Hacker News Reader

Comment by seattle_spring | Hacker News Reader

Hopefully not, as including fossil fuel industries in “climate tech” would be very disingenuous.

gas is emitting half of CO2 than coal, it's also much cleaner: coal emits heavy metals and radioactivity when burned.

Gas also enables a higher penetration of renewables. We won't get to zero emissions in the next 10 years, but we can get to zero emissions for days on end, because of gas plants.

Gas emits less CO2, but when it leaks it's much worse (Methane) so in the United States it's not far off in the normal pipeline network.

In most countries we're not close to a penetration of renewables that significantly profit from the flexilibilty of gas. Thus building new gas infra isn't really helping. If storage (not just batteries) pans out the way we're hoping, gas can just be skipped. If not, it can be built quickly.

Switching over to natural gas from worse fuels, which has been enabled by fracking, is responsible for most of the emissions reductions that have happened in the past decade.

If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, then replacing coal with LNG seems like a move in the right direction.

Maybe “cleaner tech” is a better label.

I think climate tech is fine, as long as it's an improvement over the status quo. It's a marketing term anyway.

more fossil fuels are incompatible with 1.5c target

https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-fossil-fuels-incompatible-wi...

at this point they simply must stay in the ground

Nat gas ain't going anywhere. Optimizing it further should be considered ClimateTech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com