Energy Secretary Chu Wimps Out Again 55 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Most of my followers are very familiar with my opinion of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu: he should resign his office. Why? Because Chu doesn’t understand that America’s biggest energy and economic problem is our addiction to foreign oil imports and the resulting daily drain of U.S. wealth away from our shores. Any U.S. Energy Secretary who is “agnostic” about the only domestic fuel (natural gas) that can be scaled up to solve these problems should be fired. Top that off with Chu’s agreement that “clean coal” is actually possible and, you have an Energy Secretary who has certainly risen to the level of incompetence.
Why bring this up now? Yesterday Secretary Chu and the U.S. Department of Energy announced $300 million in “Clean Cities Grants to Support Clean Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Development.” Here’s the announcement on the DOE website. This link shows a map of the U.S. and how the awards will be distributed across the country.
You’re probably saying,” Fitzman – this is exactly what you have been pontificating about, now you get it and you’re still not satisfied?” No, I am not and I’ll tell you why. Because $300 million is a small drop in a big bucket, that’s why.
It’s clear the U.S. government started a very obvious and wrong-headed policy of rewarding failure and punishing success. This has been the case for years. However, in Bush’s last year it rose to a new level of obscenity that President Obama has not only continued but expanded:
- Record deficit spending
- Billions for bonuses for a fascist bailout of “executives” who bankrupted their firms
- Cap-and-trade legislation that rewards coal, the dirtiest of all fuels
- Billions for “cash for clunkers” to reward those who bought inefficient vehicles
- Billions for U.S. auto companies that for years built vehicles that greatly increased American addiction to foreign oil and CO2 emissions
The list goes on and on. Bush’s second term marked a grand transition from capitalism to fascism. Meanwhile, those who did what they should (saved and invested money, bought efficient vehicles for example) were punished. Savers are now getting 0.25% for their money market funds, and a whopping 1% for a year CD. Then there is the fact that their investments are going nowhere fast – the S&P500 is essentially flat over the past decade, and the promises of 401k security was shattered in the recent bear market.
There is reason for hope. Over the past few years, the on-land shale discoveries in America have validated Robert Hefner’s testimony before Congress during the energy hearings of the 1970’s: the U.S. has abundant natural gas reserves. One would think American government officials would jump on such great strategic news and quickly move to exploit this wonderful American economic advantage over the rest of the world, especially China. But, we know Chu is “agnostic” about natural gas. Federal Reserve chief Bernanke is supposed to be our “top-level” economic and monetary official, yet has anyone ever heard Bernanke mention the importance of abundant domestic natural gas supplies and the importance of abundant, cheap, and clean energy that could (if Congress would simply ACT) solve America’s number one economic woe – its dependence on foreign oil? Not a peep. Once again, they punish success: the natural gas rig count has been cut in half, and natural gas prices are under $3.
So, while the recent announcement is certainly good news, it’s not good enough. The awards should have been $3 billion, not $300 million. That said, companies like Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE, up $1.87 on Thursday), Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS, up $1.40) and buy rated Westport Innovations (WPRT, up $1.65) will likely benefit from this program as a lot of the money will go toward NGVs and CNG refueling stations. Here is Westport’s press release.
If President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu are serious about reducing foreign oil imports and reducing CO2 and particulate emissions, they need to get serious about doing so. They need to stop chanting “clean coal” and instead shut down coal plants such as the TVA coal plant in Kingston, TN, that has devastated the Tennessee River valley with its release of its toxic heavy metal fly ash into its waters. They need to get serious about NGVs and CNG refueling and invest significant funds into a nationwide program to build out the infrastructure. More importantly, Obama and Chu need to be working behind the scenes to insure that H.R. 1835 (the so-called “natural gas act”) is not only passed by Congress, but is substantial enough to reduce foreign oil imports and kick the natural gas transportation initiatives into high gear.
America can solve the economic, environmental, and national security problems facing our country. We can do so by leveraging our greatest weapon against foreign oil imports: our abundant natural gas reserves combined with our world leading natural gas pipeline distribution grid. By solving our energy problems, we’ll solve our equity market and currency problems. It doesn’t even take visionaries to do as all the facts are clear and out on the table: natural gas is much cleaner than coal and oil, it’s abundant, and it’s cheaper. All that is needed now are leaders that are not bought off by the coal and oil lobbyists. We’ll soon find out with H.R. 1835 if those leaders will step up to the plate.
Disclosure: The author owns WPRT.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 55 comments:
Nothing else necessary.
When Obama emphasized energy innovation as a priority, I was hopeful NG would be a priority. Very disappointing.
redbaron: i wish i did know, but honestly, i haven't heard obama utter a peep on natural gas transportation. all i hear him say is "clean coal" over, and over, and over again.
i sure miss the days when i could write an article on SA and have people comment on the article and rationally debate issues.
wisdom: please explain your statement. the U.S. imports 60-70% of its petroleum (depending on the state of the economy, now it is on the lower end). 60% of 20,000,000 barrels a day is 12 million barrels. at $70/barrel, thats $840,000,000 a DAY. how can you say this is not damaging to the U.S. economy? it is the biggest component of the huge U.S. trade deficit. at $140/barrel like last year, this obviously doubles to over $1.6 billion a day. is it any surprise we suffered the economic meltdown we did? obviously there were other reasons, but to ignore the drain because of foreign oil is a big mistake. not to mention these numbers are actually much much higher when you factor in the oil wars and military spending to secure supply and delivery on the high seas. not to mention from a national security perspective, it's simply a disastrous policy to become dependent on oil from foreign sources. i don't think this matter is arguable at all. so, perhaps you don't take me seriously, but i have to say your comment lacks the wisdom your username implies you possess.
Natural gas should be a natural; there goes breakfast. Get used to the brave new world. Believe what our owners believe.
I don't like what happened in Iraq any more than you do. It was extremely stupid. What I would like you to consider, however, is the wider OECD perspective. Germany, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have zero domestic production. They are 100% dependent on 'foreign' oil. France is slightly better off - only 93%.
I sympathize with your call to spend $3 billion on infrastructure. We disagree on whether the Federal Government should do it. Private companies can and will build CNG distribution as soon as there's sufficient demand, probably Texas and Midwest initially.
IF NG can't make it as a fuel at $3, it's not going to. But it's a good, cost effective fuel that needs no help.
Chu's job is getting other fuels, energy out there, not supporting present fuels.
Obama is doing a fairly good job on energy, it's congress that' stopping it.
Obama's deficits come from Bush, repubs policies which got us in this, mess, Obama is just trying to clean it up.
This author just shows he has little understanding of either energy, economics or politics.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3.../
The NAT GAS Act of 2009, H.R. 1835, was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 1 and has 77 bipartisan cosponsors. The Senate version of this bill, S. 1408, was introduced on July 8 by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
www.businesswire.com/p...
National Clean Energy Summit 2.0 video
www.pickensplan.com/bo.../
> jack
Hail to the new king... Same as the old king.
On a different note, HR1835 is moot. By the time anything gets through Congress, it will be a diversion of your taxes to their earmarks. Put a variable base tax under gasoline, and n.gas will take care of itself.
On Aug 28 10:20 AM jerrydd wrote:
<SNIP>...
> Obama's deficits come from Bush, repubs policies which got us in this, mess, Obama is just trying to clean it up. This author just shows he has little understanding of either energy, economics or politics.
To jerrydd - - what Planet are you living on?
The confusion is this though, and the caveats have to deal with it, from a resource allocation standpoint. One, do not mix CO2 with particulate emissions. If Reid Bryson was still alive, he would tell you that water vapor has a radiative forcing1000 times greater than CO2, and as you know CO2 is not a pollutant. So fighting pollution has nothing to do with CO2 - leave anthropogenic to Al Gore and the Spelling Bee and google the 566,000 hits for "IPPC mistakes". This is where I mostly disagree with Secretary Chu.
Two, Oil and Coal don't mix. Oil is used for mobile energy - transportation - while Coal is used for stationary energy - electricity. Last I checked, electricity production consumed only 2% of Oil, i.e. 4% of our imports. Substituting Natural Gas for Coal would do nothing to solve the oil problem - up until we have an adequate vehicle fleet and distribution system. Could happen, and we should try a reasonable 1835. However, check the Netherlands. They have plenty of gas and lots of bicycles - not many gas fueled vehicles, though. So goes France - and they are paying $6 a gallon at the pump.
If we want to solve the Oil problem, let's go electric. If we want to solve the coal pollution problem, let's call it that way. Natural gas has a role to play, we should look at it too. But remember - we are currently dealing with a projected budget deficit of $9 trillion over the next ten years, versus receipts of $35 trillion. Not the time to be spending trigger happy. So please, in either case, don't add the CO2 hype.
How Natural Gas Works
Natural gas, called "the prince of hydrocarbons" by some, is an increasingly important fuel source in the world energy system. Easy to transport, easy to use, cheap and relatively clean, it is a good way to improve our energy system in the short run. While a vast improvement over coal and oil, it is not a sustainable solution to global warming, air pollution and resource depletion. But advanced electric generation technology like combined-cycle gas turbines and fuel cells show that natural gas will be an important way to reduce the environmental impacts of electricity.
Environmental Issues
Although natural gas is a fossil fuel and so is made up mostly of carbon, global warming emissions from gas are much less than coal or oil. Compared to coal, gas produces 43 percent fewer carbon emissions for each unit of energy produced, and 30 percent less than oil. Gas also produces no solid waste, unlike the massive amounts of ash from a coal plant, and very little sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions.
On the other hand, the combustion of gas still produces nitrogen oxides, a cause of smog and acid rain. And while carbon emissions are lower, natural gas itself is a powerful greenhouse gas. Natural gas (methane) is much more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, 58 times more effective on a pound-for-pound basis. Methane concentrations have increased eight times faster than carbon dioxide, doubling since the beginning of the industrial age. Natural gas use has accounted for about 10 percent of all global warming emissions.
"Although natural gas is a fossil fuel". Natural gas (methane) is not a fossil fuel unless my A$$ is prehistoric!
Look closely at what you referenced: Accumulation (not burning) of methane is 58 times more effective at trapping heat in atmos than CO2 (combustion product). Water vapor is 1000 times more active per lb radiating trapped heat than CO2. Is there too much water vapor, what about the drought concerns? Just a bunch of potentially scarry numbers when spun properly, don't really present any obvious policy for use of natural gas.
In general, watch out for names like World or Global society of such and such......
Check into this item mentioned above: "So fighting pollution has nothing to do with CO2 - leave anthropogenic to Al Gore and the Spelling Bee and google the 566,000 hits for "IPPC mistakes". This is where I mostly disagree with Secretary Chu."
Who favors government control of private capital? who favors federal judges who allow federal control to expand? that is fascism, and it is not Bush kiddies. if you are going to make a fool of yourself on SA you are going to get called out. as long as you dopes on the coasts keep voting for federalist politicians, big gov't and big business will become stronger, together, and you will have less freedom and less money, just like Europe
Oil/energy leadership puts one in that role
When the tail wags the dog AND ITS ACCEPTED it takes a revolution to put it right , again
The GOP at best is watered down
When was the last time we heard the GOP come out in public and say we will reverse ALL THE SOCIALISM THAT BUSH AND OBAMA HAVE PUT INTO PLACE!!?
The Changing of the Guard is needed now more than ever
Say bye bye to the Gop
and hello to the Libertarians
NO MORE COMPROMISING ALLOWED WITH THE LEFTISTS
NONE ZERO
On Aug 28 10:50 AM john s. gordon wrote:
> the federal govt gas been controlled by big oil since 1981. what
> do you expect?
Clearly most of the current efforts to reduce our use of imported oil are politically driven and appear under control of the status quo lobbyist. If an oil to gas price ratio of a historic 24 cannot increase our use of the lower cost alternative one has to question the entire system.
As always, an excellent article on how domestic natural gas resources can be leveraged to achieve energy independence. In my opinion, I think we can all learn a lot from Brazil, which is the only country in this hemisphere (and perhaps the world) that has shaken off its addiction to petroleum-based fuels. Brazil is in the forefront of requiring "tetra fuel" vehicles. These vehicles are essentially bi-fuel vehicles that can also run on natural gas. See, www.greencar.com/artic....
Tetra fuel vehicles (the Fiat Siena) can run on gasoline, E-85 (ethanol/gasoline) or M-85 (methanol/gasoline), straight ethanol or natural gas. Tetra fuel vehicles exponentially expand the domestic resource base available to fuel a vehicle. With that type of fuel-flexible powertrain, the US could not only tap its natural gas resources (including stranded natural gas that can be converted to methanol on-site), but agricultural wastes, landscape waste, municipal solid wastes, landfill gas and coal as well.
Brazil will have these vehicles, which are built by Fiat/Chrysler and which have all the advantages of a bi-fuel vehicle combined with the advantages of an NGV. The technology exists and, most importantly, it is available on a commercial scale.
With tetra fuel vehicles, petroleum-fueled vehicles can be rendered obsolete and the US can employ its tremendous palette of domestic resources, including natural gas, in a very productive manner. We just have to be humble enough to learn from the Brazilians and the Italians.
How to end America’s deadly coal addiction
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr
Published: July 19 2009 19:36 | Last updated: July 19 2009 19:36
Converting rapidly from coal-generated energy to gas is President Barack Obama’s most obvious first step towards saving our planet and jump-starting our economy. A revolution in natural gas production over the past two years has left America awash with natural gas and has made it possible to eliminate most of our dependence on deadly, destructive coal practically overnight – and without the expense of building new power plants.
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58e...
The cap and trade give away is nothing more than a direct subsidy to the Utilities and the Insurance Industry that holds their LT bonds.
The micky mouse dancing with the auto and petroleum industry should have ended with Carter. Damn shame but this is our last chance I fear.
On Aug 28 02:32 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:
> jerrydd: i disagree with you completely. obama has not impacted foreign
> oil imports in the least except for the ridiculous cash for clunkers
> program, which will reduce oil consumption somewhat, but still is
> based on cars that run on *gasoline* derived from foreign oil. to
Obama has only been in office 7 months!! He can't do much of anything until congress does, no?
If his cap and tax plan would go through oil imports would be cut a lot. But congress is bought and paid for by big oil so we get a useless cap and trade bill .
Interestingly Fla Gov Crist just appointed a replacement repub senator who quit, who is known for energy independence which could shift the senate.
Obama's energy plan doing EV's PHEV's, biofuels and yes NG is in the process which takes time. They did pass much higher CAFE standards.
But that's rather moot now as oil prices next yr will skyrocket making high mileage, EV's, PHEV's cars/trucks surpass the EPA CAFE goals.
So yes Obama is making us independent of oil but it takes time to switch a nation.
And the last energy bill has money for alt fuel stations/outlets from EV charge outlets, E-85 pumps and yes, NG pumps.
> say that natural gas needs no help, how many CNG stations are in
> your neighborhood? most people in most states cannot even buy an
> NGV and have no way to refuel it.
Not much reason to have neighborhood NG stations, just need them at truck stops as NG for cars is not a good fit because of bulk and can't go through tunnels. Semi's and trains are the best place for NG.
NG cogen power plants to charge EV's, PHEV's is by far the best way for NG to power cars, going 5x's farther than burning the same amount of NG in a car.
Cars on NG have limited range, room and takes a long time to fill.
wrt to the deficits, you apparently
> did not notice my reference to the bush deficits. if you want to
> argue that obama is not continuing and expanding these deficits,
> i'll be happy to have that debate with you any time you like, but
> not on this article as it's off-subject.
Obama had to expand the deficits to keep us out of a depression caused by Bush, repubs. Dems do pay-go and would be balancing the budget if not for the recession. Other that stimulus, unemployment, to keep us out of a depression which 95% of economist agreed needed to be done, what has Obama increased the deficit on?
The clunker program was to stimulate the economy that worked well, far more than cut oil though it does that too as a bonus.
>
Chu has yet to understand that there is no such thing as clean coal. Assuming coal can be cleaned (which researchers know can't be done economically), how much of the CO2 generated by burning coal can be captured, pumped and sequestered underground and for how long? When the underground storage is filled up in a few years, what then? He is pursuing and spending our limited resources and time on somthing that has no future.
Instead of pursuing clean coal he should be spending money on completing the research in the nuclear field. He should start a Manhattan type projects to complete a prototype on fast breeder reactor, pebble bed reactor and thorium fueled reactors which can supply us with electric power for centuries or more to come. Nuclear can replace not only coal power plants but indirectly, a good part of the energy we use for transportation. More cars will be electric, most deisel/electric trains can be converted to full electric, electric light rail can be returned for city transport, etc. Oil and gas will still play a big role in transportation (airplanes and big ships specially) but will be a much smaller percentage of the total world enery consumption. It is the answer to reversing climate change. It also is a great opportunity to make us less energy dependent. This is the big picture not only Chu is missing but also Obama and Congress.
As to natural gas, no matter how much you sugar coat it, it still procues CO2 as it's end product when burned as fuel. Hence, it is not a good answer. Natural gas is really best used as feedstock for the chemical industry for making medicine, plastics, fabricks, etc.
His Energy Policy includes Population Control, do you support that as well?
Stop changing the Subject. I am on record for Using everything at our disposal simultaneously. I am totally against substituting one "fossil Fuel" for another, especially one that is more damaging than CO2 on a Global Warming basis.
I have provided Links which show that 100% of CO2 emissions control is Possible Now. Coal Plants are being built in Europe which Combust 99% of the coal itself. (not a hell of a lot of that Toxic residue left)
The Subject isn't related to my stance, its related to An Energy Policy which will do more Environmental Harm. Meanwhile, MF has taken the Stance that The Environment has to play 2nd fiddle to Oil Independence.
Hell, he even made a comment that Nat. Gas Transportation won't work without the completion of the Alaskan NG Pipeline which isn't due to be competed until 2018.
( I can quote you Fitz, do not even think about denying it.)
your Comments ART/Fitz:
5. So you're still celebrating CH4=Methane, what's your insight on H2O vs. water?
6. There is no doubt about the history of frustration with your incompetant uselessness....what purpose do you think you serve? What have you ever said that is innovative or beneficial? Can you quote yourself even once!?
7. What specific accomplishments have you provided the U.S. to improve quality of life and benefit the environment? My work legacy saves enough energy to power hundreds of U.S. homes and I add to my accomplishments yearly. I'm sure the skills hinted at by other SA contributors are similar. I doubt you can even fake it. Aug 29 12:58 AM"
ART005: what is Your Work Legacy? (I thought it was you all along Fitz, I just had to get you on a one on one)
MF: You questioned "My level of Intelligence". You have your answer.
ART005: 67 comments and no Profile;
"5. So you're still celebrating CH4=Methane, what's your insight on H2O vs. water?
6. There is no doubt about the history of frustration with your incompetant uselessness....what purpose do you think you serve? What have you ever said that is innovative or beneficial? Can you quote yourself even once!?
7. What specific accomplishments have you provided the U.S. to improve quality of life and benefit the environment? My work legacy saves enough energy to power hundreds of U.S. homes and I add to my accomplishments yearly. I'm sure the skills hinted at by other SA contributors are similar. I doubt you can even fake it."
Your "work legacy" who do you think you are Mr. Fitzsimmons?
Don't you worry Ozarker, your appearance has been duly noted as well.
jerrydd: yup, obama has been in office only 7 months, and he has done practically nothing but continue failed bush policies on all important issues: bailouts, afghanistan, shapiro has head of SEC, wimping out on health care, and not supporting natural gas transportation or HR1835. meanwhile, he is continuing the unconstitutional use of blackwater troops and repeating the oxymoronic "clean coal" mantra as often as possible. obama has been a huge dissapointment. further, he hasn't done jack to reduce foreign oil imports. how many EVs are on the road? how many CNG stations and NGVs could we have for all the money thrown at the failed biofuels programs? ridiculous. obama is bought off by coal and oil lobbies just like every other president has been since eisenhower. lastly, NG is not for cars?? if you believe that (and its false) you have just ruled out the only fuel that can *significantly* reduce foreign oil imports over the next 5 years, which means we are sunk as a nation.
candooman: chu is bought off by the coal and oil lobbies, its as simple as that. anyone who wins a nobel prize in physics is smart enough to know "clean coal" is a myth and that nat gas is the only domestic fuel to solve our foreign oil import problem. wrt "clean coal", the people who are focusing on CO2 are missing the bigger problem: the toxic heavy metal particulate emissions. it is mercury that is destroying US bodies of water. it is lead and thorium. yes NG emits CO2: 30% less than gasoline and 50% less than coal, but *** 100% *** less particulates than either oil or coal. so, why keep burning them when we can switch now to NGVs? EVs? i love em and support them but three huge problems: 1) where are they? 2) where are the battery packs going to come from in *quantity* to *significantly reduce foreign oil imports*? not going to happen over the next 5 years, period. 3) even if the EVs *were* available, you're going to burn more coal to recharge them. so, a pragmatic, practical, realistic, non "envrionmental purist", would simply have to conclude that natural gas transportation is the only logical solution to reduce foreign oil imports AND particulate and CO2 emissions at the same time. to wait for EVs to be fully deloyed, and the solar and wind (which i both support) and infrastructure to be built out is simply to continue spewing more CO2 and particulates and continue the addiction to foreign oil. we need practicality not blind "environmental purism".
User393700: welcome aboard the freya and oneeye misinformation club. not gonna waste me time on you either.
$300 million being fought over by 50 states for alternative fuel AND infrastructure VS. $300 BILLION for the Cash for Clunkers program. Seriously?
The State of Florida applied for nearly $40 million in 6 different applications - and was awarded $0 despite being the 4th largest state per capita with the 4th largest vehicle population. Why???
On Aug 28 10:50 AM john s. gordon wrote:
> the federal govt gas been controlled by big oil since 1981. what
> do you expect?
"And for God's sake, Fitzman has indicated repeatadly that he is not Conservative Republican. Instead some where between Moderate Democrat and Libertarian. You appear to be a complete fake in that department (you call yourself Conservative Republican? I don't think you would be allowed in the club!) if ever for one instant you identified Fitzman's platform to be Conservative Republican."
Forgot about this puppy did you?
"conservative republican (historical definition): a person who supports small government, fiscal discipline, individual rights and freedoms, separation of church and state, just and respectful foreign and domestic policy.
if george bush fits this description, i will eat my hat.
everyone here seems to forget, i am a *true* conservative republican of the form of the above definition. the reason i have been supporting democrats for the last 20 years is because modern day "republicans" have abandoned the definition above and democrats have moved closer to it. people get so attached to labels and ideology they get stubborn and forget to *think* and observe what is really happening. historically, that is how countries fade into the history books as failed experiments. we are currently losing what america is supposed to be due to the extreme hypocrisy of the last 8 years, and americans not recognizing it for what it truly is: a disgrace and an abomination."
I guess we all have to grow up sometime.
Fitzsimmons Is a True Conservative Republican, he Labels himself as such, Can't remember everything you write can you?
Your Qoute in a Peterson Article, early this year:
"1) Carter's policies reduced US oil imports by 50%"
That Qoute is followed by this quote in the same Article:
Performance [View article] sorry, the above comment should have been Carter reduced US foreign oil imports by "5 million barrels per day", not "50%". typing too fast.... "
ooops
Meanwhile, you do not care one way or the other whether the Environment is hurt or not, your Energy Policy is all about Energy Independence, not how we get there.
On Aug 29 07:28 PM William Davison wrote:
> Can we please take American party politics out this site or for that
> matter any left right banter. Democrat and Republican feuding,
> will pull the West down to its knees long before Bin Laden
Time For Natural-Gas Autos?
Full Page. Who is for it, what companies stand to benefit, that sort of thing. Like I said, You need everything but I'm not going to support being Taxed extra.
I live in a High Rise complex in the City, CNG vehicles are of No use to me without being able to "gas up", No Infrastructure.
Put Phills into the Parking Garage? You'd have to get a NG pipe in there first and then 100 extensions with their own connections. Never Gonna happen.
www.sustainablenuclear...
"User393700: welcome aboard the freya and oneeye misinformation club. not gonna waste me time on you either. Aug 29 08:17 AM |Report abuse| "
I am being accused of providing False Information Here, Or "lying", please have the comment deleted.
"ART005: don't waste your time with her, like i told you, lost cause. now she wants to debate that CH4 is methane. just ignore her and she'll continue to document her level of intelligence."
Art005 was never told Anything of the sort by Fitzsimmons in any of his Comments. Not once, this was a purely Fabricated conversation which never existed, In this Comment stream. This is in itself an outright lie and abuses my intelligence at the same time.
Mr. Fitzsimmons has a historical record of Abusing any who disagree with him. I have the proof of this abuse, chapter and verse, Unless SA deletes my Insta's again.
It seems that his outright "fabtications" are acceptable to SA. Why is the Abuse acceptable?
I was erased for challenging the Abuse I was receiving the last time in this article. Go ahead, wipe me out again.
Let the world see what is available to SeekingAlpha users.
.
3. The Artfuldodger comment is precisely the type of attitude that will compliment a path towards prosperity for the U.S. Like triage at an accident, loose a few limbs, save the lives. There is no one Holy Grail energy solution. Besides limited resources, environment and culture play into optimizing the basket of solutions. NYC, Iowa City, LA are not all going to have the same solution. The sooner improved solutions are in place the more time there is to make the next generation of improvements. Do you think you found a nuget of someone saying people's welfare is more important than environmental management minutia, and you think you're a Conservative Republican with those priorities!? You are a delusional fake and an insult to the real thing!!"
"The Artfuldodger comment is precisely" and
" and you think you're a Conservative Republican with those priorities!? You are a delusional fake and an insult to the real thing!!"
Is there any doubt as to who actually authored those words, is ART005 talking to himself or is MF doing the Talking, There is No one even close to this handle in the entire comment stream, "Artfuldodger".
"You are a delusional fake and an insult to the real thing!!"
Even Under SeekingAlpha's new "guidelines" this should be considered as an Attack on me Personally by the same person under two different guises.
"And for God's sake, Fitzman has indicated repeatadly that he is not Conservative Republican. Instead some where between Moderate Democrat and Libertarian. You appear to be a complete fake in that department (you call yourself Conservative Republican? I don't think you would be allowed in the club!) if ever for one instant you identified Fitzman's platform to be Conservative Republican."
What the heck, I'm a fake but meanwhile ART005 considers Fitzsimmons to be between a "Moderate Democrat and Libertarian".
Since Mr. Fitzsimmons considers himself to be a:
"conservative republican (historical definition): a person who supports small government, fiscal discipline, individual rights and freedoms, separation of church and state, just and respectful foreign and domestic policy.
if george bush fits this description, i will eat my hat.
everyone here seems to forget, i am a *true* conservative republican of the form of the above definition. the reason i have been supporting democrats for the last 20 years is because modern day "republicans" have abandoned the definition above and democrats have moved closer to it. people get so attached to labels and ideology they get stubborn and forget to *think* and observe what is really happening. historically, that is how countries fade into the history books as failed experiments. we are currently losing what america is supposed to be due to the extreme hypocrisy of the last 8 years, and americans not recognizing it for what it truly is: a disgrace and an abomination."
ART005 is obviously confused and Guess what, For some reason or other I feel that I'm being abused, since this remains in this article despite my attempts to have it deleted.
From Jan. 29/09:
"fireball: you seem to think i am attacked to political ideology. i am not. i am actually a *real* conservative republican. bush was a radical fascists and i tried to point that out because rush limbaugh does a great job of convincing people otherwise. i just wrote an article criticizing obama."
"Billions for bonuses for a fascist bailout of “executives” who bankrupted their firms."
"The list goes on and on. Bush’s second term marked a grand transition from capitalism to fascism."
Just what is this article really about?