Demand for gas down 7% as wind energy increases
Demand for gas down 7% as wind energy increases
Demand for gas down 7% as wind energy increases::undefined
Demand for gas down 7% as wind energy increases
Demand for gas down 7% as wind energy increases::undefined
In 1976, Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House.
First thing Reagan did was have them torn down.
Reagan, the gift that keeps on giving!
The article is about Ireland so what do Carter or Reagan have to do with this?
Demand for sails 20% up
It only works when you drive the same direction as the wind is going though.
Not at all. In fact wind powered cars are able to drive faster than the wind speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsgoLc_fzI
I knew exactly whose video that would be before I clicked it. Great videos (there is more than one on this subject) and a great channel in general.
Based on last night’s dinner though, it appears gas production is way up. Wind seems to be breaking.
Coal is the real enemy, gas is already relatively "green" (albeit still non-renewable).
All fossil fuels are the real enemy, 7% down on any of them is a good thing regardless of how they compare to each other. But also with a claim calling gas relatively green you should add a source or link to some studies because that doesn't sound accurate
The difference is to turn a large coal generator off, then back on again generally takes about a week. Which makes them completely useless for providing overnight power when solar isn't available.
Coal can only really be paired with something like hydro where you know well in advance that the hydro power plant is going to run out of water.
These days coal power plants often actually pay for the grid to take power from them. They are fine with making a loss during the day if it means they can make a profit at night when nobody has solar. This significantly impacts the financial viability of solar power and is the main reason there aren't very many large scale solar plants in the world.
Because of coal - you can only make significant profits selling power to the grid at night. And nearly all solar power is primarily intended to be consumed by whoever owns the solar panels.
I'd recommend reading the EU's reasoning for allowing both natural gas and nuclear energy projects to receive "green" funding - https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990
But basically it burns much, much cleaner than coal, and is easy to fire up, so works great whilst transitioning the baseload to nuclear and renewable power.
This is false. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term, and "natural gas" is just methane. When it leaks, it's very bad, and could be worse than coal. https://newrepublic.com/article/176605/natural-gas-way-worse-coal
But the methane gets burned to CO2. Sure leaks are worse as a greenhouse gas, but then you'd need to count air pollution, radiation, water pollution, etc. from coal mining and burning too.
I am not an expert, but I try to be pragmatic. Here's what socalgas.com says about the topic.
You're right that natural gas is methane and that leaks are bad. However I think a nuanced view is important here for a few reasons.
I don't know how good the energy conversion rate of burning methane is but I would be surprised if it is low.
Personally I think we should leverage every option, especially the lower hanging fruit before dismissing these options as being not ideal when the alternative is continuing to do worse.