ripskii

Energy Secretary Steven Chu Should Be Fired for NatGas Views

Fitz: Can you expand on what Honda "pulling the plug on Phill" means? Are they not supporting it any longer or is the Canadian company quitting production, etc.? This thing is really only a small compressor, so hardly a big technical obstacle to overcome. Have you ever seen the small high pressure oxygen compressors used in WW II aircraft?

Don't be so negative on Chu. He is an academic scientist and not skilled in the art of political obscurantism and hence more likely to analyze facts carefully and speak plainly. Hopefully his education and experience can be used to forge a rational energy policy for both the near term issues and address our serious long term problems. He won't be able to move the needle forward without strong support from the administration however.

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

User 357469:

I never said that alternate energy solution were not viable, but just noted that they alone will not supplant all the energy we use from present sources in any reasonable time frame. To see the scale of the problem read the Scientific American article that describes what it would take to make solar a major source by 2050.

www.sciam.com/article....

It is quite clear that we must intelligently use all our resources in the best way and that is the entire point of this article. Natural gas is just one of several resources that need to be used more effectively now while we move toward a total sustainable energy system. Big changes are required and business as usual will no longer come close to addressing our impending energy problems. We also need to move forward on advanced nuclear reactor technology as an additional component of energy production which solves both the long term nuclear waste and the carbon dioxide production problems.

www.nationalcenter.org...

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

The Chinese have the advantage of focusing on their near and long term self interests, while not attempting to run the world. We have had no coherent energy policy for our nation for many years and it seems this disease is contagious. Natural gas use for transportation is only one of our great failings. We have bungled nuclear power generation development even more seriously. Very little work on that front has occurred since the IFR nuclear reactor development project was shut down in 1994. When much of the work required to effectively change direction on energy requires 5 to 10 years or more (longer than most political terms) one wonders how we will ever avoid a serious energy crisis. The current alternative energy efforts while admirable will only supply a small quantity of the energy required for our future. Perhaps our system requires a crisis to institute the changes needed to solve these problems. Unfortunately our history contains numerous examples of this behavior.

H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation

Mmarrkk:

I don't know about your NG pickup, but you can get a Peterbuilt or Kenworth 18 wheeler fueled by either CNG or LNG and instantly become the coolest dude at the CW dance hall.

biz.yahoo.com/iw/08101...

biz.yahoo.com/iw/08100...

H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation

Fitz:

Thanks for publishing the congressional committee information regarding HR 1835. I discovered that my local congressman is on two of the committees and sent him a strong letter to support the bill and get it out of committee. If we all respond with cogent arguments in support of replacing imported oil with domestic gas it should surely have an impact on congress at this time of financial crisis.

H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation

The better IFR reactor link that has good references is:

www.skirsch.com/politi...

H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation

Thanks for the good news on HR 1835. Like many folks I don't have high regard for congress but that is no excuse to refrain from pushing them toward desired action. In fact quite the opposite as we MUST flood them with public pressure to support it for all the reasons discussed here. The increased use of NG is clearly an interim solution so we must likewise push to resume R&D on the IFR nuclear reactor technology to solve our need for clean electrical power while also and resolving long term nuclear waste issues.

www.skirsch.com/politi...

If we are going to move forward with NG powered vehicles WPRT is in a good position to grow on the heavy truck and bus front. As to hydrogen as the longer term solution consider instead boron. Tom Blees in his Prescription for the Planet advances the reusable boron fuel for vehicles idea.

Barron's Is Wrong: Solar Offers Good Value

The problem with nuclear energy for solving our future energy problems is that we are still only considering old light water reactors. Much better solutions are available using advanced fast reactors which are much more efficient and solve the long half life waste problem. These will play a much bigger role for base load power generation than other alternatives and will be required to support solar and wind which cannot supply our base load needs. All the most efficient solutions are required to reach a sustainable model and the sooner we move forward the less painful (and expensive) it will be for the long term.

www.sustainablenuclear...

Why Is Oil Trading at $53 When Supply and Demand Is So Bearish?

Mmarrkk: Thanks for the LNG comments. I looked into the costs related to cooling, transporting and gasifying it several years ago and came up with a figure about $1.25/mm cu ft. Since energy costs have risen in the meantime I'm sure it is somewhat higher now, so your cost estimate looks reasonable. Do you have an idea of what the US import capacity for LNG is now and how it is changing? The other point is that LNG tanker capacity is relatively fixed and usually contracted for long in advance for existing facilities as they are built.

The Globalization of Natural Gas

I looked into the cost for liquifying, transporting and gasifying LNG several years ago. At the time the cost was the order of $1.25/thousand cubic feet. This cost didn't capitalize the cost of the facilities. I suspect it is higher now that energy costs have risen. It takes significant time to build the shipping and receiving terminals and to build the tankers required. Considering Europe's tenuous position depending upon Russia it would seem they would be looking to diversify their supply sources via LNG from several areas where stranded gas is found and should be available for low cost.

Why Is Oil Trading at $53 When Supply and Demand Is So Bearish?

Another factor supporting nat gas production in the face of low prices is that a number of the more astute producers have hedged their production at profitable prices into the future.

I wonder if the same interests that restricted wider use of gas are also responsible for killing the IFR and other fast nuclear reactor development? It seems that vested interests are able to direct energy policy decisions to their benefit at the expense of the nation overall.

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

Fitz: Perhaps I'm not making my point on LNG clear. I wasn't proposing it for middle class car transport, but for use in long haul trucking. The main issue is that LNG would enable wide use NOW because with only a few carefully sited locations (several already exist) large trucks on long haul routes could rely on available fuel to greatly reduce cost and pollution. This is already being implemented by several west coast ports to reduce pollution in the harbors and surrounding areas.

While many object to nuclear power generation, my difficulty is with the long life waste generated by the current generation of light water reactors. A solution for this exists with more advanced fast reactors and Argonne Labs has built and tested such a solution, the IFR reactor. This system does away with the uranium mining issues as it consumes present nuclear waste and depleted uranium which are available now in quantity. This solution can be placed into service with additional development in a reasonable time frame while research continues on fusion technology which most think is quite some time in our future even if research efforts are ramped up. We will require a significant amount of baseload electrical power generation if we are to replace coal and wind and solar cannot produce those quantities with current technology. It seems we are being side tracked by thinking "clean coal" might be a solution and are not pushing forward on advanced nuclear technology as a result. That is a huge mistake in my opinion, but it is being sold by vested interests.

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

Fitz: We can agree to disagree over LNG use, but in the longer term I see gas as a transition fuel. You are correct about closing coal burning for electric power generation. I think the long term solution lies with advanced fast nuclear reactors that will solve both our carbon and long life nuclear waste problems. Tom Blees has written and interesting book "Prescription for the Planet" that discusses this and other related subjects and is worth reading.

www.skirsch.com/politi...

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

LNG actually make sense for long haul truck fuel considering our present gas refueling infrastructure. Sufficient LNG fuel can be carried for long trips and only a few strategically located LNG refueling locations would allow replacement of diesel fuel now for much of the long haul industry, saving them quite a bit of fuel costs in the process. Several of the large truck makers have introduced LNG fueled models and Australia is moving in this direction for their long haul trucking industry.

Dividend Investors Watch Out

richandmer:

If bonds were permitted to cut their interest payments in response to poor business conditions then all bond interests rates would rise to reflect the risk of future interest rate reductions. Bonds would no longer be bonds by any normal measurement and that market would collapse. Therefore your proposal doesn't make any sense at all.