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.
This is a prime example of the area that would open up for development if I68 were extended to Moundsville. The entire western Monongalia, Wetzel, and Marshall county areas would benefit greatly, and they have the wet gas resources to make it happen.
Yep, it would definetly hasten the impending ecological disaster. Once all this stuff is built, knowing how backwards and sold out Charleston is, they will say, **** it, we are already too far along to stop...
The only ecological disaster is strip mining. That actually does cause permanent damage. All the other claims are bogus. One vulcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than mankind is capable of doing in an entire year. The earth wabbles on its axis and that causes climate variations. It has done that since the beginning of the earth.
It doesn't matter. Most of those claims are just plain bogus. Gasses come and gasses go. Even burning the rain forests, which does cause short term damage, is not really that significant in terms of the earth. There is a whole industry built up around these rediculous alarmist notions.
Natural gas production produces methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Natural gas is in no way a clean fuel.
Natural gas is methane (mostly). Other than leaks and intentional venting, the amount of methane release should be very small. And when it is burned, the by-products are CO2 and H2O.
Clean is, of course, relative. While more potent (compared to CO2) in terms of trapping solar radiation, methane affects the atmosphere for a much shorter length of time (12 years, vs 100-500 years for CO2).
Unfortunately, much of the "new" natural gas will be going to fuel power plants, which could just as easily be fueled by coal or nuclear, both of which we have in greater abundance than natural gas.
Exactly, which goes to the insanity of the policies promulgated by government. We build the more expensive plants, driving up production costs here and pushing jobs to cheap labor countries. They build cheaper coal fired plants but have no restrictions at all in place. That way, not only do they take our jobs, they also cause much more pollution than if we had burned the coal here. It is lose-lose, but the feel good guys will feel good that they certainly have punched our local workers in the chin. The big money guys could care less because they will trade the coal to China in exchange for the cheap labor and make even more money.
Exactly, which goes to the insanity of the policies promulgated by government. We build the more expensive plants, driving up production costs here and pushing jobs to cheap labor countries. They build cheaper coal fired plants but have no restrictions at all in place. That way, not only do they take our jobs, they also cause much more pollution than if we had burned the coal here. It is lose-lose, but the feel good guys will feel good that they certainly have punched our local workers in the chin. The big money guys could care less because they will trade the coal to China in exchange for the cheap labor and make even more money.
The future, however, will rely far more heavily on a DEcentralized grid structure where cities and towns provide most of their own electricity through smaller scale plants and energy efficiency gains. The states that have set the renewable portfolio standard at a higher percentage of total electric generation have seen far greater level of investment in all alternate forms of energy. The negative of this boom in natural gas is that prices have collapsed, but that doesn't mean that technological advances in wind and solar will drive prices even lower themselves.
There is no way, with anything even closely resembling current technology, that "alternative" energy can even come close to meeting energy demand.
What you are saying is the big money guys, the Rockefellers and the Brooklyn elitists, will just hand over energy production to every little town in New Hampshire. That just isn't going to happen. If you want to know where we are headed in the future, you can always follow the money.
I lived for years in Connecticut. While there, I listened to incessant complaints from locals about "coal fired" power plants and "acid rain". I lived in a town of around 20,000 that didn't even have a public water supply or public sewage. They were so backward they had septic tanks and wells often polluted with septic water (you actually had to have your water tested every year... the town paid for it). Just about everyone there heated their homes with oil. They used hundreds of gallons of oil every year for heating, but complained about coal fired power plants.
The local governments in Connecticut were too cheap to build water and sewage systems, or to put in an infrastructure for natural gas. The result, in addition to a hugely expensive heating bill for the average resident, was far more pollution than is caused by coal fired plants. And, areas that have coal produced electricity generally heat with less polluting natural gas. The feel gooders were not only making more noise, they were also making more pollution and living less healthy lives. Their pseudo moral superiority position was on bogus ground from the start.
There is no way, with anything even closely resembling current technology, that "alternative" energy can even come close to meeting energy demand.
What you are saying is the big money guys, the Rockefellers and the Brooklyn elitists, will just hand over energy production to every little town in New Hampshire. That just isn't going to happen. If you want to know where we are headed in the future, you can always follow the money.
I lived for years in Connecticut. While there, I listened to incessant complaints from locals about "coal fired" power plants and "acid rain". I lived in a town of around 20,000 that didn't even have a public water supply or public sewage. They were so backward they had septic tanks and wells often polluted with septic water (you actually had to have your water tested every year... the town paid for it). Just about everyone there heated their homes with oil. They used hundreds of gallons of oil every year for heating, but complained about coal fired power plants.
The local governments in Connecticut were too cheap to build water and sewage systems, or to put in an infrastructure for natural gas. The result, in addition to a hugely expensive heating bill for the average resident, was far more pollution than is caused by coal fired plants. And, areas that have coal produced electricity generally heat with less polluting natural gas. The feel gooders were not only making more noise, they were also making more pollution and living less healthy lives. Their pseudo moral superiority position was on bogus ground from the start.
NH elite? No, not in the vast majority of the state
In rural areas with VERY LOW population density most housing will have a well and septic. The only way you get the natural gas lines built to service cities is through high density/bigger urban cities.
Yes, the fact that many areas of the NE have a continued reliance on heating oil is a big problem. However, many people have moved to wood pellets and propane for heating. The majority of newer construction housing in rural areas is heated entirely by propane or a stove for a backup heat source. You can't build or can the towns fund the construction of any natural gas lines when most of the people live miles out of town on gravel and dirt roads.
The CLEAN AIR ACT basically cleaned up a lot of the coal plant pollution that streamed directly into the Northeast DOWNWIND from the Midwest, Ohio Valley, and Appalachian coal plants- many of which were very old and grandfathered into the system.
"There is no way, with anything even closely resembling current technology, that "alternative" energy can even come close to meeting energy demand."
Incorrect. Either Iowa or Minnesota will produce 30-40% of all electricity generated by renewables by 2020 and the total percentage will continue to increase. Indiana, by comparison, 97% of all electricity generated comes from coal. Different states- different priorities- completely different outcomes.
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.
