Gimpy wrote:Once we're low enough on fossil fuels, they'll become prohibitively expensive and then we can start to look at alternative energy. Makes way more sense than getting out ahead of the problem. Let's do some more fracking and cause earthquakes and make tap water become flammable in the meantime.

Gimpy wrote:Once we're low enough on fossil fuels, they'll become prohibitively expensive and then we can start to look at alternative energy. Makes way more sense than getting out ahead of the problem. Let's do some more fracking and cause earthquakes and make tap water become flammable in the meantime.

TomatoPie wrote:But there's no relationship of fracking to EQ

Hydrogeological modeling revealed that wastewater disposal likely contributed to seismicity via localized pressure increase along a seismically active fault.

Experts said the spike in seismic activity was mainly caused by the oil and gas industry injecting wastewater deep underground, which can activate dormant faults. A few instances stem from hydraulic fracturing, in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are pumped into rock formations in order to free oil or gas.

Geologists said before 2009, the state historically averaged 1.5 earthquakes of magnitude-3 or greater each year, and is now experiencing 2.5 earthquakes of the same magnitudes each day.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's amazing how there's like no actual factual evidence backing up TP's theoretical claims. No data, no numbers, nothing but a theory. He sounds like Ptolemy--that guy had a theory too.

TP, why can't government bureaucrats pick winners?

Subsidies funnel taxpayer money to technologies that would have either become market viable on their own or would not survive without the government’s help.

Oil’s dominance as a transportation fuel is not because a government program is lacking or because more taxpayer investments are needed to jumpstart a transformation in the fuel industry. At present... oil is the most efficient and economic source of transportation fuel.

Americans spent $481 billion on gasoline in 2011. Globally, the transportation fuels market is a multi-trillion-dollar one. If any alternative fuel technology captured a mere slice of that market, it would capture billions of dollars in profit annually. The market demand for transportation fuel is incentive enough to spur competition in the industry.

Markets adapt to changes in resource demand and supply through the price mechanism. If vehicles powered by natural gas, electric, or biofuel become economically competitive, consumers would respond, and alternative-fuel vehicle and necessary supporting infrastructure would be built. But it would not be as a result of a government program or a politician in Washington thinking he knows which is the best alternative to a gas-powered car. Subsidies create dependence on government, crowd out private-sector investments to distribute benefits to favored industries, and disperse the costs among taxpayers.

pacino wrote:that's all your opinion. all of it

Youseff wrote:also we wouldn't be able to share our opinions on the www if it weren't for government funded ARPANET.

Woody wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:But there's no relationship of fracking to EQ

Report released yesterday isn't so sure about that, at least in California: http://www.kogo.com/articles/california ... n-14352081

Hydrogeological modeling revealed that wastewater disposal likely contributed to seismicity via localized pressure increase along a seismically active fault.

This is of course consistent with USGS' findings on the topic: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... uakes-usgs

Experts said the spike in seismic activity was mainly caused by the oil and gas industry injecting wastewater deep underground, which can activate dormant faults. A few instances stem from hydraulic fracturing, in which large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are pumped into rock formations in order to free oil or gas.

TomatoPie wrote:Frackin' Facts

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... g-6386593/