A similar thing is going on with cars powered by lithium batteries. Fine idea but where the hell are people expected to charge them?

Still relevant if we're talking about alternative power, we have wind power here too.

I quit when I saw it had something to do with Ezra Levant.

Was anything they discussed inaccurate? Are you able to confirm or object to the proposition that the energy payback of a wind turbine is zero? Genuine question as I honestly don't know.

Edit: You can ignore my last. Google informs me it is around 28 times for a wind turbine power plant

I didn't read it so "no" to part A. If that was what they claimed, then "yes" to part B.

But it's highly sensitive classified information totally unavailable by googling. The very idea of putting EROEI wind power into a search engine will have some very nasty people at your door almost before you type the last r.

I have of course linked to it previously, but I'm buggered if I'm going to do it again.

they had LNG cars in Oz & NZ during the oil shocks - i remember cos all the petrol stations had places for LNG carss.

It can be done.

It takes a couple of minutes to refuel a car. Recharging a battery would take rather longer. Fine, if every owner has a spare 220v outlet in his garage. Tricky otherwise.

Natural gas as an alternative to gasoline is a con, when you use it, there are less emissions, but the extraction process puts huge amounts of methane into the air, which is far worse than the CO2 from using gasoline. The extraction process would have to be fantastically more efficient than it currently is.

You learn these things living in Alberta. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dl...hter_prod.html

Electric cars are also a con, because the electricity comes from a fossil fuel powered power plant typically and electricity transmission is also not that efficient.

Also a con, because the manufacturing process for liquid hydrogen requires large amounts of electricity, which comes from fossil fuels typically.

This is typical bar/restaurant conversation in Alberta!

The real solution is nuclear power and possibly CO2 sequestration if they can ever get it to work properly, there is a plant in Norway that is promising.

But as soon as you mention "nuclear", everyone imagines mushroom clouds and panics. Also a lot of nuclear power plants are quite old and crap, hence the recent problems in Japan.

Not true. Fugitive emissions from gas "extraction"are typically less than 1%. And most of that is flared off , meaning it enters the atmosphere as CO2. (See later).

Ha! Are we still talking about the Tar (sorry Oil) Sands?

That I can believe.

But does it have to? Of course not.

What's all this shit about liquid hydrogen all of a sudden? It has never been considered as a practical fuel. Hydrogen, yes but not liquid. Check your "facts".

Ah, yes. The source of all human knowledge, the centrum of science and of research potential. We should probably ban bars in the rest of the country as subversive focus groups seeking to establish <insert your pet hate here> dominance.

Rhetoric aside, I'm on record of agreeing that we need ONE more generation of nuclear until renewables are universally practical. That will happen sooner if the subsidies to fossil fuel cease tomorrow.

Did you read that article I linked to? There is significant release of methane.

Are you talking about fracking? The 1% is for normally extracted NG.

This is all the article says about emissions...

"But the production of natural gas – including its extraction process and transport to power plants can result in significant air and water pollution for surrounding communities and our atmosphere. For example, extraction releases toxic pollutants, such as benzene and formaldehyde, which can cause cancer and other serious illnesses. And there are significant methane emissions from extraction and the leaky equipment and pipes that transport natural gas."

We all know that. Except that the main air pollutant released locally is H2S from the flaring off of the methane.

The article then goes on to report at second hand on a paper by a Cornell Prof (of what?) which argues for a variance of the usual way of defining GWP.

GWP is a fairly weakly defined parameter, which fact is especially relevant in the case of methane.

This is because methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is relatively short (ca. 9 years) compared to the main culprit, CO2, which has a lifetime of ca. 200 years.

Methane is removed by chemical reaction with the OH radical, CO2 is only removed by the equilibrium established with surface ocean waters and their slow turnover rate to form deep ocean waters (i.e. 200 year half life).

GWP is a working comparative guideline for comparing different greenhouse gases impact. Because CO2 is the most important GHG the integration period for GWP is usually chosen (e.g. by the IPCC) as 100 yrs, and the same timeframe is used for other GHGs.

This Cornell chap simply points out the bleeding obvious, that if you shorten the integration period, then methane looks more active compared to CO2.

I don't think he'll be winning any prizes. In fact I'd fire him.

Oh is that all. Just toxic pollutants and methane.

I accept that you likely believe I only post to annoy you but I have a genuine question for you: What advances do you believe will occur in a single generation that will make renewables universally practical? The ability of some regions to be able to rely upon hydro will always be limited and I assume the same would apply for wind and solar (I appreciate that there are other renewables).

Do you envisage a massive increase in the efficiency of plants using such renewables or do you anticipate some other breakthrough. In other words, what is it that is preventing them from being universally practical at the moment?

Dear friend, you really have no idea what you're talking about do you?