Fracking? for or against?

[the truth]

I know so very little of this but am interested to know more



is it safe is it green? whats its track record abroad?



is it green? have we got viable alternatives? what about using the tide for energy? building a few barrages?



will this really reduce prices?



who will make money from this? is it going to be private money mainly?

[Kate!]

Ecologically speaking, i have heard it has a lot of dangers associated with it, I would have to read up on it to give an informed opinion, but instinctively am against it.

[Nedusa]

Whenever any new technology comes along there are risks involved and of course like the proposed H2S rail scheme people living near these "fracking" areas are going to be pissed off. But we are in an energy hole that can't be filled by renewable green technologies anytime soon. So the possiblity that there is up to 1,300 Trillion Cu mtrs of Gas awaiting retrieval is a huge carrot to the Energy Companies.

Like in the States expect to see the smaller companies get involved first before the big Oil majors start to move in after the majority of the teething problems have been sorted out.

Even if only 0.05% of these Gas reserves are realised then this will help the Govt's coffers in tax revenue and of course make our energy bills cheaper.

So I think we need to stay with this and try and improve the technologies and focus on the environmental costs/risks to ensure this fledgling industry follows all the rules and does not try to cut corners...............

[Kizzy]

It has already been stated that bills will not be any cheaper, and there are ecological risks, but meh... money> people every time.

[the truth]

Whenever any new technology comes along there are risks involved and of course like the proposed H2S rail scheme people living near these "fracking" areas are going to be pissed off. But we are in an energy hole that can't be filled by renewable green technologies anytime soon. So the possiblity that there is up to 1,300 Trillion Cu mtrs of Gas awaiting retrieval is a huge carrot to the Energy Companies.

Like in the States expect to see the smaller companies get involved first before the big Oil majors start to move in after the majority of the teething problems have been sorted out.

Even if only 0.05% of these Gas reserves are realised then this will help the Govt's coffers in tax revenue and of course make our energy bills cheaper.

So I think we need to stay with this and try and improve the technologies and focus on the environmental costs/risks to ensure this fledgling industry follows all the rules and does not try to cut corners...............

what was worng with the sevewrn barrage scheme ? that would have provided arond 5% of our entire energy...weve got the 2nd highest tidal range in the world....at £20/25 billion thats a snip compared to the £60 billion were spending to get from manchester to london 20 mins quicker? disastrous project

[lostalex]

I'd rather have to deal with the issues of fracking at home than deal with the middle east. So I say frack away. The sooner we can stop pretending to give a **** about the middle east the better. The sooner we aren't energy dependent on the middle east, the better. I want to be completely done with the middle east, I want my country to have nothing to do with them.

[Z]

It has already been stated that bills will not be any cheaper, and there are ecological risks, but meh... money> people every time.

Well, you're right in a sense but I'd say the reason we're pressing ahead with fracking is because oil and gas are set to run out and there needs to be an alternative to it instead of bleeding oil and gas dry and then having nothing left to use. Countries rich in oil and gas can suddenly name their price and the world is held at ransom by certain countries dotted around the world. Fracking is just complicated I think, it requires a lot of effort to make it work and that's why it's been ignored up until now. There will be initial teething problems but once it's been established how to successfully perform fracking operations in a timely and effective manner, the big companies will step in. So it's not about making bills cheaper, but about keeping them at the same price now rather than watching them shoot up dramatically because the Russias, Nigerias and Saudi Arabias of this world are suddenly in charge of the world's central heating :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Then we can have wave/wind/solar power for domestic residential use, hybrid/electric cars, or convert to biodiesel?

[Z]

Then we can have wave/wind/solar power for domestic residential use, hybrid/electric cars, or convert to biodiesel?

I think the problems with those various technologies is that they require so much effort for so little return that they're the Plan C to fracking's Plan B. I think eventually those technologies will be relied upon but not until all the other options have been exhausted. At least with cars the changes have been set into motion and you do see hybrid cars out on the roads occasionally, I think cost is the only real issue with all energy forms really. What people use needs to be the cheapest and most efficient from a buying point of view, not one or the other and none of them are perfect. Relying on the weather for energy supplies can be risky.

[Kizzy]

I think the problems with those various technologies is that they require so much effort for so little return that they're the Plan C to fracking's Plan B. I think eventually those technologies will be relied upon but not until all the other options have been exhausted. At least with cars the changes have been set into motion and you do see hybrid cars out on the roads occasionally, I think cost is the only real issue with all energy forms really. What people use needs to be the cheapest and most efficient from a buying point of view, not one or the other and none of them are perfect. Relying on the weather for energy supplies can be risky.

You don't have to buy renewables though... once the initial outlay it's just maintenance.
There are green deals set up for those communities who wish to invest. I can't help but think for the future I would feel more comfortable going down this road than the fracking/ nuclear route, which is also grossly expensive and if any problems occur the results would be catastrophic.

[Z]

You don't have to buy renewables though... once the initial outlay it's just maintenance.
There are green deals set up for those communities who wish to invest. I can't help but think for the future I would feel more comfortable going down this road than the fracking/ nuclear route, which is also grossly expensive and if any problems occur the results would be catastrophic.

Yeah I think Chernobyl and more recently Fukushima have completely ruined any chance nuclear energy might have had at becoming a phenomenon. I'd rather rely on harnessing renewable energy too but just from a business point of view it simply won't happen in our lifetimes, and it's a bit scary to think how irreparably we might damage the earth up until the point where we decide to make the change and invest into renewables.

[user104658]

I'm in two minds about it. On one hand there is a potential for things to go badly wrong - it's an untested industry and no one can predict every outcome.

On the other, we are running out of fuel. It really is that simple. There aren't many viable alternatives yet.

Regarding nuclear, I personally think it shouldnt be written off forever, but it should definitely be shelved until out level of advancement matches up with the potential risks. We're children playing with fire at the moment, as Fukushima has shown. People (en masse) seem to think that's over but in reality the news outlets just got bored with it. It's still spewing radioactive waste into the pacific ocean and they have no idea how to stop it: people are giving up their lives just to try. It's terrifying. So I think we should be saving our nuclear fuel sources until they can be used in "disasterproof" containment, until radioactive clean-up techniques have been vastly improved, and until we have a cheap means of either neutralising radioactive waste or ejecting it into space rather than burying it. not to mention, by that time we would probably also have developed more efficient technologies for harvesting potential nuclear energy, so the fuel would go much further.

[Z]

It's a shame that nuclear energy has been tainted by two disasters; because it's actually a very clean and safe technology from what I gather about it. I do think that it's been put to the side for the moment but it may well make a comeback as a viable energy source in the future.

[Kizzy]

With the increase in tremors around the UK recently I'm stunned it's even considered.
I don't think nuclear should be described as clean.

[Jesus.]

It's madness that this should be considered as viable. We have people making excuses why we can't do this or can't do that, yet blast a load of sh*t into the ground and people are all "****** yeah".

Seriously misguided.

[Kizzy]

I think if nuclear was to be considered it should be fusion not fission.
Leave the fuel in the fossil.

[user104658]

It's a shame that nuclear energy has been tainted by two disasters; because it's actually a very clean and safe technology from what I gather about it. I do think that it's been put to the side for the moment but it may well make a comeback as a viable energy source in the future.

It's a skewed statistic though... It's relatively "safe" in the sense that accidents are few, and "clean" in that it doesn't pump out pollutants into the atmosphere under normal operating conditions.

However - when there IS an accident the consequences are massive, global and (can be practically considered) permanent. Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for hundreds if not thousands of years. Fukushima will be a complete no-go zone for tens of thousands of years. And like I said - it's still spewing radioactive material into the pacific. They have no idea how to stop it. They never did. They just operated on the assumption that nothing like this would ever happen.

When nuclear energy was introduced it was estimated that the odds of catastrophic meltdown was "one in ten thousand years". There have been two in 40 years. I don't think the estimated safeness of the technology is really relevant any more.

[the truth]

why not test this out in the uninhabited parts of northern scotland first? endless land and no people at risk? also what about the severn barrage scheme?

[DDRickyDD]

Fracking will damage the environment beyond repair. It must be stopped before it's too late.

[smeagol]

watch the recent matt damon movie The promised land. its quite a nice little movie about fracking. its not everyday you can watch a movie and learn something lol

i'm against