Natural Gas versus The Dirty Temptation
All over the world, natural
energy sources have been a highlight issue, since we all aware about the fact
that most kinds of energy that human using is not renewable. Are we actually
running out? As oil supply tightens, we will seek for coal and natural gas,
until that distant day when renewable sources can catch up. However, these two
fossil fuels already dominate the world’s electricity generation, with about
40% coming from coal and 20% from natural gas (in contrast, only 7% of all
electricity is generated using oil). Both
have their disadvantages and benefits relative to oil and to each other.
Demand for natural gas is
projected to more than double between now and 2050. It is widely used for
heating, cooking, and industrial purposes. It comprises about a quarter of all
energy consumption in the United States. Of the big three fossil hydrocarbons,
natural gas is by far the cleanest, with roughly one-tenth to one-thousandth
the amount of sulfur dioxides, nitrous oxides, and other particulates of coal or oil. When
burned, it releases about two thirds as much carbon dioxide as oil and half as
much as coal.
The biggest drawback of
natural gas, of course, is that it’s a gas. Unlike coal and oil, which can be
simply dumped into tankers or a train car, it isn’t very portable. Getting
natural gas from wells to distant markets requires it in liquefied natural gas
(LNG). Because LNG takes up only about one six-hundredth the volume of natural
gas, it can then be transported using tankers. Moreover, its fast growing is appealing for remote gas fields. The problem is, this does not come cheaply. A joint LNG venture in 2010 by Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, for example, expected to cost roughly USD $50 billion. A second drawback, similar to
oil’s, is that most of it is concentrated in a handful of countries. The
largest one is controlled by the Russian Federation, followed by Iran, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia and United States. Those countries will require aggressive mining
to meet their needs and expectations.
Coal, in contrast, is
plentiful all over the world. Coal fueled the Industrial Revolution and despite
popular perceptions, is the world’s single largest electricity source today.
Coal can even be gasified to make synthetic natural gas (SNG) or liquid diesel
and methanol transport fuels. Proved reserves of natural gas lifetimes of only
around sixty years, while coal it is often up two hundred years. However, we
all knew that coal is the dirtiest and most environmentally damaging fuel on
earth. Coal mining pollutes water and degrading the land’s quality. It also
releases trapped methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and make it even more
explosive in the mining field. Coal is worse than oil and much worse than natural gas when it comes
to emissions of greenhouse gas, because its carbon content is the highest of
all fossil fuels. To people hoping to bring our escalating release of greenhouse
gases under control, coal is surely public enemy.
Those are the main differences between natural gas and coal. Both have their own downsides and
benefits. But, as the cleanest burning
fossil fuel, with lowest greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas is by far the
most environmentally appealing of the three. Still, there are some compelling reasons
for the world to make its own choice.
Komentar
Posting Komentar