Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

Natural Gas Drilling / Fracking in Ohio

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Natural Gas Drilling / Fracking in Ohio

This topic contains 719 replies, has 68 voices, and was last updated by News News 6 days, 13 hours ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 720 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #426393

    pedex
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    I don’t believe that for a moment.

    Even if one could quantify in an objective manner ( HA! ) some external cost not directly associated with production or distribution ( because those costs are already figured into the price, yes? ) then you’d still have a long way to go to factor those costs into the final product.

    no, they are not priced in at all and that is part of the problem and the list of things not included is huge

    #426394
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pedex said:
    no, they are not priced in at all and that is part of the problem and the list of things not included is huge

    Because there are no environmental compliance costs with drilling now?

    Or just not expensive expensive enough to make the desired alternatives cost competitive?

    Part of the problem I have with that line of thought is that some seem to start the discussion with the idea that modern life has to end, at least in it’s current form. That’s when ideas like “tax them out of existence” ( where “them” is conventional energy of one form or another ). Seems like it’s not so much about finding solutions to existing problems but just destroying the existing structure.

    Not to say environmental compliance costs related to energy production are all bad; I’m not in favor of a new era of Soviet style environmental policy ( read: no environmental considerations at all ), but I don’t believe in a predatory regulatory environment designed to drive out segments of the industry.

    #426395

    pedex
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Because there are no environmental compliance costs with drilling now?

    Or just not expensive expensive enough to make the desired alternatives cost competitive?

    Part of the problem I have with that line of thought is that some seem to start the discussion with the idea that modern life has to end, at least in it’s current form. That’s when ideas like “tax them out of existence” ( where “them” is conventional energy of one form or another ). Seems like it’s not so much about finding solutions to existing problems but just destroying the existing structure.

    Not to say environmental compliance costs related to energy production are all bad; I’m not in favor of a new era of Soviet style environmental policy ( read: no environmental considerations at all ), but I don’t believe in a predatory regulatory environment designed to drive out segments of the industry.

    environmental is only a tiny little piece

    oil related subsidies are woven right into our banking system, foreign policy, domestic regulatory and tax policy

    Plus there is all the other related costs which allow us to burn the fuel somewhere which are also subsidized heavily. Our entire transportation and agriculture sectors are also subsidized so they can escape the actual costs of being fossil fuel based industries.

    Back in the 50′s the US started using govt subsidies and regulations to over ride the markets most efficient choice of available modes of transportation. Doing things like that has costs and consequences even if you bury them somewhere else. Regulations and govt interference cut both ways, be careful what you wish for, without them you wouldn’t be driving.

    #426396
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pedex said:
    environmental is only a tiny little piece

    oil related subsidies are woven right into our banking system, foreign policy, domestic regulatory and tax policy

    Plus there is all the other related costs which allow us to burn the fuel somewhere which are also subsidized heavily. Our entire transportation and agriculture sectors are also subsidized so they can escape the actual costs of being fossil fuel based industries.

    Back in the 50′s the US started using govt subsidies and regulations to over ride the markets most efficient choice of available modes of transportation. Doing things like that has costs and consequences even if you bury them somewhere else. Regulations and govt interference cut both ways, be careful what you wish for, without them you wouldn’t be driving.

    So, basically your argument is that the entire use of fossil fuel by the US ( humanity? ) is that it’s a creation of government subsidy?

    I don’t think I’m reading you right… but that’s how I’m reading you?

    #426397

    pedex
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    So, basically your argument is that the entire use of fossil fuel by the US ( humanity? ) is that it’s a creation of government subsidy?

    I don’t think I’m reading you right… but that’s how I’m reading you?

    No, the price is far lower at the pump than what it really costs because the govt subsidizes usage and activities that use it and also involves our banking and foreign policy which doesn’t show at the pump either.

    W/o govt interference and the various subsidies gasoline would cost multiples of what it does now and accordingly we’d be using far less of it and quite likely with different priorities too.

    #426398
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pedex said:
    No, the price is far lower at the pump than what it really costs because the govt subsidizes usage and activities that use it and also involves our banking and foreign policy which doesn’t show at the pump either.

    W/o govt interference and the various subsidies gasoline would cost multiples of what it does now and accordingly we’d be using far less of it and quite likely with different priorities too.

    Can’t say I buy that; take a lot more data to make that case.

    But hey, for the sake of argument let’s say the situation is exactly like that. That leaves a population conditioned by 60+ years of such policy. Hell of a lot of inertia to work against.

    #426399

    pedex
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    why? this is econ 101 stuff and simply understanding how subsidies work and where they are used as well as how our banking system works

    hell our history is littered with examples of price fluctuations due to these factors

    #426400
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pedex said:
    why? this is econ 101 stuff and simply understanding how subsidies work and where they are used as well as how our banking system works

    hell our history is littered with examples of price fluctuations due to these factors

    Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but it reads like you’re positing some sort of grand conspiracy to eliminate some previous holy state of existence ( biking, communal living, drum circles, whatever ). Maybe I’ve been reading too much crazy of late.

    Are there subsidies to the energy sector today in various forms? Of course. Guess one could extrapolate some of that to the banking sector.

    Then there’s this argument for removing all energy subsidies, which contains a bit germane to the topic:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html

    The first trend, a real game changer, is the discovery in recent years that America is sitting on many decades’ worth of exploitable natural gas. Natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal. Although its extraction poses threats to underground water supplies in some places, these can be managed with proper regulation and are in any event much less serious than the environmental threats posed by coal mining. Gas is also more cheaply and safely transported. It can be moved to power plants through underground pipelines, unlike coal, which requires heavy trucks and trains to struggle over mountain ranges. And it is every bit as abundant as coal, if not more so, and as widely dispersed geographically. Since the late 1980s, natural gas has been the fuel of choice for the majority of new electricity-generating plants constructed in the United States. Over the next forty years, nearly all of America’s existing coal-fired power plants will reach the end of their useful lives, and a significant portion of them will probably be replaced by cleaner-burning natural gas facilities, especially if the subsidies that buoy the coal industry today are allowed to expire. Now that adequate supplies are assured for the future, a lot of investors are betting that natural gas will gradually replace coal as the dominant fuel in the electricity-generation sector. This trend by itself will significantly lower America’s carbon footprint by 2050.

    And this bit, which is along the lines of what I was saying previously:

    The government tax credits were valuable to support the industry in its infancy, but the solar and wind industries can, and will need to, become cost competitive. In the past few years, the prices of solar photovoltaic modules have fallen in the United States by more than 50 percent, and the efficiency of large wind turbines has increased dramatically. This provides great hope that, with a level playing field, and if they do not get “addicted” to subsidies like so many other energy industries are, solar and wind will be able to compete and grow to generate some 20 to 25 percent of America’s electricity in the next few decades.

    That article is a bit outdated, since the ethanol subsidy expired:

    https://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144605485/congress-ends-era-of-ethanol-subsidies

    I don’t care at all about carbon footprints, but plentiful energy sounds good to me. I do like that there’s someone else who’s noticed that alternative energy isn’t cost efficient and that there’s limitations to existing energy storage technology.

    Getting back to natural gas and fracking: seems like it’s necessary. Doesn’t mean there aren’t down sides that require some mitigation, but there’s good arguments for it.

    #426401

    pedex
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    no

    just pointing out how the system works

    list the subsidies and who pays for them
    list the external costs
    list the banking arrangement components and look at its history
    foreign policy factors
    list the factors involved in pricing gasoline
    what does the above do to consumption and pricing?

    and what happens when you shift external costs into other areas using these methods? somebody ends up paying and it isn’t at the pump

    #426402

    TomOver
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Still not willing to admit someone else may, confronting the same facts, come to a different conclusion.

    Shocking.

    Both of my long posts involve many components for you to answer so, sure, I can’t expect a thoughtful response right away.

    But if you consider no other idea, consider this. If you use the materials and energy concept of ‘throughput’ to call attention to ‘renewable energy’ as a misnomer, how about using the same degree of comprehensive thinking to reevaluate ideas about ‘cost’ when it comes to the pros and cons of alternatives to fossil and fissile fuels?

    Alternative sources of energy may not be as costly as we think if we account for government subsidies, and for how dependence on fossil and fissile fuels affect foreign policy, public health, and the environment, not to mention the risks involved with their depletion, sooner or later.

    But we agree on some things. We both agreed about the misconceptions of ‘renewable’ energy and agreed that industrial societies can’t just quit fossil fuels right now, without causing great suffering.

    But, where we might disagree is in how other countries are moving ahead with alternative energy and wiser use of resources while the US seems to be in a sort of rut.

    I would suggest that extreme corporate greed is undermining our national interest in that it’s preventing wiser energy and resource policy in the US much more so than any technological obstacles.

    I won’t claim corporatocracy–the merging of big government with big corporate power— to be the only cause of our problems. But IMHO, it’s key, tying into just about every issue that pertains to human well-being: healthcare, finance, war, criminal justice, agriculture, water, communications, education…Hence the relevance of Occupy.

    #426403

    TomOver
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Connie Harris protests in Columbus Ohio for moratorium on fracking Connie Harris (gloveless peace sign) and friends.

    She has been involved with activism in Columbus for many years. Presently working with Occupy Mansfield, she came to the State Capital on Jan 10 to protest for a moratorium on fracking.

    “We had a great turnout. If people keep pushing hard enough, maybe they (politicians) will listen. In Mansfield, the Occupy group was able to work with the city government, Republicans and Democrats. They’re building a so-called war chest to build a fund to keep fighting for laws for better oversight (of fracking).”

    Harris said the moratorium would allow time for properly assessing the risks and possible benefits of fracking.

    “ A lot of these communities, they’re losing all their factory work and other jobs. They’re treating some of these communities like wastelands. People have to live there and work and send their children to school. This is some real dangerous stuff. They (government officials and industry) don’t know enough about it. We don’t know enough about it.”

    She said her recent involvement with fracking ties into other activism she has done over the years. The common theme is that politicians are not in tune with the will of the people.

    “Government agencies are doing what they want to do. They’re definitely more interested in mulah than the safety of our communities. I just happen to be living in a town where they want to build two (fracking) wells. They want to give the underground an enema.”

    #426404
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    TomOver said:

    I would suggest that extreme corporate greed is undermining our national interest in that it’s preventing wiser energy and resource policy in the US much more so than any technological obstacles.

    And from what I’ve seen any barriers to non-fossil fuel are technological, not so much “corporate greed”.

    Hell, even some advocates for solar are saying the technology isn’t there yet. Until price parity is achieved and energy storage technology improves natural gas is needed for base load.

    That means fracking is needed.

    Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Go figure.

    #426405
    gramarye
    gramarye
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pilsner said:
    Seeing the movie Gasland is a good first step for anyone who is interested in knowing more about fracking.

    Seeing the money flowing into Northeast Ohio is another good first step for anyone interested in thinking about choking it off.

    I get a kick out of renewable naysayers who bring up concerns about birds and windmills, minerals needed for solar panels, corporate welfare and renewables.

    It’s often leftist renewable naysayers bringing up that point, when they’re exposing their more primordialist agenda of cutting back on energy consumption entirely rather than replacing it with sustainable alternatives.

    Conservative skeptics are much more likely to emphasize the intermittency and storage issues. That said, I believe that those problems are solvable, and also that intermittent energy at least makes a good supplement to baseload generation, so I remain a wind optimist as well. Maybe not for all regions of the country, of course, but that applies to almost any form of generation. We certainly could expand our wind production exponentially.

    However, remember that unless we switch over to an electrified transportation sector (a transformation to which I’m not opposed, BTW, but we need to be candid about what we’re getting into), electricity and natural gas are not perfect substitutes for one another just yet. That applies to electricity from solar, nuclear, hydro, or any other source, too.

    #426406
    gramarye
    gramarye
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    pilsner said:
    When you say you support the lowest priced energy, do you take into account the costs that fossil fuels cause such as cancers and respitory diseases? And military costs to control fossil-fuel rich regions around the world and to secure shipping lanes? Our support for wahabi supporting governments such as Saudi Arabia so the oil keeps flowing?

    No, for two reasons.

    The first is the double standard–the assumption that no such externalities exist with respect to alternatives. This was a common problem with exponentially-inflated leftist visions of the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, too. It leads to apples and oranges comparisons–comparisons of extremely broad and sweeping visions of the costs of one alternative with very narrow visions of the costs of another.

    The second is the inherent attribution error–the false premise that but for our reliance on fossil fuels, no one would get cancer or respiratory diseases, the military would never need to leave American soil, and so on and so forth, and that 100% of those things can be attributed to fossil fuels. This was the false premise underlying the “war for oil” meme and similar leftist talking points over the past decade (or generation).

    #426407
    groundrules
    groundrules
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    gramarye said:
    This was the false premise underlying the “war for oil” meme and similar leftist talking points over the past decade (or generation).

    heh. just for the sake of irony, i’ll point out that i’ll take the war for oil meme over the righty war for WMDs meme.

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 720 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?