Comments on: Senate GOP: “balance” = climate-destroying shale, RNC: “balance” = “a climate in crisis”

By: Uosdwis

Uosdwis — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:27:41 +0000

Shale may have very little energy density, but burning Cap’n Crunch would be a waste of a delicious breakfast cereal! Probably hell on your fuel injectors, too.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:50:39 +0000

Let’s see, the 1200 MW input alone (forget about the shale energy) could fuel EVs driving 35 billion miles a year. Using the 100,000 barrels a day, the resulting gasoline from using this 1200 MW to extract hydrocarbons from shale would result in just 16 billion miles a year, and of course would be atmosphere destroying in the process.

By: jcwinnie

jcwinnie — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:11:07 +0000

Speaking of a great fall and fuel injection to hell, in rebutting the RNC with facts, Chief Joseph is missing the conspicuous price tags worn by the policy makers.

Probably just as effective as a slide showing a piece of the pie chart with percent campaign contributions from penguins and polar bears.

“Shale, Shale, the gang is all aboard the Peabody Death Train” is about heating up the Syngas Spin rather than an agenda of any Western state.

By: Charlie Peters

Charlie Peters — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:06:50 +0000

What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?

http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/ c/ a/ 2008/ 04/ 18/ BAOK1087DP.DTL

By: executive director

executive director — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:30:21 +0000

For factual information on oil shale please log on the web site given above and/or email us.
Glenn Vawter

By: John Hollenberg

John Hollenberg — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:40:14 +0000

> For factual information on oil shale please log on the web site given above and/or email us.

I think we have all the facts we need to determine that oil shale is very bad for global warming… unless you disagree with the article re: amount of GHG released from its production. If so, how about citing independent studies that address this issue.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:46:28 +0000

http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 04/ 19/ remembering-alex-farrell-the-passionate-analyst/

By: Graeme Bird

Graeme Bird — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:47:52 +0000

Shale and other carbon resources would be more viable if we had saturation nuclear power.

Liquifying shale is in no way bad for the environment. Since the output will be basically just CO2. And as all evidence attests CO2 is good for the biosphere.

The conclusion that CO2 is good for the biosphere is unassailable if at once we decide to go by scientific evidence. Rather than relying on tribal fantasies and lies.

By: Brewster

Brewster — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:00:41 +0000

Thanks, Graeme, I needed a good laugh before bedtime..

I won’t even ask what “scientific evidence” you have that CO2 is “good for the biosphere”. Your reply is perfect as is…

By: John Hollenberg

John Hollenberg — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:10:58 +0000

> The conclusion that CO2 is good for the biosphere is unassailable if at once we decide to go by scientific evidence.

The first “PRO-Global Warming” stance I have seen on climateprogress! Joe’s quote from a recent article certainly applies here:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

By: Sam Borgeson

Sam Borgeson — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:23:00 +0000

I was one of Alex’s students in the Energy and Resource Group and can tell you that on the analysis of unconventional fuels, he always credited and deferred to Adam Brandt, his co-author on “Risks of the oil transition” and other related papers. Adam’s work is ongoing, and as we see from this and other political theater, extremely relevant to our current situation. I encourage anyone interested in the likely impacts of unconventional fuels to look at his work. He is one of many exceptional scholars who are continuing the work that Alex left unfinished. http://abrandt.berkeley.edu/

By: kenlevenson

kenlevenson — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:39:01 +0000

Off topic, a bit, and not meaning to stir the pot (really) but….it seems to me the Humpty Dumpty principle is at work regarding the word “breakthrough”….at a certain Institute, no?