Absent CCS, the best that natural gas can do is to push CO2 emissions down by about half vs. coal-fired power, and that only in the electric-generation sector. For NGVs vs. petroleum the figure is less than 20%; the VW Golf TGI at 99 g/km doesn't even offer a 10% reduction over the Golf TDI at 109.5 g/km and TSI at 109 g/km.
Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 requires emissions reductions OTOO 80%, not 10-50%. If there's a solution that involves natural gas, it is going to require CCS on a massive scale. Perhaps Allam-cycle plants can make this possible, but I won't hold my breath. Net 80% or greater CO2 reductions are going to require massive amounts of net zero carbon fuel for transport and essential energy stockpiles/buffers, and electrification of just about everything that can be electrified.
This is actually not too difficult with a nuclear economy, using breeder reactors making either Pu-239 or U-233. I am working on a piece on this now.
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 24, 2019 3:49:49 GMT 9.5
The article is long winded and short on numbers. To my suspicious mind, the absence of numbers suggests that the author is party to a deception. (The research paper itself is hidden behind a pay wall). After all, anyone proposing that imminently dead coal power stations be replaced with a hundred-year investment in gas should be challenged. However the article contained no references to renewable energy, the usual camouflage for an expansion of gas.
The article does quote one of the researchers. "Given the current political situation, we deliver a much-needed message to help facilitate the energy shift away from coal under the Paris Agreement," Tanaka said. "However, natural gas is not an end goal; we regard it as a bridge fuel toward more sustainable forms of energy in the long run as we move toward decarbonization."
Given that the research was funded from Japan, Germany and Norway, the "current political situation" would not allow them to use the N-word. Regarding gas "as a bridge fuel" suggests that it is to be superseded by a noncarbon "fuel". And the future is to be "sustainable" rather than "renewable".
Do they foresee a mass shift to nuclear fuel? Are they gambling on the rise of fusion? We need a clearer picture than this. It is frustrating that research of fundamental public interest should be concealed behind a pay wall.