Science and Religion

My contribution to a family e-mail discussion:

I would like to get back to the question of how to prevent Religion from bugging Science. These disciplines have different ground rules:

    * The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion; it does not guarantee Freedom of Science.

    * Religion is funded by its adherents; Science is funded by the public, either through taxes or through the profits on the goods and services that they buy.

The relation between the two is asymmetric. Religion can claim an influence on Science while Science has no offsetting claim.

Compounded on this is the fact that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts – psychologists call this phenomenon cognitive dissonance (think of the Birthers, who believe that Pres. Obama was born in Kenya).

In sum, Religion can claim a right, as well as a duty, to root out evil (as they see it) in the practice and teaching of Science. For example, the campaign against stem-cell research.

One final point: almost all of the areas of Science that religion objects to have public policy implications, such as climate change, fetal development, homosexuality. Evolution is, I think, unique in that the only argument is on its teaching. Here a compromise could be reached. Just as astronomy could not be taught without Copernicus (which the Church once forbid), biology cannot be taught without Darwin.

Text of Testimony on Ohio Fracking Bill

Testimony on SB315

Mid-term budget review—energy & natural resources laws & programs

Before the House Public Utilities Committee

Presented by Alan R. Rosenfield, ScD, FASM

on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ohio

May 17, 2012

The League of Women Voters of Ohio believes that SB315 provides a good starting framework for Ohio's energy policy under rapidly-changing conditions. We believe, however, that there are several parts of the legislation that need improvement. This testimony is in two sections – those sections that apply to ODNR responsibilities and those that apply to PUCO responsibilities.

ODNR Responsibilities

Composition of Fracking Liquids We believe that all chemicals used in fracking liquids be made part of the public record. The argument about preserving proprietary secrets is not persuasive for two reasons:

• It is argued that Coke doesn't tell Pepsi. These are two companies targeting the same customer. Competition in oil and gas drilling is for land to obtain mineral rights, which has nothing to do with the composition of fracking liquids.

• The nature of engineering is that everyone knows what everyone else is doing, even competitors. The only people being kept in the dark by non-disclosure are those whose air and water is being polluted.

In addition, we believe that suitable precautions need to be taken to account for radioactive materials in the fracking waste. In order to obtain the best science on this issue we are in the process of consulting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on their view of this problem. At a minimum, SB315 should require a radioactive analysis of all such waste.

Siting of Wells In January of this year, we wrote ODNR requesting that injection wells be located away from population centers and critical infrastructure (e. g. pipelines). Our concern arose from the earthquakes in Youngstown, the third cluster of earthquakes in Northeastern Ohio widely believed to be caused by injection wells during the last thirty years. While the new ODNR rules may go a long way towards preventing earthquakes, we feel that added precaution needs to be taken because of the incomplete knowledge of geological faults in Ohio.

We are also concerned that the proposed ODNR regulations for State Parks allow wells as little as 300 feet from campsites and sensitive areas. In addition, SB315 allows drilling within urbanized areas. Considering the potential for air and water pollution, as well as documented cases of excessive noise and explosions, we recommend that a 1500 foot distance be kept from population concentrations and critical infrastructure.

PUCO Responsibilities

Reporting The cost of renewable energy is believed by many to be excessive. At the end of 2010 (latest multi- state data available), Ohio produced the least amount of renewable energy of any state in our region. As shown in the Attachment to this testimony, almost all of the other states in our region have managed to increase their amounts of renewable energy with rates lower or comparable to those in Ohio. The reason for this result is that renewables are a small part of the cost of generation, which is only one of many factors that affect utility rates. The Attachment also shows that the high-renewable-energy states have lower unemployment than Ohio. There is no evidence that increased renewable energy levels cost jobs.

127-SB221 requires a report on progress in fulfilling its goals, including job creation and economic impact. We support the idea of a report, but were disappointed to see that the recent PUCO report (Draft Report by the Staff of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio; Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard Report, April 2012) did not include the amount of investment in Ohio for renewable energy or the number of jobs created. We recommend that SB315 add a requirement for an analysis of the effects of 127-SB221 on utility rates. We are confident that a report including this information will illustrate great benefits from 127-SB221.

Thank you for your attention; I will be happy to answer any questions

ATTACHMENT: DATA AND SOURCES

League of Women Voters of Ohio Testimony on SB315

State	Industrial Rate, Cents/kWh	Renewable Electricity, %	Unemployment, %
Illinois	6.2	2.6	9.8
Indiana	6.4	3.0	9.0
Iowa	4.9	17.9	5.6
Kentucky	5.3	3.1	9.1
Michigan	7.2	3.7	9.3
Minnesota	6.3	13.9	5.7
Missouri	5.3	2.7	8.0
Ohio	6.2	0.8	8.1
West Virginia	6.2	2.9	7.9
Wisconsin	7.1	7.1	7.1

States included are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky (no renewable law), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Sources

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Local Area Unemployment Statistics, December, 2011

US Energy Information Administration: Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector by State, January 2012 and 2011

US Energy Information Administration: State Renewable Electricity Profiles 2010

On Job Creation

If politicians created all of the jobs that they claim, the country would have a labor shortage. Let's say a company moves its headquarters from Alabama to Idaho, Idaho politicians will claim to have created 500 jobs. Good for Idaho, but bad for Alabama, which has lost 500 jobs. All that has happened is that the furniture has been moved.

It's the same thing in the private sector. A company wants to increase market share. Management has an idea, it hires a fancy consultant, whatever. The idea works, they increase market share, they hire new workers to handle the increased business. But their competitors have lost business and have to lay off workers. Then net result is a wash.

People who develop new products and services create jobs. Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs created jobs. Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney are merely interior decorators.

Midwest Renewable Energy Survey, Rev.03/10/12

Over three-quarters of the States currently have laws promoting renewable energy. In order to find out how Ohio ranks regionally, a survey was made of ten Midwestern and Appalachian states*. The survey examined two questions:

1. Does renewable energy cost jobs?
2. Does renewable energy raise electricity rates?

We found the following results:

Iowa has both the highest percentage of renewables and the lowest unemployment rate of the ten states surveyed.

In contrast, Ohio has the smallest amount of renewable energy. We are about average for electricity rates and unemployment.

For the ten states surveyed, electricity rates do not depend on the percentage of renewables.

In contrast, the states, like Iowa, with the most renewables have the lowest unemployment rates.

The Michigan Public Service Commission has tabulated costs for renewables (Report on the implementation of the P.A. 295 renewable energy standard and the cost-effectiveness of the energy standards) . These range from  zero to $3 per month, a tiny fraction of consumers' bills and of the state-to-state differences. In summary, the data do not support the contention that renewable energy destroys jobs and raises electric rates.

Detailed results of the survey are posted at alanpeg@blogspot.com

…...............

* States included are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky (no renewable law), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Survey Details

The latest data were obtained from reliable web sites. The survey can be criticized, since the renewable data are for the end of 2010. An approximation of more recent data can be obtained from wind energy as of the end of 2011 (AWEA Market Report), since wind comprises most of the renewable energy in the region. The 2011 wind data move Ohio to next-to-last.

List of Displays

1 Rates and Renewables

2. Green Energy Can Reduce Unemployment

3. Green Energy Ratings

4. Best and worst States (in preparation)

5. Preliminary 2011 Results (in preparation)

Display 1: Rates and Renewables

The data below show that there is no relation between the percent of renewables and the cost of electricity for industry.

State	Industrial Rate, Cents/kWh (a)	Renewable Electricity, % (b)
Illinois	6.5	2.7
Indiana	6.2	3.0
Iowa	4.9	17.9
Kentucky	5.1	3.0
Michigan	6.9	3.6
Minnesota	6.0	14.0
Missouri	5.3	2.8
Ohio	6.3	0.8
West Virginia	6.2	2.9
Wisconsin	7.2	7.1

(a) US Energy Information Administration: Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, November 2011 and 2010 (2011 is reported in Table above)

(b) US Energy Information Administration; State Electricity Profiles 2010

Display 2. Green Energy Can Reduce Unemployment

The Midwestern states with the most renewable electricity (Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) also have the lowest unemployment rates in the region.

State	Unemployment, % (a)	Renewable Electricity, % (b)
Illinois	9.8	2.7
Indiana	9.0	3.0
Iowa	5.6	17.9
Kentucky	9.1	3.0
Michigan	9.3	3.6
Minnesota	5.7	14.0
Missouri	8.0	2.8
Ohio	8.1	0.8
West Virginia	7.9	2.9
Wisconsin	7.1	7.1

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics; Local Area Unemployment Statistics, December, 2011

(b) US Energy Information Administration; State Electricity Profiles 2010

Display 3. Green Energy Ratings

Ohio's green economy ranks about in the middle of all states by 




several measures. The chart 

compares us with comparable states with respect to the use of 




alternative energy (Column a), 

energy conservation (column b), and green jobs (column c).

National Ranking of Green Energy Programs

in Midwestern States

State	Clean Energy Ranking (a)	Energy Conservation Ranking (b)	Green Jobs Ranking (c)
Illinois	12	17	33
Indiana	33	32	32
Iowa	19	11	25
Kentucky	39	37	26
Michigan	14	17	27
Minnesota	8	8	16
Missouri	37	44	22
Ohio	30	24	21
West Virginia	50	44	43
Wisconsin	15	16	8

a) Clean Edge: CA, OR, MA, NY, & CO Top Nation in Clean Energy Leadership, 18 May 2011; includes electricity and transportation.

b) ACEEE: 2011 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard Rankingc)


c)  Brookings Institute: Sizing the Green Economy, 13 July 2011. According to this report Ohio has over 105 thousand green jobs, with an average pay of $39 thousand per year. About 70 percent of these jobs are blue collar.

Hydraulic Fracturing/Fracking, Pros & Cons

PRO HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Potential Energy Independence: Fossil fuels extracted domestically can help wean us off of our addiction to foreign oil.

Clean and Economical Fuel: Replacing coal powered plants with natural gas plants and gasoline engines with natural-gas-powered ones could work as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse emissions significantly. Natural gas is also proving to be a cheap source of energy.

Local Economic Benefits: Extraction of fossil fuels is already a major source of employment in the U.S. Increased drilling will lead to more jobs. In addition,leases and royalties put money into economically-depressed areas.

Buys Time To Develop Renewable Energy : Natural Gas can serve as a bridge fuel to a 21st century energy economy that relies on efficiency, renewable sources, and low-carbon fossil fuels.

CON FRACKING

Severe Water and Air Pollution: Extracting natural gas by fracking leads to major pollution of wells. This has caused numerous cases of severe health problems for both humans and animals.

Fracking Has Led To Earthquakes: Several earthquakes, including eleven in Youngstown, have been linked either to the hydraulic fracturing process or to wells for disposal of spent fracking fluids.

Requires Large Amounts Of Water: The fracking process can require around large amounts of water. Fracking is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act of 2005, thus allowing companies to conceal the chemicals used in the process. Concerns about these chemicals include carcinogens and radioactive waste.

Large Clean-up Costs : Drilling leaves behind damaged roads, damaged land, and an unsafe environment. Real estate values plummet.

Non-Intuitive Result

This quote was in response to a query from Adrian Demaid (Open University, UK), who asked me for examples where research had an unexpected result.

“About twenty-five years ago Battelle was asked to estimate the cost of fracture to the US economy, we came up with an amount of about a few percent of gross domestic product.  While the actual figure can easily be disputed, the real cost is probably very large.

The key to arriving at our result was an appreciation of the role that material variability plays in engineering specifications. It appears that typical engineering standards assign properties about two standard deviations below the mean of alloys when specifying dimensions. For example, if the coefficient of variation of the yield strength of a particular steel is seven percent, it is assumed that all pieces of that steel are treated as if their yield strength is 14 percent below the actual mean. Of course, engineers did not work this position out statistically -— the various rules-of-thumb just seem to come out that way. If metallurgists could reduce scatter consistently, we would have lighter structures with no sacrifice of safety. Extending this idea to other mechanical properties and plugging our estimates into the economics model gave rise to the large costs that we reported.

The above argument leads to the non-intuitive conclusion that the fracture research with the greatest economic benefit would be in the area of materials production (especially welding). Our report soft-pedaled this point, since the sponsors had a vested interest in justifying additional funding for fracture mechanics research.

When I made my point about the importance of production research, at technical meetings, I was attacked by researchers with the same motivation  — they cited all sorts of unsolved analytical problems and promising experimental approaches. My reply that success in their approaches would at best lead to a tiny reduction in safety factors only poured oil on the fire.”

Fracking Can Cause Earthquakes (Rev. 7 Jan 2012)

Scientists have coined the term 'induced seismicity' to describe earthquakes caused by human activity. Several examples of earthquakes in the past caused by oil and gas drilling have been documented. These earthquakes can be triggered when water under pressure encounters a fault (i.e., a crack in the subsurface rock, which can be very small or up to miles in extent)*

The fracking process produces tiny earthquakes as a side effect of the cracking to release the gas. and oil trapped in the rock. But they are detectable only by sensitive instruments. The question is whether the current technology being used in Ohio can trigger earthquakes large enough to be felt by humans. In order to avoid the possibility of earthquakes, the driller has to be sure that his shaft does not encounter a fault. Unfortunately, the the number, size, and location of all faults in Ohio is unknown.

In the first half of 2011, people living in both England and Oklahoma felt tremors. In both places expert analysis has suggested that they were caused by fracking. The second half of 2011 has seen major earthquakes centered in both Virginia and Oklahoma. Activists have claimed that these bigger earthquakes are also caused by fracking, but a good case has not yet been made.

There is also evidence of earthquakes at, or near, fracking-waste-water injection well sites (storage pits). Good evidence for such earthquakes was found near injection wells in Arkansas; there were multiple small earthquakes, whose numbers and intensity greatly diminished when injecting liquid into the wells was stopped. Other suspect earthquakes have recently occurred in Texas and West Virginia, as well as in Ohio (Youngstown and Marietta).

It is not only fracking waste that can cause earthquakes – any liquid will do. In an on-line comment on a 31 December, 2011 article in the Columbus Dispatch, Jeff Cox wrote:

“The increase of fluid pressure from the injection of liquids wastes in northeast Ohio and near Lake Erie by the Stauffer Chemical Company into a nearly 6,000 feet deep sandstone formation was implicated by Ohio University researchers to have triggered a 5.0 magnitude earthquake and two aftershocks on January 31, 1986 … Two and possibly three prior earthquakes in that area during 1983 are thought by researchers to have likely also been caused by the same deep well injection site. ... The Ohio Geological Survey and other geologists determined that a sequence of earthquakes of magnitudes ranging from 2.6 to 4.3 that shook downtown Ashtabula, Ohio from 1987 to 2003 were caused by a nearby deep well site injecting hazardous waste fluids near two faults into a 5,900 feet deep basal sandstone formation. The researchers state, “like many faults that rupture in … stable subcontinental region earthquakes, the faults were previously unknown…”

Youngstown suffered eleven earthquakes in 2011. After the magnitude 4.0 quake on New Year's Eve, the State finally stepped in and ordered a five-mile exclusion zone around the guilty injection well and verified that a previously unknown fault the cause. Subsequently the owner of the well agreed to empty it.

Some have argued that there are very many injection wells that do not cause earthquakes. This is true. It is only the unlucky driller who encounters a fault and triggers an earthquake. At a minimum, Ohio should forbid deep drilling at locations near critical infrastructure (bridges, dams, pipelines, etc.) and in areas of high population density.

The West Virginia State Geologist, faced with a Youngstown-type situation, has called for a mapping of faults. This is good advice for Ohio, since we don't know where all of the faults in the State are located.

ADDED COMMENTS

9 Jan 2012:Article in Columbus Dispatch: State to buy seismomiter (sp ?)

10 Jan, 2012: Letter to the Columbus Dispatch from API executive "The overwhelming majority of hydraulic-fracturing operations take place without any reported seismic activity"   meaning that they concede that fracking can cause earthquakes.

11 Jan 2012: CAVEATS: 


1. Solving the earthquake problem does not mean that I am giving deep drilling a green light. The very serious pollution-generation and explosion-potential problems remain.


2. By far the greatest sources of energy waste and greenhouse-gas generation are electric power plants and motor vehicles. The technology exists to replace coal and gasoline with natural gas. The industry has an obligation to produce the gas with the greatest regard to publichealth and safety.

14 Jan 2012: Found reports of induction-well-caused earthquakes in local papers from NY  ("Fracking Sparks Eartquake Concerns ", democratandchronicle.com, 16 N ov. 2011) & SC

15 Jan 2012: Report found from Reuters that sensing out faults will cost $5 million per well. But I believe that the Governemnt is doing a nation-wide survey which is due in Ohio in two years.

FURTHER READING

* All references are on-line and available by Googling the title, except that of Jeff Cox, which is reproduced in full in the text.

Fracking and Earthquakes

Anon “Can Fracking Cause Earthquakes?” The Week 14 November 2011

Corbyn, Zoe “Model Predicts Size of Fracking Earthquakes” Nature 09 Dec. 2011

Daley, John C. K. “US Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes and Hydraulic Fracturing” Energy Daily, 15 Nov. 2011

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) “What is Induced Seismicity ?” (undated report on LBL web site; heavy going, but worth it)

Ohio Geology

Michael C. Hansen “Earthquakes and Risk in Ohio” Geofacts No. 3, ODNR, April 2007

Spencer Hunt “Tracking Tremors” Columbus Dispatch, 15 Nov. 2011

ODNR Division of Geological Survey – Ohio Seismic Network “Ohio Earthquakes of 2.0 or Greater Magnitude. 2010 to the Present” (web site)

Earthquakes Attributed to Fracking

Austin Holland “Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma” Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF1-2011, August 2011 (Magnitude 2.8, 18 Jab 2011)

Brian Swint “Fracking probably caused small Blackpool earthquakes in U.K.: Report” Bloomberg News, 2 November, 2011 (Magnitude 2.3, 1 April 2011 and Magnitude 1.5, 27 May 2011)

Earthquakes Attributed to Injection Wells

Arkansas, 2010-11 (Highly Probable)

Arkansas Geological Survey “Earthquakes” (web site with catalog of earthquakes up to date)

Sarah Eddington “Arkansas Earthquakes Decline After Injection Well Closes” Insurance Journal, 16 Mar 2011

UPI.com “Clues Sought in Arkansas Earthquake Swarm”

Northeast Ohio, 1986-2003 (Probable)

Jeff Cox "Comment" Columbus Dispatch (on-line version, found just below Sanner article cited below)

Jeff Hecht “ Waste burial blamed for earthquakes” New Scientist, 1 Sep 1988

C. Nicholson, et al. “the northeastern Ohio earthquake of 31 january 1986: Was induced?” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Feb 1988, page 188

Leonardo Seeber, et al. “A Fluid-Injection-Triggered Earthquake Sequence in Ashtabula , Ohio: Implication for Seismogenesis in Stable Continental Regions” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Feb 2004, page 76

Marietta Ohio, 2011 (Probable)

Anon. “Quake shakes region again” Parkersburg News and Sentinel 1 Sep 2011

Younstown OH, 2011 (Highly Probable)

Karl Henkel “Is new well source of quakes ?”, Youngstown Vindicator, 5 Nov 2011

Spencer Hunt “State plans to relieve pressure in brine well to quell quakes” Columbus Dispatch, 5 Jan 2012

Ann Sanner (AP) “Disposal of brine into well halted” Columbus Dispatch, 31 Dec 2011

Thomas J. Sherran (AP) “Brine well caused quakes, expert says” Columbus Dispatch, 3 Jan 2012

Joe Vardon “State links quakes to work on wells” Columbus Dispatch, 1 Jan 2012

Dallas-Fort Worth Airport TX, 2008-9 (Probable)

Cliff Froelich, et al. “The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Feb 2011, page 76

West Virginia, 2010 (Highly Probable)

Pam Kasey “Geologist: Site Injection Wells away from critical infrastructure” The State Journal 5 Jan 2012


DEP Officials See Possible Link between Fracking Disposal, Earthquakes", dailymail.com, 12 Jan 2012

Recent Large Earthquakes (Probably Unconnected to Fracking)

USGS Earthquakes Hazards Program

Virginia, 23 Aug 2011, magnitude 5.8

Oklahoma, 6 Nov 2011, Magnitude 5.6