Lt Kije Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 The analogy is that a snapped elastic band is safer that a stretched one. Bill Don't tell Geoff. He collects them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Perhaps he uses Duracell? Well he does go on and on :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 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. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Is Putin a fracking sceptic? I doubt it. Just what relevance to anything has this statement? :blink: :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Er, you asked if I was a fan of his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Er you asked if I was a Clarkson fan - again totally irelavant to the arguement. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Er you asked if I was a Clarkson fan - again totally irelavant to the arguement. :roll: Are you???? :grin: :grin: I know obs isn't, he doesn't believe in speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 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: And you were the one who brought Putin into it for some unexplained reason, not me Fugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 Keep wriggling Fugs :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 It's one way to keep warm! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 It's one way to keep warm! 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 ...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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 I'm sorry but I just fell about laughing at your choice of "expert" - the Grauniad's George Moonbat :lol: :lol: As for economic viability, surely anything is more economically viable than the insanity of windmills :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 You've not bothered to read any of those, have you? Who's being lazy now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 Fug, you are trying to debate with a closed mind :!: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 I know, I know.... <bangs head on desk> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 Fug, you are trying to debate with a closed mind :!: Pots and kettles Lt Kije?? :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.