Forum Post: Fears rise on quakes, fracking
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 9:46 p.m. EST by GirlFriday
(17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OUNGSTOWN, Ohio — Until this year, this Rust Belt city and surrounding Mahoning County had been about as dead, seismically, as a place can be, without even a hint of an earthquake since the 18th century.
But on March 17, two minor quakes briefly shook the city. And in the next eight months, there were seven more. Like the first two, they were too weak to cause damage or even be felt by many people but were strong enough to rattle some nerves.
“It felt like someone was kicking in the front door. It scared the stuffing out of me,” said Steve Moritz, a cook describing the seventh quake, which occurred in late September. It was the strongest one, with a magnitude of 2.7.
Nine quakes in eight months in a seismically inactive area is unusual. But Ohio seismologists found another surprise when they plotted the quakes' epicenters: Most coincided with the location of a 9,000-foot well in an industrial lot along the Mahoning River two miles from downtown Youngstown.
At the well, a local company has been disposing of brine and other liquids from natural gas wells across the border in Pennsylvania — millions of gallons of waste from hydraulic fracturing, a process used to unlock the gas from shale rock.
The location and timing of the quakes led to suspicions that the well was responsible for Youngstown's seismic awakening. As the wastewater was injected into the well under pressure, the thinking went, some of it might have migrated into deeper rock formations, unclamping ancient faults and allowing the rock to slip.
As the United States undergoes a boom in the production of gas from shale, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has come under fire from environmentalists and others for its potential to pollute the air and contaminate drinking water. But the events in Youngstown and a string of other, mostly small tremors in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, British Columbia and other shale areas producing gas raise the disquieting notion that the technique could lead, directly or indirectly, to a damaging earthquake.
In South Texas, where gas is being produced in the Eagle Ford Shale, a magnitude-3.3 earthquake shook a rural area south of San Antonio in mid-November. That followed a magnitude-4.8 quake in the area in October, the largest recorded in South Texas since the U.S. Geological Survey began keeping track.
Scientists say the likelihood of a link between fracking and earthquakes is extremely remote, that thousands of fracking and disposal wells operate nationwide without causing earthquakes, and that the relatively shallow depths of these wells mean that any earthquakes that are triggered would be minor. “But still, you don't want it to happen,” said Mark Zoback, a geophysicist at Stanford University.
Others point out that among the thousands of small earthquakes in central Arkansas since last year that were thought to be linked to disposal wells was one of magnitude 4.7. And a disposal well at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado — for wastewater from weapons production, not gas drilling — was tied to numerous quakes in the 1960s, including several of magnitude 5.0 or higher that caused minor damage in Denver and other cities.
READ THE REST HERE: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Fears-rise-on-quakes-fracking-2398758.php#page-1
yeah nothing like a whole load of denial.
To imagine that these assholes are fracking in geologically unstable areas. Insanity driven by Greed - another form of insanity.
Yeah and these bastards don't care who is harmed in the process.
They would happily kill us all - and in their insanity - overlook that it is their death as well.
Well, I find it amazing that they haven't figured out that they would need someone to do the dirty work Not much thought put into that.
Like it is said - Greed is Blind.
wow. that's crazy. I missed this post until now.
But this is exactly what happens with ice sheets - ice melt works its way to the bottom, where it lubricates the joint between bedrock and ice. This allows for the ice to move at some interesting speeds - for a glacier.
My point is that it makes sense that the waste from fracking would lubricate faults and enhance their ability to slip.
Take action. See samples of how below.
183,361 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 10:15am central time 01/15/2012
http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100081904.557411.411&gen=1&mailing_linkid=34578
The petition to save abandoned houses has 15 signatures. We picked one up at around 9:50pm 01/13/2012. Were just rolling right along.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Savingpeople-savinghomes-payingdowntheNationaldeficit/
Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb
Sierra Club has some good things to take part in as well. Set-up and ready for you to take part in. http://sierraclub.org/
Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb
Sierra Club helping out. Can you?
Sierra Club
Share this alert with your friends: Share this page on FacebookShare this page on TwitterShare this page with other services Dear Dan,
Thank you for sending a message.
To ensure your message is heard, please take a moment to tell your friends, family, and colleagues about it. Just copy and paste the email message below into a new email! Dear Friends,
Send a message to President Obama to thank him for taking a stand against tar sands and to urge him to continue to say no to Keystone XL and dirty tar sands oil in the New Year. Despite the massive misinformation campaign launched recently by Big Oil and their cronies in Congress, President Obama’s State Department has said clearly that 60 days is not enough time to conduct the reviews necessary to safeguard human health and the environment against the dangers posed by this project. We want to thank him for continuing to stand up to Big Oil's dangerous agenda.
With your help, we can finally put an end to Keystone XL in 2012.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=7375
Sarah Hodgdon Conservation Director Sierra Club
Whether we've hit peak oil or not, the fact of the matter is that usable fossil fuels are getting a lot harder to find and a lot messier and more obnoxious to extract, and there's no evidence out there that this trend is going to reverse itself. Sure, we may not run out in the next ten years, but more and more we seem to be trying to force the last of the dregs out of the glass at an ever-increasing cost. The tar sands are a mess and fracking is creating one ugly debacle after another; we're doing potentially permanent damage to the environment and the people in it and merely buying time in return.
This pretty much means that we should have been pushing development of alternative energy sources (thorium-based nuclear reactors, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power, hydroelectric dams, etc.) hard thirty years ago when we had to deal with the oil embargo in the 1970s. We're going to need to transition off of fossil fuels as soon as possible even if there's a high cost to doing so; our options are doing so in an orderly and voluntary manner or being left high, dry, and screwed when the stuff runs out on its own (or takes more than a barrel's worth of energy to pump out and refine a barrel). We're going to have a lot of catching up to do because of how late we started, but it should still be possible.
Yeah, except the banking system is collapsing and every nation state is broke. Essentially we are standing on the precipice of a global depression. So, how's that gonna work? The only way to design a sustainable energy infrastructure is to abandon the market system as a mechanism to do it. As well as create a global cooperative effort to do it.
I agree, fracking is a risky proposition, and unfortunately, for many of the same reasons ... so is carbon sequestration. It's unfortunate (because greater use of natural gas would be desirable from a CO2 emissions reduction perspective). Nevertheless, we need electricity & liquid transportation fuel. We could certainly make greater use of wind, and to a lesser extent solar, and cellulose ethanol offers (I think) the greatest immediate opportunity to seriously reduce our use of petroleum, but if we really want to cut CO2 emissions (in a meaningful way), nuclear is probably the only technology that could accomplish this (without serious disruptions to our quality of life). I know it isn't popular, and there's obviously inherent risks, but short of some major (and unforeseeable) scientific breakthrough .... this is where we're at. Moreover, the risks are often exaggerated, and don't take into account advances in technology (e.g. new generation reactors).
Actually the cleaner a fuel burns, the more CO2, and H2O it produces.
If it is not burning efficient, it will produce higher ratio of other combustion compounds like CO.
CO= Carbon MONOXIDE
When a fuel is combusted, it utilized gases present , nitrogen, oxygen.
NO2=Nitrogen Oxide, HC = Hydrocarbon (soot/particulate) HG = Mercury SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide
Natural gas produces --LOW NO2, LO CO, LOW HC, LOW SO2, HIGH CO2 HIGH H20
Coal and Fuel oil produces more HC , NO2, HG, SO2, CO than natural gas, lowest CO2 but higher other compounds.
People always point at CO2 like it is most evil gas, you and I exhale it and trees, grass, vegetaion take it in It is part of ecosystem.
The other compounds are not bio-compatible and cause smog, asthma, asphyxiation, etc.
CO2 is not as evil as everone thinks. If they stopped deforestation and over developing land, let trees forests grow the problem would correct itself.
We need to stop paving everything, building everything, we need to go back to nature.
I do agree we need to cut down on pollution.
I always had a theory that CO2 was just a measure of environmental destruction, be it industrialization, or deforestation or ocean acidification.
CO2 is an organic gas and would exist humans or none. Mars atmosphere CO2? No SUVs made it there, no deforestation (that we know of yet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
So with that CO2 is organic gas. Part of our ecosystem. CO2 is being exploited by various groups to advance agenda. If we said O2 or oxygen were bad, and had to be eliminated, we would die?
Nobody would go for it, if we stopped destroying everything, let nature come back and reduce some pollution, we could reduce CO2 back into balance.
Many things keep getting looked at under microscope and we are losing focus. People like gore say we should carbon tax, it only will effect poor and companies with lots of $ would pay fines or taxes and pass cost down to end consumers on everything, travel, plastics, shipping cost, fuels, food, you name it... the companies never have to pay for anything.
I plant trees etc, and reduce carbon footprint as best as possible.
CO2 is being exploited and is misconceived by many. You need to look at all data. Ocean acidification, CO2 but not atmospheric CO2 not the same. CO2 in soda, you open can and it escapes as bubbles or gas, soda goes flat gas remains in air, if you enclose can in container the gas will NEVER return to the liquid. It will merge with the air in container and increase pressure slightly.
CO2 in ocean is from other organic processes, fish release it, as do underwater volcanoes. 1/4 molecules do return to ocean, but there are other FACTORS. We need to reduce pollution in general and let nature have some land back
"CO2 in ocean is from other organic processes, fish release it, as do underwater volcanoes. "
What about dying Corals? And natural decay?
"Researchers from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill found that coral coverage in the Indo-Pacific — an area stretching from Indonesia’s Sumatra island to French Polynesia — dropped 20 percent in the past two decades." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20169258/ns/us_news-environment/t/pacific-coral-reefs-dying-faster-expected/#.TwKkCdTOwsI
Good point, what I am trying to do is expose the truth of CO2 factors, industry is a factor there are MANY...This is another good work...
A hydrogen fuel cell is different, it's not using using carbon at all (and therefore not emitting carbon). The fuel cell is producing electricity (from hydrogen) and powering electric motors. The only thing emitted is water.
Unfortunately. There is nothing you can do with the nuclear waste but let it build up in storage sites that will be toxic ( deadly ) with radiation for thousands of years.
It would be best all around to push Hydrogen fuel and power.
New generation reactors (e.g. molten salt reactors) recycle its waste on site. Ideally, we'll upgrade the molten salt model (and use noble gases to cool the reactor), but the research is being done (and current molten salt reactors are adequate, we can just upgrade the technology with our next generation of reactors). Obviously, we wouldn't locate a reactor near large population centers, fault lines, flood zones (or other areas venerable to natural disasters). However, nuclear power hasn't harmed anyone in the United States in the last 40 years, while coal fired power plants kill 10,000 Americans every year. Nuclear plants have generated very little waste over the last several decades, while coal plants generate something like 100 million tons per year of coal ash (which is more radioactive than nuclear waste, and contains other toxins like mercury).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2
Nuclear is bad, we were taught a lesson in Japan and if that happens X10 we are toast. We really need hydrogen fuel cell technology, we are still 40 yrs away though.
The only lesson to be learned from Japan is don't locate a nuclear reactor in a known tsunami zone (or for that matter near a major population center, fault line, flood or hurricane zone, etc.).
One lesson , perhaps - but this also proves my point on how fragile and dangerous this operation can be, no matter what the contingency.
Famous last words, it will never happen. Well it did and now it is time to revamp the system.
Chernobyl-Pritypat was a warning , and different measures were taken. However, look at this. Several reactors, more environmental damage, the ocean water, ground, air you name it it is screwed for many thousands of years.
People complain about oil spills, which are bad but there is organic life that can adapt. Radioactivity has no business with organic life.
There is no "safe" fission reaction system. Yes it does not produce gases or emissions. They have yet to dispose of the waste.
The only solution thus far is a failure also.
They allow the uranium to decay, and become "depleted"
We are spreading this crap via munitions world wide and it is similar to lead but worse; causing illness birth defect, etc.
There is NO safe fission / nuclear process as chain reactions always produce next weight atom in chain and are always more toxic than the original U235.
I feel that was a wake up call for the industry.
What is to stop an earthquake, anywhere now?
I live near a reactor (not close, but close enough to have issues) and a tsunami / eq of similar situation would cause the same problem on ease and west coast alike.
Flooding @ ft calhoun? Almost another disaster.
This is dangerous and an alternative must be sought. We were never meant to be messing with elements this way.
New England Patriot, That is so true. We let it happen again. PCBs were dumped for years where i live (courtesy of GE) It alway seems to go back to money and greed. How can we be effective to stop this cycle?
I live near PCB super-fund area as well. We (and I am Liberty as you know) can do this if we awaken to what it is. Money is corruption, people take payoffs to allow, time goes by and we realize it was bad.
Man has been manipulating the chemistry of nature for some time.
Sending you to that site was to open you up to big picture. Darkness is at play and has taken the realm we exist in to its destiny. Until we all become aware, and show we are not afraid and only through true love, my brother we can send it all away.
I can lead a horse to water , but cant make it drink. Go-to that place again, read some more and I will help connect you to the true source.
Love and peace to you my brethren.
The worst part, is that there were and are, better processes than the one that was used, that were never developed.
I believe it was chosen for it's ability to produce " bomb grade", material.
There is a new process called, I believe ECAT, that looks to be very promising, but it doesn't produce that material.
The French get 80% of their electricity from nuclear, they've been at it for decades without incident, they sell electricity to their neighbors (like Germany and Italy) .... moreover, what's the alternative?
I don't hear a "comparative" risk calculation here. There were a few dozen deaths directly caused by Chernobyl, and thousands of deaths (which happened much later) from cancer. However, coal power is causing 10,000 deaths each year, there would have to be 25 meltdowns every year to match the death toll caused by coal, we need base power (and only in scientific fantasy land can intermittent sources meet 100% of our base power requirements).
Few dozen? try about one million over time.
Here is something to get started with:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html
There really is not alternative, we should have addressed long ago and greed is what is destroying our maximum potential; at the expense of many and profit of a few has always been the plan.
What if France had a major Earthquake?
There is activity and potential for disaster there. This planet is dynamic, anything can happen anywhere, anytime. It is not a matter of if but when.
Here is France Sesmic chart @ USGS
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/france/seismicity.php
I have to respectfully disagree here. Without electricity we could not operate modern hospitals, refrigerators, heating and cooling systems, water and sewage treatment systems, etc. In other words, without electricity, millions (maybe billions) of people wouldn't be alive today. People can kick and scream all they like, they're not going to change the fundamental dynamics here. Electricity isn't going away, so we need to find a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable way to produce it. Nuclear offers us this ability (whereas no other technology even comes close). It can be done safely. I mean, if you're looking for a guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong in the universe, then I'm afraid you'll be very disappointed. But if comparatively safer, more sustainable, cleaner, etc. sounds good (and it should to any rational thinker), then you should consider supporting nuclear (or at least researching the science, as it exists today, without any presuppositions).
I am not saying I agree/disagree, just pointing out some concerns.
Nuclear is a dead end , unless there can be something done NOW about the waste and cooling fuel rods.
It is inorganic, toxic to all life and something needs to be done, meaning think outside of the box.
If lets say an east coast Tsunami similar to Japan occurred due to erruption of El Hierro .
Eruption of El Hierro would cause massive landslide.
This would cause hydraulic displacement, in addition to seismic wave.
If moon tide, effect amplified and we would have a wall of water approx 8-12 meters high, with potential to flood out close to 30 east cost reactors. The situation could be 10x worse than Japan, given the law of averages.
Same situation, knock out of power grid, plants go into shutdown and diesel power for cooling. Then the generators fail to start due to hydrolock or water contamination of fuel + other destruction.
We will have a much worse situation
Now there is New Madrid seismic zone, with potential to to have repeat of Major earthquake, result could be Mississippi River rise, liquefaction and possible disruption on scale of 5X of Japan...
Nuclear is great when conditions are, don't say it will never happen here.
That's what was said when these reactors were commissioned both here and Japan. Look at what happened there, time for a new strategy
The environment will always heal of CO2 and carbon gases, but not toxic radio isotopes. There is to much "walking on eggshells: when it comes to this technology, nuclear, fusion is the only way but these theories have yet to be developed. If there was a way to fuse the isotopes back into Uranium, then we could clean up the waste.....
Any technology based on destruction of matter (burning, fission, combustion) in primary form (uranium, plutonium, hydrocarbon, carbon) is always doomed to fail - due to some sort of fallout or waste product
Someone in another thread suggests Thorium ... definitely viable (still nuclear, but very safe, sustainable, and no real waste issues).
Yes Thorium has high melt point, and needs priming so it has no potential for runaway reaction. The problem is we still have a mess to clean up....The old school system needs to be upgraded...
I will agree with you on this; uranium-fission must be abandoned....
Also no high pressurization (so no explosion potential), so very safe.
While we do have a mess to clean up (decommissioning existing plants as their useful life ends), there's no reason to delay building thorium reactors (there's really no relation between decommissioning old plants & building new thorium facilities).
If we do abandon uranium reactors, then at least we can bury the old waste deep underground knowing we won't produce anymore waste (unfortunately, I'm not sure what else we can do with it)?
They have to store it somewhere and shield it until we can do something. Fusion if ever totally figured out can be used to turn it back into Uranium or even lead, in theory of course.
I guess we could store the waste above-ground somehow, until fusion becomes viable.
Pebble-bed reactors are worth checking out as well. But, yeah, fusion is the best form we know of.
Yes another good point...main point I was trying to make its time to decommission the unsafe/toxic uranium fission and breeder reactors.
This is 1960s-70s technology and its time for it to go.
It does produce gases or emissions, hydrogen and oxygen. Hence the several explosions after and long after the earthquake.
I totally get your point, but let's accept the reality that gases or emissions ARE produced and will blow your plant to kingdom come if given half a chance.
Once the reaction runs away, yes this is correct. Fission reactors are always operating at just below meltdown threshold.
The hydrogen/oxygen are produced from reaction of water with zirconium cladding on fuel rods. Once cooling pool and reactor fuel rods reach this temp of 1200 deg, they produce the hydrogen. It builds up, and once there is no water left to cover the rods, the zirconium ignites upon exposure to air like lithium would - and BOOM
I'm guessing you rooted for the nerds in Revenge of the Nerds.
Sorry,
I have too many skills that go to waste. If I had the money to go to school and an attention span to focus on one career I could have done anything.
The Nerds, hehehe I don't look like your typical nerd, but had a soft spot for "them"
My friends call me "The Professor" in real life. I have made numerous gadgets and have experiments including a solar array powering LED lighting for my home. I need to get in a think tank, and then I will be happy;)
Forums are an outlet for me....
"school and an attention span" fraking utopia. I'd sell a kidney for the life. Renaissance men, eh?
At the risk of getting too personal, I had a mental collapse in '99. Got on a plane in Stuttgart, Germany for the US but could not stop crying. Got on the wrong plane at a layover and ended up in the wrong city (pre 9/11 obviously). I'd love some of that old concentration back.
I'll be needing a solar powered a/c this spring, you up to the challenge :)
Peace
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; therefore heat can have opposite effect of cold. Concentrating and heating a condensor like apparatus encased in a solar collector, magnify solar rays with diamond refractive lens could theoretically create a natural "heat chases no heat" reaction...
This natural flow could theoretically utilize a closed loop vacuum/pressure / balance system, and force the opposing reaction via evaporation...
This is do-able...
The problem is the amount of heat, and more than one a/c "device" would be required. Materials to construct would not be cheap but I have one smaller refrig unit that works off of heat outside and its in my basement. If a refrigerator can me modified for this purpose, than a/c is not too far off
you've got a Peltier fridge? That's awesome, exactly what is called for here in LV in the summer.
I would have used the term, I didn't know if there was some intelligence on the other side ;) then I have to explain more - you know what I mean.
Yes I do, and it is a combo of pettier and solar/electric a hybrid fridge !, 12 V motor for the refrigerant compressor belt driven from car a/c components @ 1725 RPM. if there is not enough sun it kicks in to compensate.
I'm jealous! lol
From what I hear, both the Japanese and the Chinese plan to continue their nuclear power development full speed ahead. I think they clearly recognize that they don't have other alternatives.
The "American way" originally was to look at all technical problems as solvable if we put our minds and hearts fully into it. I think we have to once again embrace this attitude, particularly in relation to nuclear energy.
hymie, Japan is getting off nuke totally and completely asap.
Their goal was 2020 but every prefecture is near riots with that timetable and each is shutting their plants individually now. Fuck the central gov they say.
Great site to start research on is
http://enenews.com/
Checkout
http://fukushima-diary.com/
if you want to cry at the evil of Society. It'll rip your soul to pieces.
Benjamin Fulford, a Canadian expat journalist living in Tokyo, tells the story quite differently:
Stunning report from Benjamin Fulford claiming that Tokyo has no radiation with Vinny Eastwood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmMYHk1rP68
Vinni and Benji take Japan? Haven't seen that yet.
Fulford, the past editor from FORBES? He is out there on some things. He thinks that "bases" in the US had been nuked.
He believes in the "reptillians" as well so I take much of what he says with a grain...
I can tell you that there was radiation detected outside my home a week after the explosion in Japan.
Once people started hoarding potassium iodide (KI) in this country and R Iodine 131 , Xeon, etc were detected the gov blacked out coverage and changed the "channel" of the media to cover Libyan "humanitarian effort"
I have a mutated tree in my yard also, a pine tree that has some spruce looking branches, suddenly grown and some other species so this tree was exposed - I detected 25-30uSv/hr for 3 months after it rained so the government lied about this. It is in the food, milk and some water supplies and I am in Massachusetts.
Depends on what way the wind was blowing....
I won't know and neither will you until you are sick with a disease years from now. I hate to burst the bubble, we were all exposed to more than we were told.
If Japan is really going to shut down all of it's nuclear power, I will believe it when I see it. I think all countries will need nuclear power once we are out of fossil fuel. How else will we handle transportation?
Nuclear power can be used to generate hydrogen fuel for transportation, I don't think wind or solar can, and ethanol, I believe is better off used as food.
Yea Ethanol is a waste, but when fossil fuel is gone, what will fertilize crops? What will heat homes? Nuclear? I highly doubt. Do we really need lights and all the electronic crap anyways? I have gotten used to getting off grid, saved tons of $ in energy cost
Nobody is going to shut down, the hydrogen is only produced when the reactor temp / cooling pond reaches 1200 deg, and produces hudrogen.
This is very dangerous, and radio isotopes are mixed with the hydrogen this is extremely risky way to produce hydrogen.
Electrolysis with water to split H20 into to 2 hydrogen, one oxygen, separate hydrogen and oxygen is safest way...
As Einstein said, "Nuclear energy is a hell of a way to boil water...."
If we progress with technology, I believe that eventually, it will become possible for us to synthesize most of the materials that are needed by our society. What other choice do we have? We can't decide not to run out of fossil fuels.
The way of humans for the last I don't know how many thousands of years has always been to access higher orders of energy as we deplete less efficient fuels.
We are already at the apex of our civilization, we will have to crash and burn to get there... There will be no technology until that is the only option.
I do not mean to be negative here....
There are ways to tap into magnetic energy the planet has right below your feet and above ground. It has been squashed unfortunately
Personally, I don't think that there is an apex to human civilization, I think we have the capacity to grow without limit. Just imagine the vast supply of resources available in outer space.
Kennedy's space program generated ten dollars in terms of economic development for every dollar we put into it. And that was only based on the scientific discoveries that were made.
Yes outer space, but we are reaching limits here on planet Earth.
We (not you or me PER SE) are about to go through another "population reduction" once we get war with Syria and Iran. Too bad our fate lies in hands of a few, this is what I am referring to.
The foundation we built on is crubmbing, and must be repaired if we are to advance. We have many to take care of and they shouldn't be left to die at cost of big companies extracting resources from 3rd worlds - that don't understand what we are doing to them (again we, the ones in charge)
Yes, there could be a dramatic population reduction, maybe six billion people killed. I've heard that so much attention has been drawn to the Iran/Syria theater, however, that other avenues of instigating a nuclear world war are being sought.
Its not a sure thing though. I hear the key is to impeach Obama. He is the only one that would push the button, not the Russians or Chinese.
Hydrogen fuel cells are available now.
What I meant was in mainstream use and cost effectiveness. 40 yrs away from domestic implementation.
There are many safety concerns, and they are still milking the petro cow for the moment.
They are available commercially and for homes.
You got me curious, last I researched it was way out in future. Perhaps some more leaps have been made as I have not been following in a while.
Send me a link please
[Removed]
[Removed]
Another interesting post.
Who the hell knows it's never been done before. Humans are the most abusive creatures to the planet and continue to have a wastefull utilization of the planets resources even if the end results are death to some other living creatures. Sure will suck if all of the earths mantel sinks below sea levels someday.
Um........ they do know.
yep.
The earth spins, it has gravitational forces working from within and out. Taking out petroleum may also have eventual consequences. Whose to say that petroleum is not some sort of just below the surface shock absorbing liquid that pacifies the surface and the compressed contents below. Maybe the interior pressures actually help the petroleum form.
Maybe by removing petroleum too quickly, we upset the delicate balance of the earth and the way it rotates around the sun.
Petro was never just dino fuel, it is an ongoing process of churning, pressure, etc wit all organic material - that creates it.
Petroleum is always being created, it is from organic decomp, due to heat at core - it always finds its gravitational sweet spot:
Think of oil wells/basins like factories of organic /tectonic/ seismic/ thermal nature. The oils and tars are the end carbon product.
We were never meant to use this stuff, maybe for moderate purposes - we are usiing up quicker than its being created.
Fracking is just accelerating the release of gas already there. Over time, the plates shift, rocks break naturally and release the gas.
We are so desperate to extract evey drop and ccf of gas we are going to the sources where it is created.
This shows we cannot wait and are using it faster than Earth can keep up..
This fuel increased favor our our side of balance with nature. When we finally run out, we will freeze where there is no heat, we will fail to keep up with food production as there is no petro fertilizer - we are not only destroying the planet that nurtures us. only ourselves in the end
Earth will re balance itself, everyone talks of saving the planet.
It is us who will pay in the end with our lives.
It's really solar, wind, and hydro power, or eventually die off en masse.
The black water, with the greenish tint, comes from your semi-annual, regardless if it needs it or not, douching of that grand canyon of disease, maggots and bubonic plague, you call a twat. We can't even discuss the resulting environmental hazards from when you gargle that Koch holster of a mouth you breath through.
Her junk is so nasty the stench from it would make a starving navy seal eat his sidearm.
Another crock of liberal shit. May as well say FARTING causes earthquakes.
Liberals mantra remains the same. "What comes from the ground...must STAY in the ground."
Not necessarily. Did you see this? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/12/23/u-s-offers-35-million-for-fracking-pollution-solutions/