Allegheny National Forest and fracking? (Penn: 2013, credit, how much)

[bjones1024]

I was looking up the Allegheny National Forest to decide whether to visit on a vacation and noticed many recent google reviewers posted that people are "fracking the forest to death" and that "devastation" has resulted. How bad is the fracking really? Is is confined to a small percentage of the forest? Is most of the natural beauty still present, enough to warrant visiting? Will my experience visiting the forest be significantly different than it would have been before the fracking started?

Thanks!
EDIT: sorry, I meant to post in the Pennsylvania forum, not the Northeastern PA subforum.

[jtab4994]

I would question whether all those negative reviews on a single site are from a single activist or a single group of activists. You're doing the right thing by asking for opinions from other folks.

Have you tried Google Maps satellite view of the area?

[trackstar13]

Yes fracking has changed the forest, but it is also pretty big and unless you are relatively close to a well you really won't even notice much. It is still an awesome place and it has survived logging and hopefully it will survive fracking. The main issues associated with the wells are during the first few years so after they are established the damage is done and the area can hopefully start to recover. So unless you are near a brand new well it should not really influence your visit.

[2nd trick op]

There is a contingent within the environmental movement which holds an irrational bias against anything involving new technology. They are obsessed with the pursuit of a degree of security which never existed, and never will on this side of the cemetery. I wish these folks had been around to see some of the ugly "patch towns" which dotted the Anthracite region when I was growing up in the late fifties, and persisted for another twenty in some parts of the state.

On a day-to-day, real-world basis, environmental protection involves a constant series of less-than-ideal choices. And if there's a "silver lining" to all this, it's that previously-demonized options (nuclear power being the most prominent) can be revived, in an improved, safer and more-efficient form when the "absolute security: tantrum blows itself out.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

There is a contingent within the environmental movement which holds an irrational bias against anything involving new technology. They are obsessed with the pursuit of a degree of security which never existed, and never will on this side of the cemetery. I wish these folks had been around to see some of the ugly "patch towns" which dotted the Anthracite region when I was growing up in the late fifties, and persisted for another twenty in some parts of the state.

On a day-to-day, real-world basis, environmental protection involves a constant series of less-than-ideal choices. And if there's a "silver lining" to all this, it's that previously-demonized options (nuclear power being the most prominent) can be revived, in an improved, safer and more-efficient form when the "absolute security: tantrum blows itself out.

LOL do you mean new technologies like solar, wind, and wave powers? It is mildly amusing and mainly sad to me that people honestly believe non-renewable sources of energy are the saviors and we need to go back to the 1800's and start drilling for black gold again.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by trackstar13

LOL do you mean new technologies like solar, wind, and wave powers? It is mildly amusing and mainly sad to me that people honestly believe non-renewable sources of energy are the saviors and we need to go back to the 1800's and start drilling for black gold again.

Those technologies might be "proven" in the sense that they actually generate something of use, but they are often not adaptable to the high and constant expectations of a mature, fully-industrialized society, which is expected to function at times other than when the sun is out.

They often involve the investment of large amounts of capital, and in some cases (geothermal, for example) Mother Nature herself can thwart the plans because the earth's structure is unstable, and slowly, but constantly changing, just as the weather changes (though that's only cited selectively, when the "facts" fit the agenda of the "global warming" alarmists).

And, in perhaps the ultimate prof of the irrationality of that portion of the public that wants the benefits, but shies away when the true bill comes due, let's not forget those "fair-weather' environmentalists who tout wind power, then whine about the appearance of "wind farms".

My original point here was that every venture into the field of alternative energy produces some dividends -- makes the "tool kit" of options a little bigger. But the only options which generate any interest among the Absolutely Politically Correct are those which lend themselves to more governmental interference and control -- creating a larger bureaucracy for Al Gore and his groupies.

[trackstar13]

It is climate change, not global warming and the idea that renewable sources of energy are too expensive or can't meet the demands of our society is silly. There is substantial evidence that a combination of renewable energies can more than power everything in the U.S. I recently toured a nature center in remote, northern Minnesota that was fully powered by a combination of wind and solar. The return on investment for them was about 8.5 years and that is getting even better now because they installed everything a few years ago. Solar panels are more affordable than they have ever been, but there needs to be less collusion between government and big energy before these types of technologies can be utilized on a national scale. Wave power is very interesting/promising and could be harnessed both from the ocean and the great lakes. Wind power has already proven effective and the main issues currently are related to appearance and birds being killed by the things. Of course there is still an immediate need for fossil fuels until we can wean off of these energy sources and wind turbines still need to be lubricated, we still need plastics, etc.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by trackstar13

LOL do you mean new technologies like solar, wind, and wave powers?

Very expensive and as far as solar and wind go even if they were cheaper CANNOT replace base power from fossil fuel.

A just released DOE study says no contamination from fracking fluids to the water table. One thing you ave to understand is even if you threw out all the rules it's within the economic interests of the drillers to not contaminate the water table.

DOE study: Fracking chemicals didn't taint water

A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.

After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by trackstar13

The return on investment for them was about 8.5 years

Because they aren't paying the full costs. You have the companies involved with manufacturing subsidized. They presumably took advantage of the 30% federal tax credit, 20% tax credit from the state that is typical and then the dirty little secret few people are aware of which is the "green credit". The credits are sold to the power distributors to meet mandates, those costs are passed onto the ratepayer.

Solar panels are more affordable than they have ever been,

Because the market crashed, two factors there. Simultaneously China started dumping product on the market and governments scaled back investment which produced a glut of panels. There is another looming issue on the horizon....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/bu...anted=all&_r=0

The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
Related

Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects caused two fires that took the system offline for two years, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Very expensive and as far as solar and wind go even if they were cheaper CANNOT replace base power from fossil fuel.

A just released DOE study says no contamination from fracking fluids to the water table. One thing you ave to understand is even if you threw out all the rules it's within the economic interests of the drillers to not contaminate the water table.

The drillers are contaminating the water by simply using it. Do you know how much water is used to frack one well? The DOE study is one study and it is in their best interest to say there is no pollution. They only examined 8 wells and look at who runs the DOE LOL. The secretary has ties to BP and other big energy companies.

Energy nominee has industry ties | Need to Know | PBS

While the lack of contamination is encouraging, Jackson said he wondered whether the unidentified drilling company might have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with the research site, since it was being watched. He also noted that other aspects of the drilling process can cause pollution, such as poor well construction, surface spills of chemicals and wastewater.

Pennsylvania Fracking Study Shows Chemicals Did Not Contaminate Water

Your argument about renewable energy is wrong, and I will not expand further in this post so that the post is not too long.