Beware Of False Prophets

You're right, both burn clean, but, natural gas contains methane, propane does not.

Propane is also more efficient than natural gas. You would burn two units of natural gas to one unit of propane to get the same amount of BTU's.

While natural gas and propane both burn clean, the reason propane is considered "green" and natural gas isn't is because of the methane. If propane leaks into the environment, it will not harm the eco system. If natural gas leaks into the environment, it will do damage because of the methane it contains.


Differences between Propane and Natural Gas​

  1. Heat Energy Efficiency: Propane delivers more than twice the energy of natural gas as measured in BTUs (British Thermal Unit), which means a propane furnace will be a more efficient source of heat. To put it differently, a propane furnace will produce the same amount of heat using half the amount of fuel. This is an important factor to consider when the price of natural gas per unit is usually a bit more than propane. People often look at just the price, without considering the fact that a natural gas furnace will burn twice the amount of fuel as it’s propane counterpart.
  2. Clean and Green: While both natural gas and propane are clean burning, Propane is considered a green fuel, where natural gas is not. The difference is that propane is eco-friendly both before and after combustion. Propane is non-toxic and not damaging to the environment when leaked into the atmosphere. Natural gas, on the other hand, is composed mainly of methane, which when leaked into the environment before combustion is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases.

Propane is the cleanest burning fossil fuel available, and it produces about half the carbon dioxide and other emissions of gasoline. It also doesn’t harm water or soil. Natural gas is mostly made up of methane, a greenhouse gas that’s about 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Fortunately, natural gas also burns more cleanly than most other fossil fuels. Therefore, pollutants from natural gas can usually only get into the atmosphere after leaks in pipelines or accidents during drilling. After spending several years in the air, methane will break down into carbon dioxide on its own.

Since coal power plants are popular in the United States, methane and propane are both more environmentally friendly than electricity in many areas. Both types of fuel are hydrocarbons, but they have different chemical compositions. Methane is CH4, and propane is C3H8. Propane is actually a byproduct of petroleum refining and natural gas processing, along with other hydrocarbons like butane, ethane, and pentane.

Propane is also more efficient than natural gas. You would burn two units of natural gas to one unit of propane to get the same amount of BTU's.

Why do you think that means it "burns cleaner"?

Propane is the cleanest burning fossil fuel available, and it produces about half the carbon dioxide and other emissions of gasoline.

How much carbon dioxide does it produce compared to methane?
 
You're right, both burn clean, but, natural gas contains methane, propane does not.

Propane is also more efficient than natural gas. You would burn two units of natural gas to one unit of propane to get the same amount of BTU's.

While natural gas and propane both burn clean, the reason propane is considered "green" and natural gas isn't is because of the methane. If propane leaks into the environment, it will not harm the eco system. If natural gas leaks into the environment, it will do damage because of the methane it contains.


Differences between Propane and Natural Gas​

  1. Heat Energy Efficiency: Propane delivers more than twice the energy of natural gas as measured in BTUs (British Thermal Unit), which means a propane furnace will be a more efficient source of heat. To put it differently, a propane furnace will produce the same amount of heat using half the amount of fuel. This is an important factor to consider when the price of natural gas per unit is usually a bit more than propane. People often look at just the price, without considering the fact that a natural gas furnace will burn twice the amount of fuel as it’s propane counterpart.
  2. Clean and Green: While both natural gas and propane are clean burning, Propane is considered a green fuel, where natural gas is not. The difference is that propane is eco-friendly both before and after combustion. Propane is non-toxic and not damaging to the environment when leaked into the atmosphere. Natural gas, on the other hand, is composed mainly of methane, which when leaked into the environment before combustion is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases.

Propane is the cleanest burning fossil fuel available, and it produces about half the carbon dioxide and other emissions of gasoline. It also doesn’t harm water or soil. Natural gas is mostly made up of methane, a greenhouse gas that’s about 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Fortunately, natural gas also burns more cleanly than most other fossil fuels. Therefore, pollutants from natural gas can usually only get into the atmosphere after leaks in pipelines or accidents during drilling. After spending several years in the air, methane will break down into carbon dioxide on its own.

Since coal power plants are popular in the United States, methane and propane are both more environmentally friendly than electricity in many areas. Both types of fuel are hydrocarbons, but they have different chemical compositions. Methane is CH4, and propane is C3H8. Propane is actually a byproduct of petroleum refining and natural gas processing, along with other hydrocarbons like butane, ethane, and pentane.
CO2 output is NOT AN ISSUE... That is a failed bull shit story.. Time to get over the AGW lie.. The Hypothesis has been show failed and incorrect. The only people selling that crap today are socialists and dictators who want power. That's it..
 
Obama isn't a Muslim. The house is safe from rising sea levels and propane is the best choice for now.

You are badly missing the point of the article the one you didn't read since Obama is a time-tested flaming hypocrite!

His Hawaiin home grounds would be underwater some of the time with that man made sea wall that was installed.
 
Not for most of the US people... they have long since abandoned the crap.

Yes, since it takes a lot of sun to make it work some of the times have known people who used to try making hot water with solar panels tell me it doesn't work reliably.
 
Good story in the WSJ Weekend edition about a couple of people who drove from Chicago to New Orleans in an EV. First notable fact is the costs, $175 versus the $275 a trip in a gas powered vehicle would have cost, not a big savings given the cost of these EV's, and second was the inconvenience of charging times; seems these charger makers lie a whole lot about charging times and the availability of them, even with the massive govt. subsidies, and also the effects of weather on EV's, drastically reducing their 'mileage' per charge. This EV supposedly was supposed to get 310 miles per charge.

The trip took 4 days, mostly due to charge times. I can do Chicago to New Orleans in one and half days in my small car.
 
You are badly missing the point of the article the one you didn't read since Obama is a time-tested flaming hypocrite!

His Hawaiin home grounds would be underwater some of the time with that man made sea wall that was installed.

You sound like a self righteous extremist.
 
Good story in the WSJ Weekend edition about a couple of people who drove from Chicago to New Orleans in an EV. First notable fact is the costs, $175 versus the $275 a trip in a gas powered vehicle would have cost, not a big savings given the cost of these EV's, and second was the inconvenience of charging times; seems these charger makers lie a whole lot about charging times and the availability of them, even with the massive govt. subsidies, and also the effects of weather on EV's, drastically reducing their 'mileage' per charge. This EV supposedly was supposed to get 310 miles per charge.

The trip took 4 days, mostly due to charge times. I can do Chicago to New Orleans in one and half days in my small car.

I noticed you didn't post a link to the article. Why? Is it because you made it up?
 
Good story in the WSJ Weekend edition about a couple of people who drove from Chicago to New Orleans in an EV. First notable fact is the costs, $175 versus the $275 a trip in a gas powered vehicle would have cost, not a big savings given the cost of these EV's, and second was the inconvenience of charging times; seems these charger makers lie a whole lot about charging times and the availability of them, even with the massive govt. subsidies, and also the effects of weather on EV's, drastically reducing their 'mileage' per charge. This EV supposedly was supposed to get 310 miles per charge.

The trip took 4 days, mostly due to charge times. I can do Chicago to New Orleans in one and half days in my small car.



I do it in one when I drive it. It's an easy drive. I can even do some antiquing along the way.
 
Last edited:
You sound like a self righteous extremist.

Again you show that you have no clue what is going on since the article with you continue to show you didn't read makes a point on why the man is a flaming hypocrite.
 
Again you show that you have no clue what is going on since the article with you continue to show you didn't read makes a point on why the man is a flaming hypocrite.

Do you think one man can change the amount of pollution we dump in the atmosphere and the oceans?
 
Obama's property is not in danger. It's sour grapes.

You are being pathetic since the article explains his hypocrisy which you are determined to remain ignorant over.

The Hawaiian property would have been flooded over without the man-made sea wall that only millionaires can afford and using massive amounts of Propane as his main source of energy that only wealthy people can afford while bypassing Wind and Solar power....

Have YOU forgotten what he did as President already?

You also missed this in the link because you didn't read it:

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From Hawaii’s Environmental Laws​


:cuckoo:
Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From Hawaii’s Environmental Laws
 
Last edited:
You are being pathetic since the article explains his hypocrisy which you are determined to remain ignorant over.

The Hawaiian property would have been flooded over without the man-made sea wall that only millionaires can afford and using massive amounts of Propane as his main source of energy that only wealthy people can afford.

Have YOU forgotten what he did as President already?

:cuckoo:

So? He can pay for a seawall. He is a millionaire.
 
The Hawaiian property would have been flooded over without the man-made sea wall that only millionaires can afford and using massive amounts of Propane as his main source of energy that only wealthy people can afford while bypassing Wind and Solar power....

Really? Only wealthy people can afford propane? My family must have been wealthy then, because we used propane for most of our household energy needs when I was growing up. We filled the tank only once every couple of months (large metal tank in the backyard). I must have also been wealthy when as an E-4 I lived in a trailer and filled propane bottles once every month and a half for heat and cooking. I guess all those people living in trailer parks with propane tanks in back of their homes are wealthy too.

By the way, propane is one of the cheapest household energy sources there is, which is why so many middle class and lower income people use it for heat and cooking.
 
It was already there and was illegal then and his renovation is also illegal, but he gets a pass by the state of Ha ha..

You still didn't read the article that shows he is one massive hypocritical jack ass!

Got any links to back up your claims that the seawall and his renovations were illegal, or is this just more crap you're pulling outta your ass to troll people?
 
President Obama doesn't really believe in the green renewable power bullcrap either.

Real Climate Science

Beware Of False Prophets​

Posted on June 18, 2022 by tonyheller

Excerpt:



Barack Obama recently purchased a home worth $19 million on the beach in Martha’s Vineyard, and he is installing a huge propane tank. He also owns a mansion on the beach in Hawaii. There are several things which can be concluded from this.
  1. He isn’t worried about sea level rise
  2. He is relying on fossil fuels rather than wind and solar.
  3. He is concerned that the energy infrastructure isn’t stable.

LINK
Also. Beware of false profits. Get Bitcoin NOW !!! LOL
OR
maxresdefault.jpg



9330059_orig.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top