Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Fracking
Yes 70 57.85%
No 44 36.36%
Not sure 7 5.79%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2014, 03:59 PM
 
34,300 posts, read 15,656,546 times
Reputation: 13053

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Does fracking poison your water?
We will find that out later after you drink it. The important thing is to consume what you think is safe. We learn that when some VIP drinks what he says is safe for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2014, 04:14 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,266,597 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
We will find that out later after you drink it. The important thing is to consume what you think is safe. We learn that when some VIP drinks what he says is safe for you.
Who cares what the VIP says?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 04:36 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,807,980 times
Reputation: 5478
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
And you would replace it with what? Don't say wind and solar because those sources will never replace base power from fossil fuel and nuclear becsue of the storage issue. They aren't even competitive now and adding enough storage has a compounding effect that would put the costs of such systems out of this world. What are you going to replace "outdated" fuels with?
You are overstating your case. If solar gets cheap enough the problem is likely solvable.

Anther factor of 4 in efficiency and cost would probably do it. And that is not impossible. Certainly nol in hand either...but not out of reach in a decade or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,466,589 times
Reputation: 4586
Yes, at least for natural gas. To those against it - I'm sure you are for using natural gas, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 04:47 PM
 
34,300 posts, read 15,656,546 times
Reputation: 13053
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Who cares what the VIP says?
Couldn't agree more. Who cares what an oil company says either.

I'm no tree hugger. I chopped up five of them last year. I like cheep gas too. I don't live in an area that will get fracked and the ground water is undrinkable for other reasons. I just don't believe you can inject poison in large quantities into anything without adverse effects somewhere down the line.

If we look at the planet as a living breathing body. Which I think it is. Just like the human body the less harm we do to it the better off we are. Some damage is expected and necessary and it heals itself with time.
What part of the human body would someone inject with poison. Some would say the part that is a waste land already and suggest an intracranial injection would be best. Personally I'm happy to just trim my hair and nails. Maybe I'll accept chemotherapy when it's time to make that decision, but I don't think we benefit by treating the earth like a cancer patient. Then trying to live off the dying body or a portion of it.

Sometimes I like to take the position of the underdog. They don't win that much but it's exciting when they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/1...rado-gas-patch

This didn't really happen. Well maybe it did but who cares. We can capture the domestic water supply and sell it at a nice profit.

Last edited by phma; 11-13-2014 at 05:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 04:47 PM
 
2,025 posts, read 4,177,784 times
Reputation: 2540
because 3,000 ft deep oil and gas wells contaminate 100ft oil wells?

Doesn't make sense, does it, really? Some folks swallow any nonsense they hear, amazing. If fracking was such a slam dunk the entire state of North Dakota would be an utter wasteland, not a state full of cows, farms and oil wells, all side by side, farmland surrounding clusters of wells.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,227,263 times
Reputation: 6553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Nope.

Fracking renders the water unsuable.
I have 8 wells within 10 miles of my house and 3 within 1 mile. No issues with my water and it has been tested multiple times.
My neighbor has 2 wells on his property. 1 is no more than 300 yards from his house. No water issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 05:01 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,068,169 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
You are overstating your case. If solar gets cheap enough the problem is likely solvable.
Doesn't matter, you have a compounding escalation of arrays and storage needed to meet base load.

Consider what you need for one day under ideal conditions. Suppose you get 8 hours of good sunlight, you need enough supply to meet the other 16 hours to store. Let's suppose that doubles the system size. Now you have to build and pay for storage system, suppose we pump water up hill into a man made reservoir. Now you have energy costs to pump that water and losses of efficiecy with generators.... oops! your system has to increase even more as does the amount of storage you have.

That's just for one day assuming ideal conditions. As we know the sun doesn't shine all the time, the amount of capacity and storage you need is going to balloon out of control. How much capacity and storage is enough? 3 days? 7 days?

The next question is are you going to idle billion dollar fossil fuel plants or roll the dice?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 05:14 PM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,352,878 times
Reputation: 11538
Yes.....we use fracking when drilling for water and to chlorinate some wells.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 05:27 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 15,807,980 times
Reputation: 5478
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Doesn't matter, you have a compounding escalation of arrays and storage needed to meet base load.

Consider what you need for one day under ideal conditions. Suppose you get 8 hours of good sunlight, you need enough supply to meet the other 16 hours to store. Let's suppose that doubles the system size. Now you have to build and pay for storage system, suppose we pump water up hill into a man made reservoir. Now you have energy costs to pump that water and losses of efficiecy with generators.... oops! your system has to increase even more as does the amount of storage you have.

That's just for one day assuming ideal conditions. As we know the sun doesn't shine all the time, the amount of capacity and storage you need is going to balloon out of control. How much capacity and storage is enough? 3 days? 7 days?

The next question is are you going to idle billion dollar fossil fuel plants or roll the dice?
The entire question is really how efficient you can get on the storage cycle. And that is a number that is dropping reasonably quickly. I would think viable systems are now in the early lab stage.

Edit - Said badly. I mean the process is becoming more efficient.

So still some years off. Given a factor of two in price and two in efficiency one can pump twice the required electricity at half todays cost. Or four times the electricity at the same cost as today...which is just below the cost of the same service from the utility.

Can we get 33% efficiency in the storage cycle? Maybe. And maybe we need better than that. Then again if the system is hydrogen we get our auto fuel on the side. And that may offset some of the cost.

I don't see this one as solved. But it is not hopeless.

And you cycle the fossil fuel plants out over 50 years. They are the big backup while all this takes place.

And I still have not crossed off nuclear though it may well get buzz sawed by all those roof arrays.

Last edited by lvoc; 11-13-2014 at 05:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top