Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Fuel poverty?

Recommended Posts

Nuclear,coal and gas fired power stations dizzy.

The problem with windmills Asp is they do not produce enough energy Asp.

Bill, fracking opens up fishers and also makes new ones and it does it over a larger area than a mine shaft does and you can not control the direction the cracks go in. You make a hole and pump pressurised water down. And as you say a geologically stable area, that has just suffered earth tremors as a result of fracking. They built a nuclear power station on that land because it was stable, can it be called stable now :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They built a nuclear power station on that land because it was stable, can it be called stable now

 

Short answer Yes it is and probably better than it was before.

 

Before you get too alarmist though, remember that the nuclear power station is at Heysham and that’s about thirty miles away. The strongest tremor only measured magnitude 2 locally (barley detectable) so it’s doubtful if it would even have been felt at that distance.

 

But back to your rocks and the stability issue. You’re an intelligent man so you’ll understand if I say stability is a relative term. The geology of the area is regarded as stable but that’s not to say that the rocks contain no stress at all. The fracking process has effectively released some of the small stresses in the rocks and in doing so, it’s made the area geologically more stable than it was before.

 

De-stressing the rocks whether by liquid injection of controlled explosions has been a controversial idea for none stable areas prone to earthquakes. The analogy is that a snapped elastic band is safer that a stretched one.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The analogy is that a snapped elastic band is safer that a stretched one.

 

Bill :)

 

 

Don't tell Geoff. He collects them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he uses Duracell? :D

 

Well he does go on and on :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your wish for us to throw away the chance of fuel independence worries me Fugs. Are you a Putin fan?

 

Fuel independence at any price, even when you don't know what the cost is going to be? Is Putin a fracking sceptic? I doubt it.

 

Did you know that Putin was a wife-beater? (Just thought I'd mention it)

 

Ooh, you nasty man.

 

But back to your rocks and the stability issue. You’re an intelligent man so you’ll understand if I say stability is a relative term. The geology of the area is regarded as stable but that’s not to say that the rocks contain no stress at all. The fracking process has effectively released some of the small stresses in the rocks and in doing so, it’s made the area geologically more stable than it was before.

 

Fantastic news! Not only does fracking give us all the energy we need for the foreseeable future, but FRACKING MAKES THE EARTH MORE STABLE!

 

Thanks Bill, best laugh I've had in ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by your last couple of posts, I reckon you’ve been testing this theory by pushing huge quantities of liquid down you own hole. :P

 

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Putin a fracking sceptic? I doubt it.

 

 

Just what relevance to anything has this statement? :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er you asked if I was a Clarkson fan - again totally irelavant to the arguement. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er you asked if I was a Clarkson fan - again totally irelavant to the arguement. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

 

Are you???? :D :grin: :D :grin:

 

I know obs isn't, he doesn't believe in speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarkson is famously opposed to anything that might be described as "green", hence the question.

 

Putin?

 

Sorry, didn't realise we were having an "arguement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to say that Clarkson is opposed to anything "green" is typically simplistic labelling. A lazy way to try to make a point without any evidence either way. Like calling anyone skeptical of climate change "denier", or critical of immigration "racist". 2/10 must try harder :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

And you were the one who brought Putin into it for some unexplained reason, not me Fugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a caricature, yes, which I regard as a useful device rather than laziness. Again, my point was, that for someone who I usually regard as quite sensible, your unwavering zealotry for fracking is worrying.

 

Climate change sceptics aren't climate change deniers, they're sceptics.

 

First mention of Putin I can see is in #81.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep wriggling Fugs :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one way to keep warm! :D btw Peter, just noticed that one slipped in on the blind side - I most definately recognise speed, and have first hand experience of the damage it can do. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, asp.

 

You're saying it was me who first mentioned Putin, when clearly it was you.

 

You can't see the difference between sceptics and deniers.

 

Based purely on the PR guff from the energy companies (747m dollars worth smh.com), you've gone all evangelical about fracking.

 

I'm not the one who's wriggling here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one way to keep warm! :D btw Peter, just noticed that one slipped in on the blind side - I most definately recognise speed, and have first hand experience of the damage it can do. :roll:

I am aware of your previous life and know where you are coming from. My comment there was that you "don't" agree with speed which Clarkson does. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fugs, in the eyes of the AGW fanatics there is no difference between a sceptic and a denier. They label anyone who doesn't agree with their opinion as deniers so as to make them sound warped and evil. Sceptic doesn't have the same ring to it somehow! As for the report on lobbying in the US, well it was about about another lobbying organisation, Common Cause, who have their own axe to grind. It doesn't actually prove anything about how safe, or unsafe, the fracking process is. To just say that fracking "may", "could", has "the potential to" (all AGW buzzwords/phrases) cause damage and that therefore we should just forget the whole thing and die in poverty is errant nonsense.

 

As for me being evangelical about fracking, well aren't you equally evangelical about stopping it? :wink: :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...in the eyes of the AGW fanatics there is no difference between a sceptic and a denier.

 

It's a bit like the difference between an athiest and an agnostic, subtle but telling:

 

"Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

 

 

...well aren't you equally evangelical about stopping it?

 

No, but if we're going to go ahead with it, it needs to be:

 

regulated so that we can be sure it is as safe as it can be;

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/31/fracking-issues-resolve

 

economically viable;

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/nov/03/shale-gas-game-changer-fracking?newsfeed=true

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/poland-shale-tests-show-europe-unlikely-to-match-u-s-boom-bernstein-says.html

 

and cleaner;

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I just fell about laughing at your choice of "expert" - the Grauniad's George Moonbat :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

As for economic viability, surely anything is more economically viable than the insanity of windmills :blink: :blink: :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fug, you are trying to debate with a closed mind :!:

 

Pots and kettles Lt Kije?? :wink: :wink: :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...