News1 min ago
Fracking
Why is it that fracking is up and running in the USA, providing the country with cheap energy yet here we have to put with the environmental idiots usual objections to anything that may solve our looming energy crisis. They dont want nuclear or fracking or fossil fueled power stations. Why cant we just finally ignore these deranged idiots and just get on with it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Germany decided to shut down its nuclear programme in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, despite the risks of a similar incident happening in Germany being approximately zero.
Granted Chernobyl was pretty bad, but then it wasn't really the technology itself, but the people in charge, who were at fault. It's a case of media coverage. There is little evidence that Nuclear fission overall is any more dangerous to the planet than Coal/ gas power, but when Nuclear power goes wrong it gets that much more attention.
One estimate suggests that the number of "excess deaths" from Coal power is about 4,000 times that of Nuclear Power, when averaged across the world and taking into account the fact that coal is more commonly used (the measure given is "deaths per terawatt-hour"). This number is somewhat inflated because of China, but even taking China away coal is significantly more dangerous - but this gets little or no coverage.
http://
Granted Chernobyl was pretty bad, but then it wasn't really the technology itself, but the people in charge, who were at fault. It's a case of media coverage. There is little evidence that Nuclear fission overall is any more dangerous to the planet than Coal/ gas power, but when Nuclear power goes wrong it gets that much more attention.
One estimate suggests that the number of "excess deaths" from Coal power is about 4,000 times that of Nuclear Power, when averaged across the world and taking into account the fact that coal is more commonly used (the measure given is "deaths per terawatt-hour"). This number is somewhat inflated because of China, but even taking China away coal is significantly more dangerous - but this gets little or no coverage.
http://
@ Jim re Germany thanks for the clarification.
I have seen this comparison death thing before. Not disagreeing with it, but the effect of a catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant - and the graphic reminders we have with Chernobyl and Fukashima will far outweigh public perception of risk compared to deaths through air pollution or mining disaster, and for good reason.
And I do not disagree with you regarding poor management, poor risk assessment and poor design being behind the problems at both places - but that does not lessen the impact of whole communities being uprooted and regions of countryside being cordoned off for generations.....
The public have every right to be cautious - but, given our energy requirements, I would agree it is the least worst option..
I have seen this comparison death thing before. Not disagreeing with it, but the effect of a catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant - and the graphic reminders we have with Chernobyl and Fukashima will far outweigh public perception of risk compared to deaths through air pollution or mining disaster, and for good reason.
And I do not disagree with you regarding poor management, poor risk assessment and poor design being behind the problems at both places - but that does not lessen the impact of whole communities being uprooted and regions of countryside being cordoned off for generations.....
The public have every right to be cautious - but, given our energy requirements, I would agree it is the least worst option..
In America, anything can happen.
Even things like Fracking companies driving up the water prices...
http://
Note: I am still Googling to find the page I where I originally read about this situation. This isn't the one and I haven't read the above linked article in full, yet but it will do for now.
Anyway, the gist was that it's a thirsty process and a lot of what's pumped down the hole, to displace the gas, never returns to the surface. I am talking permanent loss of potable water supplies.
There is such a thing as clumsily executed fracking, where the strata split all the way out to the edges of the shale deposit and into surrounding rock layers, which is how the chemical mix is able to percolate out and contaminate nearby aquifers.
If your shale deposit is in America and happens to be a hundred miles across, then it's probably safe. If it's in Britain and the deposit is only 10 miles across then... I think some testing would be wise before we go into this wholesale.
Even things like Fracking companies driving up the water prices...
http://
Note: I am still Googling to find the page I where I originally read about this situation. This isn't the one and I haven't read the above linked article in full, yet but it will do for now.
Anyway, the gist was that it's a thirsty process and a lot of what's pumped down the hole, to displace the gas, never returns to the surface. I am talking permanent loss of potable water supplies.
There is such a thing as clumsily executed fracking, where the strata split all the way out to the edges of the shale deposit and into surrounding rock layers, which is how the chemical mix is able to percolate out and contaminate nearby aquifers.
If your shale deposit is in America and happens to be a hundred miles across, then it's probably safe. If it's in Britain and the deposit is only 10 miles across then... I think some testing would be wise before we go into this wholesale.
@ Jim Unrelated and re use of ellipsis - Not actually thought about my use of it, until you mentioned it :)
Often I type and answer more or less as I would speak it, so I suppose a kind of tailing off into abstract thought, trying to convey the concept that my last word is not the last word on the subject and that there might be more to come would explain best my use of the device at the end of the sentence...
:)
Often I type and answer more or less as I would speak it, so I suppose a kind of tailing off into abstract thought, trying to convey the concept that my last word is not the last word on the subject and that there might be more to come would explain best my use of the device at the end of the sentence...
:)
dave50, you'd be ok with this on your doorstep?
http://
Interesting Baldric. This is where it becomes so difficult. We need true and honest facts to be properly informed.
If dangerous products are exempt from disclosure because they are a trade secret then we have no chance of being part of the decision about our future energy supplies.
Which is why we need deranged idiots.
If dangerous products are exempt from disclosure because they are a trade secret then we have no chance of being part of the decision about our future energy supplies.
Which is why we need deranged idiots.
Yes, I have had a rant because these bleeding heart environmentalists annoy me. They go on about what we musn't do but never offer a REALISTIC alternative to keep the lights on, keep the wheels of industry turning thus keeping people in work. Anyway how come they have time to sit about on demos every day, don't they have a job to go to? Thought not, they should have all benefits stopped.
@gness
//The more children you have the higher your tariff perhaps? //
No. The more children you have, the higher your energy consumption is going to be, until they all grow up and leave home (currently that's age 35, isn't it?). More bedrooms to heat and light, more laundry, bathing, cooking, washing up. Families already get hit the worst for energy and water consumption, as things stand.
They're fond of telling us that we have less drinkable water per head of population in the UK than some desert nations. I'm just suggesting that we don't add to the problem.
//The more children you have the higher your tariff perhaps? //
No. The more children you have, the higher your energy consumption is going to be, until they all grow up and leave home (currently that's age 35, isn't it?). More bedrooms to heat and light, more laundry, bathing, cooking, washing up. Families already get hit the worst for energy and water consumption, as things stand.
They're fond of telling us that we have less drinkable water per head of population in the UK than some desert nations. I'm just suggesting that we don't add to the problem.
Living as I do in the intermountain west of the U.S., I see a lot of mis-information in forums such as this. It accomplishes little in exposing any truths regarding fracking (even the name is unfortunate and can only in itself reveal bias) but the fact that's being overlooked is the technology of directional drilling that does use 'fracking' as an end result to open the targeted shale bed.
Had it not been for this advance of drilling technology, fracking, in and of itself, wouldn't have contributed to the tremendous efficiency quotient increase seen here. One well drilled to a depth of perhaps 10,000 to nearly 20,000 feet cost millions of dollars to reach the productive shale. But, now, with the same single bore hole, horizontal drilling of multiple production holes from the stem end greatly increases productivity and reduces costs.
So, it's this factor, rather than fracking that has reduced our energy costs. By that I mean, had we still been relying on 70% imported oil (from unstable middle east fields) our costs would truly have skyrocketed. Now, we are actually exporters of oil and its relative, natural gas.
Fact is, it's the environmentalists that do drive costs by limiting our ability to process the gas and oil production. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. in decades. It's estimated 10 to 15 years would be required to build a new one now, given all the permits required by the government. In fact, some individual States are[i in the process of building their own refineries, which will significantly cut down on Federal involvement. These States are all in the west where the majority of shale oil is produced (with the exception of Pennsylvania).
It should be noted, production of crude oil has little if anything to do with electricity production, since most power plants consume coal (which is also in great abundance) or natural gas. But the cleanest of all, nuclear, is still [i]voreboten] due to a near accident at Three Mile Island nearly 3 or 4 decades ago.
A recent test case of ground water contamination in my home State was found to be without merit. The case took nearly three years and reams of tests to confirm.
All "ground water" is within 2,500 feet or so of the surface, whereas the 'fracked' wells are always at depths of 3 to 5 times that depth. The sealing process at the tops of the wells to below the ground water is perhaps the most closely monitored part of the well drilling.
Earthquakes? Fact is fracturing of rock formations to release oil and gas trapped therein has been used since the late 19th century. In fact fracturing was originally done with explosives and acid etching.
The evidence for earthquakes appears to be associated with oil well wastewater storage rather than shale production (Seen in this State of Texas report: http://
It is true that our population density in the western U.S. is significantly less than other places such as the U.K., but factual, proven technology shouldn't be discarded based on bias and fiction. Most hard-core environment groups truly want the U.S. to retrun to late 18th century types of living conditions (as long as it doesn't apply to them)... in my opinion...
Had it not been for this advance of drilling technology, fracking, in and of itself, wouldn't have contributed to the tremendous efficiency quotient increase seen here. One well drilled to a depth of perhaps 10,000 to nearly 20,000 feet cost millions of dollars to reach the productive shale. But, now, with the same single bore hole, horizontal drilling of multiple production holes from the stem end greatly increases productivity and reduces costs.
So, it's this factor, rather than fracking that has reduced our energy costs. By that I mean, had we still been relying on 70% imported oil (from unstable middle east fields) our costs would truly have skyrocketed. Now, we are actually exporters of oil and its relative, natural gas.
Fact is, it's the environmentalists that do drive costs by limiting our ability to process the gas and oil production. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. in decades. It's estimated 10 to 15 years would be required to build a new one now, given all the permits required by the government. In fact, some individual States are[i in the process of building their own refineries, which will significantly cut down on Federal involvement. These States are all in the west where the majority of shale oil is produced (with the exception of Pennsylvania).
It should be noted, production of crude oil has little if anything to do with electricity production, since most power plants consume coal (which is also in great abundance) or natural gas. But the cleanest of all, nuclear, is still [i]voreboten] due to a near accident at Three Mile Island nearly 3 or 4 decades ago.
A recent test case of ground water contamination in my home State was found to be without merit. The case took nearly three years and reams of tests to confirm.
All "ground water" is within 2,500 feet or so of the surface, whereas the 'fracked' wells are always at depths of 3 to 5 times that depth. The sealing process at the tops of the wells to below the ground water is perhaps the most closely monitored part of the well drilling.
Earthquakes? Fact is fracturing of rock formations to release oil and gas trapped therein has been used since the late 19th century. In fact fracturing was originally done with explosives and acid etching.
The evidence for earthquakes appears to be associated with oil well wastewater storage rather than shale production (Seen in this State of Texas report: http://
It is true that our population density in the western U.S. is significantly less than other places such as the U.K., but factual, proven technology shouldn't be discarded based on bias and fiction. Most hard-core environment groups truly want the U.S. to retrun to late 18th century types of living conditions (as long as it doesn't apply to them)... in my opinion...
@Clanad,
I think you'll find the environmentalists' major objection is that we haven't got a hope of meeting our Kyoto 2050 targets if we add a whole new raft of fossil fuel reserves to the existing rate of consumption and they want the emphasis to be on putting more effort into renewables.
America washed its hands of any obligations to reduce CO2 emissions, refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and can do what it likes.
70 million of us, 300 million of you, a billion in India, a growing middle class in China, the BRIC countries.. all of whom want a lifestyle like yours. The planet is clearly doomed.
The water table is safe? Big deal!
I think you'll find the environmentalists' major objection is that we haven't got a hope of meeting our Kyoto 2050 targets if we add a whole new raft of fossil fuel reserves to the existing rate of consumption and they want the emphasis to be on putting more effort into renewables.
America washed its hands of any obligations to reduce CO2 emissions, refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and can do what it likes.
70 million of us, 300 million of you, a billion in India, a growing middle class in China, the BRIC countries.. all of whom want a lifestyle like yours. The planet is clearly doomed.
The water table is safe? Big deal!
"The water table is safe? Big deal!" Well... (no pun intended) that's usually the first on the list of downsides of 'fracking' isn't it? But it's factually incorrect, meaning, how much else of the anti's rely on non-factual hear-say?
Additionally, I find it interesting that "...India and China, which have ratified the Kyoto protocol, are not obligated to reduce greenhouse gas production at the moment as they are developing countries; i.e. they weren't seen as the main culprits for emissions during the period of industrialization thought to be the cause for the global warming of today.
This is a little odd given that China is about to overtake the USA in emissions, but take into account the major differences in population and that much of the production in these countries is fuelled by demand from the West and influence from the West on their own culture. As a result of this loophole, the West has effectively outsourced much of its carbon emissions to China and India.
This phenomenon, whether intended or coincidental is a major hole in the Kyoto Protocol..." (Source: Carbonify.com)
I might add that the U.S. has made great strides (as has Europe and the U.K.) in using "Clean Coal" technology as well as reduction in automobile emissions, while China and India aren't even required to address those major contributors...
Additionally, I find it interesting that "...India and China, which have ratified the Kyoto protocol, are not obligated to reduce greenhouse gas production at the moment as they are developing countries; i.e. they weren't seen as the main culprits for emissions during the period of industrialization thought to be the cause for the global warming of today.
This is a little odd given that China is about to overtake the USA in emissions, but take into account the major differences in population and that much of the production in these countries is fuelled by demand from the West and influence from the West on their own culture. As a result of this loophole, the West has effectively outsourced much of its carbon emissions to China and India.
This phenomenon, whether intended or coincidental is a major hole in the Kyoto Protocol..." (Source: Carbonify.com)
I might add that the U.S. has made great strides (as has Europe and the U.K.) in using "Clean Coal" technology as well as reduction in automobile emissions, while China and India aren't even required to address those major contributors...
If a beaver constructs a dam in a river which then causes flooding then everyone thinks thats fine. If humans drill for oil which affects the environment then that's wicked. Why the difference? We are using our naturally evolved intelligence to use what the earth has to offer, just like the beaver. It's called evolution and the planet and all life evolves, adapts then eventually dies sooner or later.
Clanad //As a result of this loophole, the West has effectively outsourced much of its carbon emissions to China and India. //
Quite true. [A big chunk of] China and India's emissions are, technically, our emissions. Most of us like to conveniently forget about that and marvel at the low-low prices down at the church of Wal-martians.
Meanwhile, on the brightside, I think the message has sunk in that offshoring jobs is unpatriotic, destroys "the American way" and that it is vital to get those sub-prime types back into a factory somewhere, building, earning, generating tax revenue and generally pumping life back into the otherwise flaccid economy.
Cheap energy does away with a major stumbling block in that process, perhaps tipping the balance in favour of profitability. No shortage of rich people, gagging for something worth investing in, on their own home soil but they take fright easily if they can't make a mint without lifting more than a couple of fingers.
Overall, I'm ambivalent about it all. I don't want the planet to go into environmental meltdown but, on the other hand, we've still got to get on with day to day life - which can't be done without abundant energy supplies.
Quite true. [A big chunk of] China and India's emissions are, technically, our emissions. Most of us like to conveniently forget about that and marvel at the low-low prices down at the church of Wal-martians.
Meanwhile, on the brightside, I think the message has sunk in that offshoring jobs is unpatriotic, destroys "the American way" and that it is vital to get those sub-prime types back into a factory somewhere, building, earning, generating tax revenue and generally pumping life back into the otherwise flaccid economy.
Cheap energy does away with a major stumbling block in that process, perhaps tipping the balance in favour of profitability. No shortage of rich people, gagging for something worth investing in, on their own home soil but they take fright easily if they can't make a mint without lifting more than a couple of fingers.
Overall, I'm ambivalent about it all. I don't want the planet to go into environmental meltdown but, on the other hand, we've still got to get on with day to day life - which can't be done without abundant energy supplies.
@Hypognosis
Agree.
The re;igious fundamentalists dont care- god will save us, or we will ascend come the rapture or whatever. The rich and powerful don't care because all they really care about is lining their own pockets and can afford to shelter them and theirs against any negative effects.
No one is optimistic about being able to reduce demand, and everyone wants a better standard of living, which usually requires more energy to achieve it. A balanced mix of energy supply is what is needed, with an ever-decreasing reliance upon fossil fuels - and in the short to medium term, nuclear power has to figure more prominently than it currently does.
So we are left with some rationalisations about using increasingly marginal methods of extracting the last dregs of fossil fuels available, passing off any and all costs of adapting to renewables onto the consumer to protect profits, and hoping against hope that nuclear fusion comes along in time to save us all.
And Dave - Beavers have a comparatively small impact upon the environment, so its a facile analogy. If there were 6 billion beavers however, spread across all continents, busy beavering away at creating dams, it might be apposite. its all very well to argue that evolution and adaptation are key; the concern is that climatic and atmospheric changes are occuring so rapidly that we have insufficient time to evolve and adapt. Hopefully your rants will have staved off your own high blood pressure, but have achieved little else.
Agree.
The re;igious fundamentalists dont care- god will save us, or we will ascend come the rapture or whatever. The rich and powerful don't care because all they really care about is lining their own pockets and can afford to shelter them and theirs against any negative effects.
No one is optimistic about being able to reduce demand, and everyone wants a better standard of living, which usually requires more energy to achieve it. A balanced mix of energy supply is what is needed, with an ever-decreasing reliance upon fossil fuels - and in the short to medium term, nuclear power has to figure more prominently than it currently does.
So we are left with some rationalisations about using increasingly marginal methods of extracting the last dregs of fossil fuels available, passing off any and all costs of adapting to renewables onto the consumer to protect profits, and hoping against hope that nuclear fusion comes along in time to save us all.
And Dave - Beavers have a comparatively small impact upon the environment, so its a facile analogy. If there were 6 billion beavers however, spread across all continents, busy beavering away at creating dams, it might be apposite. its all very well to argue that evolution and adaptation are key; the concern is that climatic and atmospheric changes are occuring so rapidly that we have insufficient time to evolve and adapt. Hopefully your rants will have staved off your own high blood pressure, but have achieved little else.
@LG 6 instead of 7 (billion)? I'll assume that was a typo, for now. ;-)
http://
http://
