Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by S S C on August 6, 2015 at 1:30pm

I'm thinking everyone here has a vested interest in natural gas so you will need to go elsewhere to get a debate going. :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 6, 2015 at 3:03pm

That's good to know as I also have such a vested interest.

I'm looking for answers to the few inquiries within the OP but more than that, outspoken like mindedness and not debate.

I'm writing to initiate more interest and outspeak from the membership.

I'm not looking for argument - I'm looking for agreement and outspeak.

If no one contributes to the discussion I'm concerned those who would argue would think we're all too dumb to realize what's happening.

Before this discussion did you know the new policies seem to de-incentivise natural gas in favor of 'Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources' ?

I didn't know until I read the linked article.

You're telling me I don't have to look for agreement here as everyone agrees.

Show me by reply.

Hope you're right.

Chime in, post a reply and send those who would disagree with us a message. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on August 6, 2015 at 3:00pm

J O; There is nothing surprising here.  zer0, his admin, and the leadership of the D party are all beholding to the radical left and the environmental activists.  They have long despised all fossil fuels including nat gas and were looking to stop fracking but they couldn't find any solid justifications.  And zer0 didn't come out strong against nat gas before because millions of people work for them and related industries and he needed their votes.

Now that he faces no future election he is doing what he always wanted to do......destroy fossil fuel companies. He believes that doing that now will be one of his great accomplishments and will be an important part of his legacy.

One of our biggest failings is not converting heavy trucks to nat gas.  Just 5% of the motor vehicles use 40% of the crude oil.  Converting just 5% of motor vehicles would eliminate all crude oil imports, clean the air, create jobs, increase tax revenue, and make the world safer.  Like Pickens says, we may go down as the stupidest generation.

PS  I call him zer0 as he ran with a giant 'O' as his symbol that we thought was the letter O....turns out he is a big zer0!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 6, 2015 at 3:09pm

Standing on common ground we are.

But, and also, I'm thinking we have to (somehow) get the Natural Gas bus back on the road and send these newest negative Natural Gas policies discussed in the linked article and within this post to the refuse bin.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 7, 2015 at 3:00am

Reading no answers to the few questions posed.

Appears any anti-fossil fuel types want to remain in hiding here.

No answers because there are none that any of them (or anyone) knows of.

I say throw the legislation out the door (along with any legislators who embrace it) and get on the Pro Natural Gas bus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Hurlburt on August 7, 2015 at 3:18pm

Joseph,  I'm not an expert on power allocation between the various sources, but I do know a little,

First, what we are talking about boils down to electrical power.  There is nothing wrong with electricity; the electrification of the rural US was listed as the Number One engineering achievement of the 20th century, and the guy that did say so, Neil Armstrong, had a personal basis for saying the lunar missions were pretty good as well.

What makes electrical generation problematic is our lack of ability to store excess electrical power for later when we need it. 

Most renewable sources of power, as you point out, are intermittent; solar doesn't work at night and wind power needs, well, wind.  ANY "renewable" energy source requires either a way to "bank" power or a reliable source of Peaking: power generation.

Bankable power storage is pretty limited; about the only way that comes to mind is a "pump back" water system, where excess hydro-electric power is used to pump SOME of the water flowing through the turbines into a higher elevation storage lake that cab be drained back through the turbines when power is needed,

That leaves conventional sources of power to "pick up the slack"  of these coal, and nuclear power supplies don't lend themselves to the "on again, off again" world of peak power; they work better as baseline sources.  That leaves oil and natural gas as the best possibilities.  For financial and environmental reasons gas wins out.

That's the technical or scientific side.  There's a political, or emotional side as well and unfortunately some or all of the adherents to that philosophy have an axiom "No fossil fuels"  Most if them will not change their mind even when you show them on paper tht their ideas don't work.

I have no idea as to how to "show them"; well I DO, but I don't think anybody would let me shut off fossil fuel generated power to New York and New England for six months;  I'm pretty sure the survivors would "get it", but all the clamor over the people who died or who otherwise suffered would probably obscure the results 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 7, 2015 at 6:27pm

Thanks for your reply Charles.

Only thing I can think of to do is to remove those anti fossil fuel types from office and replace them with some pro natural gas / oil folks who get where we're coming from here.

Have a feeling the anti types are also making money (or stand to) by being the way they are and not just being emotional about it all.

Received an e-mail advertisement a few minutes before being notified of your reply here that indicated government subsidizes solar conversions.

That's what needs to be done for conversions to natural gas the way I see it.

Throw the antis out of office and replace them with pro natural gas leadership.

Seems to me to be the only way that would work and the best thing that can be done for the whole country should you ask me.

Need folks / leadership in there that understand the technicalities / science you've explained here so eloquently and would lead to implement it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 8, 2015 at 1:11am

Politicians to me are all one breed and most correctly called simply 'Politicians' (whether they call themselves R's or D's). BUT, in this instance, I believe MOST of the R's get it but NONE of the D's do.

Still problematic (to me) are the NWO R's who still believe there are Middle Eastern Allies out there to do business with that won't offer / furnish resources gained in trade with us to our enemies. Those countries are not Allies but, instead are enemies in disguise as Allies. We need to be careful that we don't supply our enemies with the means to harm us and end up assisting them in making / prolonging their war against us.
The only true un-compromised Allie in the Middle East that I can find would be Israel. All of the other Middle Eastern countries seem to me to have cultural elements within them that in reality would rather make war against us. The only way that I can see to keep our resources spent in trade (especially weaponry) out of the hands of our enemies (to be used against us) would be to NOT trade with them.

The R's that pass those criteria (see it the same way) are the ones that we need to empower.

Easiest way to assure that we don't end up supplying our enemies is to get out of the Middle East entirely the way I see it; but, we can't do that without forsaking our one Allie - Israel.

If there are more true Middle Eastern Allies out there, they need to step up to the plate and prove it to me and folks who see it the same way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry D on August 8, 2015 at 3:30am

It's not about fossil fuels vs solar/wind etc.

There is no way now or within our lifetimes that solar/wind will efficiently replace fossil fuels, the technology just doesn't exist. And it will be decades before it does, if ever.

It's about control. Greenhouse gases and climate change are a ruse, the shiny object so to speak.This administration and the Democrat party are all about heavy handed, iron fisted government. The y now control health care, next is energy, use of water and so on.

These elitists believe they know best for us all; they treat us like children. When in fact when any of them enter a room they are the least qualified, least competent, least informed people in that room.

Any politician that supports the President's plan should be thrown out of office at the next election. I am usually not a one issue voter, but on the issue I would be.

Abundant inexpensive energy is the bedrock of our economy, our society, our way of life. We can't allow these tyrants to get away with implementing this plan.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 8, 2015 at 3:34am

Good to hear from you Barry D.

We're on the same bus seems to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry D on August 8, 2015 at 4:38am

We may be on the same bus, but that bus is headed off of a cliff if our representatives don't begin working in our best interest.

Elections have consequences, and electing Barak Hussein Obama twice has had negative consequences.

Add to that our Democrat and RHINO politicians who work with him.

Hang on tight, it could be a bumpy ride.

• ▶ Reply