OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas

On Sep 8, 4:13*pm, metspitzer wrote:
OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas


CNG as a transportation and heating fuel makes great sense, we are
wasting CNG when we use it to make electricity. Electricity is better
made with nuclear, wind, hydro or coal. I think T Boone is still
pushing wind for electricity so we could eliminate NG power
generation. A good idea considering todays combustion engines with
computer controls can be easily re-adapted for NG and filling stations
can just as naturally add CNG pumps. CNG is portable and produces a
lot of energy to replace gasoline and maybe diesel in medium duty
trucks. An piston engine that can burn both CNG or gasoline is
feasible with todays technology, making NG a great clean bridge fuel
for transportation use.

"RickH" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 4:13 pm, metspitzer wrote:
OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas


CNG as a transportation and heating fuel makes great sense, we are
wasting CNG when we use it to make electricity. Electricity is better


"made with nuclear" better my bottom end

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:

You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants

I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have

77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get read

of, we have no way to store it, no State in the Union wanted in

their back yard, perhaps Sir we should dig couple tunnel in your

Back yard to store it. Anywhere that is not my point, may I ask Sir

Why we can use coal, we can clean it we have technology and use

it for many years to come, but it seems to me that power hungry

politicians all they look how to make quick buck. A another thing

we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because

they can not be trusted I agree! But that is all based on assumptions

that is nowhere to have good relation with any country. If we go back

to basic and build power plants burning coal we would be solving

a more then one problem; having better relations with some countries

that presently practically don't exists and at same time employing

more people, saving on fuel and less dependent on forging oil.

Thank you Sir.

Tony





wind, hydro or coal. I think T Boone is still
pushing wind for electricity so we could eliminate NG power
generation. A good idea considering todays combustion engines with
computer controls can be easily re-adapted for NG and filling stations
can just as naturally add CNG pumps. CNG is portable and produces a
lot of energy to replace gasoline and maybe diesel in medium duty
trucks. An piston engine that can burn both CNG or gasoline is
feasible with todays technology, making NG a great clean bridge fuel
for transportation use.

wrote:
....
T Boone was always planning on selling natural gas, it is a byproduct
of his oil business. The wind nonsense was just obfuscation.

Yep, mostly...

CNG for auto transportation is also a waste of NG (as well as is central
station generation) as it is _far_ more valuable to use as the most
convenient residential heating source and as chemical feedstock, etc.,
rather than for automotive use.

--

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...
T Boone was always planning on selling natural gas, it is a byproduct
of his oil business. The wind nonsense was just obfuscation.

Yep, mostly...

Also, owing to the nature of wind as a power supply, any generation from
wind which is intended to offset other baseload generation (say, coal)
will require an equivalent amount of standby generation, the most likely
for that being gas turbines. Wonder how that fits into a gas man's
future????

--

Old and Grunpy wrote:

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:

You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants

I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have

77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get read

of, we have no way to store it, no State in the Union wanted in

their back yard, perhaps Sir we should dig couple tunnel in your

Back yard to store it. Anywhere that is not my point, may I ask Sir

Why we can use coal, we can clean it we have technology and use

it for many years to come, but it seems to me that power hungry

politicians all they look how to make quick buck. A another thing

we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because

they can not be trusted I agree! But that is all based on assumptions

that is nowhere to have good relation with any country. If we go back

to basic and build power plants burning coal we would be solving

a more then one problem; having better relations with some countries

that presently practically don't exists and at same time employing

more people, saving on fuel and less dependent on forging oil.

Thank you Sir.

Tony



The disposal of nuclear waste is a completely phony issue. We haven't
decided how to dispose of nuclear waste, not because there are no good
solutions, but because we don't have to make that decision now.

Shoot it into the sun, encase it in molten glass and dump it five miles down
in the ocean, inject it into salt domes, reprocess it into new fuel, and
about a dozen others are all "good" solutions. But here's the unknown part:
an even better solution may be proposed tomorrow!

So, then, why commit to a path that might prove second best if you can delay
the decision?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Shoot it into the sun, encase it in molten glass and dump it five miles down
in the ocean, inject it into salt domes, reprocess it into new fuel, and
about a dozen others are all "good" solutions. But here's the unknown part:
an even better solution may be proposed tomorrow!


Reprocessing is the best short term solution. Yet another legacy
from the Jimmy Carter days (who should have known better). Pretty much
the entire rest of the planet uses reprocessing yet that is closed off
to American companies.

On Sep 8, 6:50*pm, "Old and Grunpy" wrote:
"RickH" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 4:13 pm, metspitzer wrote:

OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas

CNG as a transportation and heating fuel makes great sense, we are
wasting CNG when we use it to make electricity. *Electricity is better

"made with nuclear" * * better my bottom end

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:

You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants

I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have

77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get read

of, we have no way to store it, no State in the Union wanted in

their back yard, perhaps Sir we should dig couple tunnel in your

Back yard to store it.


That nuclear waste would have been either reprocessed or stored in
Yucca Montain years ago, if guys like you hadn't done everything
possible to block it.




Anywhere that is not my point, may I ask Sir

Why we can use coal, we can clean it we have technology and use

it for many years to come, but it seems to me that power hungry

politicians all they look how to make quick buck.

It's not the power hungry politicans that are blocking coal. It's
economics and guys like you who demand it be "cleaned" to such an
extent that it becomes uncompetitive compared to other alternatives.
In particular, "cleaning" it now means preventing the principle
byproduct, carbon dioxide, from entering the atmosphere, which is no
trivial matter.





A another thing

we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because

they can not be trusted I agree!

That's not true. We have no problem with any country using nuclear
power plants for power generation, as long as it's open to
international inspection. And as for the ones that won't co-operate
and have active nuke weapons development programs, you think they give
a damn if the US gets it's power from coal or nuclear?




But that is all based on assumptions

Yes, a lot of faulty assumptions.




that is nowhere to have good relation with any country. If we go back

*to basic and build power plants burning coal we would be solving

a more then one *problem; having better relations with some countries

that presently practically don't exists and at same time employing

more people, saving on fuel and less dependent on forging oil.

Thank you Sir.

Tony


Yeah, I'm sure the US announcing we won't build any nukes for civilan
power will have a real impact on what Iran, North Korea and Pakistan
does. You must have gone to the Jimmy Carter school of foreign
policy.






wind, hydro or coal. *I think T Boone is still
pushing wind for electricity so we could eliminate NG power
generation. *A good idea considering todays combustion engines with
computer controls can be easily re-adapted for NG and filling stations
can just as naturally add CNG pumps. *CNG is portable and produces a
lot of energy to replace gasoline and maybe diesel in medium duty
trucks. *An piston engine that can burn both CNG or gasoline is
feasible with todays technology, making NG a great clean bridge fuel
for transportation use.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:27:55 -0700, RickH wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:13Â*pm, metspitzer wrote:
OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas


CNG as a transportation and heating fuel makes great sense, we are
wasting CNG when we use it to make electricity. Electricity is better
made with nuclear, wind, hydro or coal. I think T Boone is still
pushing wind for electricity so we could eliminate NG power generation.
A good idea considering todays combustion engines with computer controls
can be easily re-adapted for NG and filling stations can just as
naturally add CNG pumps. CNG is portable and produces a lot of energy
to replace gasoline and maybe diesel in medium duty trucks. An piston
engine that can burn both CNG or gasoline is feasible with todays
technology, making NG a great clean bridge fuel for transportation use.

If I understand it correctly, CNG is a Liquid form of NG. Similar to LPG
or propane. That bums me out! I was hopping to just fill up a car with
NG that I have piped into my home. My home NG is in the gaseous state,
not compressed liquefied state that a CNG .

I really would like to get away from the Gas Station routine of filling
up my car. After all these years of pumping gas at a station, I would be
willing to give that up for sake of Energy Independence.

{with tongue in cheek} Maybe a Sears power tool that would hook up to my
home's NG, compress the the NG and pump the liquid CNG to my car. Keep
the compressor in the garage, right next to the Lawn Mower.

On Sep 8, 8:32*pm, dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
...
T Boone was always planning on selling natural gas, it is a byproduct
of his oil business. The wind nonsense was just obfuscation.

Yep, mostly...

Also, owing to the nature of wind as a power supply, any generation from
wind which is intended to offset other baseload generation (say, coal)
will require an equivalent amount of standby generation, the most likely
for that being gas turbines. *Wonder how that fits into a gas man's
future????

--

I wonder how many people who are big fans of Pickens realize where he
made a lot of his money. In the 80's he was a corporate raider who
would buy up the stock of companies, make demands on them, threaten to
take them over, etc. In many cases, the companies wound up entering
into a settlement with Pickens. He agreed to go away and the
companies bought back his stock at far more than he paid for it.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:00:28 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote Re OT Looks like T Boone has switched from win to natural
gas:

Reprocessing is the best short term solution. Yet another legacy
from the Jimmy Carter days (who should have known better). Pretty much
the entire rest of the planet uses reprocessing yet that is closed off
to American companies.

Indeed. Just like no oil drilling. Although I agree with that. Not
because of environmental concerns, but I believe more oil isn't a
solution. We need to break that addiction. Nuclear would help with
that.

On Sep 9, 9:56*am, Caesar Romano wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:00:28 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote Re OT Looks like T Boone has switched from win to natural
gas:

* * *Reprocessing is the best short term solution. Yet another legacy
from the Jimmy Carter days (who should have known better). Pretty much
the entire rest of the planet uses reprocessing yet that is closed off
to American companies.

Indeed. Just like no oil drilling. Although I agree with that. Not
because of environmental concerns, but I believe more oil isn't a
solution. We need to break that addiction.

If you don't have evironmental concerns, then what's the need to break
this "addiction" to oil? I would say that just as we're "addicted"
to oil, we're addicted to food, the internet, computers and most
everything else. Should we give all that up too, just because one
day you decide it's an "addiction"?


Nuclear would help with
that.

Nuclear by itself isn't going to help much with the demand for oil.
Only a small amount of electric power is generated from oil.

On Sep 9, 5:46*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Old and Grunpy wrote:

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:

You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants

I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have

77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get read

of, we have no way to store it, no State in the Union wanted in

their back yard, perhaps Sir we should dig couple tunnel in your

Back yard to store it. Anywhere that is not my point, may I ask Sir

Why we can use coal, we can clean it we have technology and use

it for many years to come, but it seems to me that power hungry

politicians all they look how to make quick buck. A another thing

we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because

they can not be trusted I agree! But that is all based on assumptions

that is nowhere to have good relation with any country. If we go back

to basic and build power plants burning coal we would be solving

a more then one *problem; having better relations with some countries

that presently practically don't exists and at same time employing

more people, saving on fuel and less dependent on forging oil.

Thank you Sir.

Tony

The disposal of nuclear waste is a completely phony issue. We haven't
decided how to dispose of nuclear waste, not because there are no good
solutions, but because we don't have to make that decision now.

Shoot it into the sun, encase it in molten glass and dump it five miles down
in the ocean, inject it into salt domes, reprocess it into new fuel, and
about a dozen others are all "good" solutions. But here's the unknown part:
an even better solution may be proposed tomorrow!

So, then, why commit to a path that might prove second best if you can delay
the decision?

shooting nuke waste to sun isn't as easy or cost effective as it
sounds, ocean disposal is kinda scary

dry retrievable storage and / or reprocess are better bets

cheers
Bob

"Phil Again" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:27:55 -0700, RickH wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:13 pm, metspitzer wrote:
OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas


CNG as a transportation and heating fuel makes great sense, we are
wasting CNG when we use it to make electricity. Electricity is better
made with nuclear, wind, hydro or coal. I think T Boone is still
pushing wind for electricity so we could eliminate NG power generation.
A good idea considering todays combustion engines with computer controls
can be easily re-adapted for NG and filling stations can just as
naturally add CNG pumps. CNG is portable and produces a lot of energy
to replace gasoline and maybe diesel in medium duty trucks. An piston
engine that can burn both CNG or gasoline is feasible with todays
technology, making NG a great clean bridge fuel for transportation use.

If I understand it correctly, CNG is a Liquid form of NG. Similar to LPG
or propane. That bums me out! I was hopping to just fill up a car with
NG that I have piped into my home. My home NG is in the gaseous state,
not compressed liquefied state that a CNG .

I really would like to get away from the Gas Station routine of filling
up my car. After all these years of pumping gas at a station, I would be
willing to give that up for sake of Energy Independence.

{with tongue in cheek} Maybe a Sears power tool that would hook up to my
home's NG, compress the the NG and pump the liquid CNG to my car. Keep
the compressor in the garage, right next to the Lawn Mower.

CNG is compressed to about 3000psig but it is still in vapor form.It is not
liquified at these pressures. It's range is limited because of this so it
requires filling the tank(s) frequently.It takes about 4 hours of filling to
get enough cng to drive 50 miles. The compressor is available for home use
but is expensive and requires rebuilding about every 6000 hours of
operation. After 24000 hours (3 rebuilds) it needs to be replaced.

If I understand it correctly, CNG is a Liquid form of NG. Similar to
LPG or propane. That bums me out! I was hopping to just fill up a car
with NG that I have piped into my home. My home NG is in the gaseous
state, not compressed liquefied state that a CNG .

I really would like to get away from the Gas Station routine of filling
up my car. After all these years of pumping gas at a station, I would
be willing to give that up for sake of Energy Independence.

{with tongue in cheek} Maybe a Sears power tool that would hook up to
my home's NG, compress the the NG and pump the liquid CNG to my car.
Keep the compressor in the garage, right next to the Lawn Mower.

CNG is compressed to about 3000psig but it is still in vapor form.It is
not liquified at these pressures. It's range is limited because of this
so it requires filling the tank(s) frequently.It takes about 4 hours of
filling to get enough cng to drive 50 miles. The compressor is available
for home use but is expensive and requires rebuilding about every 6000
hours of operation. After 24000 hours (3 rebuilds) it needs to be
replaced.

What?? Wikipedia might have something Wrong??? OMG, will the sky fall
down tonight???

But seriously, thanks for the info. I didn't know about the 3K psi vapor
pressure. Thanks.

wrote:

I wonder how many people who are big fans of Pickens realize where he
made a lot of his money. In the 80's he was a corporate raider who
would buy up the stock of companies, make demands on them, threaten to
take them over, etc. In many cases, the companies wound up entering
into a settlement with Pickens. He agreed to go away and the
companies bought back his stock at far more than he paid for it.

Buy low, sell high. It's the American way.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Old and Grunpy wrote:

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:

You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants

I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have

77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get read

of, we have no way to store it, no State in the Union wanted in

their back yard, perhaps Sir we should dig couple tunnel in your

Back yard to store it. Anywhere that is not my point, may I ask Sir

Why we can use coal, we can clean it we have technology and use

it for many years to come, but it seems to me that power hungry

politicians all they look how to make quick buck. A another thing

we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because

they can not be trusted I agree! But that is all based on assumptions

that is nowhere to have good relation with any country. If we go back

to basic and build power plants burning coal we would be solving

a more then one problem; having better relations with some countries

that presently practically don't exists and at same time employing

more people, saving on fuel and less dependent on forging oil.

Thank you Sir.

Tony



The disposal of nuclear waste is a completely phony issue. We haven't
decided how to dispose of nuclear waste, not because there are no good
solutions, but because we don't have to make that decision now.

Shoot it into the sun, encase it in molten glass and dump it five miles
down in the ocean, inject it into salt domes, reprocess it into new fuel,
and about a dozen others are all "good" solutions. But here's the unknown
part: an even better solution may be proposed tomorrow!

So, then, why commit to a path that might prove second best if you can
delay the decision?



Yes we can delay decision but more we delay more expensive it gets
So that your kids and grand my children will be paying for it for they
entire life. in mean time our crooked politicians getting their packets
lined, and needless to say back to waste that our kids in few years can
be cooking in the wasted crap that no-one wants.
Some of you telling me that nuclear energy is good or better yet
it is great. You dumb asses I wonder who the hell have programmed
you brain because you having got any.

HeyBub this does not pretend only to you but to any one
who may think otherwise specially to trader4 who may have

metspitzer wrote:

OT Looks like T Boone has switched from wind to natural gas

Actually he never switched. His primary goal all along was to greatly
increase the demand for natural gas, and his wind power campaign was
just a cover to make him seem eco friendly so he could greatly
increase drilling for gas. Why would somebody as smart and ruthless
as T. Boone Pickens want to settle for wind power when the really big
money is in natural gas?

His plan to require all transportation to be powered by natural gas is
silly because it would be just an interim solution until all but the
largest vehicles on our highways use only electricity.

Old and Grunpy wrote:

To Mr. McCain

According to recent paper publishing you have stated that:
You are looking to build additional 45 nuclear power plants
I believe it was said by year 2020.

Dear Sir: at present time according to news media we have
77,000 tons of nuclear waste that we have no ability to get rid
of, we have no way to store it,

We have ways to get rid of it, through reprocessing, and if we had no
way to store it, what have we been doing with it for the past half-
century? The fact is that almost all nuclear waste is stored in
welded stainless steel cylinders at the reactor sites.

OTOH the goal of building 45 new reactors by 2020 is probably
unrealistic because of the finances and short supply of production
capacity. It's possible that even the supply of cement and water
won't be sufficient -- back when the US was thinking of building 1,000
super-hardened missile silos, it was estimated the effort would take
10-20% of the water in the western states and maybe as much as half of
the cement.

A another thing we don't want other Countries to have nuclear plants because
they can not be trusted I agree!

Probably the biggest problem. The proposal to put all nuclear fuel
and waste under UN control should be implemented, even though it won't
prevent the most ardent nations from producing nuclear weapons.