this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
479 points (98.8% liked)

Memes

16208 readers
1543 users here now

Post memes here.

A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.

An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.


Laittakaa meemejä tänne.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Pepperidge Farms must've met my dad a few years back.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Not arguing but just curious. I didn't think natural gas plants heavily affected air quality. I'm aware that fracking has its share of issues, notably ground water contamination. I always thought coal plants were the ones with emissions issues.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gas burns cleaner than coal, but almost nothing burns 100% clean. Nor is any fuel source 100% pure.

Hold a lighter up to some tinfoil. See the soot?

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I mean yeah but is it burning in such a way it's actually impacting people's wellbeing? Is it creating that much atmospheric pollution even with waste fume scrubbers? I cook with natural gas and it doesn't leave soot. I'm not sure where you are but anywhere I've been lighters use butane and not natural gas. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to get an accurate picture of the situation.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Perfectly combusted butane only releases CO2 and water, too. The point of that experiment is showing nothing burns perfectly. Even 100% pure methane burning at 100% efficiency releases CO2, which has measurable toxicity in humans.

That being said, largery hydrocarbons will generally burn less perfectly then smaller ones. Methane has 1 carbon. Butane has four. Gasoline has 8-10, lower grade fuels have more, tars get to 20-30. Coal is a mixture of tars and hydrocarbons with even longer carbon chains.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

So natural gas powerplants with sufficient exhaust scrubbers are having a substantial effect on atmospheric pollutants? I feel like we keep getting off of the main question here. Like to stoves and lighters and such. I get nothing burns perfectly clean but seems like just an engineering hurtle to me. With natural gas I'm typically more concerned about the hydro fracking aspect. There's really not a solution to groundwater contamination in fracking beyond them saying it didn't happen.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah. Of course, the phrase "sufficient exhaust scrubbers" is about as reasonable as "100% perfect combustion" in this context. Engineering or no.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So it's physically impossible or just beyond our current level of technological ability?

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, I think we could easily start by synthesizing high purity methane. As long as you do it very slow and in small amounts, you can at least get rid of hereroatoms. After that, we could have several stages of carb/exhaust loops to ensure complete combustion. Of course, you're going to need to heat the last few stages.

Then you just spent 10x the energy you'll get from the natural gas just making it clean. Checkmate, liberals.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I feel like there's a reasonable optimization. Everything has an environmental cost, even the production of green energy infrastructure. I think we can reasonably compare and contrast the probable lifetime impact of an energy source, including decommission and possible recycling. That is nothing is perfect but it's about what's the best we can manage given what the market can financially support.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, that is my point. It is completely unreasonable to make gas clean enough to not affect air quality. We do what we reasonably can. And that results in pollution.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm still not fully sold that it appreciably does affect air quality, I'm aware it's not zero but is it causing like cancer and birth defects in people around the powerplant? I think you and I are more aligned than the others on this thread.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes it is.

Then again everything causes cancer. Aging causes cancer.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

But cancer like coffee or cancer like strong ionizing radiation?

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cancer like cancer alley in texas, where life expectancy is a full decade lower than the nice neighborhood five miles further.

Gas plant pollution is currently responsible for approximately 21% of asthma cases in the country.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

To keep on topic what I could find was 17% of all lung cancer cases in heavily impacted regional studies. That is communities within a 2- to 5-kilometer. It seems fairly insignificant or inconclusive for people further outside that range. Seems like there just needs to be a buffer zone around said gas fired powerplants which honestly I think everyone wants. I can't imagine home prices near any form of powerplant or data center are amazing.

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just fyi, asthma is not "off topic". Natural gas is one of the leading causes. I tell you this as someone who now has life long asthma, likely because of my family's natural gas stove.

A "buffer zone" doesn't do anything when an inversion happens, because an inversion traps the bad air at lower levels (you know, where people breathe) and the bad air spreads much further because of that.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I just meant the topic of cancer which seemed to be a focus. Also I've noticed a continual jump between power plants and stoves or other gas household appliances. You are right though that geography and wind patterns definitely play a role. If a buffer zone didn't matter that would mean one could put a gas fired powerplant on the other side of the earth and they would be at the same health risk as if they were camped out feet away from the exhaust which simply isn't true. There's some degree of distance where the effects become negligible. Generally speaking though no one wants to live near power generation of nearly any sort or high power lines which have their own issues.

I don't think anyone is advocating for us to go back to a time before electricity. PV, solar thermal, hydro, geo thermal, and wind are good, some depending on how they store power, ultimately nuclear is the king and hopefully one day fusion will come around to solve the issue once and for all. Maybe if we find a novel and efficient way of generating antimatter that would be the true ultimate. Coal and gas still have a role to play in many areas not well suited for greener energy and where people get the heeby geebys about nuclear. It does cost more but that could generally be managed by government subsidies.

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

It's not a jump. They're both bad for the same reasons, they both burn methane and leak into the air before combustion even happens.

I didn't say there was not a such thing as a buffer zone, I said there's no buffer zone in the case of inversions in valleys. An inversion traps the gas in the lower levels because of the flipped temperature graident. Here's a picture of an inversion in the Wasatch Front:

Those are gasses. That's not fog. That is pollution. Pollution primarily from refineries and gas power plants, along side vehicles.

Kevin O'Leary is building a natural gas powered data center in this valley. Those gasses will get trapped. This discussion isn't necessarily about alternative fuels, it's about whether natural gas has harmful effects. It does, especially when it gets trapped in inversions. Yes, if he was building a data center with nuclear power, that would probably be ideal. But none of his data centers are doing that, and they're in places that suffer from inversions. He (and the natural gas companies) are going to get more people sick.

Scrubbers cannot possibly capture all of it. It's not just an engineering hurdle. It's physics. Just like burning it can never be 100% efficient, scrubbing it cannot either.

Even if it were possible to somehow scrub 100% of the CO2 and other methane byproducts, it would be unbelievably expensive. Not only is it something that frankly shouldn't even be focused on any more when we already have cheap, green, renewable energy, but do you expect the capitalist billionaires to care enough to pay for the new scrubbers (which, by the way, in this context, do not even exist?)

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Natural gas still causes pollution, just less than coal.

I grew up with natural gas, and if you didn't turn on the hood it would get nasty inside. It also made our pots and pans turn black during long cooking sessions.

Here's more info: https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/gas-stoves-and-indoor-air-pollution-explained/

A 2024 study from Stanford and PSE Healthy Energy scientists estimates the annual societal cost of NO2 exposure from gas and propane stoves is $1 billion. Burning natural gas and propane has also been shown to generate benzene, a known human carcinogen. A 2023 study from Stanford and PSE Healthy Energy scientists found that a single gas cooktop burner on high could raise indoor levels of benzene above those in secondhand tobacco smoke.

And that's just from indoor stoves.

The primary component of natural gas is methane. Methane is a colorless, odorless, and highly combustible gas. It is also a powerful climate pollutant. In addition to methane, natural gas contains pollutants which are known to be toxic, linked to cancer, and can form secondary health-damaging pollutants that may impact air quality and human health.

That was part of the natural gas grift: because it's slightly better than coal, and it has natural in the name, it must be clean! It fooled a lot of people, unfortunately and understandably.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I mean yeah if you displace air (nitrogen and oxygen) with anything you're going to have a bad time, but I didn't think natural gas plants were straight up leaking valuable natural gas everywhere like a home stove or gas heater can. The black soot is interesting, must mean the natural gas source was tainted because as far as I know pure natural gas burns totally clean. Just to check, we were speaking about natural gas plants for energy generation right?

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It does not burn totally clean. All extracts of gas and oil, including that of natural gas (which is methane) are not 100% pure and do not burn at 100% efficiency. If that were the case, there would be no byproducts, such as leftover methane. It also turns into CO2 when burned, which while not as harmful to the environment, is not something you want built up during an inversion and can contribute to climate change.

Even if it were some how burned at 100% efficiency, there is another source of pollution before it ever gets to the power plant: leaks.

Methane is the main component of natural gas; it makes up 70% or more of raw natural gas in the ground and well over 95% of the processed gas we burn for energy. When burned, this methane turns into CO2—but before then, it can escape into the atmosphere from all parts of gas infrastructure, like valves and pipes. And those leaks, too, need to be counted when we calculate how much natural gas is contributing to climate change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 6.5 million metric tons of methane leak from the oil and gas supply chain each year5—around 1% of total natural gas production. At this rate, methane leaks would account for around 10% of natural gas’s contribution to climate change, and CO2 emissions for the other 90%.

In a 2022 study focused on gas production in New Mexico, a group of Stanford researchers estimated that leaks equated to more than 9 percent of all production in the area, based on aerial surveys.7 A 2023 study suggested methane emissions were 70 percent higher than U.S. government figures from 2010 to 2019.8 Plata says there’s no current consensus on the magnitude of methane leaks.

“Leaks are so poorly quantified,” Plata says. “Nobody knows that number for sure. It's hard to sense methane comprehensively and finding those pipe-based leaks can be trickier than it sounds.”

Leaks can start and stop irregularly, in different places along the natural gas supply chain, making them hard to spot even as more methane-sensing satellites are put into space. For now, we’re largely dependent on scientists, industry, or citizen volunteers trying to find leaks one at a time, with equipment that is not consistently accurate.

Methane has a much shorter lifespan than CO2, but traps much more heat while it’s still floating around in the atmosphere. We’ve previously covered the challenge of comparing methane to CO2 at Ask MIT Climate, but in short, the EPA and other organizations usually say methane is about 28 times more warming than CO2—if you look 100 years in the future. Over 10 or 20 years, though, methane is 80 to 100 times more warming than CO2.

Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned

Natural gas is still a pollutant in multiple ways. While it's cleaner than coal, it is still a contributor to greenhouse gasses, both while burning and in transit to customers (including power plants). "Natural gas" is a greenwashing marketing term from big oil and gas companies. It's methane. That's what it is. It has been shown to warm the climate in multiple ways (CO2 and methane) and is a contributor to children getting life long asthma. It should not be used at all, but especially not in a valley that gets intense inversions which trap the gas.

The Wikipedia page goes into much more detail, under "environmental effects": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas