The Corbett Memorial Day Patriot Fly (MS Drilling Exec. Order)

Gone4Day wrote:
Biggie wrote:
Can someone explain to me why, if we are the only state that doesn't tax the gas from fracking, and we start to tax it, why won't my natural gas bill go up. The gas company is not going to take the hit, it will be everyone who uses it.........
Click to expand...
With a severance tax rather then an an extraction tax. In a severance tax, only the O&G that leaves the state is taxed. Thus the residents, and voters, are not taxed.
Click to expand...

Ultimately consumers pay the tax. It impacts electric bills, costs of goods manufactured in the area, and eventually increases the cost of heating with gas as the market prices end up reflecting the overall costs.
 
Was just writing a midterm for my environmental sciences class and found this picture while searching for diagrams. I think it explains the proposal perfectly.

HydroFracking.png
 
This whole tread makes me realize how I no longer give #censor#.
 
Demand is only high because we have refused to come up with the money and the will to provide a viable and affordable alternative. It's no surprise when you see who lobbies the politicians.
It's almost like there are a few words that describe all of this.
 
Sal,
I'm curious which alternative energy you feel the research money may go into. It seems that all of the alternatives have a negative that will be detrimental, either in 10 years, or in 200 years. Either there's pollution in some form now, or our children's children's children will have to deal with disposing of a spent fuel source. It is unfortunate that we need heat for such a large part of the year.
 
Keith,

I really don't know the answers to that question.
I would think more research should be put into clean energy.
My only point was, we should have invested in this long ago and the change will never come about while we allow big corporations to sway politicians with money to serve their interests.

We are killing this planet at an alarming rate and no one will be here one day to burn the surplus of gas we have if we don't find another way.
 
There are tens to hundreds of billions of dollars invested in R&D for alternative energy solutions. It's not a question of pumping more money into R&D with maybe a very few exceptions. (Such as nuclear alternative) Most of the ideas don't pan out as either too costly or not scale-able. About the only non-hydrocarbon that can scale is nuclear. And that is not a complete solution for vehicles.

Solutions that would double or triple the cost of energy would tank the economy. If we want to continue anywhere near what we have today we need to use natural gas.
 
No offense Sal, but who do you think is investing the most money into "clean energy"? Its the same companies that you're demonizing. Oil and gas companies, as Pcray has pointed out many times, aren't "big oil" companies, they're "big energy". They're leading the front on investing in alternative energy sources. If "clean energy" was sustainable and viable, you bet your butt they'd be selling to us.
 
You don't think think that's maybe part of the problem Sasquatch?

Actually renewable engery investments fell last year by almost 22 billion. Most of the largest investors have little to do with the oil companies you say Iam demonizing. The private sector is actually pulling more for clean energy.

Wonder why?

I've done some reading on this in the past year.

Look I'm not saying all these companies are bad but what's the incentive while they are raking in record profits? Rhetorical question.
 
All Iam trying to express really is it's not happening fast enough.
If I had a button that would kill our way of life and set us back in colonial times, I would probably push it. We need to change , I don't have the answers but we need to change as fast as we can.

When I see so much money wasted, our government wasting it, we the people wasting it and ceo's with unreasonable bonus all while our planet dies then it's obvious we have not done enough.

Meanwhile look at all the permit for tar sand in Canada waiting to be rubber stamped.

Won't be our worry but our children's , Andy.
 
It's not happening fast enough 'cause there's nothing there yet. No one has the solution to get off fossil fuels. That's the problem. There is no viable, economically sound solution. We fall for stupid memes of people building solar panel roads and all that junk, but no real sustainable solutions. I wouldn't knock the profits, because profit will be what drives these companies to really push something. As soon as the technology is developed/discovered AND it's affordable to everyone, is viable, reliable, desirable, it will also be profitable. The profit IS the incentive. Your question isn't rhetorical. What's the incentive? To fill the demand of the private sector, thus leading to profit. If the free market wants renewable energy, as you say they do and I tend to believe most of us probably do, if the demand is there, then that means there is a profit to be made by fulfilling the demand. The energy companies don't care where the profit comes from, as long as its a profit. Profit comes from providing a product to fulfill the wants/needs/desires of the free market/private sector.

The problem is there is NOTHING to fill the demand. The product simply does not exist.

Well, it does in nuclear energy, but you know, fear mongering is pretty much ruining that for everyone.
 
Andy,

I understand that. So I guess the answer is to completely kill the entire planet until we find one but yet, let's just invest less into it.
Makes total sense.
 
No, I think the answer is to keep improving till we find one.

 
Wind mills and geothermal vents.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
The improvement by year
Click to expand...

The bulk of the improvement shown on the chart was due to the 2008 crash and continued loss of manufacturing.

Electricity generated from natural gas runs about 6 cents a KWH and wind runs 10 to 11. Most solar systems have a negative payback if the subsidies are excluded. Subsidies can't be sustained on a source that grows to any meaningful size.

As discussed in several threads on this forum wind and solar have high peak to average generating rates. That means the transmission system must be sized for the peak (as in more expensive) while it only delivers a significantly lower average. This alone handicaps the approach. Then there is the issue of generating peaks that don't match usage peaks.

If we exclude the global warming debate the environment is much cleaner than 50 - 75 years ago. Natural gas is much less impacting than oil extraction which was much less impacting than coal. Our rivers and streams are much cleaner as well. If you take a big picture view we are on an improving trend. Not a declining trend.

As to global warming there is much debate despite what the politicians say. Even if we accept the IPCC report the future temperature rises are already going to happen regardless if we cut emissions by a couple percent. There are even scientists that suggest the earth would be better off slightly warmer as it could increase food growing capacity.

The one downside I do see with the CO2 emissions that already happened is the acidification of the oceans. But again the IPCC report essentially says thats a done deal.

There just isn't a cost effective, non-CO2 emitting energy source that will make a difference. Of the other choices we have natural gas is one of the best.
 
franklin wrote:
If we exclude the global warming debate the environment is much cleaner than 50 - 75 years ago. Natural gas is much less impacting than oil extraction which was much less impacting than coal. Our rivers and streams are much cleaner as well. If you take a big picture view we are on an improving trend. Not a declining trend.

As to global warming there is much debate despite what the politicians say. Even if we accept the IPCC report the future temperature rises are already going to happen regardless if we cut emissions by a couple percent. There are even scientists that suggest the earth would be better off slightly warmer as it could increase food growing capacity.

The one downside I do see with the CO2 emissions that already happened is the acidification of the oceans. But again the IPCC report essentially says thats a done deal.

There just isn't a cost effective, non-CO2 emitting energy source that will make a difference. Of the other choices we have natural gas is one of the best.
Click to expand...

You got it. Most of the damage has already been done. The scientists of the IPCC (of which I am/was one) are warning of the geographic/socialogical changes attributing to climate change. We're projected to get more rain here on the East Coast. Good for farms, bad for floods.

As I tell my class, the dries will get drier, the wets wetter, the hots hotter, the colds colder, and the storms stormier.
 
If we exclude the global warming debate the environment is much cleaner than 50 - 75 years ago.
Click to expand...

Franklin,
I don't have the time right now but this is absurd. The Pacific Ocean is leaking radiation alone. Honey bees will be extinct so get ready for your lab grown GMO apples. Global warming is real. I dunno how you could even make this statement.

I feel like certain things in our environment have gotten better but there is far more worse than good.
 
Please explain to me how most of the damage is done?
It's just begun

http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/environment-all/crisis-situations/item/532-kiribati-the-country-killed-by-climate-change#k2Container
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top