Texas and the Future of Energy

jmasterson

Rookie
May 30, 2012
17
1
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
 
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.
 
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.

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"?
 
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.
 
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:
 
I've repped you for that avatar. So tell us the story on it please.

:

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).
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top