this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
432 points (92.7% liked)

The memes of the climate

1662 readers
3 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world
432
Fossil methane (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world to c/climatememes@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Yes, I know it's not technically just methane, but methane is its primary constituent.

"Fossil gas" is also probably a suitable term, but I like "fossil methane" because it gets that spooky chemical name benefit.

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Yucky_Dimension@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Feel free to correct me, but this sounds incredibly ill-informed. Yes, methane itself is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, far more potent than CO2. But there are several types of "natural" gas. You are talking about fossil fuels, the type of methane either trapped underground or beneath the arctic perma frost. Methane is created by decomposing organic matter though. Livestock is one of the biggest producers of natural gas as far as I know. If released into the atmosphere, methane would be devastating, as it takes about ten years for it to degrade into CO2 first. I don't know the impact of using "natural" gas compared to other kinds of fossil fuels. Burning it definitely seems like the lesser of two evils though. A quick Google search says that "emissions per unit of energy produced from gas are around 40% lower than coal and around 20% lower than oil." While this is far from perfect, putting it on the same level seems either ignorant or disingenuous.

TLDR: Methane doesn't necessarily mean fossil fuels. Burning methane and using it as an energy source is less bad than releasing it directly into the atmosphere.

Again, if there's anyone with actual knowledge on the subject, please correct me.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why I specified fossil methane, the stuff we're getting out of the ground to burn in power plants. I'm all for burning non-fossil methane (e.g., from compost piles) for reducing the impact of those.

[–] Yucky_Dimension@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still, stating it's 40 times more potent than carbon dioxide also feels deceptive. While it's technically true, it's not a fair comparison. I'd like to clarify here, that I'm not defending gas as an energy source. I don't own a gas stove or anything in that regard.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know what you mean, but methane leaks are a real problem, so while combusting it produces mostly CO2, all the infrastructure and pipelines bringing the gas to where it's burnt leak a loooot of methane. And methane is overall the second-most responsible greenhouse gas in anthropogenic climate crisis (after carbon dioxide), although a big chunk of that methane is from industrial animal agriculture of course.

[–] Yucky_Dimension@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what I mean. The biggest source of methane and therefore one of the biggest contributor to climate change is cattle. Which could be considered "natural", but even if we deny it that label, as it is clearly man-made, we wouldn't refer to it as fossil fuel. I'm not sure how much of an impact those methane leaks have on the climate compared to the steady release of agricultural gas, but I bet it's not exactly helping.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

But the thing is nobody is calling cow farts "natural gas"; they call them "methane". Even the wikipedia page for "natural gas" refers solely to the fossil fuel we get out of the ground:

Natural gas (also called fossil gas, methane gas or simply gas) is a naturally occurring mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane in addition to various smaller amounts of other higher alkanes. Low levels of trace gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and helium are also usually present.[1]

Natural gas is a fossil fuel and non-renewable resource that is formed when layers of organic matter (primarily marine microorganisms)[4] decompose under anaerobic conditions and are subjected to intense heat and pressure underground over millions of years.[5] The energy that the decayed organisms originally obtained from the sun via photosynthesis is stored as chemical energy within the molecules of methane and other hydrocarbons.[6]

I think the key distinction is that "natural gas", as a term, only actually refers to the fossil fuel. That is, "natural gas" != "methane".

The meme is about stopping saying "natural gas" — i.e., the fossil fuel, not other non-fossil sources of methane — and instead calling it "fossil methane". Given we already call cow farts methane and landfill emissions methane, calling the fossil fuel form of methane "fossil methane" seems fitting to me. That way we have overall methane, then we can specify source by saying "fossil methane" or "landfill methane" or "agricultural methane" and so forth.

[–] SmoothIsFast@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's called natural gas because before we got it from the ground we got it by heating coal until it gave off gas and piping that to homes and businesses.

Natural gas is natural because it naturally occurs in the earth and is not distilled from coal like coal gas is.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This right here. Stop spreading nonsense TO, making it look as if that was a fact. Look at the history of lighting etc.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

That is the true etymology of natural gas, we can call it whatever we want including "bottled farts"

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The name Natural Gas arose long before there was any effort to greenwash anything. It was in comparison to Coal Gas, which was artificially produced from coal and in use before Natural Gas came to market. Acting like this is some kind of greenwashing propaganda conspiracy just makes you look ignorant, and as a result it makes the whole movement look bad.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also it's ironically the opposite of what OP was accusing the fuel industry of doing. Instead of green washing they're trying to Brownwash (greywash? Blackwash?) the term.

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

In a lot of cases, winning is what matters, and not moral purity.

Why shouldn't a good cause adopt a better name when opposing something?

[–] powerofm@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is great. Reminds me of how in Alberta they call tar sand fields the "oil sands" because then it hides how filthy and dirty it really is and how much processing is needed to make it viable.

[–] Twelve20two@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

The Bitumin Business

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

And the oil they get contains sulphur. Aka SOUR crude oil.

So much sulphur that it needs to be shipped to Texas to refined

[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

People also still believe that gas is better for cooking food. Because it gets hot “faster”. These dumbasses have never heard of an induction stove. They think every electric stove is an electric coil stove.

I can’t believe the dumb gas propaganda like that rap song https://youtu.be/FJRQo5aawho actually worked.

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I've cooked with electric coil, gas, and induction. Each for at least a few months' time, so it's not just that I never had the time to learn with each. I can honestly say I hate gas stoves. They heat up the surroundings so much. Those old, plain electric coils suck, but in a slightly different way. Modern electric coils under that glass/ceramic smooth surface are pretty decent. Induction is god-tier, though. When I have own my own home, I'm 100% getting an induction stove.

[–] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've got an induction stove in my new place and my biggest complaint is that it gets too hot. I sear steaks with it barely halfway.

First time I tried to cook with it all the way up my apartment was filled with smoke.

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Could it be a calibration issue? My experience with modern stoves (for me, the oven) is that it was badly calibrated, so they oven never got properly hot

[–] too_high_for_this@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Do you have the right pans? They're probably not thick enough.

Also, you don't have to let them heat up much at all. It basically uses magic to just make the pan hot, like, instantly.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It takes whopping 5 seconds for electric to heat up.

[–] too_high_for_this@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not about how long it takes, what matters is constant, even heat. Electric coil stoves turn on and off to regulate heat so you get crazy fluctuations.

Gas doesn't have that problem. Good induction stoves don't, either, but they're still hella expensive. And you need the right pots and pans or you will have a bad time.

There's a reason basically every restaurant in the world uses gas cooktops.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

so you get crazy fluctuations

Having used nothing but electric (except 2 years), no you don't lol. That's a ridiculous claim. It's almost like they can change the timing so that it makes no difference!

Restaurants want to flambe and all that nonsense.

[–] too_high_for_this@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, they can, but they don't. Every electric stove I've ever used has had long pauses between cycles. My current (heh) electric stove can barely boil water and getting constant heat for like a custard or hollandaise is literally impossible. And it's not an old POS, it's a newish Samsung glass top.

I literally boil water in a 120v kettle faster than my stove. A gas stove boils faster than both.

But obviously induction wins. Something like 95% efficiency plus temp control. I just wish they didn't whine like a CRT TV.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah they can and they do lol. I just fried some liver on a glass top, can't tell it turns on and off. The liver fried steady. Back when I had coil I didn't even know that it turned on and off. That how little it makes a difference: I can't even tell without being informed about it academically.

[–] too_high_for_this@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, you're probably right. If you couldn't tell, it's definitely because they're the same. I'll go back to the dozens of kitchens I've worked in and tell them they should switch to electric.

I'm a professional chef, bud. I've cooked more meals than you will ever eat. I have tens of thousands of hours behind all manner of cooking appliances.

Induction > Gas >>>> Coil

There's no question. And since my electricity is generated mostly by fossil fuels anyway, there's literally no reason to spend $$$ for induction range+pans.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Commercial kitchens want to flambe and all that stuff that normal people don't do. This was about "wild fluctuations" that you claim. There are no "wild fluctuations". They are so minor that I have to be informed academically that they even exist.

Ah you're emotionally invested in this, that explains it. Cheers.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair and induction stove costs roughly double want an old school electric does but if you're concerned about good cooking and you're not just a bachelor boiling water for survival food it's probably going to be worth the extra cash, and they both plug into the same Outlet behind the oven range combo so it's an easy and painless switch if you want to have the best experience

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's only because the USA is behind on cooking tech.

The cheapest range in the US on the IKEA US site is a $699 gas range (excluding tax). Ceramic is $749 and induction is $1399.

Meanwhile, onI the Dutch ikea site a cooktop (excluding oven, since we decided to get rid of the whole range concept in Europe), the cheapest gas stove is €119 while induction is €269. We don't do ceramic anymore. Prices including tax.

So yes, induction is still expensive in the US. but ceramic is not and spending $50 to not inhale gas fumes and having an easy to clean surface is worth it. I used one for a year, it's great.

But if you do have the money, I'd go for induction. And when the US catches up in technology, "double" won't really matter when it's just €150 more.

And if you really want to be cheap, those Tillreda single units cost $80.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

here in the USA combo oven-range units reign supreme, although some fancier kitchens in new houses have stuff like induction burners built into the countertops and stuff like that. so you kinda gotta buy them as a package. my apartment has the coil electric kind but it's an older unit. the building owns it so we'd have to ask the for permission to replace it. that's one issue here, perhaps half of Americans don't get any say in green building upgrades. we gotta combine carrots like subsidies and tax breaks with sticks like mandates to get landlords to upgrade stuff

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Lol, landlords suck everywhere.

Ranges also reigned supreme in Europe 15 years ago.

It just takes time, but eventually induction will replace everything. In the meantime, cooking on gas isn't that bad.

In terms of government action, I think the best would be to just regulate rents. In most schemes, slightly higher rents are allowed for modernized rentals. But rents are just too high at the moment.

[–] dmention7@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a poor meme because it implies that burning methane reduces it's greenhouse gas potency by 40x.

(CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2)

[–] Godort@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, burning methane does significantly reduce its greenhouse gas potency.

But people are rarely just releasing raw methane into the atmosphere

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

Production and transport of fossil gas actually often does exactly that and there are/were satellites tasked with tracking methane emissions (there are also loads of natural fossil sources, sometimes their leaking is anthropogenic).

[–] dmention7@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah I was mostly poking fun at idea that someone would see this and get the entirely opposite message OP intended:

Methane worse than CO2?

BURN ALL THE NATURAL GAS

....

Global warming solved!

I half expected to come back to a whole pile of downvotes lol

[–] Cheems@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When did the image for this meme get updated? It looks like someone tried to update it and failed.

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

If you look at global warming potential over a 100 year tome period, methane emission is 36 times that of an equivalent mass of CO2. Methane comes out of the atmosphere by reacting with hydroxyl radicals, oxidising to form CO2. 88% of the methane reacts this way, meaning that one gram of methane will form 2.4 grams of CO2.

[–] denissimo@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

The mass doesn't care where the gas comes from and it's spooky indeed. I'd also vote to boot out the "organic" on supposedly environmental friendly products because, well, fossil oil is organic too.

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

And Amazon is spewing it into the air like it's nothing.

[–] Lowered_lifted@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There's a shit ton of it about to bubble up from the oceans as it's currently in frozen clathrates and when it melts warming will be even more accelerated