Jump to content

The report, Are We Fit to Frack?


Geoffrey Settle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hydrogen is not a bad fuel source and definitely shows promise - especially when used as part of an electricity producing fuel cell rather than burned in a combustion engine.

 

Doesn't have anywhere near the energy density of petrol, diesel, or even LPG. You're still going to have to build lots of new power stations to produce it - and you do have the problem of extreme high pressure fuel tanks full of explosive gas in the event of a crash.

 

The difference between the development of computers and the possible development of compressed nitrogen as a power store is that in the first case it was just a question of developing new technologies, in the latter you're up against the laws of thermodynamics - fundamental physics which no technology can ever just wish away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydrogen is not a bad fuel source and definitely shows promise - especially when used as part of an electricity producing fuel cell rather than burned in a combustion engine.

 

Doesn't have anywhere near the energy density of petrol, diesel, or even LPG. You're still going to have to build lots of new power stations to produce it - and you do have the problem of extreme high pressure fuel tanks full of explosive gas in the event of a crash.

 

The difference between the development of computers and the possible development of compressed nitrogen as a power store is that in the first case it was just a question of developing new technologies, in the latter you're up against the laws of thermodynamics - fundamental physics which no technology can ever just wish away.

 

Your obviously far more knowledgeable on the subject then I am, but can such problems not be over come by technolody? Take flying for example - i am sure there are better examples but can't think of any - where technology can over come the laws of physics.

 

I know that there is a lot of research into natrogen going on as a possible ecconomical power source, will it ever come to anything or will it be just impossible to achieve -  like getting spell checker to work on this site or having a pink hair dye that is not just a pain to use - I guess remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technology operates within the laws of physics, it can never overcome them.

 

Our air has always been capable of supporting flight (birds, insects, pterodactyls) if it's basic physical properties are used correctly, it was only when technology developed lightweight engines of sufficient power that useful manned flight became possible.

 

When compressing gases you will always need a certain amount of power to compress the gas, a whole lot more will be soaked up in the natural heating which results from the gases basic physical properties, and even more again if you then need to artificially cool the gas down to usable temperatures.

 

Some interesting reading here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_nitrogen_vehicle - but the key point really is that the maximum possible energy density nitrogen, when it's fully liquified before being used as a fuel, is about 97 W-hr/kg. Don't worry about exactly what a "W-hr/kg" actually is, it's just important to know that an averagely efficient petrol engine would have a figure of about 3,000 of the same units - over 30 times as much energy per kilogram of fuel.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you want them fracking near where you live Obs ?  I certainly wouldn't but then again Culcheth/Glazebury IS near where we live...... I find it all quite scarey.

Odly enough nuclear doesn't bother me as much but maybe that's because I understand it all a little better..... I never did find out why all the seagulls were huge on the Sellafield site though or why they had blue 'poops'.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you asking me or Observer?

 

Personally I think prices could go down but whether or not it's significant depends on your point of view. The only certainty in all this is that prices will continue to rise unless some change is made.

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the obvious answer is yes but even if we get shale gas, it wont last forever and alternate sources of energy will still be needed.

 

This is one of my biggest concerns in so much that if shale gas turns out to be cheap and abundant then the urgency to develop future fuels may be diminished and the clock is ticking.

 

 

Bill :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fughs - in answer to your question - NO. The reason: we've got a Government commited to renewables, such as wind farms; which are expensive to develop and provide, and are of questionable capacity in terms of supply. So they'll use any shale gas tax revenues to fund tree hugging schemes; rather than just pass the benefit onto the customers as the Yanks appear to have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fracking will probably only be a short term respite to dwindling & ever more expensive  gas  supplies so unless the government  is willing to take long term measures to provide alternative sources of power  it will be a criminally lost opportunity.  In all honesty though  will the government be able to turn its back on increasing taxes generated by rising energy prices ? I  very much doubt it & in ten or fifteen years when we are all fracked  out will we be paying even more for energy  & still with no viable alternatives ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 years ago who'd have thought we'd be watching telly and posting on sites like this from a mobile phone and 15 years before that we didnt even have mobile phones! We only truley understand what we have now but I'm a firm believer that the solution to our problems and that of future generations may be achieved in the comming decades.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCkp2SEsfao

 

Like I said earlier, we just need time and shale may just buy us that.

 

Bill :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fughs - in answer to your question - NO. The reason: we've got a Government commited to renewables, such as wind farms; which are expensive to develop and provide, and are of questionable capacity in terms of supply. So they'll use any shale gas tax revenues to fund tree hugging schemes; rather than just pass the benefit onto the customers as the Yanks appear to have done.

Shale cost a fraction of its true cost in America Obs, as they are exempted from a lot of pollution controls, but after a lot of pollution the rules a changing and they are loosing a lot of their exceptions, so the price is about to go up over their, they have been free to pollute, that is ending.

 

 I am amazed how little you know about it for someone trying to push it down our throats, A true UKIP politician, keep them ignorant and hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's trying to "push anything down anyone's throat" - I'm in favour of any energy source that's available, plentifull and cheap; and provides us with energy security. I'll let you worry about the climate, while I worry about the bill. After all, we might not be here next week, if that meteor hits or as the Government have twigged, an Icelandic volcano kicks off ! :lol:

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...