it would help meet soaring electricity demand as the world races to cut pollution from transportation, homes, office buildings, and industry.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Cold fusion me one time, shame on you, cold fusion me a second time, shame on me.
But who knows… AI just made a 20 year leap that we didn’t expect. Maybe the people 45 years ago saying we would have fusion in 45 years were right.
Infinite energy + infinite labor would have some synergy.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Unfortunately cold fusion depends on unobtainium for a moderator.
Besides, the problem with perpetual motion mechanics is not the machine, it’s the power take-off.
TheCaptain
TheCaptain
2 years ago
Two things. 1) who voted for biden. This is their fault, period. 2)“The constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,” is about as strong a way of saying “no authoritarian tyrants will be allowed” as you can get without actually using those words. SCOTUS is saying no end around on congress, no good old boy back door deals, no top down dictatorial edicts are going to work. The words used by SCOTUS were carefully chosen to mock Brandon.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
2 years ago
Reply to  TheCaptain
If you voted at all, you’re a schmuck who ain’t got the spine to rule yourself. Slaves are the problem.
TheCaptain
TheCaptain
2 years ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
Spoken like someone who voted for brandon but now wants to act like Trump would have had the same outcome. We will get our chance to see what happens when trump wins again in 2024. If things then get better, well, it will be difficult to remain in denial.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
2 years ago
Reply to  TheCaptain

No. It was written by someone who obviously doesn’t vote. How you got your meaning out of that only proves you are functionally illiterate. Keep on choosing those selected for you to choose. That’ll fix things.

Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
Don’t be so hard on folks.
Voting is a cheap harmless way to feel good about yourself for an afternoon.
No harm or changes done.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
2 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
If people didn’t vote because they knew the truth, and had a spine to bear it, we wouldn’t be in this ridiculous position. Voting is a major ritual by which the worst of us attain the power they do not deserve. The voters give this garbage the thin veneer of legitimacy by their submission. Voting is evil.
BDR45
BDR45
2 years ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
Ah, finally some one writes the truth.
Jack
Jack
2 years ago
Reply to  TheCaptain
Not a lot of people voted for Biden – everyone just voted against Trump
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
2 years ago
Reply to  Jack
Just as a lot of people voted against Hillary in the prior election.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
Reply to  Siliconguy
That shows that voting is a waste of time. It just leads to a lot of whining and complaining about who won or didn’t win. Which is why I don’t bother to vote. I don’t want to end up like that whiner, The Captain. “Its all the fault of people who voted for Biden”. Boohoohoo. What a f*cking crybaby. Grow up.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I vote as a ‘f*k you’ to whoever displeases me most. It’s a purely symbolic action.
Nonplused
Nonplused
2 years ago
I wouldn’t worry about this too much. Things that cannot happen, don’t. At best it is just going to open up a new line of grift and bribery but that’s nothing new.
nightrite
nightrite
2 years ago
The far-left progs are mentally ill and pass it off as moral superiority.
scott
scott
2 years ago
“Ending natural gas would not do a damn thing for the environment because the US only produces 13 percent of the global carbon”
You obviously have not done any research on burning natural gas which produces methane. burning hydrogen does not produce methane which is one of the biggest factors of rising C02 levels.
“It’s not even constitutional” – this is possibly the dumbest thing I have heard this year, so when Trump gutted the EPA rules that wouldn’t have been constitutional either by your logic.
Maybe do some reading and research in the future before making idiotic, uniformed statements.
RyanL
RyanL
2 years ago
Reply to  scott
He outlined the constitutional problem for you sport. It’s making a rule on a “major question” without congress explicitly authorizing it. That is based on recent court decisions. Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, but the shorter version is don’t be a progressive.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  scott
Apparently you do not understand math. If the US reduced 100% of its carbon footprint (impossible wouldn’t you agree?) it would eliminate about 13% of global carbon production. So how the flying F would it matter unless China, India. etc etc do the same.
Then, what about the mining, minerals, etc, in your fantasyland scenario?
Get a grip buddy.
Jojo
Jojo
2 years ago
Reply to  Mish
Well there are people who when told that the blue surgical masks “MAY” at best provide a 10% reduction in possible Covid virus transmission and therefore weren’t generally worth wearing, replied on various formats that 10% was better than zero percent.
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
Reply to  Mish
13% is not better than nothing? Of course it will make a difference.
Zardoz
Zardoz
2 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
Yeah… it’s pretty far from a statistical aberration, and its ONE of the things we can improve on.
Tawdzilla
Tawdzilla
2 years ago
Reply to  Mish

Scott is full of natural gas.

Jack
Jack
2 years ago
Reply to  scott
Dude, methane is the main component of natural gas burnt for electricity.
Methane is not a product of burning natural gas.
When you burn methane you produce CO2 (I.e., CH2 + O2 -> CO2).
Advise you to do better research.
The other typical component of natural gas is ethane – which is stripped out of natural feed streams and used to produce petrochemicals.
PapaDave
PapaDave
2 years ago
Reply to  Jack
Methane is CH4. The combustion reaction is:
CH4 + 2 O2 => CO2 + 2 H2O
Also. It doesn’t matter what govt or regulators “mandate”. As we saw in Europe recently, they will burn more coal (or anything they can get their hands on) in order to keep the lights on.
We will be using Natural Gas to generate electricity for decades to come because we cannot build enough renewable energy facilities fast enough to even meet the annual increase in demand for electricity, let alone replace fossil fuel generation. And Natural Gas is far cleaner than using coal, or oil.
Of course, reducing CO2 emissions is a good goal to have. However, generating electricity comes first and reducing emissions comes second.
Avery
Avery
2 years ago
Reply to  scott

“I’m just a bill…on capitol hill.”

Schoolhouse Rock
50+ years ago
Not taught at the $75,000 / year elite colleges these days.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
2 years ago
Reply to  scott
You sir are an illiterate idiot. Burning natural gas is BURNING METHANE, it does not “produce” methane. Natural gas is methane with a few impurities that are condensed out before shipped as “natural gas. Please, please, please read some chemistry.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.