Deva Chat - 18 seasons as the voice of the city
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Fracking, For or against?
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jan 15 2014, 10:31 PM
Post #1


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19896
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



It seems that this now looks to be going ahead,are you for or against it? Having seen the same old rent-a-protesters turning up to an exploratry. fracking site this week ,I'm for what ever they are against! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TomCCFC87
post Jan 15 2014, 11:52 PM
Post #2


Exiled in York
*********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 7695
Joined: 25-January 04
From: York
Member No.: 765



Whilst im not worried about earthquakes and flamable water coming out of my taps it just comes across as a short term solution. There is only a finite ammount of gas down there and what happens when it runs out? The money being thrown at fracking would be better spent on developing more efficient ways of harnessing renewable energy sources. All fracking is doing is passing on problems for future generations to deal with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deva Chanter
post Jan 15 2014, 11:54 PM
Post #3


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: 7-June 09
From: Chester
Member No.: 4436



A dangerous waste of money and resources. And, of course, it won't bring anybody's bills down by a penny.


--------------------
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluesince72
post Jan 16 2014, 12:35 AM
Post #4


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2188
Joined: 25-May 11
Member No.: 7763



I am in favour of fracking as a short term boost to gas supply, but don't see it as an alternative to renewable's. If large amounts of subsidies are to be given it is certainly a preferable cause to nuclear, for as long as there is no safe solution to the storing of nuclear waste.

What amazes me is the use of a primary source of energy, gas, to generate electricity. Use other any/all other methods for electricity generation, use gas as gas. Its supply is finite and to save a small amount on generation costs now and please the eco dreamers by ending coal powered generation( anyone else suspect political reasons behind the run down of coal generation disguised as eco concerns?), gas supply is being diminished unnecessarily quickly now.

Protesters? My pet hate, the seemingly ubiquitous, pathetic, selfish, banner wavers know as NIMBYS who seem to think everything is fine just so long as its done somewhere else - why does anybody listen to them?

The eco protesters are well meaning but totally misguided, yes its 99'9% certain that human activity is the major cause of climate change, but to seriously think that the politicians wet dream of binding and enforceable international treaties to control greenhouse emissions can ever reach fruition is delusional.

This post has been edited by bluesince72: Jan 16 2014, 12:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dr jekyll
post Jan 16 2014, 08:05 AM
Post #5


1st team stalwart
******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 1996
Joined: 17-March 10
From: North wales
Member No.: 5322



As long as the Fracking in North Wales is done around the Saltney and Broughton areas ,Iam all for it!!!


--------------------
George Whitebread I like What i Say !! and ill say what i bloody well like!!

Rule Britannia ! My country Long Before England Wales and Scotland were invented !!!!

"DEVA" The Capital of Britannia ! Capital of the universe!!

"Chester Fan Born and bred Strong in Mind Good in Bed"

Dr Jekyll is and always has been Mike Hunt!

Why I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those meddling Posters on here!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TomCCFC87
post Jan 16 2014, 10:41 AM
Post #6


Exiled in York
*********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 7695
Joined: 25-January 04
From: York
Member No.: 765



The 1% ofnthe profits that local authorities are being offered t allow fracking in their areas is insultingly low. In america local communities are given around 7% and even that seems low for such a high value resource. And there is no guarantee that money will be spent propperly by the local authorities. Local residents should also be compensated far better if fracking near your home reduces your property value by 10% you should expect to be offered at least that much in compensation. It seems at the moment the government are just happy to allow frakking to occur anywhere that energy companies feel like drilling for nothing more than a token fee. No wonder this country is on its a**e financially when our elected officials cant even be arsed to try and get a better deal for those who put them in power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jimianto
post Jan 16 2014, 10:44 AM
Post #7


Come On City!
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 3558
Joined: 22-September 04
From: Upton
Member No.: 1243



QUOTE (Deva Chanter @ Jan 15 2014, 11:54 PM) *
A dangerous waste of money and resources. And, of course, it won't bring anybody's bills down by a penny.


+1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shunter blue
post Jan 16 2014, 11:24 AM
Post #8


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 4730
Joined: 21-May 12
From: Newton
Member No.: 9054



QUOTE (Jimianto @ Jan 16 2014, 10:44 AM) *
QUOTE (Deva Chanter @ Jan 15 2014, 11:54 PM) *
A dangerous waste of money and resources. And, of course, it won't bring anybody's bills down by a penny.


+1


+2

Don't think the protesters are nimby's, more like swampy's. Sooner we get rid of that clown Cameron the better imo. Incidentally my other half tells me it's banned in France (enshrined in the constitution).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3mm
post Jan 16 2014, 11:45 AM
Post #9


Lifelong supporter
Group Icon

Group: DC Admin
Posts: 25615
Joined: 7-February 03
From: Chester
Member No.: 91



Can't see it taking off in these parts unless backhanders, sorry, "cash benefits for communities", come into play. The chancellor has admitted he is doing everything he can to encourage it, so who knows... Daily Telegraph


--------------------
On match days ... we ALL play!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jan 16 2014, 12:29 PM
Post #10


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19896
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



QUOTE (bluesince72 @ Jan 16 2014, 12:35 AM) *
I am in favour of fracking as a short term boost to gas supply, but don't see it as an alternative to renewable's. If large amounts of subsidies are to be given it is certainly a preferable cause to nuclear, for as long as there is no safe solution to the storing of nuclear waste.

What amazes me is the use of a primary source of energy, gas, to generate electricity. Use other any/all other methods for electricity generation, use gas as gas. Its supply is finite and to save a small amount on generation costs now and please the eco dreamers by ending coal powered generation( anyone else suspect political reasons behind the run down of coal generation disguised as eco concerns?), gas supply is being diminished unnecessarily quickly now.

Protesters? My pet hate, the seemingly ubiquitous, pathetic, selfish, banner wavers know as NIMBYS who seem to think everything is fine just so long as its done somewhere else - why does anybody listen to them?

The eco protesters are well meaning but totally misguided, yes its 99'9% certain that human activity is the major cause of climate change, but to seriously think that the politicians wet dream of binding and enforceable international treaties to control greenhouse emissions can ever reach fruition is delusional.

....interesting to note that of 61 protesters arrested,only 19 lived anywhere near were the site was being tested. Personally i would rather we stopped dumping in landfills and starting burning our rubbish (To create our energy) in out of the way locations,ie middle of Dartmoor etc.
As far as Fracking is concerned,opinons are so polarised for and against it,it's difficult to get to the truth.


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jan 16 2014, 12:39 PM
Post #11


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19896
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



QUOTE (3mm @ Jan 16 2014, 11:45 AM) *
Can't see it taking off in these parts unless backhanders, sorry, "cash benefits for communities", come into play. The chancellor has admitted he is doing everything he can to encourage it, so who knows... Daily Telegraph

I know you wouldn't read this in the Guardian 3mm,so here is an interesting article on one of your old heroes taken from "Scottish Daily Record" today.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j...ZGU&cad=rja
rolleyes.gif


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lobster
post Jan 16 2014, 12:56 PM
Post #12


Just one fool among the shower
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 21172
Joined: 26-February 03
From: Wirral
Member No.: 203



I'm never going to be the type to go along to environmental protests, or claim that I have a great knowledge or understanding of the subject, but it's not hard to see that the way we source and use energy is crazy and needs a major rethink. The problem is that it's gone so far now that making changes would have serious economic impacts throughout the world.

It strikes me that the damage was done long ago and is now almost irreversible. Take cars for example. They could make cars run on water, but oil companies won't allow it and entire economies are dependent upon it. The upshot is that we spend billions of pounds, and even fight wars, over a polluting, non-renewable source we don't really even need.

It kind of just shows that we humans are actually an incredibly stupid race.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ben
post Jan 16 2014, 06:08 PM
Post #13


Supporter
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 4016
Joined: 17-January 03
From: Chester
Member No.: 76



Financially it would be a big boost for the UK, however, I'm not convinced that relying on gas is the way forward.

I would say this of course but I think Nuclear is where we should be looking for a long term stable energy supply.


--------------------
Want to reminisce? Check out my youtube channel which has lots of clips of CCFC, including many of the great Harry McNally.

CCFC Old Clips
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ben
post Jan 16 2014, 06:10 PM
Post #14


Supporter
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 4016
Joined: 17-January 03
From: Chester
Member No.: 76



QUOTE (XWWB @ Jan 16 2014, 12:56 PM) *
I'm never going to be the type to go along to environmental protests, or claim that I have a great knowledge or understanding of the subject, but it's not hard to see that the way we source and use energy is crazy and needs a major rethink. The problem is that it's gone so far now that making changes would have serious economic impacts throughout the world.

It strikes me that the damage was done long ago and is now almost irreversible. Take cars for example. They could make cars run on water, but oil companies won't allow it and entire economies are dependent upon it. The upshot is that we spend billions of pounds, and even fight wars, over a polluting, non-renewable source we don't really even need.

It kind of just shows that we humans are actually an incredibly stupid race.


Cars cannot run on water!

They could run on hydrogen, but you need lots of energy to create and transport the hydrogen so where is this energy going to come from? Generally gas power stations.


--------------------
Want to reminisce? Check out my youtube channel which has lots of clips of CCFC, including many of the great Harry McNally.

CCFC Old Clips
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Achmed Lad
post Jan 17 2014, 11:18 PM
Post #15


1st team stalwart
******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 1998
Joined: 4-August 08
Member No.: 3899



I wouldn't have been arsed either way, but now Cameron the c**t is trying to promote it I'm against it.


--------------------
Love Moss, hate Saunders.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Che Guevara
post Jan 17 2014, 11:44 PM
Post #16


Castra Devana
*********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 8828
Joined: 26-August 04
Member No.: 1198



QUOTE (XWWB @ Jan 16 2014, 12:56 PM) *
I'm never going to be the type to go along to environmental protests, or claim that I have a great knowledge or understanding of the subject, but it's not hard to see that the way we source and use energy is crazy and needs a major rethink. The problem is that it's gone so far now that making changes would have serious economic impacts throughout the world.

It strikes me that the damage was done long ago and is now almost irreversible. Take cars for example. They could make cars run on water, but oil companies won't allow it and entire economies are dependent upon it. The upshot is that we spend billions of pounds, and even fight wars, over a polluting, non-renewable source we don't really even need.

It kind of just shows that we humans are actually an incredibly stupid race.



Oh dear


--------------------
Neil Young: You WERE the caretaker here.

Harry McNally: I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but YOU are the caretaker. You've always been the caretaker. I should know Sir - I've always been here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain duff
post Jan 21 2014, 09:46 AM
Post #17


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2034
Joined: 9-July 10
From: Exiled to Preston, Lancs.
Member No.: 5529



In general terms I'm very much for it. The technology is little different to off-shore extraction, and for those that say it would not affect prices you only need to look at the recent US experience. From being an energy importer they are now as a result of fracking self-sufficient again and energy prices for consumers have indeed gone down as a result.

That said there are concerns. First regulation needs to be much tougher and based on environmental science rather than profits for the companies involved. And that links to the second issue. These companies and this government at the end of the day don't give a stuff about us as all they care for is the profits to be made for shareholders. As a result people are not being alarmist when it comes to not trusting what is going on - and despite being a supporter of the technology I myself don't trust what is currently happening as it is not being done via public and accountable ownership but through secretive oil and gas companies who tend to have some very poor enviromental records.

So for me the question is not around the technology, but about who owns and controls it and for whose benefit.


--------------------
"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life"
Bill Shankly

www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/cityfu/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Achmed Lad
post Jan 21 2014, 11:35 AM
Post #18


1st team stalwart
******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 1998
Joined: 4-August 08
Member No.: 3899



QUOTE (captain duff @ Jan 21 2014, 09:46 AM) *
for whose benefit.



D. Cameron,
10, Downing Street,
London.


--------------------
Love Moss, hate Saunders.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alberta Blue
post Jan 22 2014, 08:25 AM
Post #19


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 3176
Joined: 28-September 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 1819



I have been working for a "fracking" company over here for the last 18 months. Lots of mistakes were made in the past by companies here which is were most of the horror stories come from. Nowadays it is properly regulated and whilst not everyones cup of tea it is a supporting many jobs over here.
Oh yeah and the pay is very good. cityscarf.gif


--------------------
A BRAVE NEW DAWN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TomCCFC87
post Jan 22 2014, 08:39 PM
Post #20


Exiled in York
*********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 7695
Joined: 25-January 04
From: York
Member No.: 765



Its not just the environmental cost of the frakking process itself that needs to be taken into account but the impact of things like increased traffic with more lorries and cars bringing materials and staff in and out of the site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dr jekyll
post Jan 22 2014, 08:52 PM
Post #21


1st team stalwart
******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 1996
Joined: 17-March 10
From: North wales
Member No.: 5322



I think if it was called "Out of rock natural gas extraction" or something like that no one would give a s**t.

I think its the name Fracking that p**ses everyone off!,as soon as the word "Fracking" is mentioned pepole start getting excited.


--------------------
George Whitebread I like What i Say !! and ill say what i bloody well like!!

Rule Britannia ! My country Long Before England Wales and Scotland were invented !!!!

"DEVA" The Capital of Britannia ! Capital of the universe!!

"Chester Fan Born and bred Strong in Mind Good in Bed"

Dr Jekyll is and always has been Mike Hunt!

Why I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those meddling Posters on here!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Midnight Rider
post Jan 22 2014, 09:06 PM
Post #22


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2070
Joined: 20-November 08
From: F block, row G
Member No.: 4093



QUOTE (bluesince72 @ Jan 16 2014, 12:35 AM) *
I am in favour of fracking as a short term boost to gas supply, but don't see it as an alternative to renewable's. If large amounts of subsidies are to be given it is certainly a preferable cause to nuclear, for as long as there is no safe solution to the storing of nuclear waste.

What amazes me is the use of a primary source of energy, gas, to generate electricity. Use other any/all other methods for electricity generation, use gas as gas. Its supply is finite and to save a small amount on generation costs now and please the eco dreamers by ending coal powered generation( anyone else suspect political reasons behind the run down of coal generation disguised as eco concerns?), gas supply is being diminished unnecessarily quickly now.

Protesters? My pet hate, the seemingly ubiquitous, pathetic, selfish, banner wavers know as NIMBYS who seem to think everything is fine just so long as its done somewhere else - why does anybody listen to them?

The eco protesters are well meaning but totally misguided, yes its 99'9% certain that human activity is the major cause of climate change, but to seriously think that the politicians wet dream of binding and enforceable international treaties to control greenhouse emissions can ever reach fruition is delusional.



Great post. Long term, we need to harness solar or wind, but in the short to medium term we simply need to keep the lights on.



--------------------
β€œIt is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood...who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” - Teddy Roosevelt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Southern Blue
post Jan 26 2014, 09:40 PM
Post #23


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 3488
Joined: 2-April 06
From: Bournemouth
Member No.: 2331



Too untested, contaminates water supply, and if it does turn out to be safe, would be best to keep our powder dry and extract it in the future, not now. Remember most our North Sea oil and gas went when the prices were at their lowest. Lets see the consequences first. If bad, we will be glad we did not join in the f**k up, if good, then bingo, much better to still have the reserves for a time when they will be even more valuable.


--------------------
I want to play a game.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ben
post Jan 27 2014, 06:05 PM
Post #24


Supporter
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 4016
Joined: 17-January 03
From: Chester
Member No.: 76



QUOTE (bluesince72 @ Jan 16 2014, 12:35 AM) *
I am in favour of fracking as a short term boost to gas supply, but don't see it as an alternative to renewable's. If large amounts of subsidies are to be given it is certainly a preferable cause to nuclear, for as long as there is no safe solution to the storing of nuclear waste.

What amazes me is the use of a primary source of energy, gas, to generate electricity. Use other any/all other methods for electricity generation, use gas as gas. Its supply is finite and to save a small amount on generation costs now and please the eco dreamers by ending coal powered generation( anyone else suspect political reasons behind the run down of coal generation disguised as eco concerns?), gas supply is being diminished unnecessarily quickly now.

Protesters? My pet hate, the seemingly ubiquitous, pathetic, selfish, banner wavers know as NIMBYS who seem to think everything is fine just so long as its done somewhere else - why does anybody listen to them?

The eco protesters are well meaning but totally misguided, yes its 99'9% certain that human activity is the major cause of climate change, but to seriously think that the politicians wet dream of binding and enforceable international treaties to control greenhouse emissions can ever reach fruition is delusional.


Firstly, who says that there is no safe solution to storing nuclear waste? Sellafield has been doing this for over 50 years with no major incidents, yes there are issues to be addressed about where the new waste will be stored, but to say its unsafe is not correct.

Furthermore, coal is far dirtier that gas, and its not just about the greenhouse effect.


--------------------
Want to reminisce? Check out my youtube channel which has lots of clips of CCFC, including many of the great Harry McNally.

CCFC Old Clips
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluesince72
post Jan 27 2014, 07:05 PM
Post #25


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2188
Joined: 25-May 11
Member No.: 7763



QUOTE (Ben @ Jan 27 2014, 06:05 PM) *
QUOTE (bluesince72 @ Jan 16 2014, 12:35 AM) *
I am in favour of fracking as a short term boost to gas supply, but don't see it as an alternative to renewable's. If large amounts of subsidies are to be given it is certainly a preferable cause to nuclear, for as long as there is no safe solution to the storing of nuclear waste.

What amazes me is the use of a primary source of energy, gas, to generate electricity. Use other any/all other methods for electricity generation, use gas as gas. Its supply is finite and to save a small amount on generation costs now and please the eco dreamers by ending coal powered generation( anyone else suspect political reasons behind the run down of coal generation disguised as eco concerns?), gas supply is being diminished unnecessarily quickly now.

Protesters? My pet hate, the seemingly ubiquitous, pathetic, selfish, banner wavers know as NIMBYS who seem to think everything is fine just so long as its done somewhere else - why does anybody listen to them?

The eco protesters are well meaning but totally misguided, yes its 99'9% certain that human activity is the major cause of climate change, but to seriously think that the politicians wet dream of binding and enforceable international treaties to control greenhouse emissions can ever reach fruition is delusional.


Firstly, who says that there is no safe solution to storing nuclear waste? Sellafield has been doing this for over 50 years with no major incidents, yes there are issues to be addressed about where the new waste will be stored, but to say its unsafe is not correct.

Furthermore, coal is far dirtier that gas, and its not just about the greenhouse effect.


The policy of storing nuclear waste is unsafe. Suitable areas for storage are finite, so what do we do with highly toxic substances when the facilities we have reach capacity? It is highly dangerous, the more is stored the more the risk increases. With material having radio active half life of thousands of years it only takes one major incident to result in an environmental disaster.

The fact is that nuclear power is not, and will never be, economically viable, without huge government and energy user subsidy(look at the prices we will be paying for electricity from the new Hinckley station), when decommissioning and waste storage costs are included. We only have it here because of the crazy policy of having unusable nuclear weapons, purely to satisfy politicians egos when strutting on a world stage.

Nuclear my have fewer accidents than other generating processes, but when it does they are far more serious, we had a serious escape of highly radioactive material from Sellerfield in the 50s, largely covered up at the time. Why? Because it threatened to further stoke growing public opposition to the nuclear weapons programme.

My opposition to generating electricity from gas has nothing to do with dirt, safety, or greenhouse gases, it simply is a criminal waste of a primary natural resource. Why use a finite primary source of energy to generate electricity when so many alternatives are available? Gas is needed AS GAS. It is being done to save a small ammount on generation costs now at the expense of running down supplies faster over the long term- madness. Also a key reason why fracking has now become an issue and its potential gas supply necessary.

We need to develop renewables, as carbon based energy will eventually run out or a least become highly expensive as its scarcity increases, it therefore makes sense not to waste gas or ignore plentiful alternatives for electricity generation. As an alternative coal is in plentiful supply in the UK, but coal generation is being run down, with greenhouse gases being used as a smokescreen to mask the political reasons for that policy.

The public must surely wake up to the ruinous policy of attempting to cut greenhouse gas emissions by any means other than lower consumption and increased use of renewables. It is doomed to fail, no international agreement is feasable. Yes scientists are correct, humanity is causing climate change, and yes it is, in principle, possible to slow its progress if binding international agreements could be made, monitored and enforced, however, political reality makes that nothing more than a politicians wet dream. Resources should instead be put aside for planning and preparing for its effects, floodbarriers etc.

This post has been edited by bluesince72: Jan 27 2014, 07:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Protected by SBST and Project Honeypot Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2019 - 10:07 PM