Weak Water wells vs. Fracking

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Weak Water wells vs. Fracking

 According to this article, the problem in both Texas and Pennsylvania was not one of fracking, but one of weak water wells: 

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29206704

A new study suggests that the contamination of drinking water by shale gas is due to faulty wells and not hydraulic fracturing.

Researchers in the US analysed the gas content in 130 water wells in Pennsylvania and Texas.

They were able to trace the methane found in the water to problems with the casing or lining of wells drilled to extract the gas.

The report appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In many parts of the US, the migration of gas into drinking water has raised questions about the fracking process.

Previous research has detailed the scale of these difficulties without arriving at a satisfactory explanation of how the gas got into the water.

This new study focussed on areas which were well known for elevated levels of methane in drinking wells.

Noble experiment

The researchers used noble gases to trace the path of methane as these inert chemicals are not affected by microbial activity or oxidation.

By measuring the ratios of the noble materials to the methane they were able to accurately determine the distance to the likely source.

The scientists analysed content from 113 wells in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and 20 in the Barnett shale in Texas. They found eight clusters of wells with problems.

"The mechanism of contamination looks to be well integrity," said one of the authors, Prof Robert Jackson from Stanford University.

"In about half the cases we believe the contamination came from poor cementing and in the other half it came from well casings that leaked."

Cement is used in the oil and gas extraction industry to fill the spaces between the well casing and the sides of the well.

In one case the methane was linked to the failure of an underground well. In none of the investigated wells was there a direct link to fracking.

"These results appear to rule out the possibility that methane has migrated up into drinking water aquifers because of horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing, as some people feared," said Prof Avner Vengosh, from Duke University.

The researchers are concerned that the wells are failing because of the large volumes of water going through them at very high pressure. This is a critical part of the process of extracting gas from the shale rocks.

Separation of powers

They also point to the pressure that drillers are under to finish and move on to the next site. The historically low price of gas could also be affecting spending on well integrity as profit margins shrink.

The scientists believe that most of the problems they have identified can be resolved with better enforcement of existing regulations.

"You need strong rules and regulations on well integrity," said Prof Jackson.

"You need generous setbacks that protect homes and schools and water sources from drilling, sometimes farther than the drillers would want. You need enough inspectors on the ground to keep people honest and you need separation between the industry and the inspectors and you don't always have that in the US."

Other researchers say that the latest work shows that the process of fracking is safe - and that with proper regulation it could be a viable proposition in countries like the UK.

"It's important to put this work into a UK/EU perspective," said Prof Quentin Fisher from the University of Leeds.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 People who support

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment

Human existence creates pollution. The idiots who immediately jump on the 'ban it' bandwagon do nothing to limit our environmental impact. The environmental effects of fracking can be limited. If the enviro wackos got everything they wanted, there would be no electricity.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment

Human existence creates pollution. The idiots who immediately jump on the 'ban it' bandwagon do nothing to limit our environmental impact. The environmental effects of fracking can be limited. If the enviro wackos got everything they wanted, there would be no electricity.

 

People create shit. If I dig a hole and bury it in the ground, in a few weeks it will be mush. In a few months it will be gone.

Don't compare pollution because unless you acknowledge the various levels or grades of it.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment

Human existence creates pollution. The idiots who immediately jump on the 'ban it' bandwagon do nothing to limit our environmental impact. The environmental effects of fracking can be limited. If the enviro wackos got everything they wanted, there would be no electricity.

 

People create shit. If I dig a hole and bury it in the ground, in a few weeks it will be mush. In a few months it will be gone.

Don't compare pollution because unless you acknowledge the various levels or grades of it.

And where do you think it goes? Shit pollutes and historically has been the cause of significant levels of environmental destruction and the leading cause of water pollution causing millions of human and animal deaths. Far more than fracking has contributed. Fortunately, we have found ways to limit the pollution caused by shit and keep our drinking water safe (septic systems and sewage plants) and now our shit caused pollution mostly takes the form of cow shit used to fertilize fields- which we have managed to limit with modern chemical fertilizers but the so called environmentalists are convinced that it is worse even though all scientific experimentation show that they are much safer both in terms of preventing human illness and water pollution.

The environmental movements that run around trying to immediately ban everything might have good intentions, but they are completely ignorant and willfully ignore the scientific research done on the subjects. Often, their efforts completely ignore that banning one method leads people to get their energy from another source, which is often causes even greater harm to the environment. Old fashioned methods of retrieving natural gas and oil are hardly free of environmental impact. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment

Human existence creates pollution. The idiots who immediately jump on the 'ban it' bandwagon do nothing to limit our environmental impact. The environmental effects of fracking can be limited. If the enviro wackos got everything they wanted, there would be no electricity.

 

People create shit. If I dig a hole and bury it in the ground, in a few weeks it will be mush. In a few months it will be gone.

Don't compare pollution because unless you acknowledge the various levels or grades of it.

And where do you think it goes? Shit pollutes and historically has been the cause of significant levels of environmental destruction and the leading cause of water pollution causing millions of human and animal deaths. Far more than fracking has contributed. Fortunately, we have found ways to limit the pollution caused by shit and keep our drinking water safe (septic systems and sewage plants) and now our shit caused pollution mostly takes the form of cow shit used to fertilize fields- which we have managed to limit with modern chemical fertilizers but the so called environmentalists are convinced that it is worse even though all scientific experimentation show that they are much safer both in terms of preventing human illness and water pollution.

The environmental movements that run around trying to immediately ban everything might have good intentions, but they are completely ignorant and willfully ignore the scientific research done on the subjects. Often, their efforts completely ignore that banning one method leads people to get their energy from another source, which is often causes even greater harm to the environment. Old fashioned methods of retrieving natural gas and oil are hardly free of environmental impact. 

Keep it simple stupid.

Please acknowledge different grades of pollution.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Keep

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Keep it simple stupid.

Please acknowledge different grades of pollution.

Yeah.... and that was my origninal point and the point of the article, that the pollution caused by fracking can be limited, controlled and contained. Which is infinitely more useful than banning it. The problem is weak and poorly built wells. That is a problem we can fix with a little bit of money and effort. No reason to go all fucking nuts and ban the whole process, especially since it isn't a problem experienced everywhere (because in many places the wells are built plenty strong enough to withstand the pressures of fracking.)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment

Human existence creates pollution. The idiots who immediately jump on the 'ban it' bandwagon do nothing to limit our environmental impact. The environmental effects of fracking can be limited. If the enviro wackos got everything they wanted, there would be no electricity.

 

Keep it up. Scientists knew 100 years ago that pumping out too much CO2 and methane could cause damage, and climate scientists are in agreement that WE are causing it.

There is pollution that the earth can absorbe within reason, then there is pollution that does not get absorbed. You are too stupid to see that you cant keep shitting in the toilet faster than the toilet can flush. 

Besides even if fraking were not producing pollution in the ground or producing  more gas we are burning, it is still like using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones. Solar wind and tide are non buring ways of producing energy. 

This is not a left wing conspiracy. You have stupidly been indoctrinated into the bullshit that business can never lie or conspire to rig government to give it an advantage.

It took one scientist DECADES to even get big oil to ban lead which he knew was not only polluting the planet but causing humans health problems.

We need to move way from burnng fossil fuels PERIOD.

You may not be arround to see the damage your voting habits cause, but our childeren will be and they will look back at your stupidity and be angry if nothing was done to stop it.

Bill Nye and Neil Degresse Tysonand Carol Segan  are scientists, you are simply a business person. I think they are far more important than you are when it comes to knowing what path our species should be taking to do things better and more safely. They are not driven by greed, you are.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 People who support fraking, those in the industry, know it is bad for the environment

Human existence creates pollution. The idiots who immediately jump on the 'ban it' bandwagon do nothing to limit our environmental impact. The environmental effects of fracking can be limited. If the enviro wackos got everything they wanted, there would be no electricity.

 

Keep it up. Scientists knew 100 years ago that pumping out too much CO2 and methane could cause damage, and climate scientists are in agreement that WE are causing it.

There is pollution that the earth can absorbe within reason, then there is pollution that does not get absorbed. You are too stupid to see that you cant keep shitting in the toilet faster than the toilet can flush. 

Besides even if fraking were not producing pollution in the ground or producing  more gas we are burning, it is still like using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones. Solar wind and tide are non buring ways of producing energy. 

This is not a left wing conspiracy. You have stupidly been indoctrinated into the bullshit that business can never lie or conspire to rig government to give it an advantage.

It took one scientist DECADES to even get big oil to ban lead which he knew was not only polluting the planet but causing humans health problems.

We need to move way from burnng fossil fuels PERIOD.

You may not be arround to see the damage your voting habits cause, but our childeren will be and they will look back at your stupidity and be angry if nothing was done to stop it.

Bill Nye and Neil Degresse Tysonand Carol Segan  are scientists, you are simply a business person. I think they are far more important than you are when it comes to knowing what path our species should be taking to do things better and more safely. They are not driven by greed, you are.

So you are saying the National Academy of Sciences is in the pocket of Big Business and that their research on this subject was fraudulent?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Keep it simple stupid.

Please acknowledge different grades of pollution.

Yeah.... and that was my origninal point and the point of the article, that the pollution caused by fracking can be limited, controlled and contained. Which is infinitely more useful than banning it. The problem is weak and poorly built wells. That is a problem we can fix with a little bit of money and effort. No reason to go all fucking nuts and ban the whole process, especially since it isn't a problem experienced everywhere (because in many places the wells are built plenty strong enough to withstand the pressures of fracking.)

I disagree with the article. There are more problems to deal with than just poorly made wells.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
So you are saying the

Quote:

So you are saying the National Academy of Sciences is in the pocket of Big Business and that their research on this subject was fraudulent?

The National Academy of Sciences has yet to approve this paper; it is under review.

And... it is possible that the author's of this paper are in the pocket of Big Business. Look at their affiliation.

Author Affiliations aDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; bDivisions of Solid Earth Dynamics and Water, Climate and the Environment, School of Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; cDepartment of Environmental Earth System Science, School of Earth Sciences, Woods Institute for the Environment, and Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; dDepartment of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755; and eDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627 Edited by Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved August 12, 2014 (received for review November 27, 2013)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Keep it simple stupid.

Please acknowledge different grades of pollution.

Yeah.... and that was my origninal point and the point of the article, that the pollution caused by fracking can be limited, controlled and contained. Which is infinitely more useful than banning it. The problem is weak and poorly built wells. That is a problem we can fix with a little bit of money and effort. No reason to go all fucking nuts and ban the whole process, especially since it isn't a problem experienced everywhere (because in many places the wells are built plenty strong enough to withstand the pressures of fracking.)

I disagree with the article. There are more problems to deal with than just poorly made wells.

The article doesn't claim that is the only problem. It identifies a problem and suggests a solution, which is infinitely more useful when it comes to protecting the environment than hysteria. Humans are going to use energy and we need a source for it. Even if somehow we managed to convince everyone in the US and Europe to live in stone age conditions (which pollute and would require a drastic reduction in population), the rest of the world sure as hell isn't going to follow the example. The environmental issues created with fracking are not more significant than those experienced with older methods of natural gas and petroleum recovery (and a damn sight less significant than many).

Brian mentions solar and wind as alternatives... great but right now the technology can't effectively meet our energy demands. Also, they are not exempt from creating environmental challenges. Solar requires massive amounts of land area, which means widescale habitat destruction. The metals required for solar panels are scarce and it requires extensive mining operations, which cause pollution (very similar to the problems created by fracking- risk of earthquakes and water table issues). There are geniuses working on creating non-metal solar panels and they have found success to a degress, but it is nowhere near efficient enough to support our power needs. In the future maybe it can be, or maybe it will never be more efficient than a potato battery. Time will tell.

Wind has been banned here in Ohio. I am a huge fan of wind, and would love to put a wind turbine on my own property. I have a hill that would be particularly well suited to it and I could provide 100% of my own power and have a little excess to sell to the power company. The problem is that wind turbines create eagle and bat burger. The enviro wackos, true to their nature, failed to consider solutions to this problem, they have focussed on passing laws making wind farms virtually impossible to build. Even though, many wind turbine companies have created modifications that reduce the risks to avian life. Although, on a mass scale, with wind you have the same issue you have with solar. You need a massive amount of land area dedicated to wind farms in order to produce enough electricity and you lack the control to increase and decrease production that you have with fossil fuel methods. Not everyone is as fortunate as me to have acreage upon which to place a personal wind turbine.

Personally, I think the most obvious solution to dramatically reduce pollution in the short term until renewable energy technology is brought to a point where it is practical is nuclear. It requires very little uranium to create a shitton of power. And the only waste of any significance is the spent nuclear rods. Of course, just the mention of nuclear brings out the full press ignorant hysteria.

My only point, is that recognizing environmental challenges and finding practical sollutions is infinitely better for the environment than jumping on the "ban it" band wagon everytime some environmental challenge is identified in a process. The standard that we create zero pollution isn't realistic and isn't helpful at actually improving anything. If we stop fracking, we are going to drill, the trend has been towards deep sea drilling because it is out of sight, which means it is less protested by the enviro idiots. Even though I think it is obvious that deep sea drilling is an incredibly bad idea both from an environmental impact standpoint, and a practical economic standpoint- it is by far the most expensive and difficult method. There has not been a single environmental problem identified with fracking that can't be limited.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The article doesn't claim that is the only problem. It identifies a problem and suggests a solution, which is infinitely more useful when it comes to protecting the environment than hysteria. Humans are going to use energy and we need a source for it. Even if somehow we managed to convince everyone in the US and Europe to live in stone age conditions (which pollute and would require a drastic reduction in population), the rest of the world sure as hell isn't going to follow the example. The environmental issues created with fracking are not more significant than those experienced with older methods of natural gas and petroleum recovery (and a damn sight less significant than many).

Brian mentions solar and wind as alternatives... great but right now the technology can't effectively meet our energy demands. Also, they are not exempt from creating environmental challenges. Solar requires massive amounts of land area, which means widescale habitat destruction. The metals required for solar panels are scarce and it requires extensive mining operations, which cause pollution (very similar to the problems created by fracking- risk of earthquakes and water table issues). There are geniuses working on creating non-metal solar panels and they have found success to a degress, but it is nowhere near efficient enough to support our power needs. In the future maybe it can be, or maybe it will never be more efficient than a potato battery. Time will tell.

Wind has been banned here in Ohio. I am a huge fan of wind, and would love to put a wind turbine on my own property. I have a hill that would be particularly well suited to it and I could provide 100% of my own power and have a little excess to sell to the power company. The problem is that wind turbines create eagle and bat burger. The enviro wackos, true to their nature, failed to consider solutions to this problem, they have focussed on passing laws making wind farms virtually impossible to build. Even though, many wind turbine companies have created modifications that reduce the risks to avian life. Although, on a mass scale, with wind you have the same issue you have with solar. You need a massive amount of land area dedicated to wind farms in order to produce enough electricity and you lack the control to increase and decrease production that you have with fossil fuel methods. Not everyone is as fortunate as me to have acreage upon which to place a personal wind turbine.

Personally, I think the most obvious solution to dramatically reduce pollution in the short term until renewable energy technology is brought to a point where it is practical is nuclear. It requires very little uranium to create a shitton of power. And the only waste of any significance is the spent nuclear rods. Of course, just the mention of nuclear brings out the full press ignorant hysteria.

My only point, is that recognizing environmental challenges and finding practical sollutions is infinitely better for the environment than jumping on the "ban it" band wagon everytime some environmental challenge is identified in a process. The standard that we create zero pollution isn't realistic and isn't helpful at actually improving anything. If we stop fracking, we are going to drill, the trend has been towards deep sea drilling because it is out of sight, which means it is less protested by the enviro idiots. Even though I think it is obvious that deep sea drilling is an incredibly bad idea both from an environmental impact standpoint, and a practical economic standpoint- it is by far the most expensive and difficult method. There has not been a single environmental problem identified with fracking that can't be limited.

I agree about wind generators have their issues. I will only say that they are costly, visually unappealing and high maintenance. The subject goes deeper but I don't want to research it. I agree about putting a personal wind generator near my house which is on a lake. Wind varies but I would also have solar panels.

Solar is the best option. Per sqft there is more energy hitting the Earth from the Sun than any other resource available. The problem is, as you said, technology, space and affordability, but also location as weather plays a part. However the solution to solar power is specifically outer space solar generators which would capture the solar power 24/7 and transfer the energy to Earth via lasers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

If they can get over the hurdles mentioned in the wiki page I think you would be looking at world wide power for every one with out the need for coal, oil or even nuclear power.

I'd also like to see the solar roads succeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

Don't laugh at my next suggestion, I'm being serious.

Almost 100% of all the buildings in America are worthless. All of them. Skyscrapers most of all. They have giant AC units to keep them cool and they use up a ton of electricity. They are literally 99% of our drain.

On the other end, residential housing is also worthless too. Wooden, cookie cutter homes are terrible for efficiency. We should be living in domed houses, partially buried underground. If homes were built efficiently the amount of energy needed to cool or heat them would be cut by 80%. Personally I'd like a home disconnected from the grid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house http://www.cbsnews.com/media/are-dome-homes-the-next-big-thing/

Domed houses are also stronger, withstand higher winds, fire, etc. They are 500% more efficient than rectangle houses.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I agree about wind generators have their issues. I will only say that they are costly, visually unappealing and high maintenance. The subject goes deeper but I don't want to research it. I agree about putting a personal wind generator near my house which is on a lake. Wind varies but I would also have solar panels. Solar is the best option. Per sqft there is more energy hitting the Earth from the Sun than any other resource available. The problem is, as you said, technology, space and affordability, but also location as weather plays a part. However the solution to solar power is specifically outer space solar generators which would capture the solar power 24/7 and transfer the energy to Earth via lasers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power If they can get over the hurdles mentioned in the wiki page I think you would be looking at world wide power for every one with out the need for coal, oil or even nuclear power. I'd also like to see the solar roads succeed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

That is all great if it can actually be built. So far none of it has and we need energy tomorrow. 100 years from now, we will probably have technology we can't even imagine today. But until someone figures out how to make it practical, theories aren't going to power your computer. Fossil fuels are practical and we have the infrastructure already built. 

 

Quote:

Don't laugh at my next suggestion, I'm being serious. Almost 100% of all the buildings in America are worthless. All of them. Skyscrapers most of all. They have giant AC units to keep them cool and they use up a ton of electricity. They are literally 99% of our drain.

Way to pull stats out of your ass. 

 

Quote:

On the other end, residential housing is also worthless too. Wooden, cookie cutter homes are terrible for efficiency. We should be living in domed houses, partially buried underground. If homes were built efficiently the amount of energy needed to cool or heat them would be cut by 80%. Personally I'd like a home disconnected from the grid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house http://www.cbsnews.com/media/are-dome-homes-the-next-big-thing/ Domed houses are also stronger, withstand higher winds, fire, etc. They are 500% more efficient than rectangle houses.

More like 30%, a bit more if you use 2x6 construction and superior insulation. Geodesic domes have many advantages, although they have a few disadvantages too. Most notably you need a better foundation and much higher quality roof on a dome than you can get away with on a cookie cutter home. You can also have significant dry rot problems if you don't put in a cupola. There is a reason why domes have been the focus of the eccentric middle class and wealthy.

If you want one, you are free to build one. I would never presume to say that everyone should live in a certain type of home. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Any building over 30 stories

Any building over 30 stories built before 1985 would be better off either being ripped down or refitted with new windows, insulation and AC/heat if not already done. Sure there are some green buildings around the world that are efficient but most buildings were created with out the green technology. Recently the Empire State Building was getting an overhaul because they realized changing things would save them a $4.4 million each year in operating costs. http://theenergycollective.com/davidlevy/45035/green-skyscraper http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/html/plan/ll84_scores.shtml In New York alone skyscrapers have extremely low efficiency compared to residential housing. Per sqft they use more energy and put out more green house gases by three times. Residential housing using Energy Star products such as refrigerators, water heaters, ranges, etc. which doesn't require changing the entire house. Also houses are often upgraded by new owners to include better insulation, roofing and windows.  Other items for you to read. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2413862/Skyscrapers-How-vast-chunks-worlds-tallest-buildings-useless-vanity-floors.... Skyscrapers are also inefficient because of the wasted space. Have you seen info on the Freedom Tower? http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/09/64953 http://www.msnbc.com/all/watch-inside-the-green-friendly-one-wtc http://www.ase.org/resources/nyc-focus-new-world-trade-center-serves-model-urban-energy-efficiency I'll add that skyscrapers are very efficient at using a sq block of city space. A typical 100 story building will save 21 sq blocks of city space by stacking every one on top of each other. They also account for less parking space being required as city life requires that people use mass transit. As for domed houses, do you know why we have rectangle housing?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Any

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Any building over 30 stories built before 1985 would be better off either being ripped down or refitted with new windows, insulation and AC/heat if not already done.

So what?

 

Quote:

Sure there are some green buildings around the world that are efficient but most buildings were created with out the green technology. Recently the Empire State Building was getting an overhaul because they realized changing things would save them a $4.4 million each year in operating costs.

So they are doing so and it is profitable for them. What is your point?

 

Quote:

In New York alone skyscrapers have extremely low efficiency compared to residential housing. Per sqft they use more energy and put out more green house gases by three times. Residential housing using Energy Star products such as refrigerators, water heaters, ranges, etc. which doesn't require changing the entire house. Also houses are often upgraded by new owners to include better insulation, roofing and windows.  

And apples don't taste like oranges. 

 

Quote:

Skyscrapers are also inefficient because of the wasted space. Have you seen info on the Freedom Tower?

Space can only be "wasted" if there is something else that space should be used for. What should that space be used for, and why is your idea of a spaces best use superior to the idea of those who built the skyscraper in the first place?

 

Quote:

As for domed houses, do you know why we have rectangle housing?

Because they are easier to build for people with little to no mathematical skill. Hundreds of years ago, most people built their own houses. Now the main reason is probably a cross between tradition, preferences, and the fact that most building materials are designed with right angles. Ever try to sheetrock a dome? I have, it is a fucking nightmare. The same can be said for HVAC, junction boxes, tile, insulation, shingles, windows etc. all of which are standard designed for right angles. Which means you either need to pay extra for customized materials, or you have to make standard materials fit, which requires extra labor. The result is that domes are more expensive and unless they become super popular, the mass production companies aren't going to produce materials designed for other angles. Even after building a dome, they are damn near impossible to sell, which is why right now a lot of banks won't even consider financing a dome.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Tall buildings are

Tall buildings are inefficient with energy/waste, plain and simple. If we are going to talk about profit then I can't argue that they are very efficient at making the owners money. In real estate it is always location, location, location that makes money. However if owners know that they are burning money away by inefficient windows or insulation then great, we all win when they change them. If there was more profit in making changes that benefited the environment then Greenpeace and the WWF would go out of business.

We use rectangle housing because land was parceled in small squares or rectangles. It is an efficient way to store materials in boxes. Indians used a teepee's and Mongolians used Yurts because they were efficient for living. Each building has a specific function as the root of its creation. So technically we live in storage rooms.

Look at this short paper on the subject. I think you'll find it interesting.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13217/1/13217.pdf


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Tall

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Tall buildings are inefficient with energy/waste, plain and simple.

So what? Is energy efficiency the only thing we should consider when building something? Is it even the primary thing? You being on this website is a complete "waste" of energy. Even if your persuasive powers were enough to completely persuade 100% of the people reading this to your point of view, you have accomplished nothing of note. Yet your words are going to be preserved probably well beyond your lifespan. It is conceivable that the amount of electricity used to maintain your words on this site might exceed the total amount of electricity you will consume in all other activities you do in your entire life. 

 

Quote:

However if owners know that they are burning money away by inefficient windows or insulation then great, we all win when they change them. If there was more profit in making changes that benefited the environment then Greenpeace and the WWF would go out of business.

Nah, greenpeace will always find something to bitch about because environmentalism isn't their goal. If there was more savings, no doubt upgrades would happen faster. If you invented a window that somehow reduced electric costs to zero and it was ridiculously cheap to install, you would see it going in place overnight. It isn't practical for every building in the world to have the most up to date energy efficient windows. Replacing windows costs resources. The windows in my house are decent, but nowhere near top of the line. I could spend $15,000 replacing them all, but it would probably save me maybe $50 a year tops. So in 300 years I break even... not very sensible. And probably not sensible considering a solely environmental perspective either since building windows also expends energy and pollutes. I have no idea how much energy goes into making each window, but buildiing, transporting, installing windows does pollute and does require energy. Who is in the best position to determine exactly when an upgrade should take place?

 

Quote:

We use rectangle housing because land was parceled in small squares or rectangles.

Partially perhaps. But clearly not completely. The American West is full of rectangular houses despite most lots parceled out were plently large enough to easily accomodate houses of any size or shape. 

 

Quote:

It is an efficient way to store materials in boxes. Indians used a teepee's and Mongolians used Yurts because they were efficient for living. Each building has a specific function as the root of its creation. So technically we live in storage rooms. Look at this short paper on the subject. I think you'll find it interesting. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13217/1/13217.pdf

It looks like it pretty much agrees with me. We used rectangles because they were easy to build and practical. We continue to use them today because they remain practical and partially due to tradition. The author of the paper does ignore available building materials, which I think probably played as large a role in determining shape as anything. Steel and hardwood lend themselves to being square, whereas structures built from clay, cloth, mud or ice tend to be more rounded. It shouldn't be a surprise that ease of construction has been a primary determinant of how things are built and the materials you have available play a major role in that. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
You are comparing my visit

You are comparing my visit to a website for 15 minutes to a really tall building, let us say 100 floors? and a carbon footprint the size of Montana? Really? And once my stuff is written to a hard drive it doesn't take energy to maintain it, only access it.

We replaced our windows and out AC unit, upgrade to a Nest thermostat and we are saving $300-325 a month. Are bills have dropped to less than $150 a month which is insane for Florida during the summer. If the savings are worth while then they are worth upgrading even if they cost you money up front. They would pay for their selves in a few years.

The owner should work with the city county or state.

I forgot to mention that new tools and building materials allow people to make different shapes with out having to hang drywall.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:You

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You are comparing my visit to a website for 15 minutes to a really tall building, let us say 100 floors? and a carbon footprint the size of Montana? Really? And once my stuff is written to a hard drive it doesn't take energy to maintain it, only access it.

Everything you type on here will be stored indefinitely on some server somewhere that has power running through it. Currently, data centers for the Internet consume approximately 2% of the worlds total electricity. As more data is added that number will grow. While the electricity tied directly to your use is miniscule now, over a few thousand years, it will grow to be quite a significant amount. How is that not a waste? Or are small wastes okay but larger ones not? How do you determine what is too much?

 

Quote:

We replaced our windows and out AC unit, upgrade to a Nest thermostat and we are saving $300-325 a month. Are bills have dropped to less than $150 a month which is insane for Florida during the summer. If the savings are worth while then they are worth upgrading even if they cost you money up front. They would pay for their selves in a few years.

Good for you. That isn't the case with everyone. 

You failed to answer my previous questions. Is energy efficiency the only thing we should consider when building something? Is it even the primary thing? And who is in the best position to determine exactly when an upgrade should take place?

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X