Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

7 Comments

  1. You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize how Edwards blathers nonsense in response to Rod’s and Johnson’s concerns. On another thread I posted a link to an article that references the huge amount of water required to frack a single well. It amounts to literally millions of gallons. And, I assume the water used is potable before it goes into the ground. So, if the EPA is so concerned about water quality, and the current drought on the western United States, why aren’t we hearing more about that? They are fracking wells like mad in the Bakersfield and Oildale oilfields. You read stuff like Rod just offered, and you gotta wonder how this nation can survive, or compete, with such ineptitude and favoritism driving policy. We are in deep shit as a nation, and it ain’t getting better, its getting worse as policies are more and more driven by partisanship and the various lobbies driving that partisanship.

  2. @ POA

    Although I’m not against fracking per se, water is a heck of a lot more precious in CA, my state, than NG, at least right now. I would support a moratorium on fracking UNTIL the water situation improves. If you have a link to a petition for any such moratorium, I’ll sign it.

    1. I think a better idea would be to ban the use of freshwater resources from inside of the state. In that case, water could be trucked in from out of state or desalinated.

        1. Not that I disagree but, it’s not like anyone didn’t see that one coming. And we already know how dependent CA is on energy imports from neighboring states for their “energy future” so maybe they should fix it all permanently in-state instead.

          The population there has grown to the point where the local resources have become expensive and unsustainable in the short-term (not merely the hypothesized long-term). To correct it permanently something big has to happen.

          Maybe it is time for CA to tackle a large desalinization project. Perhaps, if they are clever, they could tie it in to grid stabilization for their large unreliable renewable energy projects. Desalinate the ocean and fill reservoirs instead of trying to round-peg-square-hole electrify modern society with renewables.

          I know it is not the perfect solution but at least it solves some problems.

          1. The problem with all such schemes is that the amortized cost of the capital installation is a major cost component of facilities such as desalination plants.

            So, if they are sitting idle for any substantial fraction of time, the cost per unit production increases proportionally.

            In other words, the huge capital costs to build a desalination plant needs to be spread out over as many thousands of gallons of water produced as possible and you can’t take 60 years to pay back the cost. If you spend a lot of time not producing water, because you’re waiting for the wind to blow, then the cost of the little water you do produce must carry a much greater share of the capital costs.

            Additionally, for any scheme in which it could conceivably make sense to absorb excess unreliable generation, it makes more sense to couple such a scheme with pure nuclear electricity generation and use the scheme to absorb electricity production during off-peak hours. It’s more predictable, making it possible to actually plan production schedules and employee hours.

  3. The New York Times op-ed on Hillary Clinton’s involvement with Russia’s desire to control the global Uranium market is likely a part of the story why the EPA suddenly decided to post these new rules shutting down ALL US owned uranium mining companies.

Comments are closed.