Why Big Shopping Bargains Are Bad News For America

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And yet I see no movement to NG. I don't see service stations retrofitting to supply NG, I don't see the major auto makers offering NG cars and I still see that the EPA wants to regulate the carbon output of NG powered electric plants. All I do see is lip service and a misguided emphasis on solar and wind. Solar and wind may at some point supply some larger percentage of our power but it will never take up the lions share of our energy needs. NG and coal can eliminate our dependancy on imported oil in a matter of a few years if we put some effort into it. The reason we don't is because the nuts still see NG as a "polluter". They just say it is the lessor of the evils. Forget coal, the nuts will never let us expand that even though we have enough coal to last us for hundreds of years. Get the GW nuts out of the mix and we could stop supporting the ME terrorists with our oil money very quickly.

There were tax credits for CNG vehicles - well for the one and only CNG vehicle offered in the US. The lack of a sufficient fuel station network continues to make this vehicle very unattractive, however. This is where policy has failed and why only about 10% of CNG vehicles operate in the US. Most of those in - you guessed it - concerned about emissions California. Shifting subsidies from the old to the new energy sources is how it's done and we're not doing that as a nation.

Coal is a fuel of the past not the future, by the way. We moved on from the coal powered vehicles some time ago.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Oil is a finite resource and it will run out at some point. We have other energy resources that are not in danger of running out any time soon. The GW nuts just won't let us use them. We have coal and NG that would be enough to supply us with energy for decades without running low. We could be energy independant in a few years if we chose to be. That would give us the time to develop renuable energy without the panic. Cars could be converted to run on NG without very much modifications. If we have an energy crisis it will be a crisis of our own making because of some misguided people beleving in the great GW hoax. The power grab by those pushing this discredited theory will cause this county great harm in the name of "saving the planet".

United States coal reserves are taking a beating in a new examination by the USGS of recoverable reserves of Gilette in Wyoming, the largest field in the US with 37% of total coal production in 2006. Its present reserves have been downgraded by half thanks to an improved methodology which incorporates a new dataset with ten times as many datapoints as used in the previous assessment. Of 182 billion metric tonnes of resource in place, 9.16 billion (6% of original resource total) were found to be recoverable under "current technological and economic circumstances". This compares to an earlier assessment from 2002 by the USGS in which 20.87 billion metric tons were estimated to be recoverable.

The one catch is that the term "present economic circumstances" depends very much on the price of coal. If the price of coal increases significantly, the newly estimated reserve level of 9.16 billion metric tons can be expected to increase, perhaps several-fold. Although the USGS takes a shot at determining the price-sensitivity of reserves by discussing its effect, there still are a lot of open ends. Nonetheless the economic aspect of coal recoverability should be taken seriously; hence the question mark in the title.

The new USGS assessment does show that the statement made by the US National Academy of Science two years ago, that US coal reserves are likely overstated, should be taken seriously. The National Academy of Science concluded at that time that coal recoverability estimates are based on outdated assessment methods--these methods have not been reviewed or revised since 1974 and primarily reflect input data from the early 1970s.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There were tax credits for CNG vehicles - well for the one and only CNG vehicle offered in the US. The lack of a sufficient fuel station network continues to make this vehicle very unattractive, however. This is where policy has failed and why only about 10% of CNG vehicles operate in the US. Most of those in - you guessed it - concerned about emissions California. Shifting subsidies from the old to the new energy sources is how it's done and we're not doing that as a nation.

Coal is a fuel of the past not the future, by the way. We moved on from the coal powered vehicles some time ago.

Energy is energy. I really don't care where it comes from as long as the GW nuts don't make it harder than it needs to be. I would be very happy to see hundreds of new coal, nuke and NG power plants built. We need the power but we don't need the GW nuts taking away a viable energy source because of some mythical GW hoax. Don't get me wrong now, SO2 and soot are indeed pollutants and those issues will need to be addressed with a coal plant. But the CO2 regulations on coal is just nuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Energy is energy. I really don't care where it comes from as long as the GW nuts don't make it harder than it needs to be. I would be very happy to see hundreds of new coal, nuke and NG power plants built. We need the power but we don't need the GW nuts taking away a viable energy source because of some mythical GW hoax. Don't get me wrong now, SO2 and soot are indeed pollutants and those issues will need to be addressed with a coal plant. But the CO2 regulations on coal is just nuts.

Those regulations are what has been driving the alternatives for a long time outside of the US. This is why they already have sufficient a CNG fuel station network in Germany and why they are focusing on a hydrogen fuel network by 2015 to enable the next generation of automobiles. If coal and oil are economically so viable, then why do they need billions and billions of subsidies? If we're going to subsidize energy sources, shouldn't those subsidies go towards the energy sources of tomorrow rather than those of yesterday? Should those not go towards the cleanest possible energy sources?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Those regulations are what has been driving the alternatives for a long time outside of the US. This is why they already have sufficient a CNG fuel station network in Germany and why they are focusing on a hydrogen fuel network by 2015 to enable the next generation of automobiles. If coal and oil are economically so viable, then why do they need billions and billions of subsidies? If we're going to subsidize energy sources, shouldn't those subsidies go towards the energy sources of tomorrow rather than those of yesterday? Should those not go towards the cleanest possible energy sources?

Regulate pollutants all you want, I want a clean planet just the same as anyone else. CO2 isn't a pollutant and regulating that is nothing more than a tax. I would drive us toward whatever energy source we have that can meet our needs. We have a lot of coal and we can make nuke plants. Lets build them. The reasons why we don't are political rather than an ecological one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

CO2 isn't a pollutant and regulating that is nothing more than a tax.

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

EPA moving unilaterally to limit greenhouse gases

You lost.

[tmma 467]

CO2 is technically defined as a ' greenhouse gas'...as is H20 gas... and SO2.

Most of those 3 gases are introduced to the atmosphere naturally....and some of it via human introduction.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

EPA moving unilaterally to limit greenhouse gases

You lost.

Last time I looked the SC were not climate scientists. This was a political finding, not a scientific one. Lets see if the new congress will let the EPA regulate CO2. I have a feeling you will be the one that is going to lose.

GOP ready to fight over global warming

Remember, elections have consequences. In this case the consequences are that the nuts will not get to tax CO2