12 ms·

Texan here. I’m anti fossil fuels, pro solar and wind. I’ve stopped trying to have any conversations with other Texans about this topic. Texans are very pro fos

Texan here. I’m anti fossil fuels, pro solar and wind. I’ve stopped trying to have any conversations with other Texans about this topic. Texans are very pro fossil fuels, on balance. I’m saying this as an Austinite. It’s interesting to see this in the Texas Tribune. From time to time I have reason to drive through or fly over (I know, hypocrite) West Texas, and passing through the oil fields one can literally watch the world burn. It’s unreal. Edit: Just a note on the people in the energy industry. They’re good people on balance. I might have come across as incidentally disparaging people in the energy industry. I have many friends and family of friends that have spent their entire career in the industry. It’s like Silicon Valley and tech’s problems. NYC and the financial crisis. Economic and financial incentives supported by cultural norms. In Silicon Valley the confidence that technology will improve our future means sometimes it is developed without pause for impact. In Texas a strong Christian ethos encourages a certain view of “stewardship” of the earth that does not mesh well with the constantly evolving culture of environmentalism. But as people they’re good people.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
freehunter 8y ago
I never really had a strong opinion on mining until I drove through Wyoming and northern Nevada. I knew it wasn't ecologically friendly, but it wasn't happening near me so I never saw much impact. But after driving through there and seeing entire mountains halfway destroyed as the mining crews work their way through it... in a few more years, that mountain won't even exist anymore. Watching humans take an entire mountain down rock-by-rock is a humbling experience.
- ip26 8y ago
  The worst part is humans only want a small fraction of the mountain, so the whole thing is chewed up and spat out into the land around the mountain. It would be a little better if we actually had a use for the whole mountain. The tar sands come to mind. The entire forest above the sands is literally scraped off the face of the earth, the sands removed, the oil removed from the sands, and then everything aside from the oil is left behind in huge swaths of desolate waste.
  - Danieru 8y ago
    Odd wording to describe a replanted forest as "desolate waste". If anything one may suspect you are not being fully honest to leave out the "then they spent millions to try and return to the forest to its original state."
    - captainperl 8y ago
      > Odd wording to describe a replanted forest as "desolate waste". I know you're trolling, but planting trees doesn't replace an entire ecosystem. Check out a palm oil plantation sometimes for what a desolate forest looks like.
      - Danieru 8y ago
        Ah, so you were aware that the forests are replanted. You choose instead not to provide others with this information or inform that, but rather to editorialize. Now someone has asked you to justify how a replanted green forest is "desolate". Please keep on topic, we are talking about the tar sands not pal oil. Yes I know both have oil in the name but please understand they are not the same oil. Please for your own safety do not drink the tar sands. Now back to your statement. Do you retract your claim of desolation? Or can you provide any evidence to support your position. Please do not reference palm oil in relation to the tar sands. No palm trees grow in Fort Mac.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        greglindahl 8y ago
        Did you look at the usernames? Different users.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        First: No, I'm pretty sure that Danieru was not trolling. Second, HN guidelines say that one should not accuse someone else of trolling. It almost never leads to a decent discussion.
- assblaster 8y ago
  The alternative is having less minerals available and thus higher prices, which hurts all social strata. I think mining is a necessity to exploit all natural resource opportunities, very similar to how I would view solar and wind installations being built in "nice" areas like off the coast of Massachusetts.
  - cheschire 8y ago
    I suspect some people consider ecological destruction as impacting all social strata as well.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    I agree, mining is necessary. But it's a necessary evil. And like with all necessary evils, it'd be pretty nice if we could do our best to make sure we can stop committing the evil once it stops being necessary. It's hard to argue that coal mining is still necessary rather than merely convenient.
    - hackerman12345 8y ago
      It is perhaps necessary as Germany now has to import coal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-closes-last-coal-mine-despite-decades-of-supplies-needed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-c...
      - freehunter 8y ago
        I guess I should amend my statement: is coal use still necessary, or merely convenient? If we're using coal, it's necessary to mine it. The upstream question is, is it still necessary to use coal beyond the very boring argument of "it would cost money to replace coal"? I'm not looking for an answer to this question, as I don't own any coal mines or coal power plants. Just expressing general dissatisfaction with humanity's destructive-but-convenient habits.
        crumpets 8y ago
- alacombe 8y ago
  How about seeing mountains being destroyed by Nature alone over the course of hundreds of millions of years ? Nature is not so beautiful if you consider it destroyed, eradicated, 99.9% of life which ever existed (and will destroy mankind) over the course of History.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    Of course nature is destructive. But there's nothing we can really do about that. There is something we can do about humans being destructive. The difference between humans and the rest of nature is that we have the ability to choose our actions, these choices are not made for us already. I've never understood the argument that since [bad thing] happens, [more bad things] are justified. But judge, since nature kills humans all the time you can't possibly charge me with murder...
    - alacombe 8y ago
      How about all the good, technology, societal advancement, reduction of poverty which required the destruction if those mountains to mine the mattress to feel it ? Also, I'm sure you can make find some negatives in the lithium / PV / wind industries which are so vehemently pushed forward around here.
      - freehunter 8y ago
        Again, you're arguing that since [bad thing] happens, [more bad things] are justified. Stopping coal mining today isn't going to undo all of that progress you talked about. It already happened. And the progress only required energy, not coal. Coal was just the energy source that was available at the time. We have other energy sources. Changing the argument to the damage caused by lithium mines is just a distraction. My argument isn't against coal, it's against unnecessary evils. It would take a mighty strong mind to honestly argue that solar and wind power is more evil than coal. I'm going to bow out of this argument now as I'm not actually looking to have my opinion changed to a more pro-coal stance in 2018.
    - frutiger 8y ago
- johnwyles 8y ago
  had the same epiphany driving from CA to WA through OR. Oregon allows logging to clear-cut - meaning they don't pluck 1 tree among 5 to cut but instead just lop entire mountainsides down like someone getting a buzz cut.
  - theparanoid 8y ago
    California has many many clear-cuts. Just not directly on I-5.
- eigenvector 8y ago
  Even worse than the act of disassembling a mountain is the processing of all of that rock - which concentrates huge amounts of harmful materials that would never appear in such great concentration and quantity naturally - and subsequently leaving it there permanently in massive tailing ponds that are one dam breach from wiping out millenia-old ecosystems downstream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Polley_mine_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Polley_mine_disaster
  - crumpets 8y ago
    >and subsequently leaving it there permanently in massive tailing ponds Not permanent. They can be reclaimed, but that usually doesn't happen for many years until after the end of life for the mine.
    - ghouse 8y ago
      Reclamation does not un-concentrate the materials found in the impoundment. Typically a "Mine Plan of Operations" which includes the reclamation plan is a contouring of the topography and vegetation. Some mines require indefinite groundwater treatment due to leaching from tailings ponds or other mine activity. The cost responsibility for this _indefinite_ process is sometimes borne by the state following bankruptcy of a mine.
coding123 8y ago
I just drove on the 10 through the area. They literally have these strange chimney columns with flames shooting out. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/fracking-boom-waste-flares-light-prairie-unused-natural-gas-n186946 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/fracking-boom-waste-... The entire area smells like a diesel truck stop.
- patagonia 8y ago
  That is probably “burn off”. Flying over the fields at night one can get a really good idea of the industrial structure and scale involved. A horizontal scaffolding punctuated by these towers lit up at night by the burnoff creates a grid across the landscape that is beautiful and impressive but scary in its implications.
- rory096 8y ago
  WSJ wrote an article about flaring this week: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-booming-oilfield-natural-gas-can-be-free-11545906601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-booming-oilfield-natural-gas... Natural gas is so plentiful that spot prices at the West Texas hub turned negative last month. In general they're trading at about half the Louisiana hub. >One option for Permian operators with too much gas is to light it on fire, a practice known as flaring. Flaring levels reached record highs in the Permian last quarter, when companies burned an average of 407 million cubic feet a day, according to analysis of public data compiled by Rystad Energy, an energy consulting firm. >The resulting greenhouse-gas emissions are equivalent to the daily exhaust emitted by about 2.7 million cars, according to estimates from the World Bank and Environmental Protection Agency. >Texas has thus far allowed companies to flare freely. As of the end of November, state regulators hadn't denied a single permit request in more than five years, records show. But flaring isn’t always an option. Companies might not have the needed equipment set up in areas affected by pipeline outages. They also might have to pay landowners royalty payments for the gas they burn. And flaring gas on the spot means drillers miss out on more valuable products that come out of the ground with it, such as ethane, propane and butane, which are often processed out later.
  - fromthestart 8y ago
nostromo 8y ago
I'm pro-renewables too. But, like you, I'm also a hypocrite because I drive and fly and use plastics. I'm ok with American extraction because I think it's preferable to the two other options I see: 1. keep giving mountains of money to horrific regimes like Saudi Arabia and Russia or 2. halt the global economy until renewables are to scale.
- drjasonharrison 8y ago
  Unfortunately the Texas crude is being exported because the Texas refineries can't refine it. So imports of "blood oil" will continue.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    What is stopping us from upgrading those refineries so that we can refine it? Is it simply not worth the investment?
    - briandear 8y ago
      We already have been. The OP is simply wrong.
      - shaklee3 8y ago
        I just fact checked, and indeed Texas does refine a whole lot: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_Un...
  - briandear 8y ago
    This is completely incorrect. Many Texas and Louisiana refineries can process West Texas crude. And billions are being invested in expanding that capacity even further. Texas refineries, aside from light crude are primarily equipped to process Canadian and Gulf Coast petroleum, which is the majority of their production, far from “blood oil.” Here’s some background: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Refiners-investing-to-capitalize-on-flood-of-13408890.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Ref... Ubtil 2016, it was illegal to export American crude. So the idea that West Texas Intermediate Crude is being exported because refineries can’t handle it is false, unless we are talking about the past two years: in 2014, where did all of that crude go? It was being refined. As the US is a net petroleum exporter, the idea that “blood oil” is a significant part of the American fuel supply is false. Canada exports dramatically more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia. The main reason that West Texas Intermediate trades at a discount wasn’t because of refining capacity, but because of the lack of pipelines to move the stuff.
clairity 8y ago
> In Texas a strong Christian ethos encourages a certain view of “stewardship” of the earth that does not mesh well with the constantly evolving culture of environmentalism. this is the hypocrisy that gets me. christian stewardship should be at the forefront of environmentalism, culture wars be damned, not being dragged along gnawing and gnashing. edit: hypocisy infects all of us, but christian hypocrisy really burns. rather than stiving for betterment while tolerating imperfection, as jesus taught, the general pretense is to cast a blind eye to all kinds of moral failings while acting as if everything is rosy. it's like sitting on a high horse covered in poop.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The modern evangelical philosophy that seizes the most attention today is often focused on prosperity of the individual. There’s no room for stewardship in any real sense. It’s cash in before it gets shut down.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- humanrebar 8y ago
  If you really want to convince someone of a new position, you should really refrain from attacking their identity and show that you really understand why they make the decisions they do before offering a better alternative. > ...stiving for betterment while tolerating imperfection, as jesus taught... And on a particular point, Jesus never taught that in those words. It might be a fair inference and application, but "how would Jesus vote" is a tricky argument to make. Especially considering that the U.S. has a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Would Jesus vote for candidate A who favors a carbon tax and opposes ICE? Or candidate B who opposes late term abortion and wants better support for adoptive parents?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > Would Jesus vote for candidate A who favors a carbon tax and opposes ICE? Or candidate B who opposes late term abortion and wants better support for adoptive parents? Well, that might be the options in the Democrat primary, but what about the Republican positions?
rdiddly 8y ago
The world's burning here too. Thanks to widespread and unusual drought, there are huge wildfires burning all summer long, all over the West. They start well before the usual beginning of "fire season" and continue well past the end of it, into the late autumn. Fire season is now 3/4 of the year. Pretty soon I suppose it'll be all year long. There's a hot wind and choking smoke everywhere. The sun is blacked-out if you're in the immediate vicinity, or else there's a thick smoke haze for miles. It feels like the goddamned apocalypse. It feels like you're in hell. Or rather, hell feels like this. Because those who came up with the concept of hell, based it on this. It was one of their worst experiences of divine retribution. Along with floods and storms etc., and those are coming fast & furious now too. On TV here comes another car commercial. The disconnect is amazing. This shit needs to stop TODAY, if there's to be any hope of stopping or even slowing the catastrophe already in motion. But "good people" are not getting it. Certain other people work overtime to make sure they don't get it. And of course cutting them in on the spoils (a.k.a. "issuing them a paycheck") raises their mental barriers against getting it. Insert Upton Sinclair quote here.... "It is difficult to get a man to understand bla bla bla." The minute good people realize they're screwing over other good people, they might actually find it unpalatable to do the work (or buy the product). Either that or they're not such good people. But they don't always have a choice, right? At least that's what good people say who want to absolve good people. Gotta pay the rent, right? Well that's what my landlord says anyway. Gotta keep driving to work to pay the rent, right? Well that's what 80% of Houstonians and 85% of Detroiters say... but 70% of Portlanders agree too. (Everybody's a liberal as long as it doesn't mean getting off your ass.) Maybe people just naturally exploit and screw each other to profit themselves, and all morality is just an idealistic and optimistic overlay. Maybe people in general just aren't that "good." Maybe it'll be better after a bunch of us die the hell off. I need a drink.
- rhacker 8y ago
  Fuck, I'm buying.
- badpun 8y ago
  The assumption that people are good in general is a fallacy. When put to test, ex. in Soviet Gulags, vast majority of people would condemn other prisoners to death for a mere chance (not even guaranteed) of slight decrease of their own misery. When the stakes are real, even as small as the convenience of driving, most people put themselves first.
txcwpalpha 8y ago
Interesting to see you say that about Texans, as my experience is nearly the complete opposite. Texas is the country's leading wind power state, and is pretty big on solar as well. Among most of the people I interact with daily (friends as well as colleagues), are not people I would consider "pro fossil fuel" at all. And this is coming from people mostly in Dallas/Houston, where oil & gas is much bigger than in Austin. I can even think of a couple friends of mine that actually work for the major oil companies, and even they I would not describe as "pro fossil fuel". One of them drives a Prius. When I was at school at UT, even amongst the buildings and lecture halls that are sponsored and paid for by Chevron/Exxon, I never encountered an anti-renewable sentiment. Hell, McCombs has a masters degree program specifically geared towards exploring renewable energy businesses (as well as several undergrad classes, one of which I took), and I know the engineering school has an entire department for researching renewables. Most of my friends are in their late 20s/early 30s though, so maybe that makes a difference. I could see older folks who grew up when oil was king maybe being opposed to solar/wind. But even then, now that I think about it, one of my friend's grandparents (who are from West Texas) were very thankful for the wind industry and the money it brought to their town (it got brought up because we made a remark about how there seemed to be endless wind turbines in every direction on the drive through W Texas to visit them). I just browsed through a few polls and based on them, it seems you must be really unlucky to encounter so many people unwilling to discuss renewables. According to these polls [1][2][3][4], 80%+ of Texans support renewable/clean energy. I'd be interested to hear more about what types of conversations you try to have and who (age range, industry) you interact with when you find these people. It surprises me that this has been your experience, especially in Austin of all places. 1: https://www.citizen.org/may-11-texas-poll-shows-citizens-want-texas-leaders-increase-renewable-energy-goals https://www.citizen.org/may-11-texas-poll-shows-citizens-wan... 2: https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-energy-pioneer-texas-1472414098 https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-... 3: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/survey-texans-support-statewide-clean-energy-plan/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/survey-texans-suppor... 4: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/climate/renewable-energy-push-is-strongest-in-the-reddest-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/climate/renewable-energy-...
- rhacker 8y ago
S_A_P 8y ago
Houstonite here that works in the energy industry. Im not sure you are talking to the right people. Im not anti fossil fuels, but Im not really "pro" fossil fuels either. If you look at the oil and gas business, there really just isn't any viable alternatives available on a large scale at this moment. I would echo some other comments in that Texas has a lot of solar and wind farms. My father in law has a ranch out in west Texas and every surrounding property has wind or solar generation on it. I am encouraged by this, and while I don't really like looking out at the landscape to see a bunch of windmills, I think it is important to try and reduce our fossil fuel use. The fact of the matter though is that until we give up plastic, and figure out how to store electricity, we need nat gas or nuclear for electricity. Ive read conflicting data about the worlds lithium supply, but it may or may not be able to replace crude for transportation. Electric planes still seem a decade off or more. If crude went away tomorrow, I would still work in the energy industry so I don't care if that were to happen. I can say that I have been encouraged by some of the internal projects some "big oil" companies are taking on. I wish it could be a case of just stop using oil. Life as we know it would cease if we did that.
- johnwyles 8y ago
  To be fair a lot of West Texas if you're not looking at a bunch of windmills you're looking at about as many derricks - neither are very pleasing to the eye.
  - benj111 8y ago
    I find turbines quite beautiful. A small glimpse of that 1950s future that never came to be. We don't have jet packs, or flying cars, but we have immense white towers, slowly, steadily generating clean electricity. Just as steam engines sum up the industrial revolution, wind turbines sum up the green revolution, that is/I hope will be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. I remember people complaining about 2 massive cooling towers in the centre of Sheffield being torn down. I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly.
    - crumpets 8y ago
johnwyles 8y ago
Native Texan. Austin and not Austin all my life. Never heard "on balance". Some family in the industry. They know they are seeing the last boom before the bust. I was surprised to hear so few of the wind over there is with any of the big energy companies.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
longhorn_alum 8y ago
> 1. Texan here. I’m saying this as an Austinite. > 2. I’m anti fossil fuels.... 1. You're not a Texan. 2. By all means, stop using all plastic products, all synthetic fabrics, and stop eating food that you didn't grow yourself. 90% of crop fertilizer is made from natural gas, which creates the miracle of American agricultural productivity. Let us know once you've divested yourself from fossil fuels.
austin_is_cali 8y ago
Austin is not Texas. Austin is an plot of land annexed by California.
austincheney 8y ago
When ever I drive through west Texas all that sticks out to me are the giant wind turbines. Giant as in a 10-15 story building. When you drive up on a large patch of these turbines you might be able to see thousands at once, and there are possibly hundreds of such fields in west Texas. I am not pro or anti gas, oil, or wind. The primary difference is that wind is linked to the grid. Its not a package available for export. Oil and gas are chemically stable (roughly speaking, non-degrading) liquids that can be transferred anywhere. This makes fossil fuels ideal for export where wind is not, but damn there is a lot of investment in wind energy generation. As an additional matter of perspective I live very close to one of the largest oil refineries in the world, which is really close to one of the largest petroleum export harbors in the world. I am currently living in Kuwait. I really don't see anything here that would classify as a petroleum culture.
- petre 8y ago
  Most oil companies own wind and PV investments. They're aware that oil is going to run out or get expensive some day and diversify their assets. The enviromentalists are just ignorant and get all worked up.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    I doubt we will ever run out of oil. Yes, there is a specific non-renewable supply of it underground, but there is just so much of it and people are only able to consume it at a measurable declining pace. I bet demand will almost completely fall off long before we get anywhere close to running out.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I doubt we will ever run out of oil. Of course we won't. We will run out of oil that is worth extracting, because the cost to extract the next unit will exceed the value provided. > people are only able to consume it at a measurable declining pace The pace of global oil consumption has been increasing for a long time, other than a brief period of decline in the late 1970s to early 1980s. > I bet demand will almost completely fall off long before we get anywhere close to running out. Over the long term, consumption is going up as are real prices (though the price trend is noisier than consumption.) There's not really consistent with demand declining at all, much ledd heading to the point of completely falling off. Instead, it shows demand increasing faster than supply.
benj111 8y ago
>(I know, hypocrite) I'm guessing you added this to avoid inevitable flames. I don't think its hypocritical though. We all live in a world where fossil fuels are dominant. Its reasonable to fight to lower emissions while still emitting yourself (within reason). If you make it so that only the whitest of the white says anything, no one will.
kakarot 8y ago
On the other hand, I never had the option for 100% renewable energy before until I moved to Texas, thanks to their highly competitive energy market which was created via legislation. Some parts of Texas are backwards, but some parts of Texas are way ahead of other places.
j4kp07 8y ago
> From time to time I have reason to drive through or fly over (I know, hypocrite) West Texas, and passing through the oil fields one can literally watch the world burn. It’s unreal. I suggest you take a flight over to China. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=cjsdgb406s3np_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=emissions&fdim_y=emission_type:co2&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:-2&idim=country:185&ifdim=region&tstart=-3411568800000&tend=1321941600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=cjsdgb406s3np_#...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

freehunter 8y ago

I never really had a strong opinion on mining until I drove through Wyoming and northern Nevada. I knew it wasn't ecologically friendly, but it wasn't happening near me so I never saw much impact. But after driving through there and seeing entire mountains halfway destroyed as the mining crews work their way through it... in a few more years, that mountain won't even exist anymore. Watching humans take an entire mountain down rock-by-rock is a humbling experience.

ip26 8y ago
The worst part is humans only want a small fraction of the mountain, so the whole thing is chewed up and spat out into the land around the mountain. It would be a little better if we actually had a use for the whole mountain. The tar sands come to mind. The entire forest above the sands is literally scraped off the face of the earth, the sands removed, the oil removed from the sands, and then everything aside from the oil is left behind in huge swaths of desolate waste.
- Danieru 8y ago
  Odd wording to describe a replanted forest as "desolate waste". If anything one may suspect you are not being fully honest to leave out the "then they spent millions to try and return to the forest to its original state."
  - captainperl 8y ago
    > Odd wording to describe a replanted forest as "desolate waste". I know you're trolling, but planting trees doesn't replace an entire ecosystem. Check out a palm oil plantation sometimes for what a desolate forest looks like.
    - Danieru 8y ago
      Ah, so you were aware that the forests are replanted. You choose instead not to provide others with this information or inform that, but rather to editorialize. Now someone has asked you to justify how a replanted green forest is "desolate". Please keep on topic, we are talking about the tar sands not pal oil. Yes I know both have oil in the name but please understand they are not the same oil. Please for your own safety do not drink the tar sands. Now back to your statement. Do you retract your claim of desolation? Or can you provide any evidence to support your position. Please do not reference palm oil in relation to the tar sands. No palm trees grow in Fort Mac.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        Did you look at the usernames? Different users.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      First: No, I'm pretty sure that Danieru was not trolling. Second, HN guidelines say that one should not accuse someone else of trolling. It almost never leads to a decent discussion.
assblaster 8y ago
The alternative is having less minerals available and thus higher prices, which hurts all social strata. I think mining is a necessity to exploit all natural resource opportunities, very similar to how I would view solar and wind installations being built in "nice" areas like off the coast of Massachusetts.
- cheschire 8y ago
  I suspect some people consider ecological destruction as impacting all social strata as well.
- freehunter 8y ago
  I agree, mining is necessary. But it's a necessary evil. And like with all necessary evils, it'd be pretty nice if we could do our best to make sure we can stop committing the evil once it stops being necessary. It's hard to argue that coal mining is still necessary rather than merely convenient.
  - hackerman12345 8y ago
    It is perhaps necessary as Germany now has to import coal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-closes-last-coal-mine-despite-decades-of-supplies-needed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-c...
    - freehunter 8y ago
      I guess I should amend my statement: is coal use still necessary, or merely convenient? If we're using coal, it's necessary to mine it. The upstream question is, is it still necessary to use coal beyond the very boring argument of "it would cost money to replace coal"? I'm not looking for an answer to this question, as I don't own any coal mines or coal power plants. Just expressing general dissatisfaction with humanity's destructive-but-convenient habits.
      - crumpets 8y ago
alacombe 8y ago
How about seeing mountains being destroyed by Nature alone over the course of hundreds of millions of years ? Nature is not so beautiful if you consider it destroyed, eradicated, 99.9% of life which ever existed (and will destroy mankind) over the course of History.
- freehunter 8y ago
  Of course nature is destructive. But there's nothing we can really do about that. There is something we can do about humans being destructive. The difference between humans and the rest of nature is that we have the ability to choose our actions, these choices are not made for us already. I've never understood the argument that since [bad thing] happens, [more bad things] are justified. But judge, since nature kills humans all the time you can't possibly charge me with murder...
  - alacombe 8y ago
    How about all the good, technology, societal advancement, reduction of poverty which required the destruction if those mountains to mine the mattress to feel it ? Also, I'm sure you can make find some negatives in the lithium / PV / wind industries which are so vehemently pushed forward around here.
    - freehunter 8y ago
      Again, you're arguing that since [bad thing] happens, [more bad things] are justified. Stopping coal mining today isn't going to undo all of that progress you talked about. It already happened. And the progress only required energy, not coal. Coal was just the energy source that was available at the time. We have other energy sources. Changing the argument to the damage caused by lithium mines is just a distraction. My argument isn't against coal, it's against unnecessary evils. It would take a mighty strong mind to honestly argue that solar and wind power is more evil than coal. I'm going to bow out of this argument now as I'm not actually looking to have my opinion changed to a more pro-coal stance in 2018.
  - frutiger 8y ago
johnwyles 8y ago
had the same epiphany driving from CA to WA through OR. Oregon allows logging to clear-cut - meaning they don't pluck 1 tree among 5 to cut but instead just lop entire mountainsides down like someone getting a buzz cut.
- theparanoid 8y ago
  California has many many clear-cuts. Just not directly on I-5.
eigenvector 8y ago
Even worse than the act of disassembling a mountain is the processing of all of that rock - which concentrates huge amounts of harmful materials that would never appear in such great concentration and quantity naturally - and subsequently leaving it there permanently in massive tailing ponds that are one dam breach from wiping out millenia-old ecosystems downstream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Polley_mine_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Polley_mine_disaster
- crumpets 8y ago
  >and subsequently leaving it there permanently in massive tailing ponds Not permanent. They can be reclaimed, but that usually doesn't happen for many years until after the end of life for the mine.
  - ghouse 8y ago
    Reclamation does not un-concentrate the materials found in the impoundment. Typically a "Mine Plan of Operations" which includes the reclamation plan is a contouring of the topography and vegetation. Some mines require indefinite groundwater treatment due to leaching from tailings ponds or other mine activity. The cost responsibility for this _indefinite_ process is sometimes borne by the state following bankruptcy of a mine.

coding123 8y ago

I just drove on the 10 through the area. They literally have these strange chimney columns with flames shooting out. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/fracking-boom-waste-flares-light-prairie-unused-natural-gas-n186946 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/fracking-boom-waste-... The entire area smells like a diesel truck stop.

patagonia 8y ago
That is probably “burn off”. Flying over the fields at night one can get a really good idea of the industrial structure and scale involved. A horizontal scaffolding punctuated by these towers lit up at night by the burnoff creates a grid across the landscape that is beautiful and impressive but scary in its implications.
rory096 8y ago
WSJ wrote an article about flaring this week: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-booming-oilfield-natural-gas-can-be-free-11545906601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-booming-oilfield-natural-gas... Natural gas is so plentiful that spot prices at the West Texas hub turned negative last month. In general they're trading at about half the Louisiana hub. >One option for Permian operators with too much gas is to light it on fire, a practice known as flaring. Flaring levels reached record highs in the Permian last quarter, when companies burned an average of 407 million cubic feet a day, according to analysis of public data compiled by Rystad Energy, an energy consulting firm. >The resulting greenhouse-gas emissions are equivalent to the daily exhaust emitted by about 2.7 million cars, according to estimates from the World Bank and Environmental Protection Agency. >Texas has thus far allowed companies to flare freely. As of the end of November, state regulators hadn't denied a single permit request in more than five years, records show. But flaring isn’t always an option. Companies might not have the needed equipment set up in areas affected by pipeline outages. They also might have to pay landowners royalty payments for the gas they burn. And flaring gas on the spot means drillers miss out on more valuable products that come out of the ground with it, such as ethane, propane and butane, which are often processed out later.
- fromthestart 8y ago

nostromo 8y ago

I'm pro-renewables too. But, like you, I'm also a hypocrite because I drive and fly and use plastics. I'm ok with American extraction because I think it's preferable to the two other options I see: 1. keep giving mountains of money to horrific regimes like Saudi Arabia and Russia or 2. halt the global economy until renewables are to scale.

drjasonharrison 8y ago
Unfortunately the Texas crude is being exported because the Texas refineries can't refine it. So imports of "blood oil" will continue.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  What is stopping us from upgrading those refineries so that we can refine it? Is it simply not worth the investment?
  - briandear 8y ago
    We already have been. The OP is simply wrong.
    - shaklee3 8y ago
      I just fact checked, and indeed Texas does refine a whole lot: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_Un...
- briandear 8y ago
  This is completely incorrect. Many Texas and Louisiana refineries can process West Texas crude. And billions are being invested in expanding that capacity even further. Texas refineries, aside from light crude are primarily equipped to process Canadian and Gulf Coast petroleum, which is the majority of their production, far from “blood oil.” Here’s some background: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Refiners-investing-to-capitalize-on-flood-of-13408890.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Ref... Ubtil 2016, it was illegal to export American crude. So the idea that West Texas Intermediate Crude is being exported because refineries can’t handle it is false, unless we are talking about the past two years: in 2014, where did all of that crude go? It was being refined. As the US is a net petroleum exporter, the idea that “blood oil” is a significant part of the American fuel supply is false. Canada exports dramatically more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia. The main reason that West Texas Intermediate trades at a discount wasn’t because of refining capacity, but because of the lack of pipelines to move the stuff.

clairity 8y ago

> In Texas a strong Christian ethos encourages a certain view of “stewardship” of the earth that does not mesh well with the constantly evolving culture of environmentalism. this is the hypocrisy that gets me. christian stewardship should be at the forefront of environmentalism, culture wars be damned, not being dragged along gnawing and gnashing. edit: hypocisy infects all of us, but christian hypocrisy really burns. rather than stiving for betterment while tolerating imperfection, as jesus taught, the general pretense is to cast a blind eye to all kinds of moral failings while acting as if everything is rosy. it's like sitting on a high horse covered in poop.

Spooky23 8y ago
The modern evangelical philosophy that seizes the most attention today is often focused on prosperity of the individual. There’s no room for stewardship in any real sense. It’s cash in before it gets shut down.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
humanrebar 8y ago
If you really want to convince someone of a new position, you should really refrain from attacking their identity and show that you really understand why they make the decisions they do before offering a better alternative. > ...stiving for betterment while tolerating imperfection, as jesus taught... And on a particular point, Jesus never taught that in those words. It might be a fair inference and application, but "how would Jesus vote" is a tricky argument to make. Especially considering that the U.S. has a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Would Jesus vote for candidate A who favors a carbon tax and opposes ICE? Or candidate B who opposes late term abortion and wants better support for adoptive parents?
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Would Jesus vote for candidate A who favors a carbon tax and opposes ICE? Or candidate B who opposes late term abortion and wants better support for adoptive parents? Well, that might be the options in the Democrat primary, but what about the Republican positions?

rdiddly 8y ago

The world's burning here too. Thanks to widespread and unusual drought, there are huge wildfires burning all summer long, all over the West. They start well before the usual beginning of "fire season" and continue well past the end of it, into the late autumn. Fire season is now 3/4 of the year. Pretty soon I suppose it'll be all year long. There's a hot wind and choking smoke everywhere. The sun is blacked-out if you're in the immediate vicinity, or else there's a thick smoke haze for miles. It feels like the goddamned apocalypse. It feels like you're in hell. Or rather, hell feels like this. Because those who came up with the concept of hell, based it on this. It was one of their worst experiences of divine retribution. Along with floods and storms etc., and those are coming fast & furious now too. On TV here comes another car commercial. The disconnect is amazing. This shit needs to stop TODAY, if there's to be any hope of stopping or even slowing the catastrophe already in motion. But "good people" are not getting it. Certain other people work overtime to make sure they don't get it. And of course cutting them in on the spoils (a.k.a. "issuing them a paycheck") raises their mental barriers against getting it. Insert Upton Sinclair quote here.... "It is difficult to get a man to understand bla bla bla." The minute good people realize they're screwing over other good people, they might actually find it unpalatable to do the work (or buy the product). Either that or they're not such good people. But they don't always have a choice, right? At least that's what good people say who want to absolve good people. Gotta pay the rent, right? Well that's what my landlord says anyway. Gotta keep driving to work to pay the rent, right? Well that's what 80% of Houstonians and 85% of Detroiters say... but 70% of Portlanders agree too. (Everybody's a liberal as long as it doesn't mean getting off your ass.) Maybe people just naturally exploit and screw each other to profit themselves, and all morality is just an idealistic and optimistic overlay. Maybe people in general just aren't that "good." Maybe it'll be better after a bunch of us die the hell off. I need a drink.

rhacker 8y ago
Fuck, I'm buying.
badpun 8y ago
The assumption that people are good in general is a fallacy. When put to test, ex. in Soviet Gulags, vast majority of people would condemn other prisoners to death for a mere chance (not even guaranteed) of slight decrease of their own misery. When the stakes are real, even as small as the convenience of driving, most people put themselves first.

txcwpalpha 8y ago

Interesting to see you say that about Texans, as my experience is nearly the complete opposite. Texas is the country's leading wind power state, and is pretty big on solar as well. Among most of the people I interact with daily (friends as well as colleagues), are not people I would consider "pro fossil fuel" at all. And this is coming from people mostly in Dallas/Houston, where oil & gas is much bigger than in Austin. I can even think of a couple friends of mine that actually work for the major oil companies, and even they I would not describe as "pro fossil fuel". One of them drives a Prius. When I was at school at UT, even amongst the buildings and lecture halls that are sponsored and paid for by Chevron/Exxon, I never encountered an anti-renewable sentiment. Hell, McCombs has a masters degree program specifically geared towards exploring renewable energy businesses (as well as several undergrad classes, one of which I took), and I know the engineering school has an entire department for researching renewables. Most of my friends are in their late 20s/early 30s though, so maybe that makes a difference. I could see older folks who grew up when oil was king maybe being opposed to solar/wind. But even then, now that I think about it, one of my friend's grandparents (who are from West Texas) were very thankful for the wind industry and the money it brought to their town (it got brought up because we made a remark about how there seemed to be endless wind turbines in every direction on the drive through W Texas to visit them). I just browsed through a few polls and based on them, it seems you must be really unlucky to encounter so many people unwilling to discuss renewables. According to these polls [1][2][3][4], 80%+ of Texans support renewable/clean energy. I'd be interested to hear more about what types of conversations you try to have and who (age range, industry) you interact with when you find these people. It surprises me that this has been your experience, especially in Austin of all places. 1: https://www.citizen.org/may-11-texas-poll-shows-citizens-want-texas-leaders-increase-renewable-energy-goals https://www.citizen.org/may-11-texas-poll-shows-citizens-wan... 2: https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-energy-pioneer-texas-1472414098 https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-... 3: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/survey-texans-support-statewide-clean-energy-plan/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/survey-texans-suppor... 4: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/climate/renewable-energy-push-is-strongest-in-the-reddest-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/climate/renewable-energy-...

rhacker 8y ago

S_A_P 8y ago

Houstonite here that works in the energy industry. Im not sure you are talking to the right people. Im not anti fossil fuels, but Im not really "pro" fossil fuels either. If you look at the oil and gas business, there really just isn't any viable alternatives available on a large scale at this moment. I would echo some other comments in that Texas has a lot of solar and wind farms. My father in law has a ranch out in west Texas and every surrounding property has wind or solar generation on it. I am encouraged by this, and while I don't really like looking out at the landscape to see a bunch of windmills, I think it is important to try and reduce our fossil fuel use. The fact of the matter though is that until we give up plastic, and figure out how to store electricity, we need nat gas or nuclear for electricity. Ive read conflicting data about the worlds lithium supply, but it may or may not be able to replace crude for transportation. Electric planes still seem a decade off or more. If crude went away tomorrow, I would still work in the energy industry so I don't care if that were to happen. I can say that I have been encouraged by some of the internal projects some "big oil" companies are taking on. I wish it could be a case of just stop using oil. Life as we know it would cease if we did that.

johnwyles 8y ago
To be fair a lot of West Texas if you're not looking at a bunch of windmills you're looking at about as many derricks - neither are very pleasing to the eye.
- benj111 8y ago
  I find turbines quite beautiful. A small glimpse of that 1950s future that never came to be. We don't have jet packs, or flying cars, but we have immense white towers, slowly, steadily generating clean electricity. Just as steam engines sum up the industrial revolution, wind turbines sum up the green revolution, that is/I hope will be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. I remember people complaining about 2 massive cooling towers in the centre of Sheffield being torn down. I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly.
  - crumpets 8y ago

johnwyles 8y ago

Native Texan. Austin and not Austin all my life. Never heard "on balance". Some family in the industry. They know they are seeing the last boom before the bust. I was surprised to hear so few of the wind over there is with any of the big energy companies.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

longhorn_alum 8y ago

> 1. Texan here. I’m saying this as an Austinite. > 2. I’m anti fossil fuels.... 1. You're not a Texan. 2. By all means, stop using all plastic products, all synthetic fabrics, and stop eating food that you didn't grow yourself. 90% of crop fertilizer is made from natural gas, which creates the miracle of American agricultural productivity. Let us know once you've divested yourself from fossil fuels.

austin_is_cali 8y ago

Austin is not Texas. Austin is an plot of land annexed by California.

austincheney 8y ago

When ever I drive through west Texas all that sticks out to me are the giant wind turbines. Giant as in a 10-15 story building. When you drive up on a large patch of these turbines you might be able to see thousands at once, and there are possibly hundreds of such fields in west Texas. I am not pro or anti gas, oil, or wind. The primary difference is that wind is linked to the grid. Its not a package available for export. Oil and gas are chemically stable (roughly speaking, non-degrading) liquids that can be transferred anywhere. This makes fossil fuels ideal for export where wind is not, but damn there is a lot of investment in wind energy generation. As an additional matter of perspective I live very close to one of the largest oil refineries in the world, which is really close to one of the largest petroleum export harbors in the world. I am currently living in Kuwait. I really don't see anything here that would classify as a petroleum culture.

petre 8y ago
Most oil companies own wind and PV investments. They're aware that oil is going to run out or get expensive some day and diversify their assets. The enviromentalists are just ignorant and get all worked up.
- austincheney 8y ago
  I doubt we will ever run out of oil. Yes, there is a specific non-renewable supply of it underground, but there is just so much of it and people are only able to consume it at a measurable declining pace. I bet demand will almost completely fall off long before we get anywhere close to running out.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I doubt we will ever run out of oil. Of course we won't. We will run out of oil that is worth extracting, because the cost to extract the next unit will exceed the value provided. > people are only able to consume it at a measurable declining pace The pace of global oil consumption has been increasing for a long time, other than a brief period of decline in the late 1970s to early 1980s. > I bet demand will almost completely fall off long before we get anywhere close to running out. Over the long term, consumption is going up as are real prices (though the price trend is noisier than consumption.) There's not really consistent with demand declining at all, much ledd heading to the point of completely falling off. Instead, it shows demand increasing faster than supply.

benj111 8y ago

>(I know, hypocrite) I'm guessing you added this to avoid inevitable flames. I don't think its hypocritical though. We all live in a world where fossil fuels are dominant. Its reasonable to fight to lower emissions while still emitting yourself (within reason). If you make it so that only the whitest of the white says anything, no one will.

kakarot 8y ago

On the other hand, I never had the option for 100% renewable energy before until I moved to Texas, thanks to their highly competitive energy market which was created via legislation. Some parts of Texas are backwards, but some parts of Texas are way ahead of other places.

j4kp07 8y ago

> From time to time I have reason to drive through or fly over (I know, hypocrite) West Texas, and passing through the oil fields one can literally watch the world burn. It’s unreal. I suggest you take a flight over to China. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=cjsdgb406s3np_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=emissions&fdim_y=emission_type:co2&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:-2&idim=country:185&ifdim=region&tstart=-3411568800000&tend=1321941600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=cjsdgb406s3np_#...