Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jacob/Lee]

As some of you may know, there's a huge debate going on about natural gas. It costs about 3/4 that of oil and is abundant. Some say it's the energy of the future. It is drilled for by a process called "hydraulic fracturing" (or "fracking" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking). Basically, you pump pressurized "fracking fluid," which is a combination of all sorts of things, but it is mostly water, into a hole drilled into the ground. The pressure causes cracks in the rock, which allow methane to escape to the surface through the cracks and be collected. It's used all the time, but there's a catch: you can fuck up groundwater if methane is absorbed by it. This water can seep into the water used by homes, and in highly polluted areas (like a home very close to a fracking site) the TAP WATER can make you sick and you can set it on fire.

The government is trying to place restrictions on drilling. I'm not very sure of the specifics, but the companies are bitching that it will raise the price and make it just as costly as oil is. What will happen, only time can tell.

What do you think about fracking? Drilling for natural gas? Should fracking be allowed? Should there be restrictions on where you can perform a frac job (< what fracking is called)? Are the risk to public health worth the benefits of a cheaper fossil fuel?

[Flying Dice]

Frack the earth, full speed ahead!


_____________________________


In all seriousness, I'm opposed to continued dependency on fossil fuels. We should be working towards energy sources that are safe and sustainable, rather than trying to develop fossil fuel sources that are slightly less harmful. Hell, I'm about as far left as you can get on most things, and I wouldn't be opposed to going mostly nuclear, if we had proper regulation and safety standards in place (i.e. better, less easily corrupted ones than what we have for fossil fuel extraction and transport).

[Lord Dullard]

In all seriousness, I'm opposed to continued dependency on fossil fuels. We should be working towards energy sources that are safe and sustainable, rather than trying to develop fossil fuel sources that are slightly less harmful. Hell, I'm about as far left as you can get on most things, and I wouldn't be opposed to going mostly nuclear, if we had proper regulation and safety standards in place (i.e. better, less easily corrupted ones than what we have for fossil fuel extraction and transport).

Nuclear is probably our best bet in the short- and mid-term, practically speaking, as long as we don't do idiotic things like building nuclear plants on top of fault lines. I may catch flak for this, but if I was in a position of unrealistic power in the government I'd authorize the hell out of the things in spite of the public outcry. Chance of (relatively) localized nuclear problems < undeniably gigantic problems that will inevitably be caused by fossil fuels.

This is one of those things I've never understood about people fearmongering over nuclear plants. Even if every nuclear power plant on earth were to simultaneously catastrophically melt down, the effects would still be WAY more manageable than what global warming will eventually cause.

[Flying Dice]

That's pretty much my own view on it as well: nuclear until we can feasibly use something safer, because as long as we aren't outright stupid about it, nuclear is still safer than fossil fuels.

[Sirus]

I too feel that nuclear may be our best option, but there's still the problem of what to do with those fuel rods and other waste once you're done with them. Launching them into space would solve the problem of storage, but then you have the risk of a rocket exploding (scattering radioactive material into the atmosphere) or (depending on where you send the rockets) accidentally running into them in the future.

[IronyOwl]

The danger of nuclear reactors is a lot like the danger of traveling by plane- spectacular when everything goes wrong, but it very seldom does.

Nuclear waste is a different issue, of course, but I'd still assume it's less of a problem than more traditional pollutants, at least on the scales we're talking about.


As for fracking, some of the stuff they're using is carcinogenic. I'm sorry, but no, you may not pump cancer into the groundwater supply and then bitch about the cost.

[MaximumZero]

Energy of the future? Methinks not. See, there's Solar-to-Microwave Power Transmission, Nuclear Fusion, Vacuum Energy, Matter/Antimatter Reactions, etc. Stuff that's way cooler and more efficient than doing stupid shit like this.

[Eagleon]

I too feel that nuclear may be our best option, but there's still the problem of what to do with those fuel rods and other waste once you're done with them. Launching them into space would solve the problem of storage, but then you have the risk of a rocket exploding (scattering radioactive material into the atmosphere) or (depending on where you send the rockets) accidentally running into them in the future.

Most of that waste can be reused. Passive thermal power, refining for medical isotopes and unspent fuel, etc. Waste has long since ceased to be an issue, provided we realize that nuclear proliferation is, unfortunately, the least of our worries - tailored bioweapons are cheaper and in general much more attractive to the countries and people that would be interested in using nuclear weapons.

[SHAD0Wdump]

Vacuum Energy

Ooh, this one is new to me... I'm uh... Trying to look it up and am getting confuzdederd by the science. XD

[nenjin]

The amount of money the natural gas industry is spending on marketing alone makes me a little nervous about it. As does doctors having to sign NDA just to find out what people might possibly be contaminated with as a result of stuff getting into the water table.

Just seems like the energy industry thinking short-term while promising to solve our domestic energy issues, as usual.

[Frumple]

Nyeeaah... far as I know, the area I'm in innit due for natural gas prospecting any time soon, but... yeah. A bit more research into how that crap fraks up the environment, local water supplies, so forth... you know the stuff that has less to do with profitability for the gas company than it does with the livibity for everyone in the area? I'd like some of that before anyone started that crap up anywhere near me.

And some public disclosure of exactly what the hell they're sticking down there, seriously. M'sorry, but proprietary chemical mixture stops being proprietary when you start putting it in my water table. Disclosure or cock off, basically. As nenjin says, that NDA nonsense is a freaking massive red flag.

[Lord Dullard]

As an aside, it will be rather ironic if 'frakking' does indeed become a synonym for the Battlestar Galactica version of the word due to the fact that it completely f***s up the environment.

[Funk]

pro tip when you can brun your tap water sell it as petrol.
Nuclear is safe so long as it is not built by drunks or cost cuters or fools,basicy you need contanment lots of it.
now stuff like wind farms cant realy wrong what can happen one can fall on a cow?
(well ok some time ice forms on the blade then flys off at speed)

[Cthulhu]

The danger of nuclear reactors is a lot like the danger of traveling by plane- spectacular when everything goes wrong, but it very seldom does.

This is the analogy I always use too.  If I remember right, you'd need to have a Chernobyl-scale disaster something in the ballpark of every three months in order to equal the deaths (Mostly indirectly through lung damage from particulates) and environmental destruction caused by fossil fuels.

Fission isn't the fuel of tomorrow, too many long term costs, but it's the fuel of today, it could totally get us off of fossil fuels until we get the fancy shit like Hydrogen and Fusion going.

Also, wind power is surprisingly dangerous, more dangerous per terawatt produced than nuclear.  Chunks of ice being flung around, the very high elevations and winds workers have to be exposed to to fix stuff, sometimes they blow apart and fling chunks of metal through the air.  Plus they can cause problems for bird populations.

It's that damn word, nukular.  People hear nukular and they think bombs.  Buzzword Boogeymen will always be scarier to the public than the real dangers.

[Sirus]

I still think we need to invest more in solar and hydrodynamic power. Sadly, they both have their downsides, but at least there's no toxic/radioactive waste to worry about. Running the entire nation on those wouldn't be feasible of course, but every megawatt they contribute helps, right?