What is fracking and why is it controversial?

[HempKat]

not like that is any better in any dimension ... fuck nukes.

plus it takes 10 years to build a nuke generator.

imho they want to frack specifically to fuck up the world's clean water. so that, when electricity is finally free, there is still something "they" can charge me a monthly rate to acquire.

remember when that south american country was PROHIBITED from collecting rainwater and was FORCED to buy from the corporate supplier?

I disagree, nuclear power is much better environmentally if done properly. I'm not saying that's the best choice though. That's just the best choice for keeping life like we have it now. They'd have to switch everyone over to electric vehicles which would require significantly more and cheaper electrical power then we have now. Much more then anything like solar or wind or hydro would ever be able to produce.

Now if we shifted back to a less capitalistic society and were willing to become more self sufficient, then the more natural forms of energy would be the obviously better choice.

 

[theJointedOne]

.........none a dem can stop the time......marley

 

[BudToaster]

I disagree, nuclear power is much better environmentally if done properly

This is just wrong, HempKat. Nuclear waste has a half life of 250,000 years. How can that be better environmentally? It can't be done properly with any known technology. So, rather than try to engineer a usable technology, let's just go for the end result that actually could be better, i.e. solar/wind/hydro.

and nuclear isn't even economically viable anymore. nuke plants are being shut down because they can't compete with cheap natural gas -- aka fracking.

simply put, if electric isn't free they're doing it wrong.

 

[HempKat]

This is just wrong, HempKat. Nuclear waste has a half life of 250,000 years. How can that be better environmentally? It can't be done properly with any known technology. So, rather than try to engineer a usable technology, let's just go for the end result that actually could be better, i.e. solar/wind/hydro.

and nuclear isn't even economically viable anymore. nuke plants are being shut down because they can't compete with cheap natural gas -- aka fracking.

simply put, if electric isn't free they're doing it wrong.

Nuclear waste is only an issue if not stored properly. Again I'm not saying it's the best choice environmentally just better then petroleum based energy. Nuclear energy is only a danger to the environment when it's mishandled, it's not actively damaging the environment when it's being used like petroleum based energy. Nor does one need to further damage the environment to get more nuclear energy like they have to with petroleum based energy. As I already said, nuclear would be the only workable "clean" option if we wanted to keep consuming electricity at the rate we do now.

As for the economic viability compared to fracking that goes out the window when you start discussing "clean" energy since fossil fuel energy isn't an option in the clean category. Among clean options right now since it's already in use in a big way all over the world Nuclear Energy is the most economically viable and it's the only option able to keep up with current consumption rates let alone future consumption rates. Plus as you might recall, my comment about Nuclear reactors popping up like daisies was based on the hypothetical scenario of fossil fuel sources running dry and so even if it was clean it still wouldn't be an option since it would be gone.

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

Nuclear waste is only an issue if not stored properly.

the question is how do you store something safely for 250,000 years. and so far nobody can seem to come up with an answer that everybody actually believes will work. Yucca mountain is not a real good idea in most expert's opinion and they all agree that they don't have the technology to build a container that lasts that long.

the mining and processing of the materials for fuel rods is also pretty much ignored when people talk nuclear power. it is a really dirty and unsustainable by itself

solar,wind and water are what will save our asses if the other stuff does not make this whole rock we are sitting on uninhabitable before we pull our heads out of our asses and build the systems that we already have the technology to start (read > infrastructure)


sustaining the bank accounts of big energy needs to stop being the priority and things are going to change

the big question is not "can we?" because IMHO we can. it is "will we?" before it is to late

 

[foomar]

Would agree that a new station would be less damageing than the old ones being decommisioned , but uncertain if building many new ones at this time is the best idea.

If they are as clean and safe as promised then build one near London first to prove it.

Was a child when the windscale accident happened , remember the iodine tablets and the stench of dumped milk with what was nearly our chernoble , and the coverup that followed.



Plenty of scope for economically viable selected wind , hydro and coastal barrage still in the UK.

From large scale like the Severn estuary to micro hydro in rural villages , throw the nuclear subsidy at these instead and create some jobs.

 

[BudToaster]

Nuclear Energy is the most economically viable

sorry, HempKat, facts prove this is not correct ... or else, they would not be shutting down nuclear plants (in US) because the natural gas is too cheap in comparison.

 

[foomar]

Also remember scientists saying when calder hall came online , that electricity would soon be so cheap as to be not worth metering , just a connection fee and use all you can.

There was barely a mention about waste and decommisioning at that time , and they were more about makeing plutonium for cold war weapons than viable electricity.


You could fund the Severn barrage , Menai straits and the one in Scotland whose name i forget to produce 40% of demand , for less than the cost of HS2 , and actually reach CO2 protocols , if that still matters.

 

[BudToaster]

TOKYO — Radiation readings near water tanks at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant have risen dramatically, with one test registering lethal levels, the plant's operators reported Sunday.

it's not like these engineers are stoopid or something ... they really are trying to do it right within the constraints. but how many nuclear events are required before we (engineers) finally understand what is required to be safe.

the idea of centralizing energy generation is stoopid, imho. time to think different, eh?

 

[HempKat]

the question is how do you store something safely for 250,000 years. and so far nobody can seem to come up with an answer that everybody actually believes will work. Yucca mountain is not a real good idea in most expert's opinion and they all agree that they don't have the technology to build a container that lasts that long.

the mining and processing of the materials for fuel rods is also pretty much ignored when people talk nuclear power. it is a really dirty and unsustainable by itself

solar,wind and water are what will save our asses if the other stuff does not make this whole rock we are sitting on uninhabitable before we pull our heads out of our asses and build the systems that we already have the technology to start (read > infrastructure)


sustaining the bank accounts of big energy needs to stop being the priority and things are going to change

the big question is not "can we?" because IMHO we can. it is "will we?" before it is to late

Again and like Budtoaster you're missing the point. I'm not saying Nuclear is the answer. I'm saying it's the answer if we want to keep living life the way we are used to living it now. Mankind is not mature enough for us all to make the sacrifices we would need to make if we were to give up fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Some would with no problem but the vast majority of people are to self centered and self serving to make those sacrifices. Too many have that "Well I is going to gets mine" attitude.

If I had my choice in the matter then it would be to go with solar, wind, hydro and geo-thermal. Now if you reread my comments you'll notice that every time I say nuclear I clarify that it is the answer if we want to keep living like we do now. That's the key. At the present state of technology for those other sources that we are at now, we aren't advanced enough to maintain the kind of consumption we are used to. Maybe one day we will be and then on that day I will say those other are the solution.

So to re-word it in a way that hopefully you and Budtoaster will understand If we want to keep driving the way we do (mostly one person per vehicle and using the car on short trips we could walk or bicycle to) but with electrical vehicles then nuclear is the answer. If we want to continue with all the modern electronic conveniences upon which we've come to rely on and we continue on this trend of remote controlled everything then nuclear is the answer. If however we want what is ultimately the safest and absolute best for the environment regardless of inefficiency then wind, solar, hydro and geo-thermal would be the best.

As for safe storage of nuclear waste, I don't know the answer, I'm not an expert on nuclear material. My initial gut reaction answer would be to explore options like sending it into deep space or better yet launch it on a course where the sun would vaporize it. Although does it really matter? If it's so deadly and dangerous aren't we already screwed then from the approximately 300 Million tons of waste produced each year by the nuclear reactors already in use? I mean if your belief there is no "safe" or "right" way to do it then we are already doomed for whatever portion of that 250,000 years that the current method of disposal fails to contain.

 

[HempKat]

Would agree that a new station would be less damageing than the old ones being decommisioned , but uncertain if building many new ones at this time is the best idea.

If they are as clean and safe as promised then build one near London first to prove it.

Was a child when the windscale accident happened , remember the iodine tablets and the stench of dumped milk with what was nearly our chernoble , and the coverup that followed.



Plenty of scope for economically viable selected wind , hydro and coastal barrage still in the UK.

From large scale like the Severn estuary to micro hydro in rural villages , throw the nuclear subsidy at these instead and create some jobs.

Why not just look at France? About 80% of it's energy is produced by nuclear reactors.

 

[HempKat]

sorry, HempKat, facts prove this is not correct ... or else, they would not be shutting down nuclear plants (in US) because the natural gas is too cheap in comparison.

How nice of you to chop out the rest of it and take that statement out of context. I guess you had to though otherwise you would be wrong.

Since you seem exceedingly dense I'll say it again for the 3rd time now. That statement was made based on a scenario in which fossil fuel has been used up. If fossil fuel has been used up then nuclear energy becomes the most economically viable because there is no more natural gas for it to compete with. Also my point all along has been that we still use fossil fuel energy because it is the cheapest but fossil fuel is finite, there are no large populations of dinosaurs dying off suddenly to replenish the supply. So eventually there will come a time when there will be no more natural gas.

I know it's hard for you, you've been so conditioned to think "Nuclear Bad" that you can't get passed the word nuclear to comprehend the point I'm making but please try because it is getting boring to have to keep repeating myself.

 

[gaiusmarius]

if they wanted to solve the enrgy thing, they could do it. the planets magnetic field generates huge amounts of power, this power can be harnessed and would be free. no way to meter it or even control access.

there is stuff being done where water is split and the hydrogen is fed to the engine instead of petrol.

we could all be having power much cheaper if not free if there was not giant interest in keeping the status quo for the benefit of the corporations bottom line.

sooner or later these technologies that are being suppressed will be exposed and man kind will be freed from energy worries. abundant free, clean energy available to every nook and crook of this fair planet. you just need the right kind of receiver. i know it sounds like bs and i can't back it up except with you tube, but i believe it. just think back to the electric car and how long it was suppressed and laughed at, when in actual fact they had solved most of the problems to make a rather great electric car back in the 60s or 70s.

 

[harold]

nuclear is incredibly dangerous way of creating energy and what they aren't conveniently mentioning, is the amount of tritium being released by these reactors and how bad fukushima really is.

Fracking is another highly toxic method of extracting and raping the earth, pumping over 500 very nasty chemicals into the ground (drinking) water. Barbaric and mindless.

Many zero point (free) energies have been supressed, and many good people have been murdered to supress these free energy devices. There is another hidden way, hopefully people wake up to this.

 

[foomar]

France is a poor example , geology left no other choice.

France's decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973 and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the "oil shock." The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are very poor and virtually exhausted.


French policy makers saw only one way for France to achieve energy independence: nuclear energy, a source of energy so compact that a few pounds of fissionable uranium is all the fuel needed to run a big city for a year. Plans were drawn up to introduce the most comprehensive national nuclear energy program in history. Over the next 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries.

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

Again and like Budtoaster you're missing the point. I'm not saying Nuclear is the answer. I'm saying it's the answer if we want to keep living life the way we are used to living it now. Mankind is not mature enough for us all to make the sacrifices we would need to make if we were to give up fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Some would with no problem but the vast majority of people are to self centered and self serving to make those sacrifices. Too many have that "Well I is going to gets mine" attitude.

If I had my choice in the matter then it would be to go with solar, wind, hydro and geo-thermal. Now if you reread my comments you'll notice that every time I say nuclear I clarify that it is the answer if we want to keep living like we do now. That's the key. At the present state of technology for those other sources that we are at now, we aren't advanced enough to maintain the kind of consumption we are used to. Maybe one day we will be and then on that day I will say those other are the solution.

So to re-word it in a way that hopefully you and Budtoaster will understand If we want to keep driving the way we do (mostly one person per vehicle and using the car on short trips we could walk or bicycle to) but with electrical vehicles then nuclear is the answer. If we want to continue with all the modern electronic conveniences upon which we've come to rely on and we continue on this trend of remote controlled everything then nuclear is the answer. If however we want what is ultimately the safest and absolute best for the environment regardless of inefficiency then wind, solar, hydro and geo-thermal would be the best.

As for safe storage of nuclear waste, I don't know the answer, I'm not an expert on nuclear material. My initial gut reaction answer would be to explore options like sending it into deep space or better yet launch it on a course where the sun would vaporize it. Although does it really matter? If it's so deadly and dangerous aren't we already screwed then from the approximately 300 Million tons of waste produced each year by the nuclear reactors already in use? I mean if your belief there is no "safe" or "right" way to do it then we are already doomed for whatever portion of that 250,000 years that the current method of disposal fails to contain.

sure hemp i'm missing the point. thats why you address all the issues i brought up so well instead of muddying the waters a little i was not saying that you were backing nuclear energy. i was bringing up some issues with what is sometimes seen as a long term solution. yes, i quoted you, but i never said you loved nuclear power

and just so you understand ........ you know that mankind tends to shit in it's own bed. you know there is a problem or five with nuclear energy. you know that the vast majority of people don't even consider what is going on around them. and you realize that one of the biggest problems is that what "we are use to" is fucking things up on a grand scale

and to reword things so that you can understand shooting problems into deep space is about as smart as flushing a toilet and thinking the turd ceases to exist. and /or counting on technology that does not exist yet to clean up the mess you made today

nuclear energy is a turd master hemp ...... and it keeps getting thrown on the table as an option

maybe you should research the problems they are running into as far as storage goes. or consider what would happen if one of the space shuttles had been loaded up for a "trash run" when they crashed. or take a look into the issues with the mining,processing and the security problems that the nuclear industry throw on the table.

i'm about 100% sure you won't see it as a safe or sane option anymore

 

[gaiusmarius]

yeah but the thing is if you take away nuclear energy, we have a huge energy shortage. but i agree the hidden costs are too unpredictable, we need to get out of nuclear, but we need to replace it with something, for now natural gas and very modern coal power plants will need building to replace the nuclear energy, but the idiots scream about c02 when you say gas or coal. if you say free energy they just laugh at this stage, lol. still i prefer coal and gas power to nuclear power, it's just too unpredictable. anyway hydro power is also becoming extremely efficient and user friendly, you are seeing mini hydro power plants popping up in villages in india and africa made by innovative locals taking what they can use from the internet and coming up with free power for the village.

 

[foomar]

With fracking looking to recover at best 10% of the gas present in any deposit , they are likely to leave the rest lost forever with current tech.

Wait a decade as the tech matures and they gain the remote senseing to see what s there , use carbon captured CO2 to flush it out and recover potentially half or more.


There is a plausible case for a limited number of new reactors on existing sites , simply to maintain a nuclear industry which would be essential to build fusion if that ever works.


British Nuclear Fuels spent a fortune on processing hot material into an insoluble glass , the idea being long term storage in a safer form than liquid , for eventual injection into a geological subduction zone when drilling tech enables it.



Considering the coasts around the UK have some of the highest tidal ranges and suitable estuaries in the world , seems strange that we have made little use of the potential.

 

[HempKat]

sure hemp i'm missing the point. thats why you address all the issues i brought up so well instead of muddying the waters a little i was not saying that you were backing nuclear energy. i was bringing up some issues with what is sometimes seen as a long term solution. yes, i quoted you, but i never said you loved nuclear power

and just so you understand ........ you know that mankind tends to shit in it's own bed. you know there is a problem or five with nuclear energy. you know that the vast majority of people don't even consider what is going on around them. and you realize that one of the biggest problems is that what "we are use to" is fucking things up on a grand scale

and to reword things so that you can understand shooting problems into deep space is about as smart as flushing a toilet and thinking the turd ceases to exist. and /or counting on technology that does not exist yet to clean up the mess you made today

nuclear energy is a turd master hemp ...... and it keeps getting thrown on the table as an option

maybe you should research the problems they are running into as far as storage goes. or consider what would happen if one of the space shuttles had been loaded up for a "trash run" when they crashed. or take a look into the issues with the mining,processing and the security problems that the nuclear industry throw on the table.

i'm about 100% sure you won't see it as a safe or sane option anymore

Maybe, since you claim to understand the point I'm making, you should try demonstrating that you understand in your response? I never said nuclear energy was an option or the answer. I never said it was safe or sane. What I said was that if we want to keep using energy at the rate we do now and move away from fossil fuel then nuclear is the only option and that when fossil fuel supplies run out nuclear reactors will pop up like daisies. Not because it's sane, not because it's safe but because it's the only viable way to keep living like we do now and with a population that is growing exponentially.

Solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal are the safe sane solutions but to go that route would require everyone to give up the way of life they enjoy now and most are not ready and willing to do that. Then there is the fact that those safer saner choices are beyond most people's ability to afford

 

[HempKat]

France is a poor example , geology left no other choice.

How is it a poor example and what does their lack of choice have to do with how safe and clean it is? When I said look at France it was in response to your comment:

If they are as clean and safe as promised then build one near London first to prove it.

Which seems to call into question the safety and cleanliness of it. Rather then building one near London to prove whether it is safe and clean I suggested you look to France and their existing reactors that supplies most of their energy to determine whether they are safe or clean. How does one near London prove cleanliness or safety any better then the ones in France? Is there some unique geological feature of London that somehow proves this better? Does London having different options for alternative energy somehow prove safety and cleanliness better?