S
sincerely soMEone
Guest
he agrees to support.... ...this?
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=436
I don't know about you. But I just don't get a giggle out of paying $4+ per gallon of gas. Methane is about ten cents gge (gallon of gas equivalent)
What do you think?
==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==
DAR, James C, Michael S:
Actually, you're right. This should be handled by the market.
But do you really need any extra motivation to do the flush thing?
...
==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==
High Roller:
I respect politicians as much as I would wish to be respected. But they're not rocket surgeons. And rarely are they all that great at economics (with the exception of 2 that come to mind, both named Ron).
Efficiency is always a virtue. However, naturally occurring methane - if trapped - actually removes carbon from the air. And at 10 cents/gge, I just can't devise a viable excuse NOT to switch over.
...
==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==
Wayne C: Of COURSE it's a felony. At least it would be IF:
a) I had any real intention of trying it
b) I was Rambo and could almost accomplish it (only in the movies!)
c) The bathroom had been recently cleaned and
d) The president hadn't been greased (the Royal flush is next to impossible with slippery people!)
As to the suggestion that efficiency is the answer, only in the short term. Ten cents a gallon (gge) is a heck of a lot better than saving 5 or 10 percent at $4/gal.
Corn ethanol is just not a good option in comparison to other feedstocks - cellulosic.
A private industry study recently reported nuclear to be far more expensive (if built now and amortized over 15 years) than wind, solar, natural gas or coal.
But methane just wins over and over. It's only hold-back was storage. That's been solved.
...
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=436
I don't know about you. But I just don't get a giggle out of paying $4+ per gallon of gas. Methane is about ten cents gge (gallon of gas equivalent)
What do you think?
==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==
DAR, James C, Michael S:
Actually, you're right. This should be handled by the market.
But do you really need any extra motivation to do the flush thing?
...
==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==
High Roller:
I respect politicians as much as I would wish to be respected. But they're not rocket surgeons. And rarely are they all that great at economics (with the exception of 2 that come to mind, both named Ron).
Efficiency is always a virtue. However, naturally occurring methane - if trapped - actually removes carbon from the air. And at 10 cents/gge, I just can't devise a viable excuse NOT to switch over.
...
==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==
Wayne C: Of COURSE it's a felony. At least it would be IF:
a) I had any real intention of trying it
b) I was Rambo and could almost accomplish it (only in the movies!)
c) The bathroom had been recently cleaned and
d) The president hadn't been greased (the Royal flush is next to impossible with slippery people!)
As to the suggestion that efficiency is the answer, only in the short term. Ten cents a gallon (gge) is a heck of a lot better than saving 5 or 10 percent at $4/gal.
Corn ethanol is just not a good option in comparison to other feedstocks - cellulosic.
A private industry study recently reported nuclear to be far more expensive (if built now and amortized over 15 years) than wind, solar, natural gas or coal.
But methane just wins over and over. It's only hold-back was storage. That's been solved.
...