Post in 'The Green Room' started by save$, Oct 20, 2012.
We'll trade you our nuke plant for your windmills.
Helpful Sponsor Ads!
Water really never is gone it is relocated..
No thanx we are stuck with one now!
I don't think that the amount of water produced would add up to an important degree. But I'm no expert.
That is of course if you believe the models. And never mind the hockey sticks!
Yeah, I don't want to rehash THAT. Just saying by the same token, you can't pull the 'higher CO2 would be an agricultural paradise' out of thin air
Where is frack water supposed to come from, and what happens to it after it displaces shale gas? There seem to be lots of competing uses for this fast diminishing resource.
If I had a government grant and future funding from nations around the world, I'm sure we could piece together enough "evidence" and subsequently build models that would prove it's "fact".
Then release it to the media, convince a bunch of mindless drones(hollywood) it's fact and call anyone who debates the theory a flat-earther, eventually everyone would come around
That is part of the problem.
Please explain that to me.. Water evaporates then is transported via clouds back to the earth.. A never ending cycle..
Nuts. I got off on the wrong floor again. Now, how do I get out of the ash can?
Is 'thin air', CO2 enhanced?
I work in the oil and gas industry.
My job is called a "pumper" or lease operator, basically the guy who tends the wellheads and surface equipment. Responsible for all production and maintenance.
The field i work in has over 3000 natural gas wells. Everyone from BP, Conoco Philips, Anadarko, Devon and many small producers are in this field.
I always love energy debates. I had a lady tell me once "oh you work out there?, it's a shame what they have done to that land".
As she drives a Hummer and a motor home and heats a 3000 sq. ft. home. Where do people think this comes from? Why import energy from countries that use our money against us?
First of all Wyoming is a beautiful state, but many many miles are desolate and deserted prairie land. This field is one of those places that is literally in the middle of nowhere, 80 miles each way to the closest town, so why not drill it, make some jobs and get some energy out of it.
Here is a picture of where i work
Seems to me that the harm is from the CO2 emissions when you burn the oil and gas and from the methane leaks out in the field and elsewhere.
You could put wind turbines out there without those adverse effects -- not to mention saving that lady about $10K a year by improving her energy use habits
Just getting our energy efficiency to a reasonable level would end the imports and greatly reduce emissions.
Gary, there is a growing contingent that believes that CO2 is not a pollutant, but essential to life.
I don't see why it can't be both. Word games. Noone is saying that CO2 is not essential to life or worried that the earth is gonna run so low on CO2 that the plants all shut down for want of that essential molecule. There ARE plenty of folks saying that higher CO2 could lead to conditions where much of the existing biosphere is either temperature maladapted, subject to new pests, destroyed by frequent/persistent drought conditions, ocean acidification or all of the above.
Without knowing population densities of the future as well as where they would choose to site the "manufacturing" (for lack of a better word) facility for this, this is just a scenario.
We live next to one of the Great Lakes. People have been trying to get their hands on that water for various things for years. Water rights and usage are a big deal to me because of this.
Let's assume a few things, since no one can look into the future. #1, current population trends continue (rust belt areas, like western NY lose population while areas like Phoenix gain). #2, whomever is creating this "fuel" will need a fairly large water supply to draw from. #3, the government continues to allow negative environmental impact in certain areas "for the greater good". So...
You remove x gallons of water from Lake Erie (a more likely site than Ontario, since there are more large cities on Erie) to create this "fuel" every year. The fuel is shipped to higher population areas (after all, you don't have too many large water sources in say, Arizona and New Mexico). Now you have relocated the water. EVEN though it will come back to the ground as rain, it very likely WONT be coming back where it begain. So after, say 10 years, you've effectively changed two entire climates. If they took water from Erie it would also effect the Niagara River, the Welland (shipping) Canal, Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence Seaway. Hey, I'd love a bigger beach and less erosion, but I really don't think that's the way to do it. People aren't going to drive less in more arid areas, and they certainly won't stop moving there. Swimming pools and lawns are already effecting the desert climate-now add in how many hundreds of thousands of cars releasing "harmless water vapor" into the air.
Looking at industry in general, it's not a far reach to assume they will look to fresh water sources for this, instead of the oceans-why need to deal with salinity when it's easier (cheaper) to draw fresh water?
So...they will need water to frack and of course to dump the "harmless after processing" waste back into. they will need it for this "green" fuel. To irrigate. To drink. To cool the reactors. Eventually, there's not going to be enough to go around.
I don't know the process used to create hydrogen but it may be possible using ocean water. Once again we need studies so we are aware of any impact this may have on the environment. We do know that water is a byproduct of hydrogen when burned so while it may be relocated it is not gone. Financially it is currently expensive to create hydrogen and whether it is economically feasible needs to be determined. The bottom line is we can't afford to ignore the dependence on fossil fuels and must explore all avenues to see the best possible solution(s).
You are absolutely correct WG. And as I stated previously, I am not anti-environment or against making changes to preserve (read: steward) what we have. But I am against spending untold billions and possibly trillions world-wide to try to prevent something that:
If the problem occurs, is not actually a net benefit
We're not sure is causing a problem
We're not sure is naturally cyclical
We're not sure if our efforts would cause significant change
We're not convinced that our measuring techniques are accurate and unbiased
We're not sure our predictive models are even close to accurate
And I'm slightly suspicious that some of the skeptics are on the Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Nuclear payroll. And I am suspicious that some of the scientists and pundits of AGW are on the Big Green payroll. And because all of this is a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, I'm not 100% of that.
*Edit* Truth is stranger than fiction. But conspiracy theory is strangest of all.
From what I have read, the bugaboo in hydrogen power is safe containment and transport. There is an outfit up here (Ballard Power) that poured a lot of time & money into that very thing. They weren't entirely successful.
I would hope that contingent is shrinking.
Although oxygen is essential for most life its highly dangerous as a toxin or oxidant at higher concentrations.
Like many things, its all about balance.
Agreed. Also, it still takes energy to produce and compress hydrogen.
I feel it is safer than gasoline and if spilled doesn't cause massive pollution problems however it is as flammable as gas. There is no perfect solution.
Separate names with a comma.