Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Fracking
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Author 
 Message
Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 15 11:06 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

Friends of the earth day of action against fracking. 10th October 2015.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 15 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

considering the global record of the nuclear industry since the late 1930's and the new power stations that have quietly been rubber stamped to go ahead i recon the "no frack"campaign is way behind the field and until if/when there has been some "unpleasant consequences" that are a definite vote loser or a heads on sticks moment any opposition will require tactics other than "an action day".as there are billions to be made buying a few politicians is not even pocket change.

that said im less bothered by fracked gas or oil extraction or even coal bed methane(which has some issues re the seriously mucky water that needs to be pumped out )than i am about ucg which has the proven potential for very serious environmental problems be it undersea or under dry land

ucg is the obvious mission creep once gas extraction becomes "normal"and some licenses are already in place

all of them except nukes are a carbon based fossil fuel which seems a bad idea on a variety of grounds and nukes are nukes which are certainly less than clean and safe based on the history of that industry.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 16 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

ha b#####y ha

the statement is typical corporate psychopath speak but they have been stuffed by economics (and perhaps by some sensible civil servants) before they could take a load of cash from the plan to industrialise and poison a rather nice 100km stretch of coastline .

even if the production side of it went horribly wrong (so far the record of successful ucg is rather thin) if the build/drill/burn phase started there would be plenty of cash to be extracted via the subcontractor shell companies who would have been contracted to do the practical stuff.(you know who you are halliburton et al).

the millions spent on the licences,lawyers,spinners ,consultants ,bribes etc is pocket change to the big investors in such schemes and much will have gone back to them via ownership of the above planning crew but the big money isnt going to start so they have effectively got burned with this scheme.

ps i dont feel any more sorry for "sharon the receptionist" or "bob the nightwatchman" than i do for anyone who is "just doing my job" in a evil scheme.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 16 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

U-tube video. Experienced chemist & hydrologist explains why fracking shouldn't go ahead in East Yorkshire.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 11960

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 16 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

It is interesting to see that they were going to de-carbonise the methane, which is after all just carbon and hydrogen, apparently before use. Pity their publicist isn't a chemist, or even studied chemistry to GCSE level.

Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3209
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 16 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Mistress Rose wrote:
It is interesting to see that they were going to de-carbonise the methane, which is after all just carbon and hydrogen, apparently before use. Pity their publicist isn't a chemist, or even studied chemistry to GCSE level.
It's called pre-combustion carbon capture - much more efficient than the post-combustion carbon capture that the government decided, against all the advice, to force research in the UK to chase, a couple of years before withdrawing the money it put up to fund it.

It is, basically, removing the carbon from methane by partial oxidation so that you end up with CO2 and hydrogen. There's a lot less contaminants than after you burn it, so you can capture the CO2 more easily, and you burn the hydrogen, which produces water out of your exhaust.

So perhaps he is a chemist, after all.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 11960

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 16 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I will have to read that one up Shane, but it seems a waste of energy to do that when you can get the carbon dioxide after burning anyway. Perhaps I ought to read my chemistry journals occasionally as I am sure someone has done an article on it somewhere.

Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3209
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 16 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

There's two problems with post-combustion capture. One is that the CO2 is mixed in with all sorts of other nasties, and the second is that it can't easily be done at pressure meaning that all the equipment is massive.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 16 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

the point in tav's you tube link about the aquifer and well failure rates is very valid.

the data from patents and from observation of historical examples give a life time and legacy failure rate of around 1 to 10% depending on geology,technology used and post operation mediations.
even at 1% it seems probable that the aquifer is at risk of organic contamination as there would be more than enough holes to give a fair chance of at least one leaking at the right depth.

the sudden halt mentioned in this needs clarification,if it was a well containment failure, even if controlled by prompt action,it would indicate that the problem poses a real and significant risk

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 16 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

ps i still recon gas/oil extraction is relatively harmless compared to most proposed cbm and all of them are nowt compared to ucg.

all of them could be seen as adding to climate stress and therefore should be avoided in favour of the alternatives but going after the most horrid should be the strategic priority.
where the likely damage is less such as in the cases of no major aquifer over the target fossils or where the production infrastructure would fit into an already industrialised landscape seems a drain on limited resources,in any asymmetric battle choosing when and where one fights is vital.

the biggest factor will be geo political economics rather than amateur nimbys or even semi pro broader opposition but there could be particular "extreme energy" proposals where a local effect could have wider consequences.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 16 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

hydrology uk a rather useful set of maps for folk considering the implications of fracking,cbm,ucg in their or other areas.

the ryedale planning meeting is ongoing at the mo and is something of a test case as to if local planning is going to decide one way or the other or pass the buck back to central gov.

linky to ongoing report of planning meeting

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 16 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

linc to chinchilla sounds fluffy but it is ucg in practice.

probably a good thing five quartercould not get their sums to add up to a massive test on the north east coast

the panicked legal threats link in the above from the herald has some interesting details

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

rather close to my back yard

msm

if they mess with the river they mess with my moos.they should consider that very carefully.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 16 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

medical view

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 37967
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 16 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

leakage to atmosphere of methane /ethane etc is as shane mentioned a problem the industry tries to avoid as going bang is a very bad result .however it seems some(up to a couple of percent) of the gas that reaches the well head leaks before it gets to the consumer.

as unburned hydrocarbons are around 20 times more effective as greenhouse gas than co2 from burning it if the leakage is at the higher end of the range it will provide an extra 40% greenhouse effect on top of that from creating atmostpheric co2.

at the low end it isnt much of an extra problem unless it all escapes in one place with a whoosh and a bang.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 22 of 25
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright 2004 marsjupiter.com