Article 3: The article gives the writer’s perspective on the ‘Rebound Effect.’ The writer explains how the mandated increase in Energy efficiency in Energy Efficiency around the world is the driver for lowering the cost of new technologies and making them affordable to that section of society who couldn’t afford it earlier. This according to the writer ends up having the opposite effect of increasing the energy consumption instead of reducing it. The writer in the article gives example of refrigeration and air conditioning products to support his views in favor of the rebound effect. He concludes the article by saying that the lawmakers/policymakers of a nation should take into consideration the rebound effect when making laws to improve energy efficiency. My Take – I would not agree with writer Robert J. Michaels in terms of the ‘Rebound Effect’ as in the long term these energy efficient technologies and policies on energy conservation would be actually leading to energy savings. A simple example here would be of Government initiative in India of LED lighting replacing the older CFL lighting and other inefficient lighting sources. This has actually lead to energy savings in a country of the size and scale of India. Article 8: The writer Matt Ridley is a supporter of fossil fuels as is evident from this article as he praises the role of fossil fuels and …show more content…
The fracking companies are still profitable in fracking at a price of $45 per barrel. Established pipelines and other infrastructure is benefitting the drillers in these areas. Wells in the ‘stack’ are among the best performing assets according to Continental Resources Inc. Also the ‘Permian’, a major oil producing area has been reborn as a result of the combination of horizontal drilling and fracking according to the
In today's global economy, energy is one of the most crucial and sought after commodities. Who supplies it and how much they supply determines how much influence they have over other countries as well as the global economy. This is why hydraulic fracturing is currently such an important and controversial topic in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking" or hydrofracturing, is the process of using pressurized liquids to fracture rocks and release hydrocarbons such as shale gas, which burns more efficiently than coal. This booming process of energy production provides a much needed economic boost, creating jobs and providing gas energy for Americans.
Hydraulic fracturing, also commonly referred to as fracking, is a type of drilling for natural gas and oil that started in the 1940’s. In the beginning, when a well was slowing down, dynamite or TNT were placed inside the well head and detonated to help the flow of gas and oil by expanding natural cracks and veins in the earth. This method of fracking was used extensively for almost fifty years in the United States until the easy to mine and profitable oil had been almost completely tapped. A new form of hydraulic fracking was created in the early 90’s to help capture the less available oil and gas pockets remaining in the United States. The current method of fracking begins by drilling a vertical shaft lined with several piping layers and an outer layer of cement up to 10,000 feet deep. After achieving the appropriate vertical length a horizontal shaft is cut off of the vertical shaft that can stretch to lengths up to one mile long. A mixture of sand, water, and chemicals are injected in the shaft fracturing the shale formations and release pockets of oil and natural gas. The water is brought back to the surface where the gas and oil is separated out. The issue many people have with fracking is the possible side effects of chemicals used and water contamination. With the use of fracking helping American’s reach energy independence, economic benefits, and a bridge to help attain a clean energy source; fracking should be expanded in the United States.
A lot of questions surrounds fracking, questions involving national government and job creation, local municipalities and job opportunities, economists and revenue, relevant infrastructure concerning local economy, local developers, current land owners and property value, food security, social and moral decline in society, local governments feeling towards Ubuntu and the list goes on and on. Although the list of potential problems is long, there is also some benefits in this industry as well. The state of South Africa now has a new form of revenue that will be collected by tax and permits. All cities and small town in the Karoo will benefit from all the new business brought on by the new drilling operators. All the farmers owning mineral rights will be financially rewarded by the gas industry leasing those rights (Potter & Rashid, 2013).
MR: The Solutions Project emphasizes, redundantly, the solutions to the issue of using fossils to create energy. We convince people to perform a transition from using fossil fuels to a wind, water and solar renewable energy system. In order to do that, we share information about how using fossil fuels affect the environment; and how beneficial the renewable energy system is for everyone (“The Solutions Project”, 2011).
Fracking is the process of extracting natural gas from layers of shale rock deep within the earth. One of the world’s largest plays of natural gas is in the Marcellus Shale, is located in the Appalachian basin and extends across New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, eastern Ohio and portions of Kentucky and Tennessee. “Plays” are areas where companies are actively looking for natural gas inside shale rock formations. Plays are drilled for natural gas by hydraulic fracturing in a two step process. First, a production well is drilled down into the ground for thousands of feet and then gradually leveled so that the tip of the drill is travelling horizontally through the ground. The second part of the process is where it gets the name of “fracking” because the second step in the process is where a mixture of sand, water, and chemicals, many of which are known to be harmful, are forced under extremely high pressure down into the shale through the horizontal part of ...
The key challenge that US policy must address the reduction of greenhouse gases while growing the economy. Recovery Act spending acted as a stimulus package to revive an economy heavily affected by the GFC(Aldy, 2012 p 3). While the recovery funds were aimed at stimulating the economy, President Obama stressed the importance of the development of renewable energies in his first State of the Union address (Roberts, Lassiter, & Nanda, 2010 p 3).
Fracking has contributed to positive economic impacts and a closer sense of energy independence for the United States. Oil and natural gas rich areas underneath North Dakota have grown to contribute a large percentage of these resources to the overall production in the United States. The fact that the United States holds the potential to gain full energy independence could be not only monumental for the country in a global context but also extremely beneficial to the citizens. Less dependence on foreign exports could mean a healthier future for the country. The energy security potential of fracking, balanced with the environmental risks, make it important that it not be a yes-no question, but rather find a solution to satisfy it in a greater context.
A relatively new process, and a topic recently under a lot of attention around the world is fracking, or horizontal high-volume slickwater hydraulic fracturing. Fracking is the term for the oil and gas industry's relatively new process of taking already existing wells, or sometimes creating new wells, and using them in such a way to extract the natural gas from the shale formations. Fracking has inspired a recent boom in natural gas extraction and our urgent energy situation. Fracking has potential to bring huge economic return to several groups including landowners, the oil and gas industry, and even the states involved. This process is attracting attention by many around the world and causing much controversy. The majority of controversy lies in the lack of regulations, uncertainties in ...
Climate change mitigation can mean something as simple as green improvements to household appliances like stoves and refrigerators or more complicated plans like making older machines more efficient, using renewable energy, or even planning and building a new city (UNEP, n.d). One would notice that there are no immediate effects of climate change mitigation. This is correct. But there are long-term effects of switching to greener home appliances, using renewable energies, and overall moving towards a low carbon footprint society.
Over the last two centuries, humanity has become increasingly reliant on fossil fuels. Over that time, the consequences of constantly burning fossil fuels have accumulated into a threat to industrialized cities. The burning of fossil fuels causes acid rain to shower on cities and ecosystems around the world, tormenting their inhabitants. The increasingly deadly pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels has caused the deaths of many people around the world by causing respiratory problems. Not only has the pollution worsened, but the supply of fossil fuels is not limitless – as humanity’s reliance increases the supply decreases, and that is all the more reason to break humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels should be replaced with cleaner alternatives because fossil fuels cause environmental hazards, are non-renewable, and are detrimental to human health.
ways. The use of electricity will reduces the usage of the earth’s resources such as gas and oil.
Instilling this new way of energy usage into off-grid communities will inevitably increase the state of living for those in cities and other well-populated areas. The change to renewable energy sources could drastically lower the pollutants currently being dispersed into the atmosphere by coal mines and other harmful power options, increasing the supply of renewable energy would allow us to replace carbon-intensive energy sources and significantly reduce U.S. global warming emissions. a 25 percent by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would lower power plant CO2 emissions 277 million metric tons annually by 2025—the equivalent of the annual output from 70 typical (600 MW) new coal plants (“Benefits of Renewable Energy Use”). Electricity production accounts for more than one-third of U.S. global warming emissions, with the majority generated by coal-fired power plants.
Only commercialized in the United States about five or six years ago, a new process of extracting natural gas has emerged called fracking. The natural gas that is extracted from the shale can be into the thousands of feet below the earth’s surface. This new process gives us the opportunity to extract gas that we thought was unreachable through relatively new technological advancements in the field.
Fossil fuels are energy that is in the form of coal, oil, or natural gas that comes from organisms from millions of years ago. The cycle to create fossil fuels takes millions of years to form and is therefore considered a nonrenewable resource of energy. Fossil fuels have been the primary source of energy for man ever since the age of machines, but one of “the main problem[s] with fossil fuels is that there is a limited amount of them” (Problem with Fossil Fuel). As countries become more developed, like the United States, they too will become more thirsty and dependent for fossil fuels. “In 2004, America spent approximately $270 billion to fufill its oil need.” and “90% of all transportation is fueled by oil” (Nakaya 10). With the global rate of fossil fuels going up it is inevitable that they are going to run out, forcing countries to choose an alternative energy source. The other huge problem with dependence on fossil fuels is the effect that the emissions have on the climate. Fossil fuels are made of carbon chains and in order for the reaction...
middle of paper ... ... g the Energy Revolution." Foreign Affairs. Nov/Dec 2010: 111. SIRS Issues Researcher.