Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Huntguy t1_j6sm428 wrote

Reply to comment by Wagamaga in US Emissions of the World’s Most Potent Greenhouse Gas Are 56 Percent Higher Than EPA Estimates. Electric utilities are likely responsible for the nation’s higher than expected emissions of sulfur hexafluoride, a greenhouse gas 25,000 times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide. by Wagamaga

….2.1 million cars? California alone almost has that offset with their close to a million EV’s. It feels like we’re barking up the wrong tree here

22

JMEEKER86 t1_j6t4nyb wrote

Yeah, it's basically clickbait trying to deflect from the real problems. It's like how nukes being far more powerful than guns doesn't mean much when more guns kill more people every single year than nukes ever have. Sure, one may be 25,000x more powerful, but there's way waaaaaay more than 25,000x difference in quantity.

17

Huntguy t1_j6t4z7n wrote

It feels like this article was written by big oil.

“But look at this! It’s way worse than co2!”

14

[deleted] t1_j6tli1s wrote

One of the big selling points of SF6 equipment has been that it's more compact size and higher electrical efficiency, actually results in lower global warming, because the CO2 savings from improved efficiency outweigh climate effects from escaping SF6.

The counterpoint is that unless properly maintained the equipment may develop unacceptable rates of leakage - and that this may be happening in a widespread fashion.

That SF6 is a serious problem is well known - in the 1997 Kyoto protocol, it was named as 1 of the 6 main greenhouse gases, and it is regulated by governments across the world because of this. Extensive research into alternatives has also been performed since that time.

That SF6 is so good is part of the problem - it has proved extremely difficult to find alternative gases which have similar performance, and which could be used in similar equipment. The last 2 or 3 years have seen some significant progress, with a number of potentially viable alternatives being named such as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)propanenitrile which is approaching commerically ready. The alternatives are much better, but have the disadvantage of toxicity, significant GWP (but nowhere near as high as SF6), and as perfluoro-compounds are potentially "forever chemicals".

11

K_Kraz t1_j6x7cqh wrote

Not necessarily. It is something to consider and address in conjunction with other emission reduction acts. This is also a good time to do it since the push towards EVs will require substantial expansion of the electrical grid. Currently only about 1% of the cars on the road are EV. As that number increases, so will the grid and use of SF6. So why not address that now and avoid having to rework the electrical grid later when it is a much bigger problem? Tackling just one aspect of the greenhouse gas issue is not enough. Per the EPA, vehicle emissions account for only 27% of greenhouse gasses so there are a lot of other areas to improve too.

1