You certainly can not say you care about the planet if you support fracking, because there is no way fracking is good for the planet, even if you could prove it isn't harmful,
At best it uses up a finite resource we are better to leave till necessary.
At worst it does cause earthquakes and water table polution.
I do wonder why people who support fracking think they are on the side of right.
well because it doesn't cause earth quakes or water table pollution. the water table is at least 2km above the shale layer. that's 2km of rock.
and it's a source of cheap energy that my gran can use to keep warm in winter without worrying whether my putin will turn it off.
i don't know when we'd be saving it for. And yes if they can create a nuclear bomb in 5 years, then it should be reasonable to expect the same effort put into renewables in 10 times that amount of time.
well because it doesn't cause earth quakes or water table pollution. the water table is at least 2km above the shale layer. that's 2km of rock.
and it's a source of cheap energy that my gran can use to keep warm in winter without worrying whether my putin will turn it off.
i don't know when we'd be saving it for. And yes if they can create a nuclear bomb in 5 years, then it should be reasonable to expect the same effort put into renewables in 10 times that amount of time.
give it another 50 years and we'll be laughing.
So pollution can't get into the water table?
Does the drilling not go through the water table if it is above the shale layer?
Sounds like denial to me.
Renewable energy would be a lot cheaper if the effort was put into it, but that is why the effort is not being put into it, no profit in it for the oil companies.
Short term gain for long term pain seems to be your mantra.
well because it doesn't cause earth quakes or water table pollution. the water table is at least 2km above the shale layer. that's 2km of rock.
.
Sorry to butt in but you are entirely wrong about it polluting the water table and I would add 'potentially' as I have entered arguments with you before and I know you will pick me up on the one point I may not have clarified.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking. In addition it has been shown that there is the potential to cause tremors.
You may want to check your facts before making statements.
Sorry to butt in but you are entirely wrong about it polluting the water table and I would add 'potentially' as I have entered arguments with you before and I know you will pick me up on the one point I may not have clarified.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking. In addition it has been shown that there is the potential to cause tremors.
You may want to check your facts before making statements.
According to Flagpole that was happening before fracking started.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking.
Are people still using this totally discredited "fact" when building an argument against fracking? Even if you knew if were discredited would it change your opinion?
Sorry to butt in but you are entirely wrong about it polluting the water table and I would add 'potentially' as I have entered arguments with you before and I know you will pick me up on the one point I may not have clarified.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking. In addition it has been shown that there is the potential to cause tremors.
You may want to check your facts before making statements.
Oh it has happened in the US yes. no denying that. doesn't mean that it will happen here though does it.
I could write for hours about the miss information of earth quakes and methane in the water. bullet points though
-in the US many of the people that reported methane in the water after fracking turned out to have methane in the water before fracking too.
-it only affected people who draw their own water from a ground well. very different from mains water that we use.
-the US was very much at the forefront of fracking, we understand it a lot better now. and we know how to shield the well pipe.
-the fracking associated earthquakes were of a size smaller than the ones we get more than once a year anyway.
-coal mining, with which people are familiar causes a lot more earthquakes than fracking
I don't know 1) why you would start a conversation with me by being so petulant and rude 2) you would try to ensure against pedantry without actually checking the substance of your post.
You know the last report I read on the dangers of fracking, the biggest risk they found was diesel spills from lorries at the well head.
I don't know 1) why you would start a conversation with me by being so petulant and rude 2) you would try to ensure against pedantry without actually checking the substance of your post.
You know the last report I read on the dangers of fracking, the biggest risk they found was diesel spills from lorries at the well head.
Petulant and rude???? 'twas certainly not meant that way. However I do stick to my comment about pointless criticisms of my posts. Cheer up old bean, I'm usually the miserable one around here.
The point about how much it costs the taxpayer to police a peaceful protest is fundamentally wrong because the authorities ultimately make the decision on where to spend the money. The protesters likely do not want a police presence so they cannot be blamed if the government decides to use taxpayer money to police it. The government are also trying to smear Assange by treating him like he is the reason for the constant police guard at the embassy. Assange didn't give the order for police to be there , that was the government so it is their fault. They cannot spend taxpayer money harassing a whistleblower who exposed some uncomfortable home truths and then accuse the whistleblower of wasting the money. Blame for wasting taxpayer money needs to be directed at the people who spend it and that is the government.
I could write for hours about the miss information of earth quakes and methane in the water. bullet points though
-in the US many of the people that reported methane in the water after fracking turned out to have methane in the water before fracking too.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking. In addition it has been shown that there is the potential to cause tremors.
You may want to check your facts before making statements.
You certainly can not say you care about the planet if you support fracking, because there is no way fracking is good for the planet, even if you could prove it isn't harmful, which you can not.
How do you feel about coal mining? That's one of the most polluting industries the world has ever known. Closing down the vast majority of coal mines did more to improve the environment in this country than anything else in the last 50 years.
How do you feel about coal mining? That's one of the most polluting industries the world has ever known. Closing down the vast majority of coal mines did more to improve the environment in this country than anything else in the last 50 years.
I suggest you read up on carbon capture. Coal may yet be an energy of the future and Britain is leading the way.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking. In addition it has been shown that there is the potential to cause tremors.
You may want to check your facts before making statements.
Oh dear. Another useful idiot who's watched, or been told by someone who watched Gasland. Like much Green stuff, it's a load of manure. But less useful. So Dimock, made famous by Gasland. The EPA's water quality surveys found no problems. But still it gets used by loons like Lucas and you to keep our energy prices high.
But then logic isn't a strong point with Greens. They're actually pro-fraccing-
“The astronomical costs of a new nuclear power programme would divert money away from the real, long-term solutions to global warming. Conservation measures are far more efficient on a monetary basis than nuclear power investment. Renewable energy sources can be exploited – wind, tides, geothermal heat and solar influx will not run out, unlike uranium.
Why are ecofreaks so keen on geothermal heat when it uses pretty much identical processes as gas fraccing? It uses hydraulic pressure to fracture rock and increase contact area. Unlike fraccing though, it needs more water (complete with chemicals) as the working fluid. It's also caused bigger quakes.
At best it uses up a finite resource we are better to leave till necessary.
At worst it does cause earthquakes and water table polution.
I do wonder why people who support fracking think they are on the side of right.
Agreed that it uses up a finite resource, but so does coal, oil and conventional gas. The advantage that it has over coal and oil is that it produces less CO2 for an equivalent amount of energy. Carbon capture reduces coal efficiency from about 35% to 25%. Under UK regulations, pollution of the water table or other environmental damage is extremely unlikely.
Oh dear. Another useful idiot who's watched, or been told by someone who watched Gasland. Like much Green stuff, it's a load of manure. But less useful. So Dimock, made famous by Gasland. The EPA's water quality surveys found no problems. But still it gets used by loons like Lucas and you to keep our energy prices high.
But then logic isn't a strong point with Greens. They're actually pro-fraccing-
“The astronomical costs of a new nuclear power programme would divert money away from the real, long-term solutions to global warming. Conservation measures are far more efficient on a monetary basis than nuclear power investment. Renewable energy sources can be exploited – wind, tides, geothermal heat and solar influx will not run out, unlike uranium.
Why are ecofreaks so keen on geothermal heat when it uses pretty much identical processes as gas fraccing? It uses hydraulic pressure to fracture rock and increase contact area. Unlike fraccing though, it needs more water (complete with chemicals) as the working fluid. It's also caused bigger quakes.
I assume you already know geothermal is a zero carbon energy source, while burning gas from fracking isn't.
I assume you already know geothermal is a zero carbon energy source, while burning gas from fracking isn't.
I assume you know there's really no such thing as 'zero carbon'. It's more about the objections to fraccing and the potential pollution risks. Both use hydraulic fracturing. One uses water to do that & then removes it to let the gas flow. The other uses water (plus chemicals) to transfer heat from the fractured rock leading to thermal stresses and bigger quakes-
Seismic activity due to Geothermal drilling has been frequently reported elsewhere in the world, as can be see from cracks in the ground that appeared in the German town of Staufen. This seems to be one of the unavoidable disadvantage of obtaining renewable energy from the ground
Plus as the water's circulated (unlike gas fraccing) there's a greater risk of water contamination. Stuff dissolves more easily in hot water after all.
Yet despite the greater risks of quakes and contamination from geothermal, Greens support it.
Comments
Yes as it was superfluous.
Not really as it added context to the post.
The way you have misquoted me makes it seem like there couldn't be any harm done, when there is most likely harm done.
Nope, just quoted what you said which implies you are opposed to it whether it does any harm or not.
if i may.
this is your basic problem with the greens.
there is no way fracking is good for the planet, even if you could prove it isn't harmful,
Which is why you misquoted me.
As I am against it as it does more harm than good.
But my quote was about those who support it, not about those who do not support it.
So please do not misquote me for your own bias.
At best it uses up a finite resource we are better to leave till necessary.
At worst it does cause earthquakes and water table polution.
I do wonder why people who support fracking think they are on the side of right.
well because it doesn't cause earth quakes or water table pollution. the water table is at least 2km above the shale layer. that's 2km of rock.
and it's a source of cheap energy that my gran can use to keep warm in winter without worrying whether my putin will turn it off.
i don't know when we'd be saving it for.
And yes if they can create a nuclear bomb in 5 years, then it should be reasonable to expect the same effort put into renewables in 10 times that amount of time.
give it another 50 years and we'll be laughing.
So pollution can't get into the water table?
Does the drilling not go through the water table if it is above the shale layer?
Sounds like denial to me.
Renewable energy would be a lot cheaper if the effort was put into it, but that is why the effort is not being put into it, no profit in it for the oil companies.
Short term gain for long term pain seems to be your mantra.
Sorry to butt in but you are entirely wrong about it polluting the water table and I would add 'potentially' as I have entered arguments with you before and I know you will pick me up on the one point I may not have clarified.
There is a Town in the US that can no longer turn on taps in their homes and - bizarrely - can ignite water from said taps due to their water supply being contaminated by fracking. In addition it has been shown that there is the potential to cause tremors.
You may want to check your facts before making statements.
According to Flagpole that was happening before fracking started.
Because your "at best" argument is a weak one and your "at worst" argument is hyperbole.
Are people still using this totally discredited "fact" when building an argument against fracking? Even if you knew if were discredited would it change your opinion?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/video-man-claiming-to-be-in-north-dakota-lights-tap-water-on-fire/
Why are you lying?
I don't know 1) why you would start a conversation with me by being so petulant and rude 2) you would try to ensure against pedantry without actually checking the substance of your post.
You know the last report I read on the dangers of fracking, the biggest risk they found was diesel spills from lorries at the well head.
Petulant and rude???? 'twas certainly not meant that way. However I do stick to my comment about pointless criticisms of my posts. Cheer up old bean, I'm usually the miserable one around here.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=72268663&postcount=119
You obviously didn't check yours.:D
How do you feel about coal mining? That's one of the most polluting industries the world has ever known. Closing down the vast majority of coal mines did more to improve the environment in this country than anything else in the last 50 years.
I suggest you read up on carbon capture. Coal may yet be an energy of the future and Britain is leading the way.
Oh dear. Another useful idiot who's watched, or been told by someone who watched Gasland. Like much Green stuff, it's a load of manure. But less useful. So Dimock, made famous by Gasland. The EPA's water quality surveys found no problems. But still it gets used by loons like Lucas and you to keep our energy prices high.
But then logic isn't a strong point with Greens. They're actually pro-fraccing-
http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/2005/10/06/major-culture-change-needed-to-%E2%80%98keep-the-lights-on%E2%80%99-say-greens/
“The astronomical costs of a new nuclear power programme would divert money away from the real, long-term solutions to global warming. Conservation measures are far more efficient on a monetary basis than nuclear power investment. Renewable energy sources can be exploited – wind, tides, geothermal heat and solar influx will not run out, unlike uranium.
Why are ecofreaks so keen on geothermal heat when it uses pretty much identical processes as gas fraccing? It uses hydraulic pressure to fracture rock and increase contact area. Unlike fraccing though, it needs more water (complete with chemicals) as the working fluid. It's also caused bigger quakes.
Agreed that it uses up a finite resource, but so does coal, oil and conventional gas. The advantage that it has over coal and oil is that it produces less CO2 for an equivalent amount of energy. Carbon capture reduces coal efficiency from about 35% to 25%. Under UK regulations, pollution of the water table or other environmental damage is extremely unlikely.
I assume you already know geothermal is a zero carbon energy source, while burning gas from fracking isn't.
I assume you know there's really no such thing as 'zero carbon'. It's more about the objections to fraccing and the potential pollution risks. Both use hydraulic fracturing. One uses water to do that & then removes it to let the gas flow. The other uses water (plus chemicals) to transfer heat from the fractured rock leading to thermal stresses and bigger quakes-
http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/29/geothermal-plans-halted-after-earthquake/
Seismic activity due to Geothermal drilling has been frequently reported elsewhere in the world, as can be see from cracks in the ground that appeared in the German town of Staufen. This seems to be one of the unavoidable disadvantage of obtaining renewable energy from the ground
Plus as the water's circulated (unlike gas fraccing) there's a greater risk of water contamination. Stuff dissolves more easily in hot water after all.
Yet despite the greater risks of quakes and contamination from geothermal, Greens support it.
Any idea why?
Roughly how many fraccing operations were carried out in the UK prior to Gasland's release?