-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Green groups loved nuclear power back in the 1950s, so long as we would swear off abundant coal (and, at the time, oil) for producing electricity. Then nukes became reality and, well, the greens changed their tune. Natural gas was considered too valuable for mere electricity production - yeah, re-read that, and think of it when EPA’s ‘utility MACT’ closes plants and shuts off the lights in a few short years - so it wasn’t really in the equation.
That latter reality changed over time, thanks to e.g., the Arab oil embargo and the war on coal, and therefore so did the way the greens receive the notion of fuel-switching. What, you say we’re awash in it? Why, this mean wo-ah!
Of course, leading gas purveyors like Chesapeake Energy are also among the most odious promoters of the ‘global warming’ agenda (gas guys were early partners, along with the green groups, in Enron inventing the global warming industry), and generally of windmill and other such mandates. This is not just because that agenda is really a war on coal in its objective and its means, but also because for practical reasons what that really means is more gas-fired plants. In short, the wind and sun are not only too diffuse given those stubborn laws of physics, but fickle mistresses as well…a new twist on the old ‘waiter, the food was horrible and the portions too small’ gag.
So it is that today we see our newly abundant natural gas, the latest in the decades-long series of energy sources that were deemed to be an acceptable ‘bridge’ energy source to pixie dust, Flubber and moonbeams - so long as it remains theoretical - taking it on the chin in a new report.
A Cornell professor (of ecology and environmental biology, in case you had any question about that) and his team conclude that the carbon (equivalent) footprint of gas produced by hydraulic fracturing - the extraction procedure which makes recent discoveries so spectacularly bountiful - is anywhere from 20% to 100% higher than coal.
Even though its sales pitch was that it is about 50% lower. Huh. So now natural gas is bad, too. And we’ll just rely on electricity, instead.
Of course, things could be worse. They could have alleged something rather more credible in the public’s eyes than a man-made global warming threat. Still, it’s pretty clear that if someone invented pixie dust the greens would immediately point to some paper claiming a link between pixie dust and childhood (always the children, luv, no matter how reprehensible one must be to say so) respiratory distress. If we bottled moonbeams to keep the lights on, radiation fears would be stoked.
It all beats arguing their real fear, which is of energy sources that meet our demand.
All of which actually affirms a remarkable consistency by our otherwise highly volatile anti-energy lobby: opposition to anything which might work, once it that moves from theory to reality.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Chris Horner
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/11/first-they-came-for-coal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 4.11.11 @ 3:38PM
Greens are Vermin. Dealt with them in New Zealand. Nothing wrong with them that couldn't be cured by a "Discussion a la Casino Royale."
Dixie Pixie| 4.11.11 @ 4:54PM
Pixie Dust is a known physics mutagen that causes distortions in localized gravitational and inertial fields as well as distorting the personal Space-Time Stream. And in large doses or long term usage the effects become permanent.
Dixie Pixie| 4.11.11 @ 5:42PM
What the environmentalist refuse to believe is coal and oil are stored ancient sunlight thus a solar fuel.
Consider that millions of years ago plants converted sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into water-soluble hydrocarbons. Natural processes converted those hydrocarbons into the coal, gas and oil of today. Those processes qualify as a natural organic process thus very "Green".
What we a simply doing is liberating that stored sunlight back into energy and carbon dioxide.
All that is necessary is to re-brand coal and gas to the rightful place as solar fuels.
After all if John Kerry can be re-branded as a Vietnam Warrior, the the Left will believe anything.
So why not the truth about coal, oil and gas as the true Organic Solar Fuels.
Tina B| 4.11.11 @ 5:42PM
I think I smoked some of that in the 60s. Maybe not. Maybe it was something else.
Tina B| 4.11.11 @ 5:43PM
Pixie dust I mean.
Tina B| 4.11.11 @ 5:48PM
Why not? Because it's true. And that's not politically correct anymore. The truth, I mean.
The MSM doesn't like it and tries their best to stay away from it. Science seems to think they can create their own truth, the Libs preach only the lies, so where is there room for truth? Or common sense, for that matter.
Dixie Pixie| 4.11.11 @ 8:11PM
Greeting Tina B
This is why I hate not having the (Reply To) function.
I am not sure you are replying to me or someone else.
It could not be the real Pixie Dust as the only known supplies in governmental hands are stored in the vault between the unobtainium and absurdium material vaults.
It has never been released for public use as the FAA freaks at the idea of people flying around without any equipment or training.
But the Pixies believe the true reason is, the FAA will never consent to a system where anyone could fly free anywhere, anytime and not under FAA control.
you are probably thinking of the sugary confectionery sold in long tubes.
It does have the ability of sending small children flying around.
That is do to the high sugar content not some magical ingredient.
PS.....Webmaster, Please bring back the (Reply To) function.
Kelly| 4.12.11 @ 12:34AM
DixPix, you're crackin' me up tonight; you're real smart, too.
Liberals will never understand your brilliant analysis because it makes too much freakin' sense.
Bob K.| 4.12.11 @ 2:12AM
To the webmaster:
Please do NOT bring back the reply function! There has been an increase in self discipline and informed comment shown by the readers since it has disappeared.
A limit on the number of words and comments allowed, especially here in the blogs, would also be helpful because the blogs do not usually stay around long enough to bear lengthy analysis.
DLB| 4.12.11 @ 7:07AM
Enviros want us all to live like Margaret Meade's fictional Samoans.
PattyMor| 4.12.11 @ 9:56AM
Let's look at the rhetoric. Any reasonably cheap energy source is demonized. Coal has become dirty coal. No matter, we have to save the planet.
Read Dick Morris' book and look at the eyepopping chart about the U.S. shipment of coal to China. So just which planet are the enviromarxists trying to save?? Certainly not the one both the U.S. and China reside on.
Nuclear energy maybe? No its dangerous, all that radiation and stuff. No matter there been only two significant nuclear accidents (Chernobyl & Japan). And its cheaper than wind mills and solar panels and produces no greenhouse gases.
So its natural gas? No, we can't use it because"fracking" pollutes the ground water. No matter that fraking has been around a long time. Could the demonization be connected to the fact that we have a boatload of gas located here in America, so now it attacts the attention of the eco-marxists?
So what about drilling for just plain ole' oil? Well one of Barack's first act was to cancel oil leases that Bush signed. The spill in Gulf handed Barack a ready made excuse to shut down drilling the Gulf. Its too dangerous and we're harming the environment. So why doesn't this same U.S. government subsidize drilling off the coast of Brazil for Petrobas, and subsidies for Pemex to drill in the very same Gulf. Could it be that Barack and his party want to enrich other nations at the expense of America?
So all you Barack supporters, enjoy your high utility bills and your $4.00 gas which will probably only go higher with the turmoin in the ME and Africa.
Kelly| 4.12.11 @ 2:42PM
$4 a gallon of gas? I wish--it'll be $5 by Memorial Day.
Obama got just what he wanted. November, 2012 can't come soon enough.
Ergriefer| 5.3.11 @ 2:47PM
I don't even know where to begin. First, I take great umbrage with your attempts to rhetorically politicize global energy REALITIES by calling it "demonization." I suppose that if you repeat something in the mirror long enough, you can believe anything. Are fishermen in the gulf "demonizing" BP for their crippling losses? Is it "demonization" to accept that there are serious environmental risks involved with offshore drilling? Your head is buried well in the sand.
You say the "left" attacks any energy source that's abundant. In truth, neither party is talking sense about energy policy, and since nobody has answers you're simply trying to pass the blame. The days of cheap, abundant ANYTHING are over. There is no combination of new or alternative energy sources that will make up for declining oil production, much less replace oil fuels altogether.
The energy returned vs energy/$ invested on light crude can be over 50/1. With nuclear plants, because of the cost of construction and rare materials involved, it's less than 10/1. "Fracking" for gas can be as low as 3/1, meaning that governments (not just Canada's, but ours as well) will have to shell out enormous subsidies to even make it economically viable to whichever organization chooses to do it. Even then, estimates of known reserves vary widely and the claims of "centuries" worth of natural gas are based on faulty numbers and current rates of usage, which for personal transportation is minimal. If we were to switch our whole fleet over to natural gas engines, reserves would dissipate in a few years at best.
Solar and wind are good investments but are merely a band-aid for our energy problems. Hydrogen cells are just a means for storing energy, not an energy source. Ethanol and other biofuels are a government-subsidized joke.
So "we'll just rely on electricity instead." Where do you think electricity comes from? Again, electricity is not an energy resource unto itself. On the east coast, it often comes from burning coal. On the west coast, burning methane. You're probably an advocate for Liquid Coal fuels. Besides the obvious environmental costs, we're not going to keep our economy running on coal alone, under any circumstances.
Everything we have, everything we do, currently relies on petroleum. Coal doesn't smelt metals from ore like petroleum does. Coal doesn't create plastics and medicines like petroleum does. A coal-based economy would be an express ticket to the way we lived 100 years ago.
The USA passed domestic peak oil production in the 70's (it's no coincidence that it happenned at just about the same time OPEC was formed). World production will never surpass 89 million barrels a day (20 mil of which we use), and it's become the mainstream opinion that we passed World Peak Oil years ago (possibly as early as 2005). These are realities that we can deal with, or we can behave irresponsibly and just let everything crumble around use like it's been doing since 2001.