Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:06:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <vfs4bv$1prk3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vfrvbu$1pcpr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 03:06:55 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29869bddb896a264fbe6c44e95691326";
	logging-data="1896067"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+eFlkrrI+D2grn3Sygk5QemlLCSB2usEI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SZ06KdG0GKm3sZKDcHGbaxcwMYI=
In-Reply-To: <vfrvbu$1pcpr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3193

On 10/29/2024 7:41 PM, Titus G wrote:
> Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
> greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
> for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
> 2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
> develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
> despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
> crime family was profiting from that was part of that   A side benefit
> of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
> exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
> this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
> unbelievable!

How did you escape my killfile again ?  I generally don't traffic with 
people who routinely call other people names.

But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed 
report here is wrong.

Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am 
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon).  The 
other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29% 
volatiles and sand (SiO2).  Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas which 
makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in there 
also.  I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much sand 
embedded in it that the coal was red, not black.  We called that lignite 
coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a six 
million hp steam boiler).

LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4.  There is some ethane and 
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2.  CH4 combusts to 
60% CO2 and 40% H2O.  LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the cost 
is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.

So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in 
the 1% to 10% range.  LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O.  I submit 
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.

So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka Speculative 
Fiction ?

Lynn