hydrofracking yay or nay

Johnnyonthespot wrote

What's up with the nat gas shortage in NY? No fracking, but no new gas pipelines either?

The gas shortage in NYC is totally self-inflicted. The new environmentalist consensus is that no new fossil fuels should be used, and carbon should be completely eliminated by 30 or 50 years or so. Denying new pipelines is all part of that.

mm

campgottagopee wrote

There's a capped gas well in my backyard that I own some rights to. Open er up baby!

Unless you really know what you have, maybe you should keep quiet about that. A lot of those wells were drilled before there were rules about closing wells. and the gas companies would just turn them over to the property owner when production declined too much. With new environmental rules (since about 1975) you might have a pretty big expense to close that well. It might come up when you sell the house as well.

mm

Not to change the subject or anything, but a long time ago I thought about living on a boat in a marina on Van Schaick Island. There was a nice lawn and playground and lots of kids, and a bar in a cool old round brick building. One day there was a story in the Times Union about the marina and bar. The next time I went back there the bar and marina were gone, and the whole property had been regraded.

The round building was previously a gas holder, part of an old coal gas plant, and the property became a Superfund site. If you think fracking is dirty now, you should see what was going on a hundred years ago.

mm  

MC2 5678F589 wrote

x10003q wrote

 Currently, there is no other suitable replacement for oil for heating your house in NE.

There's natural gas in New England, you maniacs:

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MA

http://www.puc.state.nh.us/gas-steam/naturalgasinnh.htm

Also, I'm not sure Pennsylvania is really getting the jobs boom that you think it is from Natural Gas:

https://paworkstats.geosolinc.com/vosnet/analyzer/results.aspx

https://labor.ny.gov/stats/sou/index.shtm

That last link says that, in lieu of fracking, the southern tier is getting into industrial hemp farming. Cool.

The pipeline Cuomo cancelled in 2016 was supposed to increase the supply of natural gas in MA and eventually NH, ME, and RI. According to your link, more than three-fourths of Massachusetts communities have natural gas service available, yet only half have hooked up to natural gas despite it being in some cases costing 1/4 of what it costs to heat with oil. There is not enough capacity to connect everybody to cleaner, less expensive natural gas for home heating.

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MA
"More than three-fourths of Massachusetts communities have natural gas service available, and more than half of the households in the state rely on natural gas as their primary energy source for home heating.109,110 About three-tenths of the state's natural gas consumption occurs in the residential sector, but the largest consumer in Massachusetts is the electric power sector, which used one-third of the natural gas delivered to consumers in 2018."

He just did the same thing for adding capacity to NYC and LI. He is basically saying FU to homeowners and landlords who use oil and want to switch to natural gas. It is also a big FU to clean air since there are currently no other choices besides oil for heating.

x10003q wrote

. He is basically saying FU to homeowners and landlords who use oil and want to switch to natural gas. It is also a big FU to clean air since there are currently no other choices besides oil for heating.

No other choices, huh?

*No* other choices?

If natural gas became available in my area I'd switch in a second. I heat with wood pellets but my back up is oil.

I'm going to investigate into the Mitsubishi heating / cooling system. I'd still use pellets as primary but thinking that might be a good secondary system.

We are totally F-d, or my kids gen certainly is.

There’s just way too many humans mucking it all up.  California and the south west is burning up year round now and is undeniably caused by a changing climate and overpopulation

campgottagopee wrote

If natural gas became available in my area I'd switch in a second. I heat with wood pellets but my back up is oil.

I'm going to investigate into the Mitsubishi heating / cooling system. I'd still use pellets as primary but thinking that might be a good secondary system.

We had oil generating steam and went to natural gas steam. Our heat bill went from roughly $1900-$2400/winter to less than $800/winter. The house no longer smells like oil and our electric bill also went down in the winter because there was an electric pump feeding the oil into the furnace that is not needed for natural gas. The gas furnace cost about $1500 more than an oil unit. We made that money back in 1 season.

Those mitsubishi units are interesting because they can cool or heat, but they are not cheap.They can struggle as a single source heat with prolonged cold, but in your case with wood, that might not matter.  

raisingarizona wrote

There’s just way too many humans mucking it all up.  

This is true

raisingarizona wrote

California and the south west is burning up year round now and is undeniably caused by a changing climate and overpopulation

This is debatable. Some believe it's primarily due to poor land management and building in the wrong places rather than changing climate. Environmentalist curtailed the timber industry in CA and when timber harvest is plotted against wild fires one can see a strong correlation.

Ok boomer

it’s definitely a mix of all of these things. Overpopulation is the most obvious especially since 95% of our “wildfires” are human caused but we are witnessing a morphing ecology in our forests. For example aspen trees would historically be first succession regrowth here post fire at say 8k or so and now we are getting gamble oak and juniper instead in many places. It’s happening very fast now, so fast it’s observable. This is one subject I’m confident about, I practically live in the forest and outdoors here in the four corners.

Don’t take this the wrong way P-Tex but I’m really not into the identity politics crap. I think that the us vs. them stuff is really dumbing down society. There’s definitely some ultra left environmentalist factors that have had negative impacts in regards to ecological health and the mess of fire dangers today but articles like that generally over simplify complicated subjects in order to make the reader feel better about their party allegiance.

Witch, I like you. Unfortunately P is right though.
I'm almost done putting a woodstove in.

Johnboy, I’m just implementing the meme of the moment. Try to keep up, bro!

Stacking cord #3 today at my house. Back and shoulders will be sore for 3 days.

If overpopulation is a concern, why are the places with more people producing less carbon pollution per capita?



Is it possible that being able to walk, bike, or take public transportation to work (that is close by your small house or apartment) is better than getting in your 1 ton pickup and commuting 45 minutes?

Maybe there are other confounding factors than just big trucks. If you primise were true Idaho would not be in the list of lowest per capita. So maybe Idaho holds part of the key to understanding. Idaho gets most of its electric power from hydro and it’s farming is not as energy intensive as the midwestern states. Idaho also has a very low EV adoption rate, it also has little fossil fuel deposits (oil or gas).

Let’s compare that to Wyoming or North Dakota. on the other end of the spectrum. These states have both heavy agricultural and energy production economies, they are feeding and powering the people of other the states and doing it with a small population so their per capita emissions are high.

California is particularly bad when you take the world view. They have exported their pollution to Countries like China which operate with no controls and have actually had a more negative impact per capita. Not only do they export the pollution they also add to it by the cost of energy to import all that stuff back in so they can consume it.

I wonder if the numbers for California include the carbon emissions from the fires, as of last month that was about equivalent to half a million cars.

witch hobble wrote

Johnboy, I’m just implementing the meme of the moment. Try to keep up, bro!

Stacking cord #3 today at my house. Back and shoulders will be sore for 3 days.

But you won't be a fat f$#% like me.
#Witchdiesel

PeeTex wrote

.
California is particularly bad when you take the world view..

"I'm PeeTex, I consider myself a scientist, but can't even read a basic map"

Yeah, Wyoming and North Dakota are booming in oil and coal extraction. They are providing energy for the more populated states so I don’t think this chart is actually accurate. It’s kind of like pointing a finger at China while patting ourselves on the back, yeah China has become real dirty but it’s to provide American consumers cheap goods.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

PeeTex wrote

.
California is particularly bad when you take the world view..

"I'm PeeTex, I consider myself a scientist, but can't even read a basic map"

Actually he read the map pretty good and was pointing out it’s flaws.

That’s critical thinking MC. You shouldn’t copy and paste every graph that agrees with your bias without it.

raisingarizona wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

PeeTex wrote

.
California is particularly bad when you take the world view..

"I'm PeeTex, I consider myself a scientist, but can't even read a basic map"

Actually he read the map pretty good and was pointing out it’s flaws.

That’s critical thinking MC. You shouldn’t copy and paste every graph that agrees with your bias without it.

RA - you should have stuck with College, you actually get it! MC - well that was a waste of an education.