A Texan tragedy: ample oil, no water

[lynnvinc]

Can’t put water in your gas tank.

Actually in a way one can…or soon may be able to.

Scientists have discovered a way to get hydrogen fuel (e.g., for hydrogen cars) cheaply from water, which at the same time draws CO2 from the atmosphere and could help reduce ocean acidity: see llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2013/May/NR-13-05-07.html

Let’s all think positively and work toward a better world than ruing the night

If there is one thing I’ve learned over 6+ decades of my life is that for every problem there are solutions, and for every solution there are further problems. And I’ve recently figured that’s sort of the way God intends it…to keep us busy here on earth doing right and good, ever-striving for good solutions and never giving up on helping protect creation (incl human lives) so as to usher in His kingdom.

 

[lynnvinc]

One is not greatly surprised to hear they have droughts in Texas.

And one should be ever striving to help reduce water consumption thru efficiency and conservation, pray for rain (we do so at every Sunday Mass since we are in a terribly drought-stricken region), and whatever they can to mitigate climate change, which is making our droughts here worse.

 

[lynnvinc]

Why bother? The White River in Mo and Ar floods almost every year. There are other rivers like that. The Mississippi also often carries excess water. Why not just pipe it down to Tx?

Of course, that would be a mighty big pipeline to do much good, but Dallas isn’t all that far away, and surely such pipelines could at least provide water to Dallas/Ft Worth.

My husband was thinking the same thing, as we have been watching the terrible floods to the north and east of us, while we are dry as a bone here.

And I’m silently thinking, that’s not feasible.

But they are doing something about their water imbalance in China…diverting river water in the south, where they have plenty of water, to the north which is drying up, some 900 miles. It will take $billions and some 50 years. There are already many areas there with no water, and the situation is much worse than in Texas, with many more lives at risk. However, there are also many problems, such as the water being very heavily polluted and having to relocate huge populations of farmer where they need to build dams for the project & submerge many farms.

 

[Holly3278]

This is one reason why I oppose fracking. It seems to be harmful to the environment.

 

[estesbob]

This is one reason why I oppose fracking. It seems to be harmful to the environment.

Actually it doesn’t. The fracking generally takes place 100s to thousands of feet below the water table. The number one funder of anti-fracking organization is Saudi Arabia-that ought to tell you a lot

 

[SamH]

Actually it doesn’t. The fracking generally takes place 100s to thousands of feet below the water table. The number one funder of anti-fracking organization is Saudi Arabia-that ought to tell you a lot

I’m sure we’ll soon be bombarded with reports of Arab members of ELF.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources specifically stated that there is no proven link between the drilling and the quakes. But then what do they know?

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources claimed there was no definitive link by separating the injection wells from the process of fracking; a ridiculous and obviously deceptive notion. That was no surprise since Kasich’s administration is in bed with the oil and natural gas industry. Geologists and seismologists investing the site came to a very different conclusion.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s a fine “how-do-you-do”: A recent study just publishied in Nature today – Extreme weather events enhanced by climate change, like the Texas droughts that deplete our water (but also wildfires, floods, & heatwaves), fuel climate change in a vicious cycle… terrestrial ecosystems absorb approximately 11 billion tons less carbon dioxide every year as the result of the extreme climate events than they could if the events did not occur. That is equivalent to approximately a third of global CO2 emissions per year.

See: mpg.de/7501454/weather-extreme_carbon-cycle_cimate-change

 

[Darryl1958]

Actually it doesn’t. The fracking generally takes place 100s to thousands of feet below the water table. The number one funder of anti-fracking organization is Saudi Arabia-that ought to tell you a lot

It is immoral to remain dependant on Saudi oil when there are alternatives that have such minimal risks as fracking and pipelines.

These are not unknown technologies, after all.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

As I understand, it’s the water consumption and flow back production from multi-stage hydraulic fracturing during the completion of horizontal wells that is problematic, especially when it is happening in water scarce areas. There they literally are trading drinking water for oil. Of course this is mostly happening in Texas, what do you expect.

But there is little to no chance of contamination of fresh water zones because those zones are protected and cemented behind “surface casing” pipe which generally is 1,000’s of feet above the hydrocarbon bearing zones.

The amount of equipment and materials involved with big hydraulic fracturing jobs is staggering: millions of pounds of “propant” and millions of gallons of water which all have to be transported by trucks. It’s a very industrial activity that requires an enormous amount vehicles and equipment. The cost for these frac’ jobs is as much as the cost drill the well itself (3-4 million or more depending on the depth).

It’s by no means an environmentally benign exercise.

 

[oldcelt]

Having actually seen seen a deep well being put in, I am still in favor of the process. When compared to the old shallow well methods this is a major improvement. As pointed out, the fracturing activity occurs thousands of feet below the water tables and the chances for pollution are remote.

I will say this…a method need to be developed to treat the frack water and return it to the surface. Injection disposals has some proven problems, and we simply cannot afford to permanently remove that much fresh water from the system. In my hometown they were actually treating the water at the local sewage plant, but were shut down because of one chemical that was not being removed.

If they can conquer that problem, not only will the water return to the surface system clean, but it will financially benefit the small towns that have modern sewage treatment plants. Believe me, places like Ridgway, PA would welcome the additional funds.

 

[pnewton]

Actually in a way one can…or soon may be able to.

Scientists have discovered a way to get hydrogen fuel (e.g., for hydrogen cars) cheaply from water, which at the same time draws CO2 from the atmosphere and could help reduce ocean acidity: see llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2013/May/NR-13-05-07.html

Let’s all think positively and work toward a better world than ruing the night

Neat link. I am all for finding new solution, but we need to remember that hydrogen fuel, since it does not occur naturally but must be produced, is not a fuel, but an energy strorage method. Since electricity production also produces CO2, this must be subtracted from any gain. We are as of yet a long way from any renewable energy capablity except on a small scale.

• Coal 37%
• Natural Gas 30%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 5%
• Biomass 1.42%
• Geothermal 0.41%
• Solar 0.11%
• Wind 3.46%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%

eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

 

[lynnvinc]

Neat link. I am all for finding new solution, but we need to remember that hydrogen fuel, since it does not occur naturally but must be produced, is not a fuel, but an energy strorage method. Since electricity production also produces CO2, this must be subtracted from any gain. We are as of yet a long way from any renewable energy capablity except on a small scale.

Very good point. I also thought of that, and I don’t think the article mentioned it. I’m only thinking that if it were done cheaply that might mean less electricity was used to produce it. Also that electricity could come from alt energy…but then why not just use the alt energy for power, unless somehow more power can be gained from the hydrogen fuel than directly from the alt energy, which would have to be converted into EV battery power to move a car.

• Coal 37%
• Natural Gas 30%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 5%
• Biomass 1.42%
• Geothermal 0.41%
• Solar 0.11%
• Wind 3.46%

• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%

eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

I have great hopes we can get those alt energy figures way up over the years and decades. I don’t think we are anywhere near full capacity yet.

We’re just putting up solar panels on our roof…which will help in a very tiny way…the Little Way of Environmental Healing, based on St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood, I’d like to promote – just do whatever you can, no matter how small or inconsequential it may seem. As Mother Teresa said, your love makes it infinite.