NATION

PASSWORD

Fracking: Worth the Risk

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Do you support Fracking?

Yes, It's good for growth
22
24%
No, It's a danger to our environment
47
51%
What is Fracking?
4
4%
Yes, For some other reason
7
8%
No, For some other reason
9
10%
Other
3
3%
 
Total votes : 92

User avatar
The United Territories of Providence
Minister
 
Posts: 2288
Founded: May 29, 2014
Ex-Nation

Fracking: Worth the Risk

Postby The United Territories of Providence » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:10 pm

DEFINITELY WATCH THIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti2niW2BRA

Articles from both sides in case you didn't have an opinion
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/07/more-municipal-bans-on-fracking-pose-setback-to-domestic-energy-boom/
The surge in domestic-energy production that has created millions of new jobs and abundant natural gas and oil is now facing a potential setback, with cities across the country imposing bans on the widely-used deep-drilling process known as fracking....

There is little surprise that Texas is at the forefront of the fight between energy companies and other fracking supporters and critics who say the drilling process is noisy, pollutes water supplies and triggers earthquakes.

Most of the attention in Texas is now on Denton, a college town near Dallas that sits on the Barnett shale formation that is full of natural gas.

The city became the first in Texas to impose the ban and has emerged as a test case for municipalities across the state trying to halt the drilling -- particularly in the face of the powerful energy industry and the Texas General Land Office, which owns 13 million acres of land across Texas and uses revenue from the mineral rights to fund public education....

The process of fracking involves shooting a mix of pressurized water, sand and chemicals to split rock formations and release the gas and so-called tight oil.

Fracking supporters say the industry in 2012 supported 2.1 million jobs across the country and contributed nearly $284 billion to the country’s Gross Domestic Product, according to most recent figures....

Cities might never be able to prove definitively that fracking causes earthquakes.

Texas hired its first seismologist to investigate the potential link after Reno Mayor Lyndamyrth Stokes led an effort to get the Railroad Commission to halt the drilling in her area. Stokes say the seismologist told her that making such a definitive connection would be impossible.

On Monday, potential 2016 Democratic White House Candidate Hillary Clinton, who will need a domestic-energy platform, tried walking the narrow line between fracking supporters and critics.

“It is crucial we put in place smart regulations and enforce them including deciding not to drill when the risks to local communities, landscapes and ecosystems are just too high,” she told the League of Conservation Voters in New York. But “natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner, greener economy.”


Other side
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/30/toxic-chemicals-and-carcinogens-skyrocket-near-fracking-sites-study-says
Oil and gas wells across the country are spewing “dangerous" cancer-causing chemicals into the air, according to a new study that further corroborates reports of health problems around hydraulic fracturing sites.

“This is a significant public health risk,” says Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany-State University of New York and lead author of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal Environmental Health. “Cancer has a long latency, so you’re not seeing an elevation in cancer in these communities. But five, 10, 15 years from now, elevation in cancer is almost certain to happen.”

Eight poisonous chemicals were found near wells and fracking sites in Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wyoming at levels that far exceeded recommended federal limits. Benzene, a carcinogen, was the most common, as was formaldehyde, which also has been linked to cancer. Hydrogen sulfide, which smells like rotten eggs and can affect the brain and upper-respiratory system, also was found.

“I was amazed,” Carpenter says. “Five orders of magnitude over federal limits for benzene at one site – that’s just incredible. You could practically just light a match and have an explosion with that concentration.

“It’s an indication of how leaky these systems are.”

The health effects of living near a fracking site have been felt elsewhere, according to separate research. A study published last month by researchers from the University of Washington and Yale University found residents within a kilometer of a well had up to twice the number of health problems as those living at least 2 kilometers away.

“The way fracking’s being done in these five states, it’s not being done safely,” Carpenter says...

Not every sample exceeded the recommended limits. But in those that did – slightly less than half the samples taken – benzene levels were 35 to 770,000 times greater than normal concentrations, or up to 33 times the exposure a driver might get while fueling his or her car. Similarly, hydrogen sulfide levels above federal standards were 90 to 60,000 times higher than normal – enough to cause eye and respiratory irritation, fatigue, irritability, poor memory and dizziness after just one hour of exposure...

Thomas has come across similar symptoms at other unconventional oil and gas sites across the country, where as executive director of the nonprofit group ShaleTest, she’s helped take air samples for low-income families and communities affected by fracking.

However, it’s difficult to determine which health issues are a result of oil and gas operations and which stem from other factors, because symptoms often start only gradually and government air quality studies have proved limited in scope.

“It’s really hard to say what’s from the actual exposure,” Thomas says. “It’s very scary. It’s very hard to get information about what the development is. One minute you’re living your normal life, the next, people start to get really sick and they can’t get any answers.”


Fracking is a rather complicated issue. Sure it poses risks to our environment, but it's a more efficient process of producing energy. There are risks associated with every method of energy production, I don't see this as much different. I don't like fracking, but it does put us on the road to energy independence. It's so new, I don't know if it's worth the risk. But seeing how it's creating jobs, and producing oil and gas....I'm inclined to lean towards pro-fracking. I care about the environment, but preserving the natural beauty of this country comes after the needs of the people. I wish we were green, but we're not. If this is how we get there, and I hate to quote Sarah Palin....I really hate to quote Sarah Palin....I don't feel like I can stress how much I hate to quote Sarah Palin without being ironic...."Drill Baby Drill!"

What's your opinion on fracking? Are there any real risks, and if so, do the benefits outweigh them? Is there Fracking in wherever you are? Do you Support Keystone XL? Is Fracking the key to Energy Independence?
Last edited by The United Territories of Providence on Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
_[' ]_
(-_Q)

FORMER REPUBLICAN
SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Economic: -2.5
Social: -5.28


LGBTQ Rights
Palestine
Medicare for All
Gender Equality
Green Energy
Legal Immigration
Abortion rights
Democracy
Assault Weapons Ban
Censorship
MRA
Fundamentalism
Fascism
Political Correctness
Fascism
Monarchy
Illegal Immigration
Capitalism
Free Trade

User avatar
Atomic Utopia
Minister
 
Posts: 2488
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atomic Utopia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:19 pm

I honestly question why we take the risk when there is safer and cleaner energy available. Yes, I am talking about nuclear energy. To put it simply the cost of fracking to our environment is much greater than the cost of safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy, so I do not think it is worth the risk.
Fabulously bisexual.
Note: I do not use NS stats for my RP, instead I use numbers I made up one evening when writing my factbooks.

sudo rm -rf /, the best file compression around.

User avatar
Soselo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1223
Founded: Jun 28, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Soselo » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:19 pm

As expected, both sides commend the creation of unnecessary work.
Things do not change; we change.

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 27796
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Capitalizt

Postby Frisbeeteria » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:21 pm

The United Territories of Providence wrote:I care about the environment, but preserving the natural beauty of this country comes after the needs of the people.

There's a whole lot more to enviornmentalism than "beauty". For instance, I'm rather fond of the water table, the source of a minor life-sustaining compound known as H2O. Nobody has proven that wide spread fracking won't contaminate the water table where the two layers are fairly close, but it seems logical that breaking the strata apart might cause some mixing.

So, new minor source of energy, or water to drink? I'm going with water.

User avatar
Second Blazing
Minister
 
Posts: 2503
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Blazing » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:21 pm

You're frakking right.
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

User avatar
Atomic Utopia
Minister
 
Posts: 2488
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atomic Utopia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:23 pm

Soselo wrote:As expected, both sides commend the creation of unnecessary work.

Meaning? The United States, and I might say the rest of the world without a supply of oil, cannot rely on the southwest Asian oil producing countries to continually supply us with oil, and with global climate change on the horizon I think the solution is clear, switch to nuclear.
Fabulously bisexual.
Note: I do not use NS stats for my RP, instead I use numbers I made up one evening when writing my factbooks.

sudo rm -rf /, the best file compression around.

User avatar
The United Territories of Providence
Minister
 
Posts: 2288
Founded: May 29, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Territories of Providence » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:25 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
The United Territories of Providence wrote:I care about the environment, but preserving the natural beauty of this country comes after the needs of the people.

There's a whole lot more to enviornmentalism than "beauty". For instance, I'm rather fond of the water table, the source of a minor life-sustaining compound known as H2O. Nobody has proven that wide spread fracking won't contaminate the water table where the two layers are fairly close, but it seems logical that breaking the strata apart might cause some mixing.

So, new minor source of energy, or water to drink? I'm going with water.


And you could make that point, and you'd be right to. But we're already contaminating our aquifers. I'm sure someone has proved fracking won't contaminate the water, but I'm sure a different paid scientist proved it would. Fracking might not be the next coal, but billions of dollars of revenue and millions of jobs are nothing to sneeze at.
_[' ]_
(-_Q)

FORMER REPUBLICAN
SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Economic: -2.5
Social: -5.28


LGBTQ Rights
Palestine
Medicare for All
Gender Equality
Green Energy
Legal Immigration
Abortion rights
Democracy
Assault Weapons Ban
Censorship
MRA
Fundamentalism
Fascism
Political Correctness
Fascism
Monarchy
Illegal Immigration
Capitalism
Free Trade

User avatar
Empire of Narnia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5577
Founded: Oct 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Empire of Narnia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:27 pm

It's worth it. We need oil to fuel cars and make plastic.

User avatar
Jetlag
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Jetlag » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:38 pm

Fracking is merely a band-aid in terms of energy policy - it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Oil is NOT a renewable resource, meaning we will run out in the foreseeable future. Combined with the environmental issues that come along with it, I honestly don't think fracking is worth the risk.
La vie est absurde.

User avatar
Atomic Utopia
Minister
 
Posts: 2488
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atomic Utopia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:41 pm

The United Territories of Providence wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:There's a whole lot more to enviornmentalism than "beauty". For instance, I'm rather fond of the water table, the source of a minor life-sustaining compound known as H2O. Nobody has proven that wide spread fracking won't contaminate the water table where the two layers are fairly close, but it seems logical that breaking the strata apart might cause some mixing.

So, new minor source of energy, or water to drink? I'm going with water.


And you could make that point, and you'd be right to. But we're already contaminating our aquifers. I'm sure someone has proved fracking won't contaminate the water, but I'm sure a different paid scientist proved it would. Fracking might not be the next coal, but billions of dollars of revenue and millions of jobs are nothing to sneeze at.

I have a question for you, what would this fracking do that nuclear energy would not (excepting CO2 emissions,that is exclusively fracking) do safer. Plus we are nowhere near peak uranium if we use breeder reactors.
Fabulously bisexual.
Note: I do not use NS stats for my RP, instead I use numbers I made up one evening when writing my factbooks.

sudo rm -rf /, the best file compression around.

User avatar
Estva
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1009
Founded: Nov 26, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Estva » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:43 pm

The natural energy boom should only be used in order provide a stepping stone to funding the economy while we build nuclear plants.

But, that will never happen.
Join the Libdems.

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22269
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saiwania » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:43 pm

I can see the pro-fracking side winning out, they have the money to buy politicians and the natural gas it can get is just too valuable to leave sitting in the ground.
Last edited by Saiwania on Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sith Acolyte
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken!

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:43 pm

Atomic Utopia wrote:I honestly question why we take the risk when there is safer and cleaner energy available. Yes, I am talking about nuclear energy. To put it simply the cost of fracking to our environment is much greater than the cost of safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy, so I do not think it is worth the risk.

Well, the problem is that isn't technically true because fracking (especially as it is practiced currently in the US where the process is majorly occurring on privately held land wells that the oil companies pay landowners for the use of) is 'cheaper' than the very extended process of opening a nuclear power plant would be and the extensive number of lawsuits and legal challenges such an attempt would garner from the self-proclaimed 'environmentalist' movement that just doesn't have the same extent in regards to oil companies opening wells.

Though yes, nuclear is decidedly better from an objective standpoint.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Jordsindia
Minister
 
Posts: 2358
Founded: Apr 10, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Jordsindia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:45 pm

Jetlag wrote:Fracking is merely a band-aid in terms of energy policy - it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Oil is NOT a renewable resource, meaning we will run out in the foreseeable future. Combined with the environmental issues that come along with it, I honestly don't think fracking is worth the risk.

I don't see oil running out anytime soon, especially since we keep finding way to extract more and more oil from the same places. Fracking being one of them.
Last edited by Jordsindia on Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Represent

American and Proud!

10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain, and 100% reason to remember the name!

-∮ The Crumpet Cult ∮-

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:45 pm

Cracking isn't worth it. Let's get off of oil already.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Imyoji
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1080
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Imyoji » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:46 pm

Short term? Good. But it's consequences are not something I want my children or my friends children or anybody's children to handle.
Jordsindia wrote:
Jetlag wrote:Fracking is merely a band-aid in terms of energy policy - it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Oil is NOT a renewable resource, meaning we will run out in the foreseeable future. Combined with the environmental issues that come along with it, I honestly don't think fracking is worth the risk.

I don't see oil running out anytime soon, especially since we keep finding way to extract more and more oil from the same places. Fracking being one of them.

Nuclear power and scientific community says hi.
The Republic of Imyoji ― Emüryürü-ju Miinju
The Harmonious Northern Island


What do you get when you combine pursuits of technological advancements, an appreciation and strong conservation of the natural environment, and a harmony between altruistic communitarianism and state sponsored capitalism?
i am the globalization shill the left and the right warned you about

User avatar
The United Territories of Providence
Minister
 
Posts: 2288
Founded: May 29, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Territories of Providence » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:49 pm

Atomic Utopia wrote:
The United Territories of Providence wrote:
And you could make that point, and you'd be right to. But we're already contaminating our aquifers. I'm sure someone has proved fracking won't contaminate the water, but I'm sure a different paid scientist proved it would. Fracking might not be the next coal, but billions of dollars of revenue and millions of jobs are nothing to sneeze at.

I have a question for you, what would this fracking do that nuclear energy would not (excepting CO2 emissions,that is exclusively fracking) do safer. Plus we are nowhere near peak uranium if we use breeder reactors.


Well we can frack for a fraction of what it would cost to pursue nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy, is safe when done correctly. But we've seen what happens when it's not, and that scares people. Nuclear energy won't make it in America, at least not for a few decades.
_[' ]_
(-_Q)

FORMER REPUBLICAN
SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Economic: -2.5
Social: -5.28


LGBTQ Rights
Palestine
Medicare for All
Gender Equality
Green Energy
Legal Immigration
Abortion rights
Democracy
Assault Weapons Ban
Censorship
MRA
Fundamentalism
Fascism
Political Correctness
Fascism
Monarchy
Illegal Immigration
Capitalism
Free Trade

User avatar
Imyoji
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1080
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Imyoji » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:54 pm

The United Territories of Providence wrote:
Atomic Utopia wrote:I have a question for you, what would this fracking do that nuclear energy would not (excepting CO2 emissions,that is exclusively fracking) do safer. Plus we are nowhere near peak uranium if we use breeder reactors.


Well we can frack for a fraction of what it would cost to pursue nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy, is safe when done correctly. But we've seen what happens when it's not, and that scares people. Nuclear energy won't make it in America, at least not for a few decades.

The fears stems from ignorance, not to mention Japan is a fault line and Chernobyl was avoidable human error at it's core.

Just don't put reactors in California or close to Yellowstone :p
The Republic of Imyoji ― Emüryürü-ju Miinju
The Harmonious Northern Island


What do you get when you combine pursuits of technological advancements, an appreciation and strong conservation of the natural environment, and a harmony between altruistic communitarianism and state sponsored capitalism?
i am the globalization shill the left and the right warned you about

User avatar
Atomic Utopia
Minister
 
Posts: 2488
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atomic Utopia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:58 pm

The United Territories of Providence wrote:
Atomic Utopia wrote:I have a question for you, what would this fracking do that nuclear energy would not (excepting CO2 emissions,that is exclusively fracking) do safer. Plus we are nowhere near peak uranium if we use breeder reactors.


Well we can frack for a fraction of what it would cost to pursue nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy, is safe when done correctly. But we've seen what happens when it's not, and that scares people. Nuclear energy won't make it in America, at least not for a few decades.

But is the negative externality worth the low cost? Nuclear energy is extremely safe and clean, according to the WHO 7 million people are killed each year by air pollution, nuclear energy provides 10% of the world's energy, and it produces no air pollution. To put it simply even when it is not done correctly it is safe, for all of the damage that Fukishima and Chernobyl has wrought, coal and oil has outdone nuclear over hundredfold in the damage it has done even if you use the worst reasonable estimates for nuclear.

The fear of nuclear in the general populace is plain ignorance, not anything profound.
Last edited by Atomic Utopia on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Fabulously bisexual.
Note: I do not use NS stats for my RP, instead I use numbers I made up one evening when writing my factbooks.

sudo rm -rf /, the best file compression around.

User avatar
Jetlag
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Jetlag » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:02 pm

Jordsindia wrote:
Jetlag wrote:Fracking is merely a band-aid in terms of energy policy - it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Oil is NOT a renewable resource, meaning we will run out in the foreseeable future. Combined with the environmental issues that come along with it, I honestly don't think fracking is worth the risk.

I don't see oil running out anytime soon, especially since we keep finding way to extract more and more oil from the same places. Fracking being one of them.

But when it does run out, we won't have any for several million (or is it billion?) years. And according to this article, we'll start running out sooner than you think.
La vie est absurde.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:07 pm

Jetlag wrote:
Jordsindia wrote:I don't see oil running out anytime soon, especially since we keep finding way to extract more and more oil from the same places. Fracking being one of them.

But when it does run out, we won't have any for several million (or is it billion?) years. And according to this article, we'll start running out sooner than you think.

Image

Peak oil is possibly one of the biggest loads of poorly researched and yet widely believed junk Malthusian headline-grabbing attention-pieces that ever got widely distributed.

Global Warming is a significantly greater danger to society than any notion of peak-oil being reached.
Last edited by Occupied Deutschland on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Atomic Utopia
Minister
 
Posts: 2488
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Atomic Utopia » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:10 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Jetlag wrote:But when it does run out, we won't have any for several million (or is it billion?) years. And according to this article, we'll start running out sooner than you think.

Image

Peak oil is possibly one of the biggest loads of poorly researched and yet widely believed junk Malthusian headline-grabbing attention-pieces that ever got widely distributed.

While oil will eventually peak, and in all probability later than what some may say, we also must realize that our current environment that we are regrettably largely dependent upon will be damaged by the continued use of oil and other fossil fuels, therefore I think switching to nuclear rather than continuing upon the deleterious path of fossil fuel use would be advisable. I am also inclined to believe the royal society and other reputable scientific organizations in what they say.
Last edited by Atomic Utopia on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fabulously bisexual.
Note: I do not use NS stats for my RP, instead I use numbers I made up one evening when writing my factbooks.

sudo rm -rf /, the best file compression around.

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:15 pm

Atomic Utopia wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Image

Peak oil is possibly one of the biggest loads of poorly researched and yet widely believed junk Malthusian headline-grabbing attention-pieces that ever got widely distributed.

While oil will eventually peak, and in all probability later than what some may say, we also must realize that our current environment that we are regrettably largely dependent upon will be damaged by the continued use of oil and other fossil fuels, therefore I think switching to nuclear rather than continuing upon the deleterious path of fossil fuel use would be advisable. I am also inclined to believe the royal society and other reputable scientific organizations in what they say.

*shrug*
I'm (perhaps incorrectly, time will tell I suppose) optimistic that a widespread switch to nuclear and other renewable power sources will occur before peak-oil becomes a phenomenon.
Now if only I could talk some sense into some of the folks who don't wish to see that happen. *cough*Greenpeace*coughcough*
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Imyoji
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1080
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Imyoji » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:18 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Atomic Utopia wrote:While oil will eventually peak, and in all probability later than what some may say, we also must realize that our current environment that we are regrettably largely dependent upon will be damaged by the continued use of oil and other fossil fuels, therefore I think switching to nuclear rather than continuing upon the deleterious path of fossil fuel use would be advisable. I am also inclined to believe the royal society and other reputable scientific organizations in what they say.

*shrug*
I'm (perhaps incorrectly, time will tell I suppose) optimistic that a widespread switch to nuclear and other renewable power sources will occur before peak-oil becomes a phenomenon.
Now if only I could talk some sense into some of the folks who don't wish to see that happen. *cough*Greenpeace*coughcough*

It's not even greenpeace anymore, it's like all of those paranoid of another Chernobyl/Fukushima.
The Republic of Imyoji ― Emüryürü-ju Miinju
The Harmonious Northern Island


What do you get when you combine pursuits of technological advancements, an appreciation and strong conservation of the natural environment, and a harmony between altruistic communitarianism and state sponsored capitalism?
i am the globalization shill the left and the right warned you about

User avatar
Raltirian Denethier
Diplomat
 
Posts: 534
Founded: Jan 07, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby Raltirian Denethier » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:19 pm

Atomic Utopia wrote:I honestly question why we take the risk when there is safer and cleaner energy available. Yes, I am talking about nuclear energy. To put it simply the cost of fracking to our environment is much greater than the cost of safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy, so I do not think it is worth the risk.


Actually, natural gas is much, much cheaper than operating nuclear. Nuclear designs get safer and safer all the time, but you don't see an increase in energy output of new designs. Rather, newer reactor designs are more or less entirely focused on reducing the risk of a failure. As a result, levelized costs per kilowatt hour over a typical reactor's service life are quite high, and will only get higher with newer designs.

I am a fan of nuclear as well, but this is the truth of the matter. Nuclear is not the viable solution we once thought it would be. Well, that is, fission is not the necessary solution.

Really, the ideal mix of energy sources for the near future is probably a good mix of solar and natural gas. Solar is renewable, and is seeing nice decreases in cost per kilowatt hour, in tandem with increases in energy conversion efficiencies even beyond the theoretical limit of single junction photovoltaic cells. Newer multijunction cells tested in labs have been able to register as high as 44% that I have seen.

Natural gas, in addition to being relatively quite clean-burning and very cheap, also has hilariously efficient burn in terms of energy conversion figures. Combined cycle gas turbines can get conversion rates of around 65%, which is mind bogglingly high.

The real future of power is fusion energy.
Nation Information
I hail from the great continent of Aels, known to much of the world as Atlantis.

Began RPing on Facebook Nations forums in September of 2008, joined with the Aels group (for nations without real world locations) in the next few months as one of the first three members, and have been playing loyally ever since. Since Facebook Nations is in deep decline and is very nearly dead, we make our home here.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Anacharsia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cyptopir, General TN, Ifreann, MSN [Bot], Terra Magnifica Gloria, The Jay Republic, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Mazzars, The Pyros, Tungstan, Western Theram, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads