Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sporty1
being me
04:34 PM on 07/14/2010
Hooray for gas. I recently exchanged my old fuel oil furnace for a hi efficiency gas model. The fuel oil, besides having no gauge to know how much was left, was clunky to have filled, pretty expensive (about $900 per year for fuel oil) and kind of boom/bust, came on hot but then wait for next cycle to begin for more heat while it gets cold. With gas I hardly notice the change in my energy bill, it is a gradient of warmth, 2 stages, and is hooked right up there to the street. Natural gas is good, basically is CH4 plus O2 gives heat plus H20 and CO2. Well CO2 is still involved but not as much and not as dirty.
04:28 PM on 07/14/2010
Listen to all these gas-bags! You havent a clue! I LIVE WHERE there extracting this marcellous shale now! It has brought thousands of jobs and tax $$$ to the southern part of NYS! No dangers but the truck traffic and road repairs!!!! Same traffic going to the welfare buildings remember!!!! Under the marcellous- theres utica shale which is twice the size of marcellous! Dont know about you folks- but were workin northern PA!!! NYS STILL has their heads in butt!!!!
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
05:06 PM on 07/14/2010
Good luck on the local groundwater.
I certainly would never buy your house if you have a well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
06:12 PM on 07/14/2010
Folks in NY are wise to care about groundwater. Jobs should not come at the expense of survival. See the documentary: Gasland for more info.
photo
clintonius
The British are coming! Warn the British!
04:19 PM on 07/14/2010
Brilliant...let's go from one environmental destroyer to the next.....natural gas. I'd like to see Mr. Odum drink the water near a hydraulic fracturing facility.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aaron Zisook
03:56 PM on 07/14/2010
"Mr. Odum brought into focus another important issue. The role that natural gas should play in the abatement of CO2 emissions." Translation: Replacing coal with Natural gas would help my company.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Armstrong
03:40 PM on 07/14/2010
Well, you know Shell Oil wouldn't lie to you, and even T. Boone Pickens agrees. If you liked the swift boat traitors for bush, you'll love it when he fracks your aquifer and you can light the stuff that runs out of your faucet.
02:51 PM on 07/14/2010
Shale gas extraction is extremely energy-intensive. It also results in the intentional and accidental release of methane--a far more potent GHG than CO2. It is therefore misleading to not include the greenhouse gases produced during extraction when one is trying to decide if shale gas truly presents an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Further, shale gas extraction leads to a whole host of public health and environmental problems. But even if we put aside these very serious objections for a moment, note that the 160-year-supply estimate given in the above article is expressed in terms of current usage levels, whereas the whole point of using natural gas to attack the global climate change problem is that we would substitute gas for coal and oil, thereby increasing the amount of gas used. It is also quite likely that the population levels and energy use will go up as well. So even before we talk about all of the dangers and drawbacks of shale gas extraction and the fact that no one really knows for certain how much shale gas could be economically recovered (Arthur Berman's analysis of the Barnett Shale suggests the amount is far less than the gas industry would have you believe), the 160-year-supply figure quoted in this article is extremely misleading.
03:45 PM on 07/14/2010
Bingo! I bet they include in ground coal gassification!

Without fracking, we would have a shortage of natural gas.

Fossil Gas is still going to increase CO2 and other pollutants, besides polluting the water tables.

The solution is green energy.
Save money, cut the deficit, employ everyone, cut energy dependence:

Immediately order energy retrofits for all gov buildings.

Rooftop PV Solar, Offshore wind, and Waste Bio char, can supply the worlds energy and fuel needs: cleanly, safely, Forever, within 12 years and cheaper in the long run 2-6 cents now, and 26$ per barrel bio oils.

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
about 1$ per Wp solar panels, new.

install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, according to Hardy." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w

Wind: “between two and six cents today, depending on location.12 Wind power approaches competitiveness with conventional generation at this price point. “

http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind%20issue%20brief_FINAL.pdf

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/BiofBioproBioref%203,%20547-562,%202009%20Laird.pdf

26$ per barrel bio oil from waste bio char.
01:44 PM on 07/14/2010
Let's remember that all this natural gas lies beneath somebody's property, and must be brought to the surface. So it’s not just a matter of environmental protection, the rights of the surface property owners must also be protected.

Current laws favor the holders of mineral rights over those of surface rights. So, when gas extraction companies acquire the mineral rights, they can and do carve roads and install pipelines in farmer's fields and rancher's pastures, erect drill rigs and install pumps and storage stations near dwellings, and damage the water supplies to these surface property owners. The drilling process can contaminate clean water supplies, including injection of hydraulic fracturing compounds into the wells. Exemptions to environmental regulations permit the use of these compounds without disclosure of their constituent chemicals, that have been implicated in significant health problems.

The surface property owners have no say and receive no compensation. Do you own the mineral rights below your property?

The density of wells and the network of roads and pipelines is astounding. In NM, they are allowed to drill a well every 1/4 mile. We have already seen the extensive damage caused by this drilling free-for-all in large sections of the US (Google Earth zoom 36°51'6.95"N 107°45'57.23"W).

Regulations must be strengthened so that this process is done responsibly and to afford protection to surface property rights holders. Too costly to the gas companies? I say tough -- that's the cost of doing business.

See the movie "Split Estate".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph-Ohio
01:43 PM on 07/14/2010
I'll never believe everything I see, hear or read on the tube or big screen or media.

I know and believe that we need to develop our own natural resources to stay viable as we develop renewables.

Do it cleanly and safely and responsibly.

Keep our people working.

Do it all like NOW not later.
peowlemeow
Democrat,non-military,undereducated,semi-retired.
01:18 PM on 07/14/2010
Bloomberg already shut down the drilling they were doing with fracking.The lawsuits and cleanup were enough to make it financially unviable anywhere near a water supply.Convert to nuclear power and glassify the waste.Big oil supplying electricity to America gives them a stranglehold on Americas power grid that is strategically and financially foolish.
photo
satellitejam
Wind, Sun, Water
10:59 PM on 07/14/2010
Not Nuclear. In addition to routine releases of radioactive waste, tritium leaks into underground water, and thermal pollution, nuclear power is costly and not carbon-neutral. According to Mark Z. Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, building a nuclear reactor ranks as the second-highest carbon producing construction amongst alternative energy solutions.

Lifecycle Carbon Footprint (from planning to operation),
Most carbon-intensive listed first:
1. Coal -ccs (carbon capture and sequestration)
2. Nuclear
3. Hydroelectric
4. Wave
5. Tidal
6. Solar PV
7. Geothermal
8. CSP (concentrated solar power)
9. Wind
Jacobson, Mark Z. "Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security ", Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, doi:10.1039/b809990C .
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c11
peowlemeow
Democrat,non-military,undereducated,semi-retired.
11:11 PM on 07/14/2010
I don't disagree with you but nuclear power exists and is not going to go away.The only thing to do is make it better and safer.To my mind it is the only technology with the muscle to get the world off of oil and natural gas.I would prefer a two mile limit around America defined by offshore wind and tidal.Improvements are made on it every day.That's alot of work and clean energy for America.
11:55 PM on 07/14/2010
Jacobson's work has been thorough debunked in many places. Here is one.

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-of-mark-z-jscobsons-review.html

He assumes nuke power, leads to nuclear war, which creates lots of carbon emissions.

Real data not Jacobson's claptrap from japan/sweden/finland has shown old nuclear technology to have the same lifetime CO2 emissions/gwh as wind and about 30% of solar. This ignores the enormous amount of GHG's burned to load balance wind and solar.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html

New nuclear tech uses much less carbon per gwh and is far more efficient in its uranium use. In fact the entire idea is a canard since nukes generate far more energy than
used in its construction and fuel processes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wrightthewrong
Medicare for All
01:15 PM on 07/14/2010
Sorry - I watched GASLAND on HBO, and I will never fall for the phrase "clean technology" having to do with fracting natural gas. Water is more valuable to me than gas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sporty1
being me
01:13 PM on 07/14/2010
Yes the oil companies should be nationalized and the employees paid through the GS scale. We would get better management of our energy and a hold over some of the egregious payments going to the schmucks that run the companiies currently.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:54 PM on 07/14/2010
burning natural gas and cigarettes produces the same carcinogens.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sporty1
being me
04:38 PM on 07/14/2010
I suggest you burn coal in your furnace, or fuel oil, and don't smoke cigarettes. You will be happy and healthy and still a Republican.
12:47 PM on 07/14/2010
Are you kidding??? Aside from the environmental disaster of mining natural gas, the only reason it is touted as the next big thing is because the oil companies can transition to gas more easily and cheaply than to renewable resources, thus ensuring their continued stranglehold over the market.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grinbr
Knight of Mars
12:59 PM on 07/14/2010
Completely agree. What a joke! So the hundreds/thousands of truckloads/trips of materials required to create just 1 one gas well is a reduction in emissions? How about the myriad of chemicals that evaporate into the air without regulation? What if a well blows and spews gas into the atmosphere? I love how they can paint such a lovely picture by leaving all of the facts out. Gas drilling is coming to my area in upstate NY. I 100% DO NOT want it here. We could certainly use the money, but I'd rather see research and development into the supposed green revolution we were promised. These guys and our govt can go swim in a natural gas chemical waste pit. I hear they're lovely this time of year.
12:47 PM on 07/14/2010
We need radical change in our fossil energy culture, economy and lifestyle rather than radical drilling techniques. It starts with serious indiviual and group conservation efforts and moves forward with fair emissions pricing to fund real alternatives.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph-Ohio
12:20 PM on 07/14/2010
Do you notice the natural gas being burned off of the Gulf gusher ?

There ought to be some technology to capture that energy as well.

What's going on ?

Why don't our experts know how to do these things ?

What have they been doing for the past century ?

Probably counting their money - right ?

Let's get with it already.

This is 2010 and energy is at premium cost.

Can't find any sense of citizen / public priorities / responsibility being exhibited by big oil and / or our leadership at all.

It gets me sick to witness the crap going on these days.

The big boys probably think that they'll recover losses by simply jacking up the price of their product
after the gusher is plugged and all the dust settles. If that's so then they probably also figure that it's easier money that way then to stop the leak. Making money for wasting product; what a racket that would be.