You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Like sands through the hourglass, these are the ways of our lives...
We should be wise and pace ourselves on our extraction and consumption of natural gas. I can't imagine what the cost would be to replace even the metro's natural gas infrastructure and appliances. The focus should be more towards better insulation and efficiency, not dirt cheap energy.
The problem is that we are trying to force the use of solar and wind tech that is not even close to competitive, and force people to pay more to subsidize it instead of spending a much smaller amount doing the research to find the way to make it economically competitive. We subsidize wind and ethanol and solar in so many ways other than direct spending. Without the mandates forcing ethanol use, it would virtually disappear. The mandates requiring energy companies to get a percentage of their energy from green sources DOES NOT drive innovation,it forces implementation of technologies that can't compete. The energy companies would go out of business if the governments that mandted the wind turbines didn't allow those monopolies to charge extra for that power. That is just as surely a tax as if the government charged it and rebated it to the electric companies. It is an evil, insidious tax because it looks like the electric companies are charging it when it is Big Brother/Nanny State behind it. Just another way you secretly pay for the welfare state. Bill G.
mcjoe1- aren't insulation and effeciency and dirt cheap energy two separate problems? you are not advocating that we puposely raise energy prices to make insulation and effeciency more valuable are you? Because that is what you imply. No matter how dirt cheap energy is, effeciency and insulation have their place. Conversely, no matter how expensive energy, effeciency and insulation are both subject to the law of diminishing returns. At some point, neither has any value at any price. We have already reached the point where the insulation and air leaks get reduced so far you have to have a dedicated mechanical Air/Heat transfer system to keep the house from becoming toxic. That does suggest we are close to the point where more effeciency makes no sense. Let's find a way to generate electricity both cheaply AND w/o greenhouse gases. Oh- Wait! We could reprocess all those "spent" fuel rods and have another 25 years of nuclear fuel w/o minig ANY uranium. but we can't do that because of Jim.., ah hell- because we are stupid! Bill G.
The reality is, there are a handful of fanatics who drive the wind and solar energy movement because they believe man is evil, destroying the earth and must be stopped. These are the same people that are for zero population growth, allowing euthanasia and late term abortions. We already have the most efficient and safe source of energy available to us: nuclear. They rally against it because it will not allow them to achieve their underlying goals of controlling our behaviors.
There's one more extremely serious "downside" to fracking that was not mentioned in the article, and that's the alarming rise in tectonic activity that occurs near fracking hubs. The process of fracking, which involves high-pressure blasts of chemicals into rocks in the crust of the Earth, has produced literally hundreds of small earthquakes in just a few years in places not prone to earthquakes. At some point, as fracking activity increases across the country, a larger tectonic shift will occur and produce a serious earthquake in an area without the building codes needed to sustain a serious earthquake. If this happens, particularly near a city of any significance at all, Hurricane Sandy will pale in comparison to the destruction.
Global warming is not a problem and the farciful control of climate is a pipedream. Cheap, abundant energy is our key to a good, clean, healthy lifestyle for mankind. Go fracking!!
This article turns the tables on the green energy crowd, but at the cost of assuming we CAN do anything about the climate. Nobody wants a dirty environment and as he points out nobody wants to live near anything...railroads, airports, roads, refineries or quarries. Get over it, and take some responsibility NIMBYs.
BTW, Al Gore just made 150M in oil bucks selling his TV station to oil barons. Green hero with a 50,000 sq foot home, three boats, SUVs and private planes to fly on.
Bigbadbean- I couldn't have said it any better (or worse?). Late term abortions and solar energy? I was unaware of the corrolation until now. When did Nuclear become safe? If you want to speak of late term abortions and Nuclear energy you might be on to something. Ukraine is a good place to start.
Hey Ruphina Bill- Please don't Foxnews yourself into a corner while having us believe your Hannity perspective. We pay signifcantly less to support renewables and significantly more to pay for Big Oil. Do you really want innovation? Welfare state? You must be referring to Corporate Welfare.
I lived for the past 6 years in the Barnett Shale area of Texas. The oil and gas folks need to figure out what to do with the chemical by products that fracing produces...their solution to date is to pump it back into the ground through injection wells. Why are they exempt from the Clean Air and Water Act? Where will this stuff end up? And then there is the collateral damage all the trucks cause...and the 3 million gallons of water each well consumes....they need to figure out how to do this in a responsible manner...then I will support it.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks