Ohio gas well blowout leaked more than many countries do in a year(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Ohio gas well blowout leaked more than many countries do in a year
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/ohio-gas-well-accident-last-year-released-surprising-amount-of-methane/
87 comments
But to even question this in today's political world makes you a liberal agitator. I wish I knew how we could reframe these issues as "proper stewardship of our commons" vs. "but we need the jobs now!"
> I wish I knew how we could reframe these issues as "proper stewardship of our commons" vs. "but we need the jobs now!"
You can't, because it's purposely framed that way. You think the ones starting that think they're actually bringing jobs back? Hell no, they just say it b/c I'm sure they're getting benefits and contributions from the oil/gas companies, and unfortunately much of the less educated people in these areas aren't the wiser.
I'm sure this is another reason for systemic neglect of the education system. Less educated people are easier to control and brainwash.
You can't, because it's purposely framed that way. You think the ones starting that think they're actually bringing jobs back? Hell no, they just say it b/c I'm sure they're getting benefits and contributions from the oil/gas companies, and unfortunately much of the less educated people in these areas aren't the wiser.
I'm sure this is another reason for systemic neglect of the education system. Less educated people are easier to control and brainwash.
In American politics you don't even need to deliver on the jobs. You can just make some shit up and blame everybody's problems on something else (e.g. free trade, immigrants) and then whip up a frenzy and never deliver. But even after consistently never delivering you're still on the side of the people. Somehow.
You do actually need to deliver economic growth but that is a lagging indicator. If the economy goes south and you are President, you will lose your job. The House and Senate are somewhat shielded because their politics is local. Also bear in mind that one of the political parties caters to single issue voters.
It would be cool if there was a (website?) which clearly showed the amount of promises a politician actually keeps. It would be nice to see it put together in a nice, visual way too so everyone can understand it.
Ie, verified number of jobs delivered to said community etc.
It would be also nice to have donations clearly labelled against a politicians profile.
The major issue for me is there is a major lack of transparency and accountability in politics right now, globally.
Honestly, I feel like the old four year term system is just way too out of date with the current crisis we need to solve.
Ie, verified number of jobs delivered to said community etc.
It would be also nice to have donations clearly labelled against a politicians profile.
The major issue for me is there is a major lack of transparency and accountability in politics right now, globally.
Honestly, I feel like the old four year term system is just way too out of date with the current crisis we need to solve.
It’s not possible because it’s simply not easy to measure many complicated things, such as job growth over many years due to specific actions or infrastructure development that takes a decade or more, but politicians go in and out quicker and voters minds don’t pay attention for that long.
It's ironic that “liberal” means “left of centre” in US politics, because it's liberalism in the classical sense that is the ideology behind so much of the destruction of the commons.
And also the ideology that has lifted half of the world's poor out of extreme poverty just since 2010 (not to mention the changes over the last century) so maybe we could give it a little credit.
> We're basically treating nature like a resource and stripping it all back to nothing (like AEP did in the 60's and 70's)
Go back further.
This [0] is a picture of what used to be a stream in Southeast Ohio. Coal mines shuttered 100 years ago are still leaking acid drainage into it.
Southeast Ohio is rife with acid mine drainage like this from coal mines active in the late 1800's and early 1900's. These negative externalities weren't priced in any more than those of AEP in the 60's and 70's or the natural gas industry today.
[0] https://imgur.com/a/NZWDQmg
Go back further.
This [0] is a picture of what used to be a stream in Southeast Ohio. Coal mines shuttered 100 years ago are still leaking acid drainage into it.
Southeast Ohio is rife with acid mine drainage like this from coal mines active in the late 1800's and early 1900's. These negative externalities weren't priced in any more than those of AEP in the 60's and 70's or the natural gas industry today.
[0] https://imgur.com/a/NZWDQmg
> There were exactly zero write-ups of this in the local papers.
A few miles across the border it’s been all over the Pittsburgh news —- the mayor here has even been tweeting about it!
A few miles across the border it’s been all over the Pittsburgh news —- the mayor here has even been tweeting about it!
[deleted]
"Leaked more than many countries do in a year" is an interesting way of expressing the scale. Many countries have little to no petroleum industry.
> Or, for another kind of context, the researchers point out that this Ohio well released more methane in 20 days than the oil and gas activities in most nations around Europe do in an entire year—save only the UK, Germany, and Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...
Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive.
To better put this leak in perspective, the US alone apparently leaks 13 million tons of natural gas yearly [1], and 440 million tons are annually leaked world wide from both human and natural sources [2]. So this leak accounted for 0.5% of nation-wide gas leaking in a given year and 0.014% of global methane emissions in a given year.
1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-and-gas-facil...
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-siberia-c...
> Or, for another kind of context, the researchers point out that this Ohio well released more methane in 20 days than the oil and gas activities in most nations around Europe do in an entire year—save only the UK, Germany, and Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...
Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive.
To better put this leak in perspective, the US alone apparently leaks 13 million tons of natural gas yearly [1], and 440 million tons are annually leaked world wide from both human and natural sources [2]. So this leak accounted for 0.5% of nation-wide gas leaking in a given year and 0.014% of global methane emissions in a given year.
1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-and-gas-facil...
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-siberia-c...
Not to mention the huge variance of population to the rest of the world. Many of the countries thought up for comparison pale in scale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populat...
==Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive.==
Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries.
Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries.
The point is, leaking any amount of oil is sufficient to exceed the petroleum leaks of many countries that have no petroleum production whatsoever.
> Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries
The comparison to other countries, many of which have little to no petroleum industry, is the sleight of hand I'm addressing.
Putting this leak in respect to the total amount of natural gas leakage in the country and the world is a straightforward was of representing the contribution of this leak to total natural gas leakage.
> Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries
The comparison to other countries, many of which have little to no petroleum industry, is the sleight of hand I'm addressing.
Putting this leak in respect to the total amount of natural gas leakage in the country and the world is a straightforward was of representing the contribution of this leak to total natural gas leakage.
==The comparison to other countries, many of which have little to no petroleum industry, is the sleight of hand I'm addressing.==
My point is that failing to mention that they are comparing 20 days of leakage to an entire year, is also a slight of hand.
20 days is about 5% of a year, so the comparison still works for any country producing even 5% of the amount of oil & gas as Ohio. Ohio drills about 88k barrels/day [1]. 5% of that is 4.4k.
European countries that produce more than 4.4k barrels/day, according to your Wikipedia link, are: Croatia, Hungary, France, Netherlands, Ukraine, Romania, Denmark, Poland, Serbia, Austria, Albania and Belarus (along with Norway, UK, Germany and Italy already mentioned).
[1] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
My point is that failing to mention that they are comparing 20 days of leakage to an entire year, is also a slight of hand.
20 days is about 5% of a year, so the comparison still works for any country producing even 5% of the amount of oil & gas as Ohio. Ohio drills about 88k barrels/day [1]. 5% of that is 4.4k.
European countries that produce more than 4.4k barrels/day, according to your Wikipedia link, are: Croatia, Hungary, France, Netherlands, Ukraine, Romania, Denmark, Poland, Serbia, Austria, Albania and Belarus (along with Norway, UK, Germany and Italy already mentioned).
[1] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
I'm not sure I follow. You're counting nation-wide petroleum production of these countries against 1/20th of the oil production of one US state, which only produces a fraction of the 15 million barrels of oil produced daily in the US. How is that a better comparison?
Let me make my point even clearer: go pour a glass of gasoline out in your yard (hypothetically, don't actually do this). You have now polluted more than over a hundred countries' oil production industries. Because out of the ~200 countries on Earth, only 96 have oil industries. I could turn around and write, "one man contributed more oil spills than the oil industries of hundreds of countries!" and in a purely factual sense this is correct. But anyone who bothers to scrutinize this statement will see that it is very misleading.
Let me make my point even clearer: go pour a glass of gasoline out in your yard (hypothetically, don't actually do this). You have now polluted more than over a hundred countries' oil production industries. Because out of the ~200 countries on Earth, only 96 have oil industries. I could turn around and write, "one man contributed more oil spills than the oil industries of hundreds of countries!" and in a purely factual sense this is correct. But anyone who bothers to scrutinize this statement will see that it is very misleading.
It's certainly a poorly worded line but I think it'd be fair to read it as "... countries with petroleum industries". The other reading is quite in bad faith.
I guess this is related to fracking? I seen something before that Pennsylvania doesn't allow certain waste, so the companies put it in trucks and pay to put it in injection wells in Ohio by the barrel. Pretty sad Ohio accepts money to dump other states waste.
Looked it up to confirm about how waste from Pennsylvania gets dumped in Ohio:
https://environmentohiocenter.org/programs/ohc/ohio-fracking...
Even caused a earthquake in Youngstown, which isn't where you'd typically expect earthquakes. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/10/12/fracking...
Then it gets into the water supply too. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ohio-communities-are-becoming-d...
Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire. https://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8
I don't know why state leadership allow this stuff to happen. Then you have the brain drain problem, Ohio is losing highly educated residents to other states with more opportunities, especially when it comes to tech. I feel like Ohio is moving backwards and not innovating. Maybe in Columbus or Cincinnati, things are better but still probably dwarfs in comparison to opportunities in Silicon Valley or Austin.
Looked it up to confirm about how waste from Pennsylvania gets dumped in Ohio:
https://environmentohiocenter.org/programs/ohc/ohio-fracking...
Even caused a earthquake in Youngstown, which isn't where you'd typically expect earthquakes. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/10/12/fracking...
Then it gets into the water supply too. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ohio-communities-are-becoming-d...
Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire. https://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8
I don't know why state leadership allow this stuff to happen. Then you have the brain drain problem, Ohio is losing highly educated residents to other states with more opportunities, especially when it comes to tech. I feel like Ohio is moving backwards and not innovating. Maybe in Columbus or Cincinnati, things are better but still probably dwarfs in comparison to opportunities in Silicon Valley or Austin.
> I don't know why state leadership allow this stuff to happen.
Ohio is an incredibly "business friendly" state, Common Sense Initiatives are the euphemism now. There's almost no taxes on businesses, property tax abatement are handed out to developers like candy, yet the state still wants to fund massive highway projects and employ lots of government workers. Only so much of these costs can be pushed onto the workers, so they have to look for money in other places. Hence, turning the state a for profit garbage dump.
Ohio is an incredibly "business friendly" state, Common Sense Initiatives are the euphemism now. There's almost no taxes on businesses, property tax abatement are handed out to developers like candy, yet the state still wants to fund massive highway projects and employ lots of government workers. Only so much of these costs can be pushed onto the workers, so they have to look for money in other places. Hence, turning the state a for profit garbage dump.
> Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire.
Note that this happens more often completely naturally than as a result of any drilling operations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep for more info.
Oil and gas in economically useful amounts is generally deeper underground below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprock that prevents it from flowing upward. If that caprock was not there, then the oil would not have accumulated in that location in the first place. Oil wells generally have multiple layers of steel casing and cement between the wellbore and the shallow water table at the time. This is necessary to protect the integrity of the wellbore throughout the drilling process and to ensure that any produced oil goes to the surface collector, where it can be used, instead of leaking all over the place. It is also mandated by regulations in most jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the same natural processes that cause oil and gas to be produced and migrate upwards happen in many locations. In some, there is caprock deep underground that causes them to accumulate in volumes that make sense to drill wells into. In other locations, they may naturally flow all the way to the surface, or flow into shallower underground water tables and end up in residential water supplies.
Note that this happens more often completely naturally than as a result of any drilling operations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep for more info.
Oil and gas in economically useful amounts is generally deeper underground below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprock that prevents it from flowing upward. If that caprock was not there, then the oil would not have accumulated in that location in the first place. Oil wells generally have multiple layers of steel casing and cement between the wellbore and the shallow water table at the time. This is necessary to protect the integrity of the wellbore throughout the drilling process and to ensure that any produced oil goes to the surface collector, where it can be used, instead of leaking all over the place. It is also mandated by regulations in most jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the same natural processes that cause oil and gas to be produced and migrate upwards happen in many locations. In some, there is caprock deep underground that causes them to accumulate in volumes that make sense to drill wells into. In other locations, they may naturally flow all the way to the surface, or flow into shallower underground water tables and end up in residential water supplies.
That "confirmation" link in no way confirms that this leak was related in any way to fracking or dumping.
If I were to bet, it is unrelated. Methane and natural gas are not the waste products you would be pumping into an old well.
If I were to bet, it is unrelated. Methane and natural gas are not the waste products you would be pumping into an old well.
Was talking in general about allowing dumping, but clarified my post.
In 2005 almost 14% of solid waste disposed in Ohio was from out of state [1]. I don't know how that compares to other states, but it seems like a lot. In the years since, I wouldn't be surprised if the number has increased.
Edit: sure enough, in 2017 the percentage of out-of-state waste has increased to 21.5% [2].
[1] https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/47/facts/2005_out_of_state_wast... (PDF)
[2] https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/gd_1008.pd... (PDF)
Edit: sure enough, in 2017 the percentage of out-of-state waste has increased to 21.5% [2].
[1] https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/47/facts/2005_out_of_state_wast... (PDF)
[2] https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/gd_1008.pd... (PDF)
Incidents like this is why we're not going to save the planet with individual actions. I could spend my entire life eating vegan, recycling, and bicycling everywhere and that entire gain is dwarfed by one incident like this.
The only thing that will save us is decisive and collective action. Think about that when you think about your vote in the next election in your area.
I particularly like the suggestion in one of the comments on the original article:
>I wonder if it would have taken 20 days to stop if they were being fined by the pound.
The only thing that will save us is decisive and collective action. Think about that when you think about your vote in the next election in your area.
I particularly like the suggestion in one of the comments on the original article:
>I wonder if it would have taken 20 days to stop if they were being fined by the pound.
I save you the whole quote but :
> Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.
it's easier to have this kind of thing voted in a "climate-change-aware" nation, which is easier to have if all your local government are climate-change-ware, which is easier to have if all your neighborhood are climate-change-aware, which is easier if all the familly in it are climate-change-aware which is easier if you are climate change aware.
and once your country, regardless of how small it is, is climate change aware, it's easier to make bigger, more polluting country, to change, as they can't hide anymore behind a "your first"
but yes I agree with you that you can't stop at your individual level, but it has to start there
> Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.
it's easier to have this kind of thing voted in a "climate-change-aware" nation, which is easier to have if all your local government are climate-change-ware, which is easier to have if all your neighborhood are climate-change-aware, which is easier if all the familly in it are climate-change-aware which is easier if you are climate change aware.
and once your country, regardless of how small it is, is climate change aware, it's easier to make bigger, more polluting country, to change, as they can't hide anymore behind a "your first"
but yes I agree with you that you can't stop at your individual level, but it has to start there
there are certain, specific individuals who could stop and it would make a huge difference. someone decided to punch this hole in the ground. someone directed the engineering. I’m glad this new Sentinel-5P sat is up. it’s hard to manage what’s not being measured.
Yes, but without you doing all that it would be even worse.
No, it wouldn't. The commenter's actions make no difference at all on a global scale. Zero.
That's the point: understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing. Only collective actions count. At all.
Understanding orders of magnitude is not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems.
That's the point: understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing. Only collective actions count. At all.
Understanding orders of magnitude is not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems.
The commenters actions make a difference to them and in turn may influence people around them.
Collective actions start out as individual actions and like that they set the stage for change that is real and measurable.
By your reading Rosa Parks should have just shut up and sat in the back of the bus because 'individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing'.
Understanding orders of magnitude is indeed not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems, right alongside understanding how social change is engendered.
Collective actions start out as individual actions and like that they set the stage for change that is real and measurable.
By your reading Rosa Parks should have just shut up and sat in the back of the bus because 'individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing'.
Understanding orders of magnitude is indeed not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems, right alongside understanding how social change is engendered.
There is a difference between individual action leading to social change (such as political activism or civil disobedience) and individual action that makes the individual feel better and satisfies the need to "do something" while having no measurable effect.
If you take one less flight this year, you've considerably lowered your carbon footprint. Congrats. If every single person that flies reduced their carbon footprint by one flight this year like you did... it would make absolutely no meaningful difference with respect to climate change. You might as well whistle in the wind. On the other hand, if all of those people had actually taken political action, meaningful change would be practically inevitable.
The narrative that encourages recycling, buying green brands, and generally expressing how much you care about the earth by how you choose to shop (making your environmentalism part of your identity as a consumer rather than as a citizen) serves only the status quo, and dissipates energy that might otherwise be channelled into making an actual difference.
If you take one less flight this year, you've considerably lowered your carbon footprint. Congrats. If every single person that flies reduced their carbon footprint by one flight this year like you did... it would make absolutely no meaningful difference with respect to climate change. You might as well whistle in the wind. On the other hand, if all of those people had actually taken political action, meaningful change would be practically inevitable.
The narrative that encourages recycling, buying green brands, and generally expressing how much you care about the earth by how you choose to shop (making your environmentalism part of your identity as a consumer rather than as a citizen) serves only the status quo, and dissipates energy that might otherwise be channelled into making an actual difference.
> understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing
One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning. On a global scale you are insignificant approaching nonexistent, so by your own reasoning nothing you do matters and therefor you shouldn't bother doing anything.
One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning. On a global scale you are insignificant approaching nonexistent, so by your own reasoning nothing you do matters and therefor you shouldn't bother doing anything.
> One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning.
Because they get hungry. You are animal, you don't need a noble cause to do things.
Because they get hungry. You are animal, you don't need a noble cause to do things.
The thing that (supposedly) separates man from beast is our ability to reason and supersede our animal nature.
Supposedly. Still, you can't overcome hunger with reason (at least not for very long) and hunger is sufficient to give you a reason to get out of bed.
Actually lots of people have voluntarily starved to death. There's a whole religious practice [0] about it and it's frequently used as a means of self-termination for quality-of-life reasons [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana
[1] https://compassionandchoices.org/end-of-life-planning/learn/...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana
[1] https://compassionandchoices.org/end-of-life-planning/learn/...
> Actually lots of people have voluntarily starved to death.
As I said: Not for very long. Besides, I wouldn't call that reason (except for people who do that to die, it's pretty efficient for that purpose).
As I said: Not for very long. Besides, I wouldn't call that reason (except for people who do that to die, it's pretty efficient for that purpose).
On a global scale the difference would be marginal. Nothing but a mere rounding error.
Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either.
In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.
In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.
> Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either.
Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]:
>There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007).
Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money).
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1
Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]:
>There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007).
Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money).
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1
I disagree with it too, but it follows from this silly theory of not taking any action unless it's the biggest possible action.
[deleted]
That's not at all the same comparison. An equal comparison would be where the president's vote counts at 1 trillion votes. In that case I wouldn't bother voting because even if everybody in the country votes for candidate A it'll mean nothing if the president votes for president B. The president's vote will always overpower everyone else's vote.
Absolutely, I don't want my comment to be taken as an endorsement of "Well, there's nothing I can do so I might as well roll coal and dump my motor oil on the lawn."
It's important to do both, but saving the planet will only be accomplished through collective action.
It's important to do both, but saving the planet will only be accomplished through collective action.
> only be accomplished through collective action
I'd agree if you said enforced collective action. We cannot rely on companies to self-regulate. There needs to be severe consequences for companies that damage the environment like this. As long as profits far exceed penalties, companies will continue to take the easy path.
I'd agree if you said enforced collective action. We cannot rely on companies to self-regulate. There needs to be severe consequences for companies that damage the environment like this. As long as profits far exceed penalties, companies will continue to take the easy path.
I think it's pretty clear from the context he's not talking about corporate action, but citizens' action.
While this accident is terrible, it pales in comparison to the US output of GHG's per year. The collective action that is needed will also call for individual action. You're right though that individual action alone is not enough.
briandear(4)
Yet we don't use nuclear energy because of its "risks"
I believe that we don't use nuclear energy because it's not economically feasible in a private energy market. Startup costs and operation costs are very high compared to natural gas, solar and wind. We saw how energy companies plowed right through public outcry and resistance in the Dakota Access Pipeline. I think it's silly to assume they wouldn't do the same with nuclear power if they saw a profit in it. Even with federal subsidies and loan guarantees energy companies aren't biting.
> We saw how energy companies plowed right through public outcry and resistance in the Dakota Access Pipeline.
In the US it got blown into something completely different, about sticking it to the libs or whatnot. So we went ahead and did it because our president has the personality of a toddler.
In the US it got blown into something completely different, about sticking it to the libs or whatnot. So we went ahead and did it because our president has the personality of a toddler.
The president doesn't make decisions on pipelines. And as far as public outcry -- showing up to a protest doesn't make that the representative voice of the public. I support that pipeline because it's better than sending trucks and trains overland to ship energy. But was my voice counted? Not if using protests as a proxy for public opinion is how it's done.
The oil company could use Star Trek teleportation technology and people would still protest it. They don't oppose the pipeline, they oppose what runs through it. Yet, they didn't all get to those protests in electric cars on on bicycles. They didn't tweet about it on stone tablets -- they use the very product they don't want people to use.
Don't like oil? Stop benefiting from it while simultaneously hating it.
The oil company could use Star Trek teleportation technology and people would still protest it. They don't oppose the pipeline, they oppose what runs through it. Yet, they didn't all get to those protests in electric cars on on bicycles. They didn't tweet about it on stone tablets -- they use the very product they don't want people to use.
Don't like oil? Stop benefiting from it while simultaneously hating it.
>Don't like oil? Stop benefiting from it while simultaneously hating it.
You don't have a particularly compelling argument, as illustrated in this humorous cartoon: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
You don't have a particularly compelling argument, as illustrated in this humorous cartoon: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
> Don't like oil? Stop benefiting from it while simultaneously hating it.
As someone who doesn't drive and has opposed oil and natural gas based energy solutions thank you, I will.
As someone who doesn't drive and has opposed oil and natural gas based energy solutions thank you, I will.
This is a point that needs to be made more often. People think nuclear isn't big because of greens, but greens almost always get beaten into the ground politically when they go up against the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuels are much more profitable than nuclear power.
Fossil fuels are much more subsidized than nuclear power.
This isn't quite that clear cut. In 2018, fossil fuels generated 4.17 trillion kWh and nuclear power generated 0.8 trillion kWh. Fossil fuel subsidies amount to about 7% of energy subsidies while nuclear gets about 5%. If you look at subsidies versus energy generated or at subsidies versus power plant, nuclear gets significantly more.
You didn't provide a source for your numbers, but let's have a look at the report listed as a reference in Wikipedia:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130513055956/http://www.iisd.o...
Which in turn references this:
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/neconomics/weltstatu...
Which basically says they have crappy data but then proceeds to lump in a lot of historical costs, like the sum of all taxpayer-funded fission R&D, including things like weapons and nuclear submarines that have little to do with civilian power generation, "liability caps" even though there hasn't actually been a reactor incident in the US that reached the liability cap (and fossil fuels and everything else also has de facto liability caps because of corporate limited liability), and "stranded cost" rules in deregulated energy markets that also apply to fossil fuel generating plants but aren't included there because the numbers are coming from completely different sources. Moreover, even some of the legitimate costs (like the R&D actually used for civilian power generation) are fixed costs that stay the same, and thus decline per kWh, if you build more plants. And that's what I could find in a few minutes of glancing at it.
This is par for the course in these comparisons. People want nuclear to look bad, so they lump in every cost they can find to the calculation, even ones that don't even apply, without doing the same for competing generation methods.
And this is before we even count the massive subsidy fossil fuels get from carbon not being priced.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130513055956/http://www.iisd.o...
Which in turn references this:
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/neconomics/weltstatu...
Which basically says they have crappy data but then proceeds to lump in a lot of historical costs, like the sum of all taxpayer-funded fission R&D, including things like weapons and nuclear submarines that have little to do with civilian power generation, "liability caps" even though there hasn't actually been a reactor incident in the US that reached the liability cap (and fossil fuels and everything else also has de facto liability caps because of corporate limited liability), and "stranded cost" rules in deregulated energy markets that also apply to fossil fuel generating plants but aren't included there because the numbers are coming from completely different sources. Moreover, even some of the legitimate costs (like the R&D actually used for civilian power generation) are fixed costs that stay the same, and thus decline per kWh, if you build more plants. And that's what I could find in a few minutes of glancing at it.
This is par for the course in these comparisons. People want nuclear to look bad, so they lump in every cost they can find to the calculation, even ones that don't even apply, without doing the same for competing generation methods.
And this is before we even count the massive subsidy fossil fuels get from carbon not being priced.
Nuclear is simply too expensive operate and too slow to build no mater who is providing the funding.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019/
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019/
And here I am paying 30ct per KW in Germany whereas I would pay 13ct in my home country, France.
de: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
fr:https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
de: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
fr:https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
LCOE in the lazard report is a forward looking report for comparing costs of new builds with current and past tech.
The prices you are quoting have sunk costs into them and don't represent total system costs of the initial build for example. As French nuclear plants from earlier investments reach end of life, France itself is estimating the need to introduce a higher portion of renewable and expects to save time and money from it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...
"France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace all its aging atomic facilities."
The prices you are quoting have sunk costs into them and don't represent total system costs of the initial build for example. As French nuclear plants from earlier investments reach end of life, France itself is estimating the need to introduce a higher portion of renewable and expects to save time and money from it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...
"France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace all its aging atomic facilities."
Judging by this[1] graph, the federal government spends like 10x on renewable energy subsidies vs nuclear. Imagine how much more developed the nuclear power capabilities of the US would be if it received similar attention.
[1] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-re...
[1] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-re...
Spending more on nuclear subsidies in order to promote adoption is probably the only way that we'll see any significant growth of nuclear power. I'm all for it. But that still indicates that it's too expensive to compete in a private market.
I'm not convinced by a graph like you presented though. That's a measurement of subsidies which were spent, not subsidies which were available. In other words, if more nuclear power plants were built we'd be seeing a much higher amount being spent on subsidizing nuclear power. Since no one is building nuclear (thus taking advantage of available subsidies) and we are dropping wind turbines all over the place, it's only natural that renewable subsidies would far exceed nuclear.
I'm not convinced by a graph like you presented though. That's a measurement of subsidies which were spent, not subsidies which were available. In other words, if more nuclear power plants were built we'd be seeing a much higher amount being spent on subsidizing nuclear power. Since no one is building nuclear (thus taking advantage of available subsidies) and we are dropping wind turbines all over the place, it's only natural that renewable subsidies would far exceed nuclear.
We could just stop subsidizing fossil fuels and implement a carbon tax. That would make fossil fuels uncompetitive against everything and then people would turn to whichever alternatives are most suitable.
Then you'd get more nuclear for baseload and in areas with less sunlight or cold winters, more solar for loads that align with its generation curve (like air conditioning) or are easy to time shift into sunlight hours (like charging electric cars) etc.
Then you'd get more nuclear for baseload and in areas with less sunlight or cold winters, more solar for loads that align with its generation curve (like air conditioning) or are easy to time shift into sunlight hours (like charging electric cars) etc.
If we're going to imagine things we could "just" do, my vote is for nationalizing energy production so decisions like this aren't based on shareholder profits and trying to incentivize private companies into doing the right thing.
Then electricity would cost four times as much as it would with a carbon tax because power generation wouldn't be incentivized to do the right thing in an efficient way. It would end up as a jobs program and in general have all the same inefficiency issues as the Department of Defense, only funded by the ratepayers instead of the taxpayers, which would be a regressive tax on the poor.
And the fossil fuel energy companies would lobby the national power utility to carry on burning fossil fuels, which they could do more easily than lobbying against a carbon tax because then there would be fewer private companies wanting to sell fossil fuel alternatives lobbying on the other side of the issue.
And the fossil fuel energy companies would lobby the national power utility to carry on burning fossil fuels, which they could do more easily than lobbying against a carbon tax because then there would be fewer private companies wanting to sell fossil fuel alternatives lobbying on the other side of the issue.
Why is it when people pick examples of government they always use the most egregious examples and completely ignore all of the other government services which are run as well or better than private enterprises? It's like saying democratic socialism is bad because Venezuela. It's not a compelling argument for anyone with more than a passing understanding of the situation.
Because it's the largest example of a national program similar to the one you're proposing. The government services that work are local things like firefighters and most municipal water utilities (which, if you want to see what happens there when you try to do it in a less local way, see Flint).
It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there.
A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure.
This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US.
But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.
It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there.
A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure.
This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US.
But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.
The Department of Defense isn't a program. Nationalizing energy production would be closer to the US Postal Service than the Department of Defense. The scope between managing our power needs and national defense needs are so wide I am having a hard time believing you made this comment in good faith. Inane claimes like a national policy would force Minnesota to have solar panels are nonsensical. You're basically just repeating Government Bad tropes.
Would've been feasable if the CO2 industries actually had to pay for the externality of ruining the atmosphere though right?
I doubt anyone could accurately price CO2 emissions.
Sensationalist title, as Ohio is larger than many countries.
I think the leak is bad, but we should be fair, even with things we don't like, right?
There were exactly zero write-ups of this in the local papers.
The Radio stations in the area are generally owned by one entity (AVC Communications), and there really isn't a lot on their website about it: not really surprising, because 25+ years ago they went Satellite Only and only someone in the news room from 6A-4P.
My biggest complaints about the Oil and Gas industry taking the SE Ohio area and turning it into a cash cow are two-fold: 1.) We're basically treating nature like a resource and stripping it all back to nothing (like AEP did in the 60's and 70's), and 2.) this has basically zero benefit to the locals: most of the jobs in the Oil and Gas industry are specialized and workers imported (leading to stories of welders making $140/hour in Ohio: just simply not true).
I could go on and on about growing up in the second poorest county in Ohio, but, I'll just leave it at this: not surprised that it happened but very surprised that nobody has really reported on this until now.