A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

[eyeball]

Deleted

Edited December 20, 2014 by eyeball

[TimG]

New York state has also just recently issued a complete ban on Fracking following the states 184 page report which details...

I think this blogger captured this report nicely by comparing the pseudo-scientific BS in the NY report to the parody of government portrayed in Atlas Shrugged:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/12/state-science-institute-issues-report-on-rearden-metal-err-fracking.html

Based on this review, it is apparent that the science surrounding HVHF [high volume hydraulic fracturing] activity is limited, only just beginning to emerge, and largely suggests only hypotheses about potential public health impacts that need further evaluation....

...the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in New York State....

The actual degree and extent of these environmental impacts, as well as the extent to which they might contribute to adverse public health impacts are largely unknown. Nevertheless, the existing studies raise substantial questions about whether the public health risks of HVHF activities are sufficiently understood so that they can be adequately managed.

The latter is a quote from the NY report - not Altas Shrugged but it is hard to tell the difference because the motivations are the same: ideologically driven politicians want to shut down an industry they don't like so generate a bunch of scientific baffle-gab and claim their ideology is "supported by science".

Fracking has been used for 60 years and it is a safe process when proper procedures are followed. The only reason we are talking about it is because eco-nuts have decided that they needed new mission to raises funds and massage their egos.

Edited December 20, 2014 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

Alternatively we hear the same thing from the other side of the political fence. The reality here is that documented health effects have occurred, contaminated ground water has occurred, seismic activity has occurred and other effects on surrounding communities have occurred. The problem with this is that supporters of fracking are not satisfied until a sizable catastrophic event happens. A few people here and there with long term health effects is seen as a means to an economic end. This is why NY state is shutting it down. It's not about what if anymore, it's about when.

[Keepitsimple]

Opposition to fracking has only been "in vogue" over the past 5 years or so as the sponsors of eco-nuts pour money to their enablers like Greenpeace, the Sierra Group and Suzuki et al. Where were these mouthpieces over the previous 50 years as literally millions of hydraulic fracturing operations were started - and successfully continue to this day? It's perfectly sensible to advocate for increased regulation - but to try to effectively ban an industry that is now replacing a good portion of oil and coal energy is......well, nonsensical.

[TimG]

Alternatively we hear the same thing from the other side of the political fence. The reality here is that documented health effects have occurred, contaminated ground water has occurred, seismic activity has occurred and other effects on surrounding communities have occurred.

And there is no evidence to support the claim that these events are anything other than isolated incidents that are easily addressed by proper procedures.

few people here and there with long term health effects is seen as a means to an economic end. This is why NY state is shutting it down. It's not about what if anymore, it's about when.

SO tell me when NY state bans the IMPORT Of fracked natural gas? NY is more than happy to import cheap natural gas from other states that understand that any risks are manageable and access to a reliable energy is more important than hypothetical concerns.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/magazine/2014/04/8542944/fracking-frozen-gas-flows

Last year, a record number of New York City’s buildings converted from oil to gas. And even as the governor defers a decision on whether to permit fracking in the name of a very long health study, his administration is pushing aggressively to convert coal-burning power plants to cleaner-burning natural gas.

In other words, New York is growing ever more reliant on fracking, even if none of that fracking is happening here.

NY politicians supporting this ban are contemptible hypocrites. And if the world was fair these people would forced to live without access to the benefits of fossil fuels. Edited December 20, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

And if the world was fair, the people who drone on about the "benefits" of fossil fuels should be forced to spend a week in downtown Port Au Prince or Hong Kong or Mexico City, etc., etc., etc. And when their eyes and noses finally stop running and burning, maybe they will take a bit more seriously the huge bulk of science that refutes their claims that burning this junk isn't hurting us.

[PrimeNumber]

And if the world was fair, the people who drone on about the "benefits" of fossil fuels should be forced to spend a week in downtown Port Au Prince or Hong Kong or Mexico City, etc., etc., etc. And when their eyes and noses finally stop running and burning, maybe they will take a bit more seriously the huge bulk of science that refutes their claims that burning this junk isn't hurting us.

I worked on the carbon capture project at Boundary Dam, a coal fire station just outside of Estevan, SK for one and half years. I would leave to return to my home in Richmond, BC every chance I would get often times flying out of Regina. When living in Estevan I found myself constantly coughing and sneezing and when I would return home to Richmond my sinus' would clear up within a day or so and the coughing and sneezing would go away but when I would return in about a day or so the coughing and sneezing would return. After a two trips back home I realized I wasn't sick, it was just the air in and around Estevan that was causing the problem. Many other people I knew living there had the same dry cough and sneezing problem. Often times if the wind blew the right direction the town would be covered in a haze and almost every single morning my vehicle would be covered in fly ash from the plant.

[On Guard for Thee]

I worked on the carbon capture project at Boundary Dam, a coal fire station just outside of Estevan, SK for one and half years. I would leave to return to my home in Richmond, BC every chance I would get often times flying out of Regina. When living in Estevan I found myself constantly coughing and sneezing and when I would return home to Richmond my sinus' would clear up within a day or so and the coughing and sneezing would go away but when I would return in about a day or so the coughing and sneezing would return. After a two trips back home I realized I wasn't sick, it was just the air in and around Estevan that was causing the problem. Many other people I knew living there had the same dry cough and sneezing problem. Often times if the wind blew the right direction the town would be covered in a haze and almost every single morning my vehicle would be covered in fly ash from the plant.

I can relate. My GP's came from Scotland and I have had the opportunity to go back and visit relatives still there. My first visit was in March month and a bit cold, and my initial walk around the town (Dumfries) I experienced all the things you speak of due to the number of coal being burned for warmth, of course much of it in fireplaces so coal smoke straight out the chimney. I also spent a year working out of P au P Haiti Luckily I lived in a nice hotel up on the south side of the valley but my work took me into the airport on a nearly daily basis. If you've ever wondered where all the old, poorly tuned, diesel burning Datsun's are, there's a bunch there used as taxi's. suffer through that a while and your attitude tends to focus a bit.

[TimG]

And if the world was fair, the people who drone on about the "benefits" of fossil fuels should be forced to spend a week in downtown Port Au Prince or Hong Kong or Mexico City, etc., etc., etc.

Except all of those problems are not related to the production of fossil fuels and are only the result of inadequate controls on the combustion of fossil fuels - controls which work very well in most NA cities.

[TimG]

I worked on the carbon capture project at Boundary Dam, a coal fire station just outside of Estevan, SK for one and half years.

When coal plants are upgraded particulate pollution is largely of thing of the past which would disappear entirely if natural gas was used instead of coal. But natural gas cannot be used if people mindlessly oppose fracking and pipelines which means people will keep using coal.

Everything we do to produce energy comes with side effects. What we need is an intelligent discussion on minimizing those side effects instead of ignorant attempts to ban things.

Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

I can relate. My GP's came from Scotland and I have had the opportunity to go back and visit relatives still there. My first visit was in March month and a bit cold, and my initial walk around the town (Dumfries) I experienced all the things you speak of due to the number of coal being burned for warmth, of course much of it in fireplaces so coal smoke straight out the chimney. I also spent a year working out of P au P Haiti Luckily I lived in a nice hotel up on the south side of the valley but my work took me into the airport on a nearly daily basis. If you've ever wondered where all the old, poorly tuned, diesel burning Datsun's are, there's a bunch there used as taxi's. suffer through that a while and your attitude tends to focus a bit.

Remember that when you start making dumb statements about Obama and the US showing leadership and bringing down their GHG's. The only reason they are capable of making any progress at all is because so much of their energy is produced from coal. Canada on the other hand, uses very little coal and a lot of clean Hydro power, natural gas and nuclear. And yet the eco-nuts give Obama a free pass as if he is some sort of Green Guardian - in spite of his boasts that he's producing more oil and building more pipelines that an any time in the history of the US. And how about that historic unwritten agreement from China that Obama crowed about. China agrees to continue to increase emissions until 2030 and then they say they'll start to decrease. In the meantime, they'll continue to build a new coal-fired generator plant every week We can trust China with an unwritten agreement of course. Thanks Obama - great deal. Hypocrits. Eco-nuts. Insanity. -

[On Guard for Thee]

Except all of those problems are not related to the production of fossil fuels and are only the result of inadequate controls on the combustion of fossil fuels - controls which work very well in most NA cities.

A little basic science for you: without the production of fossil fuels, there could be no combustion of same, (except for volcano's we can't as yet control), and those problems that burn people's eyes would go away.

[TimG]

those problems that burn people's eyes would go away.

They would be just replaced by mass starvation since it would no longer be possible to produce and transport the food that keeps these large cities running. I am very much in favour of replacing fossil fuels with something better. The trouble is there is nothing better available today so if we want to keep our society going we need to produce fossil fuels. That is why I say people who mindlessly oppose the production of fossil fuels should be forced to live without. Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

They would be just replaced by mass starvation since it would no longer be possible to produce and transport the food that keeps these large cities running. I am very much in favour of replacing fossil fuels with something better. The trouble is there is nothing better available today so if we want to keep our society going we need to produce fossil fuels.

Your faulty assumptions will not help facilitate what you claim to be in favor of.

[TimG]

Your faulty assumptions will not help facilitate what you claim to be in favor of.

They are not assumptions. They are facts whether you want to believe it or not.

[On Guard for Thee]

They are not assumptions. They are facts whether you want to believe it or not.

The good news is that with he latest market crash around oil prices perhaps the folks stuck in the "fossil fuel rut" may start to look around and get educated and move investments to much smarter territory where the Saudi's for instance can't gut your RRSP plan.

[PrimeNumber]

When coal plants are upgraded particulate pollution is largely of thing of the past which would disappear entirely if natural gas was used instead of coal. But natural gas cannot be used if people mindlessly oppose fracking and pipelines which means people will keep using coal.

Everything we do to produce energy comes with side effects. What we need in an intelligent discussion on minimizing those side effects instead of ignorant attempts to ban things.

Or like i said, convert to Nuclear. Considering the incredible amounts of Nuclear potential we have in this country. Saskatchewan has somewhere around 16% of the world's supply of Uranium alone.

The carbon capture project at Boundary was largely a waste of taxpayer money and time. They have 6 lignite-fire units, 1 of which has been fitted with a carbon capture unit at a cost of around $1.5 billion and about 7 years of planning and construction. now an argument can be made that because this was a pioneering project the costs can go down, but the reality is they won't go down by much.

That money and time could have been invested on 2 CANDU nuclear reactors in southern Saskatchewan that could have seen the coal-fire plant decommissioned over the period of construction. Boundary Dam has a capacity output of 820MW or so but realistically is outputting around 650MW.

2-2nd generation CANDU reactors have capacity output of about 1,756MW which would be enough to effectively power the entire southern portion of the Province for years to come. At a construction cost of about $4 billion or so. But the long term costs would be much cheaper than coal.

[TimG]

Or like i said, convert to Nuclear. Considering the incredible amounts of Nuclear potential we have in this country. Saskatchewan has somewhere around 16% of the world's supply of Uranium alone.

If someone wants to build a nuclear plant it is fine with me. It is not going to happen because the same culture of obstruction that interfers with pipelines, fracking and hydro developments will block nuclear. If you want this to change you have to change the culture of obstruction. I suggest you start by not being part of the problem. Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

If someone wants to build a nuclear plant it is fine with me. It is not going to happen because the same culture of obstruction that interfers with pipelines, fracking and hydro developments will block nuclear. If you want this to change you have to change the culture of obstruction. I suggest you start by not being part of the problem.

What you call the culture of obstruction, I could rename the culture of protection. People are waking up and seeing that big smoke stacks blowing black shit out of them may not be good for us.

[PrimeNumber]

If someone wants to build a nuclear plant it is fine with me. It is not going to happen because the same culture of obstruction that interfers with pipelines, fracking and hydro developments will block nuclear. If you want this to change you have to change the culture of obstruction. I suggest you start by not being part of the problem.

What exactly am I doing that suggests I am part of the problem?

[TimG]

What exactly am I doing that suggests I am part of the problem?

Supporting knee jerk opposition to fracking that produces a cleaner burning fuel.

[PrimeNumber]

What you call the culture of obstruction, I could rename the culture of protection. People are waking up and seeing that big smoke stacks blowing black shit out of them may not be good for us.

Some people could care less about the future generations of our species. Then there are those of us on this planet that don't know how one could be so selfish.

[PrimeNumber]

Supporting knee jerk opposition to fracking that produces a cleaner burning fuel.

It's not knee-jerk reactions to fracking. Fracking has been happening for a very long time and we are starting to see the results of this practice. It's called researching something without taking a company who stands to benefit from it use's word for it. I don't want cleaner, I want clean. Nuclear will get us there closer than natural gas. So I refuse to support it, we don't need it, which i have proven above so frankly it's quite useless considering what we know about it. As is coal. Nuclear can be a base-line in this country supported by any number of clean renewable technologies which only stand to get better with more research. Every year there are breakthroughs in clean energy, do you want to be the country that discovers that breakthrough, or the one buying it from another country?

[TimG]

So I refuse to support it, we don't need it, which i have proven above so frankly it's quite useless considering what we know about it.

The NY report is a pile of BS that says we know nothing but gives credence to a bunch of fear mongers with no real evidence to support their claims. So claiming that we "know" about it is false. More importantly, the NY report is exactly the same type of pseudo-scientific fear mongering that leads to opposition of nuclear.

But whatever, like I said, you are part of the problem so you really can't complain about the lack of nuclear. It is people like you who are to blame. One can either stand up for rational management of risks associated with energy production or one can give into fear mongers. One cannot claim to be rational one minute but join the fear mongers the next.

Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The NY report is a pile of BS that says we know nothing but gives credence to a bunch of fear mongers with no real evidence to support their claims. So claiming that we "know" about it is false. More importantly, the is exactly the same type of pseudo-scientific fear mongering that leads to opposition of nuclear.

But whatever, like I said, you are part of the problem so you really can't complain about the lack of nuclear. It is people like you who are to blame. One can either stand up for rational management of risks associated with energy production or one can give into fear mongers. One cannot claim to be rational one minute but join the fear mongers the next.

And your pseudo-science claims you back up how?