Apparently methane creates less CO2 than does coal per unit electricity produced. That makes methane better than coal in that one respect.

But during fracking, extracting, transporting and using, leaks of methane into the atmosphere are common. And that’s bad.

Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but in the atmosphere it does turn into CO2 after some time. Overall bad.

Coal also releases SO2 (sulfur dioxide) when burned and that SO2 works as a sun shield, reflecting some sunlight back into space which is good.

But the SO2 doesn’t stay up in the atmosphere for all that long. It rains back down as a weak acid which kills plants, harms crops, poisons lakes, and eats away stone (buildings and statuary). That’s bad.

That SO2 is only a temporary cooling effect, the extra CO2 from coal is going to cause more heat retention once the SO2 “umbrella” is gone.

The CO2 from both coal and methane becomes part of the CO2 cycle and hangs around for a very long time, which is bad. We’re not far from the point of no return in regard to the amount of CO2 now in our atmosphere. Very bad.

I see nothing but a need to quit using both coal and methane ASAP. Probably cut coal first, if we can minimize methane leaks. Accept a little more heat now in exchange for less CO2 in the system overall.

Natural gas plants are dispatchable, can be turned on and off quickly with little wasted fuel. Coal is a bear to shut off or turn on. Lots of wasted energy and can take eight hours to get up to full speed vs. NG’s ten to fifteen minutes.

If we have NG rather than coal on the grid then utilities are more likely to shut down the NG turbine to save fuel costs when there is ample renewable energy available. As the price of wind and solar continue to fall it will be cheaper for utilities to install renewables than to purchase fuel and at that point we will see fossil fuels really start their goodbye tour.

Given only the information I have at the moment, it seems like NG is a better choice if we have to burn something to get electricity. And we are forced to keep burning stuff for a while or crash the economy.

@Bob – nicely put – but scary how many people latch on to that whole thing and somehow come to a conclusion that SO2 is good for the global warming, and so coal is good for the environment!

Rossi has refused to let independent researchers test his device.

I continue to not believe….

We also got acid rain which gave us dead forests and lakes. As well as many health problems.

Rossi has been offered several opportunities to have his gear tested by bodies of scientists, with full non-disclosure agreements, and he has refused.

The heat output from his device is consistent with the power which could be produced by the electrical input. Steam is made, but there is no measurement of pressure.

If he ever lets his device be tested by people who know what they are doing and they find it works I’ll start believing.

Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Still don’t believe me? A major US corporation has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced late October in the US, with the unit hitting the market in November. How can any fossil fuel compete with such cheap energy (and clean to boot!).

By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html