Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/03/2011 9:07:50 AM PST by crescen7
This house believes that natural gas will do more than renewables to limit the world's carbon emissions ...
For:With no global agreement on cutting carbon emissions, with coal consumption continuing to grow, and with governments around the world cutting subsidies for renewables, the only cost-effective way to limit carbon emissions is with low-cost, low- or no-carbon fuels...
Against:"We can't solve a problem by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created it." So said Einstein, and that is particularly applicable in this case. We will not solve the climate problem by burning more fossil fuels...
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
The Pro-Gas argument is made by Robert Bryce, self described "lib who learned how to use a calculator" and author of "Power Hungry" the most definitive decimation of wind and solar power yet published.
There's about 6 hours left in the poll - would be great to see Natural gas beat wind and solar!
Ping Ping Ping I am working on a Mutlit Million dollar Natural gas Deal right now. Already have contracts with a major company to retro fit their stations with pumps.
These Greenies are really losing the argument here. Instead of discussing the value of gas, this guy goes to the default argument that fossil fuels are bad. I thought the objective was to save the planet of pollution. Does it matter how that is achieved?
Gas is currently more efficient than the current or proposed alternatives.
Renewables are condiments.
We need to just continue down the same path we are traveling, let others figure out other ways of cleaner energy. The U.S. economy will collapse without cheap abundant energy, and an oil/coal/gas/nuclear mix is what is needed. Wouldn’t it have been nice is for a stimulus plan, 0 would have spent a Trillion dollars on nuclear power plant construction. How many would we now have under construction? I guess over a hundred, with the savings in coal and oil usage within five years to be remarkable. If people are going to use electric cars, they need electric power. It does no good to power them up with electricity from coal. A smarter person could tell you how much pollution is produced when powering up one “green” electric Volt. Probably double the amount to drive the stupid car using fossil fuels.
No, the objective is to rid the planet of capitalism. And, if that means warming ourselves by burning cattle dung, we should do it.
The Economist is liberal and most conservative economists such as myself stay away from it unless they get a kick from reading arguments from morons.
Yep, extremes of hot and cold kill people. Since the elites have no problem with keeping themselves comfortable, the extremely high power costs that are “Necessarily” in our future, will drive the poor and the lower middle class to die out. I remember hearing that 0 keeps the White House at 80 degrees, because he is “from Hawaii” and can’t take the cold. The rest of us could keep our heat at 65 in the winter, and 85 in the summer, remotely controlled of course. At least in the best case scenario of the globalists.
“The U.S. economy will collapse without cheap abundant energy, and an oil/coal/gas/nuclear mix is what is needed.”
This is exactly Bryce’s argument in “Power Hungry”. and he documents his arguments in detailed and irrefutable mathematics that expose the futility of wind and solar. He also takes a swipe at electric cars. I think the title of that chapter is something like: Electric Cars are the next big thing - and they always will be.
Many city and local utility companies already run their fleets on CNG - like Pacific Gas and Electric in California.
There is a campaign to send letters to Obama and Congress to issue an executive order mandating that all new vehicles bought by the Federal Govt. be CNG. Since they are a large portion of cars bought in the U.S., Ford, GM and Chrysler would by necessity produce a variety of vehicles beyond the Honda Civic body type.
Without the demand of the U.S. market, the price of oil would drop considerably. We wouldn't be sending dollars to the Middle East or Venezuela.
Here is a link to Dr. Wattenburg's website - http://kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=2068523&nId=0&spid=33179
What pressures do you need in a vehicle to run it and is the natural gas liquefied or in a gaseous form when it is in the vehicle?
Just voted..
50/50
LOL! The Greenie Anti-Energy terrorists are already playing the incandescent/CFL card with natural gas. "Fracking" is going to become The New Menace, driving the price of natural gas to the sky, just like the cost of all the other avenues of energy that the GAETs have already cut off.
Get your deal done, Armed Civilian, then get out of Dodge with your profits. The anti-fracking offensive has already begun.
now at 51% for!
Freepers rule !
Ping Pong Pole...
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
Missed it
ended up
49% yes
51% no
not bad since it started 80no,20 yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.