Alex Filonov

A Natural Gas Centric Strategic Long-Term Comprehensive Energy Policy

If you think that reliance on cars is corrupting, sell yours. I lived for 40 years in the country where mass transit was the only reasonable option and it wasn't a happy living.

On Apr 27 01:32 AM seedontbelieve wrote:

> You never heard of mass transit?
>
> solves the balance of trade problem
>
> solves private affordability issues
>
> solves pollution issues
>
> cuts health services costs
>
> cuts police man-hours needed
>
> saves sittingn-in-gridlock man-hours
>
> supplants corrupt overreliance on cars, multi-dollars per
> passenger mile, tax-funded roads, traffic control with
> per passenger-mile far more efficient transportation,
> thus beginning to just catch up with other nations

A Natural Gas Centric Strategic Long-Term Comprehensive Energy Policy

What subsidies for oil and coal? Companies are paying royalties to extract oil and coal. Yes, many companies are getting significant credits on these royalties, but in any case, companies are paying government(s), not the other way around.


On Apr 24 08:00 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:

> ripskii: ok, now you have intrigued me. i am going to start doing
> some nuclear energy research after my next nat gas article. thanks
> for the link.
>
> alex filonov: ok, let's let the market decide: take away the subsidies
> for coal and oil and let the chips fall where they may! you seem
> to forget the heavy subsidies that coal and oil are getting now,
> and have been getting, since the 1970's. add in the oil wars and
> the cost to secure oil shipments to the US and then where does nat
> gas stand? answer: a superior US produced fuel. here's the real history:
> congress, at the advice of exxon at the time, actually prohibited
> natural gas from new industrial and electrical generation in the
> late 1970's (!). that is what led to the huge buildout in coal burning
> electrical generation in the US (which we are now paying a huge environmental
> cost for). natural gas has taken a backseat to oil and coal ever
> since in the eyes of the government and governmental policy. i mean,
> have you actually read EPA regulations wrt NGVs? what a joke. you
> should consider reading robert hefner's book, The Grand Energy Transition,
> so you can get the full story. also, i have never offended canada
> or mexico. i have said that mexico will likely cease to be a significant
> oil exporter within the next 5 years, and i have stated that i think
> it is ridiculous to use huge caterpillars to dig oil sands out of
> the ground, boil it using natural gas and lots of fresh water, only
> to obtain a low grade crude that needs further refining in order
> to achieve gasoline when we have natural gas ready to use as is!
> that is not the market deciding, that is government policy keeping
> us addicted to oil at any and every cost. it's absurd in my opinion.

A Natural Gas Centric Strategic Long-Term Comprehensive Energy Policy

How about comprehensive policy: let market decide? If there is a competitive natgas or electric vehicle technology, it will win on the market. If not, it's not gonna happen anyway.

No technology is sustainable if it needs constant government support.

And let's stop offending our main oil suppliers: Canada and Mexico. They are NOT supporters of terrorism. They are NOT unfriendly. They are our neighbors and friends.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

I know physics a little bit better than you. Yes, sun burns hydrogen in thermonuclear reaction. There is no practical way to do it for energy production for the nearest couple of hundred years. There is no practical thermonuclear energy production technology right now, period. Even from more exotic fuels, like deuterium. All we know about it is that it's about 10 year in future... for the last 60 years.

Sorry for misprint, yeah, it's fuel cell. Technology exists, theoretically. Again, it's 5 years in future for the last 15 years. And, unfortunately, it needs pure hydrogen, which you can't get anywhere on Earth. Unless, of course, you split water using electricity, which requires more energy than you get from released hydrogen (read elementary chemistry course, for Pete's sake!). Or, again, you can produce hydrogen from natural gas or oil, and produce a lot of CO2 in process.

On Mar 14 08:44 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:

> alex filonov: "including hydrogen into the table of energy sources
> is total bullshit". that has to be the most idiotic assertion i have
> ever seen. actually, it was the first good laugh of my day. alex
> - do you realize how the sun heats the earth? do you have any idea
> why NGVs work? no, you don't, so i'll tell you: it's the energy released
> from ***hydrogen***. you just don't get it do you? as far as BS goes,
> your comment (which unfortunately for you cannot be deleted) documents
> just exactly who is full of it (clue: it ain't me). by the way, it's
> fuel "cell".
>
> User283977: thank you for giving it back to poor "alex" who apparently
> needs to read the book more than anyone else. that said, i am very
> glad you got to read it! i wish more people would...i am very dissapointed
> at the general response on here..i hope hefner doesn't hold it against
> me! did you read it because of my review, or did you already hear
> about the book? just curious.
>
> Vancouverite: we may well all be screwed, but i don't see how your
> vitriolic post is helpful in the least. there is a saying from the
> old west: "a weak neighbor weakens me". so, before you continue hoping
> for a US collapse, you might want to consider what effects such a
> collapse may have on canada and on yourself.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

One comment on the energy transition:

Including hydrogen into the table of energy sources is total bullshit. There are no known natural sources of pure hydrogen on our planet. Everything written about "hydrogen energetics" is actually about making hydrogen intermediate energy carrier. Energy supposed to be made on electric plants (i.e. 80% from coal, in case of US), then used to split water to oxygen and hydrogen by electolysis, hydrogen then is liquified and used in fuel sell or combustion engines. BTW, currently the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from natural gas, producing a lot of CO2 in process.

I'm afraid one bullshit in the source might make it all bullshit.

Why "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Does Not Translate Into Effective National Energy Policy

Misleading header: who defines if energy policy is efficient? As far as I know only market tells you if economic policy is efficient or not. Which means that you can't declare any economic policy, including energy policy "efficient" until long time after it was decided.
As for drilling/extraction relationship, it ignores one well-known fact: rotary rigs are also used to drill for natural gas, and natural gas production is increasing.

Russia Looks Better on Paper Than in Real Life

'However, it wasn’t until Russia physically invaded Georgia this month that investors really started fleeing the country.'

Wrong. RSX chart here contradicts you completely. Investors started their flight in July, by August 1 RSX already lost more than 15% (quite a drop in one months).

Any investment in Russia now is Russian Roulette. Government with every day looks like lunatics running asylum.