Billionaire Pickens sees end of U.S. natural gas in 25 to 30 years

Tom Foale wrote:

He's right. It's not going to run out, just get much more expensive. Globally we are finding far too few new reserves Of oil and gas to replace those we are using up, and we passed the point of peak production from those reserves in 2008. When supply can't increase to meet demand the price goes up. It won't be too long before those expensive solar panels start to look like a good investment, even if they don't drop much in price.

Glasnos wrote:

We recently opened up new oil fields in North Dakota due to technological advances ... and we also have synthetic natural gas ... which was produced and purchased from Canada back in the 70s during the Carter oil shortages. Pickens is trying to work a deal for wind farms ... He is less than trustworthy on this.
If we can stifle the liberals who are crippling our access to our own energy resources, we will be fine for the next 100 years. By then we should have REAL energy alternatives ...

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
We have "REAL alternatives" available to us NOW, we're just not using them because the oil and coal companies are stifling the competition through political manipulation of the media and government.
As such, it's not the so-called "liberals" that we need to worry about, it's the conventional practices of the conservatives.

Glasnos wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Then explain to me why Nellis AFB just installed $100 million worth of solar arrays on 140 acres to supply 1/4 of their electic for a savings of just $1 million per year?... Is that what you call viable?
This means that if your electric bill is $100 a month ($1200 a year)... you will need to install $120,000 worth of solar arrays to cover your electric.

Glasnos wrote:

Have some more kool aid ... mmm mmm mmm

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
Nellis AFB is one of the "skunk works" facilities and proving grounds of the United States Air Force's technological arms and seized an opportunity to demonstrate the viable sustainability of solar technology on a plot of their land that has limited uses because it is a capped landfill and they were restricted on what it can be used for, enabling them to maximize the land in a cost-effective manner, land that could potentially remain vacant for years to come, essentially effectively converting a negative situation into a positive one.
The plant is estimated to save the Air Force $1 million annually and should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 24,000 tons annually, which is equivalent to removing 185,000 cars from the roadways. This is one of the largest of the Air Force's "green" initiatives to date and they've many more similarly 'green' projects being planned, clearly demonstrating the United States' intentions of reducing our dependence on foreign and nonrenewable energy sources.
As Governor Gibbons said, "Nellis is now generating 14 megawatts of clean, renewable energy...Energy that meets the demands and the needs of Nellis AFB...More importantly, its meeting the future. It's demonstrating that we can use the abundant renewable resource of solar energy in the United States."
http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp...
I've NEVER said that solar panels were NOT a "viable" source of energy, only one of many solar-based applications available to us.
<quoted text>
Try reading a little s-l-o-w-e-r next time and perhaps allowing the information you've reviewed to percolate around a bit in your mind BEFORE you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself...Now wash THAT down with some "kool aid".

Glasnos wrote:

<quoted text>
You call that viable?
So when are you going to install $200,000 worth of solar on your lawn to free you from fossil fuel electric?
Be forwarned ... the upkeep and maintanence costs on your solar will still be substantial.
Do you even understand the concept of "viable" or "economically feasible"?
Apparently, Obama and Reid do not.

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
Inasmuch as the 14 megawatt Nellis' solar energy system will generate more than 30 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of clean electricity annually and supply approximately 25 percent of the total power used at the base, which means that Nellis requires 120 MILLION KILOWATTS A YEAR to operate, I'd have to conclude that ANY residential community would require a bit LESS, quite, than anything even NEAR that capacity to operate year round, a mere pittance in comparison, wouldn't you?
Not to mention that the facilities production of 25% of it's power requirements releases that once spent energy BACK into the national grid, freeing it up for consumer use.
The long and short of the matter is that the more solar array technologies are put into use, the less expensive they will become, as has demonstrably been the case with ANY technology, as will the cost of consumer-based electricity, so I'd save the theatrical rhetoric, misinformed hype and hysterics for some other forum.

Glasnos wrote:

<quoted text>
At what cost? We can bring back fresh water from the moon also ... LOL .... Doesn't mean it is a viable source of fresh water does it?
Why would you pay 30 times the cost for solar generated electric?
Just because you can do it ... doesn't make it practical.