bill_barilko Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 In the back of my mind I was wondering why we were seeing warm & fuzzy stories about Natural Gas of late-and of course the usual suspects here, the halt, the lame, those many posters who can't think for themselves but love to parrot the party line (any party any time) were standing up on their strong hind legs and barking in unison in support of they knew not what. All along it was PR flacks in Toronto spoon feeding the media and softening up the masses for another environmental travesty-the long halted Mackenzie Gas Pipeline. Gas pipeline given thumbs-up VANCOUVER – After more than 30 years of often bitter debate, a federal panel has thrown its support behind a proposed $16.2 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from the western Arctic along the pristine Mackenzie River valley. "The Mackenzie Gas Project offers a unique opportunity to build a sustainable future in the Mackenzie Valley and Beaufort Delta regions," the seven-member Joint Review Panel said in its report released this afternoon. "The project itself, as long-term infrastructure, provides a key basis for future economic development," it added. Click Here to read how a pipeline can be called 'sustainable' Quote
Shady Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 All along it was PR flacks in Toronto spoon feeding the media and softening up the masses for another environmental travesty-the long halted Mackenzie Gas Pipeline. No, this isn't where the natural-gas-is-good stories came from. At least for me. I think I'm in favour of using more natural gas for a couple reasons. It's cleaner than using oil, and it's cheaper than using oil. That's it for me. It has nothing to do with this particular pipeline. It's just common sense. If you want to address the pro's and con's of using natural gas, fine. But I couldn't care less about your PR Toronto media diatribe. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 No, this isn't where the natural-gas-is-good stories came from. At least for me. I think I'm in favour of using more natural gas for a couple reasons. It's cleaner than using oil, and it's cheaper than using oil. That's it for me. It has nothing to do with this particular pipeline. It's just common sense. If you want to address the pro's and con's of using natural gas, fine. But I couldn't care less about your PR Toronto media diatribe. Natural gas is a clean alternative when compared to oil or coal. Quote
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Natural gas is a clean alternative when compared to oil or coal. Much as battery acid is a safe chemical as opposed to fluorine gas, or botulism as opposed to being run over by a train. I've actually enjoyed all the "Natural gas is vunderful" stories. We even have a poster who in one breath declares electric cars are no damned good because of poor range and the lack of recharge facilities (despite an electrical grid that pumps electrons from the Arctic Ocean to Tierra del Fuego) but favors cars burning natural gas despite a much smaller network that would require incredible amounts of money to upgrade. I really do think we've got some fossil fuel company astroturfers here, and they say the most rermarkably silly things. What I love about this deal is how they're basically ignoring the fact that they've still got to hammer out deals with a rather large (for that region) group of natives haven't struck a deal yet, and the price of natural gas remains fairly depressed, making the whole venture unlikely in the short term. Edited December 31, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote
Riverwind Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) We even have a poster who in one breath declares electric cars are no damned good because of poor range and the lack of recharge facilitiesIt takes five minutes to fill up a car with fossil fuels. It takes 2-8 hours to recharge an electric car. Most people are not willing to plan their day around the time it takes to charge electric cars. You may not like fossil fuels but they are the only option if we what to keep our economy running. Renewables are a fantasy that cannot possibly meet our energy needs at a cost that is affordable. Edited December 31, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 It takes five minutes to fill up a car with fossil fuels. It takes 2-8 hours to recharge an electric car. Most people are not willing to plan their day around the time it takes to charge electric cars. You may not like fossil fuels but they are the only option if we what to keep our economy running. Renewables are a fantasy that cannot possibly meet our energy needs at a cost that is affordable. Fossil fuels are finite. At some point we're going to have to deal with the problem. But at any rate, your position on natural gas in cars is rather laughable, considering that the natural gas network is dwarfed by the electrical grid. And fast-charge battery technology is coming along. I realize your stock portfolio requires you have to go around declaring fossil fuels the wonder energy source, but come on, you have to admit your "we'll fuel our cars with natural gas" line was pretty ludicrous. Quote
Riverwind Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Fossil fuels are finite. At some point we're going to have to deal with the problem. But at any rate, your position on natural gas in cars is rather laughable, considering that the natural gas network is dwarfed by the electrical grid.We have lots of natural gas. The electrical grid does not have the capacity to handle the power requirements fast charging electric cars. It would actually take a lot less infrastructure to pipe natural gas to a few filling stations than to install and meter outlets in every parking lot and garage. Keep in mind that natural gas can be put in a truck like gasoline. And fast-charge battery technology is coming along.We can only plan based on the technology we have. Not on what might appear. I realize your stock portfolio requires you have to go around declaring fossil fuels the wonder energy source, but come on, you have to admit your "we'll fuel our cars with natural gas" line was pretty ludicrous.It is a lot less ludicrous than your renewable fantasy. I gave you some concrete numbers of the cost of replacing our current infrastructure with renewable sources. They are huge and without some currently unknown technological breakthrough we have no choice but to continue to use fossil fuels. Edited December 31, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 In the back of my mind I was wondering why we were seeing warm & fuzzy stories about Natural Gas of late-and of course the usual suspects here, the halt, the lame, those many posters who can't think for themselves but love to parrot the party line (any party any time) were standing up on their strong hind legs and barking in unison in support of they knew not what. All along it was PR flacks in Toronto spoon feeding the media and softening up the masses for another environmental travesty-the long halted Mackenzie Gas Pipeline. Gas pipeline given thumbs-up VANCOUVER – After more than 30 years of often bitter debate, a federal panel has thrown its support behind a proposed $16.2 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from the western Arctic along the pristine Mackenzie River valley. "The Mackenzie Gas Project offers a unique opportunity to build a sustainable future in the Mackenzie Valley and Beaufort Delta regions," the seven-member Joint Review Panel said in its report released this afternoon. "The project itself, as long-term infrastructure, provides a key basis for future economic development," it added. Click Here to read how a pipeline can be called 'sustainable' In a way you're right--that is, on the general principle that PR experts are responsible for selling us nearly everything--both good and bad. But it has nothing particularly--I mean distinctly--to do with support for natural gas. Hell, the reason people support the war in Afghanistan is first and foremost because of the work of PR professionals, who sell us products, leaders, and policies. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 We have lots of natural gas. The electrical grid does not have the capacity to handle the power requirements fast charging electric cars. It would actually take a lot less infrastructure to pipe natural gas to a few filling stations than to install and meter outlets in every parking lot and garage. Keep in mind that natural gas can be put in a truck like gasoline. Like I said, if you want to use natural gas, use it to produce electricity. A much more sensible use than sticking it in cars. We can only plan based on the technology we have. Not on what might appear. Or, apparently, what is appearing. It is a lot less ludicrous than your renewable fantasy. I gave you some concrete numbers of the cost of replacing our current infrastructure with renewable sources. They are huge and without some currently unknown technological breakthrough we have no choice but to continue to use fossil fuels. What strikes me as odd, and why I think you probably own a lot of shares in petrochemical companies, is that you reject renewables out of hand. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Like I said, if you want to use natural gas, use it to produce electricity. A much more sensible use than sticking it in cars. Or, apparently, what is appearing. What strikes me as odd, and why I think you probably own a lot of shares in petrochemical companies, is that you reject renewables out of hand. Renewable energy is the way to go for the future, and we are heading in that direction. The problem is the now. Natural gas can be used as a fuel, saving millions of barrels of oil right now. Conversion costs of under two thousand dollars per vehicle. Conversion from coal to natural gas power plants are also in the designs but the economic viability of coal is the great equalizer, the stuff is plentiful and cheap. There is of course coal gasification, which is something else but also a possible "now" solution. The pipeline is a good idea. It will provide many jobs in its construction and maintenance and is one of the kep first steps in northern development. Quote
Riverwind Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Like I said, if you want to use natural gas, use it to produce electricity. A much more sensible use than sticking it in cars.It only makes sense when we have the electric car technology that meets the transportation needs of society. Or, apparently, what is appearing.How many decades have we been waiting for those mass produced fuel cell cars? It takes a lot more than a proof of concept before a technology can be deployed on the scale required. Governments CANNOT build infrastructure based on technologies that may never be mass produced.What strikes me as odd, and why I think you probably own a lot of shares in petrochemical companies, is that you reject renewables out of hand.Out of hand? I gave you a link to a SciAm artical that estimated the cost to converting existing infrastructure to renewables by 2030 would cost $100 TRILLION globally or about $100 billion/year for Canada over 20 years. Only the most deluded fanatic can think that renewables are the answer to anything. Here is a better analysis of the SciAm article with numbers.Jacobson and Delucchi calculate that with their system the US energy demand with be 1.8 TW 2030. Keep in mind that the demand today is already 2.8 TW. If we accept their estimate of 1.8 TW, then that is about 16% of their estimated world demand of 11.5 TW for 2030. So roughly speaking, the US share of the cost would be 16% of $210 trillion, or about $34 trillion. That is 16 times the total United States government receipts of 2009.Here is an analysis that compares that cost to interstate highway system in the US.The expected cost in 1958 was $41 billion. By 1995 the total construction cost amounted to $329 billion (in 1996 dollars). This translates into $58.5 billion 1957 dollars. That is not too far off from the original estimate. Converting the $329 billion 1996 dollars to 2009 dollars gives $453 billion.Taking the estimates for the US potion of the $100 trillion cost ($16 trillion) means that this grand project would cost at least 35 times as much as the interstate highway system. Scale it back to the same level as the interstates system but that would only replace 2.8% of the US energy needs. Feel free to explain why we should invest billions/year on infrastructure that could never hope to supply more than a small fraction of our energy needs.Keep in mind that the $100 trillion figures are provided by people who believe in renewables but clearly have no knowledge of the economics of large scale projects. The real cost of renewables will likely be much, much higher. Bottom line, if you really believe that renewables are the answer then step up to the plate and show some plausible numbers that demonstrate that they are economically viable. Edited December 31, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Wilber Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Like I said, if you want to use natural gas, use it to produce electricity. A much more sensible use than sticking it in cars. Nonsense. You take gas and burn it in order to turn a turbine to turn a generator to make electricity to charge a battery to run an electric motor to drive the wheels that move the vehicle. Got to be more efficient than just burning it in the motor which is turning the wheels that move the vehicle, right? A basic physics lesson is in order. Edited December 31, 2009 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ZenOps Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 Chemistry lesson. Natural gas = mostly Methane. Methane = CH4. One carbon, four hydrogen. The least amount of carbon without going completely carbon-free which is of course hydrogen. Coal is black because it is majorially carbon, with usually 4 sulphur in the mix (acid rain when released into the atmosphere) When burned its basically the same as grinding up the coal into a superfine powder and then throwing it in the air (at least from a greenhouse perspective) Natural gas = by far the cleanest of the carbon fuels on earth without going to hydrogen which does not occur anywhere naturally. Quote
ZenOps Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) Renewable energy is the way to go for the future, and we are heading in that direction. The problem is the now. Natural gas can be used as a fuel, saving millions of barrels of oil right now. Conversion costs of under two thousand dollars per vehicle. Conversion from coal to natural gas power plants are also in the designs but the economic viability of coal is the great equalizer, the stuff is plentiful and cheap. There is of course coal gasification, which is something else but also a possible "now" solution. The pipeline is a good idea. It will provide many jobs in its construction and maintenance and is one of the kep first steps in northern development. Not really useful for vehicles. It must be compressed, and will not be able to fuel anything other than incity commuter cars much like electric cars. Electric cars are fine in California, where you do not need the energy for heating. But in Canada you will freeze to death in an electric car before you get to your final destination. For incity commuters - Maglev trains are proabably the answer. Permanent Neodymium magnets can reduce the weight of a train to 1/10th of the energy needed to move it. Edited January 5, 2010 by ZenOps Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) Natural gas = by far the cleanest of the carbon fuels on earth without going to hydrogen which does not occur anywhere naturally. I assume you mean in large enough amounts to harvest, aside from the sun of course. Edited January 5, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote
wyly Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 I really do think we've got some fossil fuel company astroturfers here, and they say the most rermarkably silly things. and where do most of them live(hint it starts and ends with "A")... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 It takes five minutes to fill up a car with fossil fuels. It takes 2-8 hours to recharge an electric car. Most people are not willing to plan their day around the time it takes to charge electric cars. You may not like fossil fuels but they are the only option if we what to keep our economy running. Renewables are a fantasy that cannot possibly meet our energy needs at a cost that is affordable. and when would be the best time to charge???... maybe when there is a surplus of electrical energy?? and that would be when Canadians typically plug in their cars in winter...at night... most Canadians daily driving needs could be met by battery powered cars...and in time technological improvements will improve distance on a charge and reduce charge times....biggest problem for batteriess in Canada is cold normally drains batteries fast... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Oleg Bach Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 The sun is the only source of matter and energy that is natural - saw a documentary on the tars sands recently. It was the first time I viewed this phenomena via camera...hell on earth..and Alberta is proud of a situation that takes more energy to extract then what is gained..this is a prime example of the artifical and glorified importance of oil. If they had the shit sands and it took twenty tons of shit to gain one pound of oil I am sure someone would convince the world that we were actually generating wealth. To me - to see the holding ponds of poison leaching into all the ground water for a hundred miles in all directions reminded me of lunitics attempting to convince the world that shit was honey. No for a bit of personal information...from my observations. As a kid we had this neighbor who's fuel tank by his run down lake side shack had all poured into the ground...He sold the property to some poor folks who drank out of the near by well...Old Joe was the fathers name...first one daughter died of cancer...then the son passed away...then his wife passed away from some poison induced disease...I have no respect or sense of even remotely supporting any enterprise that kills for profit. If you believe that uncontrolled pollution is just fine...then good luck...and have a big cool glass of water out of Joes well. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) The sun is the only source of matter and energy that is natural... Wind, Geo-Thermal, Tidal, Hydro. Whether they are worth it is another story. (Hydro has been but there are no longer enough large river to expand very much and the damage it has done to the river ecosystems in many places is huge) Edited January 5, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 Wind, Geo-Thermal, Tidal, Hydro. Whether they are worth it is another story. (Hydro has been but there are no longer enough large river to expand very much and the damage it has done to the river ecosystems in many places is huge) Wind power is ultimately solar in origin. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 Wind, Geo-Thermal, Tidal, Hydro. Whether they are worth it is another story. (Hydro has been but there are no longer enough large river to expand very much and the damage it has done to the river ecosystems in many places is huge) The sun makes all the above happen...solar is our only source of energy...we should concentrate on that...before it goes out...and it could go out in the next second..we really don't understand on what a delicate thread we hang....focus on the sun...draw from it and not from it's by products....for God's sake the thing is hot and hot is energy...keep it simple stupid. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 ....for God's sake the thing is hot and hot is energy...keep it simple stupid. Correct....for all practical purposes, the Sun is God. I worship every day. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 Correct....for all practical purposes, the Sun is God. I worship every day. Yes and some can not grasp what created the sun but thats okay...the old Russians use to say that a man was not fit for the white light of day if he was an ass hole..the white light is the answer...follow the light...God gave us light now lets use it..what are we totally dumbfounded and confused....we don't have an energy crisis..we have a crisis of dellusionism....it late at this end BC...so good to hear from my American friend..grace upon you and your nation..enough stumbling around...it's embarassing to watch...so when are you running for office? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 ...so good to hear from my American friend..grace upon you and your nation..enough stumbling around...it's embarassing to watch...so when are you running for office? When Dick Cheney donates a kidney. Good night Oleg. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 5, 2010 Report Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) Wind power is ultimately solar in origin. Good point. The sun makes all the above happen...solar is our only source of energy...we should concentrate on that...before it goes out...and it could go out in the next second..we really don't understand on what a delicate thread we hang....focus on the sun...draw from it and not from it's by products....for God's sake the thing is hot and hot is energy...keep it simple stupid. Geo-Thermal is caused by radioactive decay part of the reason the core is so hot, hydro works because of gravity, and tidal works because of the sun and moon but is controled by the moon. before it goes out Several billion years from now. and it could go out in the next second Do you understand what causes the sun to work? It is a giant fusion reactor it is not just going to "go out in the next second" that's just not possible. Edited January 5, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.