Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No opinion as of yet but this is what I've been reading about the subject.
Risks and Concerns of Fracking
Contamination of groundwater
Methane pollution and its impact on climate change
Air pollution impacts
Exposure to toxic chemicals
Blowouts due to gas explosion
Waste disposal
Large volume water use in water-deficient regions
Fracking-induced earthquakes
Workplace safety
Infrastructure degradation
Like gasoline, electric energy must be stored on the vehicle (at least with most current EV technology). You've only addressed part of the capacity program. The far bigger - and more environmentally important factor - is the materials required to manufacture an EV power cell. A ICE car requires a small amount of sheet metal. An EV requires a significant amount of Lithium - which is not renewable. You need to look at the whole problem.
I was answering a question about where the electricity would come from, not how the electricity will be stored. Turns out companies that have a vested interest in battery storage are spending a lot of time and money thinking about those issues. No need to be condescending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
being ypu "seem" to be very knowledgeable on the sibject, what are we going to do with all the OLD batteries?
We spent BILLIONS on a safe place for nuclear waste and obama banned opening it..
If we get another dem president what do you think they are going to do wit all the old batteries??
EV batteries use lithium. Guess where lithium comes from? You got it! Under the ground! Like any method used to acquire fossil fuels, the acquisition of lithium negatively impacts the environment. There is no free lunch. Ask yourself, giving the choice between fracking or a huge lithium mine in your backyard, which would you pick?
Speaking of...
Remember when Trump suggested buying Greenland and was derided for it?
This is why.
The Chinese are already mining lithium in Greenland. We’re way behind.
I was answering a question about where the electricity would come from, not how the electricity will be stored. Turns out companies that have a vested interest in battery storage are spending a lot of time and money thinking about those issues. No need to be condescending.
It wasn't my intention to sound condescending - my intention was to point out that there's more to the issue than simply where the electricity comes from. That being said, I can certainly see how my post could come off as condescending - especially the last sentence. The word "you" wasn't the best choice.
I STRONGLY support. Fracking has allowed us to produce far more natural gas at an affordable rate. This in turn has allowed us to convert some of our coal-fired power plants to NG. More importantly it has allowed much more domestic oil production, reducing our dependence on imported oil. It has resulted in a major decrease in the price of oil, which helped stimulate the economy in all sectors. And finally, it helped create hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
But then, I'm not afraid of science and technology, nor readily panicked by fabricated stories in our MSM like so many are.
Oil prices go down, fracking slows down. Self-correcting market that doesn't need anyone banning it. Just regulations making sure groundwater is protected.
We've been hearing that we'll have fusion power available "in 5 years"-since the 1960s. It's no more ready to be a viable alternative to conventional fuels than wind or solar are. With wind and solar, the killer is the unsustained output, and lack of any way of storing "grid level" power for times when the wind dies down or the sun doesn't shine. We double our investment to have fossil fuel backup for unreliable renewables.
It wasn't my intention to sound condescending - my intention was to point out that there's more to the issue than simply where the electricity comes from. That being said, I can certainly see how my post could come off as condescending - especially the last sentence. The word "you" wasn't the best choice.
No worries, I'm pre-caffeine and a little cranky. Core of my thought process is that a lot changes in 20 years, and investments in formations and wells requires confidence in supply/demand balance - especially given the shorter life of a fracked well. I don't expect us to be wholesale EV in 20 years, but I don't know that I'd be comfortable putting investment dollars into new crude production if EVs are gaining steady (perhaps accelerating) share in transportation globally. In other words, the trend toward EV could break confidence in oil production as it moves along even if it is incomplete, and we might as well produce the oil we can when we still have confidence in a market for it.
...I do have my concerns, however, it's been a dozen or so years since Fracking has become one of the main sources of energy harvesting and we have yet to see the alleged devastating effects from environmental to health. I still think the jury is out. However, energy independence from the most volatile area on the planet is a great thing.
This is where I'm at. We don't know the long term effects, on one hand.
It can pollute water, it can affect wildlife, ruin the landscape...all of these are "can", so until we have definitive proof one way or the other, we don't have enough data.
On the other hand, not relying on other countries to feed us our energy, is a good thing. We can mind our own business instead of throwing soldiers out there to die for liquid gold.
I do tend to think that we do a lot that causes destruction to the earth where it was not necessary, but keep in mind when reading what I just wrote that I also don't like that we have huge concrete jungles where there used to be forests and wildlife. No, I don't like cities - honestly not a huge fan of the Industrial Revolution. Yes, it's brought us some good things, but it's also caused a lot of problems.
I can't vote in the poll because I'm right in the middle on this, at the present time.
Living in the middle of the Frack capitol of the world (Oklahoma) we have had to consider this situation carefully.
Without fracking we cannot reach the oil and natural gas that are really the only reason our state has any prosperity (and that's only when the market dictates activity) however during the last boom we saw the downsides of fracking with all the negatives that have been described earlier in the thread plus the earthquakes we started getting due to wastewater disposal issues (that were a bi product of fracking). The earthquakes got to be fairly frequent, reasonably severe, and caused millions in property damage over time.
As a result, even some hard core conservatives joined with moderates and liberals (who of course are against fracking) to demand that the oil companies practices change. And they did. And the problems of fracking decreased significantly.
All it took was for conservatives to admit there was a problem in the first place, and for liberals to compromise on the solution which still allows for fracking to exist. And while it costs the oil industry more money to operate, they bask in the good will of the people here who appreciate that we don't have frickin' earthquakes twice a week anymore.
But the compromise made me realize that it is still possible for the different sides to work together. Something we don't see much of anymore.
I support it. That said I also support the tax credit for wind energy. There's enough land in the great plains to make America energy independent from a combination of sources, and enough windy areas in the western great plains to derive a huge percentage of our energy from wind, provided we get the powerlines to transport it. If we're going to blow trillions of dollars in stimulus money, why not build a nation that is energy independent from clean sources? Put people to work getting it done. If I was president, these are the kind of things I would think of, rather than "pay people to not work" .. hell I'd pay them $30-40/hour to do the work.
The problem is corporations move at the speed of government... to go from planning stage to completed project is a decade long affair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
