Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2)


Re: State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online

Joined:
2012/3/14 23:03
Posts: 314
Offline
How far the antis will go? It is stupid of that guy to do that, but compare that to an industry that send countries to war for gas and oil and spend billions upon billions of tax payer dollars to guarantee a right to energy of their choosing, and this incident is just lame.

Hydro fracturing of this scale is just extremely poor land and water usage in the age of advanced nuclear power.

Posted on: 2013/6/13 17:55


Re: State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
Quote:
Unless with a straight face you can claim there is no environmental risk.


Jack, nobody would claim that, I don't think. But the part that you miss is that having some environmental risk doesn't equate to "stop until you work out every issue".

Here's the thing. We need energy. There is no form of energy that carries zero environmental risk. It's not even a theoretical possibility to get to that level. Solar, nuclear, biofuel, oil, gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, you name it. Every single one of them has SOME environmental impact, and "risk" of more should things go wrong. And no amount of "improvement" can change this fact.

So, you:

1. Pick the form that results in the least amount of impact per unit of energy produced. In reality, we need multiple forms, but you can favor some over others on a % basis.

2. Through research, regulation, etc., take reasonable efforts to minimize that impact, keeping in mind that requiring too much can stop things. That may not sound like such a bad thing, but it is if it grandfather's dirtier practices, or throws the power gen responsibility to a less desirable form, negating #1. For instance, perhaps you don't like nuclear, but do you like drilling better? Now that you've stopped nuclear, you try to stop the drilling. Do you like coal better? It's real easy for good intentions to hurt their own cause. We're going to generate enough power to meet the demand, there's nothing that can stop that. And there ain't no perfectly clean way to do it. So it's a very clear case of "pick your poison".

Posted on: 2013/6/14 8:14


Re: State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online

Joined:
2008/6/28 15:57
Posts: 736
Offline
Moreover, we need A LOT of cleaner energy. Reliable sources. In a hurry. And you can't get there that fast with wind/solar/biofuels etc.

I've been advocating for fast-tracking nuclear power in different on-line forums for some years now. As an policy alternative, it's stuck in a backwater. As are the arguments of its opponents, in my view, which are typically 30 years out of date. A classic example, in my view, of how 1) image trumps content in the contemporary American public mind (taken in aggregate); and 2) no issue rises to the forefront of public notice without continual exposure on television.

Unfortunately, much of the "green" movement and its leadership isn't exempt from such superficiality (Stewart Brand being a notable exception). I think the most blatant example of this weakness is an unwillingness to look at the numbers. I hope it isn't due to an inability to do the math, which is middle-school level:

Fuel type Average power in TW[23]
1980 2004 2006
Oil 4.38 5.58 5.74
Gas 1.80 3.45 3.61
Coal 2.34 3.87 4.27
Hydroelectric 0.60 0.93 1.00
Nuclear power 0.25 0.91 0.93
Geothermal, wind,
solar energy, wood 0.02 0.13 0.16
Total 9.48 15.0 15.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Unfortunately, the Fukushima disaster was a huge blow to the prospects for nuclear power. Admittedly, the ultimate responsibility for that lies within the nuclear power industry.

Realistically, time is running out for the implementation of a large-scale nuclear power production effort. If one had begun 10-15 years ago, most of the plants would be up and running by now.

So I don't know what's going to happen. Optimistically, breakthrough in algae biofuels and carbon sequestration that make those technologies practical at a scale large enough to change the game. Pessimistically, more denial- with unforeseen but almost certainly disastrous consequences.

Posted on: 2013/6/14 10:44


Re: State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22213
Offline
Grave dangers are always, well, graver, when they cannot be reliably prevented. The less grave the danger, the more willing we are to take the risk. What's a few more dead trout?

Posted on: 2013/6/14 13:29
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13404
Offline
Quote:
The less grave the danger, the more willing we are to take the risk. What's a few more dead trout?


That's just it. If this were true, it would make more sense. But it isn't the way things seem to work.

For instance, in nuclear. If you wanna get away from nuclear energy because of risks, that's one thing. I don't agree, but make your case, and I'm willing to listen with an open mind, and compare to other forms, etc.

But if you do want to get away from it, you can't just oppose it. It's 20% of our power gen!!! An anti-nuclear stance HAS to be coupled with a viable alternative. Encourage a massively increased amount of drilling for oil and gas. Encourage more coal mining, and either permit new coal plants to be built, or re-open old plants that shut down because their scrubbers were not up to modern environmental regulations.

But that's not what the anti-nuclear crowd does. They just oppose new plants. The result is keeping those older plants open, because there is no alternative. They won't even let us shut those down and let us build new nuclear plants, despite the fact that they would be safer, cleaner, and more efficient.

No is not a one of the choices. Replace it with "no, use ____ instead."

Posted on: 2013/6/14 14:37


Re: State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22213
Offline
Not sure why I was quoted for your monologue, but I was (again) observing why the attitudes that exist, exist. I am all for allowing people/corps. to experiment where the risk of harm is low. I am against them gambling with the rest of our collective health and enjoyment. And, they should pay the cost of residual harm, whether preventable or not. Why should my health and safety be put at risk to let someone or something else exploit our environment for personal gain?

Posted on: 2013/6/14 16:01
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank



« 1 (2)



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes
No
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com