Natural Gas (methane) Is Scamming America

And the entire world to be frank. Even progressives, even environmentalists are falling for the false promise of a supposed "bridge fuel". Well, actually they already did. But we can still do something about it! Timestamps and key points for the impatient below.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oL4SFwkkw

Time stamps:
00:00–05:10 Intro / executive summary
05:10–08:57 A brief history of fracking (starting in 2008 under Obama)
08:57–10:58 It's a "bridge fuel" (pinky promise!)
10:58–12:27 Fugitive emissions (and why they are not monitored)
12:27–15:06 Ad for the channel's Patreon page
15:06–19:48 Fugitive methane emissions (part 2)
19:48–23:06 A significant conflict of interest / How one MIT study boosted fracking
23:06–26:18 Further developments since 2010 / Lack of oversight
26:18–30:24 Liquified natural gas (and why it's even worse)
30:24–33:24 Planned expansion and (permanent) consolidation of Methane and LNG
33:24–35:38 Oh hey, Biden did a thing
35:38–37:52 What we can do about it
37:52–39:59 Acknowledgements

Key points for the impatient:
- The Fossil fuel industry disingenuously claims that "natural gas" (methane) is a "bridge fuel" and a necessary "part of the solution", facilitating the energy transition towards renewables because it's "cleaner than coal".
- Methane owes its good reputation as the "cleanest" fossil fuel to the fact that it emits the least amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) when combusted (!), completely overlooking the fact that methane itself already IS an extremely potent GHG which is why gas leakage needs to be considered!
- Methane leakage in the US has not been comprehensively monitored: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relied on the fossil fuel industry to voluntarily self-report leaks without any actual oversight. What could go wrong?
- Lower bound on the leakage of methane (just from US pipelines alone, not considering other natural gas infrastructure, LNG ships or other countries) is estimated at about 1.2–2.6 million tons of methane per year (equivalent to the climate impact of 25-50 million additional cars in wasted fugitive emissions)
- Cost-benefit analysis says that 3–5% leakage is the upper bound before natural gas actually becomes WORSE for the climate than coal (the dirtiest (!) fossil fuel considering GHG emissions from combustion alone)
- The EPA (under Trump appointed administrator Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier and fossil fuel aficionado) estimated a 1.4% leakage in 2018. Since then numerous studies have indicated that the leakage was underestimated: as of 2022 the White House estimates "2.3% or higher".
- Permanent infrastructure is being built right now, (liquified) "natural gas" is not actually intended to be a "bridge fuel" by the industry. This branding is a ruse, intentional deception of the public. Why would they voluntarily kill off their cash cow?

Further reading / What the fossil fuel industry doesn't want to you know about:
www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1908712116
Enormous 2019 methane leak documented by satellite imagery; such documentation is in many cases accidental because the industry has virtually no incentive to report (all) leaks.

This video only covers the situation in the US (because the US dominates the LNG market). The same obviously applies to other major producers like Australia, Qatar or Russia. And importers like Mexico, Japan, South Korea, China or the European Union.

There is no climate crisis.. “Scientists “ on the make have created the fallacy.

Is it still not the overproduction that artificially upholds the industry?

If we produced only what we need, or if we actually shared products instead of throwing them away to save opportunities in the industry, we can easily solve the problem of hunger, poverty and climate crisis.

I didn't expect it to be so witty. I can already acknowledge that he is right in the sense that I had never seen the three middle finger salute before.

I used to believe we needed to transition out of coal first, then oil, then gas, because we can only handle one giant at a time, because of their immense combined adversarial economical power.

When I tried to find the number, the best guess I could come up with was $25tn/yr. No government comes close to that. That means phasing that size of industry out is going to require the government and people to agree, so they really try to fracture that. In the Netherlands the strategy is to push draconian climate regulations onto groups like farmers, which creates tumultuous news while leaving the industry emissions unchanged.

What do you think about the tactical step-wise transition argument, from an adversarial pov?

tl;dr: Nah, there's too much to comment to allow me to really summarize this meaningfully. If you don't even want to consider alternative views, just ignore this. You won't be alone in that.

When the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining brightly (it's called "night" or "a storm" or even "a cloudy day"), what will continue to power the cities and suburbs?

If you say "we'll just ship the power from elsewhere" look up "line losses." And notice, for example, that when it's night in California, it's pretty dark in Nevada, too. Even solar eclipses apparently need to be planned around now, since solar power declines during an eclipse.

If you say, "we'll just use our big big batteries!" Where are they? Individual, distributed small batteries seem like a decent idea -- but remember we're talking about powering huge cities for extended periods of time. And even if we had batteries on the necessary industrial scale, what happens when a winter storm goes on longer than we can really deal with -- for days? It happens.

We need back up. We NEED back up, it's not some luxury or some stubborn anachronism. So, for that back up would you rather use coal or fuel oil than natural gas? Sorry, you might not be able to do that. Not all forms of energy generation start up in a very short time, on demand.

Natural gas is crucial because it is relatively clean and can respond QUICKLY (which is obviously quite important) to supply power when renewable sources aren't supplying all that's needed. Just throwing up our hands and shutting down power on calm evenings or cloudy days is not a realistic option. Nuclear power can help, but even it isn't as flexible, and it is still vehemently opposed by many of the same people who oppose fossil fuels.

Right now, if you are using a computer, it is being powered by electricity. That came from somewhere. For most people it did not come exclusively from renewable sources. Should you turn off your computer? It's one thing to say, in essence, "fossil fuels are icky," and quite another to actually deal with the fact that we can't just give up when renewables are unable to supply all of our needs.

Why do we have that electricity available to power our computers (and a lot of other things that are much more indispensable than our recreationally-used computers)? Because there are a lot of really capable, hard-working people making it happen.

They are not typically stupid people. To the contrary. It is amazing and admirable that they provide power with as much dependability as they do. And it takes a lot of hard work and planning. And their business is typically subject to a lot of government oversight. And please don't confuse them with "Big Oil." Power companies are typically CUSTOMERS of the fossil fuel industries. Like most of us.

When THEY (the power companies staffed with their engineers and planners) tell us natural gas is an unnecessary scam, I'll believe them. THEY are the ones actually providing the power. THEY are the ones actually dealing with the circumstances with which we are presented. It isn't just theory or polemic for them. it's their job and they have to live with the stress and the worry and the very real need to avoid failure.

So why do you think natural gas is still being used, and even serving to replace a lot of coal? Well, natural gas is sort of the glue that holds renewable use together. Don't believe me. Research the use of natural gas for yourselves. Don't read just one article. And when you research, beware that when you research almost ANYTHING with monetary or political ramifications, propaganda can flow in two directions, not just one.

By the way, there's no need to say that global warming is a "scam." I don't take that position at all. And even if global warming were a scam (which I don't believe it is), there's still plenty of common sense behind using renewable sources, so long as we do it wisely, act carefully and are driven by logic and not by exaggerated fear or by political or ideological fervor or even by peer pressure. And so long as we don't just hand wave and pretend we don't need back up.

> When the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining brightly (it's called "night" or "a storm" or even "a cloudy day"), what will continue to power the cities and suburbs?

It's important to have a realistic take on how damaging the LNG industry is regardless of these shortcomings of renewables. Yes we need to build ridiculously large infrastructure (grid batteries, solar, wind) but we know that is possible because right now we're doing exactly that for fossil. Imagine having spent $7000 billion per year on that instead. [1] We could have been in a different place, so they're keeping us locked inside their old tech.

What I wish to contribute most to this discussion is the observation that we need to talk about the energy transition from a total energy use perspective, not just electricity production. Electricity production is only a small piece of the global fossil use pie (<15%) and in terms of technical feasibility it is the lowest hanging fruit of the energy transition. Sure it is depressing we haven't even began to solve it, but we can only have a real conversation about a strategy on what to deal with first, if we keep focused on the real scope of it, which is much broader than the wall outlets.

Finally I wish to say something hopeful. I think the fossil industry is dying and they're on their way out already. The investment winds have changed and are now towards renewables expansion, and they're not going back. Look at the price of a solar kWh. Soon they're so cheap and abundant we can afford the line losses. All continents are investing hundreds of billions in expansion and research. The fossil industry is going out kicking and screaming and they will do some more very real damage to our lives, but their end is coming.

[1] www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion

@s2numbuq35i , the simple point is this: renewable energy MUST BE BACKED UP. Wanting that not to be true will not change things, no matter what we say or do.

Cities cannot go without power. People suffer and even die when they do, unless it is quickly remedied. Potentially, economies collapse.

Until there is an actual, technological solution to the need for MASSIVE, LONG TERM energy storage that is actually here and practical, we MUST back up with fossil fuel. That's why the true experts -- the people who ACTUALLY supply power -- who get fired if they fail to keep things powered for long -- still use them.

Will there be an actual, technological solution like that? I assume so, eventually. Indeed, people are working on that. But, like the "large number of new electric-vehicle charging stations" that we were promised a few years ago (at vast expense) -- or "New York City being under water" -- we haven't actually gotten there yet. Indeed, so far as I can tell, New York is still quite dry except when there's a storm. Despite supposed "experts" showing maps many years ago showing the greatly-moved shoreline of the supposedly rapidly-approaching catastrophe.

And do you know how many new federal electric car charging stations have ACTUALLY been built over the last three years? Despite the talk and the federal spending? If recent news sources are to be trusted, you might be shocked at how few. I know I was. I hope those sources are wrong. But I have not seen lots of new charging stations where I live. Have you? And it's been a few years now, hasn't it?

In the meantime, we cannot just "shut it all down" because we are emotionally invested and think, somehow, that there's really some immediate, great solution that's "just being kept from us" or some such. I trust the people who are actually tasked with DOING it (supplying power) -- and the government agencies who oversee them -- to do what they must do to avoid the real, huge problems that result when cities cannot be adequately powered.

Oh, by the way "affording line losses" misses the point. What's lost is power -- caused to dissipate uselessly -- not just money. Please really research it. You seem bright, and I think you'll find that interesting and helpful.

@Noflaps said in #7:
Before I respond, can I summarize your points as follows?

> Renewables are intermittent by their nature
> Charging stations (and other infrastructure) are lacking
> Fossil is needed to backup the intermittency
> Don't reason from emotional wishful thinking, instead do your homework and check the numbers

Electric production requires energy like gas and/or coal. Dont be fooled by these control freaks who cry doom and gloom, while traveling the globe in their jumbo jets.

I'd say you nailed it, @s2numbuq35i . You summarized the main points precisely. Thank you for your objectivity and effort to summarize.

By the way, as I noted earlier I'm not a "climate denier." I understand the mechanism by which CO2 can cause us to accumulate heat, slowly. And I am not opposed to renewables, at all!

But I also understand the engineering realities, and too many people -- fueled in good faith by an exaggerated view of the immediacy of the crisis -- a view that is also being pushed largely in good faith (although money is to be made by "informing" people, also) -- scream against a use of fossil fuels that, as a practical engineering and economic matter, simply cannot be made to disappear remotely as fast as they'd like.

Natural gas fired energy generation can be turned on QUICKLY, making it IDEAL for following the lulls in wind and solar production. Coal, by comparison can take much longer to "come up and down."

If we didn't have natural gas fired generation, and were relying only on wind and solar, we'd be in trouble. That doesn't mean we have to have a vast fraction of our energy produced by burning natural gas. But without having it handy, in the intermittent, reduced way that we need it, we'd be in real trouble.

So hating natural gas is, essentially, hating one of the biggest reasons renewables are working for us adequately and continuing to expand.

But don't believe me about any of this. I'm not trying to sell something here. Read impartial sources, or perhaps attend hearings and really listen to what the experts say who are actually tasked with providing the power that keeps civilization alive (not just those who show up, no doubt in good faith, to protest or "teach" without any responsibility to keep the lights on themselves).

And environmentalist groups can tell you some truths. But remember, people who are just "studying" the problem but not actually tasked and burdened with keeping the lights on and the hospitals running aren't necessarily possessed of ALL the truths necessary to understand our situation.

Also, look into the amount of hard-rock mining necessary to enable solar. And the amount of petroleum product needed to produce windmills (and literally thousands of other mostly crucial products that most people would be shocked to know are made in part from petroleum). Research how they make the materials used to produce the amazing, gigantic windmill blades.

Thank you, petroleum for our windmills. Thank you, mining, for our solar cells. Oh, I almost forgot. Petroleum is needed for carrying out mining, too -- until all the bulldozers are electric. But I haven't seen any of those, yet. And even the electricity that would power the bulldozers would have to come, in part, from natural gas under most circumstances.