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

Postingan populer dari blog ini

KARTINI: What is with kebaya and cooking competition?

We Do Not Need Electric Cars Except for Public Transport: The Summary and Commentary

20