Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Flaming brown tapwater, I think, would be marginally more dramatic.

[NinjaBoot]

In all honesty, the only oil fields that could meaningfully change the percentages of what is used to supply the US aren't in the US. They're in Canada's arctic territory, and drilling that leads to all sorts of kerfuffle with the Russians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/758Syms2006OCSMapWithPlanni.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

"The shale contains largely untapped natural gas reserves"

Isn't that the bullshit that poisons the groundwater so much people can set their tap water on fire? And now threatens to poison the reservoir the whole of New York and New Jersey takes their water from? Yeah, avoiding that sounds really bad.

Evidence?

[mainiac]

Evidence?

After an exhaustive search consisting of typing "flaming tap water" into google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnnQ17SH_A

[G-Flex]

Evidence?

After an exhaustive search consisting of typing "flaming tap water" into google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnnQ17SH_A

Here's something.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

[NinjaBoot]

It must be strange to live in a world where the need to transition from oil isn't obvious  But it comes down to culture war like it always done.  I was at a debate where the Democrat said that green energy was a good thing and the audience boo'd so loud you couldn't hear the end of his sentence.  These sounded like the sort of rage filled cat calls you'd expect if he said that he wanted to gay marry Osama.  The effects of this stupidity are going to be felt for decades as these idiots are preventing us from making extremely crucial investments in our future.  He wasn't even saying that we should be spending more money or we should do energy taxes or proposing a policy.  Just generally saying that green energy was good and they hated that very sentiment.

Republicans wouldn't be against Green Energy if it wasn't being funded by tax payers.

Have you ever read what happened to Solyndra? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

$535 million of taxpayer money gone!  Yeah, private collectors got paid out through bankrupty court, but not the tax payers!  Pretty good investment huh?

I am (and most people) not arguing against the need to transition to green energy.  The whole deal is with government having such power to essentially pick who gets a loan and who doesn't, and unfortunately this is heavily subjected to political partisanship (BOTH sides).  If it was done in a more equal manner, for example, through tax breaks, then that is perfectly fine.

If private industry is unable to offer a viable alternative in the form of green energy, then why should government fund these capitalistic ventures? 

[mainiac]

Republicans wouldn't be against Green Energy if it wasn't being funded by tax payers.

Did you read what I wrote?  He wasn't proposing anything in the least.  Merely expressing the sentiment that green technologies were good.  And they expressed rage in reaction.

And yes, I have heard of Solyndra.  Sometimes when you invest in speculative technologies it doesn't work out.  If we didn't invest in things that lost money sometimes then we wouldn't have electronics or airplanes, let alone stuff like global telecommunications.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If private industry is unable to offer a viable alternative in the form of green energy, then why should government fund these capitalistic ventures?

Because this is one of those issues where not allowing government involvement risks, oh, I don't know, total ecological and economic collapse in the course of the upcoming century.

Think of it this way: If we're self-sustainable, that means that China can't control or outdo us, and the United States stays clean and beautiful.

[NinjaBoot]

Evidence?

After an exhaustive search consisting of typing "flaming tap water" into google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnnQ17SH_A

Here's something.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

And so on.

[NinjaBoot]

If private industry is unable to offer a viable alternative in the form of green energy, then why should government fund these capitalistic ventures?

Because this is one of those issues where not allowing government involvement risks, oh, I don't know, total ecological and economic collapse in the course of the upcoming century.

Think of it this way: If we're self-sustainable, that means that China can't control or outdo us, and the United States stays clean and beautiful.

You mean that by expecting private industry to offer a viable alternative to green energy, this involves the American government throwing all environmental policies out the window overnight?  Come on. 

If you want to be self-sustainable, then getting off foreign oil through realistic ventures in drilling for oil around your country is the best bet.  You cannot expect a whole country to transition from one energy to another energy source that is highly unreliable in terms of providing constant output (solar panels, wind turbines) while providing a cheap enough energy source for everyone, including all those poor people struggling to make ends meet.  At best the current technology can only supplement what is already in place, expecting it to be the sole provider of future outputs when the technology isn't even there yet is absurd.

Economic collapse?  That will only happen if you DON'T bother to drill for oil and take your own energy productions into your own hands.  Believing that affordable green energy is around the corner without any signs of it is what is going to bring you to economic collapse, because energy prices will be so high that people can't afford to drive, or pay for heating, or prices will go through the roof because of all the ancilleary (sp) costs surrounding gas, oil and its impact on businesses will be immeasurable. 

[mainiac]

Wow you are saying that articles existing that say the wealthy companies that can afford to hire scientists and have many on their payrolls aren't hurting anyone?

Why exactly is it liberals that have a reputation for being naive?

[nenjin]

Even if fracking doesn't directly cause groundwater pollution, the problem remains that companies trying to trim their budgets take short cuts that do. Until that problem is addressed, fracking might as well cause ground water pollution. While that's not a reason to reject bids to open new drill sites, it is a reason to exercise restraint on approval, thoroughly vet energy companies doing the drilling, most importantly, real oversight.

I'm fine with fracking if it turns out to not directly cause contamination...what I'm not ok with is the relationship between the energy department and energy companies. It wasn't that long ago that they were throwing parties complete with hookers for government officials. If the cost of new "old" energy sources is an unavoidable level of contamination and corruption.....then it's not worth it IMO, that money is better spent on innovators, even if there's a risk they'll fail.

As for Solyndra, as I understand it, materials cost is what killed them. They thought they could produce solar energy panels for far cheaper than they actually could.

Might as well drop this down while I'm at it:

[NinjaBoot]

Republicans wouldn't be against Green Energy if it wasn't being funded by tax payers.

Did you read what I wrote?  He wasn't proposing anything in the least.  Merely expressing the sentiment that green technologies were good.  And they expressed rage in reaction.

Why is that?  Maybe because the generally accepted fact is that green tech wouldn't be where it is at without government help?  That maybe, if green energy was such a good idea and really a money maker, it would be totally invested and funded by people who believe in it, and not expecting everybody, through taxation, to fund these ventures? 

And yes, I have heard of Solyndra.  Sometimes when you invest in speculative technologies it doesn't work out.

The ends justify the means don't they? 

If we didn't invest in things that lost money sometimes then we wouldn't have electronics or airplanes, let alone stuff like global telecommunications.

The government didn't hand out multimillion-dollar loans without any strings attached, or any sort of thorough review of what they are investing in.  If you really did read about Solyndra, you would note that the government seemed to disregard all the red flags that flew up during the vetting process for companies such as this.  You would also notice that apparently even after it was known that this would have a HUGE chance of being a catastrophic failure, they still went ahead with it!  Does common sense need to be thrown out the window when it comes to ideological issues that lead to extreme bias?   

[NinjaBoot]

Wow you are saying that articles existing that say the wealthy companies that can afford to hire scientists and have many on their payrolls aren't hurting anyone?

Why exactly is it liberals that have a reputation for being naive?

And people say I believe in a conspiracy, heh.

And for the issue, that last link I posted was referring to a University having done the study.  So yeah, I guess wealthy companies own scientists who are in Universities.  Go figure!

[mainiac]

And yes, I have heard of Solyndra.  Sometimes when you invest in speculative technologies it doesn't work out.

The ends justify the means don't they? 

Um... yes?

The end in this case are something we want, namely research.
The means in this case are spending money.

So yes I would say the ends justify the means.

The government didn't hand out multimillion-dollar loans without any strings attached, or any sort of thorough review of what they are investing in.

Have you never taken a history class?

Wow you are saying that articles existing that say the wealthy companies that can afford to hire scientists and have many on their payrolls aren't hurting anyone?

Why exactly is it liberals that have a reputation for being naive?

And people say I believe in a conspiracy, heh.

No, a conspiracy is where a bunch of non-connected people are collaborated.  What I was suggesting was nothing that deserves that title.

[G-Flex]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2012/02/16/ut-austin-study-says-fracking-hasnt.html

And so on.

Did you even read these articles? Let's see.

http://news.yahoo.com/study-fracking-does-not-cause-groundwater-pollution-160500641.html

Instance of environmental hazards were caused by factors common to all oil and gas operations, including casing failures and the mishandling of waste water once it is brought above ground for storage and eventual processing at a waste treatment plant.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

The study reported that many problems blamed on hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/study-clears-fracking-but-flags-other-drilling-problems/article2341526/

He said more research is needed to confirm what activities are causing groundwater pollution, but it is suspected the problems are the same as those affecting the broader petroleum industry.

Whether "fracking" or the petroleum industry in general are causing problems, they're still problems, and still caused by the petroleum industry.