WayneS

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

This is an example of renewable energy projects. Energy projects that are renewed every 20 years and make money. I truly do hope rooftop solar works this time. Especially in California; so they stop strip mining coal in New Mexico, burning it in Arizona and using it in California.


On Dec 21 07:09 PM oaksleeksbeans wrote:

> That's why the future is rooftop solar offsetting retail electric
> rates. See Black and Veatch's Dec 09 report on the California PUCs
> website. (No transmission or desert lands required).

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

My high school band director (40 years ago) told us:
"Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME."

Joe Friday told us:
"Just the facts, Ma'am."

Ronny Reagan told us:
"There you go again."

I say:
"Without a score card, I don't remember who said what. Never mind."


On Dec 21 07:31 AM MJJP wrote: ......assumption......

On Dec 18 07:22 PM Joseph L. Shaefer wrote:

> On Dec 18 04:13 PM terravario wrote:

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

We did it back in the 70's. It was called coal gasification and coal liquification. I worked on a small portion. We converted CO2 and H2 to methane using reduced nickel as a catalyst.


On Dec 20 09:25 PM Tempo dulu wrote:

> We have more coal than any nation on earth. Why are we importing
> oil from the Middle East when we can as cheaply and more cleanly
> convert coal to liquid fuels?
>
> - therein lies the false assumption. Coal CANNOT cheaply be converted
> into a liquid fuel. If it could everyone would be doing it. Coal
> is dirty and black, hazardous to health and a nightmare for the environment.
> Alternative solutions - solar, etc - are a better option.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

Bleep - "And as long as fossil fuels can be burned CO2 free then let them compete in the open market with alternative energy, nuclear, and whatever else." Talk about fair. Fossils fuels could be burned CO2 free, but it's been against the law in the US to do this since the 70's. I pay extra for inefficient fuel for my car. I have devises installed on my car to keep it from getting good fuel mileage. I have a catalytic converter whose job is to produce CO2.
Then, it is OK that 100's of acres of forest are being slashed and burned each second. The tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each second are justified because they ain't gonna be fossils for millions of years. In a few years there will be renewable energy grown where the great CO2 sinks were.

"A regulated free market...isn't that what everyone wants? "
No, everyone wants to make a lot of money, now.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

Bleep - Sorry, you lost me. Are you a Global Warming:
Believer?
Skeptic?
Denier?
Neutral?
Opportunist?

What a second, what was the original question?
What's the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change?
What does green, clean, organic, renewable, non-renewable mean?
What was the start and finish of that chart? Which controlled which? What if you substitute O2 for CO2? Why didn't it end where we are? I really want to know. I'm still waiting for real data, not people calling each other names.

Like you said, Does it matter whether CO2 comes from me breathing, that cow breathing, that BBQ grill, opening that cola bottle, driving to work, speeding for the hell of it, raining on the caliche road that leads to my house, the catalytic converter in my car, making peanut brittle?
Before we discuss climate change, maybe we should define the words we use or all will be meaningless.
I'm not laughing, no matter what anyone says.

Why ExxonMobil Took the Nat Gas Plunge Now

Congress will have to tiptoe. The particularly hazardous chemicals in frac fluid are called food preservatives in other industries. If they make the main ingredient (besides water) a hazardous chemical, we will have to go to special toilets after we eat corn or celery.
If they venture into the earthquake scenario, they will have to explain why, when the US government frac'd with nuclear bombs in Colorado, they did not produce earthquakes.


On Dec 17 02:18 AM T. Boone wrote:


> ps.... disclosure: I own a ton of xto-- sure hope Congress doesn't
> mess with this deal.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

They are. They are selling them in Europe. I want the Jeep that gets 47 mpg


On Dec 18 01:41 PM Doug K wrote:


Why aren't our auto industries investing in diesel autos?

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

Going green is an impossibility. If 80 people walked 100 miles instead of riding a bus, they would produce more green house gases than the bus. Even if the bus was electric (especially).
GM has cars that get better mileage and lower emissions than foreign competitors. Watching ads for foreign cars, it is obvious they are trying to sell the car with the brightest lights, that can go 160 mph while letting you text, use your GPS and look at old pictures of your kids, listen to your favorite music, and as a bonus, be safety conscious by knowing where the police radars are located. Watch GM and foreign car ads before making a 30-year-old knee-jerk statement. PS: You and I are GM, so we are on a path of destruction if you are right.


On Dec 18 11:19 AM LaChic wrote:

> GM, continues towards the path of destruction and has not DONE a
> thing to go green, or to make smaller cars.

You Say Fossil Fuels, I Say Future Fuels

If we were trying to solve problems, we would tell everyone to become more energy efficient and quit wasting what we have. We are all here to make money by talking people into buying into a product or idea advantageous to us. If we can convince them that they are saving the world, so much the better. If we can get them to use more energy, so much the better. I know everyone will give me a -1 for this. That's what I get every time I bring up conservation. There's no money to be had in conservation.


On Dec 19 06:48 AM jaimemotta wrote:

> Better trust in engineers than in politics. They can resolve problems,
> polictics only take advantage of problems

Why ExxonMobil Took the Nat Gas Plunge Now

Actually, thinking about it, XOM took the plunge to natural gas over 150 years ago; "Oil and Gas." 95% of the people in the US do not realize that the Gas in Oil and Gas is Natural Gas. They think the only reason for Oil and Gas Companies is to overcharge them for the gasoline that they want to waste.

Why ExxonMobil Took the Nat Gas Plunge Now

ExxonMobil took the natural gas plunge over 10 years ago.

Global Warming: Investment Implications

Maybe the acidification of the oceans is because there is over a hundred undersea active volcanos that weren't around fifty years ago. Maybe they're heating up the water.


On Aug 20 11:46 AM redavenger wrote:

> How do you reject the fact of ocean acidification (de-alkalinization)
> due to C02 absorption? Or do you also cavalierly dismiss this dire
> threat to the world ecosystem? Or are you even aware of it in your
> smug complacency?

Global Warming: Investment Implications

CO2 absorbs heat when released from a pressurized tank.
CO2 absorbs heat when it sublimates (dry ice to gaseous CO2).
Water absorbs heat when it evaporates (when you sweat or in evaporative coolers).
The CO2 that I exhale doesn't absorb heat (unless it's over 100 degrees out).