What if we never run out of oil?

LTLFTcomposite said:

adric22 said:

But what reason can you get a Tahoe driver to convert to an EV? You need the vehicle to offer something they can't get from their Tahoe. So you need to sell them on performance or saving money.

Click to expand...

Even that wouldn't do it, because they think it's a subversive plot.

Telsa is the best hope for the EV in a free market by appealing to everything that is great about consumerism.

BTW Ford sold 59,030 F-150s in April. That's more in six weeks than the 100,000 EVs/PHEVs mustered by the industry in 2 1/2 years. It's hard not to be pessimistic.

Click to expand...

you guys are funny, how long have viable EVs been on the market? give it time, lots and lots of time.
to put it in perspective one of my earliest cars was a 1973 toyota corolla, and back then on the east coast the only japanese cars seemed to be toyotas and datsuns that was it for a long time and they were few and far between, 15- 20 years or so down the road the japanese auto makers practically had complete domination over the US and world auto market.
EVs are a radical divergence from the norm, it will take a bit of time for them to go from niche mobiles to mainstream commuting/mommy cars, the best thing you can do as an early adaptor is to be patient and introduce your vehicle to others in a low key way. some of the elitist attitudes here will do nothing to win people over. alienating people by calling them unconscious or worse for not seeing things the way you do is not going to take it very far at all. knowledge and familiarity with the EVs is what will gain the acceptance of the average guy, not insults and faux sophistication

adric22 said:

AndyH said:

Americans have been doing it since at least the 1970s - specifically because of the environment.

I hope and pray that you, too, will be "defeated by facts" - sooner rather than later, if you please...

Click to expand...

Look.. I think you misunderstand where me and LTLFTcomposite are coming from. I absolutely agree with you. I am a believer in climate change. And I try to do my part. But I'll also tell you that I am not naive enough to think that everyone around me feels the same. I live in Texas and around here "environment" is a bad word. <snip>

For me, the high tech aspect of the car was the appeal. It was something I'd always dreamed of as a kid, right along with flying cars and space battles. Fortunately, this one came true. But what reason can you get a Tahoe driver to convert to an EV? You need the vehicle to offer something they can't get from their Tahoe. So you need to sell them on performance or saving money.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the view from 'up there', amigo. San Antonio isn't as progressive as Austin, but it's trying - and there is a fair amount of environmental awareness here. But I totally agree - it's not near enough. And absolutely - it's so very, very easy to prepare a very long list of examples of unconsciousness or group-think.

I think this is the very first place to look and to change:

Especially being that nobody else is willing to do it and thus my contribution would be almost meaningless.

Click to expand...

I know this place. How does this feel to you deep inside? Does it feel accurate, or does it leave you feeling like you're giving up? That still, small negative feeling that surfaces when I think this way is often quickly squashed down by ego or rationalization or whatever other label we might want to put on it, but it's a signal of the disconnect inside us - the gap between what we know we can do and our decision to not follow through.

Your contribution is far from meaningless - it's the only thing that can trigger the wider change. In order for a '100th monkey' response, we need '100 monkeys' - that's us. Nobody else is going to do it for us.

Just as we've said with EVs, the 'general public' is looking around to make sure they fit into their surroundings. Acting in harmony with yourself - that level of integrity - allows those around you to do the same. Seeing you gives them permission to follow.

It's not easy. Good luck!

Fellow Texans - don't believe the stereotypes that the terms 'Texans' or 'Texas ranchers' or 'Texas land owners' mean "anti-environment". Just because folks drive trucks or SUVs doesn't mean they're not interested in learning.

Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars
http://www.youtube.com/user/redfordcenter

http://www.fightinggoliathfilm.com/

Narrated by Robert Redford and produced by the Redford Center and Alpheus Media, FIGHTING GOLIATH: TEXAS COAL WARS follows the story of Texans fighting a high-stakes battle for clean air. The film introduces the unlikely partners — mayors, ranchers, CEOs, community groups, legislators, lawyers, faith groups, and citizens — that have come together to oppose the construction of 19 conventional coal-fired power plants that were slated to be built in Eastern and Central Texas and that were being fast-tracked by the Governor.

Click to expand...

We also have the Keystone XL pipeline fight in east Texas:

http://juliedermansky.blogspot.com/2012/10/fight-against-keystone-pipeline-in-east.html
http://nacstop.org/standwithjulia/
http://www.onearth.org/article/keystone-xl-texas-landowners-arrests
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYL1p4VRejc[/youtube]

http://www.kltv.com/story/19488041/tar-sans-blockade-continues-to-protest-in-etx
http://occupyhouston.org/2012/09/occupytranscanada/
http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/09/nyts-texas-news-ignores-tar-sands-blockade/

Those who are interested should be sure to read the comments on Charles Mann's article, especially those of Amory Lovins and Chris Nelder, and Mann's rebuttals:

http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/fossil-fuel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apvbguy said:

LTLFTcomposite said:

adric22 said:

But what reason can you get a Tahoe driver to convert to an EV? You need the vehicle to offer something they can't get from their Tahoe. So you need to sell them on performance or saving money.

Click to expand...

Even that wouldn't do it, because they think it's a subversive plot.

Telsa is the best hope for the EV in a free market by appealing to everything that is great about consumerism.

BTW Ford sold 59,030 F-150s in April. That's more in six weeks than the 100,000 EVs/PHEVs mustered by the industry in 2 1/2 years. It's hard not to be pessimistic.

Click to expand...

you guys are funny, how long have viable EVs been on the market? give it time, lots and lots of time.
to put it in perspective one of my earliest cars was a 1973 toyota corolla, and back then on the east coast the only japanese cars seemed to be toyotas and datsuns that was it for a long time and they were few and far between, 15- 20 years or so down the road the japanese auto makers practically had complete domination over the US and world auto market.
EVs are a radical divergence from the norm, it will take a bit of time for them to go from niche mobiles to mainstream commuting/mommy cars, the best thing you can do as an early adaptor is to be patient and introduce your vehicle to others in a low key way. some of the elitist attitudes here will do nothing to win people over. alienating people by calling them unconscious or worse for not seeing things the way you do is not going to take it very far at all. knowledge and familiarity with the EVs is what will gain the acceptance of the average guy, not insults and faux sophistication

Click to expand...

Hey! I like your post. Well stated.

GRA said:

Those who are interested should be sure to read the comments on Charles Mann's article, especially those of Amory Lovins and Chris Nelder, and Mann's rebuttals:

http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/fossil-fuel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

From the start, Guy, let's look at the validity of the authors. In this corner, we have a science writer. In this corner we have a physicist that specializes in energy.

Why should I read Mann's piece again?

Especially considering this:

Here I should confess to personal bias. Twelve years ago, a magazine asked me to write an article about energy supplies. While researching, I met petroleum geologists and engineers who told me about a still-experimental technique called hydraulic fracturing. Intrigued, I asked several prominent energy pundits about it. All scoffed at the notion that it would pay off. To be fair, some early fracking research was outlandish; three early trials involved setting off atomic weapons underground (they did produce natural gas, but it was radioactive). I don’t want to embarrass anyone I spoke with. I failed to exercise independent judgment, and did not mention hydraulic fracturing in my article, so I was just as mistaken. But I also don’t want to miss the boat again. Even though plenty of experts discount methane hydrate, I now am more inclined to pay attention to the geologists and engineers who foresee a second, fracking-type revolution with it, a revolution that—unlike the shale-gas rush, mostly a North American phenomenon—will ripple across the globe.

Click to expand...

And in the 'rebuttal' article, Mann 'disproves' Lovins comment about German emissions with a...link to Watt's climate denial site?! You've got to be kidding me!

Garbage.

AndyH said:

And in the 'rebuttal' article, Mann 'disproves' Lovins comment about German emissions with a...link to Watt's climate denial site?! You've got to be kidding me!

Garbage.

Click to expand...

Bad source selection, but seems to be truth:

"Germany will this year start up more coal-fired power stations than at any time in the past 20 years, the Muenster-based IWR renewable-energy institute said in February."

Germany is mostly replacing nuclear (and natural gas) with coal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/germany-to-add-most-coal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-germany-browncoal-idUSBRE93P0PI20130426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-15/merkel-s-greens-challenger-seeks-co2-price-rises-to-ditch-coal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WetEV said:

AndyH said:

And in the 'rebuttal' article, Mann 'disproves' Lovins comment about German emissions with a...link to Watt's climate denial site?! You've got to be kidding me!

Garbage.

Click to expand...

Bad source selection, but seems to be truth:

"Germany will this year start up more coal-fired power stations than at any time in the past 20 years, the Muenster-based IWR renewable-energy institute said in February."

Germany is mostly replacing nuclear (and natural gas) with coal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/germany-to-add-most-coal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-germany-browncoal-idUSBRE93P0PI20130426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-15/merkel-s-greens-challenger-seeks-co2-price-rises-to-ditch-coal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

I couldn't find any official emissions data more current than 2011. Until the final numbers are tallied, we appear to be limited to searching for scraps in the media.

Yes, I too have seen reports that suggest Germany has new coal plants on the agenda. I've also seen those reports echoed in conservative media. It might not be accurate reporting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/germany-carbon-idUSL6N0BP87J20130225

BERLIN, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Germany's carbon dioxide emissions from industry and power stations in 2012 stood at 450 million tonnes, unchanged from the previous year, the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) said on Monday.

UBA president Jochen Flasbarth told Reuters the volume was virtually the same because a higher rate of coal-burning in power generation plants was offset by lower industrial CO2 emissions due to an economic slowdown in the euro zone.

Click to expand...

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/no-additional-coal-plants-in-germany/150/537/62691/

In a PDF published last month, consultants from Pöyry tell the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) not to expect any more coal plant projects after the current ones are completed.

Over the past two years, Renewables International has repeatedly argued that there will be no shift to coal power as a result of the nuclear phaseout. So it's nice to see that other independent analysts see things the same way.

In their presentation to the UK government (PDF), researchers at Pöyry say there are three main reasons for the "apparent surge" in new coal plant construction, which is "due to highly unusual historic reasons": a favorable market environment in 2007/2008; excess carbon allowances; and an "inability or reluctance of developers to cancel projects" when circumstances changed.

Click to expand...

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/is-germany-switching-to-coal/150/537/56081/

Opponents of renewables in North America are pouncing on the news of a new coal plant in Germany, especially because German Environmental Minister Peter Altmaier cut the ribbon, so to speak. Altmaier said Germany will need the conventional fossil power plants for "decades to come," though he did not say it was, as Fox Business put it, to "complement unreliable and intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power." In fact, he stated that "fossil energy and renewables should not be played as cards against each other" and that we have to move beyond "making enemies of the two."

It took six years to build the plant, meaning that the process started in 2006. It is by no means a reaction to the nuclear phaseout of 2011.

Click to expand...

In 2010, Germany's CO2 emissions were 25% below their 1990 levels. Emissions in 2011 were 2.9% below the 2010 rate even after closing nearly half some of their nuclear power plants. Germany's emissions are well below their Kyoto protocol obligations.

AndyH said:

In 2010, Germany's CO2 emissions were 25% below their 1990 levels. Emissions in 2011 were 2.9% below the 2010 rate even after closing nearly half some of their nuclear power plants. Germany's emissions are well below their Kyoto protocol obligations.

Click to expand...

Don't know about Germany in particular, but EU as a whole has been able to reduce emissions by exporting the emissions to China i.e. shift heavy industries to China, import the goods and act as if you reduced emissions (and you get to blame China for high emissions - win, win !).

evnow said:

AndyH said:

In 2010, Germany's CO2 emissions were 25% below their 1990 levels. Emissions in 2011 were 2.9% below the 2010 rate even after closing nearly half some of their nuclear power plants. Germany's emissions are well below their Kyoto protocol obligations.

Click to expand...

Don't know about Germany in particular, but EU as a whole has been able to reduce emissions by exporting the emissions to China i.e. shift heavy industries to China, import the goods and act as if you reduced emissions (and you get to blame China for high emissions - win, win !).

Click to expand...

Isn't the entire 'more developed west' doing that? Isn't that at least partially why, while the west has been wallowing through the recession, China's had a 10+% growth rate?

The pro-oil/pro-nuke press has been bashing any country that pulled away from nuclear power after Fukushima. At the end of the day, regardless of the complex webs in play on our globalized planet, hasn't Germany continued to grow renewables and meet their carbon reduction goals?

I see the subject article and the false debate in the same light as climate denialist cherrypicking. The chart of Germany's long-term progress will have bumps and dips for the Monday-morning quarterbacks to 'ooh' and 'ahh' over, but the proof of success or failure will only be in the long-term trend.

I posted these some time back, but since they've reappeared in the context of this topic, I'll link them again:





http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/26/german-renewables-still-busting-gas-and-nuclear/

AndyH said:

GRA said:

Those who are interested should be sure to read the comments on Charles Mann's article, especially those of Amory Lovins and Chris Nelder, and Mann's rebuttals:

http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/fossil-fuel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

From the start, Guy, let's look at the validity of the authors. In this corner, we have a science writer. In this corner we have a physicist that specializes in energy.

Why should I read Mann's piece again?

Especially considering this:

Here I should confess to personal bias. Twelve years ago, a magazine asked me to write an article about energy supplies. While researching, I met petroleum geologists and engineers who told me about a still-experimental technique called hydraulic fracturing. Intrigued, I asked several prominent energy pundits about it. All scoffed at the notion that it would pay off. To be fair, some early fracking research was outlandish; three early trials involved setting off atomic weapons underground (they did produce natural gas, but it was radioactive). I don’t want to embarrass anyone I spoke with. I failed to exercise independent judgment, and did not mention hydraulic fracturing in my article, so I was just as mistaken. But I also don’t want to miss the boat again. Even though plenty of experts discount methane hydrate, I now am more inclined to pay attention to the geologists and engineers who foresee a second, fracking-type revolution with it, a revolution that—unlike the shale-gas rush, mostly a North American phenomenon—will ripple across the globe.

Click to expand...

And in the 'rebuttal' article, Mann 'disproves' Lovins comment about German emissions with a...link to Watt's climate denial site?! You've got to be kidding me!

Garbage.

Click to expand...

I suggested reading the articles as they present a variety of well-reasoned and argued viewpoints, without any comment re my personal opinions of the validity or lack thereof of any of them or their sources. I would also recommend reading the sources cited by each author. Personally I find one of Mann's cites to be a weak source, just as I find one of Lovins', but prefer to let each person come to their own conclusions.

Come on Guy! Waffle waffle! Reading 'both sides' in order to find some 'fair and balanced'?

How is this article any different from other pro-oil, pro-fracking, pro-nuclear, anti-renewables, anti-ev message that's regular fair for our corporate media?

Look at how our media - even NPR - is allowing themselves to be lead by the nose by an extremely well funded and vocal minority in the latest IRS 'scandal'. Though in the first few days there was a bit of info on the other two thirds of groups that were also held to higher scrutiny when trying to win tax-exempt status, all of that has been steamrolled by all the noise.

We know that EVs are viable, in spite of the anti-ev press. We know that 'conservative groups' weren't the only politically-oriented folks that received fully legal IRS scrutiny. I think we also know that it doesn't matter how many ways anyone finds to recover methane hydrates because we've got a serious carbon problem that is not helped by exploiting yet another fossil fuel supply.

AndyH said:

Isn't the entire 'more developed west' doing that? Isn't that at least partially why, while the west has been wallowing through the recession, China's had a 10+% growth rate?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is why we need to include "embedded emissions" in the calculations.

The pro-oil/pro-nuke press has been bashing any country that pulled away from nuclear power after Fukushima.

Click to expand...

I think pulling back from nuclear after Fukushima is a knee jerk reaction that will adversely affect climate change. There is no alternative to nuclear for baseload emission free power.

AndyH said:

Come on Guy! Waffle waffle! Reading 'both sides' in order to find some 'fair and balanced'?

Click to expand...

Of course. I try and read _all_ sides of any subject I'm trying to learn about and make conclusions about. If I'm only going to read viewpoints that I already agree with, why bother reading them at all? It's extremely rare for one side of any complex issue to have a monopoly on good arguments or ideas, and the all-too-common attitude that every one that doesn't completely agree with me must be an idiot and/or has some evil/corrupt motivation has led to the political polarization and dysfunction we now face. Reasonable people should be able to recognize that others may not see the world through the same set of filters that they do, and thus may reach different conclusions even though they are just as well-meaning.

I choose not to automatically demonize people I disagree with, although I may ultimately decide some of them deserve it. I will evaluate each source for its likely bias, but that doesn't disqualify it from consideration, it just determines how much weight I put on it. And I will also sometimes argue an opposing viewpoint, because it forces me to examine my own arguments for flaws or weaknesses. It may even cause me to change my mind.

As I've said before, if someone hopes to convince me they need to do so with the strength of their argument, rather than the passion with which they make it. I can be convinced by facts and persuasive reasoning, but not by rhetoric.

I completely understand your point about suspending judgement until after examining the message. Yes, the truth is the truth even if one hears it from a liar. But when a liar writes something, it's not automagically transformed into truth...

I think your somewhat condescending words are looking at the big end of the telescope. Here's why: When we go to a company website, we expect to read sales copy. When we read a scientific paper, we expect to read a past-tense, third person account of an experiment conducted. And when we read the press, we'd like to be reading unbiased facts about a topic - and due to the old 'fairness doctrine' we also expect to hear both sides of the 'he said/she said' topic. Yes, sales copy is still sales copy, but it's expanding into other areas. Not all scientific papers are simple and honest because some of the authors have sold their souls to write more sales copy. And the press, because of their fairness doctrine, is also being manipulated by some authors - all too often the 'truth' is NOT in between both sides! And some press outlets are pressing some topics and/or not pressing others because of their corporate owners and/or advertisers.

We simply cannot blindly read articles in the press any longer and honestly expect to be getting accurate information. Sometimes 'discernment' means dumping articles in the garbage before wasting brain cells or blood pressure medication. I don't watch 'fox news' for the same reason. That's not 'demonizing' people with which one disagrees, that's using good judgment on who one lets in their front door.

This article is little more than a "those hydrates are the new fracking and it's gonna be GOOD!" puff piece by an author with an acknowledged bias! That's not a legit side of a debate - that's propaganda that's worth almost as much as a former astronaut writing in defense of CO2...

evnow said:

AndyH said:

Isn't the entire 'more developed west' doing that? Isn't that at least partially why, while the west has been wallowing through the recession, China's had a 10+% growth rate?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is why we need to include "embedded emissions" in the calculations.

Click to expand...

How do we do that?

evnow said:

The pro-oil/pro-nuke press has been bashing any country that pulled away from nuclear power after Fukushima.

Click to expand...

I think pulling back from nuclear after Fukushima is a knee jerk reaction that will adversely affect climate change. There is no alternative to nuclear for baseload emission free power.

Click to expand...

I agree that it 'could' be a knee-jerk reaction, but it could also be a really good incentive to double-down on renewables and run a bit faster. So far, it looks like German's in 'double down' mode. (And no - 'emission free' nukes are much worse than 'emission free' EVs... )

The US, on the other hand, is still in a mental hospital waiting room hoping the doctor is out when her number is called so she can continue with her bipolar issue...

AndyH said:

How do we do that?

Click to expand...

One proposal is for exporters to indicate the embedded emissions.

I agree that it 'could' be a knee-jerk reaction, but it could also be a really good incentive to double-down on renewables and run a bit faster. So far, it looks like German's in 'double down' mode. (And no - 'emission free' nukes are much worse than 'emission free' EVs... )

The US, on the other hand, is still in a mental hospital waiting room hoping the doctor is out when her number is called so she can continue with her bipolar issue...

Click to expand...

They can run fast - but how do they generate baseload power ? Apparently coal - not some renewable + storage (very expensive).

Ofcourse, US is essentially completely given up on the climate change question - ever since the 2010 elections. Obama and company completely messed up their first 2 years in office (in the political sense).

AndyH said:

I completely understand your point about suspending judgement until after examining the message. Yes, the truth is the truth even if one hears it from a liar. But when a liar writes something, it's not automagically transformed into truth...

I think your somewhat condescending words are looking at the big end of the telescope. Here's why: When we go to a company website, we expect to read sales copy. When we read a scientific paper, we expect to read a past-tense, third person account of an experiment conducted. And when we read the press, we'd like to be reading unbiased facts about a topic - and due to the old 'fairness doctrine' we also expect to hear both sides of the 'he said/she said' topic. Yes, sales copy is still sales copy, but it's expanding into other areas. Not all scientific papers are simple and honest because some of the authors have sold their souls to write more sales copy. And the press, because of their fairness doctrine, is also being manipulated by some authors - all too often the 'truth' is NOT in between both sides! And some press outlets are pressing some topics and/or not pressing others because of their corporate owners and/or advertisers.

We simply cannot blindly read articles in the press any longer and honestly expect to be getting accurate information. Sometimes 'discernment' means dumping articles in the garbage before wasting brain cells or blood pressure medication. I don't watch 'fox news' for the same reason. That's not 'demonizing' people with which one disagrees, that's using good judgment on who one lets in their front door.

This article is little more than a "those hydrates are the new fracking and it's gonna be GOOD!" puff piece by an author with an acknowledged bias! That's not a legit side of a debate - that's propaganda that's worth almost as much as a former astronaut writing in defense of CO2...

Click to expand...

Andy, I don't know about you, but I haven't 'blindly read articles in the press and honestly expect to be getting accurate information' since I became an adult, and probably never. Indeed, I try to never 'blindly' read anything. We agree on discernment - there are some sources that have proved over a long period of time that they are so biased and/or erroneous as not to be worth the trouble. I can't recall ever watching Fox News, at least not if I was hoping for unbiased reporting. But then I could say the same for say "Democracy Now" on PBS. Both wear their political ideologies on their sleeves, as it were, and require great caution to filter out opinion from fact.

Science too spans the gamut. Much as I'd love to believe that all scientists are utterly dedicated to detached observation of the facts, they remain human beings first. Still, given ignorance about science in general and specific areas in particular by the general public (polls show that 20% of Americans think the sun circles the earth)* and the mainstream media, I know which sources have to pass a higher level of scrutiny from me ab initio.

As to Mann's article, your takeaway is very different from mine. You think it's all about hydrates and the miracle of fracking; my take is that Mann's worry is that it will allow us to remain complacent about AGCC for years yet, and may well lead to increased instability in various countries around the world. Same story, different parsing.

*Edit. Well, it's apparently gotten even worse (but consider the source too):

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/army-of-darkness-33-of-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

evnow said:

AndyH said:

How do we do that?

Click to expand...

One proposal is for exporters to indicate the embedded emissions.

I agree that it 'could' be a knee-jerk reaction, but it could also be a really good incentive to double-down on renewables and run a bit faster. So far, it looks like German's in 'double down' mode. (And no - 'emission free' nukes are much worse than 'emission free' EVs... )

The US, on the other hand, is still in a mental hospital waiting room hoping the doctor is out when her number is called so she can continue with her bipolar issue...

Click to expand...

They can run fast - but how do they generate baseload power ? Apparently coal - not some renewable + storage (very expensive).

Ofcourse, US is essentially completely given up on the climate change question - ever since the 2010 elections. Obama and company completely messed up their first 2 years in office (in the political sense).

Click to expand...

Don't we have a number of models that show wind and solar can and do provide their own baseload power? Don't we also see the increasing trend of Germany's biomass generation? That's regular thermal generation that is throttleable and dispatchable - they're just burning renewable and carbon-neutral things. Audi has a significant test project where they're using hydrogen for a storage function as well. I don't buy the 'we need more batteries' myth - longer term, anyway.

Did the president mess up or did we by gifting him the congresses he's had?

GRA said:

As to Mann's article, your takeaway is very different from mine. You think it's all about hydrates and the miracle of fracking; my take is that Mann's worry is that it will allow us to remain complacent about AGCC for years yet, and may well lead to increased instability in various countries around the world. Same story, different parsing.

Click to expand...

Not the same story at all! This piece start with the suggestion that a "little-known energy source" exists and that "fossil fuels may not be finite." The author then proceeds to interweave a bit of history with info on fracking and hydrates while doing little more than brushing aside the negative impact of fracking on water (and completely ignoring the rest of the problems that include surface water and land contamination, emissions from the drilling/fracking process, and effects on human health). Then he does a what-if as if to suggest that we can recover enough methane from hydrates to completely upset the world's geopolitical power.

Natural gas isn't that clean... (Toss a small bone...) But man, o man look at how much of this stuff we have and how fast it's growing and how much money it's creating and... Wait - WHAT?! "...natural resources cannot be used up..." ??!!!

This article is using many of the same tactics used to create any other controversy - peak oilers VS non-peak-oilers, economists VS. geologists, ASPO VS. OPEC...

He talks about the tar sands (at least he calls them tar...) and describes in situ mining (as if to suggest it's just like regular oil drilling) but ignores the whole 'open pit mine' and 'cutting all the trees' and 'poisoning complete downstream environments' things... He suggests that tar sands dilbit will be conveyed to its "biggest potential markets, in the United States" - that in itself is incorrect - and the truth of it is well documented. And those pipeline protesters - not citizens concerned about their land and water - no - they're "vituperative" - bitter and abusive. Seriously? It's bitter and abusive when landowners work to stop corporations from condemning their land without permission in order to build a pipeline? The State Department's process to approve or deny the pipeline is "stalling"?

Renewables aren't ready for prime time? "Natural gas, both from fracking and in methane hydrate, gives us a way to cut back on carbon emissions while w work toward a more complete solution."

If Mann wanted anyone to consider him to be a serious journalist, rather an an opportunist writer profiting from the "greenies VS oilies" debate, then we would have published only his conflict of interest statement and left it at that.