Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Gasland The Dark side of Natural Gas

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

vfx

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2006
14,790
52
CA CA
For those who thing Natural Gas is a "clean" burning transportation alternative to gasoline derived from oil or that using natural gas to create electricity is just OK for EV use give a listen or read this interview promoting the new film GASLAND The film's site has a short video you have to see!

Hydraulic fracturing is a process of injecting, at incredibly high pressure, a huge volume of water — they use between 2 and 7 million gallons of water per frack to fracture the rock formation.
Not so great for living things around it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127593937

This should give you an idea of what is going on:
"The gas industry is very powerful, and their power in Congress is well shown. They were exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act by the 2005 Energy bill. The Safe Drinking Water Act monitors underground injection of toxin. They were also exempted in previous years from the Clean Air Act, the Superfund Law. ... It's an unregulated industry."


Related thread
 
The NPR piece was what journalism really should be.

The stories of farmers being forced to sign their land rights over if a certain percentage of people in their communities have already signed is a shame and a sad sign of the lengths we (as Americans)are willing to allow companies and the government to take advantage of us and then get us to pay taxes on it.

In certain places and under certain circumstances this type of extraction strategy works very well and is very efficient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

Only time will tell.
 
The actual data given for the article is very old (from the 1990s), has poor sampling, makes biased assumptions (assuming that since methane was not considered a potent greenhouse gas in the 1990s that the measurements were under reported), claims gas and coal and oil final efficiencies are similar enough not to matter, claims 30% matters a lot in beginning of paper and that 10% doesn't near the end of the paper, and dismisses the relative home furnace efficiencies I quickly found on the Web (90-97% for methane and 56-80% for oil and no American domestic coal furnaces).

I hope that future studies fix these problems. Poorly done review studies only confuse the serious issues we face.

The New Scientist article criticizing wind power as potentially disrupting the weather (in another thread) is hyperboly at it's finest. The only risk occurs when windmills are everywhere. Even then the risk is way smaller than greenhouse gas concerns.

The methane from cattle may be a bigger risk.

There is risk with everything we do. Humans live longer, better, healthier (in spite of obesity, sedentary lifestyle and tobacco), happier, warmer, cooler, and more fulfilled than ever before in history. Flat earth lovers of the "egalitarian hunter gatherers" need only go to Borneo where there is over 30% male homicide rate.

As you can tell I appreciate technology. Model S #S234.
 
... maybe I should by a gas car ... the neighbor has some cows ...


Okay, enough, shut your mouth—that’s not a picture of a cow about to go trekking, but of something even more astonishing—a cow with a plastic tank attached to its back that is intended to capture the methane it farts. The Telegraph reports:

Experts said the slow digestive system of cows makes them a key producer of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that gets far less public attention than carbon dioxide.

In a bid to understand the impact of the wind produced by cows on global warming, scientists collected gas from their stomachs in plastic tanks attached to their backs.

The Argentine researchers discovered methane from cows accounts for more than 30 per cent of the country’s total greenhouse emissions.

cow-goes-trekking.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited: