21st November 2016, 10:58 AM
Calming down, I thought I'd address each of the claims in turn, aside from whether or not you value the sanctity of human life.
Firstly, the major cause of the earthquakes is less the fracking itself (which is at a shallower level) than the waste disposal process. If nothing else, we can both agree that throwing waste product away by forcibly jamming it deep into the earth's crust is probably not the best method of disposal.
Secondly, there's the matter of carbon emissions. Natural gas releases far less carbon than coal or oil. However, the process of extracting it also extracts methane. Methane is 34x as effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Frankly, methane is FAR worse than our current pollution. There is in fact a dangerous risk that our current carbon release is melting and defrosting a large amount of permafrost containing a massive store of methane, and if that methane all comes out of that permafrost, it'll cause far more damage than we've already done with carbon alone. Some studies give a range between 1 to 9 percent of total emissions from the lifetime of a fracking, which considering the 34x multiplier is something worth worrying about. The current math shows that methane emissions must be kept below 3.4% for there to be a lower effect to greenhouse from a natural gas power plant than a coal burning plant.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-...DNBiOYrJhE
So, yes, it has the potential to edge out coal, but frankly it doesn't seem like a good long term investment. Considering that the best solutions still involve things like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear (hopefully fusion might actually be sustainable in our lifetimes), then natural gas really seems like a poor choice to more yourself to.
Okay, back to that sanctity of human life thing, because frankly those marginal benefits do NOT come close to being worth the sacrifice in frackin' earthquakes. Also, no matter what your personal policy is, no matter what you may think in terms of cost/benefit analysis, they simply do not have the RIGHT to risk other's lives and livelihoods like this. It's the same reason that there are zoning laws preventing factories from being built within residential areas, only the "range" of this industrial practice's damage is far further.
Seriously ABF, this doesn't really seem like something you'd support normally. I mean, how is this any different than the people knowingly poisoning the water supply in Flint? (I didn't forget about you, Meet the Fockers!)
Firstly, the major cause of the earthquakes is less the fracking itself (which is at a shallower level) than the waste disposal process. If nothing else, we can both agree that throwing waste product away by forcibly jamming it deep into the earth's crust is probably not the best method of disposal.
Secondly, there's the matter of carbon emissions. Natural gas releases far less carbon than coal or oil. However, the process of extracting it also extracts methane. Methane is 34x as effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Frankly, methane is FAR worse than our current pollution. There is in fact a dangerous risk that our current carbon release is melting and defrosting a large amount of permafrost containing a massive store of methane, and if that methane all comes out of that permafrost, it'll cause far more damage than we've already done with carbon alone. Some studies give a range between 1 to 9 percent of total emissions from the lifetime of a fracking, which considering the 34x multiplier is something worth worrying about. The current math shows that methane emissions must be kept below 3.4% for there to be a lower effect to greenhouse from a natural gas power plant than a coal burning plant.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-...DNBiOYrJhE
So, yes, it has the potential to edge out coal, but frankly it doesn't seem like a good long term investment. Considering that the best solutions still involve things like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear (hopefully fusion might actually be sustainable in our lifetimes), then natural gas really seems like a poor choice to more yourself to.
Okay, back to that sanctity of human life thing, because frankly those marginal benefits do NOT come close to being worth the sacrifice in frackin' earthquakes. Also, no matter what your personal policy is, no matter what you may think in terms of cost/benefit analysis, they simply do not have the RIGHT to risk other's lives and livelihoods like this. It's the same reason that there are zoning laws preventing factories from being built within residential areas, only the "range" of this industrial practice's damage is far further.
Seriously ABF, this doesn't really seem like something you'd support normally. I mean, how is this any different than the people knowingly poisoning the water supply in Flint? (I didn't forget about you, Meet the Fockers!)
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)