QuoteIn Reply To
Natural gas is so abundant, and so cheap, that electricity companies are using it in new ways.
====================
Frack you very much!
+1
The US is still a net importer of natural gas. And note - the more we get the more the price may rise due to the worldwide market for it. In Europe they're paying almost 12 bucks per thousand cubic feet of it. We're paying about a third of that.
If the trade restrictions evaporate, rest assured our price will go up. Not that I have any philosophical objection to that.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,120
>will be added to the base rate and prices will increase
And once the plants are built, costs will go down compared to keeping the older coal plants open.
>What do you think of the town removing the turbines for the health of the comunity?
Removing the turbines doesn't affect the health of the community - but no longer burning coal significantly improves air quality, so overall that's a health plus. A switch to natural gas has 90% of the benefits of just shutting the plant down since a natural gas plant emits zero particulate emissions, zero SOx emissions and a fraction of the NOx emissions that a coal plant does.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteIn Reply To
Natural gas is so abundant, and so cheap, that electricity companies are using it in new ways.
====================
Frack you very much!
+1
The US is still a net importer of natural gas. And note - the more we get the more the price may rise due to the worldwide market for it. In Europe they're paying almost 12 bucks per thousand cubic feet of it. We're paying about a third of that.
If the trade restrictions evaporate, rest assured our price will go up. Not that I have any philosophical objection to that.
There needs to be some pipe laid to get gas out of the Dakotas
I know of a guy who parterned up with a company out fo Switzerland. That company makes mirco fertilizer plants that need natrual gas. They set these up at drilling sites
North Dakota and the producers will damn near give them the gas cause right now many of them have to burn it off as there is nothing that can be done with it. So any money they get from that is a plus.
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,120
Cool! Looks like you just made the argument for green energy that you missed in your first post.
rushmc 23
Quote>Rates will go up because the costs of building new plants, or converting old plants,
>will be added to the base rate and prices will increase
And once the plants are built, costs will go down compared to keeping the older coal plants open.
Only if the enviromental idocy remains as it is or get nuttier
>What do you think of the town removing the turbines for the health of the comunity?
Removing the turbines doesn't affect the health of the community - but no longer burning coal significantly improves air quality, so overall that's a health plus. A switch to natural gas has 90% of the benefits of just shutting the plant down since a natural gas plant emits zero particulate emissions, zero SOx emissions and a fraction of the NOx emissions that a coal plant does.
But having the turbines there DOES affect the health of the people
That and they are a waste of capitol dollars
As for the coal plants. More alarmism
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,120
No, even now gas is cheaper than coal.
>As for the coal plants. More alarmism
Do a bit of research, my friend. Compare SOx, NOx and particulate emissions between coal and NG fired plants. (Also compare CO2 emissions if you care to, although they are not direct health threats to local communities.)
rushmc 23
Quote>Only if the enviromental idocy remains as it is or get nuttier
No, even now gas is cheaper than coal.
>As for the coal plants. More alarmism
Do a bit of research, my friend. Compare SOx, NOx and particulate emissions between coal and NG fired plants. (Also compare CO2 emissions if you care to, although they are not direct health threats to local communities.)
I didnt say that they do not have these emissions. However, the health issues are not near what you like to post here (again I did not say did not exist)
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,120
Natural gas is cleaner (you've admitted that.) Therefore a switch from coal to natural gas results in a cleaner local environment - specifically lower particulate emissions - and thus an improvement in health levels for the community.
rushmc 23
Quote> However, the health issues are not near what you like to post here
Natural gas is cleaner (you've admitted that.) Therefore a switch from coal to natural gas results in a cleaner local environment - specifically lower particulate emissions - and thus an improvement in health levels for the community.
In that context I can agree
But the health improvements (as you like to call them) are really not measurable. It is just a talking point
I post generally because I know there are some really bad plants still out there
But the stated goal is to shut them all down
Do that and prices will skyrocket (which is wanted too)
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteThere needs to be some pipe laid to get gas out of the Dakotas
Indeed. There is exiting interstate piping running through NDak and SDak but nothing much southwest of the James river. It'll take time to do it with all the EIRs and crossing the Missouri River in SDak would be no joke so they'd have to hook up westward.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 444
Quote>Frack you very much!
Cool! Looks like you just made the argument for green energy that you missed in your first post.
If you call burning CO2 producing fossil fuels green.
billvon 3,120
A heck of a lot greener than coal! Not as green as solar or wind. But one step at a time.
Frack you very much!
+1
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln