Ali Elkanuni
040809006
November 24, 2015
Here Comes the Sun Analysis
Introduction:
Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as fracking, is the process in which companies use in order to extract natural gasses. High-pressure fluid is injected into rocks deep underground so that it fractures shale rocks to release natural gas inside. This natural gas is used for energy, gas and oil. There has been a controversy about fracking since it was introduced about 60 years ago. Although it was a great technological advancement, it has raised both health and environmental concerns in the areas fracking is occurring. In the past, wind and solar power was just too expensive to create renewable energy compared to the energy created by fracking. Now that solar panels
…show more content…
I believe Krugman did a great job in representing an important issue and backing up his claims. I do think he could have used more sources and quotes to back up certain points; however, he still presented factual information. I agree that solar and wind power would be an ideal alternative to current practices. Now that it is more cost-effective, government figures should be stepping in since there is physical evidence that fracking is detrimental to the health of humans and this planet. The info graphic in "What Goes In & Out of Hydraulic Fracking," presented some important statistics that supported Krugman’s logic in his article. Not only are they using 1-8 million gallons of water for each fracking job, but the water is mixed with approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing and 600 of these chemicals are carcinogenic and toxins. Only 30-50% of fracturing fluid is recovered, and the rest of these non-biodegradable toxins are left in the …show more content…
I truly believe we should be protecting it as much as we can. According to Goodine (2011) in her article “Fracking Controversy,” Krugman was right that companies don’t have to disclose the chemicals used for fracking. This is wrong. Taxpayers’ money also shouldn’t be going to the repairs due to this practice. It seems the pros of renewable energy outweigh those of natural gases. Many environmentalists and experts have shower research that supports most of Krugman’s claims. I appreciate that this author furthered the understanding more by applying Moore’s law to this issue. He says progress in solar panels has been so dramatic that Moore’s law – in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 8 months – can be applied to solar energy. He also used the failure of the solar company, Solyndra’s, as an example to support his claims. This failure was caused by technological success because this company could not keep up with the lowering costs of solar
Why is fracking dangerous? During the fracking process natural gases are realized into the well where they are drilling often contaminating the nearby groundwater with methane gases and chemical toxins. After the fracking process the waste fluid is evaporated releasing volatile organic compounds causes acid rain, contaminated air, and ozone at
Fracking involves drilling a hole into the ground and injecting a combination of fluids and chemicals into the shale. The fracking fluid contains upwards of 600 different chemicals (David). The pressure of the fluid is what causes the shale to fracture, then releases natural gas. That fracking fluid is what is really dangerous, as this is what poses the biggest threat, since many of those chemicals are extremely dangerous and some are completely unknown by the public. After the fracking process is complete, the fracking water, known as flowback, which includes water, chemicals and additives, is either collected and transferred to holding-tanks or it is injected back into the ground for storage
There are two sides to every argument and hydrofracturing is no different. Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist and producer of FrackNation, uses logic to convince viewers that fracking does not pose environmental concerns. Josh Fox however, employs a multitude of logical fallacies as well as arguments based on emotions in an attempt to convince the audience that fracturing is bad for the environment. McAleer created his film to refute this opinion. Ultimately, Phelim McAleer’s documentary made a better argument than Josh Fox’s documentary.
SUMMARY Journalist, Nick Stockton, in the article, “Fracking’s Problems Go Deeper Than Water Pollution,” published in June 2015, addresses the topic of hydraulic fracturing and argues that fracking has more negative consequences than one might think. Stockton supports his claim first by appealing emotionally through a short summary of a recent event involving fracking and also by utilizing evidence to back up his statements. The author’s overall purpose is to highlight outcomes of fracking in order to make more people aware of issues that can arise from this common way of obtaining energy. Stockton utilizes a scientific, yet critical tone in order to create an unbiased article and appeal to his audience’s concern for the well being of the
My general overview of this article is the methods used to obtain fossil fuels is hurting people and nature all around the world. People are beginning to come to a realization about how fracking is harming the world. However, people in cities like “Buffalo, New York, Pennsylvania, and the author’s hometown
Another professional Shelly interviewed was Dr. Joseph Martin, a professor in Department of Civil, Architecture, and environmental engineer at Drexel University. Her question to the professor was “How is gas drilling compared to coal mining? What is the effect on the environment?” Dr. Martin stated, “The surface impact of this hydro fracking is phenomenally lower than anything you could do. As far as safety issues of natural gas drilling, they’re minimal.
Throughout the centuries, humans have been attempting to find a way to power homes, cars, and other luxuries in the most efficient way possible. Coal and oil were two major sources that begin being exploited during the industrial revolution. Both have caused great controversy over the years from lawsuits to strikes. A new way to drill oil, hydraulic fracturing, was discovered and was an efficient means of drilling until its effects became prevalent. Also, when coal began to run out, a new method called mountaintop removal took hold, but continues to damage the earth.
Fracking fluid not only contains chemicals that have been known to cause cancer, but it also contains a number of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs have been linked to sex changes in wildlife and contaminated water have also caused fish deaths. Over 100 are EDCs that have been linked to respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological, and reproductive conditions. These evidences are confirmed that fracking can cause species to die and to become sick with just touching the water or the air. You need to know that fracking can have a potential effect on our lovely planet.
Probably because the companies use millions of gallons of there fracking mixture with sand, water, and deadly chemicals to dissolve the shale and free the natural gas. When the fracking companies drill into the Earth with fracking fluid they release methane and benzene which are known carcinogens are released. If you don't know carcinogens are gases that can cases cancers. The fracking industry is using the fact that most chemicals have many different names to their advantage, the industry are changing the name they use in their records to make people think that is not that bad because the don't know what they are actually using. Shady.
Fracking is a method used to extract natural gas and should be continued because it is a viable source of energy, economically beneficial, and poses no threat towards groundwater. In the first place natural gas produced by fracking is a viable source of energy. Fracking is so effective that in “4 months of a good shale well will produce enough energy to power around 11,000 homes for those 4 months,” - (Sweet). An example of the energy from fracking is: “Domestic crude production increased from 5 million barrels a day to 7.3 million barrels a day.” - (Kashi)
As technology grows with society, scientist find alternatives to everyday things such as oil and gas. Hydraulic Fracturing being a top producer of oil and natural gases by drilling into the ground and pumping fluids, to release resources. Fracking is one of the main source of heat and fuel but how safe is it. Can we expect to truly continue to rely on oil and natural gases? I feel that fracking isn 't safe because not only do men die from being on oil drills but fracking leads to environmental hazards and shows society isn 't has far into the future as everyone thinks.
According to Climatecentral.org, “fracking for natural gas used to produce electricity may make Texas more drought resistant as the state shifts from coal power generation to natural gas power generation” (Magill). This could be a major breakthrough for Texas because not only would we produce electricity and save our environment, but we would also save millions of gallons of water. The amount of water we could save by shifting from coal to natural gas plants “is up to 50 times the amount of water lost in fracking to extract the natural gas from underground shale formations. According to the article, “The study’s authors estimate that for every gallon of water used to frack for natural gas, Texas saved 33 gallons of water by using that gas for electricity generation rather than producing the same amount of power with coal” (Magill).
Nicolas D. Loris, who is an economist at the Heritage Foundation, claims fracking helps create new jobs “for geologists, engineers, rig workers, truck drivers, and pipe welders”—such as a plant located in Pennsylvania that will generate about 10,000 new jobs—and also helps create more business for hotels and restaurants (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk,” Chemicals). Using this method of wastewater injections, says Loris, also generates over “600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas… [which] is enough heat to 15 million homes for one year” (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk, Chemicals). He continues his argument by saying that, with the creation of new jobs, hydraulic fracking increases the U.S. economy and makes natural gas available for vital things such as food processing, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers (“Fracking is not a Public Health Risk,”
Researchers have “requested data from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas, all states heavily involved in the recent surge of oil and gas drilling, about complaints related to hydraulic fracking for oil and gas” for their research on fracking (Dechert). The research collected was shocking, over 2,000 complaints in Texas alone and several cases on well water contamination within the states mentioned in Decherd’s article. People need to be alerted about how real fracking is and the damages it is doing. These complaints and cases should be a wakeup call to the world and say that we should put it to a
What do you do when you run out of gas in your car? Will you stop using your car? or Will you go to the gas station and refill your tank? Natural gas that has been pumped up from fracking nearly fuels 40% of the U.S. energy consumption. Without fracking, the price of gas would have a drastic raise from $3.25 to $11 per gallon, so consumers would have to pay about $130 or more to refill their gas tank.