Seeds of Science. GM is good.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Anything new, Bobbo, is novel and requires a different assessment. //// Its NOT NOVEL: at all.

We simply do not know what the level of risk is. //// BS.

I do not think it matters, though. /// What is "it"? My "it" the drilling for oil in the Arctic matters quite a bit.

I doubt that any such exploration will happen. It would be expensive, politically unpopular and unnecessary. /// The relevant issue is: how profitable could it be. But: the intervention of Greenpeace may save us.

[Lance Kennedy]

Bobbo

I am sure the oil companies have as much contempt for Greenpeace as I have. If Greenpeace opposes, they are MORE, not less likely to persist.

After all, the Japanese government are on record saying that as long as Greenpeace opposes whaling, they will kill whales.

No one likes being told what they cannot do.

[ElectricMonk]

Re: fracking/coal

Nope.
It has reduced import of oil from overseas at significant local environmental damage.

[Lance Kennedy]

Yes, EM

But it has also reduced the amount of coal burned and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions.

It may surprise you to know that the USA is the world's leading producer of oil and gas from domestic sources. Imports were needed because so much oil was burned. But fracking increased domestic production.

Before fracking, oil sold for over $US 100 per barrel. It dropped to half that. Ditto gas. Cheap oil and gas gets used where expensive oil does not. So oil and gas became used for a lot of operations where previously coal was burned.

I am aware that fracking is another one of those things targeted by environmental activist idiots, and the fact that it is reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very embarrassing for those morons. As with previous times where they were proven to be in error, that just spurs their idiocy to greater heights of enthusiasm. Don't get sucked in.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... e4b2fb3535

This article discusses the drop in carbon emissions by the USA. It gives the reason as gas from shale burned instead of coal. But the reason that gas is now available in large amounts is fracking.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Bobbo

I am sure the oil companies have as much contempt for Greenpeace as I have. If Greenpeace opposes, they are MORE, not less likely to persist.

PR flack.

[ElectricMonk]

If fracking is so great, why does NZ not do it except on a tiny scale that is under criticism?

Germany has decided that it is too dangerous.

And even if it was safe, it uses up way too much water - water that is urgently needed in many places of the US where fracking is taking place.
It's a pretty terrible technology.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

or..... its a "great" technology....we just don't have the water to run it. but it is a choice: do you want drinking water for yourself or gas for your car?

[ElectricMonk]

or..... its a "great" technology....we just don't have the water to run it. but it is a choice: do you want drinking water for yourself or gas for your car?

gas is a liquid, so you can drink it, right?

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

gas is as good to drink, as water is for cars to go.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Monsanto World Headquarters just a few miles from here. Never see any protestors.

And I really never thought plants would have their own anti-vax cliche.

[Lance Kennedy]

On fracking.

Like everything else in the world, it has its hazards. They are confined to shallow strata. Most oil fields are a bit deeper, and fracking is quite safe. It should not be used for shallow strata (though it has been) due to minor hazards of ground water contamination and earth tremor generation.

None of which alters the fact that fracking generates more oil and gas fields and reduces burning of coal, thus reducing carbon emissions. As with anything, it is all about balance.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

As with anything, it is all about balance.

Bigger thumbs are needed on the Green Energy side of the scale......if you have any balance at all.

[Lance Kennedy]

There are too many ignorant thumbs already. It is not a matter of whether the thumb is green or not. It is a matter of whether it belongs to someone who knows what he or she is doing.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

I know where your thumb is.............

Its not valid "in my opinion" to approve of fracking because it is less polluting than coal when green has near zero.

[Lance Kennedy]

I am being practical. Changing from coal to gas is easy and is happening all the time. Changing to other alternatives is not necessarily easy or financially possible in the short term.

Incidentally, I came across a novel criticism of wind power recently.
You probably know that manufacturing cement involves massive CO2 emissions. So anything that uses a lot of cement is climate unfriendly. Wind power involves tens of thousands of wind towers, each of which sits on an ENORMOUS slab of cement to hold it in place.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Lance: yeah....I agree it will take a mix of sources for quite some time....but...we have to change our mindset.

[ElectricMonk]

Cement absorbs CO2 when binding.

Lance, that is a weak argument, as all power plants but solar are build using cement.

[Lance Kennedy]

Was not my argument, but interesting. Nothing is perfect. Wind and solar are the fashion, but both have drawbacks.

[ElectricMonk]

Forgive me for thinking you support the argument you bother to post.

[Lance Kennedy]

EM

This is a discussion forum. I often post stuff I think is interesting and possibly worth discussing. If I say it comes from something other than myself, it may not be my opinion. Sometimes I am interested in what others say in order to educate myself. Sometimes it might be something I am thinking of taking a position on. Unless I make an argument, it is probably not wise to assume.