Fracking banned in UK as government makes major U-turn

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by alexa, Nov 2, 2019.

  1. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    29,990
    Likes Received:
    3,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah, the alternative would be making amends with other nations and working with them. Better to destroy our own through fracking. :roll:
     
  2. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,768
    Likes Received:
    6,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fracking doesn't hurt the country. if anything is hurting our country environmentally speaking it's refining.

    Energy Independence is more valuable than relationships with other countries.
     
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,195
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reality defies your analysis.
     
  4. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    29,990
    Likes Received:
    3,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So destroy out country for energy independence. Do you know that one of the places with major fracking operations turned out to be a super volcano? Anyway you are wrong about energy independence, unless you believe in continuous warfare? Right now the hot spot for us is the mineral rich Arctic, because so much of it belongs to Russia.

    I have a suggestion though, rather than risking a war with a nuclear power, why not Canada - after all we speak the same language so there wouldn't be any cultural barriers. Since we all have guns anyway, we can just line up and march in - and the best part would be that we and the world would survive.

    You know at one time I use to watch Dutchsense until what I saw started to upset me. He follows the magma swarms and knows how to predict earthquakes as well as the magnitude with about a 98% accuracy. When he came to the US, he would pinpoint the earthquake and then zoom in on the satellite image. All you could see were hundreds, if not thousands of massive fracking operations. It literally made me sick.

    Unlike drilling for oil, the holes in the crust from fracking can never be closed. They are open forever. If there is anything good though in creating so many weak spots in the country, is that the magma is released somewhat in minor earthquakes, so that it doesn't accumulate at the New Madrid fault line - which could be catastrophic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 6:47 PM
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,768
    Likes Received:
    6,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeah that's not related to fracking and fracking does not destroy our country.

    well there is the northern slope of Alaska which is the United States, and then there's Greenland which is under the control of Denmark. And further we're not at war with Russia just because a few idiots in the news make up some story about them buying our election doesn't mean we're at war with them.

    why is everything war with you people. Canada produces oil.
    you do understand that fracking has nothing to do with earthquakes right? Earthquakes are tectonic. Meaning 60 to 70 miles deep. Fracking at most has a mile or two down.
    Again earthquakes are tectonic they are way deeper than we can even possibly get. The deepest hole we've ever drill as a species is about 8 miles deep and the reason why we couldn't go deeper is because drill bits were melting. You can't drill into magma we do not have the ability to do that.

    This doesn't cause volcanoes or earthquakes or sinkholes or any of that.
     
  6. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What does this have to do with whether or not using nuclear reactors to generate power is a good idea?
    How did you make this determination?
    You have a lot of wind power for generating electricity. Fine. What will you do for power if the air is calm?
    I don't think you're objectively approaching the possible use of nuclear power when you describe nuclear power as "exceptionally dangerous and insane."
    You are wildly optimistic about the renewable energy plans of other countries.
     
  7. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    Egads.
     
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,768
    Likes Received:
    6,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you see that stuff about volcanoes? I remember learning about plate tectonics and earthquakes and stuff in elementary school.

    I don't know what she's thinking but there's no way magma Chambers are close to oil formations if they were we would to have explosions.

    Magma is anywhere between 1300 and 2400 degrees Fahrenheit. And in oil formations there is always the presence of natural gas.

    It makes me wonder how people come up with these things
     
  9. Jeannette

    Jeannette Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    29,990
    Likes Received:
    3,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Tell you what. Get on to Dutchsense on youtube (if the Secret Police still allows him to be on), and when he follows the magma flow to the US, he will pin point the earthquakes and zoom in on them. Then you can see the fracking installations yourself - thousands of them.

    The holes do bore through the crust, and that produces a weak spot. The magma will seep through any weak spot and cause earthquakes - but they are minor quakes, nothing big and nothing to worry about. The problem as I see it aren't the earthquakes, but the amount of fracking there is.

    As for the Arctic, I have a map of the territorial waters below. I read quite a few times that it will be the next hot spot - which might be why Nato put in an order for 78 thousand winter gear.

    There's also the friction over Russia's northern route, which will cut the time it takes to sail from Asia to Europe and visa versa. Moscow said that only Russian flagged ships will be allowed to use it - and Trump said they will not accept that. He also asked Russia to be generous. Right! As generous as Washington is to Syria. Then again maybe he's stealing Syria's oil, to force Russia to be generous. (As if Russia can be forced to do anything).

    Anyway nothing Trump says can be taken serious because he's not his own man, and controlled by the same Russophobe war mongering idiots that restarted the Cold War.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 12:08 AM
  10. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,768
    Likes Received:
    6,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah they still aren't related.
    No they don't.
    Not because if fracking.

    You realize the Arctic is only ice there is no land.
     
  11. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,195
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s a psychological disease call “the hatred of the manmade” and the “exhalation of the natural”. For example, there are those who prefer rat droppings and mosquitoes’ saliva over jets and skyscrapers because one is natural and the other two are creations of the reasoning mind. (Which they’ve betrayed in their own lives).

    The man-haters pretend to be scientific while violating every principle of science, and denigrating man’s greatest gift from nature, his mind.

    Science is not what could be, what might be, what is most likely, what’s seems to be, and other such nonsense. Science is simply, “what is”.

    They are counting on our fears birthed by our ignorance, and is why their greatest love is consensus, and their greatest fear and hatred is for the independent mind—those that think for themselves and who don’t get on their knees to worship majority opinion.

    Ayn Rand calls it the hatred of the good for being good.

    Ayn Rand: “Consider the full meaning of this attitude. Values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Values are a necessity of man’s survival, and wider: of any living organism’s survival. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action, and the successful pursuit of values is a precondition of remaining alive. Since nature does not provide man with an automatic knowledge of the code of values he requires, there are differences in the codes which men accept and the goals they pursue. But consider the abstraction “value,” apart from the particular content of any given code, and ask yourself: What is the nature of a creature in which the sight of a value arouses hatred and the desire to destroy? In the most profound sense of the term, such a creature is a killer, not a physical, but a metaphysical one—it is not an enemy of your values, but of all values, it is an enemy of anything that enables men to survive, it is an enemy of life as such and of everything living.”
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/envy-hatred_of_the_good_for_being_the_good.html
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 4:03 AM
    Polydectes likes this.
  12. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Likes Received:
    2,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You are the person who asked the questions I answered your questions. If you believe that your questions were stupid you should not have asked them. I know you as a man who spends his time on this forum involved in personal attacks. For that reason I have you on ignore. However given this thread and your wrong claim that nuclear was needed I answered you. I have no interest in wasting my time with silly boys just playing ego games of trying to trick people and put them down.
     
  13. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Likes Received:
    2,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Right now lets get to whether Nuclear is necessary. Nuclear Fission is neither necessary or wanted./ It may be better than fossil fuels but that is as far as it gets. Many of the dangers of them are not even mentioned as is pointed out in this paper.

    https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf

    He also mentions the effect of masking which is currently 'masking' most of the effect of the damage we have done. Though some scientific work is going on to find a solution to this and some governments believe they can just count on that without even investing in it, this will result in us at the very least experiencing some weather systems which are likely to make Nuclear Power extremely vulnerable to catastrophes like we saw recently in Japan.

    In addition there are risks of meltdown,nuclear war - much easier to make nuclear weapons if you have nuclear power - cancer and more. Apparently during the lives of power stations 1.5% have had a meltdown of one sort or another.

    Furthermore I was very optimistic when I said they took ten years to put up according to these estimates it is between 10 and 19. On that alone they are no easy quickly solution. Wind power for instance takes 2-5 years to get operating and most renewables are similar.

    On cost again Nuclear are far more expensive.
    Now in the video that I shall put in in a moment it is made clear that Nuclear are incapable of providing what is needed to save the climate. They quite simply do not have what is needed. He also goes into several of the things he has spoken about in that paper but people may find it easier to get the information from the video rather than paper. It is around 16 minutes he starts speaking of nuclear.

    https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf

    All these reason leave nuclear though an improvement on fossil fuels not an appropriate energy source for the future.

    While looking through things I have discovered people talking about how politics and greed is already permeating the need to get the planet safe...some people hoping to keep their place at the top of the tree and stop others getting there. I have a suspicion that that is what is behind the new attempt to suggest Nuclear Power is necessary. The video above concurs that the IPCC is not in favour of such.

    Renewables can be put in and working very soon 2-5 years and are already becoming cheaper. They do not offer more damage to the planet. To go after nuclear rather than safe clear energy is insanity and the push to do so is I suspect political.

    Nuclear fusion of course is another thing but at the moment just a dream.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 9:49 AM
  14. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Likes Received:
    2,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female


    This is the video I should have put in above instead of 2 links to the paper.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 10:21 AM
  15. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,195
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More BS (and truly, a lot of it) to frighten the ignorant. In the future, every home will have its own power source fueled by a mini-nuclear reactor the size of a thimble.

    The fear of radiation and nuclear energy is the fear felt by the “ignorant” towards the future and its unknowns.

    There is not a safer nor cheaper source of energy than nuclear power.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 10:37 AM
  16. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Likes Received:
    2,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The link I put in first supports the video and paper I have left. Possib ly I should leave a few lines from it

    First the motivation for the attempt to get nuclear power at the centre of the attempts to save the planet.

    Now to the bits which were mentioned in the previous report and video


    Nuclear will not do the needed job and the push to bring it in now is far too late.

    He then points out that Nuclear is in decline - going along with the opening that that is why they are hoping to revive it by selling a story it is all that is needed. (Nuclear was always marginal, now it is in decline)

    (I suspect this is wishful thinking but it doesn't change the position of nuclear even if it is)

    onto the reality that
    Yes, it is better than fossil fuels but we already have better than than nuclear. More can b e created in a fraction of the time to nuclear.

    Then there is the expense

    and then
    He then lists a lot of the other problems

    1. Radioactivity and nuclear waste: more and more pollution

    2. Major accidents: a disaster is possible

    3. Proliferation: radiological terrorism, nuclear war

    and then goes on to describe the true and inexpensive methods we already have which can be put in far quicker and do not damage the planet.

    Nuclear must be just a desire for people to make a quick buck but it is not what is best for the planet. People let their countries sell their water. Don't make the same mistake with nuclear.

     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 11:13 AM
  17. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Likes Received:
    2,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I provide you with academic material which goes into great details why Nuclear is not a workable response to the needs of the climate. You have no reply to the information and so repeatedly you reply with personal attacks against the messenger. I get that you are very scared. If you started doing something about the situation you might stop being so scared. In the meantime your replies are nothing but nuisance replies.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,195
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can give data showing the danger of floor fans? So what? Energy of any kind has risk.

    Start living and stop fretting. Is nuclear energy dangerous? Only to those who choose to abuse instead of use, just like a stick of dynamite, a candy bar, or a carrot.


    The real question is: Why is it anyone’s business what power source I use, let alone a government’s to base a whole society upon? We aren’t transistors to be manipulated by power freaks, we are human souls with the right to soar and fly as high as our spirits will lift us.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 11:48 AM
  19. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By you, but what about everyone else? We may need to make nuclear part of the energy mix because we can't generate enough power otherwise.
    Existing nuclear power. Newer reactors don't operate the same way.
    Not necessarily more expensive.
    Nuclear is already part of the mix.

    Your source, Mark Z. Jacobson, is an anti-nuclear advocate and not prone to presenting a balanced view on nuclear vs. renewable.
    Are financial interests involved in promoting nuclear energy? Of course. There are financial interests behind every energy technology.

    We also need to strategize limiting the earth's population. This could involve a struggle with religious types, and it could become a socioeconomic concern, but it's something that must be done.
     
  20. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,195
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fearmongers and crybabies: "The world is coming to an end...and I don't have as much as you...and stop calling me names...or I'll report you for hurting my feelings, jerk. " Just saying, fearmongers and crybabies, if it applies to you.

    So sad. What is one to do?

    Whine:
    Poor Poor Pitiful me.

     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 3:24 PM
  21. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You weren't involved in the exchange.
    I didn't ask a question.
    You just committed a personal attack.
    Fine with me.
    I said it might be needed, not that it's required. You're misrepresenting my position.

    My point was that we need to develop a plan to make sure we sufficiently reduce greenhouse gases.
    Another personal attack. You're on a roll.
     
  22. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let her be... She strongly believe that disagreeing with her is a personnal attack against her.
     
    Starjet likes this.
  23. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently, she feels entitled to lash out.
     
  24. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In a sense she his. She has the ears of some of the mods here.
     
  25. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,195
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Royal Society, whose motto is “take no one’s word”, disagrees. Wonder why? Is this because science is not an appeal to authority, but fidelity to that which is not that which might be, maybe?

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

    To scare the ignorant with maybe’s and might’s is the trademark of fear mongers, not scientists. Science is John Galt not Floyd Ferris.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2019 at 3:32 PM

Share This Page