News2 mins ago
Fracking
Why is it that fracking is up and running in the USA, providing the country with cheap energy yet here we have to put with the environmental idiots usual objections to anything that may solve our looming energy crisis. They dont want nuclear or fracking or fossil fueled power stations. Why cant we just finally ignore these deranged idiots and just get on with it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Its brought down energy bills considerably in the States //
has it? No.
// Electric bills have skyrocketed in the last five years, a sharp reversal from a quarter-century when Americans enjoyed stable power bills even as they used more electricity.
File photo by Jim Cole, AP
More electricity use at homes and higher prices are driving up power bills.
Enlarge
File photo by Jim Cole, AP
More electricity use at homes and higher prices are driving up power bills.
Sponsored Links
Households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate, a USA TODAY analysis of government data found. The jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That's the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s. //
http://
has it? No.
// Electric bills have skyrocketed in the last five years, a sharp reversal from a quarter-century when Americans enjoyed stable power bills even as they used more electricity.
File photo by Jim Cole, AP
More electricity use at homes and higher prices are driving up power bills.
Enlarge
File photo by Jim Cole, AP
More electricity use at homes and higher prices are driving up power bills.
Sponsored Links
Households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate, a USA TODAY analysis of government data found. The jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That's the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s. //
http://
Coobeastie. The difficulty is that we are a small, crowded country, with lots of places like the Mendips. If the environmentalists had been around in Victorian times, we wouldn't have any railways in Britain. Think about the environmental damage done when Brunel built the Great Western Railway !
Come to think of it how many harbours, towns and roads would be have if environmentalists had been around years ago ? Or airports ? The yoghurt weavers and treehuggers will always be able to find some rare beetle or orchid or something else to stop progress.
I remember when all the fuss was made about the Batheaston By-pass in the 90's. But Batheaston itself was being shaken to bits by the sheer volume of traffic passing through its narrow roads every day.
Modern life isn't going to conveniently go away, any more than our energy supply problem will. We can't bury our heads in the sand.
I too am a fan of nuclear, and before anyone asks, yes I would be quite happy to live near a nuclear power station. I lived near Hinkley Point A for years and I still don't glow in the dark !
Come to think of it how many harbours, towns and roads would be have if environmentalists had been around years ago ? Or airports ? The yoghurt weavers and treehuggers will always be able to find some rare beetle or orchid or something else to stop progress.
I remember when all the fuss was made about the Batheaston By-pass in the 90's. But Batheaston itself was being shaken to bits by the sheer volume of traffic passing through its narrow roads every day.
Modern life isn't going to conveniently go away, any more than our energy supply problem will. We can't bury our heads in the sand.
I too am a fan of nuclear, and before anyone asks, yes I would be quite happy to live near a nuclear power station. I lived near Hinkley Point A for years and I still don't glow in the dark !
meglet...an answer to your question regarding Germany perhaps ?
http://
http://
I've had first hand -and I mean first hand -experience of fracking , and I also worked for an oil company in North America and was very aware of the problems of fracking near to domestic water supplies. The very nature of Fracking, creating explosions hundreds of feet below the ground, means its never 100% safe. If Dave50 had processed as many claims against Fracking companies as I have he may hold different opinions. My personal experience? Having a 40 meter private water well on our property drained dry within an hour of Fracking 250 metres away. it never refilled and was re-dug by the Fracking Company although they did it out of 'goodwill' as they would not budge and own up it was actually due to the Fracking. Money is no object to these Companies. Deranged Idiots? I'll throw that one straight back at you :)
The Germans seem to be banking (ahem) on the fact that their wealth as a country will enable them to buy in energy as/when needed - mainly from Eastern Europe.
Their renewables programme is impressive but it won't be enough (and remember they have lots of areas of low density population to fill with turbines, which we don't).
Their renewables programme is impressive but it won't be enough (and remember they have lots of areas of low density population to fill with turbines, which we don't).
Fracking is a relatively new technology (if you call the late 1940s new), and also its environmental impact appears to be relatively poorly researched. There are reports, I don't know how genuine but they are certainly believable, that the fracking industry applies some pressure to research efforts.
I think the fairest thing is to regard the jury as still out on the benefits and risks of fracking -- and for that reason alone it's a good thing to have "environmental idiots" raise objections to it. It may be that they end up losing the argument, but we should still have that argument properly.
I think the fairest thing is to regard the jury as still out on the benefits and risks of fracking -- and for that reason alone it's a good thing to have "environmental idiots" raise objections to it. It may be that they end up losing the argument, but we should still have that argument properly.
Yes, one of the options for Germany seems to be buying cheap coal in - a massive step backwards in my view. We are a small crowded island and need our own bespoke solution. I am not a fan of fracking, it seems to affect the surrounding areas a great deal. Nuclear is not ideal, but seems the only way to guarantee supply for many many years.
JIm360 I can't even begin to imagine how much damage Fracking could do to the Aquifer in the UK. There have been no huge blocks of claims in North America because the wells are usually situated in places that are sparsely populated and , like us, if anything does go wrong the companies put it right PDQ. People who don't see Fracking as a huge risk to the environment need to do a bit of research into what can go wrong and how it would effect them personally.
// [Germany] have lots of areas of low density population to fill with turbines, which we don't //
Do we not? We have 116,600 Square miles of territorial water which are low density and most of our turbines are there.
http://
Do we not? We have 116,600 Square miles of territorial water which are low density and most of our turbines are there.
http://
Its not idiotic or obstructionist to point out the dangers of energy production, or objecting to untrammeled access to fossil fuel resources regardless of the potential environmental impact to a good many people, both in the immediate sense of ground tremors and possible water table contamination, and in the wider sense of greater use of fossil fuels and the contributory effect that will have on climate change.
But there is no question that we are facing a looming energy crisis.Even if we all adopt energy saving procedures, demand for energy is unlikely to decline. There are ways of managing that need for increased energy - reducing waste energy, renewable energy initiatives - but, given the finite capacity of fossil fuel and its environmental impact, nuclear energy, for all its potential hazards, represents the least worst scenario for keeping the lights on.Even this has issues though, not least of which is that Uranium is relatively scarce, globally speaking.Any sustainable nuclear fission energy generation programme is likely to need fast breeder reactors in order to sustain energy reserves.
Its just a pity that we seem to have no home-grown nuclear expertise, and will have to outsource it to the US, China or France...
I seriously doubt that fracking, assuming a widespread go-ahead, is going to materially affect domestic power prices, but we can all rest easy that it will materially affect the profits of those companies awarded the licences... isn't that nice?
But there is no question that we are facing a looming energy crisis.Even if we all adopt energy saving procedures, demand for energy is unlikely to decline. There are ways of managing that need for increased energy - reducing waste energy, renewable energy initiatives - but, given the finite capacity of fossil fuel and its environmental impact, nuclear energy, for all its potential hazards, represents the least worst scenario for keeping the lights on.Even this has issues though, not least of which is that Uranium is relatively scarce, globally speaking.Any sustainable nuclear fission energy generation programme is likely to need fast breeder reactors in order to sustain energy reserves.
Its just a pity that we seem to have no home-grown nuclear expertise, and will have to outsource it to the US, China or France...
I seriously doubt that fracking, assuming a widespread go-ahead, is going to materially affect domestic power prices, but we can all rest easy that it will materially affect the profits of those companies awarded the licences... isn't that nice?
@ Jim - I think thats what everybody is banking on, to be honest - that we can muddle our way through until nuclear fusion comes along.
I would still like to see commercial proof of concept though - which has not been achieved as yet, that I am aware of....I think we have to wait until at least 2020 to see if ITER pans out...
I would still like to see commercial proof of concept though - which has not been achieved as yet, that I am aware of....I think we have to wait until at least 2020 to see if ITER pans out...
So if we can (quite quickly on here) come up with an answer that says "Build Nuclear and fill the gap until then with as much renewable capacity as possible, with clean(ish) coal as a back-up" why have successive Governments ducked the issue.
Is it because the (largely arts educated and hence technologically illiterate) Ministers and MPs are illogically scared of anything that mentions the "N" word?
Is it because the (largely arts educated and hence technologically illiterate) Ministers and MPs are illogically scared of anything that mentions the "N" word?
I agree LG - the scare value of Chernobyl (a badly maintained and archaic design) and Fukushima (built in an earthquake and tsunami zone) is enormous.
The total figures for deaths from all Nuclear Accidents/Incidents is quite interesting
http://
By comparison the *annual* death toll on UK roads is around 2,000 people.
The total figures for deaths from all Nuclear Accidents/Incidents is quite interesting
http://
By comparison the *annual* death toll on UK roads is around 2,000 people.
Chernobyl, yes to some extent, but the effects of Fukushima have been minor so far. A small increase in cancer risk, and that's about it. In reality the problems people have with Nuclear energy are usually greatly exaggerated. Possibly a hangover from the Cold War and fears of nuclear holocaust?
The technology is about as safe as it is possible to be (but, of course, not 100% safe). Fukushima was an outdated plant, and even then it took one of the strongest earthquakes ever to expose its flaws -- and that still wasn't enough to turn it into a death trap. Modern reactors are rather less vulnerable, and anyway Germany is at no risk of such a strong earthquake-tsunami scenario. It was an emotive, and misguided, decision.
The technology is about as safe as it is possible to be (but, of course, not 100% safe). Fukushima was an outdated plant, and even then it took one of the strongest earthquakes ever to expose its flaws -- and that still wasn't enough to turn it into a death trap. Modern reactors are rather less vulnerable, and anyway Germany is at no risk of such a strong earthquake-tsunami scenario. It was an emotive, and misguided, decision.
Not quite sure why you mention Germany specifically in your last answer, Jim? I am probably missing something very obvious.
A catastrophic incident does not simply equate to the number of deaths caused by the specific incident itself though- Chernobyl and the surrounding area had to be evacuated and cordoned off - still is. Whole communities uprooted and relocated, loss of belongings,mementos, that sense of community ripped apart - and the same applies for Fukashima as well - a whole region cordoned off in an island very nearly as densely populated as the UK.
And of course we will not fully be able to determine the number of excess deaths as a consequence of the Fukashima disaster for some years yet, but you can bet there will be.
So I can certainly empathise with the public and their perception of the safety of nuclear fission energy generation, but given that we are unlikely to see any significant reduction in energy demand, it still represents the least worst option to me....
A catastrophic incident does not simply equate to the number of deaths caused by the specific incident itself though- Chernobyl and the surrounding area had to be evacuated and cordoned off - still is. Whole communities uprooted and relocated, loss of belongings,mementos, that sense of community ripped apart - and the same applies for Fukashima as well - a whole region cordoned off in an island very nearly as densely populated as the UK.
And of course we will not fully be able to determine the number of excess deaths as a consequence of the Fukashima disaster for some years yet, but you can bet there will be.
So I can certainly empathise with the public and their perception of the safety of nuclear fission energy generation, but given that we are unlikely to see any significant reduction in energy demand, it still represents the least worst option to me....
