Talk:Natural gas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.249.16 (talk) at 20:17, 14 July 2021 (→‎Requested move 14 July 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Energy content, statistics, and pricing graphs outdated

The graphs in the section Energy content, statistics, and pricing graphs are outdated by all most 10 years.

EnergyIntel (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using SI units in the table about pollutants

As neutral and international encyclopaedia it makes sense to use the SI units for tables such as those in the section on environmental effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Environmental_effects

Are we in agreement about that? EnergyIntel (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Major contributor to climate change"

I'm wondering about this assertion. For starters there are no sources that back up the assertion. The second part that makes me wonder is that in many developed nations, and developing I'd assume, natural gas has been pivotal in decreasing, not increasing greenhouse gases, as the switch from coal to natural gas has significantly dropped emissions of CO2, as well as pm10, pm2.5, etc. Leading me to believe that the story is more complicated than portrayed in this short sentence, and if anything Natural Gas has been instrumental in fighting climate change. Perhaps for the sake of brevity we should simply cut this sentence, as describing its actual impact on the environment is a bit long for the intro section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the introduction to be specific, I'm sure there are sources that say that it contributes to climate change just as there are sources that say it helps fight climate change. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some reputable sources on how it helps fight climate change:

JACOBY, Henry D., et al. Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model. Energy Economics, 2006, vol. 28, no 5-6, p. 610-631. SCHRAG, Daniel P. Is shale gas good for climate change?. Daedalus, 2012, vol. 141, no 2, p. 72-80. DEUTCH, John. The good news about gas-The natural gas revolution and its consequences. Foreign Aff., 2011, vol. 90, p. 82. Hultman, N., Rebois, D., Scholten, M. & Ramig, C. The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044008 (2011) Moniz, E. J. et al. The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (MIT, 2011); http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Report.pdf Brown, S., Krupnick, A. & Walls, M. Natural Gas: a Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future (Resource for the Future, 2009); http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-IB-09-11.pdf Levi, M. Climate consequences of natural gas as a bridge fuel. Clim. Change 118, 609–623 (2013) Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus used to be that gas was a good transition fuel, but it with climate change mitigation not really kicking off, time is now more limited and most 2020 sources will probably say it is an important contributor. Furthermore, the extent of methane leaks has become more apparent, making the CO2e potential higher than thought previously. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding another cite to back it up and increasing importance to "top" for climate change projectChidgk1 (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


You can wonder all you want Alcibiades979 but if you look at the section about Environmental Effects (here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Environmental_effects) you can see that although it's a little less polluting than Coal today it's a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. With, according to the IPCC from 2014, a CO2 emission rate of 490 g eq/Kwh and last year a total of 39,292 TWh (= 39292000000000 kWh) (source here https://ourworldindata.org/energy) gas alone contributes: 19253080000 metric tons (1000 kg) of CO2 worldwide. How would this NOT be a major contributor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnergyIntel (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The of

I'm pretty sure there is a word missing in "The first step in the valorization of natural gas components is usually the [?] of the alkane into olefin" but it probably needs someone who groks chemistry to work out what it is. ϢereSpielChequers 18:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2021

Natural gas → Fossil Gas – Removing 'Natural' or replacing it with something more neutral/scientific the in the title EnergyIntel (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to any other (fossil) resource on wikipedia Coal, Oil, Uranium, Neodymium, ... it doesn't make sense to call (methane) 'gas' natural in an encyclopedia. It' as natural as anything else but here it just seems to increase the likelyhood of an appeal to nature. Do we agree to change it to 'fossil gas'? Merging with Methane Gas might also make sense since it's the primary constituent. I can do an easy find and replace in this article if in agreement. I see no good reason for keeping the 'natural' (unless you have a fossil fuel conflict of interest of course). We could still have a reference from 'natural gas' to 'fossil gas' or 'methane gas' whatever we decide on. Does that make sense? EnergyIntel (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (Reworked to use the requested move template and some typo's) EnergyIntel (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is called "natural gas" in the overwhelming majority of English-language sources. (On Google: "Natural gas" gets 133 million hits. "Fossil gas" gets 117,000 hits.) It is not the job of Wikipedia to advocate for changes in common English usage. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - can see this going to WP:SNOW close very quickly. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, see WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OR. 162 etc. (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close There’s no chance of this attempt of advocacy being successful. Also, the suggestion that everyone support the current title is working for or being paid off by the fossil fuel industry far too absurd to be taken seriously.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_gas&oldid=1033620303"