5 ms·

You call it nimbyism. I call it climate change. Making natural gas cheaper should not be one of our priorities. It's non-renewable and contributes to carbon em

You call it nimbyism. I call it climate change. Making natural gas cheaper should not be one of our priorities. It's non-renewable and contributes to carbon emissions.

chadzawistowski 11y ago
It's worth pointing out that Natural Gas is an extremely clean fossil fuel, as far as fossil fuels go. It's a shame that so much is simply burnt off rather than harnessed. That doesn't help anyone.
avn2109 11y ago
Yeah, from a purely non-political, engineering-only perspective, nuclear power and desalination seem like a match made in heaven: No carbon; steady, predictable power loads; near-limitless demand for agricultural freshwater in CA; near-guaranteed markets because of indefinite CA droughts; even a chance to do something useful with the waste heat.
- hyperbovine 11y ago
  No, no, no. Desal is not ever going to be used to irrigate crops in California. You would need to build something like 100 of the largest desal plants in existence to meet the ag demand (~= 100k AF/day). Oh and a way to pump it all a hundred miles inland, over a coastal mountain range. Also, there are significant environmental impacts associated with both desal and nukes which you have completely ignored. Pretend like technology is going to rush in and save the day delays our transition to a realistic, sustainable way of life.
  - randallsquared 11y ago
    Civilizationally, technology has pretty much always saved the day.
ars 11y ago
> Making natural gas cheaper should not be one of our priorities. It's non-renewable and contributes to carbon emissions. Your attitude is WHY there is so much CO2 emission. If everyone switched to natural gas no one would worry about global warming. You would not be happy if CO2 emission was slashed in half in one go? Because that's what switching to natural gas would do. Instead people bash it because it's not perfect. Quite the opposite: If you actually cared about climate change cheaper natural gas would be your top priority.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  Natural gas may be a step on the way but it is obviously not a destination.
  - ars 11y ago
    Sure, but it's still an extremely useful step. Fighting against it does not help the environment.
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      From my understanding it's not unreasonable that someone whose goal is not "reduce CO2 emissions" but "reduce CO2 missions to a sustainable level" might see natural gas as a waste of time, diverting energy that might be better spent on a long-term solution.

You call it nimbyism. I call it climate change. Making natural gas cheaper should not be one of our priorities. It's non-renewable and contributes to carbon emissions.

chadzawistowski 11y ago

It's worth pointing out that Natural Gas is an extremely clean fossil fuel, as far as fossil fuels go. It's a shame that so much is simply burnt off rather than harnessed. That doesn't help anyone.

avn2109 11y ago

Yeah, from a purely non-political, engineering-only perspective, nuclear power and desalination seem like a match made in heaven: No carbon; steady, predictable power loads; near-limitless demand for agricultural freshwater in CA; near-guaranteed markets because of indefinite CA droughts; even a chance to do something useful with the waste heat.

hyperbovine 11y ago
No, no, no. Desal is not ever going to be used to irrigate crops in California. You would need to build something like 100 of the largest desal plants in existence to meet the ag demand (~= 100k AF/day). Oh and a way to pump it all a hundred miles inland, over a coastal mountain range. Also, there are significant environmental impacts associated with both desal and nukes which you have completely ignored. Pretend like technology is going to rush in and save the day delays our transition to a realistic, sustainable way of life.
- randallsquared 11y ago
  Civilizationally, technology has pretty much always saved the day.

ars 11y ago

> Making natural gas cheaper should not be one of our priorities. It's non-renewable and contributes to carbon emissions. Your attitude is WHY there is so much CO2 emission. If everyone switched to natural gas no one would worry about global warming. You would not be happy if CO2 emission was slashed in half in one go? Because that's what switching to natural gas would do. Instead people bash it because it's not perfect. Quite the opposite: If you actually cared about climate change cheaper natural gas would be your top priority.

marssaxman 11y ago
Natural gas may be a step on the way but it is obviously not a destination.
- ars 11y ago
  Sure, but it's still an extremely useful step. Fighting against it does not help the environment.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    From my understanding it's not unreasonable that someone whose goal is not "reduce CO2 emissions" but "reduce CO2 missions to a sustainable level" might see natural gas as a waste of time, diverting energy that might be better spent on a long-term solution.