Did anyone hear Leslie Stahl, I think on Morning Joe? She...

[Little Star]

was talking about the need for the USA to develop our natural gas resources which she says are more plentiful than all other resources.

I know nothing on this subject. But it did make me wonder if there was a fairly safe way to develop our natural gas resources.

Would natural gas be worse than coal, oil drilling, nuclear, etc.?

I know wind and solar are the best ways to get our energy needs met. But no one seems willing to spend all the time and money to make those kind of things fully workable (if they ever could be). I doubt we will ever see the day that any country can accomplish this, much less the USA.

So my question is which is worse oil drilling (especially in our oceans at such deep depths) or mountain top removal for nasty coal or nuclear, or natural gas? :shrug:

[Cassandra]

1. Look up fracking and the movie, Gasland.

I guess Stahl thinks she doesn't need water.

[Little Star]

5. So fracking is worse than all the other disastrous things we do today?

My question is (they are all horrible) which is worse?

[jp11]

6. When they 'all' destroy the environment, land, water, air does it really matter

which is worse? Yes there may be a 'lesser devil' but when we have alternatives that aren't devils at all we don't HAVE to pick a devil. We could just keep the devils we have now and move forward away from them, leave the coal/gas/oil/nuclear plants we have now and move forward to clean technologies BUT we aren't we want to keep using all the old technology until we use up all of the fossil fuels that is much more profitable for business.

This is where government should step in and demand solar/wind/hydro/thermal and other technologies that move us off fossil fuel usage.

[apocalypsehow]

13. If the "government" (which one?) stepped in TODAY, right now, and began spending 500 billion dollars

a year on "solar/wind/hydro/thermal and other (?) technologies" - no, let's make it a TRILLION dollars a year - per year every year for fifty years...."solar/wind/thermal and other (?) technologies" would not even keep up with the pace of yearly energy demand even if that demand remained level with 2011 growth.

There simply is not enough power to harness in those technologies to meet human demand. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Period.

So you are left, at the end of the day, with two alternatives:

1. Drill for more oil and gas + build more nuclear power plants,

...or...

2. Have the "government" (again, I ask, which one?) step in, start shutting down power plants, and simply tell the people of the world that's it time to revert to a pre-industrial society without electricity for private use, and strictly rationed for even the "government" on a dire-need only basis.

Those are your choices.

[jp11]

18. Thanks for my choices I appreciate being told what you think my options are.

[apocalypsehow]

19. Yes, facts are helpful that way. Being educated on them is always a good thing.

You are quite welcome. :thumbsup:

[Little Star]

27. It does matter. They are all disastrous! However.....

the question is are they 'equally' disastrous?

Yes, the government should step in and demand solar/wind/hydro/thermal and other technologies that move us off fossil fuel usage.

But until then, which of the ones our government seems to be hell bent on doing is the 'lesser devil'?

There is to many $$ for the government to give up doing what they are doing. And it will be to expensive for our government to step in and demand solar/wind/hydro/thermal and other technologies.

We need a game plan to knock off some of their favorite, pet, greedy money pits!

[WhiteTara]

12. die from bad water or bad something else

your are still dead.
Do you mean which will cause the more terrible symptoms? :shrug:

[paparush]

25. Earthquakes in Arkansas tied to fracking

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=arkansas+earthquak+fracking

Also see "My tap water catches on fire"

[DCKit]

20. Leslie Stahl can afford to buy glacial water.

"Gasland"... OMG, my whole family watched it together and, nine months later, some are still angry.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I hate to choose between fresh water and natural gas.

[Zoeisright]

3. False equivalency.

Solar and wind could easily fulfill all our energy needs. But nobody can become an instant millionaire with those forms of energy, which is why the M$M and Wall Street dismiss them.

If we had put the same amount of money into clean renewable energy that we've put into filthy, poisonous nuclear we wouldn't have any energy problems at all.

[RC]

10. Solar and Wind are horrendously inefficient.

Modern nuclear power is much safer and cleaner than coal and doesn't not have the waste of the current reactors have.
The biggest problem is that you can not build nuclear bombs from the waste with the new modern reactors. And that waste can be easily recycled into new fuel.

Now who would want that in our war driven economy? :sarcasm:

[apocalypsehow]

14. False. "Solar and wind" could not even come remotely close to meeting our energy needs even if we

spent a trillion dollars a year for fifty years investing in such ventures. Not. Even. Close.

Please try again.

[Little Star]

15. What you state is all true. However since it's all about the $$.....

And the instant millionaire's/PTB will never ever do it because of the $$ factor.

Why would natural gas be worse than all the other horrible things we do with, oil drilling, mountain top removal (for filthy coal) or nuclear? That is the real question.

I think we need to still fight with all our might for Solar and wind.

But we must also multitask and realize that just maybe one of the 'horribles' are a little less harmful than an another. If we can figure that answer then push for this less harmful 'horrible' one while discrediting the other 'horrible ones'.

Why not narrow down our fight from 2,3 or 4 'horribles'? It is easier to fight just 'one horrible'/less harmful if we can figure out which one that one is?????

We are now fighting to many industries and getting into the weeds. It confuses and makes the fight harder.

Which does more harm natural gas, oil drilling, mountain top removal for filthy coal or nuclear? We need to knock some of them out of the argument, imho. We should also want to have the least harmful 'horrible' because these are our "only options" right now.

Then we take on that identified single one 'horrible' and push for wind and solar.

This needs to be done in stages so not to confuse. 1) identify least harmful "horrible'. 2)prove this least harmful "horrible' is still very bad. 3) Fight for wind and solar!!!

Did I make any sense? lol

[jp11]

4. Depends, natural gas is chased after with dangerous consequnces and her comment

about our 'fear for the environment' came off as condescending to me. It can/does pollute our water supply to seek natural gas in fracking where chemicals are pumped into the ground to get the gas out poisoning the land/water. If we could get the gas out safely that would be 'better' but can we do it, and do the companies who seek profit want to do it safely? It seems they don't as they lobbied and won the rights to trash the environment by basically having the clean water act not apply to them.

Any energy resource CAN be extracted/removed safely BUT is it cheap/easy to do it like that, can you get at it by going safe, probably not so risks have to be taken and the end result of all fossil fuels is pollution.


http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas

nice animation with info on fracking process

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/

[Kali]

7. it is still a hydrocarbon that affects the atmosphere and climate

[bananas]

8. Answer: All new generation should be renewables

see this post: RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKS NOW - We do not need to build any coal or nuclear power plants http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=626150&mesg_id=626150

[glinda]

9. kick

[jtrockville]

11. Yes. Let's stop digging stuff up out of the earth and burning it.

[Saturday]

16. The answer is PLASMA GASIFICATION!!! Google it.

I think Lesley has just been listening to T Boone Pickens.

[Sal Minella]

17. It's moments like this when I'd really, really love to know what went

on at the Behind-Locked-Doors-And-Forever-Secret Energy meetings Dick Cheney held Ever-So-Secretly.

Would just love, love, love to know . . . .

We continue to throw taxpayer money happily at oil and coal while trying to starve wind and solar, who seem to be doing pretty well on their own, actually.

I get the feeling people are beginning to get tired of being lied to.

[Little Star]

22. Gotta love all that transparency!

[Little Star]

21. So am I understanding this correctly? Please, please answer...

this simple question. Natural gas, oil drilling, mountain top removal for filthy coal and nuclear are all "equally" bad? That's what I am getting from this conversation. I know they are all horrible but is one worse than the other? Are they all equally horrible? If so how?

No more need to discuss solar/wind we all already know they are the good answer. That point has been conceded over and over again by everyone.

[WinkyDink]

24. Here's what is bad, and has been for a couple centuries: The Industrial Revolution.

[Little Star]

30. As bad as that is I think Globalization is the worse thing that...

has happened to this whole planet.

[WinkyDink]

23. If you want PA and NYC residents to drink poisoned water, fracking is great!

[Little Star]

29. And if we want people in the Appalachians dying in coal mines..

and we think mountain top removal is good, then dirty coal is friggin great too!

Then there is also the wonderful drill baby drill for oil in our oceans at depths they can not control, that's another winner! Just ask the people of the Gulf Coast.

And of course there are no problems with nuclear. (there are just to many to mention)

However, although they are all horrible, in the big picture sense which are worse than others?

Some must be less dangerous than others, no?

[Spike89]

34. You're asking for a specific on a generality...

In general, there is no way to answer your question that makes any sense. Natural gas can, in some instances be very clean and efficient when compared to other fossil fuels, it can also be dangerous and destructive. I guess that potentially NG could be significantly less harmful than coal or oil because it does burn more cleanly (efficiently). However, extraction methods can vary and make a huge difference in how destructive it is.
Think of it this way...solar is fairly clean right now, but if we were to attempt a 100% conversion to solar overnight, we'd probably have to nearly destroy the earth to get all the materials needed for panels, we'd potentially destroy a lot of habitat siting collectors, etc. Done wrong, or out of scale, virtually any energy source can be the most harmful.

[Little Star]

35. Thank you so much for your response.....

I guess my point is, if we had to access the things we use right now (they are all bad) how would you grade them from worse to lest worse. They can not be all 'equally' bad. There has to be some trade offs between them in order to grade them.

If we could grade them and try getting our congress critters on board with the lest of the worse it would only give us one thing to fight against. One thing to try and force them to make safer. Right now it seems like we are helter skelter with no one place to focus our energy.

Like you said a 100% conversion to solar overnight is just not feasible right now.

Leslie Stahl made me wonder if there was any way to safely develop our natural gas resources which she says are more plentiful than all other resources. I know it could not ever be done totally safely but just maybe there could be a way found to do it more safe than fracking. (just thinking)

We should most defiantly keep working toward solar and wind. With out a doubt! But until that time maybe we could narrow down our fight to one energy policy.

[Teaser]

26. slightly better in terms of carbon footprint.

which is my main concern.

But I don't know if it makes enough sense to invest more heavily in it than, say good biofuels.

[pansypoo53219]

28. we need to get away from the grid.

mini grids would be more efficient.

[Little Star]

31. Can you explain a little more? Thanks

[winstars]

32. She does not have a Fracking clue!!!

Sure gas is great unless you have to poison the ground water to get out, fucking idiot, she should spend a little less time in hair and make-up (she looked almost plastic on MourningShmoe) and spend 90 minutes watching "GAS LAND"!!!!!!!!!!

[Little Star]

33. You answered none of my questions....

nice rant on Leslie Stahl though. But it was not helpful to any of my questions. In fact it only mentioned one issue, fracking.
There were other issues mentioned in my post too.