OT: Fracking banned in NY State

[Louis]

Let's not forget about those getting their medical science from Dr. Oz. He's almost as trustworthy as the Wizard:

[redir]

Originally Posted by gdw

My point is simple, often times the people working at agencies such as the USGS have agendas and reports such as this one should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

So you doubt that there is increased seismic activity in OK?

All science should be treated with skepticism, that's how science works but in today's political climate there are most certainly those with an agenda that is anti science and if you follow the money on that you can easily figure out why. USGS scientists are not getting rich by publishing papers that oil companies are responsible for environmental issues.

I wonder why you were so fast at commenting that the USGS has an agenda. What do you think their agenda is? One of the missions of the USGS is to minimize loss of life and property. They are on your side, trust me, as a geologist who worked for a huge energy company I know.

[Dead Man]

Nuclear energy FTW

It's the future - no getting around it

[Likes2ridefar]

Originally Posted by The B

Nuclear energy FTW

It's the future - no getting around it

i dont necessarily disagree but what about that big thing in the sky or an undiscovered technology or that stuff that makes it really hard to ride a bicycle sometimes?

sun and wind make a whole lot more sense to me than something that is quite capable of destroying the world.

[OtayBW]

The upshot of the report as I read it at first glance, is that the USGS has documented a greater frequency of seismic activity in the area. I don't know that the evidence is yet compelling that it is fracking-related. Correlation does not compel causation.

[gdw]

"So you doubt that there is increased seismic activity in OK?"

Where did I write that?

"I wonder why you were so fast at commenting that the USGS has an agenda. What do you think their agenda is? One of the missions of the USGS is to minimize loss of life and property. They are on your side, trust me, as a geologist who worked for a huge energy company I know."

I'm not claiming the report is wrong but having worked with government agencies for over 30 years, including the USGS, one learns to not blindly accept some of their findings. You can interpret that as you like.

[Shortsocks]

As of two days ago, Scientists in Dallas & Oklahoma have pretty much all agreed that All of these Earthquakes we have been having in Texas Have been due to Fracking and drilling. Which is scary because we never had Earthquakes of this magnitude before. On top of that The County of Denton voted to Ban all fracking in the county and The Texas Congress is passing House bill 40 which can side track any municipal/county banning of fracking.

Which is not cool IMO.

[fa63]

Originally Posted by Likes2ridefar

i dont necessarily disagree but what about that big thing in the sky or an undiscovered technology or that stuff that makes it really hard to ride a bicycle sometimes?

sun and wind make a whole lot more sense to me than something that is quite capable of destroying the world.

Problem with sun and wind is that they are intermittent, so they are not a good way to provide base load, at least not until we come up with an economic way to store energy.

That said, I feel that we will get there sooner than later, probably by the time the extensions for the operating licenses of the current nuclear fleet run out (in 20 years or so).

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by Shortsocks

As of two days ago, Scientists in Dallas & Oklahoma have pretty much all agreed that All of these Earthquakes we have been having in Texas Have been due to Fracking and drilling.

What - did they all get together at the VFW and resolve this over beer and pretzels?

[Rueda Tropical]

Kurzweil has been pretty on the mark with predictions he made 20 years ago. He is now Google's Director of Engineering.

Ray Kurzweil:

Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly — we are only a few years away from parity. And then it’s going to keep coming down, and people will be gravitating towards solar, even if they don’t care at all about the environment, because of the economics.

So right now it’s at half a percent of the world’s energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it’s only eight more doublings before it meets a hundred percent of the world’s energy needs. So that’s 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we’ll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been under way for 20 years.

[Likes2ridefar]

Originally Posted by fa63

Problem with sun and wind is that they are intermittent, so they are not a good way to provide base load, at least not until we come up with an economic way to store energy.

That said, I feel that we will get there sooner than later, probably by the time the extensions for the operating licenses of the current nuclear fleet run out (in 20 years or so).

Ivanpah in CA went online last year and it seems like it's on the right track for storing the suns energy.

Sorry I'm thinking of storage elsewhere. I can't remember where now...

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Likes2ridefar

i dont necessarily disagree but what about that big thing in the sky or an undiscovered technology or that stuff that makes it really hard to ride a bicycle sometimes?

sun and wind make a whole lot more sense to me than something that is quite capable of destroying the world.

The sun could destroy the world far easier. There are still days the wind doesn't blow and then there's night time. Battery technology isn't quite 'there' yet.

People still measure nuclear power by the 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukashima 'yardstick'. Far more have died due to fossil fuel use than nukes, by a bunch. Plus the USN has been operating mobile nukes for 6 decades without an accident. But cheap oil and gas, and expensive solar and wind means things aren't going to change much soon.

[Likes2ridefar]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

The sun could destroy the world far easier. There are still days the wind doesn't blow and then there's night time. Battery technology isn't quite 'there' yet.

People still measure nuclear power by the 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukashima 'yardstick'. Far more have died due to fossil fuel use than nukes, by a bunch. Plus the USN has been operating mobile nukes for 6 decades without an accident. But cheap oil and gas, and expensive solar and wind means things aren't going to change much soon.

Well they happened didn't they? And I was not comparing it to fossil fuels
It's inevitable they will happen again.

[fa63]

Originally Posted by fa63

Problem with sun and wind is that they are intermittent, so they are not a good way to provide base load, at least not until we come up with an economic way to store energy.

That said, I feel that we will get there sooner than later, probably by the time the extensions for the operating licenses of the current nuclear fleet run out (in 20 years or so).

Originally Posted by Likes2ridefar

Ivanpah in CA went online last year and it seems like it's on the right track for storing the suns energy.

Sorry I'm thinking of storage elsewhere. I can't remember where now...

I highlighted the important part again. Ivanpah is one of the most heavily subsidized projects in this country; without those, it wouldn't have had a shot.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for wind and solar. And I feel that they have the potential to be a big part of the energy portfolio in the US in the near future, once we figure out the issue of storage at competitive costs. We are just not there yet.

[1centaur]

Three things to think about:

These quakes are caused by wastewater disposal, not fracking. It is fairly easily solvable by disposing of water away from certain geological formations. Tanker truck stocks, anyone? This will not stop fracking.

The Federal government just put out a prediction on sources of energy through, I think, 2050. Fossil fuels are projected to constitute a majority of fuel sources in the US through 2050. Wind and solar will grow a lot, they say, but will be very far from a majority.

Kurzweil's theme for a long time has been exponential growth in trends, Moore's Law in other forms. Obviously did not apply to solar, although it's hard to disagree that we will reach a tipping point depending on costs, alternatives, and technological breakthroughs.