In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]) of all methods of electricity production.
But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still looking at catastrophic global warming.[2][3]
In a five year period Methane traps ~100 times more energy than the equivalent quantity of CO2, so not burning Methane because it escapes is far worse than burning it!
The comparative effect between CO2 and methane varies as we vary the timeframe. One thing we do know - reducing methane will have an immediate impact, whereas reducing CO2 will have a lasting impact.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8
There are many embedded assumptions in your statement that do not hold up to scrutiny. Methane "breaks down" to CO2 and water? This is difficult to parse. I do not think that methane generally breaks down to much of anything at standard temperature and pressure. Do you mean the combustion of methane produces CO2 and water? The latter is true, but OP's point is that this combustion produces A LOT less CO2 as compared to the equivalent (in BTUs) amount of coal.
For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway[1]. So it's better to break it down to CO2 immediately to avoid the stronger greenhouse effect of methane.
Your link suggests your assertion "For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway" is just plain incorrect. In the atmosphere, methane becomes -CH3 (- used for dot because I don't know how to do that), the free radical eventually forms formaldehyde. Methanotropic soil bacteria can break down methane to CO2, but there is nothing to support your assertion that most of the ways methane breaks down [make] CO2.
« The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. »
So if the page is right, possibly not "most of the ways", but at least "most of the methane".
> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]
I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear.
Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar.
I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the radiation levels in the Fukushima exclusion area after, say, 10 years. People ignore sunlight because it is familiar, but from an engineering perspective it is quite hazardous.
Without having any evidence on the subject whatsoever, I'd not be at all surprised if workers at an industrial solar plantation to be at higher risk of cancer than workers at a nuclear plant. I'd love to know how a solar plant working normally stacks up against a rare nuclear disaster by the numbers.
I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.
> UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense is the word.
But since a solar power plant is generating industrial levels of electricity by harvesting solar energy, it is clearly high energy in some practical sense.
> workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide.
Each year many Australians (I'm from Australia, the number is >5,000) get diagnosed with skin cancer caused by sunlight. A double digit percentage of them die. Just because something is theoretically controllable doesn't mean that it is safe.
0 people died of radiation poisoning so far from the most recent nuclear disaster (Fukashima). Now, I am comparing apples and oranges, but it is entirely plausible that the cancer risks of a solar plant and a nuclear plant are comparable.
I'm not sure I follow. "High Energy" has a very specific meaning in physics, which typically refers particle physics, which may include nuclear physics but would definitely not include the UV spectrum. Energy, in the photonic radiation sense sense, refers quite literally to the wavelength of a photon. UV is not high energy. It's the energy of a photon which is the bad stuff for cancer. UV is energetic enough to damage molecular bonds, but that's easily mitigated through clothing (which workers _already_ wear) and titanium dioxide, which completely absorbs those photons.
You are right that both hazards for cancer risks in both plans are well understood, but one is mitigated by spending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, construction, water, a regulatory commission, constant improvement of procedure and policy, education, and clever engineering.
"Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar."
Practically they are also very different. For one, the types of radiation you'd worry about at a plant penetrate more than just your skin. With solar, you can wear long sleeves, a hat, gloves and maybe some sunscreen on your face and you are very, very protected. To get the same kind of assurance in a nuclear plant you need significant infrastructure (or a lead suit).
You are spreading misinformation on the internet, and this is not good. Please don't do that.
> With solar, you can wear long sleeves, a hat, gloves and maybe some sunscreen on your face and you are very, very protected. To get the same kind of assurance in a nuclear plant you need significant infrastructure (or a lead suit).
Statistically, I have met people who will die of skin cancer caused by sunlight. Including quite possibly my grandfather.
Sure, you can say the blame lies with them, but the fact is that there are mountains of evidence that we don't manage ambient sunlight to a standard that would be acceptable in an industrial setting.
> You are spreading misinformation on the internet, and this is not good. Please don't do that.
No, I'm pointing out that people are irrational when it comes to radiation risk. In practice, it is completely plausible that a normally operating solar plant is more carcinogenic than a normally operating nuclear plant. Given how rare nuclear distasters are, and how overblown the responses are [1], it is even plausible that they are more carcinogenic than a failed nuclear plant in the modern era.
The risk of both solar and nuclear are low in practical terms.
But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still looking at catastrophic global warming.[2][3]
[0]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11
[1]https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-...
[2]https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...
[3]https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...