Lets talk about the Natural Gas Act of 2009

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on February 20, 2012 at 8:40am

Harvy Wasserman's Solartopia and anti-nuclear media retoric (internet) claiming thousands of deaths as a result of the Three Mile Island incident is a flat out lie based on conjecture and anecdotal correlation.  There is no proof that the cancer death rates downwind of the plant exceed the average incident cancer rate in the U.S.

There is not one single death that can be directly linked to the Three Mile Island event.  Yet every year we tolerate 40,000 traffic deaths, over 500,000 deaths due to medical mistakes and malpractice and over 1,000,000 murders of innocent, unborn humans.

If your purpose is to save lives, then I suggest that you look go look elsewhere for causes where there are much richer targets than linking them to energy sources.

Energy effects the quality of life of every individual on this planet.  Electrical energy must be economic as well as environmentally responsible.  Solar and Wind may meet the envronmental responsibility requirements but fail miserably on economics.  If the power costs too much, then it fails to meet the quality of life economic standard.

The EIA projected wholesale cost to produce electricity for an efficient combined cycle gas turbine is $0.063/kw-hr.  Unrelieble, SUPPLEMENTAL power from wind is $0.097/kw-hr.  Supplemental power from solar PV is $0.211/kw-hr and solar thermal is $0.312/kw-hr.

 

Greg,

Here are the REAL facts from the EIA.  It is obvious from the data you have no grasp of the truth (ignorance) or you are lying or you are a fool.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregory L. Smith on February 20, 2012 at 11:26pm

I like challenges, because data can be used to do various things. If this is a real report from the Department of energy, it might be a better source of results,but the time factors and the peripherial costs are not included, and are a telling sign of a manipulation to favor just one of many forms of energy comparison. I am not familiar with the Energy Information Administration, but I will check it out. Thanks for the data chart, since real facts can be defeated by other real facts. Your earlier banter was just that. When I've completed my own comparison, I will comment further. But this is a serious issue, and you need fair and equal information from more than one source, to prove a conclusion, you may have made by accepting such data as fact without due review. I'll do your due diligence for you and if I am wrong, I'll say so, but if this is a scam, I'll also say so, or like your other buddies said, just form a forum on Solar energy, since Picken's Plan already has several groups in the Pickens plan where that is their sole/primary interest, yet in those forums, you have also participated as much or more so. Florida, California, New Jersey and other states have those groups due in part to the generosity of Boone Pickens, and I believe he also appaudes this search for accurate truths and fairness. Natural gas should be the focus, but comparing it to other energy sources makes it shine or more accurately sets the parameters of how we should pursue energy processes in the USA. Eliminating all incentives for energy is a wrong strategy, and even oil and gas would shrink as a result, despite their enormous windfall gains. When refineries can close for weeks to increase the cost of their products, however, something is wrong with the supply process. When 4 refineries close nearly all processing of oil, or hold onto their gasoline production, it smacks of dual control, via both political and industrial means, and such practices endanger our economics and even our form of government. Why would businesses do this at this time? Because they can, they have a plausable excuse, that they are converting to springtime fuel mixtures, and because it favors Republican politicians, who get Millions from oil and gas interests to sway the public. That is the danger of accepting YOUR facts without a review...And then we can look at that misleading term, Levelized Capital costs. I already posted another comparison from the Atomic Nuclear Scientist magazine from 2008 and it showed a slightly different view. We'll see what I can find...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on February 21, 2012 at 1:52am

This guy Gregory is like that Energizer Bunny. He goes ON and ON and ON. Where does he get the energy from? With THIS much bloviating he certainly ain't getting it from coal, nuclear, or solar. Probably has a FRACKING well in his back yard disguised as an abandoned coal mine.

At THIS rate of cost <$3.45 CCM, he could go on until the Mayans call it quits.

The Deuceman 

Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on February 21, 2012 at 8:02am

Greg,

You have to be kidding me!  Your purport such expertise on energy and you do not even know about the U.S. Energy Information Administration and belittle it as a scam.  Yet you swallow the nonsense from Harvey Wassermans websites!

I guess we have figured out the applicable words "ignorance" applies and possibly "fool" is applicable as referenced in my previous response.

 

Believe me, save your effort, I do not need your help in due diligence in this matter.  You have totally lost all credibility. 

Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on February 21, 2012 at 11:39pm

" I am not familiar with the Energy Information Administration, but I will check it out. Thanks for the data chart, since real facts can be defeated by other real facts. Your earlier banter was just that. When I've completed my own comparison, I will comment further. But this is a serious issue, and you need fair and equal information from more than one source, to prove a conclusion, you may have made by accepting such data as fact without due review."

This guy is a total jerk. Forget the fact that he is unfamiliar with the EIA. His comments on "factual information" is idiotic and circular. Fair and equal are NOT a measure of information relativity. They are in the realm of the communist mind set. Communists and Socialist find solace in the company of each other when their social motivations on any issue are threatened "by the facts" not being fair and equal". 

The Deuceman

Permalink Reply by Gregory L. Smith on March 26, 2012 at 3:53am

http://groundtruthtrekking.org/static/uploads/files/Coal%20and%20El...

 

This is a link to show that Coal is actually higher and more expensive than Solar as levelized costs...So sorry it took a few weeks to find it, but the government is a bit inefficient with their data and so it took an outside source to show the facts listed by the EIA were in fact, not accurate...Despite what you say, Solar has a part in our independence from fossil fuels and although Natural gas is still the leader in low levelized costs, the cost of CO2 is still a factor in determining what people want in the future...It is easy to toss names around like has been happening, but real data takes time to find and verify. I do not work for an Energy firm, so it was on my own time, but since I delivered the data, you can say what you want, but I did make my point, that Energy costs for Solar are falling and costs for other forms of fossil fuels are becoming a disadvantage for Utilities and not the investment value they earlier believed...Best wishes in getting the facts in the future...I recommend the TED series also, that shows that removing oil by 2050 will not only be possible, but could occur even before 2040, not due to pollution concerns, but due to efficiency issues as well...Face it Oil dudes, your days are numbered and the price will drop as refineries are no longer the Monopoly engines for Oil businesses, as they change blends or if the Middle east explodes in war.  Solar and Hydrogen will then be primary sources and Natural gas will be relegated as a good back up source, for glass blowers and Fertilizer companies...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on March 26, 2012 at 7:29am

Greg,

This is a forum about the Natural Gas Act, which is legislation primary aimed at using natural gas to displace diesel fuel for heavy haul offroad and over-the-road trucks, locomotives and marine vehicles.  While I am neutral to negative on the Natural Gas Act as advocated by TBP, at least I try to stay on subject.

This forum is not about about coal or oil or solar power generation, all of which are too expensive for consideration anyway according to your own reference links above.  The external costs added for environment and global warming issues are obviously arbitrary and do not reflect the current cost of CO2 in the U.S. (forcing the author to use the 10 year old 2001 European model because the US currently has no trading CO2 market after the Chicago Climate Exchange quit trading CER's in 2010).

 

All I can say is that you are swimming upstream in a mighty strong current.

Permalink Reply by Gregory L. Smith on March 26, 2012 at 4:01am

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fv%2F...

Here is the TED discussion about Oil and other fossil fuels and why they are doomed to be second class sources of energy by 2040. It has little to do with pollution, which is odd, but does make it even better. It has to do with efficiency and the changing way technology is altering the need for fossil fuels of any kind...Eventually, Hydrogen and Solar will be common-place ways to transfer energy, but Windpower and other forms of energy including Biofuels will replace the need for all oil or petroleum sources, thus extending the availability and benefit of not using them... Enjoy the TED talk. It is pretty cool...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 29
• 30
• 31
• Next ›
• Page