Cutting Back on Carbon

Wrong! Fracking releases far more methane into the atmosphere than the supposedly lessening of carbon emissions created by the somewhat smaller amount of CO2 released by the burning of natural gas compared to coal.

Nuclear power, as it is presently obtained, would be a horrible and ineffective way to lower carbon emissions. Radical new designs and techniques might change that but so far nothing new is even in the pipeline to development and the world literally can't afford to wait for the development of new designs and the decade long process of building new nuclear power plants. Solar and wind can be constructed and deployed (and is) far faster and with far fewer inherent problems.

 

Link?

Nuclear energy has been successfully used for decades right here in the U.S. and overseas. France, for instance, is way ahead in nuclear energy generation. Solar and wind is insufficient to provide all energy needs but it can be a good supplemental energy source as well as excellent system for individual use. Also, it takes CO2 emissions to create solar and wind technology.

 

it's a matter of degree, fracking can't be good for the environment and i think we've all seen the dangers of nuclear power


"Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents an OpinionWay poll at the end of March found that 57% of the French population were opposed to nuclear energy in France."

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE73C0ZI20110413

 

Fracking has been done in one form or another since the 1800s when they first started throwing explosives down wells to break up rock. If you have a link that fracking effects the earth's environment post it. The 'dangers' of nuclear power have been blown way out of proportion. There are more than 400 reactors around the world, some of the longest operating for 30+ years.

Every year radioactive particles from coal ash are spewed by the 100 thousands of tons straight into our atmosphere. You get thousands of times more radiation from coal and natural sources (other humans, the sun, bananas, soil, etc.), than from all the nuclear reactors in the world.

 

what a pitiful excuse

 

200 or so years of fracking and maybe 1 or 2 incidents......Give me a break. Do you know how many coal miners have lost their lives? How many have died from coal radiation? Black lung? Come on now....are you really that ignorant?

 

Methane emissions from fracking vastly underestimated by EPA - study
April 16, 2014
​The Environmental Protection Agency is under fire for underestimating the amount of methane gas emitted during natural gas operations, including fracking, thanks to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The study has 13 co-authors from several academic and research institutions, and used an aircraft to identify large sources of methane and quantify emission rates in southwestern Pennsylvania in June 2012. The authors discovered that emissions rates per second were 1,000 times higher than those estimated by the EPA for the same time period.

“Methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities,” the EPA website states. Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent, but it is not as damaging of a greenhouse gas as methane. “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of [methane] on climate change is over 20 times greater than [carbon dioxide] over a 100-year period.”

The goal of the study was to try to understand if the measurements of airborne methane differed from the measurements taken at ground level, the Los Angeles Times reported. “Researchers flew their plane about a kilometer above a 2,800 square kilometer area in southwestern Pennsylvania that included several active natural gas wells. Over a two-day period in June 2012, they detected 2 grams to 14 grams of methane per second per square kilometer over the entire area. The EPA’s estimate for the area is 2.3 grams to 4.6 grams of methane per second per square kilometer.”

The researchers then traced the methane leaks back to their source; sometimes back to the individual wells at fracking sites in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, according to Salon.

“We identified a significant regional flux of methane over a large area of shale gas wells in southwestern Pennsylvania in the Marcellus formation and further identified several pads with high methane emissions,” the study’s authors wrote in the Significance section for PNAS. “These shale gas pads were identified as in the drilling process, a preproduction stage not previously associated with high methane emissions.”

A previous study, released in February in the journal Science, looked at 200 studies and discovered the EPA has been underestimating US methane emissions in general, as well as from the natural gas industry specifically, Stanford University reported.

"People who go out and actually measure methane pretty consistently find more emissions than we expect," said Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford and the lead author of the February analysis.

"Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPA estimates...And that's a moderate estimate."

The EPA released a statement Tuesday in response to the PNAS study. The agency is aware of the discrepancies and working to alleviate them, according to the Huffington Post.

The statement says, in part, “We are aware of studies that draw different conclusions about the level of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector as compared to the US [Greenhouse Gas] Inventory.” It also says, “Substantial amounts of new information on the oil and gas sector will be made available in the coming years through a number of channels, including EPA’s [Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program], research studies by various organizations, government and academic researchers, and industry. EPA looks forward to reviewing information and data from these studies as they become available for potential incorporation in the Inventory.”

“In addition, the actions included in the Administration’s methane strategy, targeting both bottom-up and top-down measurement approaches, will improve the overall level of confidence in methane emissions data. We expect that as the work is carried out, and as the quality of data produced from both approaches is improved, we will increase our understanding of the reasons behind currently cited divergent results.”

In March, the White House ordered the EPA to identify ways to cut methane from oil and gas production, with any new rules to be in place by the end of 2016, according to the Los Angeles Times.

LOLOL......that's really hilarious. You have a very strange definition of "success".

Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island are some of the bigger disasters.

In addition, there are other somewhat less known failures.

The Lucens reactor at Lucens, Vaud, Switzerland, was a small pilot nuclear reactor....built in an underground cavern....intended to operate until the end of 1969, but during a startup on January 21, 1969, it suffered a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to a partial core meltdown and massive radioactive contamination of the cavern, which was then sealed.

The SL-1, or Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One, was a United States Army experimental nuclear power reactor which underwent a steam explosion and meltdown on January 3, 1961, killing its three operators. The direct cause was the improper withdrawal of the central control rod, responsible for absorbing neutrons in the reactor core. The incident released about 80 curies (3.0 TBq) of iodine-131. About 1,100 curies (41 TBq) of fission products were released into the atmosphere.[4] The facility, located at the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) approximately 40 miles (64 km) west of Idaho Falls, Idaho, was part of the Army Nuclear Power Program and was known as the Argonne Low Power Reactor (ALPR) during its design and build phase. During the incident the core power level reached nearly 20 GW in just four milliseconds, precipitating the steam explosion.

On 4 July 1961, Soviet submarine K-19 developed a major leak in its reactor coolant system, causing the water pressure in the aft reactor to drop to zero and causing failure of the coolant pumps. A separate accident had disabled the long-range radio system, so they could not contact Moscow. Despite the control rods being inserted via SCRAM mechanism, the reactor temperature rose uncontrollably because of continuing chain reactions causing disintegration heat, reaching 800 °C (1,470 °F). The reactor continued to heat up as coolant is still required during shutdown until the reactions decrease. Making a drastic decision, (the Captain) ordered the engineering section to fabricate a new coolant system by cutting off an air vent valve and welding a water-supplying pipe into it. This required the men to work in high radiation for extended periods. The accident released radioactive steam containing fission products which were drawn into the ship's ventilation system and spread other compartments of the ship. The jury-rigged cooling water system successfully reduced the temperature in the reactor. The incident irradiated the entire crew, most of the ship, and some of the ballistic missiles on board. All seven members of the engineering crew and their divisional officer died of radiation exposure within the next month. Fifteen more sailors died from the after-effects of radiation exposure within the next two years.

The Kyshtym disaster was a radiological contamination accident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a plutonium production site for nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the Soviet Union. It measured as a Level 6 disaster on the International Nuclear Event Scale, making it the third most serious nuclear accident ever recorded, behind the Chernobyl disaster and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (both Level 7 on the INES). On 29 September 1957, the cooling system in one of the tanks containing about 70–80 tons of liquid radioactive waste failed and was not repaired. The temperature in it started to rise, resulting in evaporation and a chemical explosion of the dried waste, consisting mainly of ammonium nitrate and acetates (see ammonium nitrate bomb). The explosion, estimated to have a force of about 70–100 tons of TNT, threw the 160-ton concrete lid into the air.[3] There were no immediate casualties as a result of the explosion, but it released an estimated 20 MCi (800 PBq) of radioactivity. Most of this contamination settled out near the site of the accident and contributed to the pollution of the Techa River, but a plume containing 2 MCi (80 PBq) of radionuclides spread out over hundreds of kilometers.[4] The affected area was not virgin - the Techa river had previously received 2.75 MCi (100 PBq) of deliberately dumped waste, and Lake Karachay had received 120 MCi (4000 PBq). In the next 10 to 11 hours, the radioactive cloud moved towards the north-east, reaching 300–350 kilometers from the accident. The fallout of the cloud resulted in a long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 to 20,000 square kilometers (depending on what contamination level is considered significant), primarily with caesium-137 and strontium-90.[2] This area is usually referred to as the East-Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT). At least 22 villages exposed to radiation from the disaster, with a total population of around 10,000, were evacuated. Although vague reports of a "catastrophic accident" causing "radioactive fallout over the Soviet and many neighboring states" began appearing in the western press between 13 and 14 April 1958, it was only in 1976 that Zhores Medvedev made the nature and extent of the disaster known to the world.[7][8][9] In the absence of verifiable information, exaggerated accounts of the disaster were given. People "grew hysterical with fear with the incidence of unknown 'mysterious' diseases breaking out. Victims were seen with skin 'sloughing off' their faces, hands and other exposed parts of their bodies." Medvedev's description of the disaster in the New Scientist was initially derided by western nuclear industry sources, but the core of his story was soon confirmed by Professor Leo Tumerman, former head of the Biophysics Laboratory at the Institute of Molecular Biology in Moscow. The true number of fatalities remains uncertain because radiation-induced cancer is clinically indistinguishable from any other cancer, and its incidence rate can only be measured through epidemiological studies. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident." To reduce the spread of radioactive contamination after the accident, contaminated soil was excavated and stockpiled in fenced enclosures that were called "graveyards of the earth".[15] The Soviet government in 1968 disguised the EURT area by creating the East-Ural Nature Reserve, which prohibited any unauthorised access to the affected area. According to Gyorgy,[16] who invoked the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to the relevant Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) files, the CIA knew of the 1957 Mayak accident since 1959, but kept it secret to prevent adverse consequences for the fledgling American nuclear industry.[17] Starting in 1989 the Soviet government gradually declassified documents pertaining to the disaster.

False again. Although there will very probably be other energy sources in the mix to come, like ocean wave, current and tidal energy, and geothermal, the fact is that solar and wind could supply all of our energy needs.

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
Scientific American
By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
November 2009

It takes far, far more CO2 emissions to mine and process uranium and other nuclear fuels, than the minimal amounts involved in producing solar panels and wind turbines. Somebody has been misleading you. Probably someone with a financial stake in the nuclear industry or in centralized power distribution companies.

 

thousands of people have stinky water

[video=youtube;dZe1AeH0Qz8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8[/video]

 

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2011/05/scamed-by-the-envrios-again-public-duped-by-gasland.html

Gasland II

http://energyindepth.org/national/the-continuing-fraud-of-gasland/

 

big oil owns texas, what do you expect?

i know people in arkansas that have stinky water like that after fracking


also, big oil doing everything they can to undermine solar energy

 

It happens naturally and has little or nothing to do with fracking.

 

Solar energy is only good for supplemental or individual power and it uses petroleum in its manufacturing process.

 

And now for reality...

A new study yanks the scientific footing out from under one of the key criticisms that Big Green Business makes against fracking for natural gas. Conducted by the University of Texas at Austin and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study is the most comprehensive of its kind to date, examining 190 fracking sites. It discovered that far less methane is emitted than the EPA and its cohorts in the environmental community have long claimed. The study was sponsored by several petroleum companies but also by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), further bolstering its credibility.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359158/fracking-fears-overblown-jillian-kay-melchior

I'll address your 'chicken little' nuclear rant later...

 

Coming from you, that would certainly seem like a first...and a real shock...

The article that I quoted earlier cited a study from mid April of this year that was also published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and had 13 co-authors from several academic and research institutions. Their results, finding that emissions rates per second over fracking sites were 1,000 times higher than those estimated by the EPA for the same time period, still stand. The article also cited a study from Stanford University that was published in the journal Science this last February that had analyzed 200 separate previous studies that also found high levels of methane release. Scientists at Cornell University released a study in 2011 that also found high levels of methane emissions around fracking sites.

As far as the oil and gas industry funded and influenced study you quoted, here's a good analysis with lots of links. I'll quote a little snippet.

Frackademia: The People & Money Behind the EDF Methane Emissions Study
DeSmogBlog.com
The report concludes .42% of fracked gas - based on samples taken from 190 production sites - is emitted into the air at the well pad. This is a full 2%-4% lower than well pad emissions estimated by Cornell University professors Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea in their ground-breaking April 2011 study now simply known as the “Cornell Study.” Howarth has issued a press statement unpacking the long-anticipated study, beginning by explaining a key caveat.

“First, this study is based only on evaluation of sites and times chosen by industry,” Howarth stated.

“The Environmental Defense Fund over the past year has repeatedly stated that only by working with industry could they and the Allen et al. team have access necessary to make their measurements. So this study must be viewed as a best-case scenario.”

Howarth next explains industry cooperation - while a nice sales pitch - isn't necessary to “get the goods.”

“Many other scientists have proven over the past 2 years that you can measure methane emissions from gas development without industry cooperation, for instance by using aircraft to fly over operations,” he said.

“Many studies have now been published, and many more presented at national scientific meetings, on methane emissions using techniques which capture the emissions at regional scales and do not require industry permission to sample…All of these studies are reporting upstream [well pad] emission estimates…10- to 20-fold higher than those reported in this new paper.”

Why the vastly better results on methane emissions?

“How can we explain this huge discrepancy?” Howarth asked. “Industry does it better when they know they are being carefully watched. When measurements are made at sites the industry chooses and at times the industry allows, emissions are lower than the norm.”

Lastly, Howarth points out that unlike his April 2011 study, this study didn't do a lifecycle analysis, limiting the data set to fracked well sites. “Finally, methane emission from upstream at the well sites is only part of the problem,” he commented. “Methane is also emitted as gas moves to consumers, and again new studies are indicating these emissions may be even larger than the 1.4 to 3.6% of lifetime well production.”

 

Quantify all you want, its still smoke and mirrors. All this global warming hooey is based on a whole bunch of computer models that are apparently wrong. Since the models are a reflection of the climate warming "scientists" understanding of the science, it looks like they dont understand anything. Garbage in, garbage out.

So measure the ppm and set goals. Until these climate "scientists" get a new set of bones to throw and read, metrics are meaningless.

 

according to big oil's lackeys that ignore reality

ever heard of innovation and evolution?

 

yes more plant growth. CO2 isn't a pollutant it is a gas necessary for life on earth

have you head checked

 

in the right proportions


Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is having negative effects on plants and the quality of wheat crops. It might also have deleterious effects on other types of crops like barley, rice, and potatoes. It’s not that carbon dioxide is a bad thing for plants, it is actually good for them. It is the excessive amounts of it that are being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases, that is causing problems. CO2 is emitted, in large part, by the burning of fossil fuels from human activities, which is a major cause of global warming. This causes the warming of climates, and large amounts CO2 to collect in the atmosphere, thus affecting plants and crops.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/carbon-dioxide-has-negative-effects-on-plants-and-crops/#htMAuef2Fr2KPxo8.99

 

I admire you for admitting that facts and data and the trends and modeling from them are meaningless and that scientists around the world have apparently lost their minds...heck of an argument you have...

 

Indeed, mrs wyly attended some business management courses with some excutives from the fracking industry ...she's not well informed on such things and asked them what they were injecting into the ground during fracking, "only water and sand" was their answer...when profit is the motive the truth becomes an early casualty...

 

Honestly where do you come up with this hogwash? Oh yeah, an enviro-whacko blog...figures.

 

You mean like modern fracking and modern nuclear energy facilities? (as opposed to old, polluting coal plants, fish killing dams and air polluting gasoline which apparently you wish to continue) The utter stupidity of thinking windmills and solar cells are going to somehow provide future energy for the world is just astounding.

 

The clueless and very meaningless comments of someone who demonstrates a total ignorance about science.

 

again, i'm referring to clean energy

 

There are no "modern nuclear energy facilities" that are immune to nuclear accidents and meltdowns or that have completely safe ways of dealing with nuclear waste. There is no "modern fracking" that doesn't involve injecting harmful chemicals into the ground or that doesn't vent large quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Your nonsense is just fossil fuel and nuclear energy industry propaganda and lies.

The "utter stupidity of thinking windmills(sic) and solar cells" somehow can't provide all of the energy the world needs, after seeing scientific studies that calculate that solar and wind energy can, in fact, provide all of the world's energy needs, is just astounding and very political. The annual global energy consumption, for 2009, was estimated at 16 Terawatt-years (TW-yrs) (or 140,160,000,000 KW-hrs). The amount of energy from the sun that falls on the Earth every year is about 23,000 Terawatt-years. Years ago, scientists calculated that it would only take a square piece of land about one hundred miles on a side covered in solar panels to furnish all of the energy that the USA uses every year. Solar has gotten consistently better, more efficient and cheaper over the last few decades and new advances and improvements to the technology are being announced all the time. The energy potential of wind is a lot less than solar but still enormous, unending and free*. (*'free' - there are costs in constructing any type of power plant, wind turbine or solar panel. The difference is that fossil fueled power plants need a constant flow of increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging fuel or they stop working, while solar and wind energy sources have pretty much only the initial expense of building them and then the "fuel" that runs them arrives free forever. Clean, safe, non-polluting forever)