Shale Gas/Fracking

[Tangled up in Blue]

"safest" does not mean safe. People die flying but it is still legal.

what is your threshold for fracking to be considered "safe?"

That it does no short-term or long-lasting harm to the enviroment.

(Incidentally,I see that the Spanish Socialist Party (POSE) have just decided to impose a ban on fracking, if they win the forthcoming Spanish g/e in December).

 

[londonblue]

How can it be that the recent vote on fracking which is so serious to most members of the public can be passed when only about half of the MP's bothered to vote.. Surely something as important as this, all MP's should of been MADE to vote..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31012672

Surely if people were that upset, they'd find out if their MP was in attendance, and have a go at him/her if he/she wasn't.

If not, then you know that maybe people don't consider it as important as perhaps you think they should.

 

[Bielzibubz]

That it does no short-term or long-lasting harm to the environment.

So, by that logic you'd ban coal mining yes? In certain areas that has had a detrimental effect on the environment.

By that logic you'd ban nuclear power yes? That's had HUGE environmental effects in certain parts of the globe and is by it's nature inherently dangerous.

By that logic you'd ban the research into nuclear fusion yes? The deforestation of a part of France to make way for their part government funded research facility is well documented.

Everything we do, from wind generated to nuclear power has an environmental effect.

We could argue this point until the cows come home but the plain and simple truth is that as an island with limited space and despite the windy coastline in a single generation from about now unless we find an abundant source of power that we don't have to import or pay other nations for we are screwed. Fracking will happen whether you or I like it or not.

Whether or not it has an impact on lives and the environment is, at the end of the day, purely academic.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So, by that logic you'd ban coal mining yes? In certain areas that has had a detrimental effect on the environment.

By that logic you'd ban nuclear power yes? That's had HUGE environmental effects in certain parts of the globe and is by it's nature inherently dangerous.

Right on both counts.(Though I recognise there's probably a need for clean nuclear power, until alternative forms of cheap, renewable energy supplies can be developed.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

and the environmental damage from mining copper and iron and making steel for the wind farms. Best we all go back to caves and eat berries.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

and the environmental damage from mining copper and iron and making steel for the wind farms. Best we all go back to caves and eat berries.

If there's ever a nuclear war, you just might get your wish.:smiles:

 

[Bielzibubz]

Backed into a corner so make a joke as a reply. Typical.

So what's your alternative to the inevitable predicament this country will find itself in in about 40 years? Bearing in mind the following.....

1. Wind farms, both inshore and off, not viable to produce the amount required.

2. Wave power, see above.

3. Fusion - at least 70 years away from anything sustainable

4. Solar - See 1 & 2 above.

5. Wind, wave and solar combined - See 1

And why not put a coherent reply together to the point made by CYS?

 

[Bielzibubz]

Right on both counts.(Though I recognise there's probably a need for clean nuclear power, until alternative forms of cheap, renewable energy supplies can be developed.

So you'd ban it even though there is a need for it and no alternatives that don't cause environmental damage to one extent or another?

You can't have it both ways comrade.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Surely it's the extent of the enviromental & human damage that we have to take into consideration when looking at this? Is fracking dangerous? I have no idea, and it always worries me when so called tree-huggers and rich celebs nail their support to the tree - we need balanced scientific evidence (if that's even possible).

I still state we should be spending billions on developing a new range of nuclear power stations rather than vanity projects like HS2.

 

[londonblue]

Surely it's the extent of the enviromental & human damage that we have to take into consideration when looking at this? Is fracking dangerous? I have no idea, and it always worries me when so called tree-huggers and rich celebs nail their support to the tree - we need balanced scientific evidence (if that's even possible).

I still state we should be spending billions on developing a new range of nuclear power stations rather than vanity projects like HS2.

Indeed. The problem, though, is that you can't get proper scientific evidence without actually experimenting...

 

[londonblue]

Backed into a corner so make a joke as a reply. Typical.

So what's your alternative to the inevitable predicament this country will find itself in in about 40 years? Bearing in mind the following.....

1. Wind farms, both inshore and off, not viable to produce the amount required.

2. Wave power, see above.

3. Fusion - at least 70 years away from anything sustainable

4. Solar - See 1 & 2 above.

5. Wind, wave and solar combined - See 1

And why not put a coherent reply together to the point made by CYS?

Wind farms, wave power, and solar power individually can't produce the amount of power we need. However, together may be a different story. I doubt that combined they would be able to produce all the power we need, but I bet they would go a long way towards it.

However, there is also the issue of where would you site these things? I personally think wind turbines look fantastic, but I accept other people think they're ugly and don't want them any where near them.

It's certainly not an easy one to deal with...and it would seem offshore is the best bet, but even those have had people complaining about them...although the only one I can think of off hand was Donald Trump complaining about the one near his golf resort in Scotland, so maybe it isn't so bad.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So you'd ban it even though there is a need for it and no alternatives that don't cause environmental damage to one extent or another?

You can't have it both ways comrade.

Why not? You seem to want it both ways when discussing the Spanish economy.

I'm not so sure I would ban nuclear power ,in fact.I see it as a temporally necessary (but potentially dangerous) evil.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Why not? You seem to want it both ways when discussing the Spanish economy.

I'm not so sure I would ban nuclear power ,in fact.I see it as a temporally necessary (but potentially dangerous) evil.

Evil?

There are currently 435 operable civil nuclear power nuclear reactors around the world, with a further 71 under construction. (This under construction total includes recent changes including Tianwan 4, Yangjiang 5, Yangjiang 6, Shin-Hanul 2, Barakah 2, Ostrovets 1, V.C. Summer 2&3 and Vogtle 3).

Fukishima only went tits up due to a Tsunami.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Evil?

There are currently 435 operable civil nuclear power nuclear reactors around the world, with a further 71 under construction. (This under construction total includes recent changes including Tianwan 4, Yangjiang 5, Yangjiang 6, Shin-Hanul 2, Barakah 2, Ostrovets 1, V.C. Summer 2&3 and Vogtle 3).

Fukishima only went tits up due to a Tsunami.

Good luck with this argument.

 

[Lancashire shrimper]

I'm all for it on the basis that the environmental risks are confined to the North and the profits will probably be shared mostly in the South. Uproariously good news.

If they let the Frackers loose in Lancashire, no part of the country will be safe. Least of all any coastal area where they need to get rid of all the contaminated water they use so it could be very much on your doorstep too.

The amount needed to sustain a years worth of gas for the country is 150 billion cubic feet, the amount 'possibly' available in the UK is 100 billion cubic feet (source: British Geological Survey’s estimate 2009). The Fifth Report from the (UK) Energy and Climate Change Committee says, “…shale gas resources in the UK could be considerable. However, while they could be sufficient to help the UK increase its security of supply, it is unlikely shale gas will be a ‘game changer’ in the UK to the same extent as it has been in the US.”

An area equivalent to the size of Wales would be needed to extract it. Southend to Blackpool may be 280 miles away but Essex won't escape it's clutches. Before you know it, they'll be test drilling anywhere they can find a field.

Is it really viable, and if so who will benefit? Certainly not the consumer. Financially, the energy companies used the oil price as a reason to justify putting up prices, now it's value halved, but not been passed on in the same way. Environmentally, the water used in fracking is saturated with chemicals. In America, the gas companies, supported by the Bush-Cheyney regime, claimed commercial confidentiality in the ingredients used to make the cocktail of toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid and did not have to disclose them. This makes it almost impossible to test for the substances. If toxic and harmful chemicals are found, it is difficult to prove that they came from the fracking fluid, despite this being the obvious conclusion.

Up here, Fracking is an emotive subject, a permanent fixture on the local TV and radio new programs, and for those living on the Fylde coast it's the only news. There are a lot of very worried people here, and in my opinion rightly so.