Cheap natural gas the key to keep global warming in check? Data indicates it may be.

[Mountain_Nomad]

CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...p-20-year-low/

PITTSBURGH — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

• This map shows the changes in carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector in the nine census regions of the contiguous United States, 2008-2009. Researchers at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences have attributed the decrease to the lower price of natural gas.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that total U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.

While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said. A frenzy of shale gas drilling in the Northeast's Marcellus Shale and in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has caused the wholesale price of natural gas to plummet from $7 or $8 per unit to about $3 over the past four years, making it cheaper to burn than coal for a given amount of energy produced. As a result, utilities are relying more than ever on gas-fired generating plants.
Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.

4 Reasons Natural Gas Is So Cheap
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investop...s-is-so-cheap/

Reduction in U.S. Carbon Emissions Attributed to Cheaper Natural Gas
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123345

[Tony]

Some would say this is yet another anti-coal rant meant to put West Virginians out of work.

Remove the mountains above, and bust up the rock below. Does sound damn shortsighted.

PS Your last two links are broken.

[Mountain_Nomad]

Some would say this is yet another anti-coal rant meant to put West Virginians out of work.

Remove the mountains above, and bust up the rock below. Does sound damn shortsighted.

I could see that to a certain extent, but think we should invest in both Coal along with Natural Gas. The US has a large quantity of both and should tap into that so we push on towards energy Independence.

I'm not sure if W Bush had this Power Plant (shown below) in mind when he was talking about "Clean Coal" technology, but it seems to be a legit alternative if being build in pollution conscious Europe.

The pilot carbon capture and storage (CCS) power plant at the first coal-fired plant in the world, Schwarze Pumpe in northern Germany, uses "oxyfuel" technology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7586569.stm

Wanna realllly jump-start the Economy?

Take the $450 billion a year spent on foreign oil and divert it into the US economy by investing in resources such as; Coal, Natural Gas, Wind, Domestic Oil, etc., etc.,

That should jump-start something.

Until Electric Vehicles (EV’s) are able to travel distances close to those fueled by gas, it seems US Automakers should be encouraged to build Natural Gas (CNG) until technology improves to make EV’s more practical.

I.E., some differences between CNG and EV’s that stand out;

CNG vehicles’ are said to have a driving range of 255 miles on CNG fuel alone, and cost around $26K. They look to be the obvious alternative when compared to the Chevy Volt which cost over $39K (before incentives) and has a 35 mile driving range on electric alone.

Some production CNG vehicles are in the works and hopefully more are on the way.




CNG seems to be the better solution for keeping our dependence on foreign resources moving in the right direction.



If coal can keep moving the above chart further south, I’m all for it.

CNG
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...238882852.html

EV’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

Clean coal Technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

Pickens Plan
http://www.pickensplan.com/news/2012...e-high-in-may/

[BigTom]

You'll never get the diehard Eco-nuts to agree with useing natural gas. They prefer to demand power from wind and the sun. The Eco-nuts don't approve of anything that's already proven to actually work. They'd rather dream about a make believe world of unproven and unreliable energy technology. Natural gas has already been used for many years on a large scale in the real world (the federal goverment and many business' have been using it in their fleet vehicles).
Natural gas is cheap, relatively clean, and we can produce it right here in the US. Yep, it makes way too much sense to use it, the Eco-nuts will never go for it.

[cindylu]

Tom - I'm not an Eco-nut but all the destruction that fragging is causing is really concerning me. A lot of the earthquakes occurring in central U.S. are being attributed to fragging. Also, all the crap from fragging is going into the water--remember, humans are made up of what, 92% water?? Our lives depend on water -- not to mention what we grow in the ground and the fish, meat, milk etc. Personally, I'd like to search for alternatives. What could it hurt--your pocketbook??

[Mountain_Nomad]

Tom - I'm not an Eco-nut but all the destruction that fragging is causing is really concerning me. A lot of the earthquakes occurring in central U.S. are being attributed to fragging. Also, all the crap from fragging is going into the water--remember, humans are made up of what, 92% water?? Our lives depend on water -- not to mention what we grow in the ground and the fish, meat, milk etc. Personally, I'd like to search for alternatives. What could it hurt--your pocketbook??

I think those involved in the “Fracking” process already know how to avoid tremors caused by Fracking but the concern is unevenly addressed by state regulations.

From what I’ve read the tremors are not caused by the Fracking process itself, but instead by disposing of the waste-water generated by the process.

So if it's the disposal of waste water causing a tremor and posing a health risk, it seems to be something easily be addressed. Well, one would hope.

VIDEO; Does Fracking Cause Earthquakes?
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000082962

Does Fracking Cause Earthquakes?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marb...se-earthquakes

Does fracking for natural gas cause earthquakes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...fhP_story.html

Fracking-Earthquake Report Suggests Low Risk For Large Tremors
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1600515.html

For powering a car, it seems the best alternatives are; bio-diesel and electric. I’m sure other technologies will come to light, but how long should we wait and research?

To break the addiction to foreign oil, natural gas and bio-diesel are the front runners to do it. An all-electric vehicle doesn’t seem worthwhile pursuing until battery technology greatly improves.

As far as powering power plants, Natural Gas seems to be a better solution than Wind and Solar for now.

I think those pursing renewable energy sources moved too fast in building wind turbines on mountain ridges before fully understanding environmental impacts they may have.

We don’t have to look further than West Virginia to see the negative side of Wind.
I.E., Wind Turbines?

Do they do more damage than good?

Damage caused by wind turbines includes; tearing up forests, killing wildlife, increasing the danger of forest fires and noise pollution.

Massive Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind Farm Highlights National Issue
http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandrepor...es/111028.html

POTENTIAL SOCIAL AND HEALTH COSTS OF INDUSTRIAL WIND ENERGY PROJECTS
http://wvhighlands.org/wv_voice/?cat=6

How Wind Energy Is Sucking the Life Out of Our Bat Population
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/ne...152702125.html

West Virginia PSC dismisses turbine noise complaint; Residents can take issue to circuit court
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/...circuit-court/



Will the Appalachian Trail look like this some day?




It makes me wonder if many mountain wind turbines could be removed in the coming years if locating them off-shore proves to be less of an impact on the environment? The wind-farms proposed for the Atlantic are 10 miles off shore, so most of the negative issues they cause would go away.

[LFE]

Noting of course that they do not have to all be built with huge blades like all the ones pictured above:
http://www.helixwind.com/en/
http://www.windspireenergy.com/
http://www.tangarie.com/

The problem with LG today is distribution. I know this is being looked into for the trucking industry.
- I do know that propane fork trucks can be a lot of fun to drive around, and have plenty of power....

[Tony]

Really odd that now Romney/Ryan are now claiming natural gas is a "solution" to America's "energy problems". Of course, they carefully avoid using the term "fracking", presumably leaving their constituency thinking all this energy is free for the taking.

[BigTom]

Tom - I'm not an Eco-nut but all the destruction that fragging is causing is really concerning me. A lot of the earthquakes occurring in central U.S. are being attributed to fragging. Also, all the crap from fragging is going into the water--remember, humans are made up of what, 92% water?? Our lives depend on water -- not to mention what we grow in the ground and the fish, meat, milk etc. Personally, I'd like to search for alternatives. What could it hurt--your pocketbook??

Most of what you've been told about fracking is BULLSHIT with no scientific data to back it up. Like so many of the arguements made by diehard eviromentalists. Some examples are the Global Warming science was blown totally out of proportion. The predictions made were (supposedly unintentionally) exaggerated, this was anounced by the scientist who originally made the predictions.
New York State is not issueing any permits for well fracking due to the possibility of well water contamination but there's never been a scientifically proven case of a well being contaminated by deep gas wells. The gas reserves in the east are all found between 3000 and 10,000 thousand feet, the wells are deep wells, and drillers are required to case and grout the shafts to well below any ground water.
Look at the real science not the Enviro-nuts bullshit hype.
Definitions;
Enviromentalist; Someone who believes anything negative about the destruction of the planet.
Conservationist; Someone who pays attention to the real science and acts accordingly.

[BigTom]

Cindylu, I find your comment on my profiting from the fracking insulting but I'll right it off to your own ingonorance on the subject and possibly your own skewed sense of moral values.
Since my wells are already drilled and productive I have no need to frack. Fracking is usually done when a well is first drilled. If profit was my motive I would be against the drilling and fracking of new wells as it would only reduce the price that I get for my gas due to the increased supply and the more wells are drilled in a vein of gas only reduces the well head pressure of existng wells. Less pressure at the well head equals less gas produced equals less money paid to me. Fracking is rarely done on existing wells since the cost involved is too high in relation to the slight possibilty of better production.
Your comment on "my" profiting may also be rooted in your own personal practice of putting your own needs and wants ahead of the greater good of everyone else. Of course I'd love for my wells to make as much profit as possible but not if it means destroying the enviroment for everyone else.
Don't sell yourself short about being a Eco-nut. Spewing unimformed opinions about fracking and demonizing someone for investing wisely and making a profit sure sound like the Eco-nut mantra to me. But as an enviromentalist I suppose you can't help it. As a lifelong conservationist I've learned to look at the actual science and do what I can to improve the problem without regard to my own advancement.
I've quitely done more actual real work to improve the enviroment than the average so called "enviromentalist". My commitment goes way beyond putting a half dozen aluminum beer cans out in the recycling bin on Tuesday and bitching about what everybody else should be doing.

[Tony]

Most of what you've been told about fracking is BULLSHIT with no scientific data to back it up.

Maybe. But why should the default be to allow someone to bust up the bedrock our city sits on? Let's turn that around and say it makes more sense for them to have to prove fracking is harmless before they can do it. After all, once we bust up that rock we can't put it back together.

[cindylu]

Cindylu, I find your comment on my profiting from the fracking insulting but I'll right it off to your own ingonorance on the subject and possibly your own skewed sense of moral values.
Since my wells are already drilled and productive I have no need to frack. Fracking is usually done when a well is first drilled. If profit was my motive I would be against the drilling and fracking of new wells as it would only reduce the price that I get for my gas due to the increased supply and the more wells are drilled in a vein of gas only reduces the well head pressure of existng wells. Less pressure at the well head equals less gas produced equals less money paid to me. Fracking is rarely done on existing wells since the cost involved is too high in relation to the slight possibilty of better production.
Your comment on "my" profiting may also be rooted in your own personal practice of putting your own needs and wants ahead of the greater good of everyone else. Of course I'd love for my wells to make as much profit as possible but not if it means destroying the enviroment for everyone else.
Don't sell yourself short about being a Eco-nut. Spewing unimformed opinions about fracking and demonizing someone for investing wisely and making a profit sure sound like the Eco-nut mantra to me. But as an enviromentalist I suppose you can't help it. As a lifelong conservationist I've learned to look at the actual science and do what I can to improve the problem without regard to my own advancement.
I've quitely done more actual real work to improve the enviroment than the average so called "enviromentalist". My commitment goes way beyond putting a half dozen aluminum beer cans out in the recycling bin on Tuesday and bitching about what everybody else should be doing.

Tom - You do realize the people of Montana are now rethinking their allowing the oil companies to come into their state due to the oil spill I believe occurred last year mucking up their water streams. The oil that was spilled cannot be removed. Also, I believe, not sure, but farmers in Wyoming are now kicking themselves because many of them (land owners) sold the mineral rights on their lands to oil companies and those oil companies are now digging up their land and drilling/installing oil rigs pretty much destroying their way of life. Both stories were in the New York Times. (Yikes! An outtatown paper!) Note to self: Never sell the mineral rights to your land. As far as fracking -- you can't replace the mountain that has been removed. Yeah, would you want the water used in that process affecting your drinking water?

Broaden your views. Read the paper. Not just the Spirit.

Wow, I managed a response without resorting to using the word "bullshit"

[BigTom]

Tony, there's no science that has shown hydraulic fracking has caused any earthquakes. Besides hydraulic fracking does not "break up rock" it merely clears the silt that forms in already existing natural fisures.

Cindylu, what does an oil spill in Montana have to do with fracking for natural gas? Or is this the usual liberal Eco-nut tactic of changing the subject when you have no credible facts pertaining to the discussion?
As for your farmers in Wyoming were they so stupid that they didn't know that drilling would cause some changes? I expect the payment they got for their mineral rights had no effect on their lives either? I think they're just mad because they figured out that leasing their mineral rights would have been a much better option. When leasing they'd have gotten a smaller payment up front and monthly royalty payments if the gas companies did get gas from their property, that includes gas obtained from wells drilled on adjacent properties. Selling your rights is less risky in that you will get a set amount. When leasing you get a smaller payment up front and royalty payments on the gas they extract. But it's very unlikely the gas company would want your mineral rights unless they're pretty sure they'll find gas. Leasing also affords you alot more control of your land. Maybe greed is or remorse after spending their original payment is what's motivating your Wyoming farmers change of heart? Nobody forced them to sell their mineral rights they did it for the money.

Maybe you should quite getting all your information from newspapers who's main goal is to get you to buy their paper? Or maybe you'd be a little more open minded if you weren't so intent on looking down your nose assumeing you were so much better informed than those that you don't agree with. Personally I don't read the Spirit and rarely read the Journal. My info on this subject has come from attending many meeting, seminars, and classes pertaining to drilling and fracking. That includes a recent meeting with the State of New York to educate people and get response from the public. I get alot of info from articles written by experts in the field (both pro and con) from the trade organizations I'm a member in, like NYFOA. I actually know and have spoken to many people who own property with gas wells and people employed in the gas and oil trade and in trades that have to deal with them like the farmers and foresters. I also rely on the professional management firm I hired and their long term management plan for my property for some education and the State And Federal Ag agents in the area where natural gas is drilled. I can go on but I think I've made my point, at least to a rational person. I consider investents in properties in many places around the country and some have natural gas so I keep myself educated on this and many other things pertaining to those investments.
I'll be away from my computer for a couple of weeks (screwing up the delicate eco-system by killing a bear) so maybe you can take that time to get a real education on the subject and so you can have an imformed opinion, instead of spewing insults and regurgitating sensational headlines designed to get you to buy a paper.
As far as my use of the word bullshit, I'm a very direct person and when see someone regurgitating bullshit I call it as I see it.

[Tony]

Besides hydraulic fracking does not "break up rock" it merely clears the silt that forms in already existing natural fisures.

Good luck with the bears! But I think you are mistaken. Fracking means "hydraulic fracturing" and "fracturing" means "breaking". It's true they can't yet break a rock that doesn't already have a fissure in it, but normally those fissures would sit undisturbed for eons - millions of years. Instead we're now busting them apart willy-nilly just as if our civilization wasn't sitting right on top of them.

[BigTom]

You're making an assumtion based on the term "fracking", my knowledge comes from being in the business and having it explained to me by the people who acually do it. At one time fracking was done with explosives, it's rarely done with explosives anymore at least not with natural gas, that's where the term was originally coined. Hydraulic fracking doesn't open up huge caverns it opens small frisures that are contained in all rock strata. It's like pumping water into a sponge and then pumping it back out. Natural gas in the East doesn't need too much help to be squeezed out of the rock because it's under alot of pressure.
The only issues I have with hydraulic fracking are any chemicals used except water and salt should be approved and the process should be monitored by a state agency (like it is in New York) but useing standardized guidelines to assure proper reclaimation and/or disposal of what's pumped out.
Eventually I will be retiring and residing on a property with four gas wells that have been fracked at on time and we will be drilling a well for our drinking water. With all the other properties I could live on do you think I'd live there if I thought there'd be a problem?

[Tony]

It's like pumping water into a sponge and then pumping it back out.

That's a really bad example. Sponges expand when wet, and contract when the water is pumped back out. See a demo below. This type of expansion (and contraction) is what fractures even the hardest bedrock.

I'm not sure why you would expect fracking experts to tell you it may be terribly dangerous and nobody should do it. That would put them out of business. Naturally they're going to say it's harmless.

>do you think I'd live there if I thought there'd be a problem?
No. But i don't think anyone believes there will be a problem until there is one. You've seen the reports of so much gas in the water it can be ignited at the kitchen sink. You can bet those people wouldn't have built there either if they knew that was going to happen. Besides, just because there's no great problem directly overhead doesn't mean some problem hasn't occurred 20 miles away.

[Mountain_Nomad]

From all that I’ve read on fracking, an earthquake is a valid concern but is not caused by the actual fracking process.

It’s the disposal of water used in the process or in the fracking process known as “Hydrofracking”.

But it’s not something that should deter the extraction of Natural Gas because the risk is low and there are alternatives to dispose of the water used. In addition there are alternatives to Hydrofracking itself which would eliminate the need to dispose of water.




Report: Fracking can cause earthquakes, but risk to humans is low

Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas production was cited as the possible cause of seismic events in Oklahoma in 2011 (the largest of which was a 2.8 magnitude shake), but it was not confirmed.
Interestingly, the report found that primary oil and gas production leads to more earthquakes than fracking. Quakes from typical fuel production have been documented at 20 sites in the United States, and 18 internationally.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...racking-quakes


Did Fracking Cause Oklahoma's Largest Recorded Earthquake?

Probably not, as the gas drilling practice tends to be associated with minor quakes, not big ones, seismologists say

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ded-earthquake


EPA Doubts Its Own Anti-Fracking Study, While Ohio Determines Fracking Did Not Spawn Earthquake Swarm

Some positive news for fracking fans today, with three items that in a rational world would help convince some anti-fracking zealots that they ought to find something else to protest.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop...thquake-swarm/


Fracking causes earthquakes, studies confirm

However, the lead author of the report, Bill Ellsworth, emphasized in an interview with the U.S. televison network CNBC that the earthquakes aren't caused by the fracking process itself that is used to extract the gas. Rather, earthquakes have been linked to the injection of wastewater produced during fracking back into the ground in order to dispose of it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/04/17/environment-fracking-earthquake-studies.html


Hydrofracking drives new water treatment solutions

Ecosphere utilizes a proprietary oxidation process called “Ozonix” to treat industrial wastewater. Its energy subsidiary has built mobile treatment facilities with that can currently handle 5,000 gallons per minute. Water is “recycled” and can be reused in other wells, eliminating the need for an injection well to keep pollutants out of groundwater, said Vinick.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/inte...olutions/16702


Propane as a green fracking alternative?

Could it be the solution to the hydrofracking debate? A Canadian company says its method of using propane instead of water to extract natural gas is both eco-friendly and more effective than hydrofracking.

http://centralny.ynn.com/content/top...-alternative-/


Two Graduate Students Present Environmental Alternative to Traditional Hydrofracking
http://www.manhattan.edu/news/two-gr...-hydrofracking


Environmentalists Should Stop Self-Defeating War on Clean Alternative Energy
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA613.html


Obama backs hydrofracking in State of the Union speech

In his recent State of the Union message, US president Barack Obama expressed strong support for the use of hydrofracking for the extraction of natural gas from shale formations. The move was immediately seen as an attempt to curry favor with the energy industry in advance of the presidential election.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/frac-f02.shtml

[LFE]

risk is low and there are alternatives to dispose of the water used

Doesn't the State of WV buy it to use as de-icer on our roads in the winter?

[BigTom]

That's a really bad example. Sponges expand when wet, and contract when the water is pumped back out. See a demo below. This type of expansion (and contraction) is what fractures even the hardest bedrock.

I'm not sure why you would expect fracking experts to tell you it may be terribly dangerous and nobody should do it. That would put them out of business. Naturally they're going to say it's harmless.

>do you think I'd live there if I thought there'd be a problem?
No. But i don't think anyone believes there will be a problem until there is one. You've seen the reports of so much gas in the water it can be ignited at the kitchen sink. You can bet those people wouldn't have built there either if they knew that was going to happen. Besides, just because there's no great problem directly overhead doesn't mean some problem hasn't occurred 20 miles away.

Tony, perhaps you should reread post #13 and you'd see that my knowledge of fracking comes from experts from a variety of backgrounds and motives not just pro-fracking experts. Personally I'm not sure why you would form your opinions by listening or watching anti-fracking info produced by people not in the field or a related field. After all we all know everything we see on the internet is true.

All of the "gas in the well water" stuff I've seen is from western states. If you knew more about natural gas drilling you'd know that most western gas is much closer to the surface and low pressure, at the same level as the well water. The well water contained natural gas from the time it was first drilled just like the iron or sulfur in alot of Shannondale wells, fracking did not put the gas in an existing water well. Well water contamination isn't an issue in eastern wells because eastern gas is way below the depth of water wells, thousands of feet below the water, and gas wells are cased and grouted to well beyond the depth of water. Responsible states, like New York, regulate and inspect gas wells to confirm that all the safety measures are done.

From the research I've done there has never, I repeat NEVER, been a case where well water contamination has been scientifically linked to fracking. The well water on my property is probably safer and better than alot of the well water in many of the wells in Shannonandale. Do you have a problem with Shannondale water?

[Marty]

The Sierra Club just announced their "Beyond Natural Gas" campaign based on their Beyond Coal campaign, which was extremely effective. (Do you know of any coal plants that have been approved in the past few years that isn't tangled up in litigation?) It'll be interesting to see what happens.

http://content.sierraclub.org/naturalgas/