How high could the release of the huge WoodSide new gas project from Western Australia? | Temperature control

There is no doubt that greenhouse gas emissions will be released after a $ 16 billion new gas project is being built off the west coast of Australia.

But how big are the emissions from Scarborough development – as confirmed by Woodside and BHP this week?

On Tuesday, WoodS CEO Meg O’Neill confirmed that the project would release 1.6bn tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the age of 30, according to environmentalists.

That is more than three times Australia’s annual annual greenhouse gas emissions. More than 90% of emissions come from combustion, mostly by project customers in Asia.

A total of live and indirect broadcasts by ABC Radio O’Neill in Perth were asked about the life cycle of the project. “I believe it is in the order of 1.6 billion tons,” she said.

But that number is almost double what it was reported by WoodSide to the National Maritime Safety and Environmental Authority in February last year.

According to WoodSide, the total direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions in the project life will reach 878m tons.

A spokesman for WoodSide told Temperature Check: “O’Neill has unknowingly repeated an undisclosed 1.6 billion tonnes in a report to the WA Conservation Council and the Australian Institute.

The actual figure was 880m tons, the spokesman said. This is still a very large number – almost double the total annual emissions of Australia.

So why the difference?

According to Mark Oge, of the Australian Institute, the capacity of the Woods production facilities is greater than the company’s reported output from Scarborough Gasfield. The report predicts the release if the facilities are fully operational.

A WoodSide spokesman said Scarborough’s claim to produce 1.6bn tons of CO2 was false and that the method to reach the number was incorrect.

The spokesman added, “Scarborough’s development will not change the targets of reducing Woods’ net emissions targets and our ambition to be zero by 2050 or sooner.

Does gas really help achieve the net zero goal?

Woods is under attack by environmental groups to monitor the massive gas project as the world searches for more and less fossils.

But they argue that the amount of gas produced and sold by Woodsaid will help the world reach a net zero.

The International Energy Agency (IAEA) – an influential international consulting group – published a report earlier this year on how global economies will fluctuate by zero emissions by 2050.

O’Neill’s IEA Net Zero 2050 report shows that “significant sustained investment in oil and gas is needed” to meet global energy needs.

“Scarborough is just part of that,” she said.

But the IEA position comes with some important caveats. The agency estimates that gas consumption will decrease by 3 percent annually between 2020 and 2050, according to the agency.

The agency said that by 2050, about 1,750 billion cubic meters of gas would still be used, but that more than half of that would have to do with carbon capture and storage.

WoodSide also said that gas is being used in coal mines to help reduce emissions.

According to the Nopssema report, the IEA report reiterated that the company had saved 100m tonnes of CO2 by 2019 conversion to coal.

This, WoodSide argues, “gives great confidence that natural gas, including sources such as Scarborne, will lead to lower GHGs in the atmosphere. [greenhouse gases] If not here’s a new product just for you! ”

But the IEA’s 100m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions have been driven by the emerging economies, most of which have converted more than 100 coal-fired power plants in the United States over the last decade.

When burned in a power plant, about half of the gas is emitted.

But if gas is being burned to meet the growing demand for new power stations, this could put it at risk of competing with renewables and locking fossil fuels for decades.

“The most important thing to understand is how these releases are,” O’Neill told ABC. [from Scarborough gas] It was a comparison [with] Other energy sources ”

If those other sources of energy are coal, then O’Neill has the right point. The fact is, renewable energy is comparable to fossil fuels and often cheaper.

According to WoodSide, Scarbon gas generates 400 to 550 kg of carbon dioxide per megawatt per hour; This is compared to almost zero renewable energy.

The IEA writes in its report on the conversion of coal into gas: “Environmentally beating coal creates a lower bar for natural gas, which has lower emissions and lower cost options for both fuels.

“The cost of renewable technologies in the energy sector is clearly declining. In many energy markets, wind and solar PV are among the cheapest options for the new generation, and as a result, the role of gas is under pressure.

Not for vaccination and climate science

According to The Guardian, Queensland Liberal Senator Gerard Rennick said that in the last few months, Facebook has seen more than 500% of people following comments about the serious side effects of covad-19 vaccines.

Rennick admits he could not confirm the allegations and said the witnesses may not be “100% correct.”

As Rennik’s Facebook audience grew, so did the number of people exposed to the senator’s view of climate science.

Last month, Rennick told the audience that the Earth’s temperature was determined by solar energy. Everyone was pushing for “zero science” to support the release of pure zero greenhouse gases (such as the Morrison government).

According to Renik, since the 1980’s, energy from the sun to the earth has been declining and temperatures are rising. This is due to the accumulation of extra carbohydrates (CO2) in the atmosphere.

On Monday, Rennick joined four other Coalition senators in selecting a country’s failed attempt to ban vaccinations in various sectors.

Among them are many opponents of climate science. National Senator Malcolm Roberts said there was no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions could change the climate.

South Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antic told Sky News that international climate conferences “understand and understand the division of Western industries.”

In April, Antichrist referred to the term “global warming” when “the facts are inconsistent with statistics.”

Frankly, Antichrist never heard of Frank Luntz.

Influential U.S. Republican voter Luntz In 2000, George W. Bush consulted with Energy Industry and GOP on how to tackle climate change, with Al-Ghor winning.

What did Luntz tell the Republicans?

He wrote that now is the time to change the language because climate change is less frightening than “global warming”.

Leave a Comment