Allah bless those frackers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Apr 4, 2016.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    Who would have thought it possible even five years ago? And the frackers have achieved their victory in spite of everything the Obama administration could do to shut them down.

    Saudi Arabia pushes austerity to mitigate latest oil woes

    Saudi Arabia has outlined plans to ramp up its austerity programme and avert the threat of national bankruptcy amid a sliding oil price and growing tensions with its regional oil-exporting rival Iran.

    In an interview with Bloomberg, deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman said the country’s economic reform programme would raise an extra $100bn (£70bn) in revenues a year by 2020, tripling income from non-oil sources and balancing the budget.
    ...

    In February, Saudi and Russia agreed to support prices by freezing production at January’s levels, but only if other major producers did the same. However, Iran is insisting on its right to hike production back to pre-sanctions levels. Iran’s exports last year fell to 1.1 million barrels a day – half of its pre-sanctions output levels.
    All thanks to fracking:

    “OPEC should find it challenging to survive another 60 years, let alone another decade,” analysts led by Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc. in New York, said in the report. “The U.S. should see its role in the world as a singular superpower enhanced and prolonged.”

     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    Came into this thread expecting Battlestar Galactica. I'm leaving it disappointed.
     
  3. bruinsrme, Apr 4, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2016

    bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #3
    I would gladly pay $4 a gallon if I knew he money was staying in this country
     
  4. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #4
    If you mean staying in this country, I'd guess that $4 gas would keep a lot more frackers in business. Bankrupting OPEC goes a long way to stopping funding for terrorism, so there's that.
     
  5. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #5
    I propose a $5/gal tax with all revenue applied to the production of greenhouse-free small modular nuclear reactors (see Hyperion and NuScale) all over the United States. Once we achieve 90% nuclear power generation, either privatize the SMRs or give them to the states and repeal the tax.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    A few critiques: Nuclear isn't "greenhouse-free"; I'm not sure that sure that states should be running SMRs, but I'd have to see a specific plan; and I'd like to see some of that tax get kicked to R&D and solar/wind/hydro to ensure diversification of power sources—uranium mining creates the same limits that burning recycled dinosaurs does, just on a different scale.

    That said, go for it.
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #7
    Molten salt reactors can use the old fuel rods from previous generation reactors, can't they? If so, we wouldn't have to produce any more uranium in the short-mid term.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    I believe you're right, but there's going to be creeping limits in how long the recycled uranium works and some of these limits are unknown—thus prepare for some need. And, remember, if the U.S. invests heavily in MSRs, the rest of the world may follow, creating a new constraint for used fuel rods.

    We should never assume that any fuel is going be always be readily available and therefore diversify energy usage. Plus, investing in solar means we hold technology that can be exported and used in places where high-voltage lines aren't, or cannot, be deployed.

    There's no silver bullet.
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    Right. Going solely nuclear isn't the answer, but investing heavily in modern generators alongside green energy sources would make for an excellent interim.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Absolutely. aaronvan and I have batted this back and forth a couple of times, but I really do think the U.S. needs to invest in modern generators and the infrastructure needed to minimize and close all the coal power plants, and eliminate the use of natural gas, except in very specific situations.

    And, I still think that we've ignored solar's ability to be widely deployed in urban contexts, on rooftops, the upper-deck of parking garages, etc. that can help buttress nuclear power plants. (An easy example, in Phoenix, Arizona a huge percentage of the needed energy is in the daytime for A/C and that happens to be the best time for solar arrays. A few upper-deck panel farms on downtown parking garages would produce significant power that could keep the nuclear plant on a sustainable energy curve.)
     
  11. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    We were paying that much only a few years ago. Just not for that reason, unless I missed out on a news article and I'm not going to deny the possibility.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 7, 2016 ---
    Gas and oil can be made numerous ways, even synthetically, plastics can be recycled (albeit in limited ways, but still possible)...

    Anyone to claim we can be off of oil and oil-based products 100% is not being realistic. At least naturally occurring oil, I should read up more on synthetic oil...

    Ideally, this would happen globally. We can only do what we can here, recommend changes globally, and hope everyone or the majority work in unity. There is so much cynicism (and I'm clearly guilty of that) but there are the occasional articles that suggest better futures. I for one ought to read and remember more of those...
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    There's been some work on using plant and algae stocks to make plastic, but I think we're still far off from implementation—increasingly algae-born fuel is like fusion, it's only a decade away, decade after decade.

    That's why I said "except in very specific situations" where oil and gas will still be important for industry, but prices for feed stocks–and the resultant products, including plastic and fertilizer— tend to be much less variable.

    This makes market shocks less problematic, where our current situation means that when oil prices go up, so does costs for fuel and energy—followed by uptick in food and commercial products. That's a one-two punch that just batters people.
     
  13. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    Ahh yes.. all about the money. Yet You seem to willingly neglect that thanks to those frackers that in the areas where fracking is more profound, earthquake risk is as high as California:

    [​IMG]

    Funnily enough, the last link comes from the same State Impact you link to. Talk about selective hearing. :rolleyes:

    I initially came into this thread expecting Jeff Dunham and Achmed the Dead Terrorist. I'm rather disappointed as well.

    BL.
     
  14. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #14
    If PRSI has taught me one thing, it's that life is full of crushing let-downs.
     
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    [​IMG]

    BL.
     
  16. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    Solar, wind, geothermal: they all have their uses. However, only nuclear can replace the base-load power now provided by fossil fuels. And only nuclear will provide the energy to transition to a hydrogen-based economy.

    Funny how natural phenomena that have occurred for the last 4.5 billions years are suddenly mankind's fault.

    Storms --> global warming
    Earthquakes --> fracking
    Volcanoes --> ?

    What that scare-mongering article "forgot" to mention is that fracking-related man-made earthquakes is less than magnitude 1, i.e. they are only detectable by seismographs. One could occur right under your feet and you'd never know it.

    Anyway, embrace nuclear power in lieu of fossil fuels and none of this is a problem.

    Remember kids: fissile is better than fossil.
     
  17. hulugu, Apr 7, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2016

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    I agree.

    The answer is Dr. Evil's base. Duh.

    As for the rest of your post, the fact that man-made earthquakes are less than magnitude 1 doesn't mean they're not happen and that hydro-fracking might not have consequences.

    For instance, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted it put about .05 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In 2015, the United States alone produced 5.561 gigatons of CO2.

    Mt. Pinatubo's eruption produced on observed surface cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of 0.5 to 0.6°C.

    Remember too, that natural phenomena can be influenced and acerbated by human influence, such that Native American tribes were able to widely deforest much of North America using fire and stone tools.

    Dismissing global warming as "natural phenomena" is a silly as arguing that natural foods are good for you—without acknowledging that a diet of apples will give you arsenic poisoning.
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18


    Duck, did you read the source you quoted there?

    Because it says:


    My reading of that is that the Obama administration is opposed to state and local bans on fracking.

    The United States has come quite close to energy independence during the past eight years. There are a number of reasons for this, including increases in vehicle fuel efficiency standards; the development of solar and wind turbine technologies and markets; as well as the continuing adoption of low-power technologies such as LED lighting; more efficient furnaces; etc. The growth in energy production has been enabled due to the development of hydraulic fracturing; but most of the net increased production has been natural gas rather than petroleum.

    The Obama administration has urged a cautious, scientific approach to the fracking industry. Energy independence is a nice thing to talk about; but it has to be done properly if we are to avoid some of the environmental catastrophes of the past.

    The other factor, one carefully left unmentioned by Republicans, in the dramatic decrease in the price of oil is the return of Iran to world markets that were already facing excess capacity. While Iran does not sell oil to the United States due to sanctions, it does to everyone else - which has greatly increased the price pressure on our friends in Riyadh and Moscow.
     
  19. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #19
    We have never paid a $5/gal gas tax. Right now in WA State it's about $0.47/gal with state and federal taxes combined.
     
  20. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #20
    The idea sounds kind of nice, if a little insanely priced. Frankly, if it wasn't for the fear-mongers, the reactors would likely already be proliferating.

    Also, have you ever known of a government to end a tax program?
     
  21. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #21
    We should have been taxing the hell out of gas while it was cheap instead of letting it be so cheap that everyone's driving the mother of all SUVs again.

    As far as fracking goes... the earthquake effect is definitely a big problem (Oklahoma, for instance). Another issue is that fracked wells don't last as long as conventional wells, which means fracking anew (with all its hazmats, dust, noise, search for more locations to put the waste water injection wells) goes on and on until there's no place left to frack. Never mind the dirty dirty tar sands processing.

    Then there are all the issues related to pipeline transportation-- construction incidents that pollute waterways, pollution at compression stations and where they put in the cleaning robots, ruptures from corrosion, etc. Last time I checked there was still a big debate about whether a gas pipeline should run so close to Indian Point nuclear reactor on its way to an Atlantic seaboard export terminal, since if there's a pipeline "incident" nearby and the power lines get melted, it gets difficult to shut down the reactor. "Difficult" = nice word.

    Last but not least is the issue of why we are still taking this stuff out of the ground, if we plan to avoid passing the point of no return on climate change inside a decade or two. I've been hearing about how oil is a finite resource since the 1950s, yet our main response to that has basicallly been to innovate extraction technology instead of moving much more swiftly to rely on renewables and developing better non-petrol based plastics.

    So far the international climate change remediation agreements are just that, agreements to try to reduce emissions. So maybe the US and China will get serious about shutting down the worst of the worst coal-fired plants etc., but there's domestic political opposition to it in both countries.

    I'm amazed all the educated 18-24 year olds in the country aren't up in arms over this stuff. I'll be disappointed if they don't move the geezers out of political office in the next ten years. We -- the WWII babies and the boomers-- have pretty much messed up on energy policy. On other things too, but the energy policy is on a timer with a unknown countdown and a nasty crunch at the end.

    We like to think we can innovate our way out of anything, but so far we don't get how to stop the earth's actual clock the way we stop the wall clock in legislatures when the budget is about to be late and we need a six-hour timeout to get something ironed out. So really it behooves voters to stop kicking the can down the road and figuring another Congress, another President can deal with it "when it becomes critical." It's already critical.

    In some ways I have expected a populist movement on this issue to surface, and I'm surprised that it's stuff like trade and immigration taking the spotlight from populists.
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    Funny you should mention this. This very topic came up on yesterday's All Things Considered.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/47337...price-nuclear-power-on-the-decline-in-the-u-s

    I agree that a combination of nucular ( ;) ) and green power will definitely be a bandaid for the interim, but a more permanent solution will be needed which includes using green power, especially if green power is a hell of a lot cheaper to set up and operate, and for those who think that money is more important, a quicker ROI.

    BL.
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #23
    Not that I am against Nuclear power per se, but with the increase in earthquakes due to fracking (or whatever), I do take pause. Granted, the quakes are much lower in magnitude than Japan's was...but...
     

Share This Page