You just made my argument for me. Yes we have to look at alternate energy sources, yes they are the future. But we need immediate answers as well, not kneejerk reactions.
Help !! Decision on Natural Gas Port off LBTS is close.
- Thread starter tropicaledit
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
You just made my argument for me. Yes we have to look at alternate energy sources, yes they are the future. But we need immediate answers as well, not kneejerk reactions.
Divergirl4U
Contributor
Good let’s hear you solution instead of your ….. Whatever this is 
Good lets hear you solution instead of your .. Whatever this is
So turning it on me makes up for your cluelessness? I'm not the one who was outspoken against a project I don't understand, that would be you. My suggestion would be for you to quit embarassing yourself and stick to things you know. I'm waiting for you to adress the questions I asked you three times.
Charlie99
Contributor
- Messages
- 7,966
- Reaction score
- 166
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Iceland is blessed with abundant hydropower and geothermal energy sources. Florida has very little of either.
The hydrogen economy that Iceland is trying to move towards is not a new form of energy. Geothermal and hydropower is used to generate electricity, which is then used to generate hydrogen. The hydrogen is used in buses and cars as an alternative to gasoline. (The optimistic supporters of hydrogen predict fossil fuel free in 2050, not 2040, btw and if you look at what has happened since those Sept 2007 articles you posted, you will find that things have not happened per schedule).
The key usage of LNG in South Florida is to produce electricty. If hydropower was feasible, if geothermal was feasible, then there wouldn't be a need to use natural gas powered electric plants.
Florida has more sunlight than Iceland, but solar power is not yet ready to be the primary source of electric power to the grid.
All large scale projects take time to be built --- whether they are LNG terminal, massive solar powered generating plants, or a hydrogen generation and distribution facility. A prudent society plans ahead and starts projects to cover future needs. If Suez energy is wrong, and alternative energy comes online sooner than expected, then they will have a white elephant. If people that say "it's not needed because we are going to a fossil free economy" are wrong, then we have disruptions in electricity and soaring costs.
Divergirl4U
Contributor
I am done with this silliness …….soooo not worth my time.
Have a great day
Have a great day
I am done with this silliness .soooo not worth my time.
Have a great day
Translation: She has no idea what she was talking about and totally got called on it.
Charlie99
Contributor
- Messages
- 7,966
- Reaction score
- 166
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
I'm sorry that you consider discussion of this topic silliness.I am done with this silliness …….soooo not worth my time.
Have a great day
You posted some links about Iceland's goal of being fossil-fuel free by 2050 and wondered why we couldn't do it also.
I pointed out that Iceland is rather unique in that they have abundant hydropower and geothermal energy which provide virtually all of their electricity as well as their home and workplace heating. Their 1/3 of total energy that is fossil fuel is almost all for the transportation industry (fishing vessels, car and trucks, and airplanes). Iceland is actually effectively an exporter of huge amounts of renewable energy in that they have multiple aluminum plants that consume huge amounts of electric energy to refine aluminum, which then gets exported. Conversion of their abundant renewable energy sources into hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels is an excellent way for Iceland to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
The near 100% renewable energy source for electricity in Iceland is quite different than the situation in South Florida, where about 2/3 of the electricity is generated from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas primarily), with another 15% or so from nuclear. Using the electric grid to produce hydrogen for use in cars would actually consume more fossil fuel and produce more CO2 than would using the natural gas + steam to convert methane into hydrogen. Clearly though, converting LNG to hydrogen is not an ideal long term goal.
Somehow, you seem to take this as a personal attack or silliness. My intent was neither of those. For some reason, this subject seems to be difficult to discuss rationally.
Conservation, alternative energy and continued supply of fossil fuels are all worthy, and somewhat complementary goals.
Charlie Allen
Divergirl4U
Contributor
Not you Charlie, your responses come from an educated point of view.
Mine come from my heart.
Mine come from my heart.
truck1
Contributor
I agree. Her responses were bordering the childish.
I am with you. I am still waiting her answers or any politicians answer for that fact of what do we do today in place of fossil fuels. 20,30 years down the line, nuclear or some new form of energy, great. That is not helping us today.
Divergirl4U
Contributor
So you are waiting for ME to solve this problem :blinking:
. Now that is funny
