SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (44362)12/4/2014 11:45:22 PM
From: axial   of 46821
 
Yes. It's been a recurring theme on this thread for years.

On another list, we discussed something not noted in the quoted IEEE article ---

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change
Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?


--- and that was the accelerant effect of fugitive methane emissions from fracking. While methane has a shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO2, it's 20 to 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas.

Though many credible sources have pointed to this alarming fact, it doesn't get much MSM attention. What that means is that the public -- globally -- is being persuaded to adopt a "clean" alternative that short-term, is worse than the CO2 problem it's meant to mitigate.

It's true that IF there were only small (or zero) CH4 emissions, it would be a better alternative. But the opposite is true: enormous amounts of methane are released at time of drilling. Later, +5% of all wells begin leaking.

Nor is the effect of increasing permafrost methane emission calculated.



Arctic Methane Eruptions

The conclusion is correct -- renewable energy won't save us. We're already past the danger point. However, the rate of continuing deterioration is understated.

Jim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext