Discussions

[1] 2 3 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map.

• 
  2600hz
  

  Posts:
  3

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/15/2009 03:46 AM

  Interesting....

  Every day we hear about energy crises, the prices are highest ever, and suddenly they found new energy reserves for next 50 years. C'mon, who is gang-banging who? This history repeat's itself every few years from the beginning of gas/fuel exploitation. Every aspect of every industry is grabbing money, no matter of pollution, unbalancing nature, seeding lies and so on... Said thing is that we all know this, we're just looking, consuming, and generally doing nothing against this dead of our civilisation.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    erbium
    

    Posts:
    110

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/15/2009 08:18 PM

    Re: Interesting....

    Actually, prices are NOT among the highest ever.
    Adjusted for inflation, caused by govt printing money, the prices are on par with gasoline of 30 years ago.
    
    Electricity costs are also going up, and in large part due to taxes added on to basic costs in addition to fuel increases.
    
    Costs now are going back up but this is largely due to increased demand all around the world.  At other times, govt's tax oil companies for 'excess profits'.  This is the money that would be used to dig up the oil and gas.  The gas fairy doesn't go poof and produce the stuff. 
    
    Hugo Chavez is discovering this in Venezuela.  After nationalizing oil companies he's finding the tar sands don't just pop up out of the ground and refine themselves.  He was even horrid enuf to fire anyone who wasn't a member of his political party. 
    
    Russia has done pretty much the same thing, squandering the money produced instead of maintaining output.
    
    Mexico has been using oil as a national cash cow and a bloated crony employment system for year and now their output is declining because they didn't use much of the money to invest in maintaining output.  They may be a net importer soon.
    
    Gushers only occured in the very early days.  Producing oil and gas now takes large amounts of money and energy (from the same oil and gas). 

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      JDBailey
      

      Posts:
      13

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      10/17/2009 11:26 PM

      RIP: Interesting....

      I agree with the first post “history repeats every few years ” maintaining price is not about output, it is about control, Venezuela, Russia, EU, US, China, Arabia … nepotism in the energy sector and Wall Street Brokers, World Bankers, local/national politicians ... is about exploitation.
      
      Capitalist economics as practiced globally serves the same master “maintain the status quo” mantra. The “prices are on par with gasoline of 30 years ago” indicates zero-gain or “FAILURE!” The same can be said for the auto, financial, insurance ... (almost all) sectors over the last 30-plus years, because (IMO) the “as practiced (pseudo) capitalism” makes for good public-consumption dogma, propaganda, rhetoric for technological feudal economics.  Cyclic failures (increasingly frequent) indicate systemic problems exist that must be resolved, preaching the same good-old-times economic dogma is like praying for a miraculous death.  IOW: What have we done lately for advancing the human condition and destiny (NVFM)?
      
      Hugo Chavez, the gas fairy, and most EU and US citizens believe in magic and gods. They seek solace and solutions in the BS dogma and mantras of others (plutocrats, politicians, mega-religion clerics... no significant difference).
      
      Anyway, “going back up” ... “increased demand” … “govt's tax” ... “companies for 'excess profits'” … more failures at a later date.
      
      Reality is self induced hallucination.
      Effective reason negates affected dogma.
      Management reality never predicts actuality.

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        Mapou
        

        Posts:
        65

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        10/18/2009 03:55 AM

        Calm Down

        Wow, man. Calm down. You're hoping for a revolution or what? Well, I'm afraid you're going to get it sooner than you think and it doesn't look very pretty from my vantage point. I hope I'm wrong but hey, this sh!t cannot last much longer, can it now?

        Rate this comment:
      • 
        itchyeyes
        

        Posts:
        2

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        10/21/2009 11:09 AM

        Re: RIP: Interesting....

        You are seriously misinformed on the way in which our energy economy works. For starters, you're missing the crucial distinction between natural gas and oil.
        
        Oil is a global commodity that is refined to produce gasoline. Natural gas is a national commodity, in the US, that has no connection with gasoline at all, and is primarily used in household heating and electric power generation. The only real natural gas exporter in the world is Russia, who exports primarily to Europe. Almost all natural gas consumed in the US is produced within the US. Nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia actually produce very little natural gas and play almost no role in our natural gas economy.

        Rate this comment:
• 
  Mapou
  

  Posts:
  65

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/15/2009 04:37 AM

  Wow

  Thank you, Mr. Rotman. This is an exquisitely well-written, well-researched and balanced article. Given the current state of our geo-political, ecomonic and scientific wisdom, it makes a lot of sense to push for increased domestic production of natural gas. As stated in the article, this would give the US enough breathing room to search for envrironmentally benign alternatives. However, converting coal-fired power plants to NG and building the massive infrastructure that will be necessary to extract the gas from the shale and deliver it to far-flung customers will cost hundred of billions if not trillions of dollars over the next 10 or 20 years. And, of course, appeasing the politically powerful environmental lobby is another story altogether.
  
  But what if we were to discover that an infinitely better source of energy was staring us in the face all along? What if physicists suddenly woke up from their stupor and realized that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed? What if they came to their senses and discovered that properly applying the principle of causality to motion leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are immersed in an immense sea of clean energy, lots and lots of it? There are solid reasons to suppose that we are on a verge of just such a breakthrough in physics that will forever change the way we travel and produce energy. How would this discovery affect the fossil fuel, energy production and transportation industries? The answer is that it would severely disrupt them and possibly put the nation's security and welfare at risk unless adequate preparations were undertaken in advance. My advice to policy makers in this arena is this: Take a very close look at the writing on the wall and do not dismiss it out of hand just because it sounds like crackpot nonsense to the cognoscenti. You will live to regret it.
  
  The Problem with Motion:
  http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    2600hz
    

    Posts:
    3

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/15/2009 05:05 AM

    Re: Wow

    Probably people have already discovered limitless non-polluting source of energy, but It's in some well locked, government drawer.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      nolamike
      

      Posts:
      1

      Reply

      11/27/2009 12:30 AM

      Re: Wow

      If the Government had a limitless source of energy it wouldn't be in a drawer. It would be on warheads and running all of our cities. Think about it.

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    jjs
    

    Posts:
    11

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/15/2009 09:08 AM

    Re: Wow

    What if you learned the scientific method? 
    There's a reason you're ignored - you have not built any proof of your assertations.  Claiming it's "obvious" doesn't work.  Scientific method:
    1. Develop hypothosis that explains observations.
    2. Develop a test case that would prove the hypothosis wrong.
    3. Carry out the test - if it doesn't prove the hypothesis wrong, develop another test.
    4. Ensure results of hypothesis and tests are available for others to repeat to check your work.
    5. After sufficient tests fail to disprove hypothesis, and it explains facts better than previous hypotheses, and it is widely tested by others, it will be accepted as a theory (until a better theory comes along).
    
    You've barely started with step 1 - and completely ignored the remaining steps.  Until you do them, don't expect the scientific and engineering communities to latch on to your ideas.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      Mapou
      

      Posts:
      65

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      10/15/2009 01:52 PM

      Re: Wow

      What if you learned the scientific method?
      
      What if you did?
      
      There's a reason you're ignored
      
      Well, you sure fooled me.
      
      - you have not built any proof of your assertations.
      
      You mean the assertion that motion is causal and that, as a result, we are immersed in energy? That's not an assertion. It's a logical conclusion that results from the simple application of the principle of causality to motion. If you're a physicist, I did your homework for you. You should be grateful.
      
      The fact that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles is neither my claim nor my hypothesis. It's just simple logic and I am sorry that very few members of the scientific and engineering communities are able to grasp it or acknowledge it. But then again, a lifetime of brainwashing can be a very powerful thing.
      
      My claim is that the lattice can be used for both super fast propulsion and energy production. The proof of that will be revealed at a time and place of my choosing.
      
      Claiming it's "obvious" doesn't work.
      
      Well, it should be obvious to anybody who has a modicum of logic that we are moving in a vast ocean of energy. And energy can be used to do useful work, right? Why the physics community cannot see something so simple is inexcusable, to the say the least.
      
      Scientific method:
      1. Develop hypothosis that explains observations.
      2. Develop a test case that would prove the hypothosis wrong.
      3. Carry out the test - if it doesn't prove the hypothesis wrong, develop another test.
      4. Ensure results of hypothesis and tests are available for others to repeat to check your work.
      5. After sufficient tests fail to disprove hypothesis, and it explains facts better than previous hypotheses, and it is widely tested by others, it will be accepted as a theory (until a better theory comes along).
      
      You've barely started with step 1 - and completely ignored the remaining steps. Until you do them, don't expect the scientific and engineering communities to latch on to your ideas.
      
      Wrong. I have no expectation from the scientific and engineering communities. If I am right on this (and I am) I need neither their approval nor their blessing. I'm just giving the powers that be a friendly warning (don't say nobody told you because I did).

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    gerardomarina
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/15/2009 12:29 PM

    Re: Wow

    this "wow" post is phishing, after i visit the blog following the link i started to receive spam,
    
    regards

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      Mapou
      

      Posts:
      65

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      10/15/2009 01:27 PM

      Re: Wow

      You're lying and you know it. Why?

      Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 Next »