Gas Lands 2. What The Frack is going on around here?

[SoCal 420]

All we are doing here is talking about what "You" are posting... Hardly HighJacking, there is nothing here to HighJack... Later...

 

[Prime C]

Problem is you yourself can't survive without "All" that you are Moaning about (Gas, oil, Cars, Semi Trucks Big Corporations to provide your Clothing and Food... Put up or Shut up, Lead by Example and post Photos of your "New Found" minimalist lifestyle right here bro... Lay down the blunt and join reality...
mean green smokin machine!

Put up or shut up! Again bro, no need to attack me. Im in reality. There are many different ways to supply energy to the masses. Post my photos? Cmon duder....Only thing Im confused about is this dialog. With the technology of today there has to be a better way and our so called leaders do nothing but pad their pockets. Can you agree with me on that? I dont want to clog this up with back and forth bs. All I want is a future for my kids and yours.;)

 

[Prime C]

And I dont do blunts either! Joints for the taste homie.:D

 

[SoCal 420]

Put up or shut up! Again bro, no need to attack me. Im in reality. There are many different ways to supply energy to the masses. Post my photos? Cmon duder....Only thing Im confused about is this dialog. With the technology of today there has to be a better way and our so called leaders do nothing but pad their pockets. Can you agree with me on that? I dont want to clog this up with back and forth bs. All I want is a future for my kids and yours.;)

I was just going to drop this because you seem to have placed your belief in some Scare Tactic Flic that was produced by A Chump with no Degree in Ecology, Geology, Geo Engineering with Corporate Finance Backing and Attorneys that want to Silence people that Debunk what is being said through "Science" (That you seem to despise) You want to leave A better world for your children, Don't "Kill the Goose that laid the Golden Egg" The #1 form of transportation that "Runs this Country" is... Fleet Truck. They are Every Where, Transport Every Thing. Almost Every item in your home is moved by this method or rail at some point or another from Point A to Point B. This is the Filthiest (Carbon Emissions) possible way to transport and the "Least" regulated by EPA. These vehicles could be Easily converted to run on what? Natural Gas... The cleanest source of fuel on the face of this Planet. Why would truckers want to convert to Natural Gas? Tax Break to Pay for Retrofitting their Rigs and Government Incentive to provide Clean Air for Your Children through your Well Spent (for Once) Tax Dollar, that's How. Subsidize that with the complete transfer of "All" public transportation (Buses) to Natural Gas and You will have An Immediate Impact on Carbon Emissions that will be Noticed by all. MEASURABLE by SCIENCE. People like you that believe in "A Scary Movie" that is being proved by true verifiable "Science" backed by "Facts" to be A Complete Lie is what is stopping that from happening... The cleanest source of Fuel is Here... People that do nothing to "Find the Truth" are Stopping that which they desire and don't Even Realize it because of Stubbornness and outright Denial of True Science in their face, and that is the Real crime being committed on "Our" children. If You Rely on Others to Tell you the Truth without doing the Due Diligence to Find it Yourself... You are Destined for One Disappointment After Another... Common Sense, Run the Highest Polluting and most used commercial vehicles, on the cleanest source of fuel Available, Abundant and Cheap, Simple Really! Yet, you wish to put A Stop to it all with no Factual Science to support your decision but "Errr, I Saw A Movie Once" :facepalm: Would you tell your children, as they grow, to be productive and knowledgeable citizens of society, to base important decisions in such A way?

Have A Good One :cool:

 

[SoCal 420]

Fracking: Drilling Past The Myths

By Breeanne Howe on February 28, 2013

>>>> http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/breeanneh/fracking-drilling-past-the-myths <<<<

Fracking will cause your tap water to catch fire.
The movie, Gasland, set this rumor ablaze. One particular scene shows a man lighting the water pouring from his kitchen faucet. The fact is tap water could be lit on fire long before fracking came about due to naturally occurring methane pockets in the ground. If your water comes from a well and the drilling was done poorly, you stand a chance of having flammable water. Investigators later checked the man’s house and found the methane in his water was due to the way his well was drilled, fracking played no role. Additionally, when the filmmaker was confronted by the director of the pro-fracking film FrackNation about why he failed to mention the fact that tap water could be lit on fire regardless of fracking, he claimed the information “wasn’t relevant.”

 

[Natural]

SoCal..you make good points..but fracking is highly unregulated and it needs to be like all other production industries. "Miners" need to be responsible in their methods regardless of the bounty.
BTW when you start flexing on stoners on a stoner's forum for..well..getting stoned..it makes you sound like a monomaniac.

 

[sky high]

Yeah guys....don't fall for what some movie tells ya.....fall for what the internet site that is owned by the 4th richest man in America tells ya. You know...one of those friendly >less than 1%< kinda folks we can all trust to do us right by their corporations.

Get with it! That natural gas is clean. They said so on TV and on all of the conservative websites so you can believe it as fact.

"and up from the ground came a bubblin'....('er...um....we're not going to tell you what it is...but we assure you, >it's safe<) crude..."

Encana/Gunnison Energy corp are Colorado's "Monsanto". Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that some folks still support these corporations and stand on their corporate-generated words/TV commercials as fact. T.Boone Pickens, anyone?

Yup budmuncher.... I've seen the destruction of the land here first hand and while the fuel is reported by the oil companies as "clean" :rolleyes:, they way they are going about getting to it is destroying millions of acres of once pristine, untouched lands and they are using water that the West does not have for them to use to fuck..'er frack the land...water that ISN'T being used to irrigate crops/livestock that once fed your family and ISN'T being returned to the local water table.

No big deal though. They're making more forest and pristine land here everyday and we have lots of water. Just look at Lake Powell. Hell they have to nearly drain it every year 'cus it just keeps overfilling!

 

[SoCal 420]

So says the Fracking Scientist of all Knowledge Possessed by Man ^^^^ High Sky, Sky High, whatever... Long time No See Roley Eyes :rolleyes:, Just not long enough... From my point of view that is.

Too much water is used in the fracking process.
For starters, only .1% of water consumption in the U.S. is used by the natural gas industry. Coal and nuclear energy actually need more water than natural gas to be produced. Of the water used for fracking, up to 30% of it is recycled and is used in new wells. Not only is it environmentally sound to recycle the water, it saves the companies money. Currently the industry is researching alternative solutions that forgo water usage completely, such as propane gel and compressed air.
Hydraulic fracturing has been used for more than 60 years and has only improved with new technologies. More than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been safely produced thus far. Over 90% of today’s wells use fracturing. It may be difficult for some to admit, but Fracking is good for our country and it’s time to get on board

Like I said, A little Due Diligence / Research... Supported by Facts would help support your point.
I have seen just as many reports by thousands of people that own property in the states fracking is being debated by the 1000's of Acres, for generations, and they seem to state over and over, that methane found in wells (Water) goes back far before Fracking ever occurred and still, the wells exist to date to prove this fact... But people have Issues with dealing with Facts, so it is what it is...

P.S. It is apparent that some people among us are unaware of the fact that Natural Gas is used in the Majority of House Holds (And Some Newer Electric Power Plants, Because Solar just can't Handle the Job) across the United States for Decades... Clean, Efficient, Cost Effective, PROVEN. If it wasn't true Barack Obama would Executive Order it Away... Tell you to By Solyndra (FAIL) or some other Obama Fairy Tale Like Health Care :facepalm:

 

[SoCal 420]

Toxins and carcinogens are used in the fracking fluid and much of it is left in the ground.
The fluid used in the fracking process is 99.5% water and sand. (I Have Personally Seen People "Drink" Fracking Fluid, No Health Risk What so Ever, ZERO) While there are hundreds of chemicals (of which many are biodegradable) that can be used in the process, the most common chemicals used are also found in your house. For instance, sodium chloride may be used and is also used in table salt. Guar gum is another chemical used in fracking and can also be found in ice cream. If you attempt to search online for a list of the chemicals that can be used in fracking, you will see pages of results claiming the industry is trying to hide what chemicals they use for various nefarious reasons. In reality, a national fracking chemical registry has been set-up online, FracFocus, that allows citizens to easily see the chemicals used in the process and why each one is utilized. The website also offers the option of searching for wells near you to see a list of the chemicals used at that site.

 

[SoCal 420]

SoCal..you make good points..but fracking is highly unregulated and it needs to be like all other production industries. "Miners" need to be responsible in their methods regardless of the bounty.
BTW when you start flexing on stoners on a stoner's forum for..well..getting stoned..it makes you sound like a monomaniac.

Just plain Maniac would be more accurate... It's more like Hangin' with A Friend when you been burnin' the "Sledge Hammer Kron" and your like "Dude, your Fuckin' Loaded, Take A Break, Put that thing down bro...

Fracking is Currently "Regulated" far more than you could imagine, The paper work involved Per Site Equal that of the Notorious Obama Health Care Bill... A Ridiculous amount of Red Tape, Paper and Hoops... But they get it Done and Approved @ EPA Standard, Every Well, Every Time.

 

[SoCal 420]

Example of one States requirements...

Step One – Registration: Every prospective applicant for a permit must first “register” with the IDNR at least 30 days before applying for a permit (Section 1-35(a)). The law provides that registration forms will be developed by the IDNR within 90 days after the effective date of the legislation, and presumably no entity can even register until the forms are available from the IDNR. Among other requirements, the application must include proof of insurance and disclosure of any serious oil or gas industry violations within the previous five years. (Failure to have abated any such violation can be used as a basis by the IDNR to deny the permit application, as noted below).

Step Two – Application: Thirty days after registering, one may submit an application (again, on a form provided by the IDNR) that identifies the applicant and provides a detailed description of the proposed well (including but not limited to compliance with setback criteria, overall depth of the well, the length and direction of horizontal wellbores, geologic information, disclosure of the chemicals to be used in the fracking fluid, a plan for management and reuse/disposal of the fracking fluid, a fresh water withdrawal and management plan, a casing and cementing plan, and many other criteria) (Section 1-35(b)). In addition, drafts of the required public notices (discussed below) and the names and addresses of all landowners within 1500 feet of the well must be submitted. Water use is a significant concern, and thus a certification of compliance with the Water Use Act of 1983 and “applicable regional water supply plans” is also required. The law provides that the IDNR also has the authority to require additional information as it sees fit, to be set forth in the anticipated hearing rules. The application also requires payment of a non-refundable fee of $13,500. If the IDNR deems the application is lacking in any of the required information, it will notify the applicant in writing of the application’s deficiencies, and allow the applicant to correct the deficiencies, but may then reject the application if the applicant fails to provide sufficient supplemental information.

Step Three – Public Notice: The new law contains significant and detailed public notice requirements, some of which are the responsibility of the IDNR but most of which fall upon the applicant. Within five days of the IDNR’s receipt of a permit application, the IDNR must post a copy of the permit application on its website and indicate the period for public comment (Section 1-40). The applicant must provide notice of the application to the general public by newspaper publication, and by mailing notice to all property owners of record within 1500 feet of the proposed well site.

Step Four – Public Comment/Hearing: The law provides for a public comment period, beginning seven calendar days after the IDNR’s receipt of the permit application, which shall last for 30 calendar days (Section 1-45). Any person may file written comments with the IDNR related to the permit application and the Applicant’s compliance with the procedural requirements of the law, and “any other applicable laws.” A response to the public comments is not mandatory under the law, unless specifically requested by IDNR, but as a practical matter, an applicant would typically file responses to most substantive comments that are negative or that otherwise object to the permit application. Under the new law, “any person having an interest that is or may be adversely affected (including government agencies and the county board of the county in which the well is to be sited) may request a public hearing,” although a request for a hearing must be supported by a statement of facts as to why the requestor will be adversely affected by the proposed well. (Section 1-50). In addition to the requesting party, “any person who could have requested the hearing” on the same basis may petition IDNR for permission to participate in the hearing on the same basis as the requesting party.

Under the law, IDNR must establish rules and procedures for conduct of the hearing, which rules must provide for notice to the public and for “reasonable opportunity for all the parties to provide evidence and argument, to respond by oral or written testimony to statements and objections made at the public hearing, and for reasonable cross-examination of witnesses.” (Section 1-50(c)). If a public hearing is requested, the comment period can be extended for 15 days to allow for comments in response to evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. However, overall, IDNR is allowed no more than 60 calendar days from the date it receives the permit application to approve or reject the permit application (although the applicant may waive the 60-day deadline, either on its own initiative or at the request of IDNR). (Section 1-35(i)).

Step Five – Determination/Appeal: After the hearing is conducted and the fact witness and expert witness testimony, documents, public comments and responses, and other evidence has been entered into the hearing record, the IDNR will then make a determination as to whether to issue the permit (with or without conditions) or reject the permit (Section 1-53). Among the several criteria that the IDNR must use to evaluate the merit of the permit applications, the IDNR must determine that the application meets all of the relevant technical requirements under the law (e.g., well setbacks, disclosure of fracking fluid constituents, etc.), and that the proposed hydraulic fracturing operations “will be conducted in a manner that will protect the public health and safety and prevent pollution or diminution of any water source.” Such determination will be made on the basis of the complete record, which shall include the application, all written comments and responses, the complete record from the public hearing (if any), as well as “any information known” to the IDNR, which may include inspections of the proposed well site.

The law provides that the IDNR’s decision to approve or deny a permit shall be considered a final administrative decision subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/Art. III, which means that the issuance of a permit (or its denial) can be appealed to the state circuit court.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Now that the legislation has become law, the first group of permit applicants will face significant challenges. For starters, because no rules or regulations governing the hearing process currently exist, applicants must wait for the IDNR to develop the rules, including the required registration and application forms, before the permitting process can even begin. The rulemaking procedure itself is a critical part of the overall process, and those with an interest should be vigilant and would be well advised to participate during this proceeding.

Once rules are established, the burden on applicants to submit a thorough application and supporting materials will be significant, as the first applications most likely will be subject to immense scrutiny by objectors, who are likely to fight any application and assert the legal and substantive challenges they can at each step of the procedure. Thus, prospective applicants are well advised to carefully address these requirements (which necessitates assembly of a highly qualified and capable professional team of experts and legal counsel). The applicant must then prepare to defend the application during the public comment and hearing process by presenting expert testimony and evidence at hearing, cross examining opposing witnesses and experts, and addressing procedural objections to the application at virtually every step of the proceedings.

Industry investment in this process will be substantial, but it must be well prepared for the application process, beginning with the development and submission of the application package itself, in order to be successful. Successful defense of the application in the face of determined opposition will also be challenging. Because even a favorable final permit determination by the IDNR can be appealed, the establishment of a comprehensive, well-documented, and scientifically defensible record in the application (including responses to public comments and hearing testimony) is paramount to ensure that a favorable ruling from the IDNR will withstand an appeal. Only then can permitted high-volume horizontal fracturing operations finally begin.

 

[SoCal 420]

A few Examples of Naturally Occurring "Fire Water" Long Before Fracking "Ever" Existed...


New York

Virginia

Florida

 

[ttystikk]

All petroleum production is dirty one way or another, there are no exceptions. Natural gas is cleaner than most. Sky high, I've been out to natural gas production sites in western Colorado- and on the same trip I was given a tour of the Deserado coal mine. Not much doubt which was the more environmentally friendly operation, for real. Coal is NASTY.

Now, natural gas does not need to be refined for use as a motor or power fuel. Let me say that again; NO REFINERY NEEDED. That's a huge savings, a big leap in efficiency and a monstrous, stinking industrial plant that doesn't need to exist. How come no one mentions that? Or the fact that refineries burn the oil they're refining as fuel for the process?

Moving on; T. Boone Pickens might be a greenmailer and even worse- but he's a businessman. He saw that the natural gas is here and we already have the necessary infrastructure to distribute it. He knew where we get oil and that it would be increasingly expensive to ship it here.

ASIDE TO SoCal420; here's where and why we pay what we do for fuel; the US is a major producer of crude oil, as is Canada. Together, domestic production covers the majority of crude oil use. It is only the last 25-30% that is imported, and much of that comes from sources closer to us than Saudi. Most of the middle eastern oil goes to Europe, since it's closer. Europe produces much less of its own oil, and the governments there are actively taxing petroleum to subsidize the construction of alternatives. This would be considered forward thinking anywhere but in the United States.

Oh but wait, there's more! Natural gas burns with less CO² emissions than any other fossil fuel, save hydrogen itself. Already, that makes it more environmentally friendly even than biodiesel. Natural gas might not have the fuel density of gasoline, but it is 120 octane, which means engines designed for it can be even more efficient, while lasting longer due to the lack of deposit buildup from the fuel. Thus it is already becoming a viable transportation fuel alternative.

Natural gas is increasingly the fuel of choice to refit old coal fired power plants to burn, or to replace outright with new facilities. These new natural gas power stations have many desirable features over the coal variety which add up to flexibility in matching power generated with demand. Remember, however, that about half of all power generated in this country is LOST IN TRANSMISSION. Seriously. Half. Wasting electrons, anyone? But there is no better way, save perhaps the faint glimmer of hope in superconducting power transmission cables- which would themselves be incredibly expensive to build- and then keep them stupid, three degrees above ABSOLUTE ZERO cold. Not cheap.

Enter the fuel cell. This isn't new tech, they flew to the moon with the Apollo missions before many of you were born. Thanks to Ballard Power and others, this tech is coming down in price. Now, on the moon missions, these made power by combining the same two fuels the rocket did; hydrogen and oxygen. Fuel cells today operate at about 80% efficiency, and only 20% of the original fuel is lost, as heat. This turns internal combustion upside down, as your car engine is only about 15-25% efficient. The emissions from fuel cells are cleaner than combustion, as they are better controlled; just water vapor and co². Hmmmm... back to this in a minute... The main problem is that fuel cells are spendy, at roughly $5000/kW of output.

But there is a solution for that. Imagine having a fuel cell in your home, where it sits in the mechanical space where your furnace used to. Instead of burning fuel to heat your home, it just sits there silently converting natural gas to electricity. The 20% leftover heat can be captured in... ready? a heat pump... and used to heat anything in the home, from spaces to hot water and even for direct heating of the hot tub. Now, let's say your not using all the power you're generating. No problem- send it back out through your meter and the power will get consumed by neighbors, WITHOUT transmission losses. After all, it's only going a few blocks at the most now! And that, folks, is how natural gas will save our country from itself for the next 100 years.

It is not perfect. But if it is inside your home, you can count on it for stable power generation far more than the grid. It's actually a revenue source, since it makes more power than one house is likely to need, on average (wink, wink!) and thus PAYS FOR ITSELF. How does the homeowner get one? The easiest way will be to buy a new home and have it installed then, and include the cost of the system in the property mortgage just like any other HVAC infrastructure.

If growers do this, they should include token solar cells or wind turbines, so that the power they sell back to the utility looks to have some source. Most power generated could be used to run the grow, completely off the grid and untraceable. That co² the fuel cell is constantly generating? Lord knows us growers can find a use for THAT! Their gas bill will be a bit high, but nothing like the electric bill would have been.

Best of all, when the hydrogen economy Finally is ready, it can be sent right down the same pipe natural gas is, and the fuel cell can use it without the need for converting it first

 

[sky high]

Not saying COAL is any cleaner or less damaging tyy...but when you went to Deserado you went to ONE place. Have you looked at the gas feilds on Google Earth? Start with the Indian Reservations. Aztec, NM or SW of Vernal...or up by Pinedale Wyo. These wells are gridded/triangulated every 1/2 mile or so...with new roads plowed to reach them all....over millions of acres of formally untouched land. The scarring and erosion is staggering and what they leave behind as "revegatated" is nothing near what they destroyed. (weeds/thistles don't cut it) The widespread destruction is my problem with the overall practice. With coal, at least your are only sacrificing one area to doom. It's also not beside someone's home...or a grade school. Those who CHOOSE to live and work in Somerset live in Somerset. Somerset isn't coming to everyone else's yard/property. Huge difference.

Govenor Frackendoper drank the frackin fluid.....and lost my vote/respect in the process. Fuckindicker, Flappinliar, etc. Unbelieveable. They are in his pocket, no doubt..... just like they are in the pockets of most of the rest of the politicians in this State. Fucker hates weed but drinks frackin fluid? Real smrt....real smrt....

so when ya gonna get my fuel cell done, tyy? :D It's about time to go get the annual load of wood. If you can get it here before that it would be great!

 

[ttystikk]

Not saying COAL is any cleaner or less damaging tyy...but when you went to Deserado you went to ONE place. Have you looked at the gas feilds on Google Earth? Start with the Indian Reservations. Aztec, NM or SW of Vernal...or up by Pinedale Wyo. These wells are gridded/triangulated every 1/2 mile or so...with new roads plowed to reach them all....over millions of acres of formally untouched land. The scarring and erosion is staggering and what they leave behind as "revegatated" is nothing near what they destroyed. (weeds/thistles don't cut it) The widespread destruction is my problem with the overall practice. With coal, at least your are only sacrificing one area to doom. It's also not beside someone's home...or a grade school. Those who CHOOSE to live and work in Somerset live in Somerset. Somerset isn't coming to everyone else's yard/property. Huge difference.

Govenor Frackendoper drank the frackin fluid.....and lost my vote/respect in the process. Fuckindicker, Flappinliar, etc. Unbelieveable. They are in his pocket, no doubt..... just like they are in the pockets of most of the rest of the politicians in this State. Fucker hates weed but drinks frackin fluid? Real smrt....real smrt....

so when ya gonna get my fuel cell done, tyy? :D It's about time to go get the annual load of wood. If you can get it here before that it would be great!

Show me $75k...

 

[sky high]

There's the rub. I'd never recoup the investment. Even if I >buy< wood (getting cheaper) I won't spend even close to 1/4 of that amount over in the rest of my lifetime. Lookin at a small solar set up and a house 1/3 the size of my current abode... and while I'd love to do more, at the current price to play.... it's the choice between workin and retiring to pay for such technological advancements or just downsizing this excessive way of life and using the fuel on hand (wood/sun). Might as well burn it before mom Nature does...:D

 

[sky high]

There are certainly geologic formations/regions where the methane/sulphur content in the groundwater allows the fumes given off to burn. My uncle's farm in Missouri was like that...40+ years ago when I was a kid. It was a natural phoenomenon not associated with natural gas drilling/etc. However, everyone knew the gas was >historically< present en masse' in that area...it didn't just happen when the frackers moved in as is happening in many areas today. Big difference.

Kinda like the cancer-causing Benzene in this report. It wasn't there before the drilling began, and it is a direct result of fracking in this area...a roadless area once designated for Wilderness distinction that contains one of the largest waterfalls in the State and a huge area of high plateau watersheds/forests/wildlife that feeds directly into the Colorado River.

We should make Hick bathe in this effluent and drink this water...

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23689092/6-months-after-spill-benzene-parachute-creek-tops?nstrack=sid:9690759|met:0000300|cat:0|order:14&/?source=dailyme

 

[fishwhistle]

All petroleum production is dirty one way or another, there are no exceptions. Natural gas is cleaner than most. Sky high, I've been out to natural gas production sites in western Colorado- and on the same trip I was given a tour of the Deserado coal mine. Not much doubt which was the more environmentally friendly operation, for real. Coal is NASTY.

Now, natural gas does not need to be refined for use as a motor or power fuel. Let me say that again; NO REFINERY NEEDED. That's a huge savings, a big leap in efficiency and a monstrous, stinking industrial plant that doesn't need to exist. How come no one mentions that? Or the fact that refineries burn the oil they're refining as fuel for the process?

Moving on; T. Boone Pickens might be a greenmailer and even worse- but he's a businessman. He saw that the natural gas is here and we already have the necessary infrastructure to distribute it. He knew where we get oil and that it would be increasingly expensive to ship it here.

ASIDE TO SoCal420; here's where and why we pay what we do for fuel; the US is a major producer of crude oil, as is Canada. Together, domestic production covers the majority of crude oil use. It is only the last 25-30% that is imported, and much of that comes from sources closer to us than Saudi. Most of the middle eastern oil goes to Europe, since it's closer. Europe produces much less of its own oil, and the governments there are actively taxing petroleum to subsidize the construction of alternatives. This would be considered forward thinking anywhere but in the United States.

Oh but wait, there's more! Natural gas burns with less CO² emissions than any other fossil fuel, save hydrogen itself. Already, that makes it more environmentally friendly even than biodiesel. Natural gas might not have the fuel density of gasoline, but it is 120 octane, which means engines designed for it can be even more efficient, while lasting longer due to the lack of deposit buildup from the fuel. Thus it is already becoming a viable transportation fuel alternative.

Natural gas is increasingly the fuel of choice to refit old coal fired power plants to burn, or to replace outright with new facilities. These new natural gas power stations have many desirable features over the coal variety which add up to flexibility in matching power generated with demand. Remember, however, that about half of all power generated in this country is LOST IN TRANSMISSION. Seriously. Half. Wasting electrons, anyone? But there is no better way, save perhaps the faint glimmer of hope in superconducting power transmission cables- which would themselves be incredibly expensive to build- and then keep them stupid, three degrees above ABSOLUTE ZERO cold. Not cheap.

Enter the fuel cell. This isn't new tech, they flew to the moon with the Apollo missions before many of you were born. Thanks to Ballard Power and others, this tech is coming down in price. Now, on the moon missions, these made power by combining the same two fuels the rocket did; hydrogen and oxygen. Fuel cells today operate at about 80% efficiency, and only 20% of the original fuel is lost, as heat. This turns internal combustion upside down, as your car engine is only about 15-25% efficient. The emissions from fuel cells are cleaner than combustion, as they are better controlled; just water vapor and co². Hmmmm... back to this in a minute... The main problem is that fuel cells are spendy, at roughly $5000/kW of output.

But there is a solution for that. Imagine having a fuel cell in your home, where it sits in the mechanical space where your furnace used to. Instead of burning fuel to heat your home, it just sits there silently converting natural gas to electricity. The 20% leftover heat can be captured in... ready? a heat pump... and used to heat anything in the home, from spaces to hot water and even for direct heating of the hot tub. Now, let's say your not using all the power you're generating. No problem- send it back out through your meter and the power will get consumed by neighbors, WITHOUT transmission losses. After all, it's only going a few blocks at the most now! And that, folks, is how natural gas will save our country from itself for the next 100 years.

It is not perfect. But if it is inside your home, you can count on it for stable power generation far more than the grid. It's actually a revenue source, since it makes more power than one house is likely to need, on average (wink, wink!) and thus PAYS FOR ITSELF. How does the homeowner get one? The easiest way will be to buy a new home and have it installed then, and include the cost of the system in the property mortgage just like any other HVAC infrastructure.

If growers do this, they should include token solar cells or wind turbines, so that the power they sell back to the utility looks to have some source. Most power generated could be used to run the grow, completely off the grid and untraceable. That co² the fuel cell is constantly generating? Lord knows us growers can find a use for THAT! Their gas bill will be a bit high, but nothing like the electric bill would have been.

Best of all, when the hydrogen economy Finally is ready, it can be sent right down the same pipe natural gas is, and the fuel cell can use it without the need for converting it first

This my friend is 100% correct,you can bitch and whine all you want about CLEAN energy but nothing compares to natural gas at this time.No process is perfect or 100% clean but this is a thousand times better than crude oil and we dont have to blow up afghan children with drones and enrich our enemies to get it,lesser of the evils for now,c'mon fuel cells...

 

[ttystikk]

There's the rub. I'd never recoup the investment. Even if I >buy< wood (getting cheaper) I won't spend even close to 1/4 of that amount over in the rest of my lifetime. Lookin at a small solar set up and a house 1/3 the size of my current abode... and while I'd love to do more, at the current price to play.... it's the choice between workin and retiring to pay for such technological advancements or just downsizing this excessive way of life and using the fuel on hand (wood/sun). Might as well burn it before mom Nature does...:D

Oh, but you would- it would take only a few years for the thing to generate its own cost in electrical power, plus the natural gas used along the way. Then, it's paying your bills from that point forward. Not a bad ROI...

If you have a propane tank, the ROI may differ, based on your fuel cost relative to natural gas utility pricing.

 

[sky high]

As long as they are foolin folks with TV commercials about how clean natural gas is and conveniently leaving mention of the widespread ecological damage that is being done to get to it...not to mention the sizeable investment currently going into the infrastructure to access/move all of that gas around...I'm not thinking we'll see much availability or mention of these kind of units being offered in the common marketplace in our lifetimes/til they've pock marked most of the country with roads and wells.