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.

(USA Today)   Those clean natural gas buses are wrecking our climate   (usatoday.com) divider line 24
    More: Ironic, natural gas vehicle, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, California Energy Commission, greenhouse gases, fueling station, natural sources, fossil fuels, diesels  
•       •       •

3049 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Feb 2014 at 12:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-14 01:01:20 PM  
OUR BUSSES FART! WE DID IT!
 
2014-02-14 01:12:16 PM  
TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge
 
2014-02-14 01:21:06 PM  
Then, Sirs, I am wrecking the climate as I type this missive, SIrs!

/phoot.
 
2014-02-14 01:33:51 PM  

Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge


Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.
 
2014-02-14 01:55:40 PM  

ikanreed: Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.


Well, it's still better than coal.
 
2014-02-14 02:06:17 PM  

ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.


Thanks to natural gas, in 2012 the U.S. reached 70% of the Kyoto Protocol's goal for CO2 reduction. Accidentally.
 
2014-02-14 02:22:51 PM  

WelldeadLink: ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.

Thanks to natural gas, in 2012 the U.S. reached 70% of the Kyoto Protocol's goal for CO2 reduction. Accidentally.



Good thing to note. However your first sentence isn't entirely correct. How about we tweak it to instead say 'If we only consider the energy sector, and largely due to the shift towards natural gas from coal in energy production as well as the 2008 economic downturn [...]'.

In addition, we should also note that as the economy recovers and, with a small recent uptick in the price of natural gas, we're now unfortunately moving away from that emissions target.
 
2014-02-14 02:23:56 PM  

WelldeadLink: Thanks to natural gas, in 2012 the U.S. reached 70% of the Kyoto Protocol's goal for CO2 reduction. Accidentally.


FACT:  Kyoto is the anagram lover's Tokyo.
 
2014-02-14 02:24:55 PM  

WelldeadLink: ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.

Thanks to natural gas, in 2012 the U.S. reached 70% of the Kyoto Protocol's goal for CO2 reduction. Accidentally.


That must explain the winter -- we've already solved AGW ;)
 
2014-02-14 02:30:27 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:


Good thing to note. However your first sentence isn't entirely correct. How about we tweak it to instead say 'If we only consider the energy sector, and largely due to the shift towards natural gas from coal in energy production as well as the 2008 economic downturn [...]'.


And that's frankly terrifying -- this is being posed as a choice between permanent loss of GGDP (Global GDP) and some horrible eco-catastrophe, at least in some quarters.  No wonder people are in denial.
 
2014-02-14 03:01:34 PM  

ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drivel
1driv·el
intransitive verb \ˈdri-vəl\
: to talk in a very foolish or silly way
 
2014-02-14 03:21:32 PM  

Gary-L: ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drivel
1driv·el
intransitive verb \ˈdri-vəl\
: to talk in a very foolish or silly way


I meant the word I used, thank you very much, Mr. I-don't-get-descriptive-langage.  These are people whose mouth-froth can't be contained with elaborate systems of dykes and pumps.
 
2014-02-14 03:22:17 PM  
anything contributes to something
the only way to win is not to live...
 
2014-02-14 04:08:44 PM  

ikanreed: Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues. "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.


The upshot, IMHO, is that it is technically feasible to produce methane in large quantities using renewable energy, making methane a storage medium rather than a fossil fuel.

And as stated, it's better than coal. Certainly not without problems, but perfect is the enemy of better.

This fracking stuff is out of control, though. :/
=Smidge=
/Designs CNG fueling stations
 
2014-02-14 04:15:57 PM  

ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.


Think of it as an interim step.  He'd still rather have electric and solar.
 
2014-02-14 04:37:59 PM  

quizzical: Think of it as an interim step. He'd still rather have electric and solar.


... Most of the nat-gas usage is electric.  And solar finally got past its two decades of being ignored.  I was just disappointed, not outraged.  We're definitely in a better direction than under dubya, or under hypothetical Romney or McCain governments.   It just felt like Obama had been suckered by the Fracking Lobby who (in-turn) saw a good opportunity to make more money by making Natural Gas a patriotism thing.
 
2014-02-14 07:13:05 PM  
Ambitwistor
2014-02-14 01:55:40 PM

ikanreed: Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues. "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.

Well, it's still better than coal.
yeah those bush owned coal buses were the debil.

derp derp derp
 
2014-02-14 07:41:58 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: ikanreed: Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge

Yeah, I was really disappointed back in 2010 when Obama got behind Natural Gas as a solution to environmental issues.  "The war on coal" or whatever vague dribble came out of conservative mouths regarding it wasn't helpful, but Obama definitely put his money on the wrong horse there.

Thanks to natural gas, in 2012 the U.S. reached 70% of the Kyoto Protocol's goal for CO2 reduction. Accidentally.


Good thing to note. However your first sentence isn't entirely correct. How about we tweak it to instead say 'If we only consider the energy sector, and largely due to the shift towards natural gas from coal in energy production as well as the 2008 economic downturn [...]'.

In addition, we should also note that as the economy recovers and, with a small recent uptick in the price of natural gas, we're now unfortunately moving away from that emissions target.


Well yeah, but that was the point of Kyoto.  Doing pretty much ANYTHING requires energy.  Manufacturing in general is VERY energy-intensive.  And for the immediate future, all of the cheap, useful, plentiful enough, politically alive* power sources require using carbon.

So if you can artificially limit the amount of energy a country uses (via proxy of carbon), you can limit their GDP.  And then you can keep everyone poor.  (Or we can switch over to computers and services and stay within the same budget.  But there's some issues with that economic model.  Like the massive increase in income inequality that naturally comes from the shift to high-productivity-variance knowledge work and 0-cost-distribution leading to network effects and economies of scale).

And then if you write a treaty that requires every first-world country to cut their carbon emissions by the exact same amount, without accounting for the fact that America is growing notably faster in both population and GDP than EVERY OTHER first-world country of any real size, then you're requiring America to cut deeper and further than every other first world country, which requires further and deeper economic cuts.   And then the Senate tells you to go fark yourself 95-0.  (And then a few years later, Bush bows to reality and says "Yeah, I'm not even going to bother. It's dead," and everyone gets pissy at him.  I see why Clinton just let it lie.)

And if we had signed Kyoto, our ONLY choices were to double down on tech (Angry Birds is fairly low-carbon, and the telework revolution for example is a really interesting thing), kill off all of our domestic manufacturing, replace our entire power network at great expense, and suffer through a massive economic transition.  Mind you, I think that these are good things (Even the suffer is long-term good) that are all going to happen eventually, but not yet.

And that's how Europe tried to fark over the USA.  Again.  Seriously, why are they our allies again?  France in particular does more damage to their allies than their enemies and have ever since they got rid of the Bourbons.

*There are 2 types of renewable energy sources that have ever been worth a damn (Ie: Can be turned on and off at will and treated as dependable, instead of just when it's sunny or windy): Hydro and Nuclear.  And we're already using all the good hydro sites and nuclear is politically dead.  You can build solar and wind around the edges, but they're NEVER going to be 100% of the network.  Especially if you insist on giving your electrical engineers ulcers by creating tens of thousands of individual K/MW-level point sources scattered across the network that the power company does not control and has no ability to remove from the network before they cause another 2003-style blackout.  Like I'm not joking.  Get a power engineer really drunk sometime.
 
2014-02-14 09:42:39 PM  
The use of natural gas for buses is mainly designed to reduce pollution, not to fix global warming.
 
2014-02-14 10:00:40 PM  
There is no such thing as a clean fossil fuel. Cock punch anyone who says otherwise.
 
2014-02-14 10:29:16 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: There is no such thing as a clean fossil fuel. Cock punch anyone who says otherwise.


... there are plenty of clean fossil fuels.

CO2 is not in any way a pollutant, it doesn't do anything chemically to the environment, really (at least nothing significant).  It's a problem because it's a greenhouse gas, which is a different thing altogether.

The main difference being that since it's basically a clean/inert byproduct, scrubbing doesn't help and centralization of emissions won't solve the problem.

// Clean fuel mainly refers to nitrates, partially oxidized carbon, sulfates, and lead, if you're curious.  The things that make smog and acid rain or are directly poisonous to mammals.
 
2014-02-15 08:02:38 AM  

Smidge204: TL;DR:  It's not the vehicles, but the upstream supply chain.

Sounds like we should take the drilling companies and utilities to task for doing a sh*t job.
=Smidge


The article is a bit misleading because it implies the natural gas infrastructure is dedicated to vehicles. Natural gas was already being extracted for lots of uses (heat, power, chemical) so the infrastructure already exists. We would continue to extract it anyway for export even if we didn't use it in the US. Already having it is why it would be easier to use as a motor fuel than, say, hydrogen.

Really the best alternative to gasoline is propane, since it's a liquid fuel with a fairly high energy density per liter and some delivery infrastructure already. There are many places that sell propane and propane accessories.
 
db2
2014-02-15 08:26:12 AM  
As a Michigan resident, I'd just like to say GOOD. HURRY IT UP.
 
2014-02-15 03:13:37 PM  
Isn't this the same EXACT reasoning behind the Right Wing's accusations that hybrids are bad because of the toll it takes to produce and deliver the batteries, on the environment? So now Nat gas is bad because it's generally the Right that champions it's drilling?
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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