Fracking - where is it headed ?

[Lamplighter]

OK UT, how about...

Coal... for the next 10 years/then complete shutdown
Methane... for the following 10 years/then almost complete shutdown
Mixed solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc ... thereafter

Ultimately, oil will stop being a fuel and will be only a lubricant.
Electrical power will replace long distance carbon-based fuels

Nuclear, perhaps in a StarTrek sort of way, may be the ultimate long range fuel.
But until the waste disposal is acceptable, it probably "can't fly"

When these will happen will depend on when such decisions as:
... shut down the long haul trucking industry in favor of rail shipping
... shut down business air travel in favor of internet-types of video conferencing
... shut down personal air travel in favor of high speed rail service
The mechanisms of these changes will probably be $ and public attitudes.

It's the long term negative effects (nuclear waste storage, water contamination,
over-consumption of non-renewable resources) that need to be considered now,
not later when resolution of such problems will be more expensive or un-do-able.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

...Ultimately, oil will stop being a fuel and will be only a lubricant....

I prefer K-Y, but whatever floats your boat.

Don't forget plastics, medicine, etc. There'll still be a market for oil.

[Jacquelita]

I think you all sorta missed the mark - the future won't be about which energy source we use. It will be about super efficient energy storage and distribution.

Not just the best "battery", but the most efficient way to use (and re-use) energy, sending
it from point A to point B, C, D and back to A with the least amount of loss.

Drive energy production requirements way down - to the point of sustainability - this will minimize (though probably not eliminate) the importance of energy source.

The one with the best battery wins.

[Lamplighter]

We just have to learn how to herd electric eels to work and back home again

But seriously, welcome to the discussion, Jacquelita

[tw]

Originally Posted by Jacquelita

I think you all sorta missed the mark - the future won't be about which energy source we use. It will be about super efficient energy storage and distribution.

Hallelujah. Someone demonstrates a grasp of the actual problem. We have plenty of energy. More energy solves nothing. For the past decade, I kept posting variations of this expression. "Application to a changing load". And still don't understand why so many do not get it.

Burn ten gallons of gasoline in a car. Only a little more than one does anything productive? Over 8 gallons burned to do absolutely nothing. Why is that acceptable? Because so many want to solve the problem with alternative energy sources. So many would encourage the stifling of innovation by letting spin doctors avert the problem for political purposes or self serving profits.

This even applies to batteries. The bunny battery (Energizer, Duracell, etc) are a battery developed by Americans for WWII walkie-talkies. That little has been achieved in battery development. Most of that innovation has only achieved in the past generation.

Everyone remembers a GM electric car: EV1. Its designer wanted to use a new technology - the NiMHd battery. GM loves to screw the world to maximize profits. Business school graduates said GM did not make a NiMHd battery. So he had to use lead acid - an 1860 technology.

Hydrogen as a fuel benchmarks the so many brainwashed by business school liars. Hydrogen obviously solved nothing when George Jr (an MBA) advocated it in his State of the Union address. He demonstrates the problem. So many are brainwashed about alternative energy rather than address the problem. Only one plus gallons of gasoline moves a car that burns ten.

No viable replacement exists for petroleum. Nothing else has the energy concentration required. Damning reality to so many who forget to first define the problem. Solutions are found in application to a changing load. That (and not more energy) is the problem to be solved.

BTW, this month's edition of Scientific American describes fracking by defining the problem. And by defining spin that averts informed discussion.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

"Application to a changing load".

Distributed electric production using wind and solar slaved to natural gas would seem to be the way to go, but Jacqie is right storage is the real barrier.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

..., but Jacqie is right storage is the real barrier.

Storage is one technique for adapting to a changing load. Electricity is another technique to address the actual problem.

This is old technology. Implemented even in 1930 diesel electric locomotives to make another poor system redundant - steam locomotives. Steam locomotive was obsoleted quickly because it could not adapt to a changing load.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 2 Dec 2011:

Learning Too Late of the Perils in Gas Well Leases
So Mr. Ely said he was surprised several years later when the drilling company, Cabot Oil and Gas, informed them that rather than draining and hauling away the toxic drilling sludge stored in large waste ponds on the property, it would leave the waste, cover it with dirt and seed the area with grass. He knew that waste pond liners can leak, seeping contaminated waste.

"I guess our terms should have been clearer" about requiring the company to remove the waste pits after drilling, said Mr. Ely, of Dimock, Pa., who sued Cabot after his drinking water from a separate property was contaminated. "We learned that the hard way." ...

In Pennsylvania, Colorado and West Virginia, some landowners have had to spend hundreds of dollars a month to buy bottled water or maintain large tanks, known as water buffaloes, for drinking water in their front yards. They said they learned only after the fact that the leases did not require gas companies to pay for replacement drinking water if their wells were contaminated, and despite state regulations, not all costs were covered. ...

Some industry officials say the criticism of their business practices is misguided. Asked about the waste pits on Mr. Ely’s land in Pennsylvania, for example, George Stark, a Cabot spokesman, said the company’s cleanup measures met or exceeded state requirements. ...

Mr. Astrella said that leases also typically lacked a clause requiring drillers to pay for a test of the property's well water before drilling started, and landowners often do not think to do the tests themselves. If drilling leads to problems with drinking wells, landowners have few options if they want to prove that their water was fine before drilling started.

For some landowners, it can be a costly mistake.

"It's been one expense after another since our water went bad, and the company only has to cover part of it," said Ronald Carter, 72, of Montrose, Pa. ...

On Wednesday, Cabot stopped delivering water to the Carters, the Elys and others in Dimock after state regulators said the company had satisfied requirements of a settlement agreement with the state.

Drilling is already contaminating land and water that provides drinking water for Wilkes Barre, Harrisburg, and Chesapeake Bay (Maryland). That includes Dimock and Montrose. Other water sources currently protected but under threat of future drilling include drinking water for Easton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and a large part of western New Jersey including Princeton.

The Governor of PA has been taking major campaign contributions for stifling all regulation on these drillers. Has insisted all this has not contaminated water supplies. Has banned taxes on any of these wells except by the local county. Even townships get nothing from the risk that they are stuck with long after the drilling companies have no more responsibility. Cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia must suffer risk to their water supplies but get no money from the mineral rights.

Burial of toxic chemicals inside plastic sheets is supposed to protect the water? Nonsense.

They can leave extremely toxic chemicals on the land. PA Governor Tom Corbett says that is safe.