Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by essay on November 19, 2010 at 7:32

do you really think it's great, starting a brand new thread that doesn't even contain an original thought on the main page of a web site dedicated to shale gas about a study that uses "the best available science" to "conclude that natural gas is no better than coal and may in fact be worse than coal" when any objective observer with even a modicum of research ability can cite any number of credible sources that directly contradict this garbage? if it had been in the pol forum i would have just ignored it entirely unless it attracted much interest from people concerned about the contents.

sesport has a history that goes way back before i even started lurking here, one of equivocation, intellectual dishonesty, and taking things out of context. she has also repeatedly tried to hide behind the forum rules when our "discussions" don't go her way. i have personally been threatened 4-5 times.

the only enemies you'll make here with your apparent ability to evaluate things in a logical manner are those that can't or won't think for themselves. i for one am tired of the politically correct nonsense of respecting ridiculous opinions. call it what it is and move on. if these people had any hard data do you really think it would be difficult to find?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 19, 2010 at 8:50

I did find it both interesting and useful, in that I have financial interests in shale gas, and if there were any merit to the claims, this "study" could have a negative impact on those interests. If I were as informed as some of you all that have been looking into this stuff for years, I would have probably had Les' info readily at hand and been able to dismiss the claim out of hand; if nothing else, the discussion caused me to use my resources to go see what, if any, credibility the author of these studies might have, and I also now have ready access to the info Les provided. I did think the posting was a bit alarmist, but it is all part of this trend we see in Gasland, the 60 Minutes piece, etc., and it is useful for "us newbies" to get a better handle on the data, so we can respond to these things. So I gathered there was some history going on here (not being completely socially dense), but I still found the basic discussion useful; This is not being PC on my part; I absolutely hate political correctness - it is more often used to stifle an honest evaluation of conflicting views than anything else (and I have spent roughly half my adult life in academic settings, really annoyed about the whole PC thing - it has become a tool for suppressing critical (ie., rational) thought in universities). So no offense intended; I was just interested in what all parties had to say, and at least in this discussion I thought we were all sort of working in the same direction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 19, 2010 at 9:16

if the rules are now that we can talk politics on the main page as they relate to ng i'm fine with that.

no offense taken, and i'm just making sure you know where i'm coming from and what the situation here has been like. i welcome logic and rationality with open arms.

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 19, 2010 at 9:43

I should probably look up the rules on main page posting myself; I try to not start threads that are total nonsense as a general rule, but put RR Parish-specific stuff directly in that forum, and then try to subclassify more generic stuff but start off on the main page so it has visibility, knowing it will age off pretty quickly if it is completely uninteresting. Anyway, reasonable resolution on all this in the end, and I have a collection of pdf's on the topic to peruse now :-)

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 20, 2010 at 3:50

Thanks, Robert. Yes, working responsibly in the same direction would be my intent anyway. Review my first few posts and this should be evident.

IMO, we should be aware of the arguments coming from all directions if we are to promote the use of ng. This is a competitive business, and some of ng's competitors are bigger & louder.

While we may agree that the GHG's are a non-issue, wouldn't our best & strongest argument be to tackle the issues involving particulates, comparatively speaking, when touting ng's benefits?

thanks again, 80)

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 20, 2010 at 3:42

Again, baseless accusations. Also, as I've pointed out before, there is a mechanism in place for complaints if one feels threatened. Or perhaps there just really isn't enough factual evidence? hmmmm...

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 17, 2010 at 3:18

Sesport, I reviewed this "report" in March when originally released and the attached identifies some of its basic flaws.

I have also attached a Pace Study that is more technically rigorous. Although it comapares Coal to LNG, the values would be similar for US produced shale gas. Note that coal lifecycle GHG emissions are more than 2.5 times those of imported LNG when used to fuel power generation.

Attachments:

• Howarth Report - Analysis.pdf, 48 KB
• LCA_Assumptions_LNG_and_Coal_Feb092.pdf, 147 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 17, 2010 at 6:53

Hi Les,
Thanks for these great starter rebuttals! They come a lot closer to having some actual data, based on a pretty quick skim. I am going to spend a little time plowing around in the journals to see what all has been published by these Cornell guys; will report back if there is anything interesting. I had always just done the simple chemistry analysis to feel okay about the "NG produces less in the way of greenhouse gases" claim (you have a heck of a lot of reduced H in methane, and oxidizing that produces a reasonable additional amount of energy over just oxidizing the C (which is closer to what you are doing with coal, which has less H per C, being mostly high molecular weight aromatics), so you must have a heck of a lot more energy produced per unit of carbon dioxide produced). I am presuming that there is also some pretty good data showing that NG burns cleaner than coal with way less effort involving in insuring it burns cleaner - given that you have both N and S chemically bonded to the C in coal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 17, 2010 at 10:48

Thank you, Les. I just saw the potential for another pachyderm problem, figured forewarned is forearmed.

Appreciate the links, too.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 17, 2010 at 20:15

I looked Howarth's career publications up - he has mostly been involved in what could be classified as fertilizer runoff issues and the effect on marine ecosystems (I am oversimplifying a bit; he has about 100 publications over the last 30 years, a couple of very early (not accessible online) ones have titles that lead me to believe they are perhaps critical of deep sea drilling near major fisheries (a view that has some merits in my opinion); of the last 30 there is one that addresses the C cycle, almost all the rest are N issues. He has recently plunged into the GHG area, but does not have a reviewed publication record in the GHG area that I saw (but his Cornell webpage lists a GHG project first, so there is probably some funding to be had). I have no problem with the area he has been working in - big agriculture does create some problems. BUT he has not been working on GHG and energy policy issues, that is the point. So his stuff on GHG's is sort of out of left field, it seems to me, and I did not find real science in a scientific journal subject to peer review (which in and of itself does not guarantee the quality of the work, but it is a starting point). Just a few inexpert observations on my part...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 17, 2010 at 23:23

Howaarth also cites the letter from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents and provides a link to their letter.

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/CCSP%20letter%20on%20energy%20&a...



thanks for the assist, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 18, 2010 at 4:17

what part of "BUT he has not been working on GHG and energy policy issues, that is the point. So his stuff on GHG's is sort of out of left field, it seems to me, and I did not find real science in a scientific journal subject to peer review" did you not understand?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page