Stop fracking

[Skashion]

The Luddites are alive and well I see.

Hardly Luddite to oppose fracking.

 

[i kne albert davy]

The Luddites are alive and well I see.

You'd prefer everyone to just act like sheep (like the vast majority of the population) rather than think for themselves?

Thinking for yourself's brilliant but only if your thinking right if not its called anarchy.

 

[Damocles]

This link shows where our energy comes from
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Thanks for that site. Whenever people post these types of things I try to look at them and see if the site is some opinion blog or full of shit or something, that people post due to confirmation bias.

I looked at that site and whilst the person setting it up certainly had a bias and a point to prove, he didn't let this seep into any of his work. He cleanly grabs and processes the reports from a SOAP process (which was fun for me because I haven't seen a decent SOAP interface in ages now as the fashion has gone to REST and JSON), and he grabs this from a seemingly unbiased industry standard reporting site. Not only does he do this and let the numbers speak for themselves but also publishes the source code to his site in case people think there might be some number fiddling going on behind the scenes.

I know it's probably not impressive to anybody else but in these types of arguments you often click a link and expect a load of just unsupported or biased nonsense but this guy has done really well. It's a bit sad that I'm delighted when I saw a link and it wasn't full of shit.

There is a small caveat to this though; his information source doesn't seem to be showing what you would expect it to be showing, as far as I can tell. The site seems to be detailing the energy going into the energy markets and its associated generation details rather than the output.

From what I've read, and I stress I'm barely a beginner at this, it seems to be a poor methodology in capturing either potential or actual output. Ofgem issue certificates for the qualification of tax exemption based on output by renewable energy stations, which another site is using to break the data down in a more granular approach. The overall picture doesn't drastically change your point as non-renewable energy sources dominate by far but it's worth noting that you can view 3, 6 and 12 month averages by type here which paint a happier picture

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/</a>

I think your overall point though is somewhat self evident. Wind technology is just not there capacity wise at present and a single wind farm doesn't generate that which a coal station does. However, it will never get there without investment and non-renewable sources are by definition non-renewable. There's no argument to be had here, the switch has to come at some point and we need to start getting technology into use for it to have any sort of efficiency when needed.

I compare this somewhat to the computer. When Bill was in his 40s, a computer was the size of an office block. There was a very good case at this time that they shouldn't be built because the economic costs of putting these inefficient and constantly breaking beasts into service wasn't worth it when a qualified person could do the same job. But the crucial thing here is that without Baby and others, the iPhone couldn't exist.

We need to invest in wind for the exact same reasons that we should invest in fracking. New technologies are not things to be afraid of. Some problems in the early phases are absolutely certain to occur but it is the price that we pay for being a forward thinking, technology based civilisation. We will get better at it, it will become safer, smaller and cheaper. But it can be none of those things if we don't go through the hard part in its early phases.

 

[Pokes28]

Over here in the USA, most of the anti-fracking people are spouting things that really don't make any sense. The talk about contaminated ground water from fracking is really a very low risk due to the double and sometimes triple paned tubes used to push the secret mix of chemicals down to perform the fracking. To date there has been no confirmed contamination cases as a result of drilling/fracking. However that doesn't make it all clean and good. There are various items that I personally think needs more research and oversight. Oklahoma has had a huge number of earthquakes over the last few years. This is an area that hadn't had any of note for pretty much recorded history. The only real difference is the fracking. Maybe coincidence or maybe not. At this point, I'm not certain that we know enough to discount any possibility.

The real danger of fracking is the disposal of the chemical mix after it has been put into the ground and pumped back out. There has been several ground water contaminations that appear to come from the chemicals being dumped in the landfills.

David Harrell

 

[Joycee Banercheck]

Whenever I see 'Frak' I think of Battlestar Galactica. In fact I think about No. 6. A lot.

 

[Ducado]

I have no problem with it whatsoever, even though we had that mini earthquake here in the Fylde, we need the gas in order to liver the lifestyles we are accustomed to. Most of the protesters here on the Fylde are folk who moved out of the urban areas to the Rural Fylde (it's very peaceful) and don't want their rural idyll ruining

 

[Phil Meup]

I have no problem with it whatsoever, even though we had that mini earthquake here in the Fylde, we need the gas in order to liver the lifestyles we are accustomed to. Most of the protesters here on the Fylde are folk who moved out of the urban areas to the Rural Fylde (it's very peaceful) and don't want their rural idyll ruining

Why should anyone have their way of life ruined? Seems fair enough to protest if they don't want it.
Pointless of course: the money men will always win, regardless of any problems or dangers.

 

[bluemanc]

Over here in the USA, most of the anti-fracking people are spouting things that really don't make any sense. The talk about contaminated ground water from fracking is really a very low risk due to the double and sometimes triple paned tubes used to push the secret mix of chemicals down to perform the fracking. To date there has been no confirmed contamination cases as a result of drilling/fracking. However that doesn't make it all clean and good. There are various items that I personally think needs more research and oversight. Oklahoma has had a huge number of earthquakes over the last few years. This is an area that hadn't had any of note for pretty much recorded history. The only real difference is the fracking. Maybe coincidence or maybe not. At this point, I'm not certain that we know enough to discount any possibility.

The real danger of fracking is the disposal of the chemical mix after it has been put into the ground and pumped back out. There has been several ground water contaminations that appear to come from the chemicals being dumped in the landfills.

David Harrell

secret mix of chemicals

That kinda fucks up the transparency argument,it also fucks up any argument that anyone can make an educated argument that fracking is safe.

 

[Pokes28]

secret mix of chemicals

That kinda fucks up the transparency argument,it also fucks up any argument that anyone can make an educated argument that fracking is safe.

I never said it was transparent. However there has been a big push to get the mixes to be more public.

<a class="postlink" href="http://fracfocus.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://fracfocus.org/</a> is a site that can be used to find out a lot of information.

David Harrell

 

[DiscoSteve]

fracking and poisoned water

feels like a

convenient untruth

to me!

f*ck off back to your eco-holes FFS