Natural Gas:The bridge to a better future

Natural gas: Bridge to a better future "Consuming 70% of oil from one place to another, 30% of the greenhouse gas produced in the process" (Gresham 16-17). Of course, this statistic refers to the world. It is mainly caused by the first consumer of the US - petrol. A large amount of gasoline is required for the necessary daily activities such as work, school, home, and American consumers depend heavily on this industry. This monopolistic dependence affects the economy and is an important part of society.

Since natural gas emits about half of burned carbon dioxide, it receives high levels of political support as a bridging fuel to turn the United States into a low-carbon future (eg Podesta and Wirth 2009; Obama, 2014 ). Before the start of burning, however, the US natural gas sector deliberately releases gases during operation or inadvertently releases gases through wells and equipment leaks, releasing large quantities of natural gas It was.

Regardless of your personal view of natural gas as a bridge fuel, the discussion is generally unrealistic; natural gas was used as a bridge fuel for the US electricity sector. The graph below shows that natural gas generation is taking the place of coal power generation and the total carbon dioxide emissions are decreasing even without strict policy measures. In present and predictable power systems, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy can not dominate the majority of electricity because of its intermittent nature. If the sun is not illuminated, the wind does not blow, and there is a demand beyond the demand for other renewable energy sources such as hydropower, the power system needs something to fill the gap between demand and supply. Otherwise your light will go out and you will face chain problems due to blackouts. Cancellation of recent Delta flights reminds timely how this problem occurred, but it is not a problem. Well, this gap can be compensated with natural gas.

Opinion: I think nuclear energy is about the same as natural gas. These are a combination of technology and future renewable energy 100%. The problem of using nuclear power as a bridge is that it lost natural gas, competitiveness between the wind and the sun. Therefore, if there is no way to evaluate that carbon-free power generation, the factory will start to stop due to economic pressure. Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear power plants supply abundant carbon-free base energy, so this is not a good thing. Even if the nuclear power plant is stopped in today's environment, it may be replaced by some or all of the increased fossil fuel power generation. This is a big step back. One way to stop the closure of a nuclear power plant is to incorporate nuclear energy into a new carbon emission reduction regulation and increase the incentive for utilities to enter long-term contracts at prices that maintain the price of these plants. Not supported)