This discussion talks about how anti fossil fuel extremists and outside entities are attacking PA natural gas industry and working to methodically shut down PA Natural Gas production.  Anti-fracking groups, climate change advocates and others  want to control your royalty or potential for royalty.

If this doesn't make you angry then check your pulse. The video was made before PA Governor Wolf got involved. You will not find any references to meetings he holds with Bloomberg listed on his website. That's because his staff covers it up so the public doesn't know.


On November 6, 2018, 8 Anti Fossil Fuel candidates were elected to the PA Congress and the left in the Pennsylvania Democrat Party wants to ban all fracking in the state. I

Views: 1461

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's as simple as this. look back in history,thousands of years,when half of the Untited States was under a frozen glacier. obviously global warming started many moons ago, LOOOOONG before fossil fuels were being burnt. It's obviously a natural phenomenon. Not manmade.

TODAY IN ENERGY: Thursday, December 6, 2018

EPA finalizes Renewable Fuel Standard for 2019, reflecting cellulosic biofuel shortfalls

On November 30, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule for the 2019 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, with the total U.S. renewable fuel volume requirement set 3% higher than the 2018 mandate, but nearly 30% lower than the statutory volume standards set forth by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). Similar to previous years, EPA exercised its cellulosic waiver authority to decrease volume standards for cellulosic biofuels because growth has been slower than Congress had envisioned in EISA, passed more than a decade ago.

See graph and read more...

Today in Energy, published every weekday, brings you short, timely articles with graphics on energy facts, issues, and trends. Questions, comments, story suggestions? Email us at todayinenergy@eia.gov.

Now you can publish or promote Today in Energy content on your website. Go to our outreach page for banners and badges, and to find widgets with the code that pull each day's Today in Energy content right into your web page every weekday.

there is a reason major energy traders use solar cycle forecasts to assist in taking trade positions. the climate then and now is entirely a result of solar energy cycles. there are both short and long cycles which vary sun energy recieved by earth with huge climate variations over millions of years. better to put resources towards living with climate change such as improved building methods, agriculture, robust energy systems etc., than to think mankind can change a global climate by some action. too many people on the planet will refuse to go along with emission reductions resulting in failure from the start. give this one to engineers instead of activists and politicians.

Not sure I posted this before so here it is again

INTERESTING -  ONE OTHER QUESTION. IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN PAYING A GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON THAT IS SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED SOME YEARS AGO TO HELP TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE!
 
In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car:
 
Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it. This is the first article I’ve ever seen and tells the story pretty much as I expected it to
 
Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things yet they’re being shoved down our throats.  Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper.
 
At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro executive.  I asked him how that renewable thing was doing.  He laughed, then got serious.  If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities.  For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service.  The average house is equipped with 100 amp service.  On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each.  For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
 
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles.  Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!  This latter "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug.
 
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following.  Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway.  It’s enlightening.
 
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.”  Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery.  So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
 
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph.  Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours.  In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
 
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity.  It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.  The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.  I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.  $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.  Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg.  $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.
 

Raining on Gov. Wolf’s Parade – No Scientific Basis for Cap & Trade



Last week MDN told you that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, liberal Democrat, is seriously considering a bizarre cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emission reduction program to eliminate carbon emissions from major sources by 2052 (see PA Gov. Wolf Seriously Considers Marcellus-Killing Cap & Trade). The program is meant to eliminate fossil fuel production and use, including Marcellus Shale production. A couple of authors, one a 35+ year geologist, the other a senior fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, took note and co-authored a devastating article appearing on The Daily Caller that punctures cap-and-trade in general, and Wolf’s dalliance with it in particular. Wolf invoked the argument that this year has been far rainier than normal in PA, which must, of course, be due to man-made global warming. The co-authors use actual, real data on rain conditions and amounts to completely obliterate Wolf’s arguments–making him look like the fool he is.

By Gregory Wrightstone and Gordon Tomb:

When Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf uses the past year’s wet weather and local flooding to support his assertion that “we have a problem with climate change,” we can’t help but rain on his parade.

The governor’s comments came in reference to a petition to limit greenhouse gases that had been submitted to the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board by 61 parties, including environmental advocacy groups and solar energy firms.

Modeled after a California program, the proposal would require emitters of carbon dioxide to purchase permits for every ton of carbon released to make Pennsylvania carbon neutral by 2052.

As to whether he supports the proposal, the governor said:

I haven’t come to a conclusion on that. But we have a problem with climate change. That is a fact. We’ve all seen that this past year. York County has had more rain. I’ve gone around the state: Bradford County, York County, Schuylkill County, Allegheny County, Philadelphia County — all over the state — localized flooding. I’ve never seen this in my lifetime. We are having real problems.

Here the governor makes the common mistake of viewing weather outside its historical context and thinking there may be policy implications to consider.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pennsylvania’s annual precipitation for the first three years of his administration (no data available yet for 2018) was 42.9 inches, only 0.3 of an inch higher than the average long-term data dating to 1895 — an increase hardly worthy of a policy discussion.

If yearly precipitation has not increased significantly, perhaps there were bigger storms with greater duration that led the Governor to believe that drastic action is needed?

Again, NOAA data dispel that notion. Agency records show that the most consecutive days with an inch of rain or more peaked in the 1940s and 1950s for the more than 700 weather stations in the state. Of the past 120-plus years, the last 30 years had some of the fewest such records.

Perhaps Wolf was recalling that he personally viewed flooding of the Susquehanna River in Harrisburg last July when the it crested at 17.3 feet. Much was made of the flooding at the time, but it ranks just 31st on the list of greatest floods at Harrisburg — and only a bit more than half the record set by Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972.

Even if wet weather signified an important change in the climate, the response of mandating a carbon neutral Pennsylvania would present staggering costs. Current mandates requiring that a measly 18 percent of the state’s electricity come from alternative sources — such as solar and wind — by 2021 are estimated to increase electricity prices by $700 million and eliminate 11,400 jobs by 2025.

Utterly irrational is policy that would transition from low-cost, reliable energy provided by the huge oil and gas resources of the state’s Marcellus and Utica shale deposits as well as its coal reserves to embrace expensive, intermittent “green” energy. But such is par for much of the thinking in the Wolf administration.

A “Climate Change Action Plan Update” published a couple years ago by Wolf’s Department of Environmental Protection averred that its recommendations would reduce “energy use enough to actually lower total gross domestic product” while producing a net gain in employment. This betrays an ignorance of basic economics and a delusion about a bureaucracy’s ability to manage energy markets that are best left to producers and consumers to shape.

In Pennsylvania, along with the remainder of the world, the poor contribute a higher percentage of their income to energy costs than others, making expensive, green-energy policies a regressive form of taxation. Hence, at least in part, the recent riots in Paris where gasoline costs twice as much as it does in the United States.

The hubris of politicians notwithstanding, the direction of the climate should be left to the solar cycles that have been driving it for eons. In the meantime, humans will be better positioned to adapt to either a colder or warmer climate if the ingenuity of free markets is allowed to continue to produce the “5,000-year leap” kind of prosperity experienced since the Industrial Revolution.


Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist who has been investigating the Earth’s processes for more than 35 years including paleoclimate controls on deposition. He is author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.” sits on the Advisory Board of the Heartland Institute and is a Contributing Writer for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Gordon Tomb is a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation, a Pennsylvania-based, free-market think tank.*

RSS

Local Groups

Latest Activity

Blog Posts

Those French Fuel Riots and the “Great Wall of Cuomo”

Posted by Thomas J Shepstone on December 3, 2018 at 10:33am 0 Comments

The French fuel riots demonstrate what can happen when ordinary people are denied the basic necessities of life by “let them eat cake” elitists with agendas.

The French Revolution is hardly a thing to be admired,…

Continue

Events

© 2018   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service