Massive Fracking Plan Near Yellowstone National Park Threatens Wildlife, Air Quality, Climate

[Kilgore Trout]

According to the CA Energy Commission, from 2006 to 2016, solar and wind use went way up. Coal, large hydro and gas went down.

CA Energy Mix 2006
CA Energy Mix 2016

Those 41,825 GW of "Unspecified Sources of Power" in 2016; What do you think they came from? Unicorn farts?

When more than 14% of the total is suddenly 'unknown', that makes me think that someone is trying to hide something.

Sorry, I didn't notice the "unspecified" section. I agree that it's probably going to be gas and coal. Unicorn farts are clearly included in the "wind" category, however.

 

[dismal]

I think the main takeaway here is that if you live in the USA fracking is a big source of your energy already so it's probable you're already dead.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah it's not the greedy corporations making decisions to destroy the planet, it's consumers whose fault it is after being lied to by the corporate marketing campaigns.

If consumers saved a lot of energy then demand would go down so the corporations would not need to supply as much gas. Isn't that just basic logic? Now whether consumers want to save energy is another story...

Yes but the probability of making a rational decision about it are less when one is dealing with faulty premises which is my point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to the CA Energy Commission, from 2006 to 2016, solar and wind use went way up. Coal, large hydro and gas went down.

CA Energy Mix 2006
CA Energy Mix 2016

Those 41,825 GW of "Unspecified Sources of Power" in 2016; What do you think they came from? Unicorn farts?

When more than 14% of the total is suddenly 'unknown', that makes me think that someone is trying to hide something.

Or maybe that 41TW of power is imported from other states and they don't know what the source is. Doesn't mean it isn't gas.

- - - Updated - - -

Those 41,825 GW of "Unspecified Sources of Power" in 2016; What do you think they came from? Unicorn farts?

When more than 14% of the total is suddenly 'unknown', that makes me think that someone is trying to hide something.

Sorry, I didn't notice the "unspecified" section. I agree that it's probably going to be gas and coal. Unicorn farts are clearly included in the "wind" category, however.

Wind? Not biomass?

 

[TV and credit cards]

But it doesn't need to be _more_ energy than before, just at different times. If you have 5% of your fuel need filled by wind, that's 5% you didn't need to burn. If it can only do 5% because of clouds, then the gas that need to be burned is still 5% less gas than before the wind turbine contributed 5%. Why would there be an INCREASE in gas burning because wind is taking some of the burden?

So now you only need gas on cloudy days. Before, you needed it every day. That's less overall gas.

Gas powers combined cycle turbines that can be turned on and off very quickly. This makes it a good technology to pair with a variable input supply like wind.

The use of gas goes up with wind because you are replacing coal with wind/gas combined.

Wind plus solar plus geothermal plus various storage solutions is an ultimate goal but gas is needed until the storage issue can be fixed.

Exactly. We have to remember, this industry is in transition and the combination of renewables with natural gas backup is supporting the energy needs during this transition, and the argument against renewables. This transitional phase will be around for, well.. as long as there are republicans capable of putting up roadblocks to the future.
One other argument against baseload power generation is that of security. I think it's easy to see it is advantageous for a nation to move away from these large centralized targets, be it a power generator or control center.

Those 41,825 GW of "Unspecified Sources of Power" in 2016; What do you think they came from? Unicorn farts?

When more than 14% of the total is suddenly 'unknown', that makes me think that someone is trying to hide something.

Or maybe that 41TW of power is imported from other states and they don't know what the source is. Doesn't mean it isn't gas.

Most likely is. Electricity providers buy and sell with each other all the time to balance their load. They have their own commodities market going on, vying for the best price possible. Another wasteful relic of an old industry of shipping power across multiple states.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most likely is. Electricity providers buy and sell with each other all the time to balance their load. They have their own commodities market going on, vying for the best price possible. Another wasteful relic of an old industry of shipping power across multiple states.

Why do you call it a relic? Shipping power around reduces the needed amount of redundancy and thus saves money.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't understand how that works. Let's say 5% of energy comes from solar. Then later we improve that to 10%. Why do you need more gas than before?

Because when the sun goes behind a cloud what takes over has to be gas or hydro.

I'm sure some day we'll invent a technology that can store energy created by solar.

 

[dismal]

Because when the sun goes behind a cloud what takes over has to be gas or hydro.

I'm sure some day we'll invent a technology that can store energy created by solar.

You mean like coal?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Most likely is. Electricity providers buy and sell with each other all the time to balance their load. They have their own commodities market going on, vying for the best price possible. Another wasteful relic of an old industry of shipping power across multiple states.

Why do you call it a relic? Shipping power around reduces the needed amount of redundancy and thus saves money.

If we loose slow start up/shut down nuclear and coal fired for renewables backed up by gas (for now), the grid can be more easily and frequently throttled to maintain stability requiring less long distance transmissions (buying and selling) where the line losses average 6.5%

 

[Elixir]

Here's a thought - might be appropriate for Yellowstone.

Iceland drills hottest hole to tap into energy of molten magma

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm sure some day we'll invent a technology that can store energy created by solar.

You mean like coal?

I'll be impressed if you can collect energy using solar panels and turn that into coal.

But I was thinking about something kind of like a battery.

 

[bilby]

You mean like coal?

I'll be impressed if you can collect energy using solar panels and turn that into coal.

But I was thinking about something kind of like a battery.

We already have a technology that can capture and store solar energy; It's called 'trees'. Coal is trees that have held the stored energy for some time.

There are lots of battery technologies out there; None are even CLOSE to being able to provide sufficient storage, at a low enough cost, to make large-scale wind and solar power viable, with the possible exception of pumped-storage hydropower - and there simply are not enough suitable sites for pumped-storage to be significantly increased much beyond the existing capacity.

If you want reliable, carbon neutral, and reasonably priced electricity on a suitable scale for a developed nation, the only good option is nuclear power - and nuclear power is hands-down the best way of making large scale electricity ever devised, by pretty much every single measure you can imagine other than popularity and public perception.

It's cleaner than coal, it's many thousands of times less dangerous than coal; it's more reliable than coal (has a higher capacity factor); It produces many orders of magnitude less toxic waste than coal; It's competitive with coal on price (despite needless and crippling regulatory compliance costs that coal plants don't have to match); It uses fuel that is more abundant than coal; It uses fuel that's far safer to mine than coal; the plants have a longer useful service life, with less or similar maintenance and running costs than coal plants. But despite all this, people are (needlessly) terrified of it.

Meanwhile people tolerate continued use of coal for power on a massive scale; and they just love solar power (unreliable, low capacity factor, massive toxic waste production in manufacturing of panels, short serviceable life, no recycling ability for decommissioned panels) and windmills (unreliable, low capacity factor, massive toxic waste production in manufacturing of magnets for generators, short serviceable life, unsightly, kills birds); Both of these also require either gas power as backup, or massively expensive and polluting storage facilities in addition to the already polluting manufacturing of the generators themselves, or large numbers of new hydroelectic pumped-storage dams to be built flooding huge areas of land, generating greenhouse gasses, and putting millions of lives at needless risk. (see Banqiao Dam for an example.

If 60-100 deaths from Chernobyl make you think twice, then 116 children and 28 adults at Aberfan (coal), the 191 dead at Chongqing in 2003 (gas), and the 171,000 dead and 11 million homeless at Banqiao (hydro) should turn your hair gray - because the thing these accidents have in common (other than a larger death toll than Chernobyl) is that A) Unlike Chernobyl, they are far from being the only examples of fatal accidents for these technologies; B) Unlike Chernobyl, they are not particularly well known; and C) Unlike Chernobyl, nobody even suggests for a second that we should restrict, close down, or even more closely regulate, these deadly industries as a result of their many fatal accidents.

Suggest building a gas power plant, and nobody says 'But what about Accra?' (7 dead; 132 injured). Suggest building a hydro plant, and nobody says 'But what about Sayano–Shushenskaya Dam?' (75 dead). Suggest building a coal power plant, and nobody mentions the eight to ten deaths each year in coal mines in the USA alone, or the estimated 9 million people per annum killed by air pollution. But hint at keeping a perfectly good nuclear power plant open until the end of its design life, and people say 'But what about Fukushima?' (Death toll zero, 2 minor injuries, second worst accident in the history of the industry).

People are really not very smart. Particularly when doing risk-benefit analysis.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Here's a thought - might be appropriate for Yellowstone.

Iceland drills hottest hole to tap into energy of molten magma

This is definitely the opening scene in some kind of monster movie. If Iceland weren't also the global leader in giant robot technology, I'd be somewhat concerned right now.

 

[Derec]

The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club lodged formal comments with the federal government Monday opposing a massive gas fracking project that spans 220 square miles of public land in Wyoming south of Yellowstone National Park.

Whether or not this is a good project or not, the fact that Sierra Club is against it does not really say much.
It's like Andrea Dworkin not liking a porn flick. She'd be against it no matter the quality.

Not to mention near a super volcano.

The Normally Pressured Lance gas field is nowhere close to the caldera. In fact, it is ~150 miles away. And there are other gas fields in southwest Wyoming too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you want reliable, carbon neutral, and reasonably priced electricity on a suitable scale for a developed nation, the only good option is nuclear power - and nuclear power is hands-down the best way of making large scale electricity ever devised, by pretty much every single measure you can imagine other than popularity and public perception.

I agree 100%. Nuclear is the way to go.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you want reliable, carbon neutral, and reasonably priced electricity on a suitable scale for a developed nation, the only good option is nuclear power - and nuclear power is hands-down the best way of making large scale electricity ever devised, by pretty much every single measure you can imagine other than popularity and public perception.

I agree 100%. Nuclear is the way to go.

But in most developed nations (if not all, depending on how you count "developed"; it will work in, say, China), that's not doable in practice, mostly due to public opposition. Convincing the public has so far proven ineffective; I don't think that's likely to change any time soon.

 

[sharon45]

If consumers saved a lot of energy then demand would go down so the corporations would not need to supply as much gas. Isn't that just basic logic? Now whether consumers want to save energy is another story...

Yes but the probability of making a rational decision about it are less when one is dealing with faulty premises which is my point.

I don't have a belief in global warming, but I also can't honestly say that it isn't real either, yet I do take energy saving a lot more seriously than most anyway. I didn't have a car until I was 28 years old, and I only put on an average of about 4,000 miles a year for 10 years. Then I got rid of it, and hadn't had a car for another 14 years, until just February of this year. I also get by during the winter without heating and the summer without air conditioning.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not to mention near a super volcano.

The Normally Pressured Lance gas field is nowhere close to the caldera. In fact, it is ~150 miles away. And there are other gas fields in southwest Wyoming too.

Okay to just give it a little shake now and then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9317_Oklahoma_earthquake_swarms

 

[Shadowy Man]

I agree 100%. Nuclear is the way to go.

But in most developed nations (if not all, depending on how you count "developed"; it will work in, say, China), that's not doable in practice, mostly due to public opposition. Convincing the public has so far proven ineffective; I don't think that's likely to change any time soon.

No doubt it's unpopular, but it'd make a huge impact on the problem.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But in most developed nations (if not all, depending on how you count "developed"; it will work in, say, China), that's not doable in practice, mostly due to public opposition. Convincing the public has so far proven ineffective; I don't think that's likely to change any time soon.

No doubt it's unpopular, but it'd make a huge impact on the problem.

Sure, if it were implemented. But I don't see a practical way to implement it (in the US, Western Europe, etc.), given opposition. China, Russia and others aren't affected and will move forward with nuclear development, though.