Crown Capital Eco Management – Natural Gas

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers?
Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible.
Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world’s energy consumption and still growing. The International Energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035.
Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal.

Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity.
Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the disadvantages of using coal burning boilers.
While coal prices are expected to remain stable natural gas prices are expected to increase as higher cost natural gas reserves need to be developed to meet growing demand and offset losses from depleting gas wells. On the other hand, natural gas based technologies have a capital cost advantage.
Whatever the costs may be, don’t you think it is better to use natural gas rather than the coal boilers? Even though natural gas is more costly than coal boilers it is less harmful to the environment and to human health. It is always better to take into considerations the things that are more important than money. It is not wise to be thrifty over something that in a long run would back fire on you and worst your kids. Long term effects of coal boilers are scarier than the costs in terms of money that it will bring us today. Environmental effects and health issues will sure be more costly in the future.
This entry was posted in News and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Crown Capital Eco Management – Natural Gas

  1. ianthinezoe says:

    Study: Climate Change Could Put Millions More at Risk of Water Scarcity
    Changes in rainfall and evaporation will put pressure on water resources
    Although water scarcity is already a problem in many countries today due to factors like population growth, the effects of global warming could put millions more people at risk of absolute water scarcity, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
    The study, published Monday in a special issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that water resources will be affected by changes in rainfall and evaporation due to climate change, putting 40 percent more people at risk of absolute water scarcity.
    [READ: Consequences of Global Warming Could Occur Soon, Report Says]
    “We conclude that the combination of unmitigated climate change and further population growth will expose a significant fraction of the world population to chronic or absolute water scarcity,” the study says.
    Now, between one and two people out of 100 live in countries with absolute water scarcity, which is defined as less than 500 cubic meters of water available per year and per person, according to the study. On average, each person consumes about 1,200 cubic meters of water each year. But population growth combined with the effects of global warming could bring the ratio of people living in countries with absolute water scarcity up to about 10 in 100 people.
    “The quantities that most humans need for drinking and sanitation are relatively small, and the fact that these basic needs are not satisfied for many people today is primarily a matter of access to, and quality of, available water resources,” the study says.
    [MORE: Severe Heat Waves Are Expected to Double by 2020]
    Unless greenhouse gas emissions get cut soon, this situation could become reality “within the next few decades,” Jacob Schewe, the study’s lead author, said in a statement.
    But because climate change does not have the same effect across or even within certain countries, some areas will be hit harder than others. The Mediterranean, the Middle East, the southern United States and southern China, for example, could see a “pronounced decrease of available water,” while southern India, western China, and parts of eastern Africa could see an increase.
    To account for the uncertainty of climate change – the magnitude of its effects and water scarcity changes at a regional level – the researchers used 11 hydrological models, produced by five different global climate models. The results in the study represent the multiple-model average.
    “The purpose is to explore the associated uncertainties and to synthesize the current state of knowledge about the impact of climate change on renewable water resources at the global scale,” the study says.
    [ALSO: Warming Waters Will Harm Freshwater Fish and Thousands of Jobs, Report Says]
    While the average level of water scarcity resulting from population change alone is amplified by 40 percent with climate change, some models suggested the amplification could be as high as 100 percent.
    “This dwindling per-capita water availability is likely to pose major challenges for societies to adapt their water use and management,” the study says.

  2. Why Did Reddit Ban Climate Change Deniers From Commenting In Their Science Forums?

    Reddit, the social news site that lets users submit all kinds of content as links or posts, has a history of controversial censorship. In 2012, Reddit’s moderators banned Gawker articles from being posted in their forums. Other news sources to appear before the Reddit guillotine have included Mother Jones, the Huffington Post, National Review, ThinkProgress and Vice, to name a few.
    The latest to be banished from the Reddit realm are not an organization, but a certain type of commenter. The online magazine Grist reports that Reddit will no longer accept comments to science forums, including the most notable,, from people who deny climate change.
    The Grist piece, written Nathan Allen, a PhD chemist and volunteer moderator of content on Reddit’s science forum, explains the decision to ban climate change naysayers.
    “Given that our users are mainly academics (and all are nerds), the discussion generally resembles any scientific debate,” Allen wrote. “That is, there are always numerous links to peer-reviewed science to support positions. People don’t deliberately mislead or misrepresent content, and there is a basic level of respect shared regardless of position. When a user strays from such decorum, they are kindly warned and, if necessary, the comment is removed.”
    Inflammatory remarks are now, regrettably, part and parcel of online journalism, where every comments section becomes a platform for bitter debate. Allen said particular topics, including evolution and vaccines, had their fair share of hecklers, but climate change consistently drew the most ire. He described the comments section on articles about climate change as a “battleground.”
    “Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors,” he wrote. “On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by ‘Big Green.’ On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by ‘Big Oil.’”
    As the science of climate change becomes increasingly clear – today, virtually all climate scientists agree that man is responsible for shifts in global temperatures – there is increasingly less room for ill-informed polemics.
    Organizations across the globe, including governments and independent research groups, have all endorsed the position that climate change is real – and is happening right now. Climate change science has been rigorously tested, retested and reviewed, and the answers always come out the same. Of course, there will always be the occasional misstep. In 2007, Al Gore stated that Arctic summer ice could be long gone by 2013. Well, that’s hardly the case.
    Is climate change skepticism wearing out its tolerance at last? The problem is, as Allen notes, that climate deniers’ rejection of climate science is based on both “political preferences” and “personality.” In other words, their reasoning is not grounded in scientific discipline.
    “As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their ‘skepticism’ on climate change,” Allen wrote. “The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad.”

  3. ethanashton says:

    Lost Freshwater May Double Climate Change Effects On Agriculture

    Dec. 16, 2013 — A warmer world is expected to have severe consequences for global agriculture and food supply, reducing yields of major crops even as population and demand increases. Now, a new analysis combining climate, agricultural, and hydrological models finds that shortages of freshwater used for irrigation could double the detrimental effects of climate change on agriculture.
    “It’s a huge effect, and an effect that’s basically on the same order of magnitude as the direct effect of climate change,” said Joshua Elliott, a research scientist with the Computation Institute’s Center for Robust Decision Making on Climate and Energy Policy (RDCEP), Argonne National Laboratory, and lead author of the paper. “So the effect of limited irrigation availability in some regions could end up doubling the effect of climate change.”
    The research was led by Elliott and colleagues from the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), as part of the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP). The paper is among 12 featured in a special feature dedicated to ISI-MIP research inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online December 16.
    Agricultural models and hydrological models both incorporate the influence of climate, but are designed by different scientific communities for different purposes. While agricultural models simulate how temperature, precipitation and other climate factors may alter the yield for various crops, hydrological models seek to estimate water-related characteristics such as stream flow, water availability, and storm runoff.
    The two types of models overlap in estimating the amount of water used for agricultural irrigation, by far the largest human use of freshwater in the world. But when Elliott and colleagues fed each type of model with the same climate model forecasts, the models produced dramatically different predictions about the future demand for freshwater irrigation
    The researchers discovered discrepancies in how hydrological models incorporate processes such as the carbon cycle and crop water productivity when compared to agricultural models — a finding that will help make existing models more accurate.
    “This is absolutely the first study in which a multi-model ensemble of hydrological models was compared to a multi-model ensemble of crop models,” Elliott said. “Several modeling groups have already changed the way that they are modeling the hydrological cycle with respect to crops because of the results of this paper.”
    The comparison also produced new insight about the potential agricultural consequences of climate change. Due to climate change alone, the models predicted a loss of between 400 and 2600 petacalories of food supply, 8 to 43 percent of present day levels. But due to the decline in freshwater availability — and the associated conversion of irrigated cropland to rain-fed — the models predict an additional loss of 600 to 2900 petacalories, the researchers discovered.
    However, while the models predict freshwater shortages in some areas of the world, such as the western United States, India and China, other regions may end up with a surplus of freshwater. Redistributing that excess water to restore or add irrigation to rain-fed crop areas could dampen some of the consequences of climate change upon irrigation and agriculture, Elliott said.
    “We found that maximal usage of available surplus freshwater could end up ameliorating between 12 and 57 percent of the negative direct effects of climate change on food production,” Elliott said. “However, there are lots of different political, economic and infrastructural reasons why you would consider that to be overly optimistic.”
    The results are among several major findings reported in the ISI-MIP special issue of PNAS by the AgMIP group, which conducted a “fast-track” exercise to generate new knowledge about climate change impacts on agriculture for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    “Understanding the climate change implications of freshwater availability is key to the future food security goals of society,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, co-primary investigator of AgMIP. “The rigorous AgMIP multi-model approach is enabling advances in research on how climate change will affect agriculture worldwide and water is a vital component.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s