<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Climate action game changer, Part 1: Is there a lot more natural gas than previously thought?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Rmoen http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/ Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:47:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/1 Thanks for the in depth discussion of natural gas supplies.  My research at http://www.energyplanusa.com leads me to the same conclusion: the United States has ample reserves of natural gas to replace dirty coal generation plants for ten, twenty or thirty years into the future.  Moreover, natural gas generation plants are reasonably priced compared to other 'clean' alternatives.  In my opinion natural gas should be viewed as a 'bridge' fuel until we are able to make the wholesale conversion to carbon-free nuclear power.

]]> Thanks for the in depth discussion of natural gas supplies.  My research at http://www.energyplanusa.com leads me to the same conclusion: the United States has ample reserves of natural gas to replace dirty coal generation plants for ten, twenty or thirty years into the future.  Moreover, natural gas generation plants are reasonably priced compared to other 'clean' alternatives.  In my opinion natural gas should be viewed as a 'bridge' fuel until we are able to make the wholesale conversion to carbon-free nuclear power.

]]> Comment #2 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/ Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:36:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/2 There's a problem in relying to much on a "less-polluting bridge fuel" in that it will difficult to transition away from that infrastructure when conversion to zero-pollution energy sources is needed.

Yes, it meets Waxman for 2020 climate goals, but it won't meet the 2050 goals.

If we switch over to mostly natural gas, and build most new power plants and infrastructure around it, we'll have a hard time tearin' it all out a mere 30 years after we invest billions in it just to switch over to even polluting sources that will be needed to meet the 2050 goals.

Best to avoid it as much as possible in favor of renewables.  That way, we meet the 2050 goals sooner, and only have to rebuild the industry once, instead of potentially twice.

]]> There's a problem in relying to much on a "less-polluting bridge fuel" in that it will difficult to transition away from that infrastructure when conversion to zero-pollution energy sources is needed.

Yes, it meets Waxman for 2020 climate goals, but it won't meet the 2050 goals.

If we switch over to mostly natural gas, and build most new power plants and infrastructure around it, we'll have a hard time tearin' it all out a mere 30 years after we invest billions in it just to switch over to even polluting sources that will be needed to meet the 2050 goals.

Best to avoid it as much as possible in favor of renewables.  That way, we meet the 2050 goals sooner, and only have to rebuild the industry once, instead of potentially twice.

]]> Comment #3 by veritone http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/ Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:53:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/3 Julian Darley, author of "High Noon for Natural Gas," and founder of Global Public Media was rather convinced that Natural Gas has peaked in North America. Perhaps that's not true. I also didn't see any mention of the EROEI for Shale Gas. I would've thought that would be something useful to know. And then I'm not inclined to trust industry sources too much. Still, I have the greatest respect for Joseph Romm and am willing to hear more. Is there more?

]]> Julian Darley, author of "High Noon for Natural Gas," and founder of Global Public Media was rather convinced that Natural Gas has peaked in North America. Perhaps that's not true. I also didn't see any mention of the EROEI for Shale Gas. I would've thought that would be something useful to know. And then I'm not inclined to trust industry sources too much. Still, I have the greatest respect for Joseph Romm and am willing to hear more. Is there more?

]]> Comment #4 by randino http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/ Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:00:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/4 Do not expect a lot of the people who fight to preserve our forests to jump up and down and go "goody, goody" about natural gas.  In Ohio, gas wells and pipe lines have raped areas such as the Mohican Memorial State Forest and Park.  The promised tax revenue of drilling has led to one attempt after another, to turn our state parks and nature preserves over to the drillers. In the Allegheny National Forest, natural gas wells and pipelines have a toxic legacy of forest fragmentation, abandoned wells that companies have walked away from, and the pollution of waterways.  I canoe down the Clarion River each fall, and you find yourself trying to enjoy this beautiful river, while ignoring the rotten egg smell of natural gas. Based on the map that was included in the article, natural gas may make the rubble of coal mining bounce, and be the final coup de grace to a region that has been sacrificed to the gods of our rape, loot and pillage energy system. 

What often looks great on the macro level, looks very different on the ground. Some people's hearts may have taken comfort with this article. My heart sank at the prospect of more laying of waste to the countryside.  If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Randy Cunningham  Cleveland, Ohio

]]> Do not expect a lot of the people who fight to preserve our forests to jump up and down and go "goody, goody" about natural gas.  In Ohio, gas wells and pipe lines have raped areas such as the Mohican Memorial State Forest and Park.  The promised tax revenue of drilling has led to one attempt after another, to turn our state parks and nature preserves over to the drillers. In the Allegheny National Forest, natural gas wells and pipelines have a toxic legacy of forest fragmentation, abandoned wells that companies have walked away from, and the pollution of waterways.  I canoe down the Clarion River each fall, and you find yourself trying to enjoy this beautiful river, while ignoring the rotten egg smell of natural gas. Based on the map that was included in the article, natural gas may make the rubble of coal mining bounce, and be the final coup de grace to a region that has been sacrificed to the gods of our rape, loot and pillage energy system. 

What often looks great on the macro level, looks very different on the ground. Some people's hearts may have taken comfort with this article. My heart sank at the prospect of more laying of waste to the countryside.  If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Randy Cunningham  Cleveland, Ohio

]]> Comment #5 by Rmoen http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/ Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:43:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/climate-action-game-changer-part-1-is-there-a-lot-more-natural-gas-than-pre/5 I live in Nevada.  The last thing I want are wind mills on every mountain range.  Yes, things look different on the ground but the ground looks different depending on where you live.

]]> I live in Nevada.  The last thing I want are wind mills on every mountain range.  Yes, things look different on the ground but the ground looks different depending on where you live.

]]>