Slashdot Mirror
MIT Says Natural Gas Best To Lower Carbon Emissions
eldavojohn writes "This week MIT released a comprehensive, hundred-page report entitled 'The Future of Natural Gas' that outlined the many scenarios the United States faces when aiming to reduce carbon emissions. From the New York Times recap: 'The scenario goes like this, according to MIT: Nuclear power, renewable energy, and carbon capture and sequestration are relatively expensive next to gas. Conventional coal is no longer a major source of power generation in the United States. "Natural gas is the substantial winner in the electric sector: The substitution effect, mainly gas generation for coal generation, outweighs the demand reduction effect."' Will this urging help to produce a policy shift from renewable energy (like wind) to natural gas for the United States?"
...the environmental wackos aren't going to like this.
Natural gas = carbon emissions however reduced they may be.
Natural gas = drilling
Yeah, this ain't gonna fly. Just wait for the big fat raspberry from the greens.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Environmentalists demand that you get your power from pixie dust or else!
Owing to the intermittent nature of wind, the need for 100% backup of generating capacity, and the ability to provide at most 20% of total electricity, wind is a way to in effect get an extra increment in efficiency in a natural-gas based electric power generation economy. As such, you can ascribe to wind power all of the evils you ascribe to natural gas production, only, about 20% less.
Yes, because the primary concern when discussing potential fuel sources the the next millenium is deciding where to put the fucking apostrophe.
Have you got nothing better to do with your time ?
The question is whether or not it's cost effective to do so. At the moment, it isn't. If we tax the hell out of coal and oil, it might be.
Pretty much we're at the point where we either have to legislate against coal and oil, or we have to tax carbon emissions heavily. There's no market incentive to stop with either.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Translation, he knows the truth so we will ignore him and move on to some useful idiot.
So you do not dispute what I said, the UN controlled Iraq's oil until it officially recognized the Iraqi government as a separate entity of Saddam's regime.
In order for you to believe that, you have to ignore the actual history of Iraq upto and including the takeover. I never could understand how people like you could insist that some conspiracy is at work while ignoring the very real facts in order to make the case. Plenty of other countries shouldn't have even been in your statement at all. Iraq wasn't about bringing democracy to Iraq until after Saddam was out of power. Saddam claimed to have WMDs and wouldn't let the UN inspection teams validate whether he did or didn't. This validation was mandatory as part of the cease fire agreements that stopped hostilities of the first gulf war.
Iraq became a big problem when the threat of terrorism was brought home to civilians instead of military targets abroad. Whether Saddam actually had WMDs or not, the world believed he did in some capacity before the 2003 invasion because Saddam was personally attempting to make them believe that. He said in an interview that he was afraid of invasion if the neighboring countries thought he was defenseless. Now with terrorism hitting home, Saddam having banned WMDs and publicly stating his design to inflict harm to the US, he became a very real threat that not only had the capacity, suspected capabilities, but the motivations to move these WMDs to terrorists for their use against American citizen at home. Bush has always said that after 9/11, we can no longer sit back and wait for something to develop- we need to be proactive when the threat is that real. We invaded Iraq for those reasons- because 9/11 changed everything for the administration.
Now I know you don't get it. You're probably one of those people who won't listen to the details long enough to understand any of them and say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when the reality of the situation is that 9/11 had to do with why we went into Iraq not the other way around. Only then can your wild conspiracies make sense outside of your own mind. It's about oil right, yea only if we conveniently forget about the entire 90's leading up to the 2003 invasion.
wait for Ayn Rand to descend from the heavens and tell us what to do
That may seem like a clever quip to you, but Rand's philosophy is all about not telling people what to do.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This 99% fixation on OMG WE NEED MORE POWER PLANTS! Instead of looking to REDUCE DEMAND is plain nuts.
Electricity consumers aren't stupid. There's a natural explanation for why demand hasn't reduced on its own. Because the consumer loses more than they gain. Given that, why should we attempt to artificial reduce demand?
There's tons and tons of places that we could be reducing demand at, without reducing quality of life at all
Then why isn't it already done? Answer: because demand reduction reduces our quality of life.
CO2 cleanup money grows on trees.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.