« Remedy du Jour -- August 27, 2011 | Main | Welcome To Our Imperfect World »

08/28/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JC

The bus is headed for the cliff, and the bus driver is drunk.

An a related topic, is there convincing evidence that the injection of high pressure liquid deep into the ground is associated with earthquakes? Sounds plausible. There have been, I think, significantly more US earthquakes detected in 2010 than in prior years, especially in the 2.0 to 6.0 magnitude range -

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Anybody out there have a good scientific source on fraking and earthquakes?

Adam

The first problem with fossil energy (and nuclear fission energy as well) is that they are finite resources. The second problem is that these estimates are based on current use; and use of cheap forms of energy tends not to stay constant. Natural gas is relatively cheap now, but if it starts being seen as a real alternative for oil/gasoline (in cars, for example) then you will see use and price rise. So maybe we have 22 years, but more likely we have less.

You are right to point out that 100 years is not very long, but people are very bad at thinking generationally. The big buzzword now is "sustainability", but just like "green" it's become marketing and lost its meaning. One thing we can be sure of - a "sustainable" society is not based on rapidly using up finite resources. Unfortunately, I am not sure if there is a single instance of a sustainable society since the invention of agriculture!

william mcdonald

The good news is that maybe we will have the 22.2 years of reserves there in the Marcellus, the bad news is once it is all recovered there will be about 0 years of potable water left in the water table-
it'll be chock full of the chemical cocktails used to frack the shale.

More bad news, maybe by then the lobbyists, I mean the regulators will let us know just what chemicals we will be drinking- maybe.

russell1200

I see where you are getting the 1/5th. But it sure looks a lot closer to 1/10th to me 827 : 84.

The comments to this entry are closed.