Texas and the Future of Energy

Discussion in 'Energy' started by jmasterson, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. jmasterson
    Offline

    jmasterson Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    There is an interesting story on American Thinker that talks about among other things, the need for energy independence, the future of renewable energy, natural gas, and the central role Texas plays in all of this.

    Excerpt 1:
    “Energy is vital to modern economies. The remarkable ascendance of the U.S. in the decades since World War II would not have been possible without cheap, uninterrupted access to energy, and oil in particular. Because of this, the U.S. has been forced into numerous uncomfortable situations politically and economically. It has been forced to embrace foreign despots whose policies and tactics run counter to American ideals. Painful compromises have been made in order to maintain the political stability necessary to keep the oil that powers American prosperity flowing.
    Worse, the steady flow of capital out of America into these oil-producing regions has shifted a large portion of American treasure into the hands of people who despise the American ideology of freedom, tolerance, and opportunity. They use American money, the fruits of American labor, to attack these very ideals.”

    Excerpt #2 (on the importance of natural gas)

    “The production and usage of natural gas have increased steadily over the past several years even as prices for natural gas have declined dramatically. Texas has substantial natural gas reserves, and a large portion of Texas electricity is produced from natural gas-burning power plants. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal. While we would all prefer that 100% of our energy come from low-pollution sources like solar and wind, the truth is every bit of energy produced by clean-burning natural gas in place of oil or coal is a win for the environment and a win for American energy-independence.”

    Full Article: On Texas, Energy, and Opportunity
     
  2. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    #1 is bullshit

    #2 good read.
     
  3. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Natural gas is a good, cheap option for countries which have it, but for those which have to import it, it is likely to only be a temporary solution.

    Any thread on energy which talks about a magic bullet is not going to be very useful - the conditions in Texas are not those in Alaska, and what works in one will likely not work in the other.
     
  4. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    There is a thing called "fuel transportation".

    Which is not to be confused with "transportation fuel".

    But, I digress.

    The U.S. was very recently a net importer of natural gas. Was THAT a "temporary solution"?

    And now that we are awash in natural gas, would efforts to build LNG export terminals also be a "temporary solution"?
     
  5. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Mr H,

    The fact that a fuel can be transported does not make it necessarily viable to do so long term.

    I do think that countries which have natural gas reserves should use those, particularly as they move to phase out coal, but that does not mean it is necessarily the best long term option.

    I would prefer to see CNG or LPG used increasingly for transport where few other viable fuels exist, rather than in electricity production where often other options do exist.
     
  6. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    I've repped you for that avatar. So tell us the story on it please.

    Fuel transport has always been and will continue to be viable as long as market conditions warrant it.

    If the market to do so falls flat, then it will be discontinued. That's business.


    "Long term options" are nothing but many "short term options" strung together.

    CNG and LPG transport fuels get my thumbs up. :thup:
     
  7. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Sure thing!

    The photo is taken just outside Baku, Azerbaijan, in a place known as the 'James Bond oil field' - it features in the opening scene of one recent Bond movie.

    At the time I was there, Baku had been labeled the most polluted city on earth, and I was writing about that.

    Business is business, but there is more to good energy policy than business. It also requires politicians take a long term view, and consider what it best for the people of the region. That must include health, environmental, economic and political factors (by the latter I mean how people feel about various sources of energy).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    Thanks. :thup:

    But... long term views are the worst enemy of short term economics.
    And short term economics are the best friend of long term views.
     
  9. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    And of course, natural gas does not reduce emissions of sequestered CO2, so we don't get any benefit, which we would get, from biomass development.

    And of course, if we don't re-green, the methane blows up the warming, the CO2 at 400 ppm yields more carbonic acid, and the oceanic food chain fails. So think of something else, fast.
     
  10. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    What exactly, in the fuck, was that all about?
     

Share This Page