Fracking: Worth the Risk

[Ripoll]

There are no risks, fracking is necessary for our extended economic progression. Almost all arguments carried out against it are weak and in direct conflict with science. It doesn't consume much water at all, because they use previously treated water from past projects. It's all just the same recycled water. The earthquake argument cannot be proven, and water contamination is blatantly false propoganda. http://energyindepth.org/national/how-a ... amination/

How about we listen to the geophysicists?

It is one of the most regulated and carefully monitored energy sectors in the US

We can't completely switch energy sources, we need a slow and easy transition, but fracking has been enormously successful and created over 1.5 million jobs and expects to create 3.5 million more in the next two decades.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-2 ... shows.html

[Reddogkeno101]

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.

Or you could go for renewable and sustainable energy sources, like Solar, Wind or invest more into finding ways to conduct nuclear fusion.

[Atomic Utopia]

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*

Yes, getting those who believe that "renewables" are the future of energy need to be introduced to the cost of such things and the low cost of nuclear energy in comparison. I really hope there is a debate on this thread, not a pro-nuclear circle jerk.

[Ripoll]

*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*

Yes, getting those who believe that "renewables" are the future of energy need to be introduced to the cost of such things and the low cost of nuclear energy in comparison. I really hope there is a debate on this thread, not a pro-nuclear circle jerk.

The future will have a mixed energy policy, frankly I don't see fracking going away for at least half a century. That's if we desperatly want to get rid of it, which most of us don't.

We need all the energy we can get, we just need to make sure the proper procedures are followed and keep making advancements in technology to produce more energy while polluting less.

The US is the largest oil producer in the world, yet it isn't even top 10 in most polluted nations. This is because of careful regulation and proper procedures.

[Imyoji]

The US is the largest oil producer in the world

But Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Canada D:

[Atomic Utopia]

Yes, getting those who believe that "renewables" are the future of energy need to be introduced to the cost of such things and the low cost of nuclear energy in comparison. I really hope there is a debate on this thread, not a pro-nuclear circle jerk.

The future will have a mixed energy policy, frankly I don't see fracking going away for at least half a century. That's if we desperatly want to get rid of it, which most of us don't.

We need all the energy we can get, we just need to make sure the proper procedures are followed and keep making advancements in technology to produce more energy while polluting less.

The US is the largest oil producer in the world, yet it isn't even top 10 in most polluted nations. This is because of careful regulation and proper procedures.

And what of the CO2 emissions or the air pollution problem that is still a big problem in the US, causing 200,000 deaths per annum.*

*http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

[Ripoll]

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.

Or you could go for renewable and sustainable energy sources, like Solar, Wind or invest more into finding ways to conduct nuclear fusion.

Or we can acknowledge that those energies won't be the norm until they can survive without Government subsidy which currently only wind can. Furthermore almost every energy source has some kind of environmental drawback, we just have to lessen it as much as possible to the point where it's negligible. Sorry, but the science is in on fracking.

Like someone else said all the antifracking propaganda are coming from payed scientists from progressive lobbyists who are far far left.

[Ripoll]

The future will have a mixed energy policy, frankly I don't see fracking going away for at least half a century. That's if we desperatly want to get rid of it, which most of us don't.

We need all the energy we can get, we just need to make sure the proper procedures are followed and keep making advancements in technology to produce more energy while polluting less.

The US is the largest oil producer in the world, yet it isn't even top 10 in most polluted nations. This is because of careful regulation and proper procedures.

And what of the CO2 emissions or the air pollution problem that is still a big problem in the US, causing 200,000 deaths per annum.*

*http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

It''s a big problem everywhere and the science still isn't settled. The fact of the matter is that there is no pragmatic and profitable economic solution to cars. Regardless that's not what this topic is about.

[Ripoll]

The US is the largest oil producer in the world

But Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Canada D:

....are not the world's largest oil producers

[Imyoji]

But Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Canada D:

....are not the world's largest oil producers

Mistook 'reserves' and 'producing' because dear lord my brain farted so hard it's probably brain shart.

kbai

[Atomic Utopia]

And what of the CO2 emissions or the air pollution problem that is still a big problem in the US, causing 200,000 deaths per annum.*

*http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

It''s a big problem everywhere and the science still isn't settled. The fact of the matter is that there is no pragmatic and profitable economic solution to cars. Regardless that's not what this topic is about.

How about hydrogen cars, reactors can produce hydrogen. Or electric, reactors can do that too.

Regrettably we cannot yet make cars with nuclear reactors in them.

[Digital Planets]

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.

Chernobyl.

[Imyoji]

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.

Chernobyl.

Fuck your paranoia and ignorance.

Edit: Again. Topic. Fracking. Economy. Good or bad?

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

Chernobyl.

Okay, so we don't put communists in charge of nuclear power sites safety procedures.
Lesson learned.

[Ripoll]

It''s a big problem everywhere and the science still isn't settled. The fact of the matter is that there is no pragmatic and profitable economic solution to cars. Regardless that's not what this topic is about.

How about hydrogen cars, reactors can produce hydrogen. Or electric, reactors can do that too.

Regrettably we cannot yet make cars with nuclear reactors in them.

They're still incredibly expensive and not affordable for the average family. Electric Public transportation is the only real way to go about doing so, or fundamentally changing the way cities operate like masdar has https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIaz61zpLfs

[Digital Planets]

Chernobyl.

Fuck your paranoia and ignorance.

Edit: Again. Topic. Fracking. Economy. Good or bad?

That's not paranoia. That's for saying nuclear energy is safe.

[Atomic Utopia]

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.

Chernobyl.

2,000-4,000 excess cancer deaths in an accident that occurred only once in the history of nuclear energy. In other words nothing compared to what coal and oil does, which the WHO estimates to be 7 million deaths per annum.

[Atomic Utopia]

Fuck your paranoia and ignorance.

Edit: Again. Topic. Fracking. Economy. Good or bad?

That's not paranoia. That's for saying nuclear energy is safe.

No, not paranoia, merely ignorance of the scales we speak of.

[Olthar]

I thought this was going to be about sci-fi swear words. I'm gorram disappointed.

[Ripoll]

Chernobyl.

2,000-4,000 excess cancer deaths in an accident that occurred only once in the history of nuclear energy. In other words nothing compared to what coal and oil does, which the WHO estimates to be 7 million deaths per annum.

They're not direct death, they just have a small negligible shortening of life spans that the science is not entirely in on yet.

[Ripoll]

These poll results are making me cringe

[Tubbsalot]

Fracking is a rather complicated issue. Sure it poses risks to our environment, but it's a more efficient process of producing energy.

...no it isn't. Fracking is very inefficient, which is why it's only recently become an economically viable method to obtain hydrocarbons.

But seeing how it's ... producing oil and gas....I'm inclined to lean towards pro-fracking.

Gas, and particularly oil, production are bad things which encourage continued avoidance of lower-carbon energy sources.

I wish we were green, but we're not. If this is how we get there ... "Drill Baby Drill!"

Considering that the only thing dirtier than oil is coal, how exactly is oil from fracking supposed to make the US green? Or perhaps I should just say "that is not how you get there."

And this has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline.

[Ripoll]

Fracking is a rather complicated issue. Sure it poses risks to our environment, but it's a more efficient process of producing energy.

...no it isn't. Fracking is very inefficient, which is why it's only recently become an economically viable method to obtain hydrocarbons.

But seeing how it's ... producing oil and gas....I'm inclined to lean towards pro-fracking.

Gas, and particularly oil, production are bad things which encourage continued avoidance of lower-carbon energy sources.

I wish we were green, but we're not. If this is how we get there ... "Drill Baby Drill!"

Considering that the only thing dirtier than oil is coal, how exactly is oil from fracking supposed to make the US green? Or perhaps I should just say "that is not how you get there."

And this has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline.

fracking has been going on for 60 years, only just recently have we been able to do it at this state.

fracking is mostly used for natural gas and there are strict regulations placed on them. They are a transition energy that meets the demand like no other source can at an insanely cheap price.

The EPA (environmental protection agency) agrees

Natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future. The U.S. has vast reserves of natural gas that are commercially viable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies enabling greater access to gas in shale formations. Responsible development of America's shale gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits.
EPA is working with states and other key stakeholders to help ensure that natural gas extraction does not come at the expense of public health and the environment. The Agency's focus and obligations under the law are to provide oversight, guidance and, where appropriate, rulemaking that achieve the best possible protections for the air, water and land where Americans live, work and play. The Agency is investing in improving our scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing, providing regulatory clarity with respect to existing laws, and using existing authorities where appropriate to enhance health and environmental safeguards.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Chernobyl.

We're ALREADY using Nuclear Plants in the U.S. and there's already 4 in Texas.

It's just not as widespread as people think it should be.

[Chester Pearson]

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.

Except if hydraulic fracturing is done the right way, you won't be breaking the strata apart. That is not the actual goal. The goal is to perforate the formation, not destroy it, as that will cause a cave in within the well....

/experienced