An arguement for the use of Natural Gas as a replacement for Fossil Essay

An arguement for the use of Natural Gas as a replacement for Fossil Fuels - undertake ExampleOne of the reasons why natural flatulency should replace fossil fuels is that the former is relatively cheaper. In fact, according to a report by OilPrice.com, the be of oil today is over $14 to get a million BTU or British Thermal Unitbut only $2.30 if you were willing to use natural blow as an alternative (Hamilton, 2012). That means savings of $11.70 per million BTU, which translates to an astronomical value in reality. Although petroleum once had the same cost as crude oil, from 1997 to 2007, the motion has now changed in favor of the former (Hamilton, 2012). The cheap cost of natural gas is attributed to the fact that America produces three billion to a greater extent solid feet or 85M cubic meters of natural gas a day out of the ground than it can consume (Natural Gas Difference Engine, 2012). Moreover, when compared to coal, it would cost 12 cents or more(prenominal) per kilowat t-hour to produce electricity from dirty coal compared to 6 cents only from clean natural gas (Natural Gas Difference Engine, 2012). ... Without responsible stewardship, one would non seek ways to use the most efficient means of producing electricity and just be content with what is expensive. Another reason why natural gas should replace fossil fuels is that the former is cleaner compared to the latter. According to a report in the New York Times concerning force sources, natural gas has become more popular as a major international commodity because it burns cleaner than oil and coal and produces less greenhouse gases (Krauss, 2012). These greenhouse gases include nose candy dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Moreover, natural gas does not leave any carbon deposits in the engine, thus reducing the natural wear of the engine and so on that point are fewer oil changes (Natural Gas Difference Engine, 2012). Natural gas is actually only methane, or CH4, which is m erely a one-carbon compound with cardinal hydrocarbons, thus it is relatively less harmful than chemicals with long carbon chains. Besides, the use of natural gas would hypothetically reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 55% and mercury emissions by 30% and greenhouse gas emissions by 15% because natural gas emits virtually no sulfur dioxide and mercury, and only 22% less greenhouse gases compared to diesel (Environmental Benefits, 2012). In fact, natural gas is 28% cleaner than petroleum and 40%-100% cleaner than coal (Stevens, 2012). Another reason for the proposal that the fall in States should replace fossil fuels with natural gas is the added benefit of boosting the countrys economy especially if the United States sells natural gas to other countries. Several energy companies in the country announced the