Fossil Fuels in Idaho (Idaho Falls, Sandpoint: transporting, leases, buyers)

[clearwater66]

Let us see if we can have a civilized discussion about fossil energy in Idaho and I would begin by defining what I understand about it and then, why it is a danger to Idahoans and the beautiful environment.

1. Fossil fuel is dead animals. As those animals decomposed, they did what all other living things do when they die. They take on bacteria and become part of the earth, which if you believe in God, is where they are intended to stay. When the fuel is extracted, lit and burned, bacteria and toxins are emitted into the air we all breathe.

2. Fossil fuel is a finite resource and getting harder to find. Tar sands oil is dirty and heavy. http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tar sands/ It is retrieved through strip mining, not drilled and pumped. Because it is dirty, it needs to be transported to refineries to be cleaned and usually exported to other countries. It is being transported across the panhandle of Idaho in tanker train cars that were designed to carry lighter oil from previous eras.

Tanker cars that derail pose disasterous consequences to water supplies and populations. In Sandpoint, oil and coal trains cross a long bridge, then directly over the city beach park and then within a few blocks of the hospital. Environmental activists in the area do not trust the railroad companies are as concerned about safety as they are about profits. And historically, wasn't that also true of mining and logging in Idaho?

Another extraction method is fracking and the leases recently sold throughout the state are also scary, especially when you note the increased earthquakes in Oklahoma from fracking.

Idaho is very vulnerable. We need to continue to support alternative sources of energy. Jobs, you say? I just read an article that green jobs have surpassed those in fossil energy. I will try to find it.

And I cannot imagine anyone becoming enraged or argumentative about this, other than it represents change.

[Shaner]

There are lots of options for renewable resources. The real problem is that they cost more and our society is built around "what are you going to do for me now" instead of "how I am going to leave this for my kids". Unfortunate. Its a pain just to get people to recycle let alone pay a bit more so our planet doesnt turn into a crap hole.

[DaveExPRC]

Originally Posted by clearwater66

Let us see if we can have a civilized discussion about fossil energy in Idaho and I would begin by defining what I understand about it and then, why it is a danger to Idahoans and the beautiful environment.

1. Fossil fuel is dead animals. As those animals decomposed, they did what all other living things do when they die. They take on bacteria and become part of the earth, which if you believe in God, is where they are intended to stay. When the fuel is extracted, lit and burned, bacteria and toxins are emitted into the air we all breathe.

2. Fossil fuel is a finite resource and getting harder to find. Tar sands oil is dirty and heavy. http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tar sands/ It is retrieved through strip mining, not drilled and pumped. Because it is dirty, it needs to be transported to refineries to be cleaned and usually exported to other countries. It is being transported across the panhandle of Idaho in tanker train cars that were designed to carry lighter oil from previous eras.

Tanker cars that derail pose disasterous consequences to water supplies and populations. In Sandpoint, oil and coal trains cross a long bridge, then directly over the city beach park and then within a few blocks of the hospital. Environmental activists in the area do not trust the railroad companies are as concerned about safety as they are about profits. And historically, wasn't that also true of mining and logging in Idaho?

Another extraction method is fracking and the leases recently sold throughout the state are also scary, especially when you note the increased earthquakes in Oklahoma from fracking.

Idaho is very vulnerable. We need to continue to support alternative sources of energy. Jobs, you say? I just read an article that green jobs have surpassed those in fossil energy. I will try to find it.

And I cannot imagine anyone becoming enraged or argumentative about this, other than it represents change.

1) You assume what G-d wants what to stay where.


2) You make valid points on concerns about the environmental concerns and as a hunter and fisherman the last thing I want to see is a destroyed and polluted environment. The reality of world until we get to point of alternative energy on a massive scale, we will continue to have these needs and concerns so the more awareness and due diligence on part of the public is crucial because left up to bureaucrats we are all doomed.

[Lacerta]

Idaho is generally pretty good on renewable resources. A very large percentage of our power comes from hydroelectric (which has it's faults, but is renewable), wind, solar, hydrothermal, etc. We probably have some of the cleanest power in the country, overall.


As for your points, I'm not a religious person, so #1 isn't a concern for me. But as for the rest, it should be enough that:
A. It is dirty and damages the immediate, short term environment
B. It damages the long term environment to extract it, to process it, AND to use it
C. The removal of some types can damage the foundation rock, leading effects like the huge sinkholes we have seen in recent years around the world.
D. Continuing to use some types of fossil fuels contributes to the financial well being of world powers that it would be much better if we didn't have to have any reliance on, to say the least.
E. Plus, as you said, it is a limited resource, and if we don't make more strides to move away from it over time, we will find ourselves out of resources and unprepared, with entire collapsed industries, which could collapse entire economies.
F. We have the technology NOW to move entirely away from fossil fuels. If we want to make it cost effective for everyone, we need to continue to advance those technologies.


I'm sure I could go clear through the alphabet if I thought about it long enough.

[Cnynrat]

I am not a religious person, but having been raised in the Christian tradition I do not believe that any Judeo-Christian religion has any prohibition against using the natural resources as we find them in the world. Perhaps some eastern religions may do so, but obviously that's not a prevalent viewpoint in our society.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would advocate continued use of fossil fuels if there was a realistic possibility of transitioning to renewable energy sources. The issue is that is not realistic today (beyond what is already done in terms of solar, hydro, etc.).

Any evaluation of technology must consider cost, and that is where renewable energy sources fail today. To take just one example, there is a huge amount of energy that goes into food production today. Energy Is a significant contributor to the cost of growing, harvesting, processing, and delivering food to market. The population of the earth has grown to its current level in part based on the current supply and cost of food. If we tried to move to renewable energy for food production we would significantly impact the cost and availability of food. The result would be mass starvation. Unless we want a repeat of what happened at Chaco Canyon when their food supply collapsed we would be wise not to move to renewables before the technology is fully mature.

One also needs to consider where energy is used. It's one thing to talk about domestic hot water, and entirely another to talk about vehicles. In many parts of the world it's quite feasible today to use solar for domestic hot water. However, renewables can not yet compete from a total cost and feasibility perspective when you think about powering a vehicle. Similarly, domestic solar electricity may work very well in the abundant sunshine of Arizona, but is much more challenging in the short and often cloudy days of a NID winter.

Regarding the risks of transporting oil by train through NID, the best way to mitigate that risk is by moving that oil by pipeline. The risks of a pipeline are orders of magnitude lower. That some people object to the trains, and then turn around and object to the pipeline is a case of people seeing the world as they wish it was rather than as it really is.

So I think the best question is how to move towards a future where renewables are feasible. I don't think forcing it before the technology is mature is the right answer. I also don't the the government funding companies works either. That just becomes crony capitalism where those in favor with the people in power get the money rather than those who may be most deserving. I believe the reality is that industry sees the potential for renewables, and the technology is far enough along that we don't need to provide artificial incentives. The investments will happen, and the technology will become mature in due course.

I believe that will take some time to transition the entire globe. Meanwhile, we should take reasonable steps to ensure a continued supply of fossil fuels in the safest and most cost effective manner possible.

Dave

[SelwaySasquatch]

Petroleum is not a "fossil" fuel, nor is it non-renewable,
but if I were in the business of selling it, which I'm not,
I would be okay with my buyers being under that delusion.
Search "abiotic petroleum", and prepare to be enlightened.

[C24L]

I do not think it is a sin or against the intent of God to use oil and gas.

[clearwater66]

Wind in Idaho

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Idaho

And those jobs

Nation's Fastest-Growing Job Only for Those Who Like to Get High - Bloomberg

And this is inspiring.

http://www.rnp.org/project_map

[volosong]

Originally Posted by clearwater66

And this is inspiring.

Renewable Energy Projects | Renewable Northwest

Too bad the nation cannot avail itself to one of the most reliable sources of geothermal energy on the planet . . . Yellowstone. Would solve a lot of energy problems. Of course, it will never happen, seeing as Yellowstone is the first national park in the world, having been established 144 years ago.


.

[aiden_is]

Originally Posted by volosong

Too bad the nation cannot avail itself to one of the most reliable sources of geothermal energy on the planet . . . Yellowstone. Would solve a lot of energy problems. Of course, it will never happen, seeing as Yellowstone is the first national park in the world, having been established 144 years ago.

Geothermal is awesome, but it's not portable, and it's very expensive. If you don't live in a mountain state, you have to look elsewhere.

The problem with energy sources like solar and wind is that they are not controllable. The electrical grids are not designed to store energy. So there's no capacity to handle the ebb and flow of wind and sun. Coal, natural gas, and other fuels, can be fed at a controlled rate, based on system loads which also vary during the day and year.

We've already dammed up everything in sight for hydro-electric. wind turbines kill all sorts of flying animals by the thousands every year, and solar farms aren't much better. So I kind of have the opinion that going green is evil in a different way. But since it's all relatively new and trendy, and doesn't have the track record of environmental catastrophes the way oil does, people give it the benefit of the doubt.

The honest truth is that we need cleaner nuclear technology. We need to crack nuclear fusion and ditch fission, and it seems that after all these decades of dancing around it, we are on the cusp of doing so. Fusion creates no long-term radioactive waste, has a small footprint relative to the size of fossil fuel plants and mega-acre wind / solar farms, and has a limitless fuel supply. And one of the nuclear facilities leading that research is Idaho National Labs in Idaho Falls.

EDIT: It was politely indicated to me that Volosong was responding to the map in his reply about geothermal energy. In which case yes, geothermal has a lot of potential. But from my perspective, region-specific energy technologies are a dead end. They require unique technological advancements, using localized environmental conditions as the fuel source. If humanity as a WHOLE is to move forward, we need to find a clean fuel source that everyone has in abundance. And I think Idaho is helping in that movement.