In Crucial Pennsylvania, Democrats Worry a Fracking Ban Could Sink Them (Philadelphia: leasing, insurance)

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

I understand that Warren may be tacking left just for the primary and if she wins the nomination she'd probably abandon the proposed fracking ban. But running against Trump as a Standard Politician who tells the expected lies isn't going to work.

IMO the Democrats' best chance in 2020 is Bernie, believe it or not, because he's the only current candidate who is genuine. But the Establishment is scared to death of him, and you may see Bloomberg emerge from Milwaukee with the nomination. In other words, the Establishment would rather lose with one of their own than with an insurgent. Biden would have won in 2016 but he is just too frail now. The Establishment knows that Biden just can't make it and shouldn't be running, but they are cynically using him as a bulwark against Bernie.

She's already straying from the left. I was waiting. I knew it was just a matter of time lol; right after she did this, she lost a lot of support.

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

Maybe in the short term, but renewable fuel technology is advancing at such a rate, most fossil fuels will become obsolete in the coming decades.



..I called it a dirty truth. I did purposely use the word as a double entendre.


Did I say that? I simply was stating the rationale behind the choice to block the Pennsylvania pipelines.

I'm not familiar with politics in PA. What do most of the residents of the towns/cities fracking would be a thing think of it?

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by DreamerD

I'm not familiar with politics in PA. What do most of the residents of the towns/cities fracking would be a thing think of it?

There is a town called Dimmick where several years ago the residents thought their water wells were contaminated by fracking. Obama's EPA came in, gave them water trucks and ran extensive tests on the wells. After a couple of years the EPA announced the water wells were not contaminated by fracking. The EPA gave the residents (who were not impressed) a few more weeks of water trucks, but Obama's EPA pulled out and that was the end of it.

But Dimmick was the exception. Most people are OK with it.

There are no "water faucets on fire" like you might see in a Hollywood movie.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

It's massive mistake which isn't even giving good returns. Too late now.

Pensions have always invested in fossil fuel because it's safe bet, something like 33% of Exxon is owned by pensions. Why would you consider it mistake? Solar and wind cannot replace power generated from natural gas, coal or nuclear without some extraordinary expense. Guaranteed power that does depend on the whims of Mother Nature...

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by thedirtypirate

Maybe in the short term, but renewable fuel technology is advancing at such a rate, most fossil fuels will become obsolete in the coming decades.

It's intermittent and that will always be it's Achilles heal. Let's say solar has the same cost per watt as conventional power for the capital investment. Under ideal weather conditions you can may now produce power for 8 hours, you still have 16 hours left in the day. For full day you capacity requirement just doubled or tripled and you need the means to store that power. If you have poor weather conditions the next day? Your capacity requirement just went to 4 to 6 times because you need to make it the day it was nice and you need the means store that power. If the weather is bad for a week? You need to generate all that power beforehand and store it.



Furthermore storage technology is much more applicable to conventional power because it has the potential to reduce their costs. You have three types of plants, base load that run constantly. These are the least costly run over their lifetime because you have peak efficiency constantly and you are fully utilizing the capital investment. There is intermediary plants used meet daily fluctuations in demand and peaking plants only utilized during very high demand. If the storage tech is less costly than building intermediary and peaking plants you can eliminate them and operate all plants as base load. You only need a small amount of storage to act as buffer...



As a side note the more wind and solar that comes onto the market necessarily causes the cost of conventional power to rise. Case in point is that coal plant in Ct. they are protesting. The one article I read cited a number of 23 days it operates per year if it were run at full capacity, they are using it during extreme weather events. The cost of the power from that plant is going to be extraordinarily high . It's not because of the cost of the power for the 23 days it's running, it's because the capital investment is not being utilized for 343 days of the year... It guarantees the power supply so you can't get rid of it.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

There is a town called Dimmick where several years ago the residents thought their water wells were contaminated by fracking.

The issues with methane in the water in that area were there before they started fracking. It's certainly possible it exacerbated the problem but it's historical one. Same thing applies to the demonstration in Gasland, there is documentation going back to the 1930's about methane in the water in that area.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9CfUm0QeOk

[Muinteoir]

The dangers of fracking are well documented. I grew up in rural New York State just over the border of PA. There were many people in my area who opposed fracking despite any short term economic benefit. The oil and gas is finite. This is not practice is not sustainable from multiple perspectives.

There is no need to think of this as an "either or scenario" where we either protect the environment or we invest in decent jobs. Investing in a renewable energy economy means we protect the environment and invest in job creation.

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by Muinteoir

The dangers of fracking are well documented. I grew up in rural New York State just over the border of PA. There were many people in my area who opposed fracking despite any short term economic benefit. The oil and gas is finite. This is not practice is not sustainable from multiple perspectives.

There is no need to think of this as an "either or scenario" where we either protect the environment or we invest in decent jobs. Investing in a renewable energy economy means we protect the environment and invest in job creation.

As long as the new jobs come first that can work. Ending fossil fuels first with a promise of jobs later would be a mistake. Imagine if someone tried to convince you to quit your job today, with the promise of a great new unspecified job 'later' (and no guarantee that new job would go to you). Would you do it? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

There is a town called Dimmick where several years ago the residents thought their water wells were contaminated by fracking. Obama's EPA came in, gave them water trucks and ran extensive tests on the wells. After a couple of years the EPA announced the water wells were not contaminated by fracking. The EPA gave the residents (who were not impressed) a few more weeks of water trucks, but Obama's EPA pulled out and that was the end of it.

But Dimmick was the exception. Most people are OK with it.

There are no "water faucets on fire" like you might see in a Hollywood movie.

I see...

[southbound_295]

To what extent are farmers being paid to not grow crops and send them to market?

That plays a big part in solar. Those farmers can come out ahead if they rent out part of their acreage to some who puts in solar panels and plants the rest with an unregulated commodity.

[toobusytoday]

I know it's a challenge but this is the Pennsylvania forum. The topic is Fracking/Pennsylvania/Democrats potential problem. Off topic posts will be deleted.