Shale Gas to Replace Coal Fuel? - Solamon Renewable Energy - 0 views
-
kit pieta on 17 Aug 12"Policies and regulations currently in place to reduce CO2 emissions are not likely sufficient to handle the threat of increased emission from the India, China and US. One has to imagine that gasoline's energy density is peerless that we would have to make a nuclear plant worth of clean energy daily for the next 5 decades just to meet our energy demands at present. Wave source is also a widely adopted alternative source but it is not nearly as viable, and consistently reliable, as shale gas. There are experts who believe that simply using less coal would solve the problem nicely. They argue that if top emitters like India and China resort to shale gas as an alternative, it could greatly affect the future of global CO2 emissions as shale gas emits 50% less carbon dioxide compared to that of coals. Naturally, players in the coal sector do not want this proposition to advance and even go as far as to propose that we might as well remove all conventional fuels of the present. Both supporters and critics would not acknowledge that the carbon dioxide emission policies are simply not enough to deal with threat of the coal-fueled economies like US and China. So unless a viable and quickly deployable fuel alternative of coal is discovered, it would not be possible to control the rising trajectory of CO2 levels worldwide. And although environmentalist groups might, at first sight, consider shale gas as a scam posing as a solution, widespread use of shale gas could be our best bet in securing quick reduction of CO2 emissions that the Earth desperately needs. The shift of momentum in using alternative fuel like shale gas could additionally buy us more time in developing more effective and viable solutions to further reduce the world's CO2 emissions. Renewable power resources at present cannot give the same results of emission savings as much as with the shale gas'. " -
sunny fitneess on 19 Aug 12"Policies and regulations currently in place to reduce CO2 emissions are not likely sufficient to handle the threat of increased emission from the India, China and US. One has to imagine that gasoline's energy density is peerless that we would have to make a nuclear plant worth of clean energy daily for the next 5 decades just to meet our energy demands at present. Wave source is also a widely adopted alternative source but it is not nearly as viable, and consistently reliable, as shale gas. There are experts who believe that simply using less coal would solve the problem nicely. They argue that if top emitters like India and China resort to shale gas as an alternative, it could greatly affect the future of global CO2 emissions as shale gas emits 50% less carbon dioxide compared to that of coals. Naturally, players in the coal sector do not want this proposition to advance and even go as far as to propose that we might as well remove all conventional fuels of the present. Both supporters and critics would not acknowledge that the carbon dioxide emission policies are simply not enough to deal with threat of the coal-fueled economies like US and China. So unless a viable and quickly deployable fuel alternative of coal is discovered, it would not be possible to control the rising trajectory of CO2 levels worldwide. And although environmentalist groups might, at first sight, consider shale gas as a scam posing as a solution, widespread use of shale gas could be our best bet in securing quick reduction of CO2 emissions that the Earth desperately needs. The shift of momentum in using alternative fuel like shale gas could additionally buy us more time in developing more effective and viable solutions to further reduce the world's CO2 emissions. Renewable power resources at present cannot give the same results of emission savings as much as with the shale gas'. " -
frank hansen on 20 Aug 12"Policies and regulations currently in place to reduce CO2 emissions are not likely sufficient to handle the threat of increased emission from the India, China and US. One has to imagine that gasoline's energy density is peerless that we would have to make a nuclear plant worth of clean energy daily for the next 5 decades just to meet our energy demands at present. Wave source is also a widely adopted alternative source but it is not nearly as viable, and consistently reliable, as shale gas. There are experts who believe that simply using less coal would solve the problem nicely. They argue that if top emitters like India and China resort to shale gas as an alternative, it could greatly affect the future of global CO2 emissions as shale gas emits 50% less carbon dioxide compared to that of coals. Naturally, players in the coal sector do not want this proposition to advance and even go as far as to propose that we might as well remove all conventional fuels of the present. Both supporters and critics would not acknowledge that the carbon dioxide emission policies are simply not enough to deal with threat of the coal-fueled economies like US and China. So unless a viable and quickly deployable fuel alternative of coal is discovered, it would not be possible to control the rising trajectory of CO2 levels worldwide. And although environmentalist groups might, at first sight, consider shale gas as a scam posing as a solution, widespread use of shale gas could be our best bet in securing quick reduction of CO2 emissions that the Earth desperately needs. The shift of momentum in using alternative fuel like shale gas could additionally buy us more time in developing more effective and viable solutions to further reduce the world's CO2 emissions. Renewable power resources at present cannot give the same results of emission savings as much as with the shale gas'. "
Cached
