Probably one of the more important pieces of information going into the new decade
(www-foxbusiness-com.cdn.ampproject.org)
Comments (16)
sorted by:
Their war on fracking is such a bad move for that very reason. I'm not convinced of any environmental reason too, and if there are legimitate environmental reasons to stop fracking, we should look to improve the methods to compensate for that, not just quit altogether. Except, well, quit altogether is the new American way for anything that doesn't regard race and homo-sex.
I'm against fracking because it's a waste of money when we consider the potential of nuclear.
Nuclear solves every single problem we have, and many we don't consider yet.
That's all that needs to be said.
Adopt nuclear = win.
Ignore nuclear = lose.
I don't have the link but the was an article in a supposedly right wing publication that spun a vision of some malthusian post-oil energy impoverished future and it hinged on fracking not being profitable. I'm not sure what type of parasite one must have to see fracking floundering because too much oil and use that to support a future without oil.
Found it: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/de-growth-will-define-how-we-live-in-the-future/
(sorry to post a third time, but edit no work)
The impact of fracking has compensated for and fairly rapidly. The amount of fresh water used and fouled water created has been rapidly reduced since fracking became a thing. Most of the gains come from obvious fixes particularly storing and reusing the waste water.
And furthermore flammable tap water is literally a media created fantasy. Natural gas is a gas that exists naturally. The same areas where it exists naturally in greater amounts are also areas where fracking is possible. In areas where natural gas exists in greater amounts you need to line your water well with material that is impermeable to natural gas. If that lining fails you get flammable tap water. It's been that way since before fracking.
There is no future without oil.
What do these types think plastic is?
And what I think is about the saddest part of "green" energy, is that they're not even going about it properly, they're stuck on the idea of massive centralized production and distribution plants - gobbling up acres of farm or wildland for solar panels or windmills, with all the inefficiencies that goes with that ... these things are better being distributed; that is, houses, apartment buildings, and businesses retro-fitted with this stuff/built new with this stuff being as much of a given as wiring itself is, all connected to the existing Grid. You'd still need existing power plants, but 1) having your own production system would take pressure off those things as the population keeps stubbornly growing and 2) since excess power being fed into the grid makes YOU money, well, it can eventually pay for itself in the long run.
I think it would have been better all around if the money spent on megaprojects had been directed to getting homeowners and businesses to do it this way.
And yes, I will want to 100% do up like this, if/when we get a house, whether anyone is going to help us or not.
Say, did anyone else get to watch that Michael Moore expose on the matter? Planet of the Humans, YT went apeshit and banned it.
It was a revelation to me once I moved up high enough on the corporate ladder to discover that our executives actually wanted tighter regulations in the industry because it was a barrier to entry for startups and smaller companies that couldn't necessarily afford to comply with the regulations. None of the employees want them, because it makes our jobs more difficult, but the execs all do.