Topic: Your view on shale gas exploration ? - page 5. (Read 18686 times)

I think what Bryant was trying to say is that with something like coal power, we really do know the number of increased fatalities due to the mining, and the additional bad stuff that goes into the air, and it is orders of magnitude higher than that from atomic power.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311217/Nuclear-power-station-leaking-radioactive-waste-months-says-Environment-Agency.html
"A nuclear power station in Kent has been leaking radioactive waste, which can increase the risk of developing cancer, for months according to the Environment Agency".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/firm-guilty-of-14year-radioactive-leak-1548532.html
"A nuclear power station operator was today found guilty of allowing radioactive waste to seep from a decontamination unit for 14 years, the Environment Agency said.
Waste leaked into the ground from a sump at Bradwell nuclear power station near Maldon, Essex, between 1990 and 2004".

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/may/17/safety-scares-at-sellafield
"New safety scares at Britain's largest atomic site – including a 14-month radioactive leak and the loss of two toxic containers."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/may/09/environment.nuclearindustry
"A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel dissolved in concentrated nitric acid, enough to half fill an Olympic-size swimming pool, has forced the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant.
The highly dangerous mixture, containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium fuel, has leaked through a fractured pipe into a huge stainless steel chamber which is so radioactive that it is impossible to enter".

Technology has advanced so much that the nuclear waste disposal is not much of a concern as it was earlier. And considering the  massive environmental damage caused by the thermal power plants, I have no plans to withdraw my support for nuclear energy.

  The World Nuclear Association is a 'non-profit' propaganda mouthpiece for the nuclear industry, its members consist of the following:

    American Council for Global Nuclear Competitiveness
    ANSTO
    Areva
    Areva NC
    Areva NP
    Argonne National Laboratory
    Association for Regional and International Underground Storage (ARIUS)
    Atomic Energy Authority of Egypt
    Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd
    Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
    Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research
    ATOMINFORM
    Bechtel Nuclear
    Berkeley Resources Limited
    BHP Billiton
    British Energy
    British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL)
    Bruce Power
    Cameco Corporation
    Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance
    Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
    Centre Nationale de l Energie des Science et des Techniques Nucleaires
    CEZ a s
    China National Nuclear Corporation
    Chubu Electric Power Co Inc
    Chugoku Electric Power Co Inc
    Concentric Energy Corp
    Constellation Energy Group
    Conuar SA
    ConverDyn
    Daya Bay Nuclear Power Operations and Management Co Ltd (DNMC)
    Dioxitek SA
    Dominion Energy
    Duke Energy
    Eastern Ore Dressing Complex
    Edlow International Company
    Electric Power Development Co Ltd (J-POWER)
    Electricite de France
    EnBW Kraftwerke AG
    Endesa Generacion S.A.U
    ENEL S.p.A.
    Energo Russian-Austrian Joint Venture Trading Company Ltd
    Energoatom
    Entergy Nuclear
    ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas SA
    EOn Energie AG
    EOn Nordic
    Eskom
    Euratom Supply Agency
    Excel Service Corporation
    Exelon Generation LLC
    Federal State-owned Unitary Enterprise Concern Rosenergoatom
    GE Energy
    Herbert Smith LLP
    Hitachi Ltd
    Hokkaido Electric Power Co Inc
    Hokuriku Electric Power Co Inc
    IBERDROLA
    Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd
    Imperial College London
    Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S A (INB)
    International Center for Environmental Safety of Minatom of Russia (ICES)
    International Development and Promotion Company (IDPC)
    Internexco GmbH
    Israel Atomic Energy Commission
    ITOCHU Corporation
    Japan Atomic Energy Agency
    Japan Atomic Power Co
    Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd
    Japan NUS Co Ltd (JANUS)
    Kansai Electric Power Co Inc
    KAZATOMPROM
    Kernkraftwerk Gösgen-Däniken AG
    Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt AG
    King & Spalding LLP
    Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
    Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co
    Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety
    Kozloduy NPP plc
    Kyushu Electric Power Co
    Laramide Resources Ltd.
    Lietuvos Energija AB
    Lithic Metals & Energy Ltd.
    Marubeni Corporation
    Mitsubishi Corporation
    Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd
    Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems Inc
    Mitsui & Co Ltd
    N Dollezhal Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering (RDIPE)
    NAC International
    NATO Parliamentary Assembly
    Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combine
    New York Nuclear Corporation
    North West University
    Nuclear Cargo and Service GmbH
    Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited
    Nuclear Fuel Complex
    Nuclear Management Company LLC
    Nuclear Materials Authority of Egypt
    Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
    Nuclear Power Plants Authority of Egypt (NPPA)
    Nuclear Research Institute Rez plc
    Nuclear Resources International Inc (NRI)
    Nuclear Safety Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences (IBRAE)
    Nufcor International Ltd
    NUKEM GmbH
    Ontario Power Generation
    Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission
    PAKS Nuclear Power Plant Ltd.
    Paladin Resources Ltd
    PBMR (Pty) Ltd
    Planergie Group
    Power Resources Inc
    PricewaterhouseCoopers
    Progress Energy
    Rio Tinto plc
    RRC Kurchatov Institute
    RSB Logistic GmbH
    RWE Power AG
    Scientific Development & Integration (Pty) Ltd.
    Shikoku Electric Power Co Inc
    Shimizu Corporation
    Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises (SGCE)
    Silex Systems Limited
    Skoda JS a s
    Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica SA
    Sojitz Corporation
    South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa)
    Southern Nuclear Operating Company
    State Scientific Production Enterprise
    Strathmore Minerals Corp
    Sumitomo Corporation
    Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB)
    Synatom SA
    Taiwan Power Company
    Techsnabexport (TENEX)
    Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO)
    Thorium Power Inc.
    Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc
    Tokyo Electric Power Co
    TradeTech
    Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK)
    TVEL
    University of Central Lancashire
    Ur Energy Inc
    Uran Limited
    Uranium One Inc.
    Urenco Ltd
    US Energy Corp
    USEC Inc
    UxConsulting Co
    Vattenfall
    W M Mining International Ltd
    Westinghouse Electric Co
    Westlakes Research Institute

No conflicts of interest there, honest 

The UK government wont even release the official government figures for nuclear subsidies due to the fear of a public backlash. To clean up Sellafield, just one toxic waste dump, will cost the taxpayer over £60 billion. Corporate socialism at its finest.

No way. Even without the government subsidies, nuclear energy is very much cheaper than any other form of energy. See this:

No problem but my answer would be, since in googling a subject of this sort, either you or I could find massive evidence to confirm our bias (I don't really have a dog in this fight, just saying people around here are not reporting weird water...)

...I'd just ask one or several of my friends who are petroleum engineers with a couple decades of experience...

I'm sorry man but your just wrong here. Do a bit of research on well water contamination and methane gas contamination in the water table.

I think I adequately qualified my comment.  Hell yes there are some places fracking should not be done.  I am not qualified to say where and when but it just seems logical.  But that can not be used as a general condemnation of the process, that just makes no sense.

There is certainly a lot of documentable fear mongering about fracking going on.  The problem with that in my opinion is it prevents actual understanding of the good and bad of the process.

Regarding the hammering that occurs, it is fairly simple to calculate the spread of those pressure waves through the strata.  As a crude analogy consider standing a half mile from some type of explosion.  It has to be huge to feel any pressure wave at that distance.  Sound and light, yes.  Force declines as function of cube root of distance.
I am simplifying, but that's not a terribly bad analogy.  Same physics at work.

I think the issues can be worked out safely and without environmental damage.  Studies support this - I have not read them but in the area I live there are massive numbers of these fracking operations and I'm just not seeing or hearing any of the issues such as have been raised in the media.

Yes it's true that they frac into cemented holes, but the process involves cracking the formation by hammering high pressure water gel and sand into the rock. As the rock cracks the sand fills the fissures and holds these cracks open and allows the gas to flow to the surface.
This practice is used to fracture in both vertical and horizontal operations.
The theory is that they will only affect they're intended payzone, but this is not always what happens.

The simple fact of the mater is that residents in certain areas of the united states are seeing wells that have produced clean water they're entire lives all turn contaminated within certain areas of community. Some are even able to light the methane gas coming off of they're kitchen sink taps due to the high level of communication between the fracing operations and the water table.

This in itself is a huge problem, that will continue. There's also a massive increase in small earthquakes just over the last couple years believed to be associated with the fracing operations. And then there is a whole other issue associated with the waste water disposal contamination.

It is a real problem, and it will continue.

And what is your real world experience?

As far as my experience, I disagree.  Somewhere, certain geological conditions, maybe.

In this area we have water tables at 150 to 1200 feet, and fracking uses pressure cemented drill holes and goes down past a mile.  No issues with water table contamination.

Check this...

after a year of monitoring, the researchers are finding that the drilling fluids used in fracking stayed thousands of feet below the shallow areas that supply drinking water

http://www.caloilgas.com/study-shows-no-fracking-contamination/

but he also says...

But he cautioned that the single study does not prove that fracking cannot pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

Shale gas exploration and fracing has and will continue to disrupt the water table. For the minimal returns they are seeing from this shallow formation they would do less harm to the environment and see a larger ROI by investing in more sound projects, like the oilsands for example.

I disagree.  There are subsidies to just about all kinds of energy production, worst of all are the so called 'renewables'.  And of all the forms of energy, the massive red tape and regulatory nightmare that has caused it to be virtually impossible to build a new nuclear power plant .... well, they'd be lucky if any subsidies they got even paid for a part of those start up costs.

As for what is cheapest, I imagine it depends on where you are.  If your town is next to a natural gas or coal mine, guess what's cheapest?  If it is isolated and has high ridge lines to put windmills, they should be seriously looked at.  Etc, etc.  Lots of places nuclear makes perfect sense.

By the way, if the environmentalists had not created all these road blocks to nuclear, we might not even be going in the direction of fracking.  Interesting, right?

EPA Covers Up The Safety Of Fracking



[...]
The EPA has extended public comment periods on the draft report three times since it came out — twice last year and again this year. Each extension delayed the peer-review plans.

[...]
The Environmental Protection Agency declines to have outside experts review its study claiming water contamination from fracking in Wyoming. Why confuse an analysis based on ideology with the facts?

…

In 2011, the EPA released the non-peer reviewed report on Pavillion in which the agency publicly linked fracking and groundwater contamination for the first time. However, then-EPA administrator Lisa Jackson stated that there is “no proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

[...]
First, the contamination was found in two “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outside of town, not in water wells that actually supply residents their water. EPA use of “dense soda ash” to drill its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing layer probably skewed the results.

According to the industry research group Energy in Depth, “dense soda ash has a recorded pH (11.5), very similar to the level found in the deep wells, creating the possibility that the high pH recorded by EPA could have been caused by the very chemicals it used to drill its own wells.”

What the EPA report doesn’t say is that the U.S. Geological Survey has detected organic chemicals in the well water in Pavillion for at least five decades, long before fracking was done. The deepwater wells that EPA drilled are situated near a natural gas reservoir.

Encana Corp., which owns more than 100 wells near Pavillion, says it didn’t “put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA’s deep monitoring wells. Nature did.”

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062113-661014-epa-rejects-peer-review-of-fracking-study.htm?p=full

Nuclear bombs?

Nuclear is best CO2 free way of producing energy. Coal and shale gas isn't bad if pollution is something not cared about.

If you're talking about cold fusion and other forms of Nuclear Power that don't have major meltdowns which will cause the end of humanity then I'm all for it but these people who think it's a good idea to put nuclear bombs right next to highly populated areas scare the shit out of me and it makes you realise just how little they give a fuck about human beings.

The nuclear industry would collapse overnight without government subsidies, it's one of the most inefficient ways to produce electricity. If people want small government, who's going to pay for the handouts to the nuclear industry?

Even the current technology of generating electricity using nuclear fission is far better than burning gas or coal to generate the same. I don't know why all those environmentalists oppose nuclear energy. If you take all the necessary security precautions, nuclear energy is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy which is available to us.

We need really new breakthroughs like nuclear fusion, not the shitty gas that destroys environment in the large scales!

Nothing can be achieved without exponentially larger funding for the research in to green-oil. The funding is difficult to achieve, as the OPEC cartel is using various blackmail tactics.