CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal.

https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/CO2-spez_e...

> CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal.

Unfortunately there are methane leaks in the systems, and it is quite possible that when accounting for the methane releases, natural gas has equally bad climate effect (emissions of CO2 and CH4 combined) as coal.

It's a step, though. Methane is inherently unstable and won't stick around in the atmosphere forever once we stop emitting it. CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean very slowly and with acidification as a consequence.

It's important to say explicitly what "not forever" is here. Half life of methane in the atmosphere is 9 years[0]. Then it decomposes into CO₂ and water; the latter is suspected to be a potent greenhouse gas at that altitude[1].

--

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-C...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheri...

But in the meantime methane has bigger effect (per kg) than CO2.

Good point. CO2 equivalents are a better measure than CO2.

I think fixing leaks is an easier task than reducing the coal CO2 footprint. We'll have to figure this out somehow anyways, because a lot of methane will be going into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost, both on land and in the seas.

It's not easier - as I understand it, the leaks are tiny amounts along the entire length of the pipelines. Getting an absolutely perfect seal is something that's expensive to do, whereas in theory the CO2 footprint of coal is concentrated and therefore much easier to capture.

In practice, doing either of those will spike the price of the energy, and the only reason to use them over renewables is their being cheap, so it won't happen.

We need to get to zero (or negative) net carbon emissions. Building brand new infracstructure for gas is counterpruductive to say the least.

>when their new synchronous capacitor projects are completed they won't need stand by gas power plants.

Sure ... and how do we do that? Nuclear is dead in the developed world (very few new nuclear projects and lots of existing plants being decomissioned)... so what's left? What do we replace natural gas with?

What do you think Germany is doing? They are going from fossil-fuel-free (nuclear) -> fossil-fuel (Russian natural gas).

The main reason for German gas demand is that a lot of the residential heating still works with gas.

But the gas infrastructure synergizes extremely well with a shift to a hydrogen based energy economy, as is not just the goal in Germany, but pretty much an EU wide ambition [0].

It has nothing to do with the German nuclear phase-out that started in the early 2000s, just like European reliance on Russian resources it not anything new, nor is it bound to change, it's the consequence of geographical proximity and thus realpolitik.

Particularly considering the alternatives: LNG shipped from the US to Europe in tankers is an net-energy negative. It would be a pointless and expensive exercise of creating even more pollution all for the sake of satisfying US foreign policy ambitions to antagonize Russia and keep it as separated from the EU as possible.

[0] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-pin-hopes...

This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

Look at the numbers: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

Yeah, there is a slight increase in natural gas over the years (with large fluctuations), while coal is in slight decline. By far the largest share of the nuclear phaseout has been replacing it with renewables.

One can discuss the pros and cons of german energy politics (of which there are both plenty), but that should start by knowing the facts.

There's no clear trend for German elictricity production from gas, cf [1] via [2].

[1] https://i.imgur.com/KgcCyWu.png

[2] https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...