Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   "I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels." Natural gas = fossil fuel. Don't worry though, it isn't like the speaker of the House needs to understand energy issues   (msnbc.msn.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

14381 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2008 at 2:06 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



311 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-08-26 02:45:55 PM  

MerlinX


(Not that the internal combustion engine is efficient)


The Otto cycle engine? Definitely not. However, there are other non-reciprocating-piston-based internal-combustion engines: they should not be lumped together.
 
2008-08-26 02:46:41 PM  
i306.photobucket.com">
 
2008-08-26 02:46:55 PM  
Any increases in natural gas production will be undone by the increased use of natural gas to make fertilizer for crops that will then be turned into biofuels. The end result will actually be less energy available for consumers.
 
2008-08-26 02:47:42 PM  
Nabb1: The GOP certainly has no claim to the high ground, either. There doesn't seem to be much give and take or even any semblance of people trying to build consensus on this, or much else for that matter.

I'm sure there's people on both sides trying to build consensus. But since Rove turned changing your mind into political fodder for your opponent, nobody wants to budge.
 
2008-08-26 02:48:01 PM  

Brew78: Nabb1: Or, shall we just adopt a nihilistic ethical standard for our country's leaders?

kinda, yeah. sadly.


/if only Puff Daddy would really gun down PETA...


media3.dropshots.com
 
2008-08-26 02:48:07 PM  
BMulligan: Really? He wants to control a resource that is being depleted at the rate of almost 10 million acre-feet annually, and will likely disappear within as little as 25 years?

As a matter of fact.
 
2008-08-26 02:48:35 PM  

GaryPDX: Obdicut: GaryPDX: Those are one thing Bush did good on. Nobody gives him any credit for all the alternative energy progress for the last 8 years. I can't say very much good about Bush but I've been working toward off grid status and these are Bush incentives so it's of particular interest to me. They have a scheduled end date and anything not complete by Dec 31st loses 20% of their investment.

Pelosi is solely responsible because she tabled the 09 Federal budget for the next administration, which means billions are at stake and there's one person responsible for this dilema...Nancy Pelosi.

The hot potato is they are "Bush" incentives. Now Pelosi has 20000 shares in T Boone Pickens?...c'mon..smell the coffee, mang.

Are you completely unaware of GOP opposition to those energy incentives?

Yes..some GOP'ers..the oil business people..but it was Bush who pushed them through and people invested in them. Why do you think we have wind farms all over the place? The ethanol plants are part of it too, over 100 have been built in the last few years. We just need the right source instead or corn.

BTW..Pickens is a Republican. The technology is out there. My contention is, do you want to trade one "energy tyrant" for another or do you want everyone individually energy independent?

I prefer the latter.


Yes the GOP would never trade one energy tyrant
www.undp.org
for another:
www.rubinville.com
or
blogs.citypages.com
ALL HAIL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!
 
2008-08-26 02:49:04 PM  

Kenny B: ">


Then don't vote for either.
I DARE you to not vote for either.
 
2008-08-26 02:49:49 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: ilambiquated:
One of the best things about solar energy is the fact that it automatically ramps up in the daytime when energy consumption peaks.

One of the worst things about solar energy? Night.

/and bird shiat


Wrong. That's one of the best things. You obviously haven't studied the issue much.

Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day shutting down power plants for the night. Solar helps solve that problem.

Small gas plants that can be switched on and off easily are part of that. They don't bear the main load, just fill the gaps.

Traditional fossil fuel energy generation is based on the false idea (which you seem to have as well) that energy consumption is constant. It is not.

Nukes are based on the same idea.

A mixed regime including gas would replace the traditional fossil fuel regime with something much more flexible and efficient.
 
2008-08-26 02:49:57 PM  
IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: GaryPDX, do you have a link to the incentives and also documentation that shows they're to expire?

See my boobies in this thread.

/I'm not defending Gary. Just tired of people two lazy to Google for themselves, or read the thread.
 
2008-08-26 02:51:02 PM  

adiabat: Unlike Pelosi, the President and Vice President have all of their investments in Blind trusts.


Yah, blind trusts. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
 
2008-08-26 02:51:09 PM  
What an idiot. Everyone knows that oil comes from trees.
 
2008-08-26 02:51:19 PM  

ilambiquated: A mixed regime including gas would replace the traditional fossil fuel regime with something much more flexible and efficient.


Yeah, but what about the bird shiat?
 
2008-08-26 02:51:30 PM  

Rev.K: I heat my house with panda bear oil and that's the way I likes it!


I far prefer dolphin oil. It produces 36% more greenhouse gasses than panda oil, and the ocean is full of the squeaking, smiling bastards. The supply will never run out.
 
2008-08-26 02:51:31 PM  

Flab: See my boobies in this thread.


Email is a little more discreet for that kind of thing, you know.

/EIP
//As long as you are a cute girl.
///If you aren't, then just a shot from the neck down to the belly button is fine.
 
2008-08-26 02:51:34 PM  

canyoneer: Look at Nancy's record on immigration:


What do you know - Pelosi is actually supporting something I believe in for a change. Good on her.

fatal_exception: He wants to gain control of an essential resource that by all accounts is becoming a scarce commodity? You should be able to see money in that. He does.


Short term, sure. Long term, not so much (new window): "Many farmers in the Texan High Plains, which rely particularly on the underground source, are now turning away from irrigated agriculture as they become aware of the hazards of overpumping."
 
2008-08-26 02:51:37 PM  
ilambiquated: Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day shutting down power plants for the night. Solar helps solve that problem.

Over 50% of the energy produced in the US is lost due to inefficiency. It's not sexy, but increasing efficiency would be cheaper and more effective at cutting our fossil fuel use than putting solar panels on every roof.
 
2008-08-26 02:51:38 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: GaryPDX: Obdicut: Yeah, well, that was pretty stupid. I get what she meant, but...

Pelosi is pretty damn stupid on energy policy. She really hasn't helped us out in California with our many woes on that issue. She never seems to focus on anything remotely practical.

Natural gas is a great energy source, though.

I like natural gas. I'm looking at a system that will power my current house all on natural gas, including electricity. Wait until Jan 1st when all the solar and wind projects that aren't complete start shutting down because of the incentive expirations. We have 19 commercial solar and wind projects in Oregon at risk of shutting down that's to Pelosi. Twenty percent of all those investments is BIG money. Look around, all the current project are in high gear to complete by the end of the year.

GaryPDX, do you have a link to the incentives and also documentation that shows they're to expire?

/Seriously
//Would be useful for work
///TIA


Someone posted this earlier..

pops (new window)

I posted this one

pops
(new window)

All current projects must complete by Dec 31st 2008, beyond that..none of this unless something changes.
 
2008-08-26 02:52:45 PM  

Flab:

/I'm not defending Gary. Just tired of people two too lazy to Google for themselves, or read the thread.


;)

I found a good link in the thread, but the date was Jan '08 and I'm trying to find something a bit more up to date. :)
 
2008-08-26 02:52:53 PM  

jjorsett: Apparently she thinks the natural gas fairies bring the stuff to us.


img119.imageshack.us
 
2008-08-26 02:53:03 PM  

Necropenguin: adiabat: Unlike Pelosi, the President and Vice President have all of their investments in Blind trusts.

Yah, blind trusts. Wink wink, nudge nudge.


Also, Cheney's Halliburton income is in a blind trust. They just put money in a suitcase and leave it in his garage and he's all "w00t, free money! wonder where that came from".
 
2008-08-26 02:54:13 PM  

ilambiquated: Over the course of the past few hundred years mankind has been moving away from carbon and towards hydrogen as a fuel source.

Oil has a higher hydrogen-carbon ratio than coal. Gas has a higher hydrogen-carbon ratio than oil.

So gas is often viewed as a "progressive" energy source.


I look forward to the day when we progress to the highest hydrogen-carbon ratios, finally crossing the threshhold into a 100% carbo-hydrate economy!
 
2008-08-26 02:54:21 PM  
Maybe he thinks that natural gas is the stuff like dinosaurs farts, cow farts, and what he you get when a politician opens his mouth.

whoops, the last one ought to be lies.
 
2008-08-26 02:55:56 PM  
Non Traditional? It's been way up there in usage for a while.

www.umich.edu

The big difference is that it is relatively cheap right now, the way oil was a few years ago. (I think natural gas is currently less than a 1/3 the cost per BTU, but I'm sure that will change soon.)

It really bugs me that the Picken's plan includes fossil fuels, when the press is really focusing on the wind energy.

It all comes down to more public dollars benefiting private investments of public officials. Even worse is that it's done under the whole "clean energy" umbrella, so people thing it's good for the environment. The red flags should be popping up everywhere.
 
2008-08-26 02:56:01 PM  

GaryPDX:
Someone posted this earlier..

pops (new window)

I posted this one

pops (new window)

All current projects must complete by Dec 31st 2008, beyond that..none of this unless something changes.


Danke!
 
2008-08-26 02:56:47 PM  

NikolaiFarkoff: I'm sure she meant "traditional fossil fuels." Non-story.

This is what's wrong with politics today. Nobody reads between the lines in communication; everyone is a literalist. I fear for what the next generation of politicians are going to be like. Because it won't be better than what we have now, that's for sure.


Nice spin, you working for FOX?
 
2008-08-26 02:56:58 PM  
www.geni.org

Unlike the US, Europe has a highly integrated energy grid - even in the East. This is important for future energy policy because it gives the Europeans much more latitude to mix energy sources.

Electricity is much more reliable in Europe than in the US. They simply do not have the problem of the grid shutting down every time it snows.

Part of this is because of more investment in the local grid - power line tend to be under ground. But a big part is simply that they European high voltage grid is better run than the American equivalent.
 
2008-08-26 02:57:30 PM  
Try it all.

Geothermal, biofuels, solar, the experimental IR antenna arrays, wind, more drilling for oil and natural gas, coal, nuclear- do all of them.

Some of them will pan out. Some will fail. Others will need some new engineering tricks to be cost-effective. There probably won't be a single solution to the rising demand for inexpensive energy. We need to rid ourselves of this insane craving for a panacea solution, because it's hampering our chances of accomplishing anything at all.

The ideal solution would be some method of generating electricity cheaply and safely in the home. Until this is practical, try everything.

Unless you don't enjoy our current level of civilization. If that's the case, carry on with your partisan crap.
 
2008-08-26 02:58:03 PM  

canyoneer: You're being had, Democrats. You're rubber-stamping the actions of greedy sh*theads based on a lot of insincere platitudes.


img169.imageshack.us
This THIS THIS.
 
2008-08-26 02:58:25 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: MerlinX

(Not that the internal combustion engine is efficient)


The Otto cycle engine? Definitely not. However, there are other non-reciprocating-piston-based internal-combustion engines: they should not be lumped together.


Modern external combustion systems are more efficient than the Otto or Diesel-cycle engines. They just take longer to get going. All of the oil and coal burning power-plants are just modern steam boilers.

Has anyone built a steam-engine passenger vehicle lately?
 
2008-08-26 02:58:26 PM  

The Icelander: ilambiquated: Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day shutting down power plants for the night. Solar helps solve that problem.

Over 50% of the energy produced in the US is lost due to inefficiency. It's not sexy, but increasing efficiency would be cheaper and more effective at cutting our fossil fuel use than putting solar panels on every roof.


I woudn't be surprised, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
 
2008-08-26 03:00:57 PM  
Yeah, she's moron. It's just a coincidence that she bought herself a $250,000 position in Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (ticker symbol:CLNE), T. Boone Pickens' natural gas filling station start up company, right before coming out in favor of natural gas.

See Link (new window)

She would never take advantage of her power and position to profit personally. Only a greedy Republican capitalist pig would would use inside information like that. Not a free-thinking, liberal, for-the-people Democrat like Nancy.

/sarcasm
 
2008-08-26 03:02:51 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: Flab:

/I'm not defending Gary. Just tired of people two too lazy to Google for themselves, or read the thread.

;)

I found a good link in the thread, but the date was Jan '08 and I'm trying to find something a bit more up to date. :)


When Nancy tabled the 09 Federal budget, these expirations became imminent. I've been arguing it since she did that, about 2 months. Finally some attention is being brought to bear. I don't challenge the ultimate energy independence, I challenge Pelosi playing a dirty little game with taxpayer money and Congressional power. I'd rather keep these incentives (Pickens would get them too) for everyone so all projects can move forward. The way this is playing out looks like a energy power grab while Nancy is in bed with Pickens at other peoples expense on the tax incentives.

Of course Nancy wants to keep that little factoid secret. 22000 shares secret. That could be a multi-trillion dollar investment.
 
2008-08-26 03:03:14 PM  

MaxxLarge: Funny part is, I know that all the righties who will jump all over her for leaving out "traditional" before "fossil fuels" are the same ones that actually think "offshore drilling" is a sound energy policy. And the irony of this will sail right over their dense little skulls.

At least she ACKNOWLEDGES that there alternative energy sources, you twits. But you just keep on backing the GOP and their ongoing plan to financially and ethically bankrupt all of Western society. See how that works out for ya.


In Gary's case, his issue is he sees a conflict of interest in Pelosi's involvement.
 
2008-08-26 03:04:36 PM  

Erebus1954: Yeah, she's moron. It's just a coincidence that she bought herself a $250,000 position in Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (ticker symbol:CLNE), T. Boone Pickens' natural gas filling station start up company, right before coming out in favor of natural gas.

See Link (new window)

She would never take advantage of her power and position to profit personally. Only a greedy Republican capitalist pig would would use inside information like that. Not a free-thinking, liberal, for-the-people Democrat like Nancy.

/sarcasm


If she gets away with it, I'm buying stock. Best insider trading situation EVAR!!!
 
2008-08-26 03:04:56 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: BMulligan: Really? He wants to control a resource that is being depleted at the rate of almost 10 million acre-feet annually, and will likely disappear within as little as 25 years?

As a matter of fact.


Thanks for the link. Leopards don't change their spots, and Pickens is still a douche.
 
2008-08-26 03:05:10 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: ilambiquated: A mixed regime including gas would replace the traditional fossil fuel regime with something much more flexible and efficient.

Yeah, but what about the bird shiat?


We use the wind turbines to kill all the birds, just like some of the enviro-weenies claim they will.
 
2008-08-26 03:05:11 PM  

RevMercutio: MaxxLarge: Funny part is, I know that all the righties who will jump all over her for leaving out "traditional" before "fossil fuels" are the same ones that actually think "offshore drilling" is a sound energy policy. And the irony of this will sail right over their dense little skulls.

At least she ACKNOWLEDGES that there alternative energy sources, you twits. But you just keep on backing the GOP and their ongoing plan to financially and ethically bankrupt all of Western society. See how that works out for ya.

In Gary's case, his issue is he sees a conflict of interest in Pelosi's involvement.


Big time.
 
2008-08-26 03:05:53 PM  
MR. BROKAW: ...Vice President Al Gore's plan to take electrical power generation completely off the grid that it's now on...within 10 years, and do it based primarily on solar and keep in place nuclear power where it is right now. Do you think that that's a practical idea?

REP. PELOSI: Well, I think that it's a challenge that we should try to meet. We had passed in the House--not in the Senate; part of the problem, the Senate obstruction of the Republicans in the Senate. But we passed in the House our renewable electricity standard which would have us by 2020 reducing--taking 15 percent of our electricity and making that on renewable and efficiency resources. Senator--Vice President Gore's proposal is much grander. Our platform, the Democratic platform, calls for 20 percent by 2025. We must move in this direction. And, Tom, when we do, it's just going to take off.


i125.photobucket.com
 
2008-08-26 03:06:04 PM  
Erebus1954: She would never take advantage of her power and position to profit personally. Only a greedy Republican capitalist pig would would use inside information like that. Not a free-thinking, liberal, for-the-people Democrat like Nancy.

That one of the many reasons I was laughing at the "San Francisco values" talking point Sean O'Limbaugh were harping on two years ago. She's just like the Good Ole Boys™.
 
2008-08-26 03:09:30 PM  
Methane (new window)

Apart from gas fields an alternative method of obtaining methane is via biogas generated by the fermentation of organic matter including manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste (including landfills), or any other biodegradable feedstock, under anaerobic conditions.

That doesn't seem like fossil fuel to me.
 
2008-08-26 03:11:54 PM  

Flab: Erebus1954: She would never take advantage of her power and position to profit personally. Only a greedy Republican capitalist pig would would use inside information like that. Not a free-thinking, liberal, for-the-people Democrat like Nancy.

That one of the many reasons I was laughing at the "San Francisco values" talking point Sean O'Limbaugh were harping on two years ago. She's just like the Good Ole Boys™.


Ah yes.. San Francisco values. The sanctuary city where Foreign nationals shoot up unarmed (by law) Americans with AKs in the streets.
 
2008-08-26 03:12:11 PM  
give me doughnuts: We use the wind turbines to kill all the birds, just like some of the enviro-weenies claim they will.

The birdkilling windmills are the older models that are being replaced. The enviro-weenies who are stil claiming this usually turn out to be NIMBYists.
 
2008-08-26 03:12:37 PM  
i124.photobucket.com
 
2008-08-26 03:12:57 PM  

Craig341: Ah yes, republicans calling the Speaker of the house a coont and a lying sack of shiat.

You keep on shooting the messenger; it's worked so well for you.


It isnt just repubs saying this, if you would read the internets, you would know this.
 
2008-08-26 03:13:44 PM  

Corvus: Methane (new window)

Apart from gas fields an alternative method of obtaining methane is via biogas generated by the fermentation of organic matter including manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste (including landfills), or any other biodegradable feedstock, under anaerobic conditions.

That doesn't seem like fossil fuel to me.


I am sorry, I missed the part of T Boone Pickens plan (that she supports) where it says wind farms will power any of the ways of getting natural gas listed above. In fact I am sure the cornerstone of his plan which she supports is for more drilling for natural gas. Which makes it, in the context of her speech, a fossil fuel. Nevermind she discusses America's natural Gas deposits.
 
2008-08-26 03:14:17 PM  

ilambiquated: Unlike the US, Europe has a highly integrated energy grid - even in the East. This is important for future energy policy because it gives the Europeans much more latitude to mix energy sources.

Electricity is much more reliable in Europe than in the US. They simply do not have the problem of the grid shutting down every time it snows.

Part of this is because of more investment in the local grid - power line tend to be under ground. But a big part is simply that they European high voltage grid is better run than the American equivalent.


How do their electrical energy costs compare to ours? I'm curious.
 
2008-08-26 03:14:20 PM  

Corvus: Methane (new window)

Apart from gas fields an alternative method of obtaining methane is via biogas generated by the fermentation of organic matter including manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste (including landfills), or any other biodegradable feedstock, under anaerobic conditions.

That doesn't seem like fossil fuel to me.


I can do that too:

Natural Gas

"Natural gas is a gaseous fossil fuel consisting primarily of methane but including significant quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and pentane-heavier hydrocarbons removed prior to use as a consumer fuel -as well as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulfide."

Had she said METHANE it'd be a non-issue.

/If you ignore the whole "global warming" aspect of Methane
 
2008-08-26 03:15:56 PM  

Flab: give me doughnuts: We use the wind turbines to kill all the birds, just like some of the enviro-weenies claim they will.

The birdkilling windmills are the older models that are being replaced. The enviro-weenies who are stil claiming this usually turn out to be NIMBYists.


Oh you haven't heard the latest? Now the enviro-weenies are worried about wind turbines making bat lungs explode fercrisakes.

Link (new window)
 
2008-08-26 03:16:04 PM  

Flab: The birdkilling windmills are the older models that are being replaced. The enviro-weenies who are stil claiming this usually turn out to be NIMBYists.


I just read how they fark with bat "vision" and can cause lungs damage.

/still for them.


GaryPDX: Ah yes.. San Francisco values. The sanctuary city where Foreign nationals shoot up unarmed (by law) Americans with AKs in the streets.


After being protected from prior convictions by tat same city.
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report