What is fracking and why is it controversial?

[Eighths-n-Aces]

you say we need nuclear energy if we keep using energy like we do and i am trying to tell you that WE CANT keep doing things the way we do because we have not got a grip on how to make nuclear energy sustainable (read : not fuck up the planet so bad we can't survive here)

it's just not a long term option

pretty simple really

 

[JVonChron]

in the long run, we need drinkable water more than we need gas. theres more than one way to skin a cat, and perhaps we alter the consumption side of the equation. naa couldn't do that. Anyone have more info on the events going on in the NY area? I know they do have quite good water up there and was sad to see a snipit somewhere saying they were going to go after NG out there?
^^I agree with above, nuclear power is just a power we cant control. look at fukushima...its all good so long as its all good, but if something happens...talk about screw up the water. heard of the predicted radiation plumes hitting PNW next year? hope it aint so.

 

[HempKat]

View Image

you say we need nuclear energy if we keep using energy like we do and i am trying to tell you that WE CANT keep doing things the way we do because we have not got a grip on how to make nuclear energy sustainable (read : not fuck up the planet so bad we can't survive here)

it's just not a long term option

pretty simple really

Yeah but I'm not saying it's really an option because like you I'd rather not see the planet get fucked up. What I am saying is that people aren't ready and willing to make the changes necessary. None of this need to change is new. The dangers of not changing are also not new. We've been aware of it and people advocating for change since the 60's but it has not changed.

What has changed since the 60's though is the world population has doubled and it will double again in even less time, that's what growing exponentially means. If we were willing to change we wouldn't be a society that's become so dependent on wireless communications that schools are now considering dropping things like handwriting skills because so few people actually hand write stuff now thanks to texting. That's just one of scores of examples of how we're actually using more power, not less and right now, if the change of power sources had to happen today, nuclear is the only thing that would keep up with demand. Unless maybe you plan on covering every surface you can with solar panels and have wind turbine farms bigger then the Amazon rain forest. But then that wouldn't really be all that much better for the world even though there wouldn't be any nuclear waste or exhaust fumes to deal with.

It's not as simple as you might think either I mean we can't even get people to stop texting while they're driving voluntarily so we have to make laws to try to force them and yet they still do it. So if you can't get someone to change their ways just to make their own lives safer and longer how on earth do you think you are going to get them to do it so the world will be a better place at some point in the future likely after they are dead and gone?

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

Unless maybe you plan on covering every surface you can with solar panels and have wind turbine farms bigger then the Amazon rain forest.

That must be a GROSS exaggeration Hemp. And you forgot harnessing the energy from the tides.

 

[BudToaster]

That must be a GROSS exaggeration Hemp. And you forgot harnessing the energy from the tides.

correct. some Stanford U engineers have a plan that takes a portion of the open south pacific. also a plan for transmission.

it's not that it can't be done, just that the people who matter the most don't want it to be done.

the concept of free energy is just too horrific to be allowed, eh?

 

[HempKat]

That must be a GROSS exaggeration Hemp. And you forgot harnessing the energy from the tides.

You're right it may be a gross exaggeration but from what I've seen of real life examples I don't think so. In my home town there is a fairly large company that has attempted to go totally green and they've done so by building a rather large solar array. They use every bit of the power generated by that array and so far it seems to be enough but here's the kicker, the array takes up more then twice the surface area then the plant that it powers. Now I do know there are possible solutions to the low efficiency rating of todays solar panels which last I read is below 20%. These new solutions may bring efficiency up to more like 80 or 90% and if so then solar may become a much more viable alternative. That's an unknown though so when I made that possible exaggeration it's based on where we are now rather then where we may or may not be at some unknown point in the future.

As for harnessing the energy of the tides, I didn't forget it but I chose not to include it since to the best of my knowledge those would only benefit coastal communities and I'm thinking more along the lines of a planetary scale. Also I didn't really forget it because I mentioned hydro power and harnessing tidal energy is considered a form of hydro power.

 

[HempKat]

it's not that it can't be done, just that the people who matter the most don't want it to be done.

Which has been my point all along. I'm not saying nuclear is the answer. I'm saying that's the most likely direction the powers that be will go in if we ever give up on or run out of fossil fuel energy.

 

[headband 707]

HempKat are you serious lol.. NO ,NO ,NO, nuclear power is not at all environmentally friendly lol.. Not even a little bit not in any way shape or form is this a good thing and the only assholes keeping this alive are killing us headband 707

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.

 

[imnotcrazy]

There is already the technology for nuclear fusion reactors (present on-line reactors are fission).

If these asshats would provide research monies, we'd probably already have cleaner Nuclear energy. Also, Fusion reactors can be shut down and the reaction stopped by cutting off the supply of gas feeding the reactor, unlike fission reactors which can runaway and meltdown

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm

 

[imnotcrazy]

HUGE losses in the electrical grid

HUGE losses in the electrical grid

Transmission and Distribution

Once electric energy is generated, it must be moved to areas where it will be used. This is known as transmission—moving large amounts of power over sometimes very long distances—and is separate from
distribution, which refers to the process of delivering electric energy from the high voltage transmission grid to specific locations such as a residential street or commercial park. Distribution is usually considered to encompass the substations and feeder lines that take power from the high voltage grid and progressively step down the voltage, eventually to the 120v level at which power enters our homes.

The transmission and distribution or “T&D” system, then, includes everything between a generation plant and an end-use site. Along the way, some of the energy supplied by the generator is lost due to the resistance of the wires and equipment that the electricity passes through. Most of this energy is converted to heat. Just how much energy is taken up as losses in the T&D system depends greatly on the physical characteristics of the system in question as well as how it is operated. Generally speaking, T&D losses
between 6% and 8% are considered normal.

It is possible to calculate what this means in dollar terms by looking at the difference between the amount of electric energy generated and the amount actually sold at the retail level. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, net generation in the US came to over 3.9 billion megawatt hours (MWh) in 2005
while retail power sales during that year were about 3.6 billion MWh. T&D losses amounted to 239 million MWh, or 6.1% of net generation. Multiplying that number by the national average retail price of electricity for 2005, we can estimate those losses came at a cost to the US economy of just under $19.5 billion.
Congestion charges represent another
significant cost of inefficiency in the T&D
system, but are only partially determined
by the physical characteristics of the grid.

Congestion occurs when the scheduled or actual flows of electricity are restricted either by physical capacity constraints on a particular device or by operational safety constraints designed to preserve grid reliability. In order to meet demand, the system operator must find an alternative source of power that avoids the bottleneck. That alternative generator will be less economical, and therefore less efficient from a market perspective. A more robust T&D system, then, can provide a level, congestion-free playing field on
which generators can compete.

Congestion is the result of a number of factors, notably a lack of adequate transmission investment and an increase in bulk power transactions in competitive energy markets. Recent figures on congestion at a national level are difficult to ascertain, however
the experience of two of the nation’s largest power markets will serve to illustrate the scope of the problem.

The California Independent System Operator reported congestion costs of $1.1 billion in 2004, $670 million in 2005, and $476 million in
2006. It’s worth noting that the ISO attributes much of the reduction in the ’04-’05 period to critical expansions on the state’s “Path 15” north-south transmission corridor. Similarly, the PJM
interconnection, which serves the largest territory of any regional transmission organization in the US, reported congestion costs of $750 million in 2004, $2 billion in 2005, and $1.6 billion in 2006. PJM notes that since 2002, congestion costs have come in at 7-10% of annual total billings.

As these figures make clear, the cost of inefficiency in the T&D system is significant. However, the impact of congestion is not limited to the cost associated with dispatching less economical generation. Often the situation requires grid operators to curtail service to consumers in some areas to protect the integrity of the grid as a whole. These “transmission loading relief” actions (TLRs) have increased dramatically in recent years, up nearly 150% just in the 2001-2005 period.

Clearly too there is an inference to be drawn from these numbers about the relationship between efficiency in the T&D system and the reliability of that system. In every region of the US, for example, there are generation plants designated by the local grid operator as “reliability must-run” or RMR. These units are run regardless of their economic merit because their output is needed
to maintain voltage levels. RMR units are often older, dirtier and less efficient than modern plants, due to the fact that they tend to be located in urban areas where siting new plants is all but impossible. There are alternatives to RMR generators (i.e., FACTS devices, which are described in a later section), but our current reliance on them can be viewed as a byproduct of a less-than-optimal T&D system.


From: http://www.nema.org/Products/Documents/TDEnergyEff.pdf

 

[foomar]

Don't see any credible prediction of commercial fusion by 2050 , and it may never be viable yet many people assume it will save us.

Recent developments in materials for conductors like graphine , and superconductors that function at higher temps than previous could deduce those transmission losses to near zero , which could be a game changer by transmitting renewable energy from very distant sources , and it becomes a tradeable commodity on a world scale.

 

[BudToaster]

yes, exactly.

and it is only recently that trying to do better is even being thought about, being research, being engineered.

i guess the existing power companies were dancing on an edge of profitability. and a little upset finally, FINALLY, allows alternatives - healthy, life sustaining alternatives - to begin to emerge.

why should anyone have to pay for electricity? and why doesn't every person in the world have access to electricity? must be a conspiracy, eh?

 

[headband 707]

Humm why should anyone pay for electricity well I think you would need to ask the real asshole here and that would be "Edison" the greedy fucker that he really was. Tesla wanted to give AC power free but Edison wouldn't hear of it and it was Edison that started to charge for electricity and even then Tesla could see that Edison was one big greedy PRICK ,,like the ppl in charge today..
BTW it was Tesla that was the true genius not Edison.. Fuckin American History is a real joke no matter how many times they write it lol.. headband 707

yes, exactly.

and it is only recently that trying to do better is even being thought about, being research, being engineered.

i guess the existing power companies were dancing on an edge of profitability. and a little upset finally, FINALLY, allows alternatives - healthy, life sustaining alternatives - to begin to emerge.

why should anyone have to pay for electricity? and why doesn't every person in the world have access to electricity? must be a conspiracy, eh?

 

[HempKat]

HempKat are you serious lol.. NO ,NO ,NO, nuclear power is not at all environmentally friendly lol.. Not even a little bit not in any way shape or form is this a good thing and the only assholes keeping this alive are killing us headband 707

Yes I'm very serious but you're taking my statement out of context because like others you've been trained into thinking the knee jerk reaction of "nuclear bad". I'm not saying it's totally safe for the environment, hence the qualifier "if done properly". Also I've only said nuclear is the answer in the context of everyone still enjoying all their fancy electronic gizmos and with the notion that since this would be in a post fossil fuel world everyone still drives the way they do now (mostly one person to a car and even for short trips one could walk). With our remote controlled everything, all our cellphones, ipads, laptops, PC's Xbox's play stations, flat panels, mp3 players, etc, etc we use too much power to go totally dependent on solar, wind, hydro, etc. Nuclear is the only thing that could handle it and there is a better more established infrastructure for supporting nuclear energy then the other types, so transitioning over would be fairly smooth and inexpensive comparatively speaking.

I'm all in favor of truly safe, green renewable energy but we simply aren't ready to go that route without big changes in our behaviors. Which I have little confidence in changing since we can't even get the idiots who like to text while driving to stop that in order to save their lives and not endanger others. If you can't get people to change for their own good do you think you'll get then to change for the good of mother nature?

 

[trichrider]

Not only have the Colorado floods claimed lives and thousands of homes, they have also hit oil equipment, sparking fears that fuel, heavy metals and hydraulic fracturing fluids may be seeping into the local water supply.

Over 1,800 oil and gas wells in areas of Northwest Colorado impacted by the flood have been turned off, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

The extent of the damage is not yet known, but local environmentalists have been posting photos of tipped over oil tanks, flooded well sites and broken pipelines. They fear the worst.

"The damage is not contained," said Robyn O'Brien, a Boulder resident and food activist. "The public is very concerned about it [and] its impact on water supplies, both for communities and for the massive amounts of farmland and livestock out here."

The Oil and Gas Association said it didn't know of fracking operations in the area at the time of the flooding or of any major oil spills as a result of the flood.

But that doesn't mean chemicals or petroleum stored in the vicinity have not escaped.

more:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/18/news/economy/colorado-flooding-fracking/index.html

 

[headband 707]

Okay Hempkat you really can't be serious about what your saying lol.. Bra there is not one thing in the nuclear industry that is good NOT ONE THING!!!!! If getting the power you are talking about will bring the total destruction of the earth what the fuck is good about that? They can't store the waste anywhere, what is safe about that? Fukushima is a wake up call to all who believe this shit will work when it will NOT!!!! The only ppl keeping the nuclear industry alive right now are the ones saying we need this for cancer when nothing could be further from the TRUTH. You sir have been really played if for even one second you think this is the way we need to go. lol. Trust me when I tell you that this is in the hands of some of the most criminal minds of our time. If you can just tell me one thing you believe this is good for besides the power you get to run your gadgets I would like to hear it. Otherwise in this particular argument you lose.. stay frosty headband 707

Yes I'm very serious but you're taking my statement out of context because like others you've been trained into thinking the knee jerk reaction of "nuclear bad". I'm not saying it's totally safe for the environment, hence the qualifier "if done properly". Also I've only said nuclear is the answer in the context of everyone still enjoying all their fancy electronic gizmos and with the notion that since this would be in a post fossil fuel world everyone still drives the way they do now (mostly one person to a car and even for short trips one could walk). With our remote controlled everything, all our cellphones, ipads, laptops, PC's Xbox's play stations, flat panels, mp3 players, etc, etc we use too much power to go totally dependent on solar, wind, hydro, etc. Nuclear is the only thing that could handle it and there is a better more established infrastructure for supporting nuclear energy then the other types, so transitioning over would be fairly smooth and inexpensive comparatively speaking.

I'm all in favor of truly safe, green renewable energy but we simply aren't ready to go that route without big changes in our behaviors. Which I have little confidence in changing since we can't even get the idiots who like to text while driving to stop that in order to save their lives and not endanger others. If you can't get people to change for their own good do you think you'll get then to change for the good of mother nature?

 

[headband 707]

Yeah because they actually make tanks that leak ffs just another fuck you America from the Multinationals lol headband 707

Not only have the Colorado floods claimed lives and thousands of homes, they have also hit oil equipment, sparking fears that fuel, heavy metals and hydraulic fracturing fluids may be seeping into the local water supply.

Over 1,800 oil and gas wells in areas of Northwest Colorado impacted by the flood have been turned off, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

The extent of the damage is not yet known, but local environmentalists have been posting photos of tipped over oil tanks, flooded well sites and broken pipelines. They fear the worst.

"The damage is not contained," said Robyn O'Brien, a Boulder resident and food activist. "The public is very concerned about it [and] its impact on water supplies, both for communities and for the massive amounts of farmland and livestock out here."

The Oil and Gas Association said it didn't know of fracking operations in the area at the time of the flooding or of any major oil spills as a result of the flood.

But that doesn't mean chemicals or petroleum stored in the vicinity have not escaped.

more:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/18/news/economy/colorado-flooding-fracking/index.html

 

[stinkyigloo]

As global energy demand continues to rise at ridiculous rates, it looks like fracking is here to stay whether we like it or not.

A recent report from the World Resources Institute has identified 1200 coal fired power plants in planning in 59 countries. India and China account for 3/4 of these with 455 in India and 363 in China.

Many developed countries are now converting their coal fired power stations to gas fired. In Europe most of the natural gas is supplied by Russia. Reliability of energy supply is an immediate concern for all Western countries. USA, Canada, Australia are rapidly building up their natural gas production capacities for their energy supplies as, lets call a spade a spade here, its fucking cheap.

Renewable energy will not make a significant contribution to energy production, in my opinion for at least 50 years.

Wave energy, while great in concept, is a long way from being perfected. It is like the advent of flying, where there was all these wacky designs and ideas, then it takes years of testing and figuring out what works best then, and finally improving on that design. Wave and tidal energy, will in time prove to be excellent forms of energy.

Natural Gas v Nuclear?

One nice catastrophe and we'll have a Chernobyl times 2,356 Gary
But that's...that...no one knows what that is

Natural Gas/fracking gets my nod

 

[StickyStank]

http://www.upworthy.com/he-may-not-...dians-spot-on-with-his-seriously-scary-rant-3

 

[BudToaster]

lets call a spade a spade here, its fucking cheap.

yes, cheap to extract ... but it's kind of like me selling your liver. cheap for me, not so good for you.