Fracked Gas versus Coal

[Shannow]

Those of us lucky to remember Gary Allen, his "Law of unintended consequences" was that the solution always brings about more problems that the original problem...an entropic law basically.

http://www.acsf.cornell.edu/Assets/ACSF/docs/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf

 

[jmsjags]

Theoretically, natural gas should be much cleaner than coal. But like the paper mentions, the main problem with natural gas is that there are always going to be leaks in both the fracking operations and in the pipelines. Not to mention fracking has been causing a dramatic increase in seismic activity around much of the country.

Neither coal nor natural gas are good solutions. This is why we need to invest in renewable energy solutions...like NOW. Even China is beating us at this and frankly it's embarrassing.

 

[bbhero]

That is really.... Not true. China is building coal fired plants all over left and right. Our President tried saying how "GREEN China was going", this after the Bejing Olympics in which the air quality was so poor most of the participants wore masks. Yeah, How green China is going. Laughable. Good luck finding an energy souce that has the ability to transport people, machinery and goods as effectively has gas. Unless you want to go back to living in the 1800s early 1900s like the Waltons, then it is going to be very hard to change much. Get your 10 speed out I guess is the mantra of the Progressives.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Neither. Thorium is the solution. We'll never run out and using it for fuel to generate electricity is safe.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Given the long lifetime of power plants it seems pointless to aim for a half-baked solution like natural gas, with or without the added fugitive methane emissions from fracking.
That thorium video was annoying presented.

Originally Posted By: bbhero
...the air quality was so poor most of the participants wore masks...
True, but it would not hurt you to learn the difference between GHG and particulate emissions.

 

[Shannow]

KIWI_ME, Amen to your sentiment...simple cycle peakers are one thing, but gas fired thermals and CCGTs are not an interim answer.

I doubt I'll see a Nuke in Oz...ever... (even the one that IS running at Pine Gap)

 

[bbhero]

The particulate in the air from coal burning plants is part of US history.... A town in a Pennsylvania valley had a number of people die from particulates in the air in the early 1900s...
Don't confuse the issue.. China is has green has my left toe. And Obama was a complete fool for making his claim during a State of the Union address.
I'm not against R and D to find cleaner energy to use. Whether that be private or government money to assist in that. Truth is leftwing moonbats are pushing against not just "carbon pollution". Now the moonbats have magically found methane. I knew yrs ago this would happen because methane is far more problematic to the atmosphere than carbon. But cheif ... Here's the real dirty secret these leftwing, moonbat progressives don't want you to know about... This is all a Trojan horse.. WHAT THEY ARE REALLY concerned with is overpopulation and resource management. See... These people are concerned with exploding world population, longer expected life expectancies and how its conceivable to provide for us all. Why do ALL leftist want people to DO WITH LESS than their parents before them??? Resource management.
Now, to be fair I believe there is a lot of reality to this concern... Can this planet handle 10,12 14,000,000,000 people???? ESPECIALLY if more and more of those people lived up to the level of middle or upper middle class American families standard of consumption?????? Heck, I have great doubt this planet could sustain that too.
But you see, its far easier to sell the message of " saving" the planet from global warming than hey, we are concerned there are going to be WAY too many people on this planet in 20 or 30 plus years.. And we cannot feed, cloth, house and treat medically all those people. So let's ALL curb our consumption to some how be able to survive. Also, let's cut back having children too. Also, let's make sure not too waste resources, medical care on the elderly too. You see.. That message will NOT sell well at all. People don't like being told how children to have, that they should have less than their parents did, and that their parents or grandparents really don't need all that expensive medical care. FAR easier to sell the other message and then implement policies that are to treat the REAL concern they have and the people are rather blissfully unaware.
Again, I believe it is right and just to find answers to energy production that are not has harmful to the environment in which we live. This is the only planet we have so therefore it is exceptionally wise to conserve what we have.
Interesting tid bit though.. A firm believer in global warming said that if we could harness the power of Fusion that it would be the worst outcome for humanity. Why??? Because carbon, methane is NOT their REAL concern. I actually believe that they could be very well reasoned in their REAL concerns.But God bless America.. Just be forthright with it so at least we can have a honest debate \ discussion about it

 

[Shannow]

bbhero,
I've read some very well reasoned articles about turning stored energy (chemical, nuclear, fusion, and even the solar umbrella concept of panels in space harvesting and beaming down).

Earth can only radiate so much into the depths of space, using the law of T^4-t^4 (T is the temperature of the Earth and t is the lower temperature of space).

Any increase in heat generation on Earth MUST be managed by an increase in T, the temperature, whether you believe in Carbon or not.

 

[bbhero]

Well the other side of this is that the sun dictates how much heat is transmitted to our planet.. And its been increasing output to our planet. Secondarily, guess what is being used to forecast climatology 25,50 years out?? Computer models.. If these models can accurately predict the mean global temperatures 25 years from now than why can't they predict the EXACT temperature and EXACT weather patterns 7 days from now at my EXACT location??? Not remotely possible. Furthermore I know how to read these computer models like the GFS, NAM etc... I looked at thousands and thousands of them. Guess what you can glean from a computer model forecast 7 to 14 days out ??? The longwave jetstream pattern is really about it. The minute details that greatly affect sensible weather conditions are usually way off even 7 days out... So, people want me to believe it is possible for computer models to accurately predict the global mean temp 25 yrs from now within a 1.5°C degree if margin??? How many billions tens of billions of data points have to be within a tolerance of 1.5°C for that to be truly spot on?? Also.... Who inputs those "future" temperature forecasts???? Ahh human beings with an agenda.. OK. I am supposed to trust that... Yeah, like I am going to "trust" a study, or computer models made by Exxon Mobil that global warming is not happening either??? Ha! Yeah, I would not trust then or their agenda either

Again, this is ALL about OVER POPULATION, RESOURCE management... The Trojan horse of climate change aka global warming is a FAR easier sell to the public. Like I said before .... Do you really believe this planet can sustain 12 or 14,000,000,000 people??? With more and more living more and more like middle class to upper middle class Americans???? With that level of consumption of resources??
That's the real concern... And again, I do believe that is a REAL conversation worth having.

 

[bbhero]

Furthermore.. These "scientists" get their money to fund their "research" by a federal government to come to the conclusion that they want them to come to. For goodness sake.. How seriously can on take their results?? If your pay check, retirement and benefits were on the line and if you found out that you were coming to the wrong conclusion . What would you do??? Ahh hello... Self preservation takes hold.
For the record.. I sure would not blindly trust these institutions of learning if they got their funding from Exxon Mobil or Shell corporation because what do you think there conclusion would be?? Influenced by WHO is paying their check, retirement, and benefits package. Just has foolish if someone believed their "science" if they were paid by them as well. Here is a novel concept.. Get truly unbiased, at minimum neutrally funded scientists that would not be severely influenced by WHO was stroking their checks... Then I would find that FAR more believable and credible. It strains the limits of credulity to blindly accept what is passed off has science when there is an agenda behind what they are doing. Kind of like the whole ... Eating meats and red meat lead to heart disease.. Now, it has been found out 50 plus years later how that fallacy was perpetrated upon the general public. Junk science. Or how about how bad eggs were for you ?? When I was a kid that was the message.. Then years later.. Ohh no that is not really the case.
I am sorry. But I am just extremely critical of agendas by both the far left and far right... I don't trust hardly much if anything or anyone, anymore.. I question everyone and everything. And guess where and when I really started feeling and thinking this way?? After our country was wrongly sold on a unnecessary war in Iraq by the Bush administration.. Lesson learned. I strongly question everything and everyone.. I also question who pays their checks, retirement and benefits. Follow the money and it will lead to WHO is their MASTER..

 

[bbhero]

It may not hurt for you "to learn" that the green Chinese were constructing coal fired plants at the rate of one every month during 2008 as well. . or to "learn" how to communicate without being a snippy smart rear ended individual. Stay in New Zealand because here in the States we have enough people who like being nasty. I just respond nasty back to people who start it... I am sick if it too. Because we can have a intelligent discussion without unnecessary snide, smart Aleck and condescending remarks. Easy to be that way online isn't it. In person I bet you probably are not has inhospitable.

 

[SHOZ]

Your 2008 data is a bit stale.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Your 2008 data is a bit stale.


Easily updated then...post away with the recent stuff...

That's the nature of discussion.

 

[jmsjags]

bbhero I don't know where you get all of your conspiracy theories about scientists being bought and paid for by the government, but the whole purpose of scientific journals and peer-reviewed papers is for others to scrutinize them and note any discrepancies or inaccuracies. Real science is not biased and does not have an agenda, it is merely facts and testing.

 

[SteveSRT8]

my personal favorite, short and sweet/succinct:

http://www.rense.com/general88/climchn.htm

More details:

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

quote from site #1: "10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate." Guess what, they do not!

No one with any awareness of scientific data can dispute that the Earth's climate varies. What's disputed is WHY.

It has been reported that NASA fudged data to indicate a more extreme warming than was factual. NOAA is also suspected of data distortion. But the Internet allows all who desire to find out for themselves...

 

[bbhero]

I hate to break it to you but these "scientists" are being bought and paid for by the government to come to the findings the government desires. It would be like the corporations like Shell etc. paying for studies and resaerch to claim that human beings are not inputting enough carbon to upset that cycle. I would not trust them either.
If you do not believe the "scientists" are being PAID by political people than I have ocean front property in Flagstaff Arizona.. Liberals, left of center people were ALWAYS stating that the Bush Administation was receiving money form Haliburton. This was part of the rationale of going to war in Iraq. To help give them contracts once we destroyed much of their infastructure. Follow the money they said.... And in the end that was rather sensible.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
That is really.... Not true. China is building coal fired plants all over left and right. Our President tried saying how "GREEN China was going", this after the Bejing Olympics in which the air quality was so poor most of the participants wore masks. Yeah, How green China is going. Laughable. Good luck finding an energy souce that has the ability to transport people, machinery and goods as effectively has gas. Unless you want to go back to living in the 1800s early 1900s like the Waltons, then it is going to be very hard to change much. Get your 10 speed out I guess is the mantra of the Progressives.

Simply not true. Even Chinese figured out it does not make sense.
They are shutting down LAST 4 coal plants around Beijing by the end of the year.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: bbhero
I hate to break it to you but these "scientists" are being bought and paid for by the government to come to the findings the government desires. It would be like the corporations like Shell etc. paying for studies and resaerch to claim that human beings are not inputting enough carbon to upset that cycle. I would not trust them either.
If you do not believe the "scientists" are being PAID by political people than I have ocean front property in Flagstaff Arizona.. Liberals, left of center people were ALWAYS stating that the Bush Administation was receiving money form Haliburton. This was part of the rationale of going to war in Iraq. To help give them contracts once we destroyed much of their infastructure. Follow the money they said.... And in the end that was rather sensible.

Hmmm, have you read bunch of news how "scientists" at University of Oklahoma were paid by Continental to attribute seismic activity to nature not fracking?
Less FOX more other news sources man.

 

[bbhero]

Ahh hey cheif.... If you want to believe all the PAID SCIENTISTS BY THE GOVERNMENT THAN GOD BLEES YOU.. iF YOU READ ALL what I said .. I made it overwhelmingly clear that I would not trust them if these "STUDIES" if they were funded by EXXON Mobil etc. etc. Ohh and how about if the nations colleges were run by NEOCONSERVATIVES.... I bet dollars to donuts YOU WOULD TRUST THEM EITHER.. AND I WOULD NOT BLAME YOU. Seriously, man. I do not just get my news from FOX... How about Reuters, CNN and FOX. You dont know me from Adam's house cat. I dont trust LOTS of supposed information from one side or the other.

 

[bbhero]

Also China is really not GOING GREEN.... Thats laughable on any given day. You can be a person who believes in far left wing ideas and thoughts

And thats is fine. But remember that this nation the USA is best not run from the FAR left or FAR right. Both sides are no good to individual rights granted in the Constitution. I am no fan of either wingnut political thinking.