Oklahoma earthquake swarm, November 2011?


Is it enough to call it a swarm?  Oklahoma hadn’t had a quake of great signficance in about 30 years, but they had a 5.6 and a 4.7  yesterday — and look at this list for today and yesterday from the USGS (list will probably change at USGS as time moves on):

MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s
LAT
deg
LON
deg
DEPTH
km
LOCATION
MAP 3.3 2011/11/06 18:26:56 35.478 -96.864 5.0 4 km ( 2 mi) SE of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.7 2011/11/06 17:52:34 35.547 -96.819 5.0 7 km ( 4 mi) S of Sparks, OK
MAP 3.9 2011/11/06 15:07:05 35.535 -96.909 5.0 4 km ( 3 mi) NNW of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.2 2011/11/06 11:20:23 35.525 -96.883 5.0 3 km ( 2 mi) NNE of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.0 2011/11/06 11:16:20 35.523 -96.844 4.9 6 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.4 2011/11/06 11:03:52 35.539 -96.825 5.0 8 km ( 5 mi) S of Sparks, OK
MAP 3.9 2011/11/06 10:52:35 35.567 -96.797 5.0 5 km ( 3 mi) SSE of Sparks, OK
MAP 4.0 2011/11/06 09:39:57 35.506 -96.865 5.0 3 km ( 2 mi) ENE of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.4 2011/11/06 09:22:04 35.585 -96.823 5.0 3 km ( 2 mi) S of Sparks, OK
MAP 2.7 2011/11/06 08:14:12 35.474 -96.794 5.0 7 km ( 4 mi) NNE of Johnson, OK
MAP 3.2 2011/11/06 07:32:40 35.544 -96.901 4.9 5 km ( 3 mi) N of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.8 2011/11/06 06:31:10 35.559 -96.874 5.0 7 km ( 4 mi) NNE of Meeker, OK
MAP 3.0 2011/11/06 04:54:00 35.540 -96.687 5.0 6 km ( 4 mi) N of Prague, OK
MAP 3.6 2011/11/06 04:03:41 35.554 -96.760 5.0 8 km ( 5 mi) SE of Sparks, OK
MAP 5.6 2011/11/06 03:53:10 35.537 -96.747 5.0 8 km ( 5 mi) NW of Prague, OK
MAP 3.6 2011/11/05 14:36:30 35.584 -96.789 4.9 4 km ( 2 mi) SE of Sparks, OK
MAP 3.4 2011/11/05 13:42:26 35.530 -96.766 5.0 9 km ( 5 mi) NW of Prague, OK
MAP 3.3 2011/11/05 11:24:15 35.521 -96.778 5.0 9 km ( 6 mi) WNW of Prague, OK
MAP 3.3 2011/11/05 09:12:11 35.591 -96.788 4.9 4 km ( 2 mi) SE of Sparks, OK
MAP 2.7 2011/11/05 07:50:42 35.559 -96.762 4.8 8 km ( 5 mi) SE of Sparks, OK
MAP 2.7 2011/11/05 07:44:34 35.488 -96.755 5.0 6 km ( 4 mi) W of Prague, OK
MAP 3.4 2011/11/05 07:27:20 35.566 -96.698 5.0 9 km ( 6 mi) N of Prague, OK
MAP 4.7 2011/11/05 07:12:45 35.553 -96.748 4.0 9 km ( 6 mi) SE of Sparks, OK

Back to Map Centered at 36°N, 96°W (That’s Tulsa, roughly)

 

23 quakes in two days.  Oklahomans might be excused for wondering what’s up.

Just technical details here.  USGS issued a notice on both of the larger quakes, the 4.7 on Saturday, November 5, and the 5.6 on Sunday, November 6.

Still, this isn’t much of a swarm for an active quake zone, like California, or Yellowstone, or Alaska.

But, for Oklahoma, this is big.  Plus, it appears to lay observers that earthquake intensity and frequency both have been building for over a year.   Recent earthquakes in Arkansas and Texas concern some local residents who fear the quakes are the result of hydrofracturing (fracking) activities being conducted in relation to natural gas and oil drilling and extraction.

And as this map of U.S. quakes in the preceding week shows, the quakes in Oklahoma are the largest in the U.S. for the week.

USGS animation of quakes in US for week ending Nov 6, 2011, afternoon

More quakes in California, on the USGS maps -- but the Oklahoma quakes are biggest

Research continues, and local residents stay nervous.

Here’s a map that should update with new quake information — which means, Oklahomans hope, that the indicators of quakes will go away over the next few days.

USGS map of Oklahoma City/Tulsa area where earthquakes occurred in the week leading up to November 6, 2011

USGS map of Oklahoma City/Tulsa area where earthquakes occurred in the week leading up to November 6, 2011

 

93 Responses to Oklahoma earthquake swarm, November 2011?

  1. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,

    Good for you! You used Google AND provided a link that deals a serious blow to your own position – now that is honest

    Note: The Energy Bulletin article cite above correctly shows that the EROI (energy return on investment) is significantly higher for oil and coal than for solar power. This does not take into account externalities (pollution) caused by oil and coal industries or the fact that oil and coal are one-pass inputs. Once humanity uses the easily available oil and coal; it’s gone forever.

    Once humanity uses up the rare earth metals – they are gone forever…(not).

    Don’t worry about oil or coal supplies – the Earth is awash with oil – hydrocarbons are among the most abundant molecules in our Solar System. We got so much of the stuff on Earth, we burn a lot of it as mere “waste” product!

    It rains hydrocarbons on Saturn’s moon Titan creating vast lakes of the stuff. It’s in the atmospheres of all the gas giants and we find tonnes of the stuff in comets.

    Earth has 100’s of years supply of coal – and we haven’t looked that hard for new supplies – the switch from coal to oil for transportation and other energy uses has extended coal’s supply into centuries.

    Like

  2. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,

    You used the plural. Find at least two studies, published in peer reviewed journals, none of your Heritage Foundation trash, that support your claim.

    Learn to use Google – you may learn things.

    Like

  3. Pangolin says:

    Here we go. I’ll make a comparative search easy for onlookers…..
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Eroei+solar+panels&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

    http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-13/applying-time-energy-analysis

    Note: The Energy Bulletin article cite above correctly shows that the EROI (energy return on investment) is significantly higher for oil and coal than for solar power. This does not take into account externalities (pollution) caused by oil and coal industries or the fact that oil and coal are one-pass inputs. Once humanity uses the easily available oil and coal; it’s gone forever.

    Like

  4. Pangolin says:

    Studies indicate that the energy cost in producing solar cells is greater than the return._Black Flag

    You used the plural. Find at least two studies, published in peer reviewed journals, none of your Heritage Foundation trash, that support your claim.

    You can’t.

    Like

  5. Black Flag® says:

    Solar panels don’t come falling out of the sky – they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells.

    Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering).

    Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions, and they consume energy.

    Studies indicate that the energy cost in producing solar cells is greater than the return.

    Some of these issues are being mitigated by improved processes, however, to think that “greenie” technology is “cost and pollution” free is superficial.

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,

    You suffer serious dementia.

    After all, you claim that solar panels and wind turbines are more polluting than coal per unit of energy produced.

    After all, I made no such claim.

    I said – if you can possible comprehend – you ignore pollution created by solar panel production and the energy systems you “love” and focus only on the pollution of energy systems that you “hate”.

    I challenged your blindness.

    PS: You have no idea how solar panels are manufactured.

    Like

  7. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    . It’s just good business.

    Perhaps,…..

    So, why don’t you take your money and invest in it? Good luck!

    However, I will keep my money in my wallet, and please keep your paws off!

    Like

  8. Pangolin says:

    Ok Black Lung. Give us some documentation on the “massive pollution” required to produce a solar panel and correlate it to the expected lifetime power output.

    Then to be fair makes sure you compare that to the all source pollution required to produce that power using a standard coal plant. The pollution from burning coal. The pollution from transporting the coal. The land destroyed. The pollution from the mining equipment. The pollution required to make the mining equipment, etc.

    After all, you claim that solar panels and wind turbines are more polluting than coal per unit of energy produced. Prove it. You can’t. Solar panels are made in electric furnaces and the primary input material is…… sand. Silicon. With doping of tiny, tiny amounts of rare earths.

    You. Are. Simply. A. Liar.

    Like

  9. Black Flag® says:

    Pang

    I love the anti-wind people’s very carefully hoarded videos of individual wind turbines that had failures.

    I am not anti-wind power.
    It has its place and its uses.

    “Carefully hoarded….”? I guess Google search is a careful horde (pun intended)

    Tell me; what happened to all of the other wind turbines in those fields. The answer is they kept working.

    Yep, just like the vast majority of coal plants kept working too.

    I have a lot of experience with wind/solar power systems.

    They are very useful where other sources of power are too expensive or too hard to deliver – such as cell towers located in the middle of nowhere.

    They fail too – needs to be replaced often and are always 2nd choice behind any other commercial delivery of power.

    Meanwhile we’ll just ignore the massive pollution of mountain-top removal coal mining.

    Just ignore the massive “pollution” required to manufacture the turbines/solar panels.

    Oh, and Climate Change; which is mostly caused by coal burning.

    The depth of insanity is infinite.

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Texas wind is quite steady — which is why they build the windfarms where they do, on the coast near Galveston, and in the Texas Panhandle. It’s just good business.

    Like

  11. Pangolin says:

    I love the anti-wind people’s very carefully hoarded videos of individual wind turbines that had failures. Tell me; what happened to all of the other wind turbines in those fields. The answer is they kept working.

    Meanwhile we’ll just ignore the massive pollution of mountain-top removal coal mining. The pollution of coal shipping that leaves trails of coal along the nations railways blackening people’s lungs. The burning of coal that acidifies the oceans and pollutes every body of water in the world with mercury so that fish-based diets are now toxic.

    Oh, and Climate Change; which is mostly caused by coal burning.

    They’re going to have a hell of a time finding a solar panel fire video.

    Black Flag should rename himself as Black Lung.

    Like

  12. Black Flag® says:

    Alan,

    Wind provided 3,000 Megawatts – the outage was 7,000 Megawatts out of 21,000 Megawatts provided by Coal.

    Wind neither was a problem, but it was not the solution either.

    Like

  13. Alan Scott says:

    Black Flag is right. Coal does not fail unless there are extraordinary circumstances . I forget just how many Mega watts did wind contribute when there were shortages? It must have been an amazing occurrence that the wind did not vary just when you guys needed it most .

    Like

  14. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    I pointed out that coal-fired power plants in Texas failed last February.

    They did not “fail”.

    Almost all of them worked just fine.

    The level of your irrational thinking is that if a small few fail, the whole system failed.

    Yet, you do not apply this to your own dogma about wind turbines, where many fail, but to you, these are successful.

    You are terribly inconsistent in reason, but very consistent in irrationality.

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    I pointed out that coal-fired power plants in Texas failed last February. BF originally agreed, but complained that their failure was because they froze up.

    I pointed out that was the key argument, that the coal-fired power plants froze up and could not deliver power.

    BF responded:

    Of course it could “deliver”, since they did deliver.

    Here BF denies his own previous post, demonstrating once again that those who are religiously denialist will deny anything, just for the sake of denying it.

    Like

  16. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    That’s right. Coal couldn’t deliver. Not so reliable as you claimed.

    Of course it could “deliver”, since they did deliver.

    To you, taking your car in for an oil change makes your car unreliable.

    You are among the strangest persons I’ve dialogued with…..

    -water pipes froze

    That’s right. Coal couldn’t deliver. Not so reliable as you claimed.

    Coal did deliver.
    Coal provides 21,000 Megawatts for Texas
    Wind power, 3,000 Megawatts.

    To you that means coal is unreliable.

    -shortage of natural gas due to government rules

    Not rules that limit the amount of natural gas, but rules that say power has to be sent to high priority uses.

    Yes -yours is the more accurate statement.

    The shortage of natural gas was due to the collapse of reliability in coal power plants

    ,

    No.
    The document was clear.

    The shortage was due to extreme high demand by other uses of Natural Gas.

    and the regulations that “interfered” were simply regulations that said “don’t kill people.”

    No, those regulations did not address killing people at all.

    -lack of interconnection with other grids due to government rules

    Rules designed to keep Texas’s grid from being hammered by shortages and blackouts elsewhere,

    Such system designs cut both ways.

    as when coal-generated power collapsed during hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Ike.

    And you believe your wind turbines would have survived the hurricane!!!! ahahahahahahahah

    You are a very superficial thinker.

    See, here is how unreliable wind turbines are:

    They blow up.

    Here is more failure of wind turbines, which to Ed means they can’t be trusted.

    Oh dear, we must pull down all wind turbines … they are a danger to humanity!

    This interconnection issue is wholly unrelated to renewable energy sources. The presence of renewable energy sources makes this protection of the grid possible.

    It did not protect the grid, nor is it capable of it.

    -wind power did not hurt, but it was not significant</blockquote<

    Exactly right. While the cold hammered the ability of fossil fuels to deliver energy as expected, even with problems due to the cold wind farms delivered more than they were programmed to deliver, saving Texas.

    You have serious comprehension issues.

    They were not significant – PERIOD.

    They did NOT deliver more, for they cannot -EVER- deliver more then their design.

    They did not save Texas.

    ERCOT reported that severe weather led to the loss of 50 generation units amounting to 7,000 MW of capacity on Wednesday morning. From news accounts it looks like a few large coal plants failed after water pipes burst.

    Precisely. Coal turns out to be not so reliable as you had claimed.

    The plants were fine, but the water froze.

    So, to you, if your water pipe freezes in your house, means your house is unreliable.

    But the fact is, Ed, Texas is getting its power from the coal plants – and they are reliable, since only when there is a problem, do you notice.

    One fossil fuel fails, you can’t steal gas from grandma’s furnace to run the back-up gas-fired generators.

    Only in Ed’s mind is someone buying something “theft”.

    Government allocations of scarce fossil fuel resources due to fossil fuel failures were made much less severe because wind power delivered more than contracted for.

    You are making up stories.

    Wind’s reliability made up for much of the unreliability of coal.

    Turbines fail – or do not know this?

    Exactly what I said.

    You repeated the same mis-truths over and over – only means you are consistent in the lying.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Black Flag noted:

    The real story from Texas:

    -abnormal number of plants were down in maintenance.

    That’s right. Coal couldn’t deliver. Not so reliable as you claimed.

    -water pipes froze

    That’s right. Coal couldn’t deliver. Not so reliable as you claimed.

    -shortage of natural gas due to government rules

    Not rules that limit the amount of natural gas, but rules that say power has to be sent to high priority uses. The shortage of natural gas was due to the collapse of reliability in coal power plants, and the regulations that “interfered” were simply regulations that said “don’t kill people.”

    The “shortage” of natural gas was due to the collapse of coal-generated electricity, not due to government action that limited gas.

    -lack of interconnection with other grids due to government rules

    Rules designed to keep Texas’s grid from being hammered by shortages and blackouts elsewhere, as when coal-generated power collapsed during hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Ike. This interconnection issue is wholly unrelated to renewable energy sources. The presence of renewable energy sources makes this protection of the grid possible.

    -wind power did not hurt, but it was not significant.

    Exactly right. While the cold hammered the ability of fossil fuels to deliver energy as expected, even with problems due to the cold wind farms delivered more than they were programmed to deliver, saving Texas.

    ERCOT reported that severe weather led to the loss of 50 generation units amounting to 7,000 MW of capacity on Wednesday morning. From news accounts it looks like a few large coal plants failed after water pipes burst.

    Precisely. Coal turns out to be not so reliable as you had claimed.

    Some natural gas generators found insufficient fuel supplies due to heavy demand for natural gas.

    Other natural gas generators found their access to fuel curtailed by state rules that give priorities to other customer classes when supplies run short.

    Once fossil fuel fails, you can’t steal gas from grandma’s furnace to run the back-up gas-fired generators. Government allocations of scarce fossil fuel resources due to fossil fuel failures were made much less severe because wind power delivered more than contracted for. Wind’s reliability made up for much of the unreliability of coal.

    Exactly what I said.

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,

    Yep, the blind calling for more blindness.

    So you claim “this pollution over here” is “bad”, but YOUR pollution “over here”… you just ignore it.

    Solar cells manufacturing is very polluting – but you don’t care – you have a political goal and nary anything can stop your zealotry for it.

    Like

  19. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,

    No Alan the deregulators in California were NOT grossly incompetent. They were Enron employees. That’s right; Enron bribed California’s elected officials to let them write the actual new set of rules for deregulated power. Which is fitting because Enron created the political push for a deregulated power supply from whole cloth.

    So, you complain that government and its legitimized violence is easily bought – and your answer is more government.

    Like

  20. Black Flag® says:

    Pang

    Why are Black Flag and Alan Scott’s arguments showing the suspicious taint of “if we were just free of all regulations and restrictions everything would be fine.” (subtext: as long as we were also in charge) Along with a hefty helping of “never mind the details.”

    Who is this “we” you continually refer to?

    And, no, I have never said “everything will be fine”. I told you already – no matter what you do, you can NEVER solve human suffering.

    People will die badly in accidents, disasters, slipping in a bath tube.

    Disease will continue to kill, babies will stillborn, heart attacks will continue to kill.

    And, no matter how many regulations and laws you want, people will still murder and steal and all of that.

    So, the question is not that at all.

    The question is What is the moral MEANS to solve human problems that can be solved?

    Do we choose EVIL, that is use violence on non-violent men

    or

    Choose differently, and not use violence.

    You believe there exists human non-violent problems that justifies YOU to use violence to solve.

    But you always trip on a contradiction – you do not believe others can you violence ON YOU to solve THEIR problems

    So you argue for violence on others, but argue they can’t do the same to you!

    Coal burning pollutes. There is NO SUCH THING as “clean coal” power; full stop.

    There is no human action that does not pollute, so demanding this is irrational.

    No evidence, absolutely no evidence is good enough to convince a conservative that they are wrong.

    Try facts.

    Like

  21. Alan Scott says:

    Pangolin,

    ” So the whole framework of “it’s the government’s fault” is bogus when the government is captured by corporate corruption. It’s not the government’s fault; it’s the fault of the crony capitalists offering bribes. ”

    And this has to do with Nat Gas fracking, how ?

    ” Alan you have no intention of ever, ever, ever grounding your assertions in reality. It simply does not matter to you. You can’t do it. ”

    Reality is that green does not work. It makes more sense to take the dollars and burn them for heat than it does to waste them on solar and wind .

    ” A solar panel is built and installed that pollution is done. All the power you get after the initial energy expenditure is free of pollution and the sun shines every day even when there is cloud cover we get some power. You simply can’t say the same for anything to do with coal. ”

    Coal works. Coal works economically. You simply cannot say that about wind or solar .That wind and solar might not be so bad if we were not talking a large amount of money, , , but we are. You are talking tying up thousands of dollars per wind turbine or solar panel array . From a monetary standpoint , you never get your money out except by a government handout . I’ve spoken to people who told me that without that they would never have put in a solar system. And these people could have afforded it on their own .

    There is a local wind turbine ten miles from my home . I am guessing at least $30,000 is tied up in it . For the last year out of the maybe six years it’s been there, I haven’t seen it spin when I drive by . It sure is a pretty piece of art. ” All art is useless ” Oscar Wilde.

    Like

  22. Pangolin says:

    Alan you have no intention of ever, ever, ever grounding your assertions in reality. It simply does not matter to you. You can’t do it.

    A solar panel is built and installed that pollution is done. All the power you get after the initial energy expenditure is free of pollution and the sun shines every day even when there is cloud cover we get some power. You simply can’t say the same for anything to do with coal.

    Nor can you say that about gas drilling. That pipe is always a hazard; always a conduit through various strata for pollutants to get into groundwater resources.

    But, hey, you don’t care. As long as your time “wins” it doesn’t matter if the planet dies.

    Like

  23. Pangolin says:

    No Alan the deregulators in California were NOT grossly incompetent. They were Enron employees. That’s right; Enron bribed California’s elected officials to let them write the actual new set of rules for deregulated power. Which is fitting because Enron created the political push for a deregulated power supply from whole cloth.

    So when the Independent System Operator rules were gamed to allow majority players to manipulated spot market power prices there was absolutely nothing legal they could do to prevent power prices from skyrocketing. Then Enron pressured the Governor to sign long term power contracts that bankrupted the state.

    So the whole framework of “it’s the government’s fault” is bogus when the government is captured by corporate corruption. It’s not the government’s fault; it’s the fault of the crony capitalists offering bribes.

    Like

  24. Alan Scott says:

    Pangolin,

    ” Coal burning pollutes. ”

    No shinola Sherlock . So does anything that works .

    ” Natural gas supplies are limited even with the supplies coming online from fracking. The chances of natural gas powered electricity becoming cheaper than wind or solar power in the long run are almost nil.”

    Whatever you’re smoking, I’ll have two . You really have even less of an idea of what you are writing about than your buddy Ed. I thought that was impossible .

    ” Fracking drillers are supposed to be trusted to not pollute according to conservatives but when other energy companies, BP, Exxon and Enron, pollute or cheat it’s somehow the fault of the government. ”

    You really are a serial mis-stater of facts, aren’t you ? Fracking drillers are regulated and punished by mostly state governments.

    ” A wind stoppage represents an indictment to the entire wind power industry but coal plants going offline mean nothing. ”

    Frequency, frequency, frequency . Leave me splain it to you . A coal plant going down is a big, big deal because it happens so infrequently as to be unexpected . Conversely there is no such thing as ‘A’ wind stoppage . It happens so frequently as to require expensive back up capacity

    Like

  25. Alan Scott says:

    Pangolin ,

    ” You seem to be claiming the solution to all power problems is unfettered pollution; power plants built with no oversight. ”

    Why don’t you try just one time, once, making a statement without mangling the facts . Name me one power plant in the US that was built with no government oversight and with no pollution equipment , in the modern era !

    ” We tried that in California. What happened was that Enron deliberately took power plants offline to demand higher priced contracts from the State of California. Pure fraud. ”

    What exactly did you try ? You tried deregulation . And your deregulators were grossly incompetent. California made so many mistakes, principally they stopped building capacity. That had no relation to the current topic .

    Like

  26. Pangolin says:

    Why are Black Flag and Alan Scott’s arguments showing the suspicious taint of “if we were just free of all regulations and restrictions everything would be fine.” (subtext: as long as we were also in charge) Along with a hefty helping of “never mind the details.”

    Coal burning pollutes. There is NO SUCH THING as “clean coal” power; full stop. Natural gas supplies are limited even with the supplies coming online from fracking. The chances of natural gas powered electricity becoming cheaper than wind or solar power in the long run are almost nil.

    Fracking drillers are supposed to be trusted to not pollute according to conservatives but when other energy companies, BP, Exxon and Enron, pollute or cheat it’s somehow the fault of the government. A wind stoppage represents an indictment to the entire wind power industry but coal plants going offline mean nothing.

    No evidence, absolutely no evidence is good enough to convince a conservative that they are wrong. They simply don’t have the ability to decide issues based upon evidence. This is why the term “Republican scientist” has become something of an oxymoron. When your daily business involves the process of verifying informations having an entire political class tell you that you’re wasting your time might be upsetting.

    Ed, if you’re not getting the feeling you’re running the Red Queen’s Race you should be.

    Like

  27. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    The real story from Texas:

    -abnormal number of plants were down in maintenance.
    -water pipes froze
    -shortage of natural gas due to government rules
    -lack of interconnection with other grids due to government rules
    -wind power did not hurt, but it was not significant

    ERCOT reported that severe weather led to the loss of 50 generation units amounting to 7,000 MW of capacity on Wednesday morning. From news accounts it looks like a few large coal plants failed after water pipes burst.

    Some natural gas generators found insufficient fuel supplies due to heavy demand for natural gas.

    Other natural gas generators found their access to fuel curtailed by state rules that give priorities to other customer classes when supplies run short.

    Texas has pursued a policy of isolation for the ERCOT power grid so as to keep the state’s largest utilities subject primarily to state, rather than federal, regulation.

    In the Southeastern corner of the state, Beaumont was not experiencing outages. The local electric utility, Entergy Texas Inc., is not connected to the ERCOT power grid. If Entergy Texas had excess power capacity on Wednesday morning, they could have sold it east into Louisiana or elsewhere as far as Florida or even Maine.

    However, even thought the utility borders against ERCOT near Houston, no power could flow to help out the rest of the state. Nearby CenterPoint Energy had to blackout an average of about 330,000 customers at a time during the emergency.

    Amarillo’s Xcel Energy reported operations were running smoothly despite temperatures falling below zero overnight in the region. If the utility had excess power, however, none of it would have been able to reach ERCOT. Like Entergy Texas, Xcel and other utilities in the Panhandle and South Plains are connected into the Eastern Interconnection, which stretches to the Atlantic coast in the east and to Canada in the north. (On Thursday Xcel called upon consumers in the Panhandle to conserve power and natural gas, as heavy demand for gas was temporarily making the fuel harder to obtain.)

    How Did Wind Power Do?

    A few rumors bounced around the radio waves and Internet forums on Wednesday linking the rolling blackouts to ERCOT’s wind capacity, one rumor even claiming that wind power had dropped to zero.

    The rumors were false.

    News reports indicate that some wind turbines were out of service due to the cold, but the problems appeared not to be widespread.

    ERCOT spokesperson Dottie Roark said that wind power plants from between 3,500 to 4,000 MW of power during the worst parts of the emergency, about normal for this time of year.

    Wind power may have had an indirect effect. The significant investment in wind power capacity may have discouraged some added investment in natural gas or coal powered plants.

    But given conditions Wednesday mornings, a few additional new thermal plants may not have made much difference. ”

    Some existing natural gas generating plants saw their access to fuel curtailed by rules giving higher priorities to other customer categories when supplies become short, other plants were confronted by low pressure in gas pipelines.

    Additional natural gas plants may have just added to the number of plants without access to fuel. A few of the new coal plants built in recent years were among the plants that were forced out of service yesterday by the cold, key contributors to the problem.

    The system needed all of the power it could get. Had more thermal plants been built, at least some of them would have been in service and helpful.

    Outages would have been moderated a little. Wind generated power was used and useful, but couldn’t be dialed up to produce more during a time of need. Wind power was neither the cause of the problem, nor of any special value in reaching a solution.

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:

    Why else did you start this topic ? Now, me I am up front about everything. If I can find a story that suggests wind farms cause, , , say radar gaps and hurt our national security, I will run with it because green energy anything has caused great harm to my country . If green energy was actually economically viable , I’d be the greenest green granola eating hippie on this board .

    At least you admit your ulterior motives, though they were not exactly hidden.

    I don’t have hidden motive here. My interest is the quakes, regardless the cause.

    Like

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    Greenies do not understand the need for a base load and variable loads – where base loads are provided by coal/nuclear/hydro … highly efficient turbines – but are not adept to rapid load changes.

    That’s funny. Last February in Texas, the coal/nuclear plants crapped out. It was the steady wind of Texas that pulled us through.

    Brownies do not understand that sometimes the wind is more steady and more reliable than in other places, even more than coal plants, especially. Brownies have no regard for the diversity of place and resources in the U.S. (or on the Earth), and little regard for the facts of the matter.

    You could look it up. You could read some of the sources I’ve cited several times. But those facts would, necessarily, shatter illusions needed for denialists to deny.

    Heck, denialists will even claim the USGS can’t measure earthquakes in Oklahoma. What won’t the denialists deny?

    Like

  30. Black Flag® says:

    Pang

    You can’t claim “invisible source X” would have produced more power.

    But ya see – he can!

    Unlike wind or solar, which no one can predict its power output, we can calculate precisely what the output of a coal fired plant will be.

    If you build a 5Gw power plant, I bet even you can figure out how much power it will produce! :)

    Like

  31. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    More of your bizarre economics.

    So, a segment of business, enriched by stolen loot, appears to grow, even a lot.

    But you do not measure the cost to the productive part of the economy that lost jobs because the money taken from them went over to subsidize someone else.

    Then, these “lucky” companies are threatened with not receiving stolen loot, so they cry “we will die without it!”

    That which requires a subsidy to survive will never survive without it.

    All government manipulation of the market erodes prosperity and destroys wealth.

    Like

  32. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,
    Of course you only offer half of the story of Enron.

    First, the government prohibited any purchase of power, except thru Enron.

    Next the government prohibited the power delivery companies from raising their rates – but forced these same companies to buy the over-priced energy from Enron at whatever Enron charged for power.

    Further, Enron opinioned for more regulation in California, not less – because as all regulation does, it serves as a barrier of entry to competition.

    It received millions in government subsidies –

    On top of this, the government prohibited anyone from building power stations.

    You then think this is an example of “free markets at work”.

    No, the Enron stories proves that government intrusion into the market place is always a terrible idea, and also shows that companies who invest into politics as a means of income are doomed – the market place is the dominate force, not politics – and eventually, the markets correct the distortions made to it.

    Like

  33. Pangolin says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Damn the facts, damn the laws of physics, damn history, damn reality, ”

    Those are not facts, physics, history, or reality . There is no way that wind pulled you through ._Alan Scott

    Your proof is what? Ed offered documentation that wind power actually produces….electricity. You claim that electricity was of no consequence during a period when power production was running at or near capacity for months.

    You can’t claim “invisible source X” would have produced more power. It didn’t exist. You seem to be claiming the solution to all power problems is unfettered pollution; power plants built with no oversight.

    We tried that in California. What happened was that Enron deliberately took power plants offline to demand higher priced contracts from the State of California. Pure fraud.

    Like

  34. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Damn the facts, damn the laws of physics, damn history, damn reality, ”

    Those are not facts, physics, history, or reality . There is no way that wind pulled you through .

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    I did not believe that the last time you used it on me . If 6 coal plants failed that was incompetence or government interference or both . And those are not constant events like varying wind. I just do not believe a word of what you just wrote .

    It defies everything I know about coal and reliability . Too many Martians .

    At root, that’s the problem with all denialism. Damn the facts, damn the laws of physics, damn history, damn reality, denialists just refuse to “believe” what is. I offer you the statements — in the case of the winter storms, statements now having been made under oath in investigations — that the cold brought down power plants that were not prepared for the unseasonable cold. Oh, you could say that scientists predicted such cold weather possible in Texas, but those predictions were based on evidence that global warming would cause such shifts and greater lows, so even admitting that the events occurred at all tends to undercut your philosophical position that warming can’t occur, that warming can’t cause record colds, that warming is not to blame for this wretched weather. So you lose even your claim of incompetence, rather than simply admit that global warming can occur, does occur, and can be exacerbated by burning of the coal at the power plants that went down.

    You didn’t believe it when it happened, you didn’t believe it when I documented it for you earlier, and you refuse to believe it now. So you insist that “Galileo” Michael Mann take his damned hockey stick chart and recant.

    Then you claim you’re like Galileo yourself, persecuted — though you’re on the opposite side.

    Such is the fate of denialists, to end up hoist on their own petard.

    I keep telling you to study history, but you keep refusing. I would think the story of the death of Huey Long would have some influence on your thinking. Huey Long refused to act to build roads to New Orleans from Baton Rouge. All the evidence showed the roads would be of great benefit even to the farmers Long championed, but he just couldn’t bring himself to act on the information he had rather than punish those nasty New Orleans politicians who opposed him. The roads didn’t get built while he was governor, and he had enough clout to keep his successor from building the roads.

    When he was shot in the assassination attempt in the Louisiana capitol building, in Baton Rouge, his wounds were serious but treatable if he could get to a good hospital, like Tulane University hospital in New Orleans, in an hour or less.

    A good, straight road was required. No such road existed. Long died in Baton Rouge.

    You deny global warming and you deny the need to increase and improve non-fossil-fuel-based energy technologies. You condemn millions to freeze in the dark, or cook in the heat (maybe in the same year!), but somehow it’s justified in your drive to deny that we need to act, that we can act, and that our actions can help.

    Much of what you know about coal and reliability is wrong.

    Not your fault that others, and maybe you, suffer, you say. You’ll blame it on “greenies.”

    Martians indeed.

    Like

  36. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    :” About the same as you’d need for a coal-fired power plant. In Texas over the past 12 months wind turbines bailed us out during the great freeze when a half-dozen coal-fired power plants failed; during this summer’s record heat, wind power provided the margin that kept Texas from having to blackout millions of people.”

    I did not believe that the last time you used it on me . If 6 coal plants failed that was incompetence or government interference or both . And those are not constant events like varying wind. I just do not believe a word of what you just wrote .

    It defies everything I know about coal and reliability . Too many Martians .

    Like

  37. Black Flag® says:

    Ed

    But not because windpower doesn’t work

    Define “work”?

    Power your radio – sure!

    Power a city _hahahahahahahh!

    Like

  38. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    You make me laugh!

    So, the Greenies block building any power plants – and when the power grid fails, a little bit of “wind” power becomes the Greenie’s champion chant!!!

    Allan, I here those invisible Martians all around me!

    Even though wind energy is variable, it varies slowly

    Total crap.

    The variations between peak and low is upward to 25% over a period of a couple of hours.

    Like

  39. Ed Darrell says:

    Spain went this route and it isn’t pretty.

    But not because windpower doesn’t work, and not because windpower doesn’t work well. Spain’s difficulties are unrelated to windpower, and pragmatically, unrelated to incentives to build windpower.

    Spain’s difficulties are not caused by having too much electricity. Spain’s difficulties are not caused by wind power not working.

    Got any real data?

    Like

  40. Ed Darrell says:

    And by the way it is not MORE than 400,000 homes . It is 14,000 homes.

    Oops. Typo. Thanks for the catch.

    The point stands. Wind power is working fine, thank you very much.

    I tried very hard to get cost figures and other relevant facts about this project. I suspect that it is a typical left wing boondoggle. I have failed .

    You started out looking for a boondoggle where none exists. That’s not a failure, but a learning experience — to those open to learning from experience.

    See these:
    1. http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/11/11/macho-springs-wind-project-completes-construction
    2. http://www.mortenson.com/location_renewableenergygroup.aspx
    3. Tariffs of wind power companies (here, especially, Tucson Electric): http://etariff.ferc.gov/TariffSearch.aspx
    4. Windpower database for the U.S.: http://www.thewindpower.net/country_windfarms_en_4_usa.php
    5. Global Power Report, July 2011: http://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.Content/ProductsServices/Products/globalpowerreport.pdf
    6. http://www.windpowerengineering.com/tag/vestas/
    7. http://www.nawindpower.com/new_home.php
    8. AP story on the Macho Springs project kickoff: http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/environment/wind-farm-planned-in-luna-county
    9. Press release from Tucson Electric: http://www.tep.com/Company/News/PressReleases/ReleaseTemplate.asp?idRec=346
    10. TE’s annual report on renewables: http://www.tep.com/Green/Greenwatts/Docs/ACCAnnual2010.pdf

    Alas for you, none of those documents or stories shows a boondoggle. You’re still looking for something that doesn’t exist.

    I wonder how much spare capacity the power company has to have on standby for when the wind dies down. I wonder how much expensive equipment the power company had to install to control the voltage over the grid for when the wind generates power when the company does not need it.

    About the same as you’d need for a coal-fired power plant. In Texas over the past 12 months wind turbines bailed us out during the great freeze when a half-dozen coal-fired power plants failed; during this summer’s record heat, wind power provided the margin that kept Texas from having to blackout millions of people.

    According to “Wind power lessons from the Texas heat wave”:

    Adding wind power makes a utility system more reliable, not less.

    Balancing electricity supply and demand is a complex task, and utility system operators are used to turning various types of power plants on or off to match demand as it rises and falls throughout the day.

    Even though wind energy is variable, it varies slowly–unlike conventional power plants, which can fail instantaneously–and can be a critical component in times of need. For three straight days in the real world last week, wind made the difference between keeping the lights on and the air conditioners running, and rolling blackouts.

    Alan said:

    So many questions, so few answers .

    So much information, nothing that pleases the denialist looking for a non-existent boondoggle. So many answers, so few willing to ask the right questions.

    Like

  41. Alan Scott says:

    Black Flag,

    ” You hit the nail on the head. ”

    Thank you . All you have to do is read about the experiences of Countries like Denmark and Germany, who have been doing this for a long time. I no longer have the relevant material in front of me, but there is a real technical barrier as to the percentage that you can have when you tie in an unpredictable and varying power source like wind to your power grid. Or forcing the power company to buy excess solar power from hundreds of residential customers.

    I am not sure, but I think it is 10%. When you go above the technical limit , it becomes costly and barely manageable .

    Spain went this route and it isn’t pretty. Being stupid Americans, we refuse to learn from others mistakes . Just cause it didn’t work in other places is no reason to think that as Americans, we can’t just power through. Like in WW2, when the British told us that they went to night bombing because they got creamed in daylight. Well as Americans, we were faster, smarter, better until we weren’t . Finally the Mustang saved us . Maybe a Mustang will appear and make Green work .

    Like

  42. Black Flag® says:

    Alan,

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Wind/Solar are unreliable – but the Greenies demand that these system replace coal fired electrical plants.

    Greenies do not understand the need for a base load and variable loads – where base loads are provided by coal/nuclear/hydro … highly efficient turbines – but are not adept to rapid load changes.

    Variable load plants operate on Natural gas/Oil burning – essentially big engines with a gas pedal regulating electrical production.

    When demand goes up, these guys press down on the gas pedal, and spin the generators…and when the load goes down, they back off.

    So the base+variable gives us the ability to flip our lights on – and get instant light, and off again, not plowing transformers.

    But the Greenies want to replace the base load with a highly unreliable source requiring even more variable load plants run by gas or oil to make up the difference.

    As usual, their superficial understanding of the world around them often makes them give the dumbest ideas.

    I mean, if they only took a minute and thought about things and wonder why the world runs energy as it does…. it does so for a reason of economics and efficiency.

    If their solutions were “good”, they would have been seized upon by the market long ago.

    But they are not – which tells the rest of us a strong story – that the Greenies are clueless.

    Like

  43. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” wind farm to provide power for more than 400,000 homes, this week. ”

    Thank you so much for giving me a real site where I can double check your facts. And by the way it is not MORE than 400,000 homes . It is 14,000 homes. I tried very hard to get cost figures and other relevant facts about this project. I suspect that it is a typical left wing boondoggle. I have failed .

    I wonder how much spare capacity the power company has to have on standby for when the wind dies down. I wonder how much expensive equipment the power company had to install to control the voltage over the grid for when the wind generates power when the company does not need it .

    So many questions, so few answers .

    Like

  44. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    You don’t think alternative energy is viable?

    Viable, by what definition?

    Technically – of course – you can hold it in your hand today.

    Economically – not at all – its costs exceed its value.

    But believing that because merely something CAN exist, should exist even if it is economically inferior is puerile.

    Y
    You don’t think government intervenes to aid technology?

    Do you think you should call on the devil to help you solve your problem?

    NO!

    Government only funds itself on theft – directly via taxes or by conversion via inflation and currency debasement.

    Thus, for it to intervene where there is no economic justification, it must take away from economically product segments and give to that which is not economically productive

    This is economic insanity.

    Like

  45. Black Flag® says:

    Allen

    Railroads as a concept were a success ‘ Before ‘ government gave the big ones land incentives to put tracks in places that would not have been until decades later . Wind and solar have never been a success anywhere without government handouts .

    Railroads were a success without government – and government merely saw them as a tool for expanding government power and domination to lands that – otherwise – would be able to well resist such for centuries.

    Government wanted to extend itself across the nation and to enslave the “heathen” that occupied that land.

    The first attempts of open “pioneering” -with conflicts and then eventual co-operation with the natives – simply didn’t move fast enough.

    It was a race to the other ocean for Empire of North America- British Canada in the North as a fierce competition. Government couldn’t accept the gentle migration of people – it had to entice men by free land, and the ability to shift massive amounts of goods – and troops across the country.

    Government used a product created by free men to enslave men – as it always does.

    But to Ed, the theft of capital and the slaughter of the indigenous peoples so to expand his beloved State is a worthy goal.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:

    Railroads as a concept were a success ‘ Before ‘ government gave the big ones land incentives to put tracks in places that would not have been until decades later . Wind and solar have never been a success anywhere without government handouts .

    That’s a good claim — not one that is easily backed by evidence, however. At a minimum, the use of eminent domain to make rail routes offers another example of how private business so often depends on government for success.

    But in any case, there was no transcontinental railroad before the government stepped. For that matter. the Morrill Act and the homesteading acts that preceded it, very much made America what it is today in each and every private enterprise.

    You might have a good claim, had the Wampanoag repelled the invasion of the government-backed Plymouth Colony, London Company agents, or had Jamestown failed and the American natives held on to Virginia. But the history of America after Columbus (financed by government money) is a history of government intervention to aid business, to “pick winners and losers” as the neo-anti-business Republican debaters put it.

    You really should read history some time.

    You do know that Gibbons v. Ogden determined which governments get the right to grant monopolies to steamships, right?

    You’re aware that the Mayflower Compact was necessitated by the business guys reminding the religious refugees that Plymouth was out of the territory of the London Company’s charter, and so required a new, different business arrangement, right?

    If I start listing the sources, this will take a week or so. How about you get a copy of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States? It’s written from a non-business viewpoint, but even in that view the government support for business at each step of American development is clear. That’s about the shortest survey to get the point I can think of.

    There are very few enterprises in North America after October 12, 1492, that were not spurred directly or indirectly by government hand-outs and intervention. Most often, the interventions were direct and explicit.

    I told Alan: ”You really need to get out and read more. Read some business papers, business and finance magazines.”

    Alan said:

    I thought you left wingers hated business. Evil corporations and all that ? But, hey as they said in Ghost Busters, “we are ready to believe you ” . Give me some articles in some non socialist , non enviro-wacko business publication.

    There you go assuming errors that no one provided evidence to you about. Where do you get off claiming this Reagan appointee is a left-winger? You demonstrate once again that a key problem with conservatives is they too often leap to bad conclusions from faulty premises. Get the facts first. You’re not entitled to a version of the facts so much at odds with reality.

    Recent article in Fortune: “The power struggle for Wyoming’s wind,” September 14, 2011.

    Fortune in 2010, via CNN/Money — with this baleful warning:

    A new report by the Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank in Oakland, argues that China, along with Japan and Korea, will dominate the clean-energy race by out-investing America.

    Asia’s clean-tech tigers are already launching massive government investment programs to dominate this industry and, according to the report, have surpassed the U.S. in virtually all clean-energy areas, including wind, solar, and electric-car batteries.

    Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports on Tucson Electric’s recent opening of a wind farm to provide power for more than 400,000 homes customers, in 14,000 homes, this week.

    Or see BusinessWeek’s report on wind power in South Korea.

    There’s plenty there in the mainstream business press, if you bother to read it. In the marketplace, alternative energy is very well proven, a good investment. As with all investments, there will be some companies that just can’t cut it (Studebaker, Willys) even while the industry grows tremendously.

    You don’t think alternative energy is viable? You don’t think government intervenes to aid technology?

    Seriously, Alan. Seriously.

    Like

  47. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    Railroads as a concept were a success ‘ Before ‘ government gave the big ones land incentives to put tracks in places that would not have been until decades later . Wind and solar have never been a success anywhere without government handouts .

    ” You really need to get out and read more. Read some business papers, business and finance magazines. ”

    I thought you left wingers hated business. Evil corporations and all that ? But, hey as they said in Ghost Busters, “we are ready to believe you ” . Give me some articles in some non socialist , non enviro-wacko business publication .

    Like

  48. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    China subsidizes Chinese industries,

    And you should be praising the Lord for such a gift!

    The poor Chinese shumck is giving Ed money to buy Chinese products!

    Ed would be rushing to his local Walmart if they had a sign saying “Every purchase today, we give back 25%!”

    But when the Chinese hold up that sign, Ed wants the International Police to put sanctions on them.

    Either China’s subsidies make sense for them,

    IT doesn’t make sense at all!

    The Chinese suffer from the same idiotic crackpot theory of economics as does the idiots in the USA – believing selling your goods to foreigners is a better deal then selling them to your own people – and to entice foreigner buyers, you use your own people’s money and subsidize foreigner buyers!!

    Either it’s a dead end and everyone will fail,

    Exactly! The Mercantilist economics always ends up as a big, crushing recession when the money to pay for the subsidies stops.

    But until then, the global economies engage it a race to the bottom to see who will devalue their currencies faster so to be “attractive” to offshore buyers – debasing their own economy.

    The U.S. government gave railroads massive land grants, millions of acres, to give them collateral and other means to finance the construction of the four transcontinental railroads.

    ..and they all went bankrupt.

    The lesson: if one needs a subsidy to live, when it is removed, you die.

    Particularly prior to 1940, there were precious few technologies on Earth that were not developed by governments providing huge aid. Not much after 1940, either

    Bullcrap.

    There was more technology at that time then ever before in history and no thanks to anything government did.

    Can you name any industry in the U.S. that did not get a huge boost from government “handouts” at some point in its history?

    That men eagerly agree to share in stolen loot does not make their industry “better” – but makes it worse.

    Theft is a zero sum game.
    Government had to steal it from some productive part of the economy so to give it to another part.

    There is NO economic gain in doing this on the economy – indeed, it is economic destructive.

    So you see a man with a badge steal money from the shoe maker so to give to the window maker to make more windows.

    All you see is “Wow! Look at all the new windows”.
    What you are blind to: “Gee, look at all the shoes that were not made.

    You believe some idiot in government knows better how to spend other people’s money – so you only focus on where that is spent.

    But you do not see the areas devastated by the extraction of capital.

    You need to brush up on the “Broken Window Fallacy” – it is the #1 Economic fallacy of most people.

    Like

  49. Ed Darrell says:

    Please, please stop. I am laughing too hard .

    Stop laughing and get some information. China has a large chunk of the market. U.S. manufacturers have lower costs, better cells. German companies have better systems. There are successful U.S. companies in the business, many others besides Solyndra.

    You really need to get out and read more. Read some business papers, business and finance magazines. Seriously. You don’t want to end up like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, so far out of the information stream that they say really stupid stuff. You can start here, with a paper debate in the New York Times. There are those who are critical of government aid — but no one makes the claims you make, Alan.

    Let China have the freaking market,,,,,,,,, uhhhh in case you haven’t figggurred it out, they already have it. Chinese companies get American subsidies .

    That’s quite an extraordinary claim. Got any evidence? I think you’re making stuff up.

    China subsidizes Chinese industries, in violation of international trade rules some allege, but at a much greater level than the U.S. There’s no reason for the U.S. to play surrender monkey on this issue as you urge.

    It’s a complex issue, but that doesn’t mean we can’t win it.

    Let the Chinese subsidize their own damn wind and solar industries . The Chinese have already stolen or will steal the technology . It is a dead end .

    So, your claim is that the Chinese are throwing their money away, since it’s a dead end? You’ve stopped making sense.

    Either China’s subsidies make sense for them, and the U.S. should compete for exactly the same reasons, or they don’t, and China is making foolish investments. Either it’s a dead end and everyone will fail, or it’s not, and some nations will benefit. You’re arguing both claims, and they are mutually exclusive.

    I said: “Otherwise, in order to give U.S. companies a competitive chance, the government should be involved to encourage beneficial technologies, as the government did with railroads, steam ships, sea trade in general, aircraft, coal, and oil.”

    Alan said:

    Earth to Ed, those technologies were invented and developed with private money because they had a real economic benefit.

    You really need to get some facts. If you go off half cocked, you run the risk of returning the same way.

    I picked those industries and technologies because each was developed with government aid, sometimes massive government aid. The U.S. government gave railroads massive land grants, millions of acres, to give them collateral and other means to finance the construction of the four transcontinental railroads. The massive coal deposits in Montana owned by the Northern Railroad were the foundation for the Northern Trust, and they remained the chief assets of the company well into 20th century and the merger with the Burlington and Santa Fe Railways. Government aid that pushes a company for 160 years is pretty powerful stuff. But Lincoln authorized doing that for at least four different lines, for at least six different companies — such aid was mothers’ milk to commerce, to Lincoln. Wise man, he.

    Same with the Erie Canal. Same with the St. Lawrence Seaway. Same with the steam locomotive. Same with steamships (you shouldn’t ignore Alfred Thayer Mahan that way). Same with oil and the pipelines that carry the oil. The Wright Brothers called their father to let him know they’d successfully flown, then they called the Army to ask for a contract to develop the aircraft — and the Army provided money.

    Particularly prior to 1940, there were precious few technologies on Earth that were not developed by governments providing huge aid. Not much after 1940, either.

    They would have done just fine with no government help . They even paid taxes , cause they made profits .

    That’s the argument for governments providing aid. The companies pay taxes when they succeed.

    When, when the heck did green anything, other than maybe hydro, ever pay taxes on it’s profits ?

    Wind in Texas. The companies who developed the stack scrubbers for coal-fired power plants and other industries. The companies who developed sewage treatments. Milorganite.

    Not to mention the power of clean environment in marketing a town. Pittsburgh now has clean air, and they brag about it. The skies of Los Angeles are occasionally blue, not brown. The Cuyahoga River now offers recreational opportunities. Recreation returned to the Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers.

    When did poisoning kids for profit ever provide a lasting legacy of profits?

    When did they ever make a profit not based on Government handouts ? Hmmm ?

    You’ve seriously never heard of Waste Management? You don’t know what’s going on in America with wind power?

    When did government “handouts” NOT produce healthy, tax-paying, job producing, world-leading industry in the U.S.? Boeing? Lockheed? Curtiss Aircraft? Union Pacific? Southern Pacific? Bell Telephone? Standard Oil — of New Jersey, of California, of Ohio, of Indiana? Peabody Coal? General Electric? Westinghouse?

    Ben Franklin was right when he argued that most people have little understanding of how the post office makes business work — or any other part of government that makes business possible at all.

    Can you name any industry in the U.S. that did not get a huge boost from government “handouts” at some point in its history?

    I said: “I cannot imagine why anyone would take a “surrender to China” stance on this issue.”

    Imagine it ! I hereby go on record saying lets surrender wind and solar to China . If green was not total BS, the Chinese would not be buying large amounts of American and Australian coal to fuel their economy . How much of China’s energy comes from wind and solar ? Why did they build that huge hydro dam ? Why did they want to build a big hydro dam in Burma? Because wind and solar will not cut it . How much of China’s wind and solar capacity is even tied into their grids ? Why is China the most polluted large nation on earth ? Because green is for show, not go .

    Yes, China has huge investments in coal. And very dirty air, and they are investing heavily in green energy in order to shift from oil and coal. If you think Chinese investment is wise, you need to pay attention to where and how much they are investing.

    Why should the U.S. agree to play second banana, or loser, to China, in any industry?

    Surrender monkeys shouldn’t make policy.

    Like

  50. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Well, sure, we should end those subsidies if we wish to concede the market and market leadership to China. ”

    Please, please stop. I am laughing too hard . Let China have the freaking market,,,,,,,,, uhhhh in case you haven’t figggurred it out, they already have it. Chinese companies get American subsidies . Let the Chinese subsidize their own damn wind and solar industries . The Chinese have already stolen or will steal the technology . It is a dead end .

    ” Otherwise, in order to give U.S. companies a competitive chance, the government should be involved to encourage beneficial technologies, as the government did with railroads, steam ships, sea trade in general, air craft, coal, and oil.”

    Earth to Ed, those technologies were invented and developed with private money because they had a real economic benefit . They would have done just fine with no government help . They even paid taxes , cause they made profits . When, when the heck did green anything, other than maybe hydro, ever pay taxes on it’s profits ? When did they ever make a profit not based on Government handouts ? Hmmm ?

    ” I cannot imagine why anyone would take a “surrender to China” stance on this issue. ”

    Imagine it ! I hereby go on record saying lets surrender wind and solar to China . If green was not total BS, the Chinese would not be buying large amounts of American and Australian coal to fuel their economy . How much of China’s energy comes from wind and solar ? Why did they build that huge hydro dam ? Why did they want to build a big hydro dam in Burma ? Because wind and solar will not cut it . How much of China’s wind and solar capacity is even tied into their grids ? Why is China the most polluted large nation on earth ? Because green is for show, not go .

    Like

  51. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s remarkable that after a trillion dollar Iraq war that the New York Times promoted using information they knew was either a)entirely made up or b) bogus that the NYT suddenly develops a fiscal conscience when it comes to solar power projects.

    Different reporters, different beats. NYT trusted a long-term reporter, who should have known better, but allowed herself to be sucked into the Bush administration spin — which itself was a bit of self-delusion.

    She resigned before she could be fired, NYT apologized, cleaned up procedures to stop it from happening again, and chronicled the entire episode so you’d know about it.

    I almost hate to quote him, but Ronald Reagan’s advice on nuclear arms treaties is good advice for reading a newspaper: Trust but verify. That’s always been true (see the H. L. Mencken hoax on bathtubs in the White House), and it will probably always be true.

    Like

  52. Pangolin says:

    It’s remarkable that after a trillion dollar Iraq war that the New York Times promoted using information they knew was either a)entirely made up or b) bogus that the NYT suddenly develops a fiscal conscience when it comes to solar power projects.

    It couldn’t have anything to do with those full-page advertisements they accept where the oil, gas and coal companies tells us what swell guys they are.

    Honestly, considering the damage that coal and oil are doing to the planet, and hence the rest of us, I wouldn’t have been bothered a whit if those solar projects had been paid for by a flat 100% purchase grant. The actual total costs are trivial compared to such money sinks as the defense department budget and agricultural subsidies to corporate farm operations.

    Coal and oil use has to stop. Period. No excuses.

    Like

  53. Ed Darrell says:

    At any rate direct subsidies to solar and wind should be eliminated. I dare you to admit you were wrong about your leveling the playing field assertion.

    Well, sure, we should end those subsidies if we wish to concede the market and market leadership to China.

    Otherwise, in order to give U.S. companies a competitive chance, the government should be involved to encourage beneficial technologies, as the government did with railroads, steam ships, sea trade in general, air craft, coal, and oil. The history of technological development and commercial success is a history of government intervention — and pretending otherwise is only conceding history, and the market, to others.

    I cannot imagine why anyone would take a “surrender to China” stance on this issue.

    Like

  54. Alan Scott says:

    Pangolin ,

    ” “Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE),” Bloomberg reports.
    Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12xTN) ”

    “That’s a pretty damn good return on investment I’d say when conventional power requires subsidies for 40 year old plants. ”

    You have a valid point, I do not know why or exactly what subsidies are on conventional sources, but you have shifted the argument again . We could probably do away with direct subsidies to the old sources, but there may be tax breaks as public utilities that need to be kept . At any rate direct subsidies to solar and wind should be eliminated . I dare you to admit you were wrong about your leveling the playing field assertion .

    And as far as this freaking clown from GE, he can say that solar power may do anything. As Mike Myers would say, monkeys might fly out of my Butt, but that doesn’t make it so . GE is one of Barak Obama’s top Crony Capitalists . They harvest Government welfare subsidies for their worthless green projects . May is BS.

    Oh, by the way, to all of you greenies, what is your opinion on Obama delaying his decision on the big pipeline from Canada until after the election ? Talk about putting politics before your country . The guy doesn’t even have the guts to just kill it outright. Talk about delaying an infrastructure project that would create or save thousands and thousands of real jobs. Guess the economy can take one more for the team. The liberal green team .

    Like

  55. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    “More hammering on the rock head of Ed”

    BF, you’re the guy who proposed the hypothesis that the earthquakes in Oklahoma are the result of better measuring capacity, and not real earthquakes.

    There is no way in reality you ever did any science.

    You do not understand the difference between an hypothesis and a comment and a concern.

    You have failed to account for the statistical variations of more measurements and more sensitive measurements.

    I am NOT claiming that either would make a difference in this case – I am SAYING that such variations MIGHT make a difference, and you had better account for it, otherwise you are scientifically dishonest

    Like

  56. Black Flag® says:

    Pan

    Can anybody tell me what the growth in coal or nuclear capacity was last year? How about the growth in hydropower capacity? Why then, are they being subsidized?

    Nuclear/Coal/Hydro – hopeless. The Greenies have forced politicians to deny any permits to build them.

    So claiming “hey, these guys are growing – after huge subsidies, compared to these guys, who are not – because they have guns pointed at them to stop them” is wholly dishonest.

    “Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE),” Bloomberg reports.

    Yeah, and solar power PROBABLY WILL NOT be cheaper, too.

    An utterly pointless statement ….. anyone can make up any story in the future
    – what cost is it to him if he is wrong? (None)
    – what gain does he get if he is right (“See I’m always right! Invest in me!”)

    So, such claims about unsubstantiated stuff is completely meaningless and without merit.

    That’s a pretty damn good return on investment I’d say when conventional power requires subsidies for 40 year old plants.

    Then why don’t you scratch up your pennies and invest in it and leave my money alone!

    If you think it is a great deal – go for it!
    I don’t – but you don’t care, you want to steal my money to pay for it!

    That $2 million subsidy is peanuts. That doesn’t even pay for a single military helicopter.

    $X subsidy is peanuts.

    It’s not my money, so I don’t care how it is wasted, just as long as it is wasted in a way that doesn’t cost me all my money!

    See here- other people’s money stolen from them is wasted in a far worse way!

    Therefore, I demand more money from other people’s pocket to pay for more waste!

    Like

  57. Ed Darrell says:

    BF, you’re the guy who proposed the hypothesis that the earthquakes in Oklahoma are the result of better measuring capacity, and not real earthquakes. You’re proposing that we had somehow missed a bunch of earthquakes greater than 3.0 on the Richter scale prior to some date you now refuse to name.

    I think we can use the general discussion rule of “he who asserts must prove.” You’re claiming that scientists goofed — but you can’t provide evidence.

    The hammering is painful, because of course I don’t have a rock head. It’s your error, plain and simple.

    Like

  58. Pangolin says:

    More on solar industry capacity growth here:

    Cumulative grid-connected solar electric installations grew to 2.85 gigawatts (GW) in the 1st quarter of 2011. To put that into useful perspective for most of us, that is enough power for ~600,000 U.S. homes.
    Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12FUq)

    Can anybody tell me what the growth in coal or nuclear capacity was last year? How about the growth in hydropower capacity? Why then, are they being subsidized?

    “Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE),” Bloomberg reports.
    Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12xTN)

    That’s a pretty damn good return on investment I’d say when conventional power requires subsidies for 40 year old plants.

    This is the kind of drilling we should be doing….

    “Greenfire Energy, a novel geothermal/CCS startup that is attempting to extract geothermal energy using injected CO2 as the working fluid instead of water, has been selected to receive $2 million in funding from the Department of Energy, according to Penelope Kern at Energy Prospects.”

    That $2 million subsidy is peanuts. That doesn’t even pay for a single military helicopter.

    Like

  59. Pangolin says:

    Alan_ Why are we subsidizing coal, nuclear and hydropower again? Most of those plants were installed over 30 years ago. The last commercial nuclear power plant in the U.S. was completed over two decades ago. The vast majority of hydropower plants in the U.S. were completed before 1970. The median age of existing coal plants in the U.S. is 44 years.

    The majority of wind and solar capacity in the U.S has been installed in the last ten years. I would bet that the majority of THAT has been installed in the last five years.

    Where is the equivalency of subsidies for vastly polluting power generation systems that are 40+ years old compared to clean power that is currently being installed? Shouldn’t those 40 year old plants be running on pure profit right now? Any existing ten-year old solar panel certainly is. A well-sited wind turbine has paid for itself several times by the time it completes it’s tenth operational year.

    Why are we still subsidizing pollution by power plants that are decades old? You say they are being subsidized at less cost per megawatt-hour but why are they being subsidized at all? Is there some sort of esoteric need to put mercury into every body of water on the planet? Are there people who get their jollies knowing that we’re producing extra large helpings of the kind of unprotected nuclear waste that is now making Fukashima a no-go zone?

    U.S. conservatives are flat insane. It makes no logical sense to tout subsidies for new solar and wind as being more expensive “per unit” than 30-year old polluting power systems. Especially when polluting power is getting greater overall subsidies.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants#Oldest_existing_coal_plants
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/index.htm
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/20/more-dangerous-than-nuclear-power-the-floods-caused-by-aging-dams-video/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization

    Like

  60. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    More hammering on Ed’s rock head

    If it’s a fact, why can’t you provide any documentation? If it’s a fact that the Oklahoma series is an accidental result of more measurement, how did anyone miss those 4.7s before?

    Those are questions YOU NEED to answer, otherwise your little hypothesis is empty, void and pointless.

    Like

  61. Ed Darrell says:

    It is a fact that there are more measurement units and more sampling.

    Just like it’s a fact that, on alternate Saturdays, you are the Queen of Romania.

    If it’s a fact, why can’t you provide any documentation? If it’s a fact that the Oklahoma series is an accidental result of more measurement, how did anyone miss those 4.7s before?

    Black Flag: No fact of science, or history, left undenied.

    Like

  62. Alan Scott says:

    Pangolin ,

    ” As usual; you’re full of cow-pies when it comes to the truth. ”

    I have nothing but pity for you .

    You said,
    ” The problem with your plan of eliminating all subsidies for green energy programs is that it doesn’t produce a level playing field but a field where Oil, Gas and Coal companies enjoy significant direct subsidies and tax breaks to the tune of tens of billions of dollars yearly. ”

    Try reading this ; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html

    The article said,
    ” For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.”

    ” The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.”

    You said,

    “For what it’s worth ground-loop heat pumps usually pay back their significant up-front costs in under ten years. They reduce energy use, noise pollution, air pollution, fossil fuel use and allow homes and businesses to comfortably and affordably heat and cool their premises. The catch is financing; the banks don’t like it. ”

    The catch is, it is not feasible everywhere . Right now the banks don’t like anything .

    You said,

    ” Of course; we know how reliably the banks asses financial risks don’t we? Right; they’ve become horrible at it.”

    They used to be very good at it until the GSEs came into the housing market in the late 90s.

    ” Schools, government buildings and hospitals might be a good place to start. We’re pretty sure they aren’t going anywhere. ”

    Wasn’t that supposed to happen in Obama’s first stimulus bill ? How did that work out ?

    ” I suppose that wouldn’t wash with your free-market religion. ”

    We agree.

    Your article calling shale gas a ponzi scheme is very amusing . The author does not even know what a ponzi scheme is . The rest of it is full of baseless charges .

    Like

  63. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    “Hammer on rock skull

    No, Ed – that is your job, not mine.

    You are the one hypothesizing, not me.

    It is a fact that there are more measurement units and more sampling.

    It is your job to ensure that such sampling does not influence statistical nature of your task.

    Do not be lazy.

    Like

  64. Ed Darrell says:

    We have more sensitive measuring equipment today – and more of them.

    Seriously? Okay, tell us when the equipment measuring Oklahoma was updated to this “new, more sensitive” stuff, and tell us roughly how many 2.0 or larger quakes were missed between 1900 and that date.

    Where are the “more” seismometers? How many more? Where are they located?

    Give us the evidence to back your claim.

    I thought my low capacity was for tolerating fools and trolls, but I see that you’ve exceeded the number of my own posts on this blog. So, I suppose that says my capacities are much greater than you can possibly imagine, Black Flag.

    Like

  65. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Or projecting. You claim that a swarm of earthquakes may be due to more sensitive measuring equipment, though there is not a shred of support for that claim anywhere on Earth.

    This is the problem, Ed.

    You have little capacity to differentiate between a claim, a concern or an observation.

    Thus, you begin to justify your probable unscientific evaluation with more bizarre stuff.

    I point out to you that actually the number of earthquakes measured has dropped, exactly the opposite of your claim.

    No, Ed, that is not my claim.

    I understand that comprehension is a skill that you have yet to master, so I will repeat, again, what I said:

    Statistical caution is urged.

    We have more sensitive measuring equipment today – and more of them.

    By that fact, it may appear a “greater” number of samples is going up – but it could be merely more instruments are recording things, too.

    Statistical fluke? That’s not a measurement issue.

    Yes, Ed, it can be — taking more measurements DOES change statistics.

    Like

  66. Ed Darrell says:

    …but I am probably talking to a blank wall called “Ed” regarding science…..

    Or projecting. You claim that a swarm of earthquakes may be due to more sensitive measuring equipment, though there is not a shred of support for that claim anywhere on Earth. I point out to you that actually the number of earthquakes measured has dropped, exactly the opposite of your claim.

    Statistical fluke? That’s not a measurement issue.

    You may be talking to a wall most of the time. Walls are notoriously inaccurate correctors of error, of science or anything else. See if you can find a library in your town. You’ll find all sorts of stuff there to help you out, and it beats talking to a wall.

    Like

  67. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Easy variable to remove: Your claim doesn’t apply. We’re talking quakes greater than 1.0. That degree of sensitivity was well detectable by 1900.

    You failed to address the increase in sampling.

    Wikipedia notes: “In recent years, the number of major earthquakes >per year has decreased, though this is probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend.” Um, that a disproof to your claim.

    Hmm, no, it confirms it – that statistical fluctuation impacts such measurements, …and Ed, it impacts it in all ways, not merely in the way of “your favor”.

    As I warned, do not take the statistical fluctuations that support your pet theory and ignore those that do not – to do so is scientifically dishonest

    …but I am probably talking to a blank wall called “Ed” regarding science…..

    Like

  68. Ed Darrell says:

    Re: increase in quakes.

    Statistical caution is urged.

    We have more sensitive measuring equipment today – and more of them.

    By that fact, it may appear a “greater” number of samples is going up – but it could be merely more instruments are recording things, too.

    You will have to figure out how you can remove that variable before you can make other claims.

    Easy variable to remove: Your claim doesn’t apply. We’re talking quakes greater than 1.0. That degree of sensitivity was well detectable by 1900. Wikipedia notes: “In recent years, the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, though this is probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend.” Um, that’s a disproof to your claim.

    Like

  69. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    Re: increase in quakes.

    Statistical caution is urged.

    We have more sensitive measuring equipment today – and more of them.

    By that fact, it may appear a “greater” number of samples is going up – but it could be merely more instruments are recording things, too.

    You will have to figure out how you can remove that variable before you can make other claims.

    Like

  70. Black Flag® says:

    Pang,

    Alan_ The problem with your plan of eliminating all subsidies for green energy programs is that it doesn’t produce a level playing field but a field where Oil, Gas and Coal companies enjoy significant direct subsidies and tax breaks to the tune of tens of billions of dollars yearly.

    Absolutely agree.

    Currently, there is no way to know which form of energy production is or is not economical.

    Government intervention exists across all energy platforms – nothing is as it appears – the brakes and the gas pedal are randomly pressed forward or released …. and the means of measure are distorted.

    Like

  71. Pangolin says:

    This article from the notorious liberal rag….Forbes.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagies/2011/06/27/industry-insiders-call-shale-gas-a-ponzi-scheme-invoke-enron-nyt-report/

    GREEN TECH | 6/27/2011 @ 10:31AM |4,612 views
    Industry Insiders Call Shale Gas a Ponzi Scheme, Invoke Enron — NYT Report
    Shale gas has become its industry darling in recent years, thanks to advances in technology, particularly hydraulic fracturing or fracking, in which gas companies inject high pressure water and secret recipes of chemicals deep underground to push out trapped gas.

    But with the rise fracking, natural gas’ reputation as a “cleaner” fuel has tarnished. Residents near drilling sites have documented tainted wells and flammable tap water, even an exploding house. Then a couple of months ago a Duke report confirmed that wells near fracking sitescontained high levels of methane. An analysis from the EPA in January found lifecycle emissions could be dirtier than coal.

    And after all that, it now seems that the finances just don’t add up either. In a damning investigative report published this weekend, New York Timesreporter Ian Urbina reveals that, in emails amongst themselves, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market analysts question the economics of shale gas and hint at impropriety. They call company statements about the value of finds a Ponzi scheme, invoke Enron, and cite a mentality of conning Wall Street while drilling fast, before the jig is up. These comments area a stark contrast to the party line industry has been reciting to the press.

    My, we do seem to have an intruder in the shale gas punch bowl.

    Like

  72. Pangolin says:

    Alan_ The problem with your plan of eliminating all subsidies for green energy programs is that it doesn’t produce a level playing field but a field where Oil, Gas and Coal companies enjoy significant direct subsidies and tax breaks to the tune of tens of billions of dollars yearly.

    As usual; you’re full of cow-pies when it comes to the truth.

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/318266/fund-jobs-package-obama-proposes-cutting-oil-and-gas-subsidies/

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/22/48786795.pdf.

    For what it’s worth ground-loop heat pumps usually pay back their significant up-front costs in under ten years. They reduce energy use, noise pollution, air pollution, fossil fuel use and allow homes and businesses to comfortably and affordably heat and cool their premises. The catch is financing; the banks don’t like it.

    Of course; we know how reliably the banks asses financial risks don’t we? Right; they’ve become horrible at it. So it might not be unreasonable for the government to provide loans to qualified and vetted locations. Schools, government buildings and hospitals might be a good place to start. We’re pretty sure they aren’t going anywhere.

    I suppose that wouldn’t wash with your free-market religion.

    Like

  73. Alan Scott says:

    Pangolin ,

    ” But drilling fracking wells is a waste of time and money. More and more it looks like they produce an initial surge of gas followed by a sharp drop to a much lower production value. An uneconomic production value at that. ”

    I find that to be an amazing statement . Whatever you believe about America’s oil and gas drillers, they are pretty hard headed about making money. Fracking has been around for a lot of years and has been common for maybe 6 years . So why aren’t these fracking drillers bankrupt and living off of government handouts like the solar and wind companies ?

    America is noe projected to have a 100 years supply of natural gas, since fracking has been developed .

    ” Drill for dry rock geothermal wherever it’s available.
    Drill for ground-loop HVAC systems for rural and suburban houses.
    Drill wells for municipal thermal systems using ground loops as thermal “batteries” and distributing heat pump exchange fluid. (oddly, CO2 is almost ideal for this purpose. If it leaks you get fizzy water; no problem) ”

    Sure, go ahead as long as they are privately financed. That way we know they are viable and not another green handout .

    James,

    ” Yeah Alan, every time you and your fellow right wing friends want to tout fracking or any other energy source that pollutes I’m going to sit here and ask if you if you’re going to agree to accept the pollution being on your property and near your families.”

    You want a fight ,,, you are on sir ? Name me one ” Viable ” Energy source that is pollution or risk free !!!!

    You regulate the companies, and that does not mean what you think it means. It means you have the gas companies post liability bonds for damages they cause. It means safety inspections, not to shut them down, but to make sure they follow best practices .

    Hey I have natural gas in my home . If the pipe cracks in the street, my house and half the block goes up, like in Allentown , Pa recently . But you are not in favor of ripping out the gas lines, are you ? I burn coal along with natural gas. I’ll be happy to go back to 100% coal heat. I’m sure most of the eastern US will be happy to turn back the clock 100 years and burn coal !

    ” Because it’s so much easier for you to sit on your fat ass and support something that damages the health of people when you’re not the one whose health is being affected. Like Black you are all bark and no bite. ”

    Thanks for letting everyone know I have a fat ass . You have no idea what you don’t know. The alternatives to natural gas are as bad or worse. Again, you have the companies post liability bonds. What do you want me to bite ?

    ” So put up or shut up. Lets see you risk your family’s health here. ”

    What exactly do you want me to do ?

    ” Oh and what I said about pollution, Alan, also applies to the propensity for…geologically instability. ”

    Then you find out if the fracking is causing the earthquakes and you partner with the gas companies to find solutions. It can be done, but not with your PP attitude .

    Like

  74. Oh and what I said about pollution, Alan, also applies to the propensity for…geologically instability.

    You’re willing to risk that happening to you as well?

    Like

  75. Well, Pan and Ed, if they love fracking so much then they should have absolutely no problem in having the pipelines for it running through their backyards instead of through one of the main aquifers for the great plains region….

    Surely there won’t be any pollution involved.

    Yeah Alan, every time you and your fellow right wing friends want to tout fracking or any other energy source that pollutes I’m going to sit here and ask if you if you’re going to agree to accept the pollution being on your property and near your families.

    Because it’s so much easier for you to sit on your fat ass and support something that damages the health of people when you’re not the one whose health is being affected. Like Black you are all bark and no bite.

    So put up or shut up. Lets see you risk your family’s health here.

    Like

  76. Ed Darrell says:

    Why else did you start this topic ?

    Been tracking earthquakes here for a long time. You assume too much that is not accurate. Get out of that habit.

    I rarely “attack” any energy form — find any place where I have attacked any energy form, and call it to my attention, if you find one.

    Like

  77. Pangolin says:

    Heck, if I could describe my optimal energy policy it would be “drill everywhere NOW!”

    Drill for dry rock geothermal wherever it’s available.
    Drill for ground-loop HVAC systems for rural and suburban houses.
    Drill wells for municipal thermal systems using ground loops as thermal “batteries” and distributing heat pump exchange fluid. (oddly, CO2 is almost ideal for this purpose. If it leaks you get fizzy water; no problem)

    Oh yeah, I think a few small earthquakes in return for geothermal energy is worth the price. Calistoga is still standing there after years of almost-daily earthquakes. I haven’t seen any evidence that drilling can trigger a 5+ scale earthquake. If that shows up I’ll definitely need a rethink.

    But drilling fracking wells is a waste of time and money. More and more it looks like they produce an initial surge of gas followed by a sharp drop to a much lower production value. An uneconomic production value at that.

    Like

  78. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Am I? How? You assumed I oppose drilling. Where did I say that? ”

    Why else did you start this topic ? Now, me I am up front about everything. If I can find a story that suggests wind farms cause, , , say radar gaps and hurt our national security, I will run with it because green energy anything has caused great harm to my country . If green energy was actually economically viable , I’d be the greenest green granola eating hippie on this board .

    Wait a minute, wind farms do cause radar blind spots and require special technology and money to overcome .

    Anyway, you are my opposite. You promote green energy, no matter what, and attack any competitive energy source that could bring down the overall cost of energy, and make it less likely that windfarms and solar cells get deployed . Fracking is bringing great amounts of cheap energy to the market . That is great for America, but really bad for anyone who promotes green energy .

    Like

  79. Ed Darrell says:

    Now you are punking me .

    Am I? How? You assumed I oppose drilling. Where did I say that?

    Like

  80. Ellen says:

    There is a established relationship between Dam / Reservoir building and earthquake activity. The weight of the water in the containment and percolation “lubricates” vulnerable faults. The hypothesis that “fracking” could produce earthquakes is in that it simulates the conditions produced in Dam / reservoir earthquakes. It is all about pressure and water.

    Like

  81. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Who says fracking is related to the earthquakes? Odd how you leap to that conclusion, that there is a serious movement claiming a firm connection, with no one having provided a whit of evidence.”

    Now you are punking me . You are just reporting what people are saying ?

    ” There appear ample data to support a link beetween fracking and pollution of drinking water, and that’s bad enough.”

    I can’t say that it has never happened . I can say that many of the reports of fracking causing water quality problems have been false .

    Like

  82. Pangolin says:

    It appears at first glance that the Oklahoma earthquake swarm would be unusually strong and active even for Calistoga California where earthquakes are a daily event. I once lived “down-the-hill” from Calistoga in Santa Rosa and we would simply laugh off 3-4 point earthquakes as amusing. Much above 4 and things start breaking.

    Whether the earthquakes have any connection to natural gas fracking is up to the geologists. The rest of us might as well go read chicken entrails for all the good guessing will do us.

    There are these two articles in Scientific American and Nature discussing the relationship between geothermal drilling and earthquakes but that involves both much deeper drilling and hot rock zones that are naturally earthquake prone.

    Waiting for the oracles to speak.

    Like

  83. mark says:

    (Sorry Ed–not wearing my glasses. That comment ought to be:)

    Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF1-2011 (available here), “Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma” was published last August. After examining 43 earthquakes that were small, but large enough to allow them to be located, the study concluded that it was quite possible that they were induced by hydraulic fracturing, but the uncertainty was too high to determine with a high degree of confidence whether they occurred naturally or because of hydraulic fracturing.

    See here for a case where a company has admitted their hydraulic fracturing activities have induced seismicity in Britain.

    Cases of induced seismicity due to fluid injections have been documented over the years elsewhere, not necessarily involving hydraulic fracturing.

    Like

  84. mark says:

    Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF1-2011 (available a href=”http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/11/02/document_pm_01.pdf”>here), “Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma” was published last August. After examining 43 earthquakes that were small, but large enough to allow them to be located, the study concluded that it was quite possible that they were induced by hydraulic fracturing, but the uncertainty was too high to determine with a high degree of confidence whether they occurred naturally or because of hydraulic fracturing.

    See here for a case where a company has admitted their hydraulic fracturing activities have induced seismicity in Britain.

    Cases of induced seismicity due to fluid injections have been documented over the years elsewhere, not necessarily involving hydraulic fracturing.

    Like

  85. Ed Darrell says:

    Is there a connection to New Madrid or is Oklahoma on a different fault/plate? In Indiana and Illinois, we would frequently have these barely distinguishable temblors — but they made news almost all the time. Someone somewhere felt it and the question became, could 1812 repeat itself?

    Memphis would seem particularly vulnerable.

    Lots of different faults. Related? Probably not closely.

    I know you guys are thrilled at anything that stops a competitor to your green energy so I take what you post with a ton of salt .

    Again, it’s what one “knows” that ain’t so, that gets one into trouble. You asked a question, I answered it straight up. You’re assuming a lot of stuff being said that simply has not been said.

    Until conclusive proof is given, I tend to believe that the connection of earthquakes to fracking is quite reminiscent of what I heard during the early space shuttle missions . Many people blamed any unusual weather events on the missions . It had to be correct. Shuttle mission equaled freak storm or cold snap. You could not tell them different . Of course then the crackpots moved on to greenhouse gases to explain the weather .

    No, you got that backwards. NASA and the space shuttle teams discovered that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and the crackpots moved on to denying the science findings of NASA.

    Who says fracking is related to the earthquakes? Odd how you leap to that conclusion, that there is a serious movement claiming a firm connection, with no one having provided a whit of evidence.

    Until there are data that clearly support a link between fracking and earthquakes, we should not conclude fracking causes earthquakes. There appear ample data to support a link beetween fracking and pollution of drinking water, and that’s bad enough.

    Like

  86. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    I know you guys are thrilled at anything that stops a competitor to your green energy so I take what you post with a ton of salt . Until conclusive proof is given, I tend to believe that the connection of earthquakes to fracking is quite reminiscent of what I heard during the early space shuttle missions . Many people blamed any unusual weather events on the missions . It had to be correct. Shuttle mission equaled freak storm or cold snap. You could not tell them different . Of course then the crackpots moved on to greenhouse gases to explain the weather .

    Like

  87. Jim says:

    So Ed, it’s almost akin to the old adage, “fighting fire with fire”? Interesting.

    Is there a connection to New Madrid or is Oklahoma on a different fault/plate? In Indiana and Illinois, we would frequently have these barely distinguishable temblors — but they made news almost all the time. Someone somewhere felt it and the question became, could 1812 repeat itself?

    Memphis would seem particularly vulnerable.

    Like

  88. Ed Darrell says:

    Hydrofracturing creates new lines for stress to be relieved, and pushes in “lubricants” for rocks to slide more easily. Hydrofracturing is, essentially, the creation of small earthquakes to break up rocks.

    Earthquakes in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, where I’ve been watching, have increased in frequency moderately, and severity, over the past three years, centered in areas where drilling and fracking occur. Last year drillers in Arkansas agreed to stop fracking, hoping to show that it wasn’t causing the local quakes. Alas, as soon as they did that, the quakes subsided. I haven’t seen much on follow up on that one, but I hope someone will do a paper soon.

    Like

  89. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    What is the theoretical scientific basis for hydrofracturing earthquakes ?

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: