04-02-2016, 12:47 PM
31
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
2014http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25902272
Fracking produces large volumes of water contaminated with low level naturally-occurring radiation.
The Environment Agency (EA) said it would not grant a radioactive substances permit until it was sure the water will be disposed of safely.
When Cuadrilla Resources fracked at Preese Hall, Weeton the agency found levels of radium 90 times higher than naturally occurs in drinking water.
Previous regulations classed the waste water as industrial effluent and Cuadrilla was legally authorised to discharge two million gallons into the Manchester Ship Canal after being processed at the Davyhulme treatment works in Trafford.
Flowback water is now classed as radioactive waste.
04-02-2016, 01:04 PM
32
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
Originally Posted by moreover
->
Sunlight can power the world. Burning carbon is killing it.
04-02-2016, 04:59 PM
34
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
Why does everybody seem to think that fracking will be a financial panacea for the UK economy?There are many countries that have sizeable shale reserves apart from us and who pay their work-force considerably less than we pay ours, thus making our shale considerably more expensive to extract. A good example of this comparison is Chinese steel versus British steel in terms of production costs and profit margin; just look at what's happening to British steel right now !
Let us suppose we go into full scale fracking. What then? Contaminated drinking water with high levels of 'background' radiation (up to 90 times natural level) , fracking-related earthquakes/earth tremors, possible subsidence issues similar to coal mining, not to mention the extra burden on the NHS due to fracking-related illness.
Not many people seem to realise that the earth is like a giant sponge; all the world's oceans and seas total approximately 35% of the total water mass of this planet, as the rest of the water is held in suspension in the earth's crust, and is subject to osmotic and hydraulic force, the same as any other liquid body. Bearing in mind these two forces, can anybody guarantee that the highly contaminated 'fracking water' with it's chemical admixture won't contaminate ground-water or the water table itself, thus entering the drinking water chain which we all depend upon.
I can't believe that anybody could be so naive as to blindly trust industrialists/politicians and their hollow assurances that this process is safe for us and the environment ! How can it be ? This 'science' is still in it's infancy and safeguards have yet to be developed to ensure zero contamination of our drinking water and environment. Once we have begun wholesale fracking, we will have crossed a rubicon in so much as we will have to live with the consequences of this dirty science henceforward, and all of it's unwanted ramifications. We simply do not have the land room to abandon an area devastated by fracking (as they do in America, Australia, Africa or any other large continent or land mass) .
As regards nuclear power, I'm not keen on it either (I much prefer 'green' renewable sources of energy ), but at least radioactive leaks are comparatively rare, and the power obtained from these power plants is reliable and plentiful; acceptable risk versus reward so far, though this may now be doubtful in the light of current terrorist threats.
We have approximately 11,000 miles of coastline, much of which would be suitable for offshore generation of electricity by wind/wave/solar/tidal means, an infinite, renewable and sympathetic source. Surely we should be investing in this alternative power rather than 'licking out the last dregs from the fossil fuel bowl' !!
04-02-2016, 05:03 PM
35
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
Originally Posted by GillyT
->
Why does everybody seem to think that fracking will be a financial panacea for the UK economy?There are many countries that have sizeable shale reserves apart from us and who pay their work-force considerably less than we pay ours, thus making our shale considerably more expensive to extract. A good example of this comparison is Chinese steel versus British steel in terms of production costs and profit margin; just look at what's happening to British steel right now !
Let us suppose we go into full scale fracking. What then? Contaminated drinking water with high levels of 'background' radiation (up to 90 times natural level) , fracking-related earthquakes/earth tremors, possible subsidence issues similar to coal mining, not to mention the extra burden on the NHS due to fracking-related illness.
Not many people seem to realise that the earth is like a giant sponge; all the world's oceans and seas total approximately 35% of the total water mass of this planet, as the rest of the water is held in suspension in the earth's crust, and is subject to osmotic and hydraulic force, the same as any other liquid body. Bearing in mind these two forces, can anybody guarantee that the highly contaminated 'fracking water' with it's chemical admixture won't contaminate ground-water or the water table itself, thus entering the drinking water chain which we all depend upon.
I can't believe that anybody could be so naive as to blindly trust industrialists/politicians and their hollow assurances that this process is safe for us and the environment ! How can it be ? This 'science' is still in it's infancy and safeguards have yet to be developed to ensure zero contamination of our drinking water and environment. Once we have begun wholesale fracking, we will have crossed a rubicon in so much as we will have to live with the consequences of this dirty science henceforward, and all of it's unwanted ramifications. We simply do not have the land room to abandon an area devastated by fracking (as they do in America, Australia, Africa or any other large continent or land mass) .
As regards nuclear power, I'm not keen on it either (I much prefer 'green' renewable sources of energy ), but at least radioactive leaks are comparatively rare, and the power obtained from these power plants is reliable and plentiful; acceptable risk versus reward so far, though this may now be doubtful in the light of current terrorist threats.
We have approximately 11,000 miles of coastline, much of which would be suitable for offshore generation of electricity by wind/wave/solar/tidal means, an infinite, renewable and sympathetic source. Surely we should be investing in this alternative power rather than 'licking out the last dregs from the fossil fuel bowl' !!
Well said Gilly darlin'!!!
04-02-2016, 06:51 PM
37
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
Originally Posted by Patsy
->
Contaminated water for one - saw a docu on fracking based in America - it was not pleasant viewing
04-02-2016, 09:24 PM
39
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
I do worry about their naivety, and I'm hoping that most of the UK residents are against this fairly new and untried (in this country) process.
I know that they have been misled by the powerful words of big business, and we are aware that these big companies are just after making a profit to line their own pockets and don't care about the damage or the danger to people and animals. It really is so very sad.
By the way, have you noticed how they never identify the chemicals used with the water to force out this shale gas. I wonder why that is. What are they frightened of ? How toxic are these chemicals ?
04-02-2016, 09:54 PM
40
Re: FRACKING - UK Govt trying to push it through!
Like the other 'naive' members on here(!), I am in favour of fracking.I am also in favour of re-opening our mothballed coal mines.
Along with what's left of North Sea oil, they could provide for our need for fuels, or at least make a big dent in our reliance on foreign imports which, to be honest, in an unstable world, we cannot rely on.
I believe we should invest far more heavily in nuclear fission for our electricity requirements. Yes, there will be more nuclear waste, but we are still world leaders in safe reprocessing and disposal of waste. Big steps are being made in the development of fusion and this would be an ideal answer.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 'renewable' forms of energy are never going to be sufficient. Perhaps the best is hydro-electricity, but suitable sites are few. Tidal energy is the same.
Solar power is really a non-starter in this part of the world for large scale energy production. It may be feasible in hot countries but, apart from some small scale domestic savings, I don't think it can ever meet our energy needs.
Wind power is a bit of a joke and, I'm convinced, has come about for two reasons: to produce financial benefits for MP's mates landowners; and to placate the eco-warriors. I'm led to believe that the cost of installation and maintenance outweighs the value of any electricity produced, and it only works when the wind speed is just right: too slow and not enough energy; too fast and the blades have to be feathered in order that they don't self-destruct.
Of course, we could continue to pay the French for their electricity, which is largely produced by nuclear fission. We could continue to rely on the Middle East for oil. We could continue to hope that Putin won't cut off our supply of gas.
Perhaps we should just continue as we are and just hope for the best!
|
|
