Why Natural Gas is Natural

18 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Technically, oil is also natural.  I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about it. 

Keyword search 'isoprene' or 'terpenes' on Wikipedia, for example. Also, 'Jeffries Pine' and 'Diesel Tree'.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Technically, oil is also natural.  I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about it. 

I am OK with gasoline, but think diesel should gradually be replaced with LNG/CNG because it is cleaner and less expensive. 

Edited by ronwagn
error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Keyword search 'isoprene' or 'terpenes' on Wikipedia, for example. Also, 'Jeffries Pine' and 'Diesel Tree'.

True, so is soy diesel, jatropha, etc.  but the oil industry does not use the logical semantic arguments itself. Maybe someone has a good idea why they give lip service to the green lobby. It seems counterproductive to me. My objective is to promote natural gas and other clean energy options that are economically competitive. 

Edited by ronwagn
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 10:47 PM, ronwagn said:

I am OK with gasoline, but think diesel should gradually be replaced with LNG/CNG because it is cleaner and less expensive. 

You do understand that there is NO difference except for energy density? If you tried hauling loads with gasoline you would simply burn more gas. There's no reason to phase out diesel in favor of gasoline. In fact, diesels are already more efficient, and can be improved from here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 12:29 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Technically, oil is also natural.  I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about it. 

Cyanide is also natural. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is good.

Oil has been demonstrated to cause harm, so we try to phase it out.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2019 at 10:59 PM, ronwagn said:

http://www.bbc.com/travel/gallery/20180218-lake-abraham-an-ethereal-landscape-of-frozen-bubbles

All bodies of water produce natural gas. Nature produces natural gas everywhere. 

 

Natural doesn’t mean good. Arsenic is also natural but harmful to most life. Spoons are artificial but useful for consuming soup.

The benefits and costs need to be weighed on a case by case basis.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 11:53 PM, ronwagn said:

True, so is soy diesel, jatropha, etc.  but the oil industry does not use the logical semantic arguments itself. Maybe someone has a good idea why they give lip service to the green lobby. It seems counterproductive to me. My objective is to promote natural gas and other clean energy options that are economically competitive. 

What do you think about wind and solar now that PPAs have fallen to around $20/MWh?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You do understand that there is NO difference except for energy density? If you tried hauling loads with gasoline you would simply burn more gas. There's no reason to phase out diesel in favor of gasoline. In fact, diesels are already more efficient, and can be improved from here. 

The main issue with diesel are local air pollutants - NOX, Aldehydes & particulates. Using Natural Gas significantly reduces these so is a good option for urban environments. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NickW said:

The main issue with diesel are local air pollutants - NOX, Aldehydes & particulates. Using Natural Gas significantly reduces these so is a good option for urban environments. 

Are you suggesting that rural use of diesel shouldn't have to change? I suppose that would be more reasonable, because to overhaul the existing farm equipment would be rather strenuous. Other than this, existing particulate filters and better combustion technology are handling those nitrogen compounds that are ready to party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Are you suggesting that rural use of diesel shouldn't have to change? I suppose that would be more reasonable, because to overhaul the existing farm equipment would be rather strenuous. Other than this, existing particulate filters and better combustion technology are handling those nitrogen compounds that are ready to party. 

The use of large quantities of diesel is primarily an urban air pollution issue. Nox eventually forms into secondary particulates - Ammonium Nitrate (a form of salt and fairly harmless) particulates get washed out of the atmosphere so its less of an issue in rural environments. 

If I was going to focus on getting more CNG used in transport it be be for:

Urban Buses

Trucks primarily working in urban environments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NickW said:

The use of large quantities of diesel is primarily an urban air pollution issue. Nox eventually forms into secondary particulates - Ammonium Nitrate (a form of salt and fairly harmless) particulates get washed out of the atmosphere so its less of an issue in rural environments. 

If I was going to focus on getting more CNG used in transport it be be for:

Urban Buses

Trucks primarily working in urban environments. 

I guess I can agree with this. N02 is particularly nasty, and even though ammonium nitrate is one possible chemical result, there are others with lesser preference. I do find it funny that you use the words "fairly harmless"  when describing the nitrate salt, as scenes of explosions cross my mind. (obviously the concentration is too low to amount to anything, but it's still funny to think about)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I guess I can agree with this. N02 is particularly nasty, and even though ammonium nitrate is one possible chemical result, there are others with lesser preference. I do find it funny that you use the words "fairly harmless"  when describing the nitrate salt, as scenes of explosions cross my mind. (obviously the concentration is too low to amount to anything, but it's still funny to think about)

Ammonium Nitrate unless concentrated to explosive quantities is about 2/3rds as harmful as table salt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

What do you think about wind and solar now that PPAs have fallen to around $20/MWh?

I wait for real proof over time. They are including government support that we all pay for. It is not very transparent. Natural gas is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Natural doesn’t mean good. Arsenic is also natural but harmful to most life. Spoons are artificial but useful for consuming soup.

The benefits and costs need to be weighed on a case by case basis.

True. Gravity can also be fatal. I am fighting the semantic battle as the leftists do with "fossil fuels" vs. "renewables". Natural gas is renewable as biogas and is constantly released into the atmosphere by nature.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You do understand that there is NO difference except for energy density? If you tried hauling loads with gasoline you would simply burn more gas. There's no reason to phase out diesel in favor of gasoline. In fact, diesels are already more efficient, and can be improved from here. 

I am talking about replacing diesel with natural gas, not gasoline. Diesel engines still have more pollutants, at least in the form of particulate matter. Diesel, around the world, is probably a lot dirtier than that in western nations also. Diesel is also far more expensive than CNG or LNG. 

http://www.ngvglobal.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Cyanide is also natural. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is good.

Oil has been demonstrated to cause harm, so we try to phase it out.

I hear skateboards can cause harm too, so perhaps we should try to phase out skateboarding also.

Here we can see photographic proof of an evil dictator trying to lure Orange Man to his doom:

28a4a2c0760ddfd1416eedecf080c498e19516494b8226bcb1e5ba3d282a8e13.png

 

Oh, and schools can be dangerous too.

2396f128d74986096aeab873acee29eaa079d42154bc157e253e1bf1538687de.jpeg

 

In case it's not obvious, my comment here is tongue in cheek... for harmless amusement purposes only. 

Not intended for use by children or liberals under the age of five. (Actual disclaimer, #399 from here.)

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Cyanide is also natural. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is good.

Oil has been demonstrated to cause harm, so we try to phase it out.

What is the demonstrated harm?  Oil flowed freely down rivers until humanity collected & used it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

What is the demonstrated harm?  Oil flowed freely down rivers until humanity collected & used it. 

The only reason oil should be phased out is if and when we have better options by natural consensus. That does not mean that such issues should not be discussed. I vote against oily rivers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very strange logic. It's like proving that North Korea is democratic, because it's called Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 

By the way, are you aware that if you replace the argument of your opposition with something that sounds similar, but is actually silly, it does not count as refuting your opposition's argument, right?

The call for replacing fossil fuels is motivated by the scientifically proven fact that burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide and methane) into the atmosphere, which accelerates the ongoing climate change, that in turn threatens the survival of the human civilization, not by the superficial notion that "non-natural things are bad". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

28a4a2c0760ddfd1416eedecf080c498e19516494b8226bcb1e5ba3d282a8e13.png

 

 

I hear skateboards can cause harm too, so perhaps we should try to phase out skateboarding also.

Here we can see photographic proof of an evil dictator trying to lure [Rocket] Man to his doom:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as animals, including humans, produce methane, 'natural gas' will be with us. Keep the windows open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/11/2019 at 5:14 PM, NickW said:

Ammonium Nitrate unless concentrated to explosive quantities is about 2/3rds as harmful as table salt. 

I know this bro, I'm a hobby chemist. Just kidding around is all.

Edited by KeyboardWarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2019 at 6:27 PM, ronwagn said:

True. Gravity can also be fatal. I am fighting the semantic battle as the leftists do with "fossil fuels" vs. "renewables". Natural gas is renewable as biogas and is constantly released into the atmosphere by nature.  

Carbon dating shows that the stuff we burn was formed long ago a.k.a "fossil." 

Yes, methane is made all the time by many processes but it is only concentrated into traditional deposits over geological timescales.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites