Gas Drilling

The pro oil drilling groups argue that oil drilling will stimulate rural economies and give them jobs. However, it is still very harmful to the environment. It does more harm than good. Many pro drillers also argue that hydro fracking does not contaminate the water we drink however; much of the water in New York is contaminated from chemicals being pumped into the ground that stay there for long periods of time. Fracking also uses an obscene amount of water. There are many people in the Oneonta area who are anti drilling and fracking. The pros and cons of drilling both have its benefits. Drilling does contribute to local economies. Also, natural gas is cleaner and better for the environment in the long run. However, the chemicals we are putting in the ground are harmful to the environment right now and the chemicals are also contaminating the water we are drinking.


1) Is there a way to make hydro-fracking more environmentally friendly?

Cuba

America should follow in the footsteps of Cuba. Cuba had to learn how to survive on a limited amount of fossil fuels and they have succeeded. Our world has become so dependent on machinery, cars, energy, etc that it will be a shock when we can no longer use them. We need to change our ways and find alternatives to using massive amounts of energy. Cuba has resorted back to farming in their communities. They also use public transportation that is affordable to everyone. It is rare for someone to have a car, which makes their country environmentally friendly. Many people also walk or bike now in Cuba. This has causes them to loose weight and become a healthier country. They are also healthier because of their diet. It is mainly a vegetarian diet because there is not much meat available. Cuba has come to have a very functional society. They have an excellent healthcare system. They try to keep the public healthy and not fix them after they get sick. Many of their doctors live in the community. The education in Cuba is realistic. They go to school for 12 years and learn the basic survival skills. They also learn trades that they can pursuer and have as a career. Cuba has a much more community feel than America. They care about every person in their country and value them. They are not competing for jobs in cooperate America. They are all working together to make their country work.

Questions
1) Cuba was able to adapt to life with limited amount of fossil fuels. They reverted back to using old farming ways and provide food for their community. They also use public transportation that is affordable to everyone. People walk and bike more, which makes them a healthier country in general. They have survived and thrive as a country on limited fossil fuels.
2) Relocation could be a solution to reduce energy. It would force our society to become live in a sustainable community. They would farm and be able to make their own food and the necessities that they need. They will help each other as a community and provide for one another and use the resources they have around them. However. Our society would have to get use to living with limited fossil fuels and the comforts of our society now. They would have to get used to manual labor and biking and walking everywhere they needed to.

1) Why have we not followed Cuba’s example of how to survive with limited fossil fuels? Are we waiting till we completely run out of fossil fuels?
2) Why does our government think that Cuba is such a threat and not allow us to go and visit Cuba and study what their society and the alternative uses of fuel they have?

Eating Fossil Fuels

Everything in our life uses hydrocarbons including the food that we eat. Every piece of food that we put into our mouths has been produced with fossil fuels in one way or another. For example, farmers use an enormous amount of hydrocarbons on their farms from irrigation systems to tractors to seeding to the transportation of their crops. However, fossil fuels are running out and our country is going to be in total shock when it happens. Without these fossil fuels farmers will not be able to keep farming and provide our society with the basic crops. Also, with the decline of fossil fuels it is making food prices soar. People will soon not be able to afford the basic food necessities and become starved because they cannot afford food and support their families. Our society is trying to do everything to prevent it from happening including using more fossil fuels for technological advances. Our society as we know it is going to end and we are not ready to handle that. Our society is projected to double by 2050, which is not an option. We can barely support the population we have now and fossil fuels are running out. In order to regain control of our society and fossil fuels crisis we need to decrease our population by one third. This of course will not fix the fossil fuel or oil crisis but it will help regain control of our society and begin to back track and stop trying to advance our society. We need to find alternative uses to fossil fuels such as resorting back to old farming ways. Farmers could do more manual labor and use manure to fertilize their crops.

Questions:
1) When we run out of fossil fuels it will be more than likely that we will no longer have modern fuels. We will run out of fossil fuels so quickly that there will be no alternatives and farming will become to a complete halt. Most farms could not run because they do not have the money or fossil fuels to run their farms and tractors and plows. Also, most of our society will go through starvation because there will no longer be cheap food available.
2) The U.S should learn from North Korea to not be so dependent on fossil fuels. They were so dependent on fossil fuels it caused an agricultural downfall, which lead most of their society into starvation. It also caused them to loose massive amount of oil and coal which everything in their country ran on.

1) why are people refusing to believe that we are going to run out of fossil fuels very soon ? do they think that by ignoring this reality that it will affect our society ?
2) If there is an agricultural collapse what will America do in order to avoid a food crisis and starvation of our society? Will we go back to old farming ways?
3) If there were an agricultural collapse in the U.S. would it affect us the same or worse than the agricultural collapse in North Korea?

Joyride

This article was about how the advancement of automobiles and Americas dependency on automobiles. It quickly took the place of horses, bikes, and walking. It has changed our society forever. The first car that was made was from the model T Henry Ford created. He made cars cheaply and available to the working class. Cars opened up the possibilities of being able to travel around the country and move from place to place. As travel became more common there were gas stations opened, mechanics, highways being built, etc. As cars became more popular and widely used people realized they did not have to live in the cities. They could move to the suburbs and drive to work in the cities. This created a huge housing boom. Everyone could afford to buy a house in a neighborhood in the suburbs and live a more luxurious lifestyle. Without cars people could of never have moved to the suburbs. Cars have shaped what our society is now. It is also a major contributor to America’s oil dependency. Cars and houses use so much oil and we are so dependent on it now that it will be a shock to the nation when it runs out.

Questions
1) The car shaped Americans way of life because if allowed them to live with mobility. They could live in the suburbs and still work in the city. They could take trips and even move to a different place for jobs. This also caused the house market to be booming and the construction of highways and gas stations. The tractor allowed farmers to plow more land and grow more crops. No longer did they have to do everything manually or with horses. Cars and tractors were able to run because there was cheap oil and gas.
2) Energy contributed to the post WWII housing boom and suburban development because everything ran on energy. Houses needed electricity to heat the house and run the appliances which all used energy. Also, the construction companies needed energy to build more houses for all the WWII families and soldiers.

1) What would farming be like today if the tractor weren’t invented? Would faming have died out by now?
2) Why did public transportation never become as popular as cars?
3) If the automobiles never took off like it did what would our society be like today?

Reading 4

This first article was talking about how Jevon’s law. Jevons thought that our economy would become unstable because of how dependent we are on fossil fuels. Jevons said that if we used our resources more efficiently we could make more money off of it, which would cycle back into the economy. If we put more work in trying to obtain fossil fuels it will cost more money and affect the economy negatively. The demand of that resource will be so outrageous that people will no longer be able to use it in their daily life. America has such a big population. If we keep growing in size it will take a toll on the economy. For example, we have a huge population that is dependent on oil. When the oil runs out what is going to happen to our society and how we continue on.
The second article talks about how we need to fix our economy. We have become to advance to quickly. We need to slow down and take a step back from technology. If we do not then our economy is going to fail. We can hardly handle our economy now how could we possible support the demands of an even bigger one. The author stated that we need a new kind of economy. We need a “steady-state” economy that would maintain the economy we have now and not grow it. This would slow the economic fail of our current economy and could even turn our economy around.

1) Jevons main concern was that consumers were becoming to dependent on fossil fuels. He knew that the consumers were not aware that these fossil fuels would eventually run out and our society would not be able to handle that change.
2) The airplane to helicopter comparison was about two different economies. The helicopter symbolized about the type of economy we should have. We should have a steady and hovering economy and not try to grow and go forward as fast as we can. The airplane symbolized how our economy is now. Always moving forward at a fast pace. We never want to stop and don’t think of the consequences of out actions.

1) Why does Jovens not really talk about alternative uses to fossil fuels? It seems like he thinks our economy is going to fail no matter what.
2) The “steady-state” economy seems like a good idea but is it possible for our society to slow down after years of a face-paced economy?
3) Why is our society so dependent on technology?

Reading 4

This first article was talking about how Jevon’s law. Jevons thought that our economy would become unstable because of how dependent we are on fossil fuels. Jevons said that if we used our resources more efficiently we could make more money off of it, which would cycle back into the economy. If we put more work in trying to obtain fossil fuels it will cost more money and affect the economy negatively. The demand of that resource will be so outrageous that people will no longer be able to use it in their daily life. America has such a big population. If we keep growing in size it will take a toll on the economy. For example, we have a huge population that is dependent on oil. When the oil runs out what is going to happen to our society and how we continue on.

The second article talks about how we need to fix our economy. We have become to advance to quickly. We need to slow down and take a step back from technology. If we do not then our economy is going to fail. We can hardly handle our economy now how could we possible support the demands of an even bigger one. The author stated that we need a new kind of economy. We need a “steady-state” economy that would maintain the economy we have now and not grow it. This would slow the economic fail of our current economy and could even turn our economy around.

1) Jevons main concern was that consumers were becoming to dependent on fossil fuels. He knew that the consumers were not aware that these fossil fuels would eventually run out and our society would not be able to handle that change.

2) The airplane to helicopter comparison was about two different economies. The helicopter symbolized about the type of economy we should have. We should have a steady and hovering economy and not try to grow and go forward as fast as we can. The airplane symbolized how our economy is now. Always moving forward at a fast pace. We never want to stop and don’t think of the consequences of out actions.

Questions

1) Why does Jovens not really talk about alternative uses to fossil fuels? It seems like he thinks our economy is going to fail no matter what.

2) The “steady-state” economy seems like a good idea but is it possible for our society to slow down after years of a face-paced economy?

3) Why is our society so dependent on technology?

Chapter 6

This chapter makes you realize how much transportation and communication has influenced our society over the years. Transportation has advanced our society to what it is today. We use transportation to get everywhere we need to today. First there were animals such as horses that helped in transportation. Then, there were steam ships and trains that allowed goods and people to travel long distances. Then came cars, jets, planes, rockets, etc. With transportation there needed to be communication. Mail is too slow so the telephone was invented and then came computers and the Internet, which made communication what it is today. You can run a business from across the country by using a computer and the Internet.

1) Better transportation will make our economy more efficient because it allows goods to be transported easier and faster. If there is a more efficient way of transporting goods it will keep the costs of goods down. Also, these goods could reach even more people and help branch out to new buyers throughout the world.
2) Better communication would be if electronics could run on less energy. We could use solar power to power our electronics and not need to have them plugged in all the time. With better communication people would not have to travel so often. They would be able to talk from their homes or offices, which would cut down their use of cars, trains, planes, etc.

Questions
1) Why does America use transportation for everything we do? Why do we not bike or walk like people do in many other countries?
2) Why is there not more talking about the improvement of public transportation? if people took the bus or subway more often would it make a big impact on the use of our energy ?

Here is a link that talks about the future of transportation:

http://science.discovery.com/videos/brink-interviews-the-future-of-transportation.html

Chapter 5

This chapter talked about how and why all the different fossil fuels were produced. Crude oils and natural gases make up a great deal of the non-biomass energy consumption. However, these energy sources put harmful pollutant out into the environment. In this chapter it also talked about machines that required the use of energy such as nuclear weapons, light bulbs, and the steam engine. The steam engine played a big role because it was the first machine to convert chemical energy. The chapter talked about alternative resources to using fossil fuels We need to start using alternative resources because energy is one of the main things that keep our country running.

Turbines- a machine for producing continuous power in which a wheel or rotor, typically fitted with vanes, is made to revolve by a fast-moving flow of water, steam, gas, air, or other fluid.

1) 1) Hydro turbines, nuclear reactors, and fertilizer are in this chapter because they are all use fossil fuels.

2) 2)Thermal efficiency of power systems over time decreases. It becomes less efficient.

1) 1)Why do we not use waterwheels and windmills as our primary source of energy?

2) 2)What will happen if fossil fuels run out and we have no alternative energy sources to use?!

pre-Industrial Energy

There have been many advances throughout society. One major advance in societies was energy advances. There have been so many different sources of energy used throughout time that has allowed societies to be more efficient and resourceful. The earliest of these societies were the hunter gather. They had many different advances, which included the use of horses to do work in the field. Animals were much stronger than humans and could do twice the amount of manual labor. After the advancement to animals came the waterwheel, windmills, and eventually the machinery that we use today.

Blast furnaces- a smelting furnace in the form of a tower into which a blast of hot compressed air can be introduced from below. Such furnaces are used chiefly to make iron from a mixture of iron ore, coke, and limestone.

1) The ultimate form of energy in the pre-industrial times was the use of animals especially cattle. They could do more amounts of work in the fields such as harvesting, fertilizing, plowing, etc. than manual labor could.
2) An example of innovation would be the windmills. The windmills were able to produce massive amounts of energy in one day than any human or animal combined. It allowed for more work to be done more efficiently in societies.
3) The disadvantage of the energy sources that were available was that not all of them were available to everyone. If you still lived in a primitive society the chances are that you would not be exposed or able to build the alternative energy resources. It depended on where you lived and what type of group you lived in.

1) What are the differences between pre-industrial windmills and waterwheels and the ones that we have now?
2) How long did it take for windmills and waterwheels to catch on to the rest of the world?
3) How did a group decide if they were going to use alternative energy sources or not? Were they all accepting of the changes or did one person just decide?

Acid Rain

<://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6y0ieuxmq onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.jamesglass.org/JGA/2labor/Z_laborIMAGES/00general/0-5_glossary/acid_rain.gif">

Acid rain is a huge contributor to the destruction of the environment. Acid rain happens because sulfur and nitrogen are put into the air because of the burning of coal. It is very harmful to the environment and is very potent to our water supply making it to acidic to drink. The Ph levels are lower than normal in water because of acid rain, which is harmful to animals that live in water. Acid rain is also harmful to plant life and forests and the animals who inhabit there. Governments have put laws into place that will hopefully decrease the sulfur emissions. China has set a goal of 20% reduction of acid rain by 2010. The lowest amount of Ph measured in China and New York was about 4. There is not much being done to solve the acid rain issue. The government has tried to put rules in place and reduce the amount of acid rain in the environment. The government is also conducting tests of Streams Rivers, and other bodies of water to see how acidic they are. What really needs to happen is for the general public to start caring and helping fix the environment. We need to cut down on burning coal and cutting down our car usage. The government needs to start campaigning and encouraging people to help the environment.

1) Will china really reduce acid rain by 20% by 2010?

2) Why is the government not encouraging people to cut down on coals use and car usage?

3) Why is no one taking the acid rain problem more seriously? If it is so detrimental the environment why is it not a top priority? Why is there not more literature out there for the public to read?

Assignment 2

This article talks about future burning coal in the U.S. Coal is an abundant resource in the U.S and will replace oil in a matter of years. However, burning coal is very harmful to the environment. It has a high amount of CO2 and is part of the global warming problem. A way to clean the coal is to use an IGCC factory. The factory can lower the CO2 output and reduces environmental damage by putting to CO2 back into the ground to get more oil. These IGCC plants are highly expensive to run and build. There is an IGCC model in Tampa that is the only functioning plant.

Gasification: convert (a solid or liquid, esp. coal) into gas.

Greenhouse-gas: A gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation, e.g.. Carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons.

IGCC plants does not seem like the solution to global warming. Of course it would help slow down global warming but it will not stop it completely. Global warming isn’t going to stop just because we build these IGCC plants. These plants will reduce CO2 but they will not eliminate it. The CO2 will still be going back into the ground and creating pollution. The IGCC plants can help create renewable energy while eliminating pollution. However, this comes with a cost. It would take a great amount of money to build these plants and to run them would it really be worth it in the end.

Questions:

Why does the government not think of CO2 as a pollutant?

Is there a less expensive way to build these IGCC plants?

How does the CO2 going back into the ground affect the land over time?

Peat

Peat is the earliest stage of the coal process. Peat is a material that is made up of decomposed organic matter. It is also a compressed plant growth. Given enough time, peat will turn into coal under the right amount of pressure and temperature. Peat how the lowest percent of carbon and very little energy. It is found in shallow wetlands such as Ireland and Canada. Peat ha a slow rate of renewal and can absorbs water, so it is not technically a renewable source. for every 10 feet of peat there is 1 foot of bituminous coal. Peat does not seem like a better solution to bituminous coal. bituminous coal has more carbon but uses less energy and Peat uses less carbon but more energy.

Block of dug up Peat

Water Resources and Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale

This article is about collecting natural gas. Natural gas is abundant in the environment and does not harm the environment when it burns. It is the least harmful of fossil fuels. They have been drilling for natural gas from the Marcellus shale. Many states have been cautious about granting permission to drill because of the water supply. Not only is there a high amount of water needed for digging but also there are local water supplies that are being contaminated and the disposal of this water is being questioned.

Hydraulic:

Denoting, relating to, or operated by a liquid moving in a confined space under pressure

Viscosity:

The state of being thick, sticky, and semi fluid in consistency, due to internal friction.

Borehole:

A deep, narrow hole made in the ground, esp. to locate water or oil.

The opposition to gas drilling is the high amounts of water needed for drilling. It is not exactly clear how much of an impact the water takes from the drilling site. There needs to be enough water to drill on site but this could impact the local water supply. A community could have less water to use because it is being put to use at the digging site. At digging sites there is also more of a chance of disrupting local rivers and streams. There is a high chance that leaks and waste will get in there from digging equipment. The contaminated water is not always disposed or treated properly and causes issues in the environment and in the local water supply.

The reference list of this article looks highly creditable. There are many different researchers from different organizations. There are many different researchers from different regions that have taken on this issue and done research. It is not all a one sided point of view.

What is misleading about figure 7 is that they do not tell you what the gel is used for after it is used to transport proppant.

Questions:

What will drilling be like in 10 years?

How much contaminated water has there been since drilling started?

How can we cut down on our natural gas use?