3 ms·

Look at his other articles - this guy is super disingenuous. Disappointed I didn't look at that first before getting baited into trying to refute his heavily i

Look at his other articles - this guy is super disingenuous. Disappointed I didn't look at that first before getting baited into trying to refute his heavily inaccurate and biased position. From his other posts "Natural gas provides the most cost-effective near-term solution for affordable, reliable, low-emission energy. Shifts from coal to natural gas have produced the biggest emissions reductions over the past 15 years. Natural gas produces only 10% of the air pollutants and 50% of the CO2 that coal does.[10] Natural gas also has many uses beyond providing power; fertilizers, computers, medical equipment, steel, plastic, mobile phones, cars, and most consumer products are currently made from natural gas and oil. In fact, even solar and wind require natural gas as a backup because they don’t operate most of the time. Energy Capital Ventures (ECV) is one of the few VCs that sees the potential of natural gas. Instead of chasing popular trends, ECV correctly sees the path to achieving low-emission energy will come through investments in scaleable energy technology such as advanced leak detection and methane capture, process automation and controls, renewable natural gas, and synthetic microbes that absorb greenhouse emissions."

bartimus 4y ago
Would be happy to read your refutes of his current article since I'm also not seeing how all these (unproven) solutions are going to successfully reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Wonderful ideas. But I would like to see the code. For example: The oil refinement process basically boils the oil into various types of fuels and gasses. You get a certain amount of tar, oil, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, gas etc. Refineries are able to prioritize output to certain fuel types somewhat. But not completely and/or efficiently. In the end: If we're producing X amount of diesel we get X amount of the other types as well. The amounts of fuel produced are far too great to store. They need to be burned. It means for every number of cars, trucks and boats burning diesel there will also need to be a number of planes burning kerosine. etc. It also means that if we're moving from gasoline cars to diesel cars (because diesel has less emissions). If the demand and production for one specific type of fuel increases it will result in an increase of all the fuel types. The excess types which are less in demand would simply be shipped to somewhere else more cheaply. Or used in some other sector. We're not only having a huge dependency on fossil fuels. But the dependency is also tightly intertwined throughout various facets of society. We'll need to somehow accomplish a mass reduction across the board. I can imagine there's many green initiatives not really contributing as much as they're hoping?
boucher 4y ago
Yes, and he's been posting the same exact nonsense for a while now. The reformed idealist narrative is a marketing gimmick to attract investors.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  I fell for this schtick a few years back and invested in a natural gas venture. I lost a shirt and remain salty to this day.

bartimus 4y ago

Would be happy to read your refutes of his current article since I'm also not seeing how all these (unproven) solutions are going to successfully reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Wonderful ideas. But I would like to see the code. For example: The oil refinement process basically boils the oil into various types of fuels and gasses. You get a certain amount of tar, oil, gasoline, diesel, kerosine, gas etc. Refineries are able to prioritize output to certain fuel types somewhat. But not completely and/or efficiently. In the end: If we're producing X amount of diesel we get X amount of the other types as well. The amounts of fuel produced are far too great to store. They need to be burned. It means for every number of cars, trucks and boats burning diesel there will also need to be a number of planes burning kerosine. etc. It also means that if we're moving from gasoline cars to diesel cars (because diesel has less emissions). If the demand and production for one specific type of fuel increases it will result in an increase of all the fuel types. The excess types which are less in demand would simply be shipped to somewhere else more cheaply. Or used in some other sector. We're not only having a huge dependency on fossil fuels. But the dependency is also tightly intertwined throughout various facets of society. We'll need to somehow accomplish a mass reduction across the board. I can imagine there's many green initiatives not really contributing as much as they're hoping?

boucher 4y ago

Yes, and he's been posting the same exact nonsense for a while now. The reformed idealist narrative is a marketing gimmick to attract investors.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
I fell for this schtick a few years back and invested in a natural gas venture. I lost a shirt and remain salty to this day.