Give us a fracking break!
Discussion
Is the Governments decision this week to grant a tax break to firms involved in the development of shale gas extraction in the UK a good thing? Or is it a dark Tory plot to ruin the environment whilst further enriching greedy billionaires and their chums in the city?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23368505
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23368505
Oakey said:
Only 200 people protested? I wonder how many were actually residents and how many were environmentalists from further afield.... Either way, I would have expected the numbers to be somewhat greater if there were widespread objections to fracking in the North Westbloke in comment section on Vice said:
Drilling of the well is the only time at which the water table may be disturbed and, at this stage no toxic chemicals are used. Once the drill has passed steel casings are inserted to a depth of 1,000 to 3,000 feet, and the space between the casing and the drilled hole is filled with concrete to stabilize the well and prevent any leakage.
This process is repeated until the reservoir is reached, usually a distance of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. Thus the borehole is completely isolated from the water table. Typical hydraulic fracturing mixture is 95 percent water, 4.5 percent sand and 0.5 percent chemical additives.
Sounds safe enough to me.This process is repeated until the reservoir is reached, usually a distance of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. Thus the borehole is completely isolated from the water table. Typical hydraulic fracturing mixture is 95 percent water, 4.5 percent sand and 0.5 percent chemical additives.
Andy Zarse said:
I think what Labour would say is that yes they shut down some mines but they did it really nicely. Not like Thatcher. She shut them nastily. Surely everyone can see the difference?
For instance, if you're shutting mines around Tyneside wouldn't it have been nice to establish some sort of alternative industry in the area? Maybe you could persuade a Japanese car firm to build and open a factory from scratch? And employ thousands. The car workers unions would really embrace this idea, they would never oppose it... would they?
Of course Labour would never preside over the wholesale destruction of manufacturing industry in the UK, or the closure of MG Rover at Longbridge, Peugeot at Ryton, Massey Ferguson at Banner Lane to name but three of hundreds of similar examples.
Oh wait etc.
There ya go with your facts and history again Andy. Jeez man, I thought you would have learned by now that this kind of stuff is just not welcome For instance, if you're shutting mines around Tyneside wouldn't it have been nice to establish some sort of alternative industry in the area? Maybe you could persuade a Japanese car firm to build and open a factory from scratch? And employ thousands. The car workers unions would really embrace this idea, they would never oppose it... would they?
Of course Labour would never preside over the wholesale destruction of manufacturing industry in the UK, or the closure of MG Rover at Longbridge, Peugeot at Ryton, Massey Ferguson at Banner Lane to name but three of hundreds of similar examples.
Oh wait etc.
Edited by Andy Zarse on Friday 23 August 06:44
chris watton said:
I remember well listening to a news bulletin on the radio when it was announced that MG Rover was to close - an employee was heard pleading with Blair to help/intervene, but fell on deaf ears. Although I am not comfortable with state bailouts, it was very sad to listen to, and it wasn't just MG Rover, but also the hundreds of satellite companies that relied on Longbridge for their own business. It was a real shame, I remember thinking they weren't doing too bad now, as every other car on the road seemed to be an MG - inferior to other marques or not, it was just nice seeing so many British built products on the road.
I often wonder just how many that moaned about them indirectly lost their own job because of the closure....
Ahh yes. Ms Hewitt (I think) arriving at Longbridge on that evening, to close the place (a privately owned company too) whist the CEO was on a long haul flight back from China. By the time Towers got off the plane it was all over.... You might want to look a little deeper into why Labour did this. There is more politics and dirt surrounding the matter than you might think.... I often wonder just how many that moaned about them indirectly lost their own job because of the closure....
HD Adam said:
AstonZagato said:
Surprised that this hasn't made it into the thread:
Queen gives permission for fracking in gardens of Buckingham Palace
(note the date of the article).
You do realise what todays date is, don't you.Queen gives permission for fracking in gardens of Buckingham Palace
(note the date of the article).
Whoosh Parrot for Mr Zagato
Martin4x4 said:
Get the real facts about Dihydrogen monoxide it really is insidious stuff.
Erm. Are you sure thats not a spoof site? Or am I now due a visit from whoooosh parrot ops? Just get on with it!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35099259
Greenpeace with an entirely predictable response....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35099259
Greenpeace with an entirely predictable response....
hidetheelephants said:
Without some objectivity and pre- and post-drilling testing this is as misleading as the infamous flaming tap; there are plenty of places in the world where this is a natural phenomenon.
Indeedhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/24...
Mr Whippy said:
Solar lost out to fracking primarily because of floor space being used up.
If you put them onto building roofs then the biggest negative for solar in that diagram disappeared.
In part, but only part. In this country solar power lost out because, well, it's not very good here. Darkness, snow, heavy rain etc all affect panel performance. If you put them onto building roofs then the biggest negative for solar in that diagram disappeared.
It's OK for heating a finite amount water ( a bit like turning your immersion heater on before taking a bath) but for providing usable energy to drive other household and industrial requirements 24/7 it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Part of the issue is how to store excess energy, particularly energy generated from renewable sources. At present we can't do it very well - aside from simple schemes such as pumping some water up a mountain or such like to let it fall back down we need power and the renewable source is offline -
Battery technology is not there yet, and despite many promises it looks like it won't be there for a while to come.
One interesting proposition is to take excess renewable energy and use it to convert something into a storable fuel. I am aware of at least one project that involves taking CO2 and converting it to CH4 using excess renewable energy to facilitate the process.
Sorry, I should have made it clearer, the UK does not show an excess of renewables EVER! 
This is not the case of other parts of the world though.
I can't give you a link to the CO2 to fuel projects though, for some fairly bvious reasons, but I can tell you that I know of two for sure, and I am told of a couple of others. Of those that I know about one works, but only on a very small scale at the moment. The other one,which I know quite alot about, has been proven to work on a much larger scale, but there are technical issues surrounding harvesting the fuel produced. These issues can be overcome.
The processes both still consume more energy than they produce ( obviously!) but the efficiencies measured in the second process to date have been high enough to potentially make it more than viable.
Sorry to be so cryptic, but I am sure you understand the need for this.
This is not the case of other parts of the world though.I can't give you a link to the CO2 to fuel projects though, for some fairly bvious reasons, but I can tell you that I know of two for sure, and I am told of a couple of others. Of those that I know about one works, but only on a very small scale at the moment. The other one,which I know quite alot about, has been proven to work on a much larger scale, but there are technical issues surrounding harvesting the fuel produced. These issues can be overcome.
The processes both still consume more energy than they produce ( obviously!) but the efficiencies measured in the second process to date have been high enough to potentially make it more than viable.
Sorry to be so cryptic, but I am sure you understand the need for this.
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 25th May 22:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff