To: John Jamieson
When we worked in the gas industry, we used to joke about the incredible gullibility of environmentalists to buy into the argument that natural gas is a better fuel to burn environmentally than more complex hydrocarbons.
Considering there's a finite supply of both, but that hydrocarbons break down into methane later in the process, the more intelligent choice is to break the plentiful number of hydrocarbons available. This would leave plenty of methane available for chemical feedstocks without the threat to quantity of methane available to future generations.
I've wondered if the hydrocarbons weren't actually formed in ancient history by fallen angels or their bodies from some condemnation. It might explain the natural inclination of so many environmentalists to oppose their man made consumption.
posted on 01/09/2002 5:13:22 PM PST
Our economy is built on HC fuel because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy in large enough supply to support our needs. The switch will only occur when we are finally forced to adopt nuclear. Nothing else is even close. Solar would be nice (it's nuclear too and in a strange way I guess HC is too!), but the equipment costs are much too high. It takes energy to build equipment, and not a whole lot more.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson