KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Thanks for pointing out how free-market fundamentalist solutions are failing us in areas crucial to our survival as a species and the health of the planet. Your existence proves we are failing as a species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Move to Iceland Prole. I'm sure you'll "thrive" there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Seems like gas wins hands down vs coal in every category when it comes to risk and environmental impact. I wouldn't be so sure. Natural gas combustion produces 2/3 the CO2 of coal, and has many fewer other pollutants as well, but fracking uses a lot of energy (often coal generated electricity) to put fluids under pressure and pump it into rock formations so the energy return isn't very good. Fracking also requires lots of water and causes much pollution both at the surface and in ground water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think everyone who thinks the glass is always half full in this country needs to go here: http://globalrichlist.com/ Put your salary in there and see where ya land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Seems like gas wins hands down vs coal in every category when it comes to risk and environmental impact. I wouldn't be so sure. Natural gas combustion produces 2/3 the CO2 of coal, and has many fewer other pollutants as well, but fracking uses a lot of energy (often coal generated electricity) to put fluids under pressure and pump it into rock formations so the energy return isn't very good. Fracking also requires lots of water and causes much pollution both at the surface and in ground water. To your first point, that's a matter of energy economics. As with any commodity, if the economics favor it's extraction, it will be done. You seriously think that the energy required to install and frack a horizontal well is more than the energy needed for mountain top removal? To your second point, fracking in the northeast is occurring in a water rich part of the world. We can spare a little. To your third: Pollution with what? The frack fluids are contained, treated, and shipped offsite. In New York, this procedure will be the most heavily regulated in the country, if not the world. So the surface water issue, if it is one, will be isolated, the same way TCE, PCE, PCBs, Chromium VI, BTEX, Fuel Oil are. As far as groundwater contamination is concerned, I have yet to hear an argument from anyone except hysterical hippies that their drinking water is going to be contaminated. The shale formations where gas is being extracted have extremely low primary and secondary porosities (hence the need for fracking) and no groundwater content (hence the ability to extract natural gas and not a bunch of water). The stories of private well contamination are anecdotal at best, are usually related to historical wells dating to the early 20th century, and are always the result of an improperly installed casing seal rather than direct contamination of a drinking water aquifer by an underlying natural gas formation. You sure come down hard on other people for talking out there asses, but your last post was nothing more than intellectual flatulence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think everyone who thinks the glass is always half full in this country needs to go here: http://globalrichlist.com/ Put your salary in there and see where ya land. Hey, I'm surprised, cuz I'm one of the 1% that everyone hates! Guess that rules me out for joining the OWS protests... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 A former natural gas proponent's response... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Seems like gas wins hands down vs coal in every category when it comes to risk and environmental impact. I wouldn't be so sure. Natural gas combustion produces 2/3 the CO2 of coal, and has many fewer other pollutants as well, but fracking uses a lot of energy (often coal generated electricity) to put fluids under pressure and pump it into rock formations so the energy return isn't very good. Fracking also requires lots of water and causes much pollution both at the surface and in ground water. To your first point, that's a matter of energy economics. As with any commodity, if the economics favor it's extraction, it will be done. You seriously think that the energy required to install and frack a horizontal well is more than the energy needed for mountain top removal? To your second point, fracking in the northeast is occurring in a water rich part of the world. We can spare a little. To your third: Pollution with what? The frack fluids are contained, treated, and shipped offsite. In New York, this procedure will be the most heavily regulated in the country, if not the world. So the surface water issue, if it is one, will be isolated, the same way TCE, PCE, PCBs, Chromium VI, BTEX, Fuel Oil are. As far as groundwater contamination is concerned, I have yet to hear an argument from anyone except hysterical hippies that their drinking water is going to be contaminated. The shale formations where gas is being extracted have extremely low primary and secondary porosities (hence the need for fracking) and no groundwater content (hence the ability to extract natural gas and not a bunch of water). The stories of private well contamination are anecdotal at best, are usually related to historical wells dating to the early 20th century, and are always the result of an improperly installed casing seal rather than direct contamination of a drinking water aquifer by an underlying natural gas formation. You sure come down hard on other people for talking out there asses, but your last post was nothing more than intellectual flatulence. Hey, look at the hysterical hippies [sic] at Scientific American this month: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-fracking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Some conclusive data in that article. Along with a sweet pic [sic] of some HYSTERICAL HIPPIES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 "Some regulators are not waiting for better science; they are moving toward allowing fracking on an even wider scale." Let's get this bubble started! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) To your first point, that's a matter of energy economics. As with any commodity, if the economics favor it's extraction, it will be done. You seriously think that the energy required to install and frack a horizontal well is more than the energy needed for mountain top removal? To your second point, fracking in the northeast is occurring in a water rich part of the world. We can spare a little. To your third: Pollution with what? The frack fluids are contained, treated, and shipped offsite. In New York, this procedure will be the most heavily regulated in the country, if not the world. So the surface water issue, if it is one, will be isolated, the same way TCE, PCE, PCBs, Chromium VI, BTEX, Fuel Oil are. As far as groundwater contamination is concerned, I have yet to hear an argument from anyone except hysterical hippies that their drinking water is going to be contaminated. The shale formations where gas is being extracted have extremely low primary and secondary porosities (hence the need for fracking) and no groundwater content (hence the ability to extract natural gas and not a bunch of water). The stories of private well contamination are anecdotal at best, are usually related to historical wells dating to the early 20th century, and are always the result of an improperly installed casing seal rather than direct contamination of a drinking water aquifer by an underlying natural gas formation. You sure come down hard on other people for talking out there asses, but your last post was nothing more than intellectual flatulence. The EROI of coal is 80:1 (80 energy units recovered for 1 invested). The EROI of fracked gas is unclear since no study has been done (surprise) but here is what Cleveland says for shale oil that uses similar methods of extraction: "Cleveland is unaware of any study yet done to determine the EROI for shale gas.47 But he has reviewed the literature on shale oil, which like shale gas requires lots of energy and water to produce. “The most reliable studies suggest that the EROI for oil shale falls between 1:1 and 2:1 when self-energy is counted as a cost,” Cleveland and Boston University colleague Peter O’Connor reported in June 2010.48" The Huffpo article posted by prole answered your other points. It's not surprising that you are confused considering that you appear to confound speaking and farting. edit: also note that an EROI of 80 for coal is an average of all methods, and that strip mining is less energy intensive than underground mining. Edited October 31, 2011 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Only because your math sucks. Externalizing costs doesn't mean someone doesn't pay for them. There's no energy source with no external costs. On the environment - gas seems to have far fewer external costs than the stuff we'll be using otherwise...coal. On the social level - unless you can raise productivity by as much as alternatives raise energy costs (under the assumption that you can actually scale them up to give you the capacity that you need to replace fossil/nuclear) you are looking at a real decline in everyone's standard of living that's proportional to the price difference. Guess what happens to manufacturing when you have to power your blast furnaces with energy that's many times more expensive, or what happens to heating/cooling bills, the price of everything that requires energy to produce, etc, etc. You could pretty nicely simulate the effect by imagining the effect that a ~20-40 fold increase in energy prices would have on the economy. I'll take the externalities associated with extracting and burning gas over those that come along with making energy massively more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Thanks for pointing out how free-market fundamentalist solutions are failing us in areas crucial to our survival as a species and the health of the planet. Jump-starting alternative energy technology and production seems like an area where we can and should be able to take a loss. We are taking losses and have been for a long time. Maybe they'll pay off some day. The problem is that the size of the losses can only be so large relative to the non-loss making parts of your economy. If the Chinese want to take the losses on our behalf - so much the better. ~95% or more of the economic benefit from technological innovations accrue to the users. If they want to ship us a gajillion solar cells at a loss - great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Um...no. That's PV. Passive solar (water heating, building design, etc) costs are comparable to other energy sources. And that's with relatively immature technologies and production systems for those technologies. Nice try, though. Actually, pretty amateurish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 what is this thread about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 what is this thread about? Hi Kev! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Um...no. That's PV. Passive solar (water heating, building design, etc) costs are comparable to other energy sources. And that's with relatively immature technologies and production systems for those technologies. Nice try, though. Actually, pretty amateurish. Land based wind is also quite competitive even before accounting for the difference in external cost (so are hydro, geothermal, biomass, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 All true...and all omitted from that 'authoritative chart'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Power economics is very dependent on region. Driving a plug in hybrid is not as green in the deep south as it is in the NW, for example: more coal, less NG burned there. Any discussion of fossil fuels is, by definition, short term: The environmental imperative to reduce carbon emissions gets more urgent every damn day, whether we like it or not. Either we make the choice or it will be made for us catastrophically. Of course, to the GOP short termers, science is an elitist parlour game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Um...no. That's PV. Passive solar (water heating, building design, etc) costs are comparable to other energy sources. And that's with relatively immature technologies and production systems for those technologies. Nice try, though. Actually, pretty amateurish. I had no idea that passive solar was a real contender to replace coal, gas, and nuclear for power generation. Amazing. This is wonderful news. Thank goodness for experts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Funny that you should include solar, then, as there are very few solar power plants in the US. And, while on the subject of solar power plants, CSP is a completely different and much more cost effective technology. But your 'authoritative graph' includes only the least cost effective solar technology (PV), and only for large power plants - when distributed power production (like home water heating) is much more efficient. I can't imagine why. It might just be because you lie like most people breath. Anyhoo, here's a primer for ya: Sun heats water. Water washes clothes, dishes, bodies. Natural gas heats water. Water washes clothes, dishes, bodies. Repeat for oil and coal. Heating water accounts for nearly half of all home power usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Worry not, though. You've still got Billcoe fooled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The good news is that it will probably make for the best Supreme Court case a pro-choice advocate could ever hope for. If it passes, it will certainly come to that in short order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Funny that you should include solar, then, as there are very few solar power plants in the US. And, while on the subject of solar power plants, CSP is a completely different and much more cost effective technology. But your 'authoritative graph' includes only the least cost effective solar technology (PV), and only for large power plants - when distributed power production (like home water heating) is much more efficient. I can't imagine why. It might just be because you lie like most people breath. Anyhoo, here's a primer for ya: Sun heats water. Water washes clothes, dishes, bodies. Natural gas heats water. Water washes clothes, dishes, bodies. Repeat for oil and coal. Heating water accounts for nearly half of all home power usage. That's fascinating and I'm very glad to have an expert on hand to challenge the popular misconception that you can't power a diesel train, a supertanker, an oven, a refrigerator, a blast furnace, a toaster, a moped, an MRI, a datacenter, etc with passive solar generating capacity. What percent of the total power consumption in each of the sectors below do you anticipate being powered by passive solar and how soon? I'm just glad to know all this worry about where we'll be getting our energy is behind us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.