More extensive use of natural gas could aid in reducing global warming, because gas produces fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than either oil or coal.Since they all produce CO2, does anybody knows the basis of this claim?
1 posted on
10/10/2009 9:04:42 PM PDT by
neverdem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: neverdem
What’s most important is that we forbid ourselves to use this method of tapping nat gas while showing the rest of the world how to do it. For the children.
2 posted on
10/10/2009 9:06:17 PM PDT by
Attention Surplus Disorder
(It's better to give a Ford to the Kidney Foundation than a kidney to the Ford Foundation.)
To: neverdem
(Units of energy usefully extracted) / (tons of CO2 emitted) sounds like one such measure.
3 posted on
10/10/2009 9:08:51 PM PDT by
sionnsar
(IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Remember Neda Agha-Soltan|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
To: neverdem
“Italian and Norwegian oil engineers and geologists have arrived in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania to learn how to extract gas from layers of a black rock called shale.”
And the idiots here in NY have a moratorium on it until “further environmental study”.
The envirolunatics will have us living in caves in the dark and lighting farts to keep warm.
To: neverdem
5 posted on
10/10/2009 9:10:18 PM PDT by
JRios1968
(The real first rule of Fight Club: don't invite Chuck Norris...EVER)
To: neverdem
The good news never seems to quit. I am happy that some elements of my energy-related talks from 3 years ago can be shelved for a long time to come — so long as politics doesn’t mess things up.
6 posted on
10/10/2009 9:10:34 PM PDT by
sionnsar
(IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Remember Neda Agha-Soltan|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
To: neverdem
As usual, the NYT don't know what they are talking about. Technology to extract natural gas from shale has been around for a while and it has improved greatly over the last 15 years. The main barriers to extracting natural gas from shale have been environmentalists who have worked to stop many projects in the US and delay others.
Natural gas from shale is very plentiful and can be produced for less than 5% the cost of wind and solar. It is also less costly than ethanol. However, it has been ignored and even discouraged by politicians and policy makers in Washington.
8 posted on
10/10/2009 9:16:58 PM PDT by
detective
To: neverdem
“Since they all produce CO2, does anybody knows the basis of this claim?”
Natural gas produces far less carbon(CO2) per btu when burned than coal and less than #2 and #6 fuel oil.
9 posted on
10/10/2009 9:20:38 PM PDT by
detective
To: neverdem
"Since they all produce CO2, does anybody know the basis of this claim?"
Perhaps at this point, the question should be to what degree if any in the over all complex physics involved does CO2 really play even in the least if any role in heat retention in the lower atmosphere, that then somehow is suggested to be transfered into large bodies of water as well as land masses and thereby heat the earth surface areas.
I refer only to the content of CO2 as sparsely dispersed within the total mix of gases and water mass that surrounds our earth.
But of course Norm, I sense you are being a bit sarcastic regarding your question.
I have to hit the rack at this point. Do have a great upcoming day.
10 posted on
10/10/2009 9:22:16 PM PDT by
Marine_Uncle
(I'll go back to when I joined this great site back in 2005....Honor must be earned....)
To: neverdem
Whoops ND! I’m shot! Eyes are a bit bleary, addressed you as if you where NormsRevenge by accident. Apology offered.
12 posted on
10/10/2009 9:26:27 PM PDT by
Marine_Uncle
(I'll go back to when I joined this great site back in 2005....Honor must be earned....)
To: neverdem
Different hydrocarbons have differing quantities of Carbon and Hydrogen relative to each other, and thus different reaction products with MORE or LESS CO2 in proportion.
Methane is CH4 for example, and burns to form one CO2 and two H2O plus 891kj
Butanol is C4H9OH and burns to form four CO2 plus five H2O plus 2670 kj
So ROUGHLY it supplies 3X more energy but 4X more CO2 and only 2.5X more H2O.
SO SOME IDIOTS might say natural gas makes less CO2 and thus is “better” and not as bad for “global warning aka ACC”
BUT -—> newsflash -—> Water Vapor H2O is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is BY FAR!
But horrors how can pure water be bad compared to that ugly carbon...????
Oh wait a minute - after all, we ARE CARBON-based life forms according to space aliens.
So isn’t carbon a good thing? Carbon and Water (hydrogen and oxygen actually) are the essential elements of life.
OH it is all so confusing....
And it is cool today, snowing in Denver - where is MY warming warning when I need it.
To: neverdem
I thought this was going to be about tapping the methane from cows!
15 posted on
10/10/2009 9:37:32 PM PDT by
SouthTexas
(The IOC is racist!)
To: neverdem
Hey .. We have Plenty of GAS we can tap and it’s all coming out of Washington.
To: neverdem
Since they all produce CO2, does anybody knows the basis of this claim? Of any hydrocarbon fuel, methane has the highest ratio of hydrogen to carbon in its molecules.
Burning coal produces 100% CO2, burning liquid hydrocarbons produces slightly more H2O than CO2, while burning methane CH4 produces twice as much water as CO2 for roughly the same amount of energy.
Please ignore the fact that water vapor is a global warming gas too...
19 posted on
10/10/2009 10:00:00 PM PDT by
null and void
(We are now in day 261 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
To: neverdem
This will have to be banned of course.
21 posted on
10/10/2009 10:03:28 PM PDT by
GeronL
("On my twelfth day in office, Nobel nominated me..")
To: neverdem
This is a really curious article
1) You are essentially correct...burning natural gas produces water and CO2...both of which are “greenhouse” gasses.
2) Odd that the article refers to the supplies as “Global” Supplies...why not just say that it will increase “Supplies” (without “Global”)
3) This is not a new method
= = =
Assuming that the NYT is a mouthpiece for the Democrat party, I would tend to think that this non-news article is setting up a fall back position for the case that cap-and-tax legislation fails. Obama can still be made the hero by promoting a technology (one that already exists and does nothing for his cause).
26 posted on
10/11/2009 1:18:33 AM PDT by
kidd
(Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
To: neverdem
It strikes me as a bogus statement by a technically ignorant reporter.
How bad do you want to know? Should I dredge up my Thermo text (chapter on combustion chemistry) and run some numbers?
28 posted on
10/11/2009 1:55:48 AM PDT by
FreedomPoster
(No Representation without Taxation!)
To: neverdem
Methane CH4. Oil has more carbons for each hydrogen. Both parts give out energy when burnt in oxygen.
Not that it matters though. We want MORE CO2. Archeology shows the plants used to be much more lush in the past. Bigger, more fruitful, because of more CO2.
Globaloney is just a lie to perpetuate the same old leftist biases. Same stuff they were pushing in the 60s/70s.
29 posted on
10/11/2009 1:59:57 AM PDT by
chuck_the_tv_out
( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
To: neverdem; All
30 posted on
10/11/2009 2:26:32 AM PDT by
backhoe
(All Across America, the Lights are being relit again...)
To: neverdem
and you can convert your car for about $250 IF the EPA didn’t charge $10,000 foir a permit to do it.
35 posted on
10/11/2009 4:42:57 AM PDT by
The Wizard
(I support Madame President)
To: neverdem
Since they all produce CO2, does anybody knows the basis of this claim?
High school chemistry: Coal is mostly carbon in the form of aromatic rings, natural gas is mostly methane (CH4). You take the binding energy of carbon and oxygen vs. the binding energy of 4-to-1 hydrogen / oxygen and carbon / oxygen and subtract the energy necessery to crack the coal / methane in the first place. Then you normalize for the same energy content, which gives you the ratio of carbon intensity.
38 posted on
10/11/2009 7:38:40 AM PDT by
wolf78
(Inflation is a form of taxation, too. Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson