Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 16 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
What’s your carbon footprint look like?
Published Wednesday, November 4, 2009
You have noticed that OPEC is on the offensive, with our increasing gasoline prices. The U.S. dollar is losing its muscle, no thanks to OPEC and our projected $1.4 trillon debt.
Obama’s statement, “to transform this nation” into the global economy is turning out to be a promise to some while, perhaps, a threat to the rest of us.
The upcoming meeting in Copenhagen on global warming and the impending cap and trade bill disaster could really hurt all of us. We, in this area of our country, will not get too enthused about “green” energy power distribution, but it’s coming. Can you imagine the cost of cleaning all those solar panels? Can anyone feel sorry for those dudes and dudettes that will have to clean off the blades on those whirly pylons? Whew! I’ll never fuss again about cleaning ceiling fan blades.
We do have a water turbine and two nuclear power plants in the area. But those are for electronic consumption, and they are considered “green.”
So now, we come to the nitty-gritty. Our natural gas and petroleum consumers need domestic, Candadian and off-shore increases in drilling. We all know that. But our Congress can’t get loose from the special interest groups’ influences (dollars?)
We need state-of-the-art technology. Rentech is a start, but how about our other sources:
1. Increased technology for natural gas/methane as auto and truck fuel. The vehicle manufacturers need to take on this responsibility.
2. Increased technology on “scrubbing” diesel and CHA to make them as clean as any fuel can be.
3. Increased technology and performance efficiency of catalytic converters, for all combustible-fuel engines’ exhausts. Make it mandatory — use on all types — anywhere.
Here again the vehicle/equipment manufacturers must take responsibility. It is in their own interests to complete this re-design ASAP and reduce their “carbon footprint” as it were.
4. And this could be the hardest one to control — coal. We need top-of-the-line chemists and chemical engineers to design/invent a type of catalytic converter. Neutralize the by-products of these smoke belching furnaces. Could it be as easy as a large water bath, with a down-stream converter and CO2 recovery? Or would the converter come before the bath?
Could there be a type of smoke-eating, fractionating tower?
However coal is cleaned up, it must get started soon.
Coal as everyone realizes, is our least expensive fuel. But it’s going to take the biggest hits when that cap and trade and other anti-global warming measures hit the president’s desk.
What have you done today to reduce your carbon footprint? It’s no joke.
One way or another, that legislation will get a piece of all of us. Do you have a good rapport with your legislator?
Don Davey
Vidalia resident
Comments
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on November 4, 2009 at 4:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OPEC didn't twist our arm and make us borrow 1.4 trillion dollars, nor did they make us halt domestic exploration and drilling, nor did they make us adopt our coal policies, nor did they make us abandon the gold standard and base our currency unit on their commodity. OPEC is just doing what any good capitalist endeavor would do, charging what the market will bear and actually giving us a break considering our wacky energy policy. The US should be thankful I'm not running OPEC. I'd hire the Russians to set me up a base on the moon and run production and distribution from up there. out of reach of Stealth bombers and bunker busting bombs. If the US didn't want to pay my prices, I'm sure China would take it all for a discount. If China and India had discount energy they would be awesome economic engines, and I bet they would repay the favor of discount energy with a share in their manufacturing.
That would put me on the wrong side of both Brezinski and Cheney wouldn't it? A unique position- the US could finally find political unity in its attempts to bring down my energy empire.
OPEC, if they are indeed overcharging, have created an opportunity for others to undercut them with ethanol or biodiesel. Yet do we see really competitive pricing with fuel products containg ethanol, or bio-diesel? You don't, so don't give OPEC all the blame.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on November 4, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Coal to liquid, like Rentech plans is viable at $50/bbl. So all the US needs to do to tap its coal reserves is figure out a way to make conventional production cost $51/bbl. Cap and trade is one way to do this, but not the best way. The best way is to use up as much crude as remains as quickly as possible, then use the coal, since crude is still only really worth $20/bbl if you take the price controls off it. By the time we use up all that, we will have free energy generators and who knows what else. I agree, Don, there are voluntary market solutions to this problem that should be pursued before cap and trade.
Cap and trade is going to be a hard sell to India and China. Watch what happens. If cap and trade is imposed across the US and Europe, consumption will go down, there will be excess oil on the market, and China, India, and Russia will buy it and turn the US into a territorial possession.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Concerning --> "Our natural gas and petroleum consumers need domestic, Candadian and off-shore increases in drilling. We all know that. But our Congress can’t get loose from the special interest groups’ influences"
Follow the money.......... If middle eastern sheiks can spend millions lobbying (bribing?) OUR politicians to prevent drilling in our own waters, they can make many billions in profits. There is no other logical conclusion to why we are prevented from domestic offshore exploration and drilling.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on November 4, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is OGD. The same people who own the rights here are the same people in collusion with the sheiks. We'll use theirs first, they go along with it because that's all they have, being muslims they don't believe in usurious banking practices, and after theirs is used up ours will bring a premium price and we will be in charge- well, not we, but you know who, Exxon-Mobil and Shell and BP.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
India and China and much of the Third World have a tremendous advantage over us in energy policy. While they have a rapidly increasing capacity to use oil, they produce significant amounts of their needed goods using human labor and ingenuity.
We on the other hand need a $3,000 automobile and $15 of fossil fuels to go get a sandwich.
And most of us couldn't produce much without a corporation to lean on for assistance, guidance, insurance or employment security.
Like Marty said, they didn't twist our arm.
Meanwhile we indulge in culture wars and blame-laying and assume that our right to burn the carbon candle at both ends is sacrosanct. It is going to get harder and harder to find folks elsewhere that feel our pain or cut us slack for our excesses.
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see the journalistic integrity of the Natchez Democrat finally kicked in with the removal of yesterday’s letter to the editor, re: Obama’s Transparency written by Andrew Peabody. Doesn't bode well for the paper to print propaganda, thank you.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When 1/3 of the Gulf of Mexico and the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts are off-limits to drilling, something is terribly wrong. Ross Perot was dead-on when he spoke of the tremendous transfer of wealth that is taking place. Middle East cities are boom towns and the sheiks are world power brokers, all on our money. There is no environmental reason known to not drill our own waters. Offshore drilling is clean. All big spills come from tankers, like those bringing us oil from elsewhere.
Sorry, but I do not believe our domestic companies are against the drilling. It is our politicians. And I suspect well placed money is their incentive. I learned a long time ago that when stuff looks suspicious again and again and again, something usually is wrong.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More Owhampy failure's from Elections yesterday! Thank the Good Lord for Change! Good work Marty!
Posted by Crakalakin (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by 2008
"Glad to see the journalistic integrity of the Natchez Democrat finally kicked in with the removal of yesterday’s letter to the editor, re: Obama’s Transparency written by Andrew Peabody. Doesn't bode well for the paper to print propaganda, thank you."
LOL! It was a letter to the editor. I wasn't aware that a paper's journalistic integrity rested on it's "Letters to the Editor" section. Perhaps you are like Obama, so thin skinned that any criticism, no matter how legitimate, is a crime. Never mind that he is even taking flak from fellow Democrats about his claims of transparency during the campaign and his unprecedented levels of secrecy after he won. Seriously, how many secret meetings with George Soros and lefty journalists is enough? To what degree will his sycophantic minions tolerate his record of doing nothing and speechifying like he was still on the campaign trail a year after the election ended, while essentially handing over the Executive branch to Nancy Pelosi?.
You might want to check the definition of "propaganda", as well. A letter to the editor hardly qualifies.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crakalakin it is hard to believe anyone could sit silent at the previous administrations suckling meetings with corrupt industry and business entities then take issue with Obama meeting with anyone on secrecy grounds.
But if anyone don't like people meeting with the president because they do not conform to ideological prejudices then they can take a number and we will all cry a minute for them.
Of course the Democrat should print letters to the editor - you're right about that -- on the other hand anybody that is inconsistent in their idea of an even standard should be pointed out.
Posted by grungebob (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rentech's process is hardly new technology - and it sure ain't green. The company is counting on the air force converting much of its fleet to alternative fuels and getting govt ok for use in the interests of national security (independence from foreign sources of conventional supplies).
Good idea, but requires major changes to present environmental laws.
Methane? Hhhhmmm. If we could only get cows to fart into natural gas pipelines?
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the spew is back!
Posted by Crakalakin (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
-Yeahuhuh-
"Crakalakin it is hard to believe anyone could sit silent at the previous administrations suckling meetings with corrupt industry and business entities then take issue with Obama meeting with anyone on secrecy grounds."
I thought this was about Obama's claims to transparency, not other administrations who made no such claims. You are attempting to change the subject.
Obama has met repeatedly in secret with MSNBC and CNN talking heads. You know, the exact kind of stuff the left would have went ballistic about if previous administrations had done such a thing. He has met repeatedly with George Soros, the powerful and massively wealthy man not unlike the imaginary "ultra-rich" Bush was accused of lending his ear.
What is funny to us on the right is that all the imaginary "evils" you attributed to Bush are actually present in Obama. He actually does the things you guys could only assume and accuse Bush of doing without any evidence of such. Let's examine Obama's record regarding the things Bush was only accused of.
Rich, billionaire political power-player activist private meetings in the White House? Check
Spoon-feeding Administration talking points to media outlets. Check
Taking more time off playing golf than running the country. Check
Listened to crazy religious leaders. Check
Using the Justice Department for political expediency. Check
Those are just a few. It is hilarious to me that all the imaginary traits you guys applied to Bush are actually present and documented with respect to Obama. As Earl likes to say, "Karma".
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK Crak, I know you are bitter about what 8 years of Republicans did to this country -- specifically what they did to the right's ability to put itself into control -- but you can just accept it and move on.
I do not think you will succeed in convincing anyone new that Obama's evils are worse that the other guys'. And we all know that 99% of the people who tear down one side's work in government are more than willing to do so to put the other side in control.
Even if all politicians are corrupt, there are those who by degree work for folks that need no help and those that work for the advancement of those less fortunate. There are those who require conflict to be popular and those who use peace for the same end.
America got tired of government working for the corporations and for warfare as a solution. Don't pretend that somehow your moralizing about Obama's veracity levels the playing field. All politicians have to bend the truth I am sorry to say, but more common are moralizers who bend their standards to advance their own causes.
We will do it by the book for a while and let people's memories fade a bit before the right has it's way with government. Hopefully that will take a long time.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, aka Gnat...you said, "India and China and much of the Third World have a tremendous advantage over us in energy policy. While they have a rapidly increasing capacity to use oil, they produce significant amounts of their needed goods using human labor and ingenuity.
We on the other hand need a $3,000 automobile and $15 of fossil fuels to go get a sandwich.
And most of us couldn't produce much without a corporation to lean on for assistance, guidance, insurance or employment security."
Best anti-labor union free market argument I've heard in a while...kudos.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Sam I actually meant that we tend to be a country of wusses who can't figure out what to do with ourselves, have to look constantly for jobs other people create for us, and generally want to blame someone else for our own delusions.
I do not deign to blame unions, the "man", bad guys or others for any of it. It is who we are as a culture.
I personally have no quarrel with non-union labor -- I don't like to hire folks who can't find anything to do unless I offer them a job, and I assume most of my workers will take what I show them and move into their own independence.
And you're smart enough to come up with something more creative with that Gnat thing.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)