tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6212855265822100141..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Researching cheaper fossil fuel extraction is unethicalEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2614631443160680972016-06-19T20:14:50.939-04:002016-06-19T20:14:50.939-04:00Probably worth an update in the OP, but by researc...Probably worth an update in the OP, but by research I mean new technological approaches, e.g. what fracking was in 1990s, or the current foolishness of US government funding to mine methane from ocean floor clathrates. Fine tuning current methods doesn't really fit that bill, doesn't have as many long-term implications, and is less likely to be university and government funded.<br /><br />Exploration for new fossil fuels isn't research IMO either, but for similar reasons it's a bad idea - the odds of finding cheaper ff sources then existing reserves are very low, and we have too many existing reserves as it is - why expand them.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55657968430092187172016-06-13T05:54:14.384-04:002016-06-13T05:54:14.384-04:00I did some consulting for oil companies researchin...I did some consulting for oil companies researching oil recovery and processing techniques designed to reduce the amount of energy used to extract the oil. Some of these ideas are being applied, but we need to see how they pan out in the long term. Reducing energy use does involve reducing costs, as well as reducing emissions. If you don't like the fact that we do intend to be more efficient at what we do you can suggest the government use a carbon tax. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85656267734085452252016-06-12T21:41:48.404-04:002016-06-12T21:41:48.404-04:00Sorry about the cola typo- no carbon-free diet c...Sorry about the cola typo- no carbon-free diet crystal coal jokes , please.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16359510313465629982016-06-12T21:39:49.521-04:002016-06-12T21:39:49.521-04:00What of the ethics of research aimed at decarboniz...What of the ethics of research aimed at decarbonizing the coal economy?<br /><br />There is presently no effort to reduce high C to H ratio cola burning by incentivizing the production of high hydrogen solid fuels, although they are as abundantly available as those that produce more CO2 per BTU . Moving away from existing mines on the basis of hydrogen rebates on carbon taxes could save half a wedge of carbon-burning in the US alone.<br /><br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45476483720720124942016-06-12T21:04:02.902-04:002016-06-12T21:04:02.902-04:00US-DOE lives by the politics of money. As long as...US-DOE lives by the politics of money. As long as there is potential funding from industry or congress, DOE will be proposing coal technology projects. If Trump becomes POTUS, and needs a plan to send to congress to save coal jobs, they will have a draft ready to polish and send over. Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150805906414546377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69423158108495836212016-06-12T20:27:46.758-04:002016-06-12T20:27:46.758-04:00NETL
http://www.netl.doe.gov/newsroom/directors-...NETL <br /><br />http://www.netl.doe.gov/newsroom/directors-corner/details?id=e84141ac-af8d-406b-b4de-7d3913377627<br />EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19134304998061066612016-06-12T17:46:09.894-04:002016-06-12T17:46:09.894-04:00I regularly attend Stanford meetings:
GCEP (next =...I regularly attend Stanford meetings:<br /><a href="http://gcep.stanford.edu/" rel="nofollow">GCEP</a> (next = Nov 2-3)<br /><a href="http://peec.stanford.edu/events/2016/sves/" rel="nofollow">Energy Summits</a> (except was away for 2016),<br />weekly <a href="https://energy.stanford.edu/energy-seminar/about-energy-seminar" rel="nofollow">Energy Seminars</a><br /><a href="https://v1.bookwhen.com/8ed8w" rel="nofollow">tour of new central energy facility</a>.<br /><br />I see lots of work on batteries, PV, alternate energies, efficiency, policies, etc, etc. I don't recall ever seeing "make fossil cheaper", but I could easily have missed some.<br /><br />I've also traded emails and/or talked in person about divestment with very senior people who have both serious climate concern and energy expertise ... who were happy to see coal divestment, but wouldn't sign off on a total fossil divestment, the latter considered to be too much of a blunt instrument. I.e., coal has to go away ASAP (decades), but gas/oil aren't going to any time soon, and they have to be managed down in a coherent way ... and that means developing criteria to selectively encourage better behavior and discourage bad behavior.<br />- divest from things like tar sands or maybe Arctic drilling (latter unneeded now, I guess)<br />- divest from companies with poor methane leakage or worst fracking behavior<br />etc ... and figuring all that out is nontrivial, given industry and financial structures.JohnMasheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08174651130367553996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57374152703290850662016-06-12T16:28:25.871-04:002016-06-12T16:28:25.871-04:00To answer the question
> Saudi crude ... if it...To answer the question<br /><br />> Saudi crude ... if it were unexploited<br /><br />Let's see, compare the paths<br /><br />Assuming starting from reliance on limited, expensive tar sands petrochemicals<br /> <br />1) build an industrial base adding oil tankers and suitable refineries for Saudi crude<br />or<br />2) build something else with the same money<br /><br />What are the external costs? Gotta total up the costs.<br /><br />Hmmmm ..... are we assuming anyone knows about climate change, for this exercise?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42457902806747841402016-06-12T16:24:39.189-04:002016-06-12T16:24:39.189-04:00Well, consider MTBE.
First it was a toxic waste re...Well, consider MTBE.<br />First it was a toxic waste requiring expensive disposal<br />Then it was an inexpensive, easily available oxygenator to be added to gasoline<br />Then it was a toxic waste polluting surface water and near surface aquifers.<br />Oh, the stuff could be spilled? <br />Who could have foreseen that?<br /><br />Then, consider fracking chemicals<br />Are they using the same things otherwise called toxic waste?<br />How would you know?<br />Why are they inexpensive?<br /><br />Each paving stone added to the path is not necessarily a step forward.<br />It may well be an inexpensive step in the current direction<br />If you go on in the direction you're headed, you will get there.<br />Which path are we paving?<br /><br />Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88145247909219379122016-06-12T16:18:28.564-04:002016-06-12T16:18:28.564-04:00For example, if by some accident of history it had...For example, if by some accident of history it had happened that the USA got most of its oil from Canadian tar sands, would you now argue against trying to use Saudi crude, if that were unexploited? William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13871690136129944912016-06-12T15:05:40.399-04:002016-06-12T15:05:40.399-04:00What do you mean by "cheaper"? Do you me...What do you mean by "cheaper"? Do you mean "using fewer resources"? If so, your argument is obvious nonsense. But perhaps you mean something else.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com