30 replies to this topic

[Phil]

Does one have to adhere to a certain dogma to belong to an environmentalist site?   Do I have to believe oil will run out by 2030 or not be allowed to post?    Engaging in wishful thinking is very dangerous, environmentalists have been calling the end of oil for decades.  Like the boy who cried wolf, you say something false one too many times and you are no longer believed.  Sorry but I've heard it too many times to believe it.  If that's a crime lock me up and throw away the key!

There is a bit of a conundrum.  If oil is going to run out in a decade or two, why are people all in a tizzy?  The oil companies will just dry up and blow away, right?  One can't base decisions on wishful thinking, for environmentalists the worst case is two centuries of oil.  That's what they should be planning on.

If it's two decades environmentalists don't have to do anything, people will be forced to convert to BEV's, FCV's or walk.  If it's two centuries, environmentalists have to work their behinds off and try to lure people with lower prices and/or better performance.  So do you want to engage in wishful thinking while oil companies find more and more ways to keep pumping or do you want to assume the worst and try to find ways to bend the green cost curve?  Inquiring minds want to know!

"During the fracking process, millions of gallons of fracking fluid; a mixture of water, sand
and toxic chemicals are injected into the ground to break up the shale and release natural gas.
While each company's formula is a closely guarded secret (thanks to chaney/halliburton-my
insert not from the article), in some cases the mix includes known carcinogens."

My original response still stands, this is Obama's EPA now and has been for over four years.  Corps and environmentalists have forged an agreement and NBC news reported today that the EPA claims fracking is safe.  The EPA doesn't need to know the "secret sauce", all they have to do is obtain some runoff and decide if it is hazardous.

Please explain how the EPA can call it safe without knowing what chemicals are used.  Either they do know or Obama has sold out to big oil.  In either case, Cheney and Halliburton are irrelevant and have been for over four years.

P.S. You speechless!!!!???  

[Shortpoet-GTD]

How is it dogma for an environmental site to be anti tar sands?
You're a major supporter of solar; so why do you insist on a hats and horns celebration for tar sands?
I don't understand it.
The extraction has horrible consequences to the environment, there have been shipment spills,
and the pipeline probably will leak. Pipelines have leaked in the past.

My concern's are over fracking (chemicals) and tar sands; the nastiest oil we can drill for and use.

Congress has reduced the effectiveness of the EPA, (and the FDA and several others) with bills and lack
of funding.
http://www.nytimes.c...ht-e-51835.html

A bit long but worth the read.
http://nymag.com/new...-change-2013-5/

koch brothers funding and their fight against the EPA.
http://www.motherjon...lators-its-back

http://www.wri.org/s...act-authorities

You can argue that it's all Obama's fault, but congress has been working (now that's funny, using the word working
in the same sentence as congress) to gut the epa or at the very least to reduce their effectiveness.

But if you think that chaney/halliburton are the best thing since sliced bread; I can't change your mind.

All I can do is hope (with links) that you change your mind about tar sands.

Whether fracking can become a cleaner method remains to be seen, but too many people in this country
are living with tainted water to believe that.

[GlewEngineering]

Here's a recent blog on the advances of Methane Energy. Using methane in the storage process for other forms of alternative energy is a pretty intereting idea.

http://tinyurl.com/kkhdgfr

[ralfy]

The energy returns for natural gas and other forms of non-conventional production are too low. In any event, we will be forced to use them given peak oil.

[Dingo]

Based on present measured leakage is natural gas a bridge to nowhere?

http://thinkprogress...age-gas-fields/

Quote

An April 2012 study found that a big switch from coal to gas would only reduce “technology warming potentials” by about 25% over the first three decades — far different than the typical statement that you get a 50% drop in CO2 emissions from the switch. And that assumed a total methane leakage of 2.4%. The study found that if the total leakage exceeds 3.2% “gas becomes worse for the climate than coal for at least some period of time.”

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Dingo, on 08 August 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

Based on present measured leakage is natural gas a bridge to nowhere?

http://thinkprogress...age-gas-fields/

I posted a similar link in this thread-
http://www.altenergy...o2-coming-from/

http://www.huffingto...tm_hp_ref=green

[Phil]

It was just announced that the government is going to allow natural gas exports.  Though it isn't a total solution for CO2, it may be a partial solution to the proliferation of coal fired plants.  Half a loaf is better than none.

[Dingo]

Phil, on 10 August 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

It was just announced that the government is going to allow natural gas exports.  Though it isn't a total solution for CO2, it may be a partial solution to the proliferation of coal fired plants.  Half a loaf is better than none.

Half a "solution" = no noncombusted methane release. Got any success stories there? Another problem is the very perception of a solution to coal fired plants creates a lesser inhibition to use, the old rebound effect.

This business of more and more including natural gas in the alternative energy mix strikes me as insidiously undermining.

[still learning]

Dingo, on 10 August 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

.... Got any success stories there?

  I think you're asking for "not news," so it wouldn't be reported.  Or not-news a couple of years ago anyway.  Now it might be news, but any natural gas producer that wanted to point to a success would really have to have "all it's ducks lined up" or be castigated.  Clearly, there are instances of too many fugitive natural gas emissions in some natural gas operations, but how bad the problem is overall, I don't think anybody really knows.  See http://www.nature.co...ral-gas-1.12123   and  http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/ California does have a program to quantify the problem in-state, but it's a work in progress.   http://www.arb.ca.go...gas/oil-gas.htm One thing to remember though when comparing with natural gas with coal is that coal mines normally have associated methane.  Google "coalbed methane."  The cause of some coalmine explosions.  Whether or not coalbed methane releases are on the same scale as natural gas releases, I have no idea.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 10 August 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

It was just announced that the government is going to allow natural gas exports.  Though it isn't a total solution for CO2, it may be a partial solution to the proliferation of coal fired plants.  Half a loaf is better than none.

I don't know, with all the reports about methane leaks at fracking sites, gas may be on par (or even worse) with
coal for emissions.

[Phil]

I really don't know but from what I've read most environmentalists are happy with natural gas replacing coal but not happy if is just stops there.  Their major gripe seems to be making sure natural gas is JUST an interim, not a final solution.

Not sure about a rebound effect here.  US energy use has flat lined, if not decreased even though we have been switching from coal to gas.  Overseas it could be a different story, I'll admit.