4 ms·

>...But you are absolutely right that its entirely due to natgas and that will maybe last us a decade or two but certainly not three. Citation? Unfortunately

by opo 10y ago

>...But you are absolutely right that its entirely due to natgas and that will maybe last us a decade or two but certainly not three. Citation? Unfortunately it looks like there are large proven reserves of natural gas: >...The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as of January 1, 2014, there were about 2,474 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable resources of dry natural gas in the United States. At the rate of U.S. dry natural gas consumption in 2014 of about 26.6 Tcf per year, the United States has enough natural gas to last about 93 years. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8 It is unfortunate because for those who care about climate change, there are inevitable methane releases from fracking and from distribution of natural gas and those are now known to be much worse for the atmosphere than previously thought: >...Back in August, a NOAA-led study measured a stunning 6% to 12% methane leakage over one of the country’s largest gas fields — which would gut the climate benefits of switching from coal to gas. We’ve known for a long time that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), which is released when any hydrocarbon, like natural gas, is burned. But the IPCC’s latest report, released Monday (big PDF here), reports that methane is 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale, so its global-warming potential (GWP) is 34. That is a nearly 40% increase from the IPCC’s previous estimate of 25. ...The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon. Finally, it bears repeating that natural gas from even the best fracked wells is still a climate-destroying fossil fuel. If we are to avoid catastrophic warming, our natural gas consumption has to peak sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, according to studies by both the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists. https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-warns-methane-traps-much-more-heat-than-we-thought-9c2badf392df https://thinkprogress.org/more-bad-news-for-fracking-ipcc-wa... As we use more and more natural gas, we can expect more and more methane disasters like the leak from Aliso Canyon in CA which was the largest methane leak in US history. This released over 100,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere and required 11,000 residents to be evacuated. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35659947 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35659947 >...It should be nuclear, but, sigh. Yea, nuclear has so far been the safest form of base load power we have ever used. Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than other sources of power. What if the Alison Canyon was a nuclear storage site (instead of a natural gas storage site) and 11,000 people had to be evacuated - how much would the media have covered that? Another recent example would be the evacuation at the Oroville dam - almost 200,000 people were forcibly evacuated since the worst case failure scenario would have have been a tidal wave of water 30 feet high rushing down stream. This made the news for maybe a day. I can't blame some for being afraid of nuclear power, but there are many who should know better.

crdoconnor 10y ago
"Yea, nuclear has so far been the safest form of base load power we have ever used. Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than other sources of power." I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. I see the problem being that operators are motivated to stretch the margin of safety in order to make a buck and lawmakers appear to be prepared to let them and the one thing nuclear operators will never, ever, ever, EVER stand for is allowing the privatization of that risk (i.e. let insurance companies instead of taxpayers shoulder the risk).
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  "I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist." It's worth noting that even formally qualified scientists are susceptible to bias, and politics. There are even scientists who are practising religious adherents. Angel Merkel was previously the minister for Environment and Nuclear Safety. I'd suggest that is potentially more informative than that she has a doctorate in physical chemistry.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. What was telling is she didn't want to do it but was forced by public opinion, the fact that she proceed to run to the front of the parade notwithstanding.
- opo 10y ago
  >...I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. Are you trying to argue that keeping coal plants and shutting down nuclear plants is a good idea? From a previous comment someone made, here are the death totals for generating power: Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) >...I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. Actually you are wrong - NOTHING can be made 100% safe. Anyone who promises you something is 100% safe is simply a liar. Walking down the sidewalk has risk, much less walking down a street. When making choices the only thing you can do is choose the safer alternative. Planes are safer for a long trip than driving a car, but how many people are afraid to fly vs afraid to drive? Nuclear has has a very good safety record compared to the alternatives (utility solar farms might end up lower, but all others are much higher) but to the people who fear nuclear power, I know the numbers don't really matter - much as the person who is afraid of flying doesn't care it is safer.

by opo 10y ago

crdoconnor 10y ago

"Yea, nuclear has so far been the safest form of base load power we have ever used. Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than other sources of power." I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. I see the problem being that operators are motivated to stretch the margin of safety in order to make a buck and lawmakers appear to be prepared to let them and the one thing nuclear operators will never, ever, ever, EVER stand for is allowing the privatization of that risk (i.e. let insurance companies instead of taxpayers shoulder the risk).

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
"I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist." It's worth noting that even formally qualified scientists are susceptible to bias, and politics. There are even scientists who are practising religious adherents. Angel Merkel was previously the minister for Environment and Nuclear Safety. I'd suggest that is potentially more informative than that she has a doctorate in physical chemistry.
gozur88 10y ago
>I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. What was telling is she didn't want to do it but was forced by public opinion, the fact that she proceed to run to the front of the parade notwithstanding.
opo 10y ago
>...I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. Are you trying to argue that keeping coal plants and shutting down nuclear plants is a good idea? From a previous comment someone made, here are the death totals for generating power: Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) >...I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. Actually you are wrong - NOTHING can be made 100% safe. Anyone who promises you something is 100% safe is simply a liar. Walking down the sidewalk has risk, much less walking down a street. When making choices the only thing you can do is choose the safer alternative. Planes are safer for a long trip than driving a car, but how many people are afraid to fly vs afraid to drive? Nuclear has has a very good safety record compared to the alternatives (utility solar farms might end up lower, but all others are much higher) but to the people who fear nuclear power, I know the numbers don't really matter - much as the person who is afraid of flying doesn't care it is safer.