• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BLS stats show little improvement under Obama and some losses

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Employment Situation Archived News Releases

All numbers stated in thousands. Worsening factors shown in red.

2008, Dec.: Employed: 143,338, Employment Participation Rate: 65.7%, Not in Labor Force: 80,588, Part time work: 34,597

2013, July: Employed: 144,285, Employment participation rate: 63.4%, Not in labor force: 89,957, Part time work: 35,215

Most distressing is that there are 9,369,000 people who have left the work force.

Participation rate is down more than 2%.

I checked this because there was so big a flap about the increase of part time labor, but that number is only up 618,000. Not much to see there.

Household income is still way down and the shrinkage of the labor force is depriving the young of the opportunity they deserve.

Isn't it about time to pull out the stops and try to get the economy moving?

When will he stop voting present and start doing something about this?
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,139
Reaction score
33,287
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Absolutely, yes, way past time.



Who is this "he" and what would you have one person do about it?

He is obama and I would have him approve immediately the Keystone Pipeline and then declare that America will be energy independent within 10 years and commit the national energy policy to achieving exactly that thorough the expedited implementation of Fracking wherever possible and conversion to Compressed Natural Gas in every wheeled vehicle possible combined with an accelerated program to create a usable and cost effective method to burn coal cleanly.

To promote the conversion of fleets to CNG, he could offer tax credits to buy the vehicles and tax credits to gas stations to install CNG pumps to power the vehicles.

This would balance our trade deficit immediately and allow us to increase the exports of refined petroleum products. As a side benefit, we would no longer need to be embroiled in the Middle East and could just stand back and watch it burn.

The beauty of this is that he would not need to spend anything at all. All he needs to do is honor the commitment on the tax credits on the companies that are firing up the economy. These taxes would be more than replaced by the increased income taxes from the millions who go back to work, stopping the welfare, cut the food stamps way back and get the hell out of the way and let the economy come to life.

One man can do a whole lot. Look what he's stopped up to now.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,839
Reaction score
5,818
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
He is obama and I would have him approve immediately the Keystone Pipeline and then declare that America will be energy independent within 10 years and commit the national energy policy to achieving exactly that thorough the expedited implementation of Fracking wherever possible and conversion to Compressed Natural Gas in every wheeled vehicle possible combined with an accelerated program to create a usable and cost effective method to burn coal cleanly.

To promote the conversion of fleets to CNG, he could offer tax credits to buy the vehicles and tax credits to gas stations to install CNG pumps to power the vehicles.

This would balance our trade deficit immediately and allow us to increase the exports of refined petroleum products. As a side benefit, we would no longer need to be embroiled in the Middle East and could just stand back and watch it burn.

The beauty of this is that he would not need to spend anything at all. All he needs to do is honor the commitment on the tax credits on the companies that are firing up the economy. These taxes would be more than replaced by the increased income taxes from the millions who go back to work, stopping the welfare, cut the food stamps way back and get the hell out of the way and let the economy come to life.

One man can do a whole lot. Look what he's stopped up to now.
The Keystone pipeline does nothing for our energy independence, too little in too caustic a sludge to matter.

There is no magic wand for 'clean coal' and as 'conservatives' point out any attempt to clean coal adds cost and is used to claim Obama hates coal.

Tax credits for CNG sounds an awful lot like picking winners and losers in how we run our transportation network and where do we make up the funds to repair the road system that is falling apart? I really don't think increasing the number of workers converting vehicles to CNG will end welfare, or do big cuts to food stamps. Sounds a lot like the simplistic 'drill baby drill' crap of the 2008 election cycle.

We will NEVER leave the Middle East voluntarily as Big Oil owns the rights there and they are not about to just watch billions in profits burn- or more likely go to China.

fact is since Nixon Presidents have claimed making our nation energy independent is vital to our national security and all have ignored doing that because powerful lobbies are not so keen on just walking away from overseas oilfields, or abandoning the massive addiction to oil the Keystone folly demonstrates puts profit, even the illusion of profit over real energy independence.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Keystone pipeline does nothing for our energy independence, too little in too caustic a sludge to matter.

There is no magic wand for 'clean coal' and as 'conservatives' point out any attempt to clean coal adds cost and is used to claim Obama hates coal.

Tax credits for CNG sounds an awful lot like picking winners and losers in how we run our transportation network and where do we make up the funds to repair the road system that is falling apart? I really don't think increasing the number of workers converting vehicles to CNG will end welfare, or do big cuts to food stamps. Sounds a lot like the simplistic 'drill baby drill' crap of the 2008 election cycle.

We will NEVER leave the Middle East voluntarily as Big Oil owns the rights there and they are not about to just watch billions in profits burn- or more likely go to China.

fact is since Nixon Presidents have claimed making our nation energy independent is vital to our national security and all have ignored doing that because powerful lobbies are not so keen on just walking away from overseas oilfields, or abandoning the massive addiction to oil the Keystone folly demonstrates puts profit, even the illusion of profit over real energy independence.


The Keystone Pipeline would create 20,000 jobs and that is what we are talking about. Using energy policy to drive the economy is not a new idea for Obama. Using energy to create jobs that are real would be something new.

We are currently a refined oil product exporting country but an oil importer. The conversion of vehicles to CNG and offering tax credits to companies to do so would inspire the purchase of new vehicles and that would drive the auto industry. That means jobs. Stopping the import of 3 billion (with a b) plus barrels of oil at $100/barrel would keep that money here and the CNG would be needed to make this happen.

This would be the annual equivalent of about 400 Failed Stimulus's every year into the foreseeable future except that it would generate taxes instead of increased deficits.

In the states where the fossil fuels were harvested, the tax base would be corrected if there was a problem and the no income tax states of Alaska and Texas would find plenty of company as this spreads.

The entire country would become a boom town.


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/leafhandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrimus1&f=a
 
Last edited:

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As I've stated before to Code specifically, to more accurately judge the recovery in question, you'd be better served examining the changes in each metric from the actual end of the crisis rather than the time period directly preceding its most severe period. Losses of historical magnitude cannot be turned to gains without some pain in between. In this case, your inclusion of the year 2009 rather casually omits job losses totaling 5 million and sharp downturns in the remaining categories.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,139
Reaction score
33,287
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He is obama and I would have him approve immediately the Keystone Pipeline and then declare that America will be energy independent within 10 years and commit the national energy policy to achieving exactly that thorough the expedited implementation of Fracking wherever possible and conversion to Compressed Natural Gas in every wheeled vehicle possible combined with an accelerated program to create a usable and cost effective method to burn coal cleanly.

To promote the conversion of fleets to CNG, he could offer tax credits to buy the vehicles and tax credits to gas stations to install CNG pumps to power the vehicles.

This would balance our trade deficit immediately and allow us to increase the exports of refined petroleum products. As a side benefit, we would no longer need to be embroiled in the Middle East and could just stand back and watch it burn.

The beauty of this is that he would not need to spend anything at all. All he needs to do is honor the commitment on the tax credits on the companies that are firing up the economy. These taxes would be more than replaced by the increased income taxes from the millions who go back to work, stopping the welfare, cut the food stamps way back and get the hell out of the way and let the economy come to life.

One man can do a whole lot. Look what he's stopped up to now.
All that might just help, to be sure, if the president had the power to do it. While the office of POTUS keeps getting more and more power, I'm not so sure it has as much as you think, though. There is that little issue of advice and consent of Congress, and, as I'm sure you're aware, the energy independence policies you advocate (and I agree they would be good policies) would be decried as "green energy" by the right, and as giving in to polluters by the left.

As for declaring that America will be energy independent in ten years, that's such a good idea I'm astonished that no one thought of it already. What? They did? The last eight presidents? Really?

Oh, yes, really. Check out the video from this link (wouldn't let me copy the video URL, sorry).
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,839
Reaction score
5,818
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Keystone Pipeline would create 20,000 jobs and that is what we are talking about. Using energy policy to drive the economy is not a new idea for Obama. Using energy to create jobs that are real would be something new. We are currently a refined oil product exporting country but an oil importer. The conversion of vehicles to CNG and offering tax credits to companies to do so would inspire the purchase of new vehicles and that would drive the auto industry. That means jobs. Stopping the import of 3 billion (with a b) plus barrels of oil at $100/barrel would keep that money here and the CNG would be needed to make this happen. This would be the annual equivalent of about 400 Failed Stimulus's every year into the foreseeable future except that it would generate taxes instead of increased deficits. In the states where the fossil fuels were harvested, the tax base would be corrected if there was a problem and the no income tax states of Alaska and Texas would find plenty of company as this spreads. The entire country would become a boom town. U.S. Imports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
The jobs 'created' by the pipeline will be very temporary at best, once constructed the jobs disappear- i'd say the current companies available won't hire many new welders, simply use what they got, the refineries to process the sludge are current refineries converted to handle the ooze while Canadian refineries get the sweet crudes to refine. Makes little sense to take our refineries offline to convert to handling the sludge with a long, pipeline across the middle of our nation when the Canadian refineries can be converted and leave ours handling the far less toxic crude oils.

Again you are quite happy picking winners and losers that fit your agenda. How exactly do you create these jobs here? I mean there are tons of jobs that could be created here but instead they are created overseas. Build the CNG vehicle assemblies overseas and ship them here.

Just out of curiosity do you have any idea what it takes to convert a vehicle to CNG? The price tag added to the cost of the vehicle? I see NG replacing coal in many fixed facility operations such as electricity generation- I'd say few Americans who vote republican being happy with the performance of CNG in their vehicles.

Not sure if Texas or Alaska is very repeatable as other high production states have state income tax, Louisiana and Oklahoma come to mind.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The jobs 'created' by the pipeline will be very temporary at best, once constructed the jobs disappear- i'd say the current companies available won't hire many new welders, simply use what they got, the refineries to process the sludge are current refineries converted to handle the ooze while Canadian refineries get the sweet crudes to refine. Makes little sense to take our refineries offline to convert to handling the sludge with a long, pipeline across the middle of our nation when the Canadian refineries can be converted and leave ours handling the far less toxic crude oils.

Again you are quite happy picking winners and losers that fit your agenda. How exactly do you create these jobs here? I mean there are tons of jobs that could be created here but instead they are created overseas. Build the CNG vehicle assemblies overseas and ship them here.

Just out of curiosity do you have any idea what it takes to convert a vehicle to CNG? The price tag added to the cost of the vehicle? I see NG replacing coal in many fixed facility operations such as electricity generation- I'd say few Americans who vote republican being happy with the performance of CNG in their vehicles.

Not sure if Texas or Alaska is very repeatable as other high production states have state income tax, Louisiana and Oklahoma come to mind.
It would take at least 3-5 years to completely build that pipeline. Thats 3-5 years of employment. Creating both new jobs and extending the security of others....that would go a long way in helping families out that are either unemployed or worrying about layoffs.

CNG vehicles are out there...our electric company (AEP) has quite a few in their fleet. Fed-Ex & UPS also have quite a few CNG vehicles in their fleet....Frito-Lay just purchased a bunch of CNG/hybrid vehicles for their fleet. Companies know where their future fleets are heading...CNG is definitely a viable alternative fuel and with very few modifications every vehicle can be modified to run CNG.

Hey, if it werent illegal to do it, we could run our vehicles on Kool-Aid like the guy in VA did...89 MPG with Kool-Aid (grape) "Little-Known" Attractions of Lynchburg and Central Virginia (Half way down page - The "Kool-Aid Kar" )
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,839
Reaction score
5,818
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It would take at least 3-5 years to completely build that pipeline. Thats 3-5 years of employment. Creating both new jobs and extending the security of others....that would go a long way in helping families out that are either unemployed or worrying about layoffs. CNG vehicles are out there...our electric company (AEP) has quite a few in their fleet. Fed-Ex & UPS also have quite a few CNG vehicles in their fleet....Frito-Lay just purchased a bunch of CNG/hybrid vehicles for their fleet. Companies know where their future fleets are heading...CNG is definitely a viable alternative fuel and with very few modifications every vehicle can be modified to run CNG. Hey, if it werent illegal to do it, we could run our vehicles on Kool-Aid like the guy in VA did...89 MPG with Kool-Aid (grape) "Little-Known" Attractions of Lynchburg and Central Virginia (Half way down page - The "Kool-Aid Kar" )
'Completely build' doesn't mean thousands of jobs for years to come. most are already employed and working for oilfield/pipeline welding companies so not really creating NEW jobs... 'saving' jobs was slammed as a sham when Obama's Stimulus package was given credit for doing just that. This project runs a pipe filled with toxic sludge across the very heartland of our nation to 'save' 1 to 2000 jobs. :roll:

Now I never said CNG doesn't have a place- it just isn't the revolutionary fuel the other poster seemed intent on claiming. A large rather slow and not noted for MPG records vehicle is probably the best use for the heavy highly pressurized tank CNG requires. Conversely a highly efficient electric car that doesn't require much, if any fossil fuel can have a small pressure tank under the hood as it doesn't use a great deal of fuel AND the engine that makes a CNG vehicle efficient can be used exclusively.

In order for CNG to be competitive with gasoline it needs a much higher compression engine. True most engines can run on CNG but to be efficient a totally different engine is required- (hence a truly advanced electric hybrid is the best candidate as far as a true replacement for gasoline.)

Most the companies you cite get a nice incentive to convert to CNG from the 'gubmint' some so love to hate. It is with a wry smile I note how some approve of the gubmint doing the winner/loser in fossil fuels but not so much elsewhere. Google alternative fuels data, and click on federal incentives on the DoE website.... it is a laundry list of tax incentives/price breaks.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
He is obama and I would have him approve immediately the Keystone Pipeline and then declare that America will be energy independent within 10 years and commit the national energy policy to achieving exactly that thorough the expedited implementation of Fracking wherever possible and conversion to Compressed Natural Gas in every wheeled vehicle possible combined with an accelerated program to create a usable and cost effective method to burn coal cleanly.

To promote the conversion of fleets to CNG, he could offer tax credits to buy the vehicles and tax credits to gas stations to install CNG pumps to power the vehicles.

This would balance our trade deficit immediately and allow us to increase the exports of refined petroleum products. As a side benefit, we would no longer need to be embroiled in the Middle East and could just stand back and watch it burn.

The beauty of this is that he would not need to spend anything at all. All he needs to do is honor the commitment on the tax credits on the companies that are firing up the economy. These taxes would be more than replaced by the increased income taxes from the millions who go back to work, stopping the welfare, cut the food stamps way back and get the hell out of the way and let the economy come to life.

One man can do a whole lot. Look what he's stopped up to now.
So the discredited rightwing meme here is that the Keystone Pipeline will solve the huge unemployment caused by 8 years of conservative misrule.

Only in teapartybizarroworld. Do you guys ever even try to make an honest rational argument?
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
All that might just help, to be sure, if the president had the power to do it. While the office of POTUS keeps getting more and more power, I'm not so sure it has as much as you think, though. There is that little issue of advice and consent of Congress, and, as I'm sure you're aware, the energy independence policies you advocate (and I agree they would be good policies) would be decried as "green energy" by the right, and as giving in to polluters by the left.

As for declaring that America will be energy independent in ten years, that's such a good idea I'm astonished that no one thought of it already. What? They did? The last eight presidents? Really?

Oh, yes, really. Check out the video from this link (wouldn't let me copy the video URL, sorry).


I know they did, but now technology has caught up with that goal. We can do not only that but also be an exporter.

If Obama demanded this, the Dems would fall in line and the Reps would do it because they want to.

It would be bipartisan, but, that thing all by itself, would stop the Big 0 from doing this. Bipartisan thinking to the Big 0 is like garlic to a vampire.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The jobs 'created' by the pipeline will be very temporary at best, once constructed the jobs disappear- i'd say the current companies available won't hire many new welders, simply use what they got, the refineries to process the sludge are current refineries converted to handle the ooze while Canadian refineries get the sweet crudes to refine. Makes little sense to take our refineries offline to convert to handling the sludge with a long, pipeline across the middle of our nation when the Canadian refineries can be converted and leave ours handling the far less toxic crude oils.

Again you are quite happy picking winners and losers that fit your agenda. How exactly do you create these jobs here? I mean there are tons of jobs that could be created here but instead they are created overseas. Build the CNG vehicle assemblies overseas and ship them here.

Just out of curiosity do you have any idea what it takes to convert a vehicle to CNG? The price tag added to the cost of the vehicle? I see NG replacing coal in many fixed facility operations such as electricity generation- I'd say few Americans who vote republican being happy with the performance of CNG in their vehicles.

Not sure if Texas or Alaska is very repeatable as other high production states have state income tax, Louisiana and Oklahoma come to mind.

If the vehicle is built from the ground up to run on CNG, the cost is very comparable. If you want to convert an ICE to CNG, it was about $5000 in 2001. That's the last time I actually asked for a bid to do this.

Picking winners and losers? The winners in this are the American people. Were you alive and conscious during the 90's? This would do exactly the same thing economically. Who was the winner when the entire economy boomed? Can you define away the the entire economy benefitting every American. You and other Liberals probably can.

So 20,000 jobs, good jobs, that last for 3 years are not worth the trouble of simply getting out of the way and letting someone pay these folks? Our country is screwed.

Print a few more food stamps. THAT'S what the economy really needs!
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Keystone Pipeline would create 20,000 jobs and that is what we are talking about. Using energy policy to drive the economy is not a new idea for Obama. Using energy to create jobs that are real would be something new.

We are currently a refined oil product exporting country but an oil importer. The conversion of vehicles to CNG and offering tax credits to companies to do so would inspire the purchase of new vehicles and that would drive the auto industry. That means jobs. Stopping the import of 3 billion (with a b) plus barrels of oil at $100/barrel would keep that money here and the CNG would be needed to make this happen.

This would be the annual equivalent of about 400 Failed Stimulus's every year into the foreseeable future except that it would generate taxes instead of increased deficits.

In the states where the fossil fuels were harvested, the tax base would be corrected if there was a problem and the no income tax states of Alaska and Texas would find plenty of company as this spreads.

The entire country would become a boom town.


U.S. Imports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)



Whoopsie! These numbers get so big, they're hard to track with my little pea brain and dyslexic number recognition.

This would have the dollar value of 4 Failed Stimului every year for 100 years. I said 400 per yer year. The difference is that the whole impact would be to the economy and none to the Democrat party campaign machine.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So the discredited rightwing meme here is that the Keystone Pipeline will solve the huge unemployment caused by 8 years of conservative misrule.

Only in teapartybizarroworld. Do you guys ever even try to make an honest rational argument?



Straw Man. Again. Do you never tire of talking to yourself. The pipeline would do 20,000 jobs for about 2 or 3 years.

The rest would do about 9 million jobs and that would go for about a century.

Sadly, your god in the White house cannot depart from the course dictated by those who have purchased him.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
'Completely build' doesn't mean thousands of jobs for years to come. most are already employed and working for oilfield/pipeline welding companies so not really creating NEW jobs... 'saving' jobs was slammed as a sham when Obama's Stimulus package was given credit for doing just that. This project runs a pipe filled with toxic sludge across the very heartland of our nation to 'save' 1 to 2000 jobs. :roll:

Now I never said CNG doesn't have a place- it just isn't the revolutionary fuel the other poster seemed intent on claiming. A large rather slow and not noted for MPG records vehicle is probably the best use for the heavy highly pressurized tank CNG requires. Conversely a highly efficient electric car that doesn't require much, if any fossil fuel can have a small pressure tank under the hood as it doesn't use a great deal of fuel AND the engine that makes a CNG vehicle efficient can be used exclusively.

In order for CNG to be competitive with gasoline it needs a much higher compression engine. True most engines can run on CNG but to be efficient a totally different engine is required- (hence a truly advanced electric hybrid is the best candidate as far as a true replacement for gasoline.)

Most the companies you cite get a nice incentive to convert to CNG from the 'gubmint' some so love to hate. It is with a wry smile I note how some approve of the gubmint doing the winner/loser in fossil fuels but not so much elsewhere. Google alternative fuels data, and click on federal incentives on the DoE website.... it is a laundry list of tax incentives/price breaks.


So are you in favor of becoming an oil exporting nation or not?
 

AlabamaPaul

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
2,812
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So are you in favor of becoming an oil exporting nation or not?
Personally, I would not be in favor of exporting any strategic natural resources, but I am in full support of their development and use...
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,839
Reaction score
5,818
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So are you in favor of becoming an oil exporting nation or not?
Not in favor of exporting our oil. It should be stockpiled because history has shown us not until we are pushed to the very edge do we make the required proper decisions. since I can remember, Presidents like Nixon have pledged to get us off oil.... here we sit. Export wheat because we can grow more, can't grow more oil.

now back to your rather enthusiastic embrace of CNG-
I am not in favor of all in on any source, not wind or solar for electricity, not gas/cng/electric/hydrogen for cars.

I see CNG as a flawed energy source for mobile devices.

First it requires a rather heavy, and rather large tank to store a useful amount of fuel.
The station to fuel up vehicles has a large environmental footprint.
the operating pressure of CNG makes for a far more intensive effort to move and store CNG as well as makes fueling time per vehicle longer and useful fuel at any service station limited.
the cost of converting a gas engine to CNG is rather high compared to other fuels that can be used.
to be truly efficient a much higher compression engine is needed.

far better to use CNG as a fuel for power plants and home heating, I am all in favor of CNG replacing 75% the coal usage in power plants.

Now that is not to say I don't think some sort of CNG derivative is not practical, just not CNG itself.

Back in the 60's and 70's propane powered farm tractors and pick-ups as many oil companies saw propane more a nuisance rather than valuable product to haul to town.

Propane is taken from CNG at the second stage of refining. It has several things going for it.

It doesn't work at anything like the CNG operating pressure so it's tank is lighter( CNG tanks operate at 17X's the pressure of propane), can hold more and doesn't limit useful cargo capacity or load limits like CNG's far heavier equipment.

It doesn't need to be under the same pressure to move through a pipe system or stored at a service station so more of the large storage tank volume is available for vehicles.

According to clean fuel usa the environmental footprint of a propane fueling station is 10X's less than CNG.

Vehicles cost 50% less to convert to propane vs CNG.

It just seems the better choice for vehicles and we have used it for decades before this.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Straw Man. Again. Do you never tire of talking to yourself. The pipeline would do 20,000 jobs for about 2 or 3 years.

The rest would do about 9 million jobs and that would go for about a century.

Sadly, your god in the White house cannot depart from the course dictated by those who have purchased him.
So the issue is 20K jobs over two years. And that's supposed end the lingering effects of the recession.

Not very convincing, even by conservative standards.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So are you in favor of becoming an oil exporting nation or not?
We don't need the pipeline for that. That's already happening due to fracking, which by the way was developed by the Dept of Energy, thanks to President Carter.

So two rightwing memes are going down as we speak.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
'Completely build' doesn't mean thousands of jobs for years to come. most are already employed and working for oilfield/pipeline welding companies so not really creating NEW jobs... 'saving' jobs was slammed as a sham when Obama's Stimulus package was given credit for doing just that. This project runs a pipe filled with toxic sludge across the very heartland of our nation to 'save' 1 to 2000 jobs. :roll:

Now I never said CNG doesn't have a place- it just isn't the revolutionary fuel the other poster seemed intent on claiming. A large rather slow and not noted for MPG records vehicle is probably the best use for the heavy highly pressurized tank CNG requires. Conversely a highly efficient electric car that doesn't require much, if any fossil fuel can have a small pressure tank under the hood as it doesn't use a great deal of fuel AND the engine that makes a CNG vehicle efficient can be used exclusively.

In order for CNG to be competitive with gasoline it needs a much higher compression engine. True most engines can run on CNG but to be efficient a totally different engine is required- (hence a truly advanced electric hybrid is the best candidate as far as a true replacement for gasoline.)

Most the companies you cite get a nice incentive to convert to CNG from the 'gubmint' some so love to hate. It is with a wry smile I note how some approve of the gubmint doing the winner/loser in fossil fuels but not so much elsewhere. Google alternative fuels data, and click on federal incentives on the DoE website.... it is a laundry list of tax incentives/price breaks.
we are shipping that "toxic sludge" now in rail cars to its destinations, a pipeline would be much safer. It would create jobs in the building of the pipeline and add security to others teetering on layoffs.

The reason Obama took so much flack is because he tried to change the "jobs created" during his tenure to "jobs created or saved"...a number that cant be calculated, but he gave it a number...all to give himself better numbers and make it look like he did something great rather than the crappy job he did.

As far as subsidies to those large companies for CNG vehicles...I have been in VA for 18 years now and AEP has always has CNG vehicles that I am aware of. PSE&G was the company I had up in NJ, they had CNG vehicles as far back as I can remember. CNG is inexpensive, burns cleaner than gasoline and every gasoline powered motor can be converted. The US is the ME of natural gas, we need to take advantage of it.

Now we need to get back on topic for this post...
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,170
Reaction score
3,672
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, I think we all know the problem. The 'stimulus' wasn't nearly big enough.

If only he didn't have those dammm obstructionists in Congress, The PrResident could fell free to pass more jobs bills. More 'investment'.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not in favor of exporting our oil. It should be stockpiled because history has shown us not until we are pushed to the very edge do we make the required proper decisions. since I can remember, Presidents like Nixon have pledged to get us off oil.... here we sit. Export wheat because we can grow more, can't grow more oil.

now back to your rather enthusiastic embrace of CNG-
I am not in favor of all in on any source, not wind or solar for electricity, not gas/cng/electric/hydrogen for cars.

I see CNG as a flawed energy source for mobile devices.

First it requires a rather heavy, and rather large tank to store a useful amount of fuel.
The station to fuel up vehicles has a large environmental footprint.
the operating pressure of CNG makes for a far more intensive effort to move and store CNG as well as makes fueling time per vehicle longer and useful fuel at any service station limited.
the cost of converting a gas engine to CNG is rather high compared to other fuels that can be used.
to be truly efficient a much higher compression engine is needed.

far better to use CNG as a fuel for power plants and home heating, I am all in favor of CNG replacing 75% the coal usage in power plants.

Now that is not to say I don't think some sort of CNG derivative is not practical, just not CNG itself.

Back in the 60's and 70's propane powered farm tractors and pick-ups as many oil companies saw propane more a nuisance rather than valuable product to haul to town.

Propane is taken from CNG at the second stage of refining. It has several things going for it.

It doesn't work at anything like the CNG operating pressure so it's tank is lighter( CNG tanks operate at 17X's the pressure of propane), can hold more and doesn't limit useful cargo capacity or load limits like CNG's far heavier equipment.

It doesn't need to be under the same pressure to move through a pipe system or stored at a service station so more of the large storage tank volume is available for vehicles.

According to clean fuel usa the environmental footprint of a propane fueling station is 10X's less than CNG.

Vehicles cost 50% less to convert to propane vs CNG.

It just seems the better choice for vehicles and we have used it for decades before this.


All of that is wonderful.

If we can use the Natural gas to fire the power plants and create a good, clean way to burn coal that would be terrific.

With Fracking, there will be oil coming up, also. Use that in the Cars and the planes.

The key, though, is to do it. We have the ability, the technology and the opportunity to do this. We CAN be energy independent if we just find a way to work around the moron(s) who's stopping us.

It WILL create a whole pile of jobs and it WILL end the great recession and not increase the spending by government to do it.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We don't need the pipeline for that. That's already happening due to fracking, which by the way was developed by the Dept of Energy, thanks to President Carter.

So two rightwing memes are going down as we speak.


Well, we have something in common.

Neither one of us has any idea what you're talking about.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,074
Reaction score
7,134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So the issue is 20K jobs over two years. And that's supposed end the lingering effects of the recession.

Not very convincing, even by conservative standards.


Does that thing that cutting off the oxygen to your brain hurt?
 
Top Bottom