In Energy, Natural Gas Should be Key
Sep 7, 2009 Political
The Waxman- Markey Bill, now going in for consideration by the Senate, when they finally decide they want to actually do some work, will be heavy on “renewables” and “carbon credits”- which is a bunch of Bull—- in the end. All carbon credits do is provide more money to the government, and we have all seen how badly they handle money- they should not be allowed any more. They need to learn how to handle what they do have. I would take away their car allowances, and make them walk or take a cab. A little humility might go a long way towards fiscal responsibility, but that’s another post.
This one concerns the energies we already use, and how we can better use them. Natural gas is, (no pun intended), a natural, simply because the infrastructure retrofit required would be less than other technologies, as a LNG tank could be moved onto property easier than adapting other technologies to a service station, and Natural Gas is fairly friendly on emissions, especially for a fossil fuel.
HOUSTON — The natural gas industry has enjoyed something of a winning streak in recent years. It found gigantic new reserves, low prices are encouraging utilities to substitute gas for coal, and cities are switching to buses fueled by natural gas.
But its luck has run out in Washington, where the industry is having trouble making its case to Congress as it writes an energy bill to tackle global warming.
nytimes.com
That’s right- if it’s a fossil fuel, you can bet that the enviro- nuts will be against it, and condemn it out of hand, rather than see how clean we could make them, especially since we are stuck with them until Congress sees the light on Nuclear power for electrical consumption.
The use of the fossil fuels coal and natural gas are competing for shares of power generation, and thus are in an adversarial position with regards to the other, when they should be acting together- they are both, after all, facing the same threat of extinction or at least severe restrictions. Coal has more to fear than natural gas, but they are in essence, tarred with the same brush.
The difference of opinion is about more than what is best for the environment, of course. Industry profits are riding on the outcome of the discussion — a rich mix of politics, environment, science and business.
A climate-change bill that passed the House in June, intended to cap greenhouse gas emissions, delivered benefits to renewable fuels like wind and solar and strengthened building codes to conserve energy.
~snip~
“The Senate is more open to natural gas as a transition fuel than the House was,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, “but the senators from the coal states who are crucial votes are going to want first consideration for coal.”
The gas industry’s leaders say they will descend on Capitol Hill in coming weeks to press their case about the advantage of gas, including that it emits about half the greenhouse gases as coal.
The industry has formed a new lobbying group, and it is planning a national campaign that includes television advertising. Executives want fewer allowances for coal. They also want legislation that gives incentives for companies to convert truck fleets from diesel to natural gas.
“Never in my life have I been confronted with something so obviously easy and good to do and have such Congressional apathy,” said Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy and a leading voice in the industry. He added that he was still hopeful the Senate can improve the House bill.
nytimes.com
Now, to be fair, Mr. McClendon has a dog in this hunt- he is a proponent of Natural Gas, and he wants to make money- that’s a given, but he will throw the coal industry under the bus, when he should be working with the coal industry, and the nuclear industry- instead, it has become a divide and conquer deal with the liberals against the energy sector and its subsets.
But the coal industry will also be active. Vic Svec, a senior vice president at Peabody Energy, a large coal company, said coal was still a better fuel because its price is more stable than gas.
“Coal with carbon capture and storage is the low cost, low carbon solution and has fantastic implications for the nation’s energy security,” he said.
But it is not only coal-industry lobbyists and their Congressional supporters who favor the concept of carbon sequestration. David Hawkins, a climate change expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said simply replacing coal with natural gas for power generation was “not a viable strategy” because that would merely delay climate change by a few decades.
nytimes.com
When a more relaxed view is taken regarding the energy sector, where the existing technologies are encouraged to improve their energy production, with special emphasis on the end product of waste, all while perfecting the new technologies of wind and solar, there will be an increased productivity in these technologies. Strangling the existing modes of energy production is counter- productive to forming new ones- it just slows the whole process, and if we truly want to use new and more efficient energy sources, we need to transition carefully and patiently.
This House Energy Bill, Waxman-Markey, should be scrapped and a new, more workable one formed- just remember one thing-
It’s better to get it right, than to get it right now.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: coal, energy, natural gas, solar, stupidity, Waxman- Markey, wind
Is It Really Green?
May 16, 2009 Political
I have written a couple of times on the so- called “Green” technology, and what I believe is the future of energy, and I have been taken to task for not having a coherent grasp of the minutia relating to the various technologies of this “new” change in direction. I have said that I would be glad to embrace new Hybrid, or electric, or hydrogen cars, IF THEY WORKED, and if there was an infrastructure in place to refill, or re- charge, or re- whatever needs to be done.
But I have always felt that if you have to travel fifty miles round trip, in order to fill your car, you are not saving money, you are not reducing your precious “carbon footprint”, and you have not done the environment any favors in any way.It does not matter what fuel you use, if you have to travel to the ends of the earth to get it. I mean let’s face it, “Dilithium Crystals” are not real, and our energy needs are.
This is why I have advocated for the continued use of present- day fuels, which means (by virtue of common sense), that we need to drill for oil and gas on both coasts. Our finances dictate that we use our own fuel, and refine it here, and sell it here. This keeps the money at home. In the meantime, the search and refinement of alternative energy proceeds. After all, the company that perfects the next generation of usable energy is the company that can feasibly write its own future.
What I find incredible is the news that a nuclear reactor that would have provided energy to all of southeastern Texas was denied the issuance of Government surety bonds, which effectively killed the project, as it needed the bonds to help develop the capital needed to proceed. The environmentalists killed it, just as they have killed any further coal- fired plants, and here is the problem with these nitwits- they have NO alternatives. None- and that is not acceptable. The saying, Lead, Follow, or get out of the way comes to mind. The mindless throwing up of roadblocks is not adding anything positive to the discussion.
Because, let’s face it- Progress will happen, that is written in stone- the only question is in what direction progress will take. Standing pat, as the enviro- nuts seem to want, is impossible, so it would seem to me that if they really want to be a part of the discussion, they should open their mouths and say something, but say something that keeps the discussion on topic.
The Republican party has been called the party of No, but it is really the environmentalists, who say no to oil and gas, say no to coal, say no to nuclear power, say no to ethanol, and say no to both solar and wind, because the laying of transmission lines would hurt a snail darter fish, or some lizard. Here’s a thought- the lizards can probably crawl over the transmission lines as they do at my house. Give me a freakin’ break- animals are more flexible than you might think, and accept things like pipelines and transmission lines in their midst easier than you know.
In the end, there are two ways humanity can proceed- we can find and use ALL available forms of power we can harness, or we can kill off at least half of all humanity, which will free up demand on the uses of energy, won’t it? Which one do you think would be more desirable? More logical? More user- friendly?
Of course, the other way would give us more elbow room, but what if you are on the wrong side of THAT equation? Whoops! There go your hopes and dreams. No, I think that if you are logical about this, and not blindly adhering to an agenda that has ulterior motives, you would have to agree that the only logical way is the first one I described, using all available forms of power, and keeping our money here at home.
Reviling oil and gas, as some in the “green” movement are doing, is doing them no favors, because just what are they using for power while they are building their brave new world? Rubber bands? No- they are using gas powered machines- but they are not liking it. Still, it’s better than rolling the wind turbines over logs to get them where they want, I think even they would agree.
Sometimes being a hypocrite is the best you can do- do the ends justify the means?
Now we’re cookin’ with gas.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]