Sunday, September 24, 2017 12:19:40 AM
Spurred by brain dead politicians, the switch from coal to NG has been accelerated due to the mistaken belief that NG is better for the environment, which it is NOT. Yes, it's true that NG emits about half the CO2 versus coal when burned. However, methane is a far, far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike coal, it doesn't have to be burned to be harmful. Studies have shown that even small leaks from fracking and pipeline cracks erase any and all environmental benefits versus coal. Add to this the risk of pipeline terrorism and fracking caused earthquakes and water pollution, and it might not be wise to put all of our eggs into one basket. Besides, Pristine-M is coming soon... If we increase BTUs by 50%, then we will burn 33% less coal to generate the same amount of power; One third less coal burned means one third less CO2, reducing the environmental competitiveness of NG. And despite what you might think, coal generated electricity is still cheaper than NG. The often quoted Lazard numbers, $60/MWh coal vs $48/MWh NG, compares very expensive Northern Appalachian high-sulfur anthracite (costing 4x PRB coal) burned in conventional plants to natural gas burned in the newest and most efficient combined cycle plants; no agenda there. Lol.
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM