The point is, it is not a pollutant regardless of that ratio. We could increase CO2 ten fold and it would not be noticeable to human health. There is more than twenty … TWENTY! … times as much Argon in the atmosphere than there is CO2. And Argon is considered an asphyxiant just like CO2.
Ng is cheaper and cleaner than coal. I dont see many industries moving over asap…but homes? Yeah and the fact you have a couple large reservations of it? Uh it wouldnt cost that much.
What are you talking about? You said a majority of homes use coal…now they use ng?
And btw I know what ng can be used for…there is zero issue with it being used for those activities…so I have no clue what you are complaining about…
It is NOT cheaper if you already have operational coal fired plants and a ready supply of coal. We have been promised cheap natural gas where I live for 40 years. So far we have none except that shipped by rail from hundreds of miles away in nowhere near the amount required to displace coal. And the price they are now projecting for the promised gas is competitive with fuel oil, not coal.
Cool! That’s not what I said now is it…when you can follow along and not argue what I haven’t said then maybe we will talk…
Still a pollutant.
Majority use coal for Electricity. Majority use NG for water heater and heating homes.
Small majority still use coal for heating their homes (pain in the ass, but the heat is more even and lasts longer than NG or electric.)
Yes their is an issue. Again when you bring a few (or more) NG plants on line, they suck up a HUGE amount of NG. Now remember, most of them rely on pipe already in the ground that isn’t sized to support them and homes. Then throw NG fueling stations into the mix (another source that uses a huge amount of NG AND has to be pressurized at the end of the line before going into the car).
I’m not aware of any NEW reservers of NG being discovered. They are tapped into. To get more production you’d have to drill more wells. Then to move it to where it’s needed, they would need to add additional pipe in the ground. Not as simple as “ooooh look at all those reserves”.
Hey, that’s specious.
So your greater good trumps the greater good of everything?
Yep…
Just because your human? Really.
Really…
To me, that kind of thinking is selfish, self serving, and a few other things I’d have to give myself I time out if I listed them.
You sad NG is cheaper than coal. That is not necessarily true, and that was the point (one which you made) that I addressed. The rest of your post was just blather.
And you are still wrong.
How arrogant.
He not wrong tho…
If a poison at 1mg is non-toxic to humans… but that same poison at 1000mg is toxic to humans… does that make that posion not a poison?
If what is emitted is not toxic, it is not a pollutant. Period. But even if it was, you probably have arsenic and other “poisons” in your tap water and they do you no harm what so ever, because they are present below toxic levels. The 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere, only 3-4% of which was emitted by man, is 100 times lower than what it would take to cause you physical issues. But in fact, it is not toxic. It is classified as an asphyxiant (it displaces oxygen) not a toxin. It can be mixed 50-50 with oxygen (a gas mixture called carbogen) and breathed without any harm to a person.
In summary, Mobulus is, as usual, very wrong … and so are you.
what you said before everything else was ban coal and have now avoided that silly statement altogether
Very well put Samm. To add to this Chemists have formal classifications for all known substances as well as safe levels for all substances that have been rigorously tested. You brought up the example of our drinking water. Most, if not all, treatment plants use chlorine gas, which at certain concentrations is poisoness, in the treatment process. Water tests have to determine that the chlorine levels are safe before releasing the water to the public.
