over the next decade, then reach net-zero emissions by midcentury, to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Even if gas is less polluting than coal, how is continuing to invest in gas infrastructure compatible with that future?Investments made today are sometimes used differently in the future, sometimes repurposed. I don’t think it’s a fair statement that investments in gas infrastructure today are inconsistent with a significantly lower-carbon energy economy.
ME: You talked about today’s infrastructure being used differently in the future. I imagine one change you’re thinking about isI see nothing but potential in terms of renewable natural gas and other biogases, and hydrogen produced from zero-carbon power. With a long enough investment and time horizon, there is real potential for these green gases to contribute to significant carbon reductions.requiring or encouraging new homes and businesses to be all-electric.
When we run the numbers on what it takes to replace hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of gas infrastructure with electricity, that actually becomes a very difficult proposition. The natural gas system delivers three times as much energy on the coldest day of the year than the electricity grid does on the hottest.
Sammy_Roth Well yeah it's either that or bankruptcy. Good answer. Predictable
Sammy_Roth Exactly how does natural gas cause 'climate change?' It's expanded use has actually led to reduced CO2 emissions in the US. There is no cause/effect scientific evidence that CO2 causes 'climate change.' What is 'climate change?' Bad weather? Ancients believed in human sacrifice.