Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.
Date: 30 Oct 2024 20:55:02 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <vfu6f6$2rg$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <vfrvbu$1pcpr$1@dont-email.me> <vfrvtc$1pfke$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="29225"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 1312

Bobbie Sellers  <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>	More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
>environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
>have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe.  The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a 
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable.  So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.  

Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."