1. What are some potential environmental impacts of this "cracker" and damages caused by the construction of such a large plant?
2. With huge companies like Shell Chemical investing in natural gas plants, do you think it is possible to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels any time soon?
3. If Shell Chemical decides to locate in Ohio, what will this mean for our economy and the future of our state?
With investments like this one made by these giant energy companies, I do not think our dependence on fossil fuels will be reduced for a very long time. They see a lot of money in it and, with brand new, untapped projects like this, the companies are setting themselves up to be the better, more convenient energy provider for years to come. It will definitely complicate the introduction of alternative energy sources into the market as it will start out as the more expensive and harder to get choice. It will not completely halt the transition however, but it will definitely prolong it and add on to the environmental effects.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that it will prolong the introduction of alternative energy and may beat up on the land in ohio even more, I think that it could be a great opportunity for an unstable economy in ohio. No doubt, as the article said, it will bring a lot of jobs to ohio and many of those will be permanent. The project is also surely going to make a huge amount of profit if indeed there is an abundance of natural gas. We may as well bring this profit to ohio so that we can reep the benefits of it.
It is clear that, as the large corporations move into Ohio and other areas, that our economic dependence on them and their products is growing and growing. In this case, yes, Shell coming in and building a massive power plant would greatly increase our area's dependence on fossil fuels when in reality we should be looking to move away from them. Building the plant here would suck the community in. People would work there and customers would buy from there, making it extremely difficult to back out of in 20 years or so if we want to. On the other hand, for the short term, it is a good idea. Plenty of revenue and jobs will be brought to the table. In the end, the people must sit down and consider both sides. Keeping the big monopolies out will not only protect the environment physically, but it will be a step towards finding alternative energy sources. For many, the greed that comes with money will be what drives these large companies.
ReplyDeleteBecause large companies like Shell want to invest in natural gas plants and continue using fossil fuels as a leading energy source, our dependence on fossil fuels will remain unchanged. I do agree that there will always be some dependency on fossil fuels even if more greener, alternative sources are the leading sources of fuel. Since the shale regions in America are known to be high in natural gas, large companies will want to invest in these areas so that they can make a profit through fossil fuels. Especially since these investments require fracking or cracking, damage to these areas will be severe. For example, if natural gas was to seep out of the pipes and run into ground water, it would be polluted and unusable. Also, these companies require hundreds of acres of land in search of natural gas deposits. This being said, I do not believe that our dependence on fossil fuels will be reduced anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAs the article says, if Shell was to choose Ohio for natural gas investments, many jobs will be available for the residents in the cracking areas. It is projected that up to 10,000 jobs will be available because large areas required to crack need many workers available at all times. Even though the economy will may be boosted by the cracking jobs from Shell, I don't like to think that Ohio's economy will be based off of natural gas cracking, or any other heavily dependent fossil fuels.