Anyone seen the "America's New Natural Gas" TV commercials?

[wtmusic]

http://www.newnaturalgas.org/

Subtext: natural gas producers have their panties in a bunch because the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade bill threatens to limit the amount of CO2 utilities can dump into the air:

Section 722. Prohibition of Excess Emissions. Prohibits covered entities from emitting or having attributable greenhouse gases in excess of their allowable emissions level, which is determined by the number of emission allowances and offset credits they hold on the specified date. Electricity generators, refiners and importers of petroleum-based and other specified liquid fuels, fluorinated gas manufacturers, and emitters of nitrogen trifluoride are covered entities starting with emissions in 2012. Specified industrial sources are covered starting with emissions in 2014. Local distribution companies that deliver natural gas are covered starting with emissions in 2016.

Highlights:
Rebranding "Natural Gas" as "America's New Natural Gas" (hmm, still smells the same)
Attempting to shift the focus from climate change to jingoism (America may have more than a 100-year supply of natural gas, but whether the world can survive 100 years of climate change is another matter).

Biggest crock:
"Natural gas makes wind and solar energy viable and also provides a foundation for them to grow."
:rofl:

Man behind it all:
Rod Lowman, CEO of America's Natural Gas Alliance (you can trust him, he's a former Chevron lobbyist).

[lapfog_1]

1. It's not just the CO2 and cap & trade...

It's also the extraction process that is creating an industry wide PR problem.

Ranchers and Hunters don't like what these wells are doing the water supplies out west. Google Hydraulic fracturing.

[wtmusic]

2. Interesting

No doubt they are going up against this as well:

"The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (H.R. 2766), (S. 1215) -- dubbed the FRAC Act—was introduced to both houses of the the United States Congress on June 9, 2009, and aims to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act. It would require the energy industry to disclose the chemicals it mixes with the water and sand it pumps underground in the hydraulic fracturing process (also known as fracking), information that has largely been protected as trade secrets. Controversy surrounds the practice of hydraulic fracturing as a threat to drinking water supplies.<1> The gas industry opposes the exemption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracturing_Responsibility_and_Awareness_of_Chemicals_Act

:thumbsup:

[Altoid_Cyclist]

3. Another good google is the Marcellus Shale in this part of the country.

It's not turning out to be the panacea that it first appeared to be due to the "fracking" process.

Update April 30, 2009
It was over 30 cows, all carrying calves.

"120 CHICKENS DIED, A BABY CALF (1 WEEK OLD) DIED, AND 15 CATS, THE SAME DAY ALL THE COWS DIED"

More info. here. http://www.donnan.com/Marcellus-Gas_Hickory.htm


Also this one from the Chesapeake Bay Journal.

http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3715

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Similar problem in New York State

I heard the governor signed off on allowing huge swaths of pristine woodland to be allowed access to the gas companies. New York City ultimately receives the water upstate and its purity and quality are being threatened.

[kristopher]

5. That isn't a crock.

First remember that we have a great deal of underutilized natural gas generation that is well distributed around the country.

The fastest, least carbon intensive route to a carbon free economy shifts load from coal to wind/solar augmented by natural gas.

Between the virtually carbon free renewable sources and the 60%-less-than-coal carbon content of natural gas, there is a very large immediate reduction in GHG emissions achieved by substituting this configuration for a coal plant.

As long as there are coal plants that could be replaced in this manner it gives us more carbon-reduction-bang-for-our-buck to do this and then move on to do the same with the next coal plant than to build storage for wind/solar and eliminate 100% of the carbon from that particular coal plant.

The money that would be needed for displacing the carbon from the natgas by building storage will give us more carbon-reduction-bang-for-our-buck if we spend it instead on more wind/solar with natgas back up to close down another coal plant.

The final phase would see the elimination of natgas with storage.

Much of that storage will develop without special emphasis as a V2G equipped fleet of personal transportation is deployed.

We will still need considerable large scale storage, and it too will be incrementally deployed as the price of carbon makes it more attractive than natgas.

[joshcryer]

6. I contest your claim of "fastest."

Fastest would avoid any current infrastructure almost completely and be a wide reaching government program costing trillions.

Natural gas hopes to bring our emissions to 80% current levels by 2050. ie, we guarantee ourselves 6C.

[kristopher]

7. You can't contest reality.

And what I laid out is reality.

Unless you can figure out how to move us to an alternate reality where there are unlimited funds then your perspective is flawed. Money is limited and you can either spend it to 1) retire coal and then natural gas or you can spend it to 2) retire natural gas and then coal.

1) is faster and results in fewer aggregate emissions than 2).


All you have to offer as an alternative is wishful thinking, not a plan.

[joshcryer]

8. So you're admitting there exist no realistic plan to keep temps low.

Glad we're on the same page.

[kristopher]

9. I'm telling you how things are going to proceed

We are in one system and moving to another. If you have a specific plan that can be implemented which will accomplish more with the same or less, then let's hear it. Otherwise you are just posturing.

First remember that we have a great deal of underutilized natural gas generation that is well distributed around the country.

The fastest, least carbon intensive route to a carbon free economy shifts load from coal to wind/solar augmented by natural gas.

Between the virtually carbon free renewable sources and the 60%-less-than-coal carbon content of natural gas, there is a very large immediate reduction in GHG emissions achieved by substituting this configuration for a coal plant.

As long as there are coal plants that could be replaced in this manner it gives us more carbon-reduction-bang-for-our-buck to do this and then move on to do the same with the next coal plant than to build storage for wind/solar and eliminate 100% of the carbon from that particular coal plant.

The money that would be needed for displacing the carbon from the natgas by building storage will give us more carbon-reduction-bang-for-our-buck if we spend it instead on more wind/solar with natgas back up to close down another coal plant.

The final phase would see the elimination of natgas with storage.

Much of that storage will develop without special emphasis as a V2G equipped fleet of personal transportation is deployed.

We will still need considerable large scale storage, and it too will be incrementally deployed as the price of carbon makes it more attractive than natgas.