The Contents: Spectra's FAQ about the project tout natural gas as being «the cleanest
burning conventional source of energy,» producing «45 % less carbon dioxide than coal and 30 % less than fuel oil when burned.
Not exact matches
And it could mean a future viable
source of energy that emits no pollution or radioactivity,
burns no fossil fuels, and could be no more expensive to run than
conventional coal or electric power plants.
This relates to the whole area of development for people talking about biofuels, which is this idea of trying to develop replacements for the
conventional sorts of fossil fuels that we have to at least — if we are going to be
burning some sort of hydrocarbons of some kind — to try to get them [so] that they are being derived from a different
source, and potentially or ideally, ones that would actually
burn without delivering as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere too; that's great if you can get that.
The piece effectively, if depressingly, reveals why all of the options for slowing or stopping the buildup of this long - lived greenhouse gas will be nearly impossible to deploy at a scale relevant to the climate challenge as long as
conventional burning of abundant carbon - rich fuels — particularly coal — is the cheapest energy
source.
So just how large is the task of replacing the current fossil fuel - based energy supply (in particular,
conventional coal
burning) with other non-polluting fuel
sources?
Read the original article for more detailed reasons why fracking emissions are so much higher than
conventional sources of natural gas — which otherwise compared to coal is a far cleaner -
burning source of energy, even if a long way from being carbon - neutral or renewable.
Ecotricity began life in 1995, born of the realisation that the
conventional way of making electricity, by
burning fossil fuels, was the biggest single
source of climate change.