Green Energy Failing at the Expense of Natural Gas

Right From the Start

We were recently in my hometown of Miles City, Montana, for the annual Bucking Horse Sale.  It is a unique event that is a combination of old-fashioned rodeo and livestock auction.  It is where the rodeo companies come to buy their stock for the ensuing rodeo season.  Normally the talk is about cattle production, crop production, and surviving another cold Montana winter.

But not this year.  This year it was all about the Bakken – for the uninitiated the Bakken refers to the Bakken oil and gas field spanning the western Dakotas, eastern Montana, northeast Wyoming and extending substantially into Canada.  Its natural gas reserves exceed the estimates of oil in the Saudi peninsula.  On top of that the oil shale, when the full expanse of the field is mapped, may well equal or exceed the oil estimates in the Saudi Peninsula.  And much of it is adjacent to or overlain by massive coal deposits.  It is, in a word, the crown jewel in what should be the plan for energy independence.

The economic benefits from the production are evident all across the region.  Housing is so limited within the field itself that people commute 100 miles daily form Miles City to work the field. In a town of 8,500 people, Miles City has seen the commencement of $85 Million in new, privately funded, construction this year.  Unemployment in Miles City is practically non-existent.  Only those who will not work – preferring welfare to work – remain unemployed.  This represents a microcosm of the economic benefits to full utilization of America’s abundant energy resources.

But a combination of environmentalists and liberal Democrats – including President Barack Obama – are hell bent on ensuring that the Bakken field remains frozen wheat fields.  It is an attitude the permeates the Obama Administrations energy policy and despite Mr. Obama’s braggadocio that energy production has increased under his administration, the amount of energy produced from federal lands has actually decreased while the amount of energy produced from private lands has increased – mostly due to permits granted under President George W. Bush’s administration.

Although Mr. Obama’s pronounced policy toward energy productions is “All of the Above” his actual practice toward fossil fuel production can best be described as “Hell No!!!”  In lieu of an energy policy based on science and capacity, Mr. Obama prefers one of expensive subsidies, poorly developed technology and half measures of implementation.

For instance, when the Chevrolet Volt was introduced, General Motors was best described as majority owned subsidiary of the federal government – a federal government under the control of Mr. Obama who has since demonstrated that he is willing to throw the substantial resources of the American taxpayers at virtually any harebrain scheme that does not involve fossil fuels.  General Motors remains under the substantial influence of Mr. Obama’s administration and continues to pursue the Volt despite the cold shoulder from American consumers.

Let’s make sure we understand what the Chevrolet Volt is.  It is a $17,000 Chevrolet Cruz that has been retrofitted for an electric motor that provides – under ideal conditions – no more than 40 miles before it switches over to a gas motor that is no more fuel efficient than the rest of General Motors standard fossil fuel burners.  And all this for the bargain price of $45,000.  That is a $28,000 premium for up to 40 miles of driving after an overnight charge.  Experts have estimated that the amount of fossil fuels consumed to produce the electrical charge needed to power the Volt for that 40 miles is comparable to the amount of fossil fuels consumed by a gasoline powered vehicle getting 40 miles per gallon – a number of which are already on the road.

The Chevrolet Volt began retail sales in December of 2010.  Less than 6,500 units were delivered in 2011 according to Bloomberg.  There is no data indicating the number of those 6,500 units that were purchased by federal, state, and local governments that are under the control of Democrat administration but given the proliferation of Democrat office holders who proudly show off their taxpayer purchased Volts, we can assume that it is a sizeable number.

Again according to Bloomberg, General Motors, having failed to meet their goal of 10,000 units in 2011, set a goal of 45,000 for domestic sales and another 15,000 for export.  Through April of 2012, according to Wikipedia, General Motors had delivered only 5,400 units.  General Motors has now abandoned its targeted production and has elected to produce based on demand.  And that demand continues to diminish as government agencies have maxed out their purchases and the wealthy, politically correct, have exhausted their patience for purchasing exotic but useless toys.  And then there are the 8,000 units that have been recalled because of the danger of electric fires in the Volt’s battery system.  Great car!  It’s what you get when the government controls your business and it is willing to spend taxpayer money freely.

What is all the more remarkable about this exercise in manufacturing stupidity is that there is already a vehicle available on the market that runs on an alternative fuel that is more abundant than all of the oil in the Arab world and which cost pennies per mile to operate when compared to current gasoline prices.  It’s the Honda Civic GX.  Its price tag fully loaded is less that $27,000.  (The gasoline powered Honda Civic retails for about  $18,000 so there is about a $9,000 premium for natural gas compared to a $28,000 premium for the Volt.)  The Honda Civic GX can run on either natural gas or regular gasoline.  For $9,000 you can have a natural gas delivery device installed in your home that refills the car overnight.

The technology for converting gasoline-powered engines to natural gas has existed for years.  It was developed without government assistance and without significant taxpayer dollars.  Mass production of clean burning natural gasoline engines would most certainly drive the per unit cost down dramatically.  Not so with electric cars because the main costs for electric cars are in the batteries – not the electric motors.  And while the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla have achieved storage capacity that permits over 200 miles per charge, the Obama run General Motors has achieved only 40 miles per charge.  But neither has achieved the breakthrough that allows rapid recharging (the time it takes to fill a tank) coupled with a sustained capacity of 200 miles.

To put it mildly, the government funded Volt is not ready for prime time.  The private technology Honda Civic GX is.  One wonders why the government has not embraced natural gas with is great abundance and relatively clean burning capability as a preferred alternative to foreign oil.  However, it is the insistence of the leftist politicians that fossil fuels must be eliminated in favor of “green energy.”  It is probably the single most egregious example of a government trying to pick the winners and losers in what should be a free and open market.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been expended without recourse to prop up General Motors.  The trade-off has been the current emphasis by General Motor on the Chevrolet Volt.  Millions more taxpayer dollars have been spent in tax credits in support of electric vehicles.  (As an ironic aside, one of the earlier attempts of providing tax benefits for electric cars wound up rewarding rich, white, country club members whom acquired new electric golf carts for almost nothing under the program.)

And yet, in spite of the billions spent, the full throated support of the federal government (and Democrat controlled state and local governments) and the million dollar ad campaigns by General Motors, the Chevrolet Volt remains an unwanted, over priced, under-performing hunk of metal that has been rejected in large by the consuming public.  One is tempted to say that the Volt is General Motor’s Edsel – except the Edsel disaster was all done with private financing, not taxpayer dollars.

It joins the solar panel industry that is near collapse in America and the wind energy program that is demanding renewal of its taxpayers’ subsidies in order to continue.  At some point, we need to cease spending taxpayer dollars on liberal politicians “great ideas.”  When we are spending forty percent more than we are taking in, the elimination of taxpayer subsidies to energy producers of all stripes is a good place to start balancing the budget.  And that should be followed by the end of taxpayer dollars to electric vehicle producers.

But given the penchant of liberal politicians to spend your money on their great ideas, the idea of taxpayer subsidies to the “green” economy is highly unlikely.

And contrast the dynamic economic rebound of Eastern Montana because of the Bakken field with Oregon’s liberal establishment who promote wind energy through subsidies but block transmission lines to move that energy from where it is produced to where it is used.  There is something dramatically wrong in Oregon’s liberal government class.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    That the Volt is ludicrous goes without saying. It is the Yugo reincarnated for the new millennium. It, and other green welfare projects such as solar panels are merely conduits engaged in chiefly as a method to funnel taxpayer money to well connected cronies for political pay offs.

    We need to start calling them for what they are, corruption in its most blatant form. Ripping off the tax payer to pay off your friends is always a bad thing. To do so in this time, when the country is in such dire straights, is especially odious.

    • 4real

      The government could give me a 35 K credit and would not buy that POC.

      Ever.
      Worthless garbarge.

  • 4real

    There is no such thing as green energy. Everything has trade offs. When you use water you kill fish, when you use wind you kill birds, when you use nukes you have waste, when you use coal you have sulfer, when you use natural gas you have….wait, clean energy.
    Sorry. Nevermind.

    • David Appell

      Natural gas is not “clean” — when burned, one kilogram creates about 2.8 kg of CO2e. Last year it was responsible for 20% of carbon emissions, or about 6,300 Mt CO2. 

      It’s cleaner than oil or coal, but still a large emitter of greenhouse gas that is altering the climate. Last year’s emissions of natural gas, by itself, is equivalent to a warming rate of about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.    

      • Rupert in Springfield

         >Last year’s emissions of natural gas, by itself, is equivalent to a
        warming rate of about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.   

        What in the world does this statement mean?

        Equivalent? In what manner or way are you equating these two?

        • David Appell

          They are equated through the carbon-climate response function: about 1.5 +/- 0.5 C of warming for every trillion metric tons of carbon emitted. See:

          “The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions,” Mathews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K., Nature 459, 829–832 (2009).

          • Rupert in Springfield

             OK – so is this simply a poor choice of words. In other words are you saying last years NG emissions will contribute 0.05 deg F per decade overall?

            I’m asking you to clarify your statement. An article citation doesn’t do that. It may support it, but it doesn’t clarify two dissimilar things being equated.

          • David Appell

            It’s actually a precise choice of words — carbon emissions of E cause (over some period of time of about 0-2 decades) a temperature increase of T. This function is then easily converted into average rates of change for emissions and temperature by taking the first derivative. The result is

            dT/dE = (1.5 +/- 0.5) K/TtC

            Last year’s emissions from natural gas were 20% of the total CO2 emissions of 31.6 Gt CO2. That’s 6320 Mt CO2/yr, or 0.0017 TtC/yr, which causes a warming rate of 0.0026 K/yr, or 0.05 F/decade.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             Taking the derivative of a line determined by two historical points (one projected) does give you the rate of change. However that is somewhat irrelevant. To say the release of a gas is equivalent to a warming rate is simply poor word choice. Release of a gas could be a cause of warming, and could do so at a certain rate, however to say release of that gas is equivalent to a rate is simply a misstatement.

            Nevertheless, you explained yourself, so I get your point. Even if the statistics of assuming a rate based upon the derivative by assuming a straight line between two points, one projected, is demonstrably invalid.

          • David Appell

            The function is not determined by “two historical points.” Read the Matthews et al paper to avoid looking foolish.

            (And even if it were, you could still take its derivative.) 

          • David Appell

            I didn’t write “release” of a gas. I wrote “emission” of a gas. There is a difference.

          • David Appell

            And yes, emission of a gas is equivalent to a rate: X megatons per year, for example.

            You clearly don’t understand the CCR function, or you wouldn’t have written your last paragraph. All I’ve said is that 

            dT/dE = constant

            which is the same as the relationship between the time rates of change:

            dT/dt = const x dE/dt

          •  Hey David,
            We’re still waiting for proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming. Why are you unable to show this proof?
            Obviously because, even YOU do not believe man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Believe me David, I am more familiar with high school calculus. You have clarified your use of the word “equivalent”, which is all I was asking for.

            To take two points and assume a straight line is statistically dubious however. A real world example of why would be the Nyquist sampling theory. Look it up.

          • David Appell

            Again, the carbon-climate response function isn’t derived by assuming a straight line between2 points, but by looking at all the data and at models and finding that dT/dE has remained a near-constant over long periods of time. Read the paper.

          • JLB

            Give me a break.

            That model doesn’t even work for historical data. 

            Can you show me the actual code that generates that data?  Have you ever looked at the raw data?

            The answer to both has to be no.  They are completely unwilling to divulge the source code that went into that model.  They also can’t produce the raw data that supposedly drove that model.

            If you disagree with me, then produce the code and raw data!  Otherwise close pie hole…

          • David Appell

            It surely does work. Total emissions (fossil fuel combustion + land use changes + cement production) to-date have been about 540 GtC, which gives a surface warming of 0.8 C — exactly what has been observed.

            For details, see https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/11-f-warming-by-2050-no-way.html

            For “the code,” see the Matthews et al 2009 Nature paper I gave earlier.

          •  Still lying, eeh, David.

            You left out one little detail:
            nature NOT MAN emits 95+% of the CO2.

            Quit the lies. Tell the whole truth:
            95+% of CO2 is natural.

            Ice cores (and much more) show that CO2 responds to, not leads temperature.

            Water vapor, NOT CO2, causes most of the greenhouse effect.

            No one has ever proven that CO2 causes warming in the real atmosphere.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Rupert in Springfield

            You have to ignore water vapor to get CO2 to any level of urgency regarding CO2 since no one disputes it is a much greater contributor.

            It’s basically a physics 101 “ignoring wind drag” problem.

          • David Appell

            You’re boring.

            Nature absorbs the CO2 it emits. Man’s difference is what’s leading to the buildup in the atmosphere and oceans.

            The greenhouse effects of both CO2 and water vapor are necessary to keep the Earth out of a deeply frozen state. Without CO2 and other noncondensing GHGs, the average surface temperature would fall from 15 C to about -20 C in about 20 years.  

          •  David—- Nature absorbs the CO2 it emits. Man’s difference is what’s leading to the buildup in the atmosphere and oceans.

            JK—- Prove it. (You cannot tell the difference between man’s CO2 & OLD natural CO.)

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a differentisotopic signature than “natural”CO2

          • Rupert in Springfield

             >You’re boring.

            Obviously not, as you continue to reply to me.

            If you are going to try and argue water vapor is not a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, you would probably be on your own with that one.

          • David Appell

            It dependswhat you mean by “significant,” but I’d hardly be alone: Ray Pierrehumbert says in his textbook “One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the’most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two to tango.” (p. 271)

  • David Appell

    It is probably the single most egregious example of a government trying to pick the winners and losers in what should be a free and open market.

    No, it’s the government trying to correct for the biggest market failure in history — the pollution (carbon and non-carbon) that is dumped, without charge, in ecosystems that are damaged as a result. Markets should not just be free, but cost free. Fossil fuels fail broadly on the latter, where we have allowed massive socialism: “From each according to their smokestack, to each according to his lungs.”

    You wouldn’t allow your neighbor to freely dispose of his trash on your front lawn. Why is it any different when the front lawn is owned by all? 

    • Rupert in Springfield

       >Why is it any different when the front lawn is owned by all?

      Beats me. So you are saying when you drive anywhere, use a bus, plane or anything that burns oil, you are sending money somewhere to pay for the pollution caused by your activities?

      Can you explain how this works? How are you paying for the clean up following your use of fossil fuels?

      • valley person

         I think what he is saying Rupert, is that everyone SHOULD send money in to compensate for pollution caused by oneself. This is also known as a carbon tax. At the retail level it can be placed on any fossil fuel, just like the present gasoline tax.

        Very simple in principle and in practice.

      • David Appell

        No Americans are currently paying for the damage their use of fossil fuels creates, but they should be — just as for any other damage caused anywhere else by anything else. 

        Do you believe in property rights?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Please just answer the question.

          I asked how you are currently paying for the damage caused by your use of fossil fuels. Not what everyone else was doing.

          • David Appell

            I answered your question: “No Americans are currently paying for the damage their fossil fuel creates.” (I assume you can apply elementary set theory.)

            Right now my only method of avoiding damage is by limiting my fossil fuel use, especially from driving (~3000 mi/yr), and by purchasing green electricity. 

          • Rupert in Springfield

            So you do not pay for the damage caused by your fossil fuel use yet you advocate others pay for theirs.

            Not much of an argument in my opinion.

          • 3H


            No Americans are currently paying for the damage their use of fossil fuels creates, but they should be.

            Presumably, since he is included in the “No americans” that are paying for their damage, he would also be included in the Americans that “should be.”  Did he claim anywhere that he should be included?  Anywhere at all Rupert?  If so, please provide the quote.  

          • 3H

            That should be , “Did he claim anywhere that he shouldn’t be included?”

          • Rupert in Springfield

             Yep, David explained that part about two hours before your post. We have moved on. Please at least read next time so as to prevent making a complete ass out of yourself like this.

            You get the booby prize for this one though!

            Cheers.

          • 3H

            Actually, I was the first one to respond to that particular comment.  

            Try again, and be sure to read more carefully, much more carefully, or, as in this case, you’re likely to make yourself look like an ass.

            Think about it Rupert, if he had already responded, then your comment was simply a waste of time.  Yes? 

            I think you’re done here!

            Next!

            Ciao!

          • valley person

             Earth to Rupert. In saying we all should pay, a reasonable interpretation is that means there should be a carbon tax or something similar to price in the otherwise externalized costs of pollution.

            Somewhere, deep in the recesses of your fossil-like brain, I know you understand this. But you do such a good job of pretending otherwise.

          • David Appell

            You seem to enjoy playing dumb today. 

            I advocate that everyone pay for their damage to the property of others. 

          • JoelinPDX

            That’s what I like about David…he never calls names. Oops, he just called Rupert dumb. Guess you can’t use the name calling argument any longer David.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            David is many things, a name caller would certainly be one of them.

            I think he just doesnt like it pointed out that he is very good at telling others what they should do, not very good at doing the same himself.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I advocate that everyone pay for their damage to the property of others.

            Obviously you do not, since you do not do so now.

            You are fully in control of your actions David, why is it you do not do right now what you would have others do?

          • 3H

            LOL.. speaking of Booby Prizes.. you really don’t get it do you?  Is that intentional?  Or are you just not understanding?

          • 3H

            So, can you at least answer the question please.  Where did David say that other people should pay for their fossil fuel use, and he shouldn’t?     

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Who ever claimed he said that?

            I claimed his actions indicate he believes that.

            Very different thing, and if you would read what you are responding to, rather than do knee jerk responses, you would know that.

            It is clear you are not reading what you are responding to. Try and catch up.

          •  ” and by purchasing green electricity. ”
            Are you really that stupid?

            Thanks
            JK

          • Severe

            Totally true about no such thing as “green electricity” —  all wind generated electricity must be regulated by hydro, coal-fire plants, etc., on the grid every few second………

    • Oregon Engineer

       Whether or not you understand your own conclusion:
      You wouldn’t allow your neighbor to freely dispose of his trash on your
      front lawn. Why is it any different when the front lawn is owned by all?
      Private property rights work.

      • David Appell

        Except the atmosphere is commons, not private property — hence it’s governments’ obligation to protect it. 

  • Bob Clark

    Great article and spot on!  In many other parts of the globe in places like Thailand and Peru; natural gas and propane are used as mainstream motor vehicle fuels.  However, short of a national emergency it would take several decades to make natural gas a mainstream motor vehicle fuel in the U.S.  (Though, commercial fleets are having some success in converting to natural gas.)

    Actually, we may be coming to the end of the upcycle in oil prices;  The revolutionary oil and natural gas extraction technology; horizontal drilling, fracking and others; is being first used in the U.S.  But this technology is easily transferred via multinational energy companies to other spots of vast, previously uneconomical oil and natural gas resources. Upcycles in oil prices generally last about a decade until they give way to a combination of energy efficiency, new deposit descoveries and new extraction technologies.  Peak Oil Theory is a sham, although at some point demand may shrink for oil because markets (very unlikely government) find a less expensive, mass quantity alternative (externalities excluded).

    By comparison, the renewables thing of the past decade seems more of a being “cool” thing than that of economic rationality;  and we pay the price with the rise of the question of government solvency.  Hopefully, we can get the “cool one” out of the White House this November.  Then we can get back to being dull but more prosperous and able to provide for a healthy level of economic opportunities for all.

    • David Appell

      Peak Oil Theory is a sham

      Really? So perhaps you can explain for us why world oil production has barely budged over the last 7 or so years, despite its high selling price on world markets.

      (Or are you just required to believe this as a requirement of getting a Republican party membership card?)

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Pretty easy actually. The production level of something is not indicative of that things existence.

        Next?

        • 3H

          You can produce things that don’t exist?

          LOL  

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Who in the world ever claimed that? What are you on about?

          • David Appell

            By writing “the production level of something is not indicative of that things existence,” you implied there is no relationship between the two; hence that even things that don’t exist can be produced. 

            Perhaps it was just a bad choice of words.

          • 3H

            The production level of something is not indicative of that things existence.

            Wouldn’t producing something imply that it exists?

            This is news to you?

            Next.

          • David Appell

            That’s what we thought, and so why we found your claim so startling.

          • valley person

             Not in Rupert world. In Rupert world a thing exists because you want it to, and doesn’t exist because you don’t want it to. And if that thing you don’t want to exist is right in front of your face and screaming at you, you just close your eyes, cover your ears, and run away.

            And you can make monsters obey you by staring into their big yellow eyes.

            My name is Edith Ann Rupert and I am 6 years old.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Would you two please think a bit before typing.

            I never said that producing or not producing something implies its existance.

            Got it?

            I said production levels. Very different from whether or not something can be produced.

            Very different things. If you two are under the impression that the quantity something is produced in, its production level, is related only to the supply of that thing, its existence, you really are dullards.

            Got it now?

            Yeesh, why are you guys constantly provoking kiddy table arguments like this?

          • 3H

            So, if I produce 50 gallons of gas a day (a production level), it is not indicative of the existence of gas?  

          • David Appell

            So then why don’t  you suggest some reasons why world oil production is flat while price is high?

          • 3H


            I said production levels. Very different from whether or not something can be produced.

            No, you said that productions levels do not indicate that something exists.  

            “The production level of something is not indicative of that things existence.

            You got it backwards (I’m guessing): if you had said the existence of something is not indicative of that things production level you might have made a point.   

            Now, perhaps YOU should think before typing.

            Next

          • valley person

             Rupert will admit he was wrong any second now.

        • valley person

           Even when the price for that thing has doubled or tripled? No one would produce it? That would at least indicate not enough of that thing exists in accessible places to meet demand. Otherwise free market theory just went out the window.

        • David Appell

          Oh most planets, strong demand for a product results in manufacturers working hard to make more of it, especially when the price is increasing. It makes them more money. 

          But maybe not on yours.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Oh most planets, strong demand for a product results in manufacturers working hard to make more of it

            With this you have just defeated your own argument.

            Can you figure out how?

            What has been going on for a big chunk of the last seven years?

            The Jeopardy clock is ticking David.

            Use those massive brain cells.

          •  Rupert: “Can you figure out how”
            JK: probably not, he is not very bright and simple logic totally escapes him – that is why he holds so many crackpot beliefs.
            Thanks
            JK

          • Rupert in Springfield

             It is kind of stunning. Especially given that David is the one who brought up the 7 year time span, and cannot seem to put two and two together as to why production levels during that particular time span are an especially bad choice.

            Then again, David is the guy who thought that taking the derivative, rather than simply looking at the X constant, was clever in evaluating the slope of a linear equation.

          • David Appell

            The constant, and the derivative, are equal. Calculating  one is the same as determining the other, and neither if found by drawing a line between two points.

            This isn’t the first time you’ve lied about me not understanding trivial things (there was the David-doesn’t-understand-momentum one awhile back), and I’m sure it won’t be the last. 

            At least you seem to finally understand how one gallon of gasoline can produce more than its weight in CO2. That one escaped you for quite awhile. 

          • valley person

             “What has been going on for a big chunk of the last seven years?”

            Well, for one thing Rupert has been posting inane questions all that time.

    • Oregon Engineer

       I agree with you and Larry.  unfortunately it seems the rest of the respondents do not understand any form of economic theory and why we are where we are today.

      • Severe

        I totally agree with your comment. If the other respondents disagree it is by deflection and comments on character and intelligence……..too bad

        • 3H

          …by deflection and comments on character and intelligence…

          You mean like over-arching comments that disparage those who disagree:  “..the rest of the respondents do not understand any form of economic theory….”   

          We just don’t disagree, but we don’t understand ANY form of economic theory? 

          Too bad indeed that you are blinkered to the excesses of your own side.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             >We just don’t disagree, but we don’t understand ANY form of economic theory?

            Who knows, you completely misread two posts in a row and fell all over yourself.

            Frankly Id be having doubts about you guys as well.

          • 3H

            Actually, you need to go back and read more carefully.  Much more carefully.  If you want me to explain it to you, I will.   

          • Rupert in Springfield

            I have always been pretty clear on this, and made it clear to you on several occasions. I don’t re read replies when it is clear the person has not read what they were replying to. Thanks

          • Severe

            Read the previous post again please and then think about what was really said…….geez

          • 3H

            I did.. and I stand by it.   Perhaps you should take another look?  Geez indeed.  

          • Rupert in Springfield

             3H is one of those who still thinks its clever to argue a point no one ever made by misreading. God knows why since a singularly ineffective technique. Still, it seems to be a favorite of his.

          • 3H

            Rupert, I thought you didn’t like “dopey” insults?  You should give them up, they just make you look foolish.  

    • Severe

      Couldn’t agree more!

  • Severe

    The last paragraph is right on! Anyone who has had a decrease in private property values because of miles of wind turbines encroaching on their homes can understand this. For anyone who has not had the pleasure of seeing their hard earned $$$ being blown away by “green energy”- probably doesn’t understand………Kitzhaber needs to get a clue– he is on the wrong path to “saving” Oregon’s floundering economy.

    • David Appell

      And what about those whose property values have declined because a highway was built nearby, because pollution from power plants or heavy traffic makes it a less desirable place to live (and damages their body, surely the most private property of all), or because warming temperatures are decreasing their crop yields? 

      Your viewpoint is skewed and limited. 

      • JoelinPDX

        Nice points you make David but how about you prove them. Where are all of these horrible places being destroyed by polluting power plants and errant highways.

        • David Appell

          You can begin your reading with topics like “acid rain,” “climate change,” “air pollution,” and papers like 

          Muller, Nicholas Z., Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus. 2011. “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy.” American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75.https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use” National Research Council, 2010https://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

          And if you honestly don’t know about noise pollution, there’s nothing I can suggest to help you. 

          • JoelinPDX

            You need to learn the differences between verifiable fact and opinion. Yours is nothing more than opinion…and misguided opinion at that.

          • Severe

            So Right! Live next to 500 wind turbines and you will know what  noise pollution is! There is the DEQ noise standard that is supposed to limit noise in Oregon………in theory. There is no enforcement of the DEQ noise law so if there is a violation and exceedence of noise– well nobody is coming to stop it……… 

          • Rupert in Springfield

             OK – This is interesting because I tried to hear this noise last weekend. I went up to the Columbia Gorge, got out of the car a few times and stood by groups of windmills to hear this noise. I did not hear anything all that bothersome even when standing in fairly large groups of windmills. Is this noise present all the time, or no? Was I too far to hear it? I was about 500 feet from groups of about 6 with more a further distance away. What was I doing wrong that I did not hear this noise?

          • valley person

             Maybe you should clean your ears now and then?

            Just kidding. Modern wind turbines are not very noisy in terms of decibels, but they do emit a low frequency sound that some, maybe many people fine annoying and penetrating. Many jurisdictions…you will like this one Rupert, now place ZONING RESTRICTIONS on wind turbines, like setbacks from property lines or existing homes.

            I’ve spent time near turbines and wouldn’t want to live within shouting distance, so to speak.

          • David Appell

            I would not choose to live near a turbine farm either. All methods of producing energy have negative side effects — it’s a matter of minimizing them. 

          • David Appell

            You need to learn the difference between science and opinion. 

          • 3H

            There is no such thing as noise pollution.  That is why the rich always build their houses next to busy freeways.  Or their own factories.

  • JoelinPDX

    Damn the lefties have been busy on this thread. You begin to wonder just who it is they are trying to convince.

    • valley person

       So do we Joel. So do we.

      • David Appell

        +10

  • Riley

    Appell,You are so naive you might as well be 12.  How is it that you fall for and view every cockamamie presumption as established science and go about distributing it as if it as solid as water is wet?The paper you referenced is yet another mixture of modeling, uncertainties and presumptions built up to form no more than conceptualization without the reliability of crop circle science.But it’s published and David is impressed. “From observational constraints, we estimate””consistent with,,,climate–carbon models””evaluated from climate–carbon models,,,for comparing models””CCR is likely to be a useful concept” “for climate change mitigation and policy”  Useful— LOLMake up crap and get government bureaucracies to buy it. 

    • valley person

       Every scientific academy on the planet has “fallen for” what Mr Appell has fallen for. That doesn’t give you the least pause?

      •  I am just waiting for actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming. You have none, they have none, the IPCC has none. Why would anyone believe in the absence of actual evidence?

        You are just one of the people fooled by the emperor naked clothes.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          As I’ve told you a hundred times, I am waiting for you to define “dangerous.” 

          You’re boring. You ask the same questions again and again, regardless of the response. And worse, you think that’s a clever and somehow useful strategy.  

    • 3H

      And what evidence do you find convincing, and why?  Do you doubt the theory of evolution simply because so many scientists accept the theory and have presented papers in support?  ‘Cause that’s pretty much your logic (such as it is).

      • Rupert in Springfield

         What is it with you inventing things people never said and then arguing against them?  He didnt mention evolution anywhere in his post, yet here you are arguing the point.

        I mean seriously, is this taken as a reasonable form of debate in your circles?

        • 3H

          …is this taken as a reasonable form of debate in your circles?
          And your experience with “reasonable” is exactly what?  But thanks for the laugh.

          I will point out the obvious to you.  Riley’s whole critique of David Appell appears to be that David accepts the conclusions of a scientific paper (and the conclusions of a majority of climate scientists).  In fact, Riley accuses David of being naive and acting like a 12 year old (is this what passes for a reasonable form of debate in conservative circles?).  I’m trying to determine if Riley discounts all science and the scientific method. Is his mocking of David a symptom of a deeper pathology?  Or is it limited to only AGW?  And if it is limited, why?  Why be so selective in acceptance of science in one case, and not in the other?   

          Is that clear?  Now, don’t you feel silly for your dopey insult? 

    • David Appell

      Yes, it’s such cockamamie crap that it explains observed warming, was published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, and was recently heralded by deniers and skeptics when Swart and Weaver used the very same CCR function to calculate that the carbon in the active Alberta tar sands would only cause a 0.03 C warming (Nature Climate Change, AOP 2012).

  • Riply

    Appell,
    I’m convinced you are a buffoon who can’t recognize the difference between scientific evidence and some researcher yammering on in some lofty publication about some conceptual speculation. 

    You link to some publication, appear to to not even had read it and treat it like the content and conclusions are somehow scientifically conclusive simply because they are there. 

    I call it crap like the rest of the AGW heap piled up. 

    It’s no wonder you and valley loon have such asinine beliefs. You’ve accepted one thing after another simply because it was discussed and written up.   You rush right by any notion of something merely sounding plausible and leap to concluding everything that fits your cult must be absolute.  Your absence of skepticism and curiosity is both astounding and unhealthy.

    All the while you are avoiding and disregarding all of the far more persuasive contradictions stacking up.  

    You should be embarrassed for assuming the Joe Romm mentality. 

    Again the paper you referenced is yet another mixture of modeling, uncertainties and presumptions built up to form no more than conceptualization without the reliability of crop circle science.

    Your naivety is equaled by your laziness as you default into “it explains observed warming”.  

    “From observational constraints,
    we estimate””consistent with,,,climate–carbon models”
    “evaluated from climate–carbon models,,,for comparing models”
    “CCR is likely to be a useful concept” 
    “for climate change mitigation and policy”  

    • David Appell

      What’s it like to have to denigrate knowledge and scholarship as the only way of maintaining your ideology?

      That kind of thing would make me puke on an hourly basis, so I’m curious how you get through the day.

    • David Appell

      What’s it like to have to denigrate scholarship and knowledge itself in order to maintain your ideology?

      That kind of thing would make me puke on a daily basis, so I’m curious how you get through the day.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: lan penge nu uden sikkerhed()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: laan penge billigt()

  • Pingback: pay day loans()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loan()

  • Pingback: electrician jobs in pa()

  • Pingback: b pumper wiki()

  • Pingback: mr rooter plumbing emergency()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: electrician jobs in uk london()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: here()

  • Pingback: xnc5bsxnrbscngfrfgc4ecgdgf()

  • Pingback: mxcn5w7xmwncwexnicensrgffg()

  • Pingback: xwcn75oxmtcn8setxemgc54g5()

  • Pingback: xfwmrt5gzngfw5wtrjfgxe85mrwfqd()

  • Pingback: compare cheap car insurance()

  • Pingback: state farm condo insurance()

  • Pingback: melbourne()

  • Pingback: go to website()

  • Pingback: aile hekimligi malzemeleri()

  • Pingback: Pet Exportation()

  • Pingback: Manifestation Miracle()

  • Pingback: car Hire()

  • Pingback: free netflix account and password()

  • Pingback: guitar picks()

  • Pingback: open sky coupon code()

  • Pingback: groupon()

  • Pingback: porno()

  • Pingback: esta()

  • Pingback: nissan service()

  • Pingback: Prostate Health Supplement()

  • Pingback: Courtney()

  • Pingback: Best buy bulk order smartphone accessories()

  • Pingback: league of legends tee shirts()

  • Pingback: ramalan bintang virgo()

  • Pingback: playpen for dogs()

  • Pingback: valentines day pictures()

  • Pingback: goodwill shop()

  • Pingback: RDP Scanner()

  • Pingback: minneapolis seo services()

  • Pingback: shy amateur wife in a essay threesome()

  • Pingback: ebay tablets()

  • Pingback: apple shooter()

  • Pingback: Recommended Site()

  • Pingback: th8 war base anti dragons()

  • Pingback: entertainment()

  • Pingback: popular boy names()

  • Pingback: tenerife blog()

  • Pingback: movietube()

  • Pingback: guitar picks()

  • Pingback: corporate training in singapore()

  • Pingback: health coach singapore()

  • Pingback: agencia publicidad malaga()

  • Pingback: daily dog walker in naples()

  • Pingback: take home pay calculator()

  • Pingback: free porn()

  • Pingback: best nose hair trimmer comparison()

  • Pingback: 7 sticky notes virus()

  • Pingback: bathroom scale with memory()

  • Pingback: https://rosengard.tv()

  • Pingback: one year bullshit fraud investigations()

  • Pingback: Eulalio Tirado Lizarraga()

  • Pingback: how to take raspberry ketones()

  • Pingback: best pet sitter near naples fl()

  • Pingback: this website()

  • Pingback: porno()

  • Pingback: your input here()

  • Pingback: Private investigator Pretoria()

  • Pingback: https://www.youtube.com/user/tijuanthedon1()

  • Pingback: Obsession Phrases Examples()

  • Pingback: https://pagarbrcsurabaya.angelfire.com/()

  • Pingback: asacp.easywomen.date()

  • Pingback: Paste Filling Machine()

  • Pingback: sleeping pills()

  • Pingback: https://cutt.us/o9N6X()

  • Pingback: imagepost.tigaz.top()

  • Pingback: ultra-pornstars.peggletube.pw()

  • Pingback: vine bot()

  • Pingback: accounts and passwords for brazzers()

  • Pingback: hackear clash of clans()

  • Pingback: read what he said()

  • Pingback: Free WSET Course()

  • Pingback: Earn money()

  • Pingback: affordable moving companies surrey bc()

  • Pingback: https://printingvip.bravesites.com()

  • Pingback: sklejka dlh()

  • Pingback: Online Reviews()

  • Pingback: podlogi drewniane()

  • Pingback: cedr()

  • Pingback: best golf umbrella reviews()

  • Pingback: marvel contest of champions cheats()

  • Pingback: Diabetes Destroyer()

  • Pingback: Gordie Howe Jersey()

  • Pingback: Fitness quotes()

  • Pingback: Hot Women in Sports()

  • Pingback: Despacho de abogados penalistas Madrid()

  • Pingback: xxx-xnxx erotico Parodias()

  • Pingback: mypillowreviews.xyz()

  • Pingback: Matthew Stafford Jersey()

  • Pingback: Detroit Red Wings Store()

  • Pingback: Detroit Red Wings Store()

  • Pingback: Detroit Lions Blog()

  • Pingback: Detroit Lions Blog()

  • Pingback: Free XXX Porn()

  • Pingback: MILF Porn()

  • Pingback: uab ost express()

  • Pingback: Anal Porn()

  • Pingback: Free Amateur Porn()

  • Pingback: Fetish Porn()

  • Pingback: Xbox One()

  • Pingback: Gay Lesbian Porn()

  • Pingback: Bree Olson Porn()

  • Pingback: Detroit Sports Memorabilia()

  • Pingback: Detroit SEO()

  • Pingback: get fast cash()

  • Pingback: Porn Blog()

  • Pingback: Training My Nerdy Sister To Love My Cock()

  • Pingback: little india denver()

  • Pingback: Royce Jekot()

  • Pingback: Dan Mcallister()

  • Pingback: The Lost Ways Review()

  • Pingback: www.hr.com/en/app/blog/2016/05/3-keys-to-reducing-employee-turnover-in-the-christ_inzzz3ra.html()

  • Pingback: life insurance lawyer()

  • Pingback: FastComet Coupons()

  • Pingback: online shop()

  • Pingback: adult shop()

  • Pingback: hack msp()

  • Pingback: hardware-stores.net()

  • Pingback: Issac()

  • Pingback: pharma()

  • Pingback: this site()

  • Pingback: skin rejuvenation center()

  • Pingback: As Melhores Dicas - Whi-Not()

  • Pingback: facial tampa fl()

  • Pingback: Miller()

  • Pingback: memory training course()

  • Pingback: affordable seo prices()

  • Pingback: competitive seo packages()

  • Pingback: her latest blog()

  • Pingback: istanbul escort bayan()

  • Pingback: sabit kanca 2 izle()

  • Pingback: #bitcoin()

  • Pingback: international mall tampa stores()

  • Pingback: how to sell on amazon()

  • Pingback: david sammon colorado()

  • Pingback: Fannie()

  • Pingback: Teknik()

  • Pingback: reset windows 7 password()

  • Pingback: vacation packages to peru()

  • Pingback: https://is.gd/penis_enlargement_that_works()

  • Pingback: sports memorabilia()

  • Pingback: showbox()

  • Pingback: Inexto and Codentify()

  • Pingback: hire minibus to olympia with driver()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Hillsboro Beach()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Pembroke Pines()

  • Pingback: Security News Online()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Weston()

  • Pingback: Download 70-331 Certification Dumps()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Southwest Ranches, Florida()

  • Pingback: outplaced()

  • Pingback: Acne Facial Treatments Wilton Manors()

  • Pingback: projector enclosures global()

  • Pingback: Acne Facial Treatments Lauderdale Lakes()

  • Pingback: buy twitter followers()

  • Pingback: Facial Spa Services Deerfield Beach()

  • Pingback: carshield reviews()

  • Pingback: no credit check payday loans()

  • Pingback: nolans child care()

  • Pingback: notary on Sunday()

  • Pingback: Domme()

  • Pingback: Michigan Wolverines Memorabilia()

  • Pingback: Search Marketing()

  • Pingback: verin electrique 12v pour remorque()

  • Pingback: bud-tender training()

  • Pingback: Viagra cena()

  • Pingback: Translation Services Houston()

  • Pingback: 3some()

  • Pingback: ugolemqvane na penisa()

  • Pingback: designer mens accessories()

  • Pingback: www.panelepodlogowe1.pl()

  • Pingback: Tactical Belt()

  • Pingback: swtor credits()

  • Pingback: oc weekly()

  • Pingback: panele24.net.pl()

  • Pingback: guaranteedppc()

  • Pingback: Busty Lesbian MILF Takes Advantage Of Shy Girl And Licks Her Wet Pussy()

  • Pingback: Masters 2017()

  • Pingback: christmas scavenger hunt()

  • Pingback: best agent()

  • Pingback: Arrosticini()

  • Pingback: get paid()

  • Pingback: buy e cig()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم()

  • Pingback: Medicare Advantage 2018()

  • Pingback: refrigerated cooling()

  • Pingback: vegas valley()

  • Pingback: DUI lawyer Phoenix()

  • Pingback: PureMature Lisa Ann Fucked By The Pool()

  • Pingback: engagement rings cheap()

  • Pingback: adam and eve discount codes()

  • Pingback: Cheap Adipex Online()

  • Pingback: Design Outdoor Living Space()

  • Pingback: compagnie de menage()

  • Pingback: Nigeria classifieds ads()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم سلام بمبئی()

  • Pingback: potencja()

  • Pingback: potencja()

  • Pingback: Samsung air conditioners()

  • Pingback: Agen Bola Online()

  • Pingback: evaporative air conditioning()

  • Pingback: Fujitsu aircon; Fujitsu()

  • Pingback: david sammon social media()

  • Pingback: Happy Mother's Day 2017 Australia()

  • Pingback: Gemstone Necklace()

  • Pingback: Ormekur til hund()

  • Pingback: เครื่องปั่นน้ำผลไม้แบบพกพา()

  • Pingback: facebook entrar()

  • Pingback: animeindo id()

  • Pingback: London man and van compare()

  • Pingback: enter here()

  • Pingback: Immigration law()

  • Pingback: Medigap 2018()

  • Pingback: ducted heater()

  • Pingback: UPVC double glazed windows()

  • Pingback: دانلود آهنگ()

  • Pingback: meetings.webex.com/collabs/url/E8FAXnhjeYYw42jfHVWLFRdgZyJTRfPAep-0DCjV0bS00000()

  • Pingback: heaters()

  • Pingback: sbobet ผลบอลสด()

  • Pingback: Locksmith mesa()

  • Pingback: best motorcycle helmets()

  • Pingback: Medicare Supplements()

  • Pingback: Betting Platform Provider()

  • Pingback: eliza was here cyprus()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: phir bhi tumko chahunga()

  • Pingback: check over site now()

  • Pingback: Eren Niazi()

  • Pingback: Royal Canin hundemad()

  • Pingback: iso 9001()

  • Pingback: Affiliate Marketing()

  • Pingback: orthopedic sandals()

  • Pingback: سرور مجازیسرور مجازی()

  • Pingback: evaporative cooler()

  • Pingback: hot moms()

  • Pingback: دانلود فیلم سلام بمبئی()

  • Pingback: Premier Popcorn()

  • Pingback: hair transplant cost()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: https://issuu.com/patrejir()

  • Pingback: בבאר שבע()

  • Pingback: refrigerated cooling()

  • Pingback: financial planners()

  • Pingback: UPVC Double Glazed Windows()

  • Pingback: ฟันเหลืองมาก()

  • Pingback: charter bus company()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: Adult dating()

  • Pingback: the balloon thing singapore()

  • Pingback: https://ishotr.tumblr.com/()

  • Pingback: hj�lp jeg snorker()

  • Pingback: vip escort paris()

  • Pingback: دانلود برنامه گاراژ 888()

  • Pingback: DecadeZ()

  • Pingback: hemorrhoids cure()

  • Pingback: life coach()

  • Pingback: Adult porn()

  • Pingback: Adult porn()

  • Pingback: https://www.pornodolce.com/users/Trey099615/info/()

  • Pingback: College Advising()

  • Pingback: Chinese videos()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: elelastic shoelaces()

  • Pingback: cheap seo plans()

  • Pingback: https://zakupki.gov.ru/forum/user/profile/1432310.page()

  • Pingback: health and fitness()

  • Pingback: پنجره دوجداره()

  • Pingback: multi vendor ecommerce()

  • Pingback: desentupimento fossas()

  • Pingback: computer recycling()

  • Pingback: Ormekur uden recept()

  • Pingback: griddle and skillet comparison()

  • Pingback: 海味批發()

  • Pingback: cash out bitcoin()

  • Pingback: it disposal()

  • Pingback: it asset disposal()

  • Pingback: ZLINE Bunker Systems()

  • Pingback: สมัครจีคลับ()

  • Pingback: short term business loans()

  • Pingback: budget()

  • Pingback: new york sports memorabilia()

  • Pingback: logo graphic design()

  • Pingback: Facebook views here()

  • Pingback: inchiriere autorulote pentru vacanta()

  • Pingback: سئو()

  • Pingback: سئو سایت()

  • Pingback: WordPress SEO()

  • Pingback: Bumiputera Properties for Sale()

  • Pingback: dsquared2 she wood()

  • Pingback: see this article()

  • Pingback: warehouses for sale()

  • Pingback: get more likes on post()

  • Pingback: ¥ë¥¤¥ô¥£¥È¥ó Ø”²¼()

  • Pingback: تعویض پنجره()

  • Pingback: Online Casino Malaysia()

  • Pingback: Giovanna()

  • Pingback: Willena()

  • Pingback: درب یو پی وی سی()

  • Pingback: دانلود سریال شهرزاد فصل دوم قسمت 5()

  • Pingback: irs amnesty program()

  • Pingback: Mobiles()

  • Pingback: Sommer()

  • Pingback: https://community.linksys.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/832356()

  • Pingback: Mahalia()

  • Pingback: curved monitor()

  • Pingback: https://nws.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/nwsexit.pl?url=https://povpornxxx.com()

  • Pingback: https://www.carepages.com/users/8265515/profile()

  • Pingback: دانلود قسمت سوم فصل دوم سریال شهرزاد()

  • Pingback: فروش پنجره()

  • Pingback: Best wedding ideas. All about outdoor for wedding()

  • Pingback: 1K Daily Profit review()

  • Pingback: دانلود رایگان سریال عاشقانه قسمت 10 دهم()

  • Pingback: hair and makeup artist()

  • Pingback: compression shirts()

  • Pingback: relevant internet page()

  • Pingback: get more()

  • Pingback: event management singapore()

  • Pingback: Rap()

  • Pingback: https://www.bcmediagrp.com()

  • Pingback: Texas Sports Outlet()

  • Pingback: under armour curry shoes()

  • Pingback: seo()

  • Pingback: paket lebaran murah di bali()

  • Pingback: Judi poker()

  • Pingback: Paketdienst()

  • Pingback: SECURITY GUARD OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT()

  • Pingback: https://kdp.amazon.com/community/profile.jspa?userID=1657596()

  • Pingback: Accountant atlanta()

  • Pingback: relaxing music for kids()

  • Pingback: tungsten wedding bands()

  • Pingback: replica louis vuitton handbags()

  • Pingback: mens wedding rings()

  • Pingback: new mixtapes()

  • Pingback: sociale controle samen staan we sterk()

  • Pingback: financial consultant denver()

  • Pingback: sikerler videosu()

  • Pingback: UTF-8()

  • Pingback: radionics()

  • Pingback: online bookie software()

  • Pingback: دانلود رایگان قسمت 9 سریال شهرزاد فصل 2()

  • Pingback: purple color()

  • Pingback: how to make rc airplane()

  • Pingback: advertisers()

  • Pingback: KODI()

  • Pingback: 2 دانلود قسمت هشتم سریال شهرزاد فصل دوم()

  • Pingback: Dallas Medical Waste Disposal()

  • Pingback: UoN()

  • Pingback: Bottomslim()

  • Pingback: Dental Plan Amil Dental Win()