zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

wvman75 wrote:
Quote:

zwaaa wrote: Someone need a hug.....

What? No trees available?

Sure there are....FOR NOW!!!

wvtarheel wrote:
What if we built cleaner, healthier world for nothing?

wvman75 wrote:
Quote:

MdMounty wrote: Glad you don't want to talk about coal since it has zero to do with gas prices. That's a nice generality about who knows what in that first paragraph which says absolutley nothing.

Ever heard of "Coal Gasification"? There is more potential in coal than just electrical energy production.

Eers88 wrote:
My wife gets mad at me when I gasify.

wvman75 wrote:

Typical liberal. You mouth off with your speculations and vague references to what percentage of the world's oil supply could actually be found here at home without providing any actual numbers to back up your speculation, and then try and make it someone elses' responsibility to provide some actual numbers to disprove your speculation. The onus is on you. But, if our actual potential as an oil producer is blocked by those of your political persuasion, I guess we won't ever really know what impact we could have on world markets or on self-sufficiency.

zwaaa wrote:
Your gasification is also expensive, inefficient, and takes a high toll on the environment.

chaswv wrote:
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Your gasification is also expensive, inefficient, and takes a high toll on the environment.

Local or global? Hint: All gasifications are local.

zwaaa wrote:
ARGUABLY burger king is superior to McDonald's.

Better cooking, better fries, better soda selection.

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

bulldozer wrote:


By the way, most of the "natural" gas in South Africa is the product of these coal gasification plants. So it is not only possible, but practiced by a country with basically no known gas resources. Because they had to. But then again, this same country also desalinizes much of their fresh water supply because they lack sufficient fresh water supplies.

Isn't it also true that they only have two plants, and that no more have been built because of the prohibitive expense?

bulldozer wrote:
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

bulldozer wrote:


By the way, most of the "natural" gas in South Africa is the product of these coal gasification plants. So it is not only possible, but practiced by a country with basically no known gas resources. Because they had to. But then again, this same country also desalinizes much of their fresh water supply because they lack sufficient fresh water supplies.

Isn't it also true that they only have two plants, and that no more have been built because of the prohibitive expense?

True, because this is very emerging technology. Because they don't have to heat homes very much, and what demand they have is generally for manufacturing and "cooking gas," they haven't needed as much capacity as they may have thought.

MdMounty wrote:
Gasification has been around since the 19th century and the modern process since the 70's. Liquifaction has been around since the 60's They've never been able to make it economically feasible, but we shouldn't give up on this and it's looking better all the time.

Back in the 70's & 80's, coal companies were booming and making big profits and should have been putting money in R&D for stuff like this for a rainy day.

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

MdMounty wrote:
Gasification has been around since the 19th century and the modern process since the 70's. Liquifaction has been around since the 60's They've never been able to make it economically feasible, but we shouldn't give up on this and it's looking better all the time.

Back in the 70's & 80's, coal companies were booming and making big profits and should have been putting money in R&D for stuff like this for a rainy day.

Question, as you sem to know a lot more about this than I do. Would it be better to research this, or say newer solar and safer nuclear technologies? Better from a financial standpoint.

MdMounty wrote:
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

MdMounty wrote:
Gasification has been around since the 19th century and the modern process since the 70's. Liquifaction has been around since the 60's They've never been able to make it economically feasible, but we shouldn't give up on this and it's looking better all the time.

Back in the 70's & 80's, coal companies were booming and making big profits and should have been putting money in R&D for stuff like this for a rainy day.

Question, as you sem to know a lot more about this than I do. Would it be better to research this, or say newer solar and safer nuclear technologies? Better from a financial standpoint.

I think you need to do both at this point and a bigger emphasis on non-fossil fuel options. The big advantage of coal is we have a lot of it. I'm skeptical that coal will ever be used in a "clean" way, however.

SaneJane wrote:
Before Obama took office, I lost 40% of my 401(k). Thanks, George W.

It is now slightly higher than it was before the fall. Thanks, Barack. (I still get sick thinking where it might have been if not for the decline.)

I am receiving my Social Security checks right on time and may still qualify for Medicare after the company I worked for for more than 20 years takes away my health insurance in 2015, even though they told me I would have it for life. Clearly, they have changed their mind about that.

I know who I'm voting for, too. I'm one of the 99 percent. I can't afford to live under a Republican administration that wants to take away the benefits I need to live.

zwaaa wrote:
THis is clearly your fault for not anticipating the deregulation that would allow financial institutions to engage in questionable risky business tactics that would have a very adverse effect on our economy.