Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Ban Household Natural Gas?

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 16 Nov 2019, 08:29:28

Subjectivist wrote:Pardon the interruption but you are mixing up methane combustion designed to produce heat and methane conversion to produce cyclic hydricarbons for chemical use.

Nope.
It is acetylene what is industrially produced this way and benzene is only a nuisance by-product of this process.
Aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzene) are petroleum product.
Acetylene is far too valuable to convert it into benzene this way by design.

Sure, you may get a tiny tiny TINY production of benzene, but the goal of a power plant is to burn the methane as completely as possible to spin a gas turbine.

Engineering is an art of compromise.
They want to achieve as high burning temperature as possible, just to maximize yield of conversion of heat into motion and then electricity.
The greater difference between the heater and cooler, the better the efficiency, as per Carnot cycle where

Max efficiency = [T(heater)-T(cooler)]/T(heater).

Complete combustion requires significant excess of air but such excess of air would lower combustion temperature and T(heater) from Carnot cycle by the same.
That would be detrimental to efficiency.
So they have to strike a compromise, use afterburners (which are by no means perfect because they must handle fast flows and already large volumes) etc.
Allowing methane to be wasted producing anything but heat defeats the whole purpose of a power plant and they work fairly hard at getting combustion efficiency as high as they can achieve.

It is better to waste a bit rather than produce more entropy and less electricity as I have explained above.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6863
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 29 Nov 2019, 14:49:35

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:Pardon the interruption but you are mixing up methane combustion designed to produce heat and methane conversion to produce cyclic hydricarbons for chemical use.

Nope.
It is acetylene what is industrially produced this way and benzene is only a nuisance by-product of this process.
Aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzene) are petroleum product.
Acetylene is far too valuable to convert it into benzene this way by design.

Sure, you may get a tiny tiny TINY production of benzene, but the goal of a power plant is to burn the methane as completely as possible to spin a gas turbine.

Engineering is an art of compromise.
They want to achieve as high burning temperature as possible, just to maximize yield of conversion of heat into motion and then electricity.
The greater difference between the heater and cooler, the better the efficiency, as per Carnot cycle where

Max efficiency = [T(heater)-T(cooler)]/T(heater).

Complete combustion requires significant excess of air but such excess of air would lower combustion temperature and T(heater) from Carnot cycle by the same.
That would be detrimental to efficiency.
So they have to strike a compromise, use afterburners (which are by no means perfect because they must handle fast flows and already large volumes) etc.
Allowing methane to be wasted producing anything but heat defeats the whole purpose of a power plant and they work fairly hard at getting combustion efficiency as high as they can achieve.

It is better to waste a bit rather than produce more entropy and less electricity as I have explained above.

Thanks for that Energy. That seems to help explain (to my tiny brain anyway) why generally, "efficiency engineering" is such a complex thing, and why normal common energy consuming products gradually become more and more efficient over time, for decades on end. (Which of course, ends up adding up to TREMENDOUS efficiency improvement cumulatively).

It's easy to say "efficiency is our greatest resource", but it's far harder to figure OUT how to make tremendous relatively efficiency work well, economically -- in the short term. (Being a software guy and very much NOT a hardware guy, I have to get smacked in the head with such ideas for them to penetrate, at times.) :oops:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 29 Nov 2019, 16:16:10

One way is to simply use less.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15922
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 30 Nov 2019, 17:42:03

Outcast_Searcher wrote:It's easy to say "efficiency is our greatest resource", but it's far harder to figure OUT how to make tremendous relatively efficiency work well, economically -- in the short term. (Being a software guy and very much NOT a hardware guy, I have to get smacked in the head with such ideas for them to penetrate, at times.) :oops:

Just think, how much improvement of energy efficiency is possible in computing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle
Literally you can decrease energy consumption of computers millions of times and still get the same results in terms of flops per second before theoretical Landauer's limit is reached.
Imagine a situation where processor of your laptop consumes just microwatts of power so energy sufficient to boil a glass of water would be sufficient for lifelong computing and more and 1kW machine could mine all yet to be uncovered bitcoins within few years.
That is how much gains are possible with improvements of efficiency.
But (as you suspect) engineering is not easy here...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6863
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 15:32:47

Seems NY is having trouble with Natural Gas also.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... rgy-crunch
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15922
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 16:15:16

Newfie wrote:Seems NY is having trouble BOE with Natural Gas also.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... rgy-crunch


From afar these self inflicted resource problems are amusing. However I fear that incompetence in the coastal states will lead to federal remedial action which will cost those of us with more sense a lot of cash.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16180
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 17:17:44

Newfie wrote:One way is to simply use less.

Clearly, but without actual efficiency gains, only practical to a point, given human nature.

I keep the house warm in summer (77 F) and cool in the winter (66 F). Saves a fair amount of gas and electricity (comparing bills before and after). And not at all difficult, once you get used to it, dress for it, etc. And being retired and not needing to drive much, apparently drive closer to 3000 miles a year than the 4000 I was assuming, just by planning trips, shopping online, etc.

But several of my "green" *** friends (couples) think I'm crazy and refuse to do anything like that re heating/cooling their giant houses, even as they drive their two cars 30,000ish miles a year, fly internationally every year, fly domestically several times a year, etc. And then get upset when I get a top loading washer or use a plastic fork or buy clothes from Walmart. :roll:

Somehow, getting people to be rational re how much they use and the impact doesn't seem to work very well unless you smack them in the wallet, or invent far more efficient devices for them to use to be comfortable or do what they want next time.

...

*** "green" re the IDEA of being green, like buying a front loading washer and a water saving dishwasher and expensive clothes and then assuming they're "saving" the environment (while conveniently ignoring things like transportation).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 18:47:01

Outcast,

The problem is not that you are taking these steps. The problem is that many others are NOT taking these same steps. And it’s to those folks my comments were directed.

But also we need to look in the systemic level, how much of your tax dollar goes to inefficient use of resources? The governments need to be a to g conservatively not only to save the planet but to be respectful of the tax dollars we contribute.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15922
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 18:52:49

Newfie/Tanada
There is an absolutely fascinating component to this long running drama of self inflicted hydrocarbon scarcity both New York and New England have embraced these past several years.
Specifically, what will/have utilities been cobbling together to ensure adequate supply to their customers?
(Newport, RI fell short for 8,000 residents last winter due to inadequate line pressure).

Answer seems to be unfolding this very moment as the workboat Northeast Endeavor arrived on location yesterday afternoon (12/4) and is still anchored at the Northeast Gateway terminal just outside Bahstin Hahbuh.
Would not surprise me if one of Excelerate's ~10 FSRUs arrive and bail out that region as happened just last winter.

Northeast Gateway is a double yoked terminal that allows FSRUs to anchor and regasify into the system.
There is a pipeline under Long Island Sound from Connecticut to the North Shore that looks like it can supply Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk and Nassau counties.

The Marine Tracker apps provide real time, 24/7 status of ship activity worlwide.

As I have noted on this site and others, the rapid advances in the LNG world are apt to dramatically upend long standing energy activities in ways yet to be seen.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 21:15:40

^^^ thanks

FSRU

Floating LNG
Storage and
Regasification
Unit
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15922
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 14 Dec 2020, 09:14:42

Newfie wrote:Here is an article claiming 13 California cities and 1 county have banned natural gas in new construction.

Is that a good idea or bad? I don’t know. No real discussion in the article which mostly discusses kitchen stoves.

How much saving is there by going to electric if the electric is produced my burning coal or ...natural gas.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

(Note: corrected area of coverage)



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 008346002/


Uhm, what about all of us that heat with Natural Gas from October to April or May because electric baseboard heat costs roughly 3 times as much to use?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby JuanP » Mon 14 Dec 2020, 09:37:38

Maybe some places in California can do this, but really cold weather locations don't have less polluting alternatives at this time.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! TRUMP 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby REAL Green » Mon 14 Dec 2020, 09:45:51

Natural gas is a bridge fuel. Since it is a bridge fuel more should be done with renewables and traditional approaches like efficiency and biomass where possible. Heat pumps and insulation are a good move. No silver bullets with this process just a slog. I am considering a heat pump water heater and I have a wood boiler for the winter. There are strategies if people got serious about it.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Pops » Mon 14 Dec 2020, 13:38:33

So I'm a bit confused, is the consensus here now that mitigation of GW/PO is an evil socialist plot to take away our freedoms?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19145
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 14 Dec 2020, 15:19:57

Pops wrote:So I'm a bit confused, is the consensus here now that mitigation of GW/PO is an evil socialist plot to take away our freedoms?


I dunno about any kind of consensus, I have been on the adapt while we can rather than waste my life trying to make the tide halt. If those "evil socialists" would do something like an eminent domain sale of all property within say 3 meters sea level rise and make those properties the "national Seashore Refuge" where nature could do its thing without human interference I would be fine with that, even though it means bailing out the owners of Manhattan whose island will be disappearing over the next century or so. But when those in charge focus on these silly "feel good" measures that don't actually accomplish jack all other than making people who are scraping by pay more for their winter heat it rather offends my sensibilities. Maybe California's poor can get by without gas heating but for much of the country it is by far the cheapest source of furnace fuel you can get.

When our HVAC had to be replaced a few years ago I really wanted a ground source heat pump, but when we ran the numbers the installation costs would have meant over 20 years of greater expense before the system broke even with the reasonable curve for sticking with natural gas. That of course assumes both systems function as intended without major repairs in that time frame.

The simple fact of the matter is with all the fracking going on natural gas heating is relatively speaking cheap. Electric baseboard heat is comfortable and convenient, but for our situation it is the back up for when the Gas is out for any reason. Silly as it seems to use our baseboard heaters the natural gas burning power plant 5 miles up the road burns the gas for us and then sells us electricity. This house was built in 1975 during the nuclear building boom when electricity was soon going to be "too cheap meter" and most of the homes built around here came with it as the standard system with a small gas furnace as back up. The original owners had that small furnace replaced with a whole house forced air system around 1985 when they figured out that almost free electricity wasn't going to happen. That gas furnace was replaced a second time around 2000 to jump from 65% efficiency up to 85% and we replaced it a third time in 2014 with a 92% efficient system which was part of the package to replace the broken 1985 AC unit that finally gave up the ghost. We did an actual cost comparison for ourselves by using the baseboard heating for a month back around that time and the price on our electric bill for that month was a shocker! I even looked into getting the roof covered in solar panels to power the electric heat but the problem with that is putting up enough panels to charge a power wall big enough to run the system in December when we get as little as 8:30 hours of weak daylight would have been another huge investment.

If I were building a house from scratch it would have at least partial earth sheltering on the north and east sides, solar power with power wall and yes, I would still have gas for heat, The only gas appliance we have is the furnace, the cooking and water heater are pure electric. With my dream home my water heater would be ground loop heat pump with electric back up and my HVAC would also be ground loop heat pump but with natural gas back up heating. But retrofitting an existing home with these things is extremely investment intensive. Also note that most people who are working class or poor are stuck with existing housing not new built to new standards.

I am all for building codes that do things like make the house super insulated because if done at time of construction insulation will save you heats of energy and is a relatively cheap improvement in a new structure. But demanding a house not be connected to Natural Gas mains and not allowing piping to be properly installed at construction time is a whole different kettle of fish.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16180
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Pops » Mon 14 Dec 2020, 16:55:52

Tanada wrote:I dunno about any kind of consensus, I have been on the adapt while we can rather than waste my life trying to make the tide halt.


If CA and the other coastal states proposed to have the fed gov help pay however many trillions it would take to kick people off their beachfront property I would condemn that as a socialist boondoggle. GW and sea level rise are no secret, those folks will either move now, move later at a discount or eventually lose their insurance and perhaps their entire equity. I lived in the Sierra foothills a couple three years ago and could barely get fire insurance, and that was before Paradise. I lived on the Columbia river at 20' elevation for a couple of years and never forgot about sea level rise even though it is decades away at the earliest.

No one will do anything voluntarily, especially if there is an easier and cheaper way. Your example is spot on. But instead of buying beachfront property at current inflated prices why not take some of those trillions and help you retrofit? You reduce your carbon footprint doing a little toward GW, and become more resilient to future energy shocks to boot.

CA does that. I found 124 different rebates and financing programs at the DSIRE data site available in CA. Your state has 58 programs, about half those are federal most are through utilities.

CA also has low income energy assistance.

The upshot is change now when it is easy or change later when it is hard—literally the thing I first said on this site. Because each of us will usually take the most financially beneficial route at the expense of the group (tragedy of the commons) we will either make a move as a society or we'll suffer greatly as individuals.

Obviously banning NG and mandating higher efficiency are painful but society can either bite the bullet and cut back on carbon now to lessen the impact of both PO & GW or it can do nothing. In which case most individuals will do nothing either. Doing the easy thing, borrowing instead to give tax breaks to billionaires while our kids wind up without energy OR infrastructure in a hothouse world
.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19145
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 16 Dec 2020, 10:22:29

Pops wrote:The upshot is change now when it is easy or change later when it is hard—literally the thing I first said on this site. Because each of us will usually take the most financially beneficial route at the expense of the group (tragedy of the commons) we will either make a move as a society or we'll suffer greatly as individuals.

Obviously banning NG and mandating higher efficiency are painful but society can either bite the bullet and cut back on carbon now to lessen the impact of both PO & GW or it can do nothing. In which case most individuals will do nothing either. Doing the easy thing, borrowing instead to give tax breaks to billionaires while our kids wind up without energy OR infrastructure in a hothouse world.


I am all for doing as many of the easy changes now while we can better afford to pay the cost. However I see a clear distinction between mandating higher efficiency i.e. better gas mileage for cars, more efficient heavy appliances, better insulation for all new housing, and banning household natural gas. Didn't California already ban biofuel in the form of people having wood stoves and wood fireplaces? Now they want to ban Natural Gas which was the chosen replacement for wood fuel? Do you see what I mean? They do not have a plan they are following here, they are just stumbling from one feel good talking point to the next without the kind of unified planning needed so that people could plan ahead. My dad lived in CA after WW II for a while but the desert weather wasn't enough to get him to stay forever, he moved back to this area around 1970. His big complaint even though he was a Union advocate as a factory worker that the unions around Anaheim where he was living were making it hard for an independent truck driver to get steady work. He left CA and got as job in a battery factory that was a Union job but not a smothering union that tied everything up just because they could. I worked for many years in a Union shop and IMO when the Union and Management come to a consensus that putting the company into bankruptcy is a bad thing for everyone things work a lot better than when the relationship is purely adversarial. That doesn't mean let the company walk all over the workers, it just means don't file a grievance over BS from someone who just likes to stir up crap all the time.

I think most of us regular folks would be happy if we knew there was a real plan that was going to be followed for say at least 10 years, because changing the rules every 2-4 years to fit the election cycle just makes planning nearly impossible. We have just had 15 years of politicians telling us Natural Gas is the greener fossil fuel and fuel of the future and now they are saying they are going to ban it. If that doesn't make you a little irritable I don't know what will.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Pops » Wed 16 Dec 2020, 10:54:28

Subjectivist wrote:They do not have a plan they are following here, they are just stumbling from one feel good talking point to the next without the kind of unified planning needed so that people could plan ahead.

You need to back that up with some facts, otherwise it is just a feel-good rehash of stale right wing talking points. Use Google or Bing or whatever search engine to enlighten yourself.

Here is the first hit I got:
California sets goal to double clean energy by 2030
By Reuters Staff

(Reuters) - California on Thursday adopted a new emissions target for its electric sector that would double the state’s clean energy capacity over the next decade and close the door to development of new natural gas plants, but green groups said the goal was not aggressive enough.


This site was labeled "apocalyptic environmentalism" at one point. Pretty funny considering the few people left here spout stale FOX blather, the opposite of any kind of environmentalism, it is weird to me.
Either GW and PO are a thing or they aren't. If they are a thing then they need to be addressed. Bashing the "coastal elites" and Kaliforna attempts at mitigation are soothing to the conservative ego I suppose, makes midwesterners feel superior to be free from government intrusion on their god-given freedom to kill themselves and the rest of the human race I guess. But the point is they are doing something, even if wrong, while the red states are crying in their beer, snorting crank and longing for a return to Mayberry.

Music to trash the coastal elites by...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19145
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 17 Dec 2020, 10:44:44

Pops wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:They do not have a plan they are following here, they are just stumbling from one feel good talking point to the next without the kind of unified planning needed so that people could plan ahead.

You need to back that up with some facts, otherwise it is just a feel-good rehash of stale right wing talking points. Use Google or Bing or whatever search engine to enlighten yourself.

Here is the first hit I got:
California sets goal to double clean energy by 2030
By Reuters Staff

(Reuters) - California on Thursday adopted a new emissions target for its electric sector that would double the state’s clean energy capacity over the next decade and close the door to development of new natural gas plants, but green groups said the goal was not aggressive enough.


This site was labeled "apocalyptic environmentalism" at one point. Pretty funny considering the few people left here spout stale FOX blather, the opposite of any kind of environmentalism, it is weird to me.
Either GW and PO are a thing or they aren't. If they are a thing then they need to be addressed. Bashing the "coastal elites" and Kaliforna attempts at mitigation are soothing to the conservative ego I suppose, makes midwesterners feel superior to be free from government intrusion on their god-given freedom to kill themselves and the rest of the human race I guess. But the point is they are doing something, even if wrong, while the red states are crying in their beer, snorting crank and longing for a return to Mayberry.


At the moment I am not trying to trash anyone but it sure seems like we are ships passing in the night speaking different languages sometimes. I just don't see headlines as being a plan because if you wait a week or a year you can find headlines that are contradictory to each other in any government policy you want to name. When I say I want a plan I mean I want an actual plan typed out with goals and timelines and it would be nice if it didn't get scrapped every 2-4-6 years as we change political leaders over time. A little modification to make the plan more functional is fine, but just hopping from one point to another every time I turn around is an exercise in futility and frustration.

Toledo was a vibrant city and still has a lot going for it, but if you can make council and the mayor follow a plan for longer than it takes for the next political rumor to waft through the air of some other issue then you are a miracle worker. About the only thing they stick to is always saying they need more tax money. Here is an example, about 25 years ago a "temporary" tax was passed to improve the fire department and hire additional police officers. Every four or six years they beg the voters to "renew" the "Temporary" tax because they are short on funds. Meanwhile they allow senior police officials to "retire" then they hire them back as private consultants so the same person is doing just about the same job but they are now getting two checks, one for being retired and one as a consultant. As irritating as that is the real problem is all those "consultants" mean they do not have funds to hire younger people to be patrol officers which makes the whole organization more and more top heavy, way too many chefs and not enough waiters if you know what I mean. The waste and appearance of fraud are stunning but because the people getting the benefits are the ones who write and enforce the laws it is darn near impossible to fix things.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 17 Dec 2020, 12:47:36

Subjectivist wrote:... which makes the whole organization more and more top heavy, way too many chefs and not enough waiters if you know what I mean.


Thanks for the laugh! I guess in today's world the expression "Way too many chiefs and not enough indians" is considered too racist and politically incorrect. I'll try to remember what you taught me today when the time comes.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! TRUMP 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

PreviousNext

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests