Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Panels on every roof.
Charge your car at every stop.
How likely is that going to happen?

Same way we put a computer in every building. Advances in a technology will increase its prominence.

Thats awesome but won't do jack statistically.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Panels on every roof.
Charge your car at every stop.
How likely is that going to happen?

Same way we put a computer in every building. Advances in a technology will increase its prominence.

Thats awesome but won't do jack statistically.

Be feeding into the WoW franchise

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Panels on every roof.
Charge your car at every stop.
How likely is that going to happen?

Same way we put a computer in every building. Advances in a technology will increase its prominence.

Thats awesome but won't do jack statistically.

A projected decrease in my electricity bill of 60-something percent is statistically significant to me...

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
On gas occurring inwater wells:

http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/study-naturally-occurring-methane-ubiquitous-in-ne-pa-groundwater/

That's nice, but it pertains only to one region, and the cited study makes no mention as to whether or not fracking could contribute to an existential issue. A fact the author even notes, then ignores, when reaching his conclusion.

I also like how the author said "...over 1,700 water wells..." when the number surveyed was 1,701.

Relapse wrote:

Popular Mechanics article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

Interesting.

True. I thought I'd try to get some neutral as possible articles as I could find and put them forward for consideration. I thought the popular mechanics one came closest to the mark.

Here's a site with some cautionary tales of water well drilling:

http://www.real-estate-with-water-well-advice.com/Arsenic.html


Another site talking of water well problems:

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/wwg412

@dogma- spoilered to prevent wall 'o text.

A)
In reply to your statement as to how you self identify politically...
Ill admit to being tempted to say tomatoe/tomato. Seriously though, I believe you when you say that you are fairly moderate and I apologize if I gave offense by offering you the mantle of liberal in this discussion.

Now to the exchange of ideas.

B)
I think your idea on speed and load limits has many merits, though I believe that some other steps could be first taken to reduce the possible severity of such restrictions.
I offer that our rail system is aging and where the tracks were once traveling through mostly un-populated lands, the expansion and development in the past 2 decades has put more people in the position of crossing rail road tracks than is optimal for safety.

I say make sure that the trains travel through the least populated areas until they have to pull into the refineries and distribution points. If this means laying new tracks in order to keep the chances of auto/train accidents down then run new tracks.

As for pipeline safety, having a federal safety mandate of "x" number trained repair and disaster response crews for every "y" miles of pipe seems to be reasonable and like something the government should be doing in place of pro sports steroid hearings and the like.


C)
What I meant by punishing the decision makers is that many moderates and middle class conservatives and middle class liberals feel that the protections that corporations have, need to be reviewed and likely amended.
Maybe do like what they have done with broadcasters and other groups that have received special protections. That in order to receive the protections that the corporation would have to figuratively sign on to operate in the best public interest.

Basically, enact a clause in our basic corporate laws that allows for immediate direct action against any board members that knowingly makes a decision that puts the general public in unnecessary danger.
(I know, the wording would have to be much tighter but the point is that big decisions carry big consequences and therefore should carry big responsibility for the individuals who get the big rewards to make such decisions .)

In other words, many feel that it is time for the corporations and their executive boards to face criminal charges when they cause deaths through negligence.

Later,
ff

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you assume there are other energy options?

Because there are?

Not all of them have peaked in efficiency yet. Lack of funding and research kinda makes that happen.

Many options, such as solar, thermal, water and wind are too situational to really solve the problem. They can help, but not fix.

Perhaps someone will find a way to make solar power viable, perhaps not.

We still have nuclear, and scientists working towards fusion.

The main thing is if we don't start working on something that will work after we cease using our current fuel sources, we have trouble.

But don't let that convince you. Let the consequences of our actions do so.

We've thrown hundreds of billions at the solar issue over the last 5 years, and all we have to show for it are fatcats declaring bankruptcy left and right.

I fully support continuing to explore those avenues, but they are not viable right now. What is viable, we have access to, and continuing to stonewall our ability to use it will do nothing but hurt us.

 djones520 wrote:
We've thrown hundreds of billions at the solar issue over the last 5 years, and all we have to show for it are fatcats declaring bankruptcy left and right.

I fully support continuing to explore those avenues, but they are not viable right now. What is viable, we have access to, and continuing to stonewall our ability to use it will do nothing but hurt us.

yeah, if we COULD use any of the alternatives to replace the energy out put of coal and petroleum, we would be,

its not viable, so we dont.

the person who invents some alternative that does the job we need it to do, will be a freaking trillionaire, tons of people are working hard and investing billions in it already,

people complaining that someone is holding back alternatives or that no research is being done are poorly informed at best, and are likely the same people who think "they" are just hiding the cure for cancer and that "they" are hiding things like cold fusion tech and so on

 easysauce wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
We've thrown hundreds of billions at the solar issue over the last 5 years, and all we have to show for it are fatcats declaring bankruptcy left and right.

I fully support continuing to explore those avenues, but they are not viable right now. What is viable, we have access to, and continuing to stonewall our ability to use it will do nothing but hurt us.

yeah, if we COULD use any of the alternatives to replace the energy out put of coal and petroleum, we would be,

its not viable, so we dont.

the person who invents some alternative that does the job we need it to do, will be a freaking trillionaire, tons of people are working hard and investing billions in it already,

people complaining that someone is holding back alternatives or that no research is being done are poorly informed at best, and are likely the same people who think "they" are just hiding the cure for cancer and that "they" are hiding things like cold fusion tech and so on

Already done.

Turns out the best alternative to oil is.....oil.

A private company known as LS9 have come up with the answer. They have been working with Shell and Proctor&Gamble to advance the new tech and to patent/trade mark all of their products.

LS9(Life Sustaining 9 Billion) was bought by Renewable Energy Corp(REGI).
Expect the stock to rise a little this year as winter closes in but the experts are not predicting substantial gains until 2016 or 2017.

Later,
ff

Although I think that some forms of clean energy are perfectly viable for households and private use (solar panels on your roof mainly), there are only a couple of places on the planet where enough energy can harnessed off these resources to feed industry.

The civil thing to do is actually sit down with these people and hash out what their demands are and see if a reasonable accommodation made for change. Start with a feasibility study, ask the residents what their input should be, find out if the cost is justifiable, and then see if it could be done.

Of course, getting either side to talk to the other can only involve the use of hand puppets, so I'm not sure who we can turn for this. Muppets? Sesame Street?!?