Posted on 06/04/2012 10:09:14 AM PDT by bananaman22
Massive natural gas discoveries along with new extraction techniques have led many to claim nat gas as the fuel of the future – which could ensure U.S. energy independence, reduce geopolitical risks, and help meet U.S. electricity demands for the next 575 years. Yet why have we seen so many negative publications and reports? Does natural gas really have a place in our future and is it the golden chalice we have been led to believe?
To help us investigate these issues and others we were fortunate enough to have a chat with the well known author and energy trader Raymond Learsy.
In the Interview Raymond talks about the following:
• Why Natural gas could displace gasoline • The top 3 forms of energy for national security • The New York Times Vendetta Against Natural Gas • Nuclear Energy’s place in America’s energy future • The future of Fracking • Why we can’t rely on coal for future power generation
Oilprice.com: What do you think is the link between say the New York Times and some of the concerns in the commodity market?
Raymond Learsy: Well, some of the reporting of the New York Times I feel is weighted too heavily on the fiction that surrounds the pricing of oil. I've written a number of posts, some of which are in my new book, some of which are in my previous book, that deal with the way the New York Times repeats without any serious, in-depth questioning the sort of general handouts of the oil industry and OPEC. For example, if Saudi Arabia says, "Oh, we're having difficulty meeting current demands," there's no insightful discussion of what their potential is, how long they've been sitting on the fence before they expanded their production capability, etc., etc. It's always taken at face value. And then, of course, you have this extraordinary series of articles that came forward earlier in 2011 about natural gas.
Full interview at: The Future of Natural Gas - An Interview with Raymond Learsy
Bump for later
The first part of the interview details how the NYT is trying to torpedo natural gas, so that the US keeps paying money to the muzzles for oil. FUNYT.
Natgas should be for vehicle use, we should be using thorium reactors to generate electricity.
The Environmentalist Wacko-Green Weenie, Extremists, HATE Capitalism/America and worship at the altar of OWLGORE and the prostrate before their "god" Mom Gaia.
These certifiably, deranged, Moonbats, would as soon see (most of the) Earth's population "PURGED" so that as to "save" the Planet from we eeeeevil humans, thus anything which insures our survival and prosperity, is considered Vervboten and they will do everything in their power to deny us our own PLENTIFUL Energy supplies.
The House of Saud and other Islamic Oil Producing Countries (which use their valuable resources to help fund those who would destroy us, Radical Islamists) must get up every day and thank their "Allah" for having given us so many "Useful Idiots."
A good time as any to remind all of what some of the more radical Greenies subscribe to:
These people are deadly (pun intended) serious and have more influence on public policy in our country than ever before, more than ever, with the immaculate ascension of our DEAR LEADER.
How’s about we start with someone everyone should know, Prince Philip. Yes, THAT Prince Philip!
“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and THE NEED TO ADJUST THE CULL TO THE SIZE OF THE SURPLUS POPULATION.” - Prince Philip, preface of Down to Earth
“IF I WERE REINCARNATED I WOULD WISH TO BE RETURNED TO EARTH AS A KILLER VIRUS TO LOWER HUMAN POPULATION LEVELS.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“GIVING SOCIETY CHEAP, ABUNDANT ENERGY WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF GIVING AN IDIOT CHILD A MACHINE GUN” -Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. WE MUST SHIFT OUR EFFORTS FROM THE TREATMENT OF THE SYMPTOMS TO THE CUTTING OUT OF THE CANCER. THE OPERATION WILL DEMAND MANY APPARENTLY BRUTAL AND HEARTLESS DECISIONS.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“THE ONLY HOPE FOR THE WORLD IS TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT ANOTHER UNITED STATES. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US…..
"WE HAVE TO STOP THESE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE. ” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. IT WOULD BE LITTLE SHORT OF DISASTROUS FOR US TO DISCOVER A SOURCE OF CLEAN, CHEAP, ABUNDANT ENERGY, BECAUSE OF WHAT WE MIGHT DO WITH IT.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“THE PROSPECT OF CHEAP FUSION ENERGY IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE PLANET. ” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… SO WE HAVE TO OFFER UP SCARY SCENARIOS, MAKE SIMPLIFIED, DRAMATIC STATEMENTS AND MAKE LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS…....Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being EFFECTIVE and being HONEST.” - Dr. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology & LEAD AUTHOR OF MANY IPCC REPORTS
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. EVEN IF THE THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING IS WRONG, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“THE ONLY WAY TO GET OUR SOCIETY TO TRULY CHANGE IS TO FRIGHTEN PEOPLE WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF A CATASTROPHE.” - Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. ALL WE NEED IS THE RIGHT MAJOR CRISIS…” - David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member
“I SUSPECT THAT ERADICATING SMALL POX WAS WRONG. IT PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN BALANCING ECOSYSTEMS.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
I stopped reading after the part about carbon. Natural gas doesn’t have much carbon in it. It is 4 parts hydrogen and one part carbon. So in my opinion it is almost pure hydrogen.
I get sick of these green idiots talking about things they know nothing about.
I get sick of these green idiots talking about things they know nothing about."
Methane CH4 while it does have 4 hydrogen atoms per carbon those 4 hydrogen atoms make up less than 1/3 the mass of methane by weight carbon being 12 times more massive atomically.
On an energy basis the delta Heat on oxidation of methane fully to water vapor and CO2 gas is such that delta H = (1640Kj+988Kj)-(1598Kj+1840Kj)= -810Kj where energy of bonds broken is subtracted from energy of bonds created. those 4 hydrogens provides 1840Kj and that single carbon atom provides 1598Kj for a net total of -810Kj which indicates this reaction is exothermic. Breaking the C-H bonds 4 times costs 1640Kj and breaking O=O bond twice costs 988Kj where as forming CO2 requires 2 C=O bonds yielding 1598Kj and 4 O-H single bonds yielding 1840Kj.
It should be clear that the energy content of methane is almost 50% yielded by that single carbon atom, hardly all hydrogen in mass or energy. This is sophomore Chem 2315 level kinetics. I would put forward that most people could not pass this level of Chem II. My university has a 45% pass rate for first time chem II students the NSM department uses it as a weed out class for all science major much like calculus and physics which directly follow the chem track.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.