# Opposition to Fracking and Wind turbines



## Fab 4 TT (Sep 28, 2004)

Why does the BBC always insist on interviewing the local geriatric Lib dem voting miserable git when discussing fracking & wind turbines?

Why don't they ask,

Do you like watching your TV?

Errrrm YEAH!

Do you like your heating?

Errrrm YEAH!

Do you know what a light switch is?

Errrrm YEAH!

Well shut the fuck up then.


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

No to facking, don't mind turbines.


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

Fab 4 TT said:


> Why does the BBC always insist on interviewing the local geriatric Lib dem voting miserable git when discussing fracking & wind turbines?
> 
> Why don't they ask,
> 
> ...


  +1


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Fab 4 TT said:


> Why does the BBC always insist on interviewing the local geriatric Lib dem voting miserable git when discussing fracking & wind turbines?
> 
> Why don't they ask,
> 
> ...


Because if you use electricity, you should be happy with absolutely any means of producing it?? It's an unusual argument (and I use the word 'argument' in the sense that 'you're trying to start one' rather than 'you've got a valid one') :wink:


----------



## Fab 4 TT (Sep 28, 2004)

Ultimately yes.

I guess you could attempt to produce your own or alternatively lobby parliament.


----------



## Fab 4 TT (Sep 28, 2004)

How do you get your electricity? Do you rub balloons up your cardigan all day?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

You've confused me pointing out how bad your argument is with me disagreeing with particular forms of energy generation.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Fab 4 TT said:


> Why does the BBC always insist on interviewing the local geriatric *Lib dem* voting miserable git when discussing fracking & wind turbines? ..........................................


Balcombe, Lib Dem? How very dare you! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Wind turbines get my (positive) vote. Defo no to fracking from me


----------



## j8keith (Jun 26, 2009)

If they put half a dozen wind turbines on the roof of the houses of parliament we' d the electricity ever needed, as they would get all the wind required from below, problem solved.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm more concerned with contamination of aquifers in our small country. I'm not convinced that this risk has been properly assessed.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 8961,d.d2k


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

It always amuses me when I read articles (or sites like that) that use the word "chemical" as though it's synonymous with "poison". Surely water is a chemical... As is air...

Anyway, fracking is probably fine as long as it's only done in desolate areas, like the North East. :wink:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> ...
> 
> Anyway, fracking is probably fine as long as it's only done in desolate areas, like the North East. :wink:


There's a politician's answer :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

A3DFU said:


> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...=Oug2_r1IYNBYDM8SdL682A&bvm=bv.50768961,d.d2k


That website doesn't display properly for me - the graphics cover up half the text and it's slow to load. If it's trying to get a message across it's - don't employ this website designer :lol: I'm sure that's not the intended message :wink:


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Anyway, fracking is probably fine as long as it's only done in desolate areas, like the North East. :wink:


Pumping pressurised chemicals into the ground is never a good idea, even if they get 99.9% of those checmicals back out thats still stuff seeping through the ground and possibly contaminating watersupplies etc.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Trig said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, fracking is probably fine as long as it's only done in desolate areas, like the North East. :wink:
> ...


Well, my point about the use of the word "chemicals" is that it tells us very little. For instance, if they pumped pure water into the ground, it could be accurately described as "pumping chemicals into the ground".

I'm not saying fracking is safe, just that it doesn't help either side when people deliberately use emotive words to influence or mislead the reader. If fracking is safe or unsafe, it should be possible to explain and demonstrate that without resorting to scare tactics.

Regardless, I completely disagree with the OPs 'argument' that we shouldn't have an opinion on what energy methods are acceptable, just because we want to use that energy. That kind of passiveness can never be a good thing.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Trig said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, fracking is probably fine as long as it's only done in desolate areas, like the North East. :wink:


Or Wales


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> Regardless, I completely disagree with the OPs 'argument' that we shouldn't have an opinion on what energy methods are acceptable, just because we want to use that energy. That kind of passiveness can never be a good thing.


Is that like saying if you eat food you have to eat meat?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, I completely disagree with the OPs 'argument' that we shouldn't have an opinion on what energy methods are acceptable, just because we want to use that energy. That kind of passiveness can never be a good thing.
> ...


Yeah, or, if you eat meat, you shouldn't care if the animal was quickly and humanely killed, or slowly beaten to death with a stick.


----------



## Fab 4 TT (Sep 28, 2004)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, I completely disagree with the OPs 'argument' that we shouldn't have an opinion on what energy methods are acceptable, just because we want to use that energy. That kind of passiveness can never be a good thing.
> ...


Lol no. What a shit analogy.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

I personally think the protesters need to shut the Frack up! :wink:


----------



## Fab 4 TT (Sep 28, 2004)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, I completely disagree with the OPs 'argument' that we shouldn't have an opinion on what energy methods are acceptable, just because we want to use that energy. That kind of passiveness can never be a good thing.
> ...


Actually, on second thoughts?

If you were on hunger strike, and were force fed through a tube.

Then yes.


----------



## thenewguy (Oct 4, 2012)

A simple and concise explanation of fracking and it's benefits


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

John-H said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...=Oug2_r1IYNBYDM8SdL682A&bvm=bv.50768961,d.d2k
> ...


You need a, new, faster computer


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Fab 4 TT said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


But I'm not on hunger strike only I might be a bit choosey :wink:



A3DFU said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > A3DFU said:
> ...


But I wasn't trying to get a message across :wink:

Oh the irony if it all - it's a bit like goldy or bronzey only it's made of iron :roll:


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

Can we add Essex and Sussex to the possible locations please. I have no obstruction to Wales or the North East either.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

So the government has decided to allow fracking and you're accepting it because you've been sold the pup that it will 'reduce energy costs'. Do you really believe that?

There is no way on earth that energy costs will reduce significantly, the energy companies and shareholders are just too plain greedy to allow it.

Then you have to offset any 'saving' against the huge costs of any clean up following accidents. Who's gonna pay for that? Yep, the consumer, you and I, through higher energy bills.

What we need to do is curb the far too rapid increase in population density in this country and lower the demand for resources we cannot hope to meet without resorting to ill-considered processes.


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> What we need to do is curb the far too rapid increase in population density in this country


How?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Hark said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > What we need to do is curb the far too rapid increase in population density in this country
> ...


Tougher immigration controls maybe?


----------



## POOKIETT (Sep 16, 2012)

"Chemicals" pumped into the ground are Lead, Radium, Uranium, Methanol, Mercury, Hydrochloric acid, Ethylene glycol and Formaldehyde to new a few. I don't know about you guys but id rather not drink that stuff or have it in my water supply


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> So the government has decided to allow fracking and you're accepting it because you've been sold the pup that it will 'reduce energy costs'. Do you really believe that?
> 
> There is no way on earth that energy costs will reduce significantly, the energy companies and shareholders are just too plain greedy to allow it.
> 
> ...


Spot on Rich



rustyintegrale said:


> Hark said:
> 
> 
> > rustyintegrale said:
> ...


And also by educating young girls not to have 2/3/4 children (and live off the state)



POOKIETT said:


> "Chemicals" pumped into the ground are Lead, Radium, Uranium, Methanol, Mercury, Hydrochloric acid, Ethylene glycol and Formaldehyde to new a few. I don't know about you guys but id rather not drink that stuff or have it in my water supply


I agree with you 100%!!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

POOKIETT said:


> "Chemicals" pumped into the ground are Lead, Radium, Uranium, Methanol, Mercury, Hydrochloric acid, Ethylene glycol and Formaldehyde to new a few. I don't know about you guys but id rather not drink that stuff or have it in my water supply


Well, they're already in your water supply in various concentrations. The question is, will fracking increase those concentrations.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Spandex said:


> POOKIETT said:
> 
> 
> > "Chemicals" pumped into the ground are Lead, Radium, Uranium, Methanol, Mercury, Hydrochloric acid, Ethylene glycol and Formaldehyde to new a few. I don't know about you guys but id rather not drink that stuff or have it in my water supply
> ...


It must do mustn't it if you pump them into the ground in addition to what there is already there


----------



## NotFromSomerset (Nov 11, 2012)

There are cases in America where fracking has cause earth tremors and polluted the water table. Not a good time idea on a small island if you ask me.

Too much agenda pushing and lobbying from multi billion dollar gas companies I don't think the risks have been properly assessed


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

NotFromSomerset said:


> There are cases in America where fracking has cause earth tremors and polluted the water table. Not a good time idea on a small island if you ask me.
> 
> Too much agenda pushing and lobbying from multi billion dollar gas companies I don't think the risks have been properly assessed


Mining also causes tremors (and has done in the UK many times over the years). Fracking is no different in that respect. The general consensus from investigations into polluted water supplies is that bad practises and badly installed equipment were the cause, and if regulations are followed, the fluid shouldn't get into the water table.

I think there needs to be a lot of work done to ensure the risks are negated as much as possible, but blindly believing the bad press is no better than blindly believing the good press.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

A3DFU said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > The question is, will fracking increase those concentrations.
> ...


The bore hole is lined so that the fluid is only injected into the rock below the water table. If the bore is sealed correctly, the fracking fluid shouldn't be able to enter the water supply, as it will sit in the fissures it creates in the rock (and then be forced back up the bore hole as the pressure is released).


----------



## POOKIETT (Sep 16, 2012)

The problem i have is the amount of time and money spent to convince us that this is a totally safe procedure when at the same time paying off and silencing oppression to fracking.

http://rt.com/usa/gag-order-children-fr ... ement-982/


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I don't know enough about the process engineering but would like to in order to have an informed view of the risks. It's a poisonous concoction that's getting pumped into the rock down long bore holes. Questions that spring to mind are things like; how do they seal the input bore hole against the high pressure? Do they insert a liner pipe and somehow seal it down near the shale deposit? Presumably they don't just seal the bore hole high up as every crack and fisure drilled through would also fill up and potentially leak out. How good is the seal and how do they test it before risking it? Presumably there's a second output bore hole - is that lined and sealed in the same way and do they recover the liquid pumped into the shale. Is the shale deposit well below any potential aquifer? If not how can they be sure it won't cross contaminate as they won't know about every crack and fisure down there? If they cause minor quakes then they generate new cracks and fisures so how do they monitor leaks then?

They say that Buxton water is rain that fell at the time of Christ as it takes so long to filter through the limestone - can we be sure that these fracking chemicals won't also turn up years down the line - how can thay realistically predict the long term when the industry has not existed long enough to generate test data for this?

EDIT: Spandex I see you have answered some of my questions.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Spandex said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


*If *the bore hole is sealed correctly; but the process is done by humans and humans make mistakes. Again and again!



John-H said:


> can we be sure that these fracking chemicals won't also turn up years down the line - how can they realistically predict the long term when the industry has not existed long enough to generate test data for this?


It's a legacy to huge to leave to our [grand-grand] children


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

A3DFU said:


> *If *the bore hole is sealed correctly; but the process is done by humans and humans make mistakes. Again and again!


Yes, but that attitude precludes almost every form of energy generation, as they all carry risks from human error.

I'm not pro-fracking by any means, but I think any form of energy generation needs to be investigated thoroughly with an open mind.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Spandex said:


> I think any form of energy generation needs to be investigated thoroughly with an open mind.


Absolutely. It hasn't been done though with regards to fracking. What happens to the environment will only be evident after tens/hundreds of years if it is implemented without the necessary research


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

A3DFU said:


> Absolutely. It hasn't been done though with regards to fracking. What happens to the environment will only be evident after tens/hundreds of years if it is implemented without the necessary research


I'm not sure how you can say it's not been done with fracking. It was invented in the 1940's and has been in fairly widespread use since then. There is plenty of evidence to study already.

The press like to perpetuate the myth that this is some terrifying new technology which we don't really understand, because fear sells papers.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Yes, I heard a radio programme about the inventer.

So the evidence goes back maybe seventy years at the most. How much if this evidence is relevant to our geology and aquifer use situation with proximity to population?

I was wrong by the way - Buxton water is 5,000 years old and comes up through 1,500 metres of limestone.
http://www.buxtonwater.co.uk/ourwater/our-water.aspx

I just looked up fracking depths and in the USA, from when fracking started in 1949, they are talking depths of between 6,000 to 10,000 feet - but that's as little as 1,800 metres - very close to the Buxton depth.

Seems a little too close for comfort to me :?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I just looked up fracking depths and in the USA, from when fracking started in 1949, they are talking depths of between 6,000 to 10,000 feet - but that's as little as 1,800 metres - very close to the Buxton depth.
> 
> Seems a little too close for comfort to me :?


They don't choose locations and drilling depths randomly though. They're not allowed to drill where the water table extends down far enough that it would be too close to the fracking site. That being said, 10,000ft is 3,000m which would put the fracking fluids 1.5km away from the water supply. More than enough to ensure it didn't reach it.

Realistically, contamination isn't going to come from the point where the fracturing happens because it's a trivial matter to make sure this is far away from the water supply. If it happens, it would be further up due to the bore hole not being properly sealed.

<edit>actually, I just read something that stated they drill up to 20,000ft (6,000m) these days, if needed.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The bores leaking would seem to be the bigger risk I agree and they go all the way up. I'd also question the level of detail that an aquifer's location can be judged. I'm sure you can echo sound the large body of water and know where that was but could you detect a small tributary passage or thin fault line leading off to who knows where and interlinking other pockets. In our small island can they guarantee to avoid such things?

I remember watching some pot holers squeezing along a narrow horizontal blow hole about the diameter of a small car tyre. The passage was, if memory serves me right, about two football pitches in length and one got stuck and started panicking and hyperventilating about half way along with no chance of turning round - a complete nightmare - gives me shudders thinking about it. It goes to show though, what intricate features can get carved by water over millions of years. They won't know what's down there to that level of detail.


----------



## Trouble4 (Oct 4, 2012)

big issue here in NC, USA ........... They have voted it down.... so no go in counties around where I live........


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Excellent!


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

The problem the government have with trying to convince people that fracking is safe is that they don't have a great record of telling the truth.

We were told that nuclear power was safe and cheap. Unfortunately it's about the most expensive energy we've ever used and has polluted large parts of the country - and the world.

We were told that wind turbines were safe and cheap. Unfortunately it's the next most expensive energy form after nuclear and doesn't really work when you actually need it. It also seems to cause health problems for people who live nearby because of ultrasound.

So why would anyone believe the govt when they claim fracking is safe?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Pale Rider said:


> So why would anyone believe the govt when they claim fracking is safe?


I don't believe anything the government tells us. The problem is how do we change it?

They're all 'career politicians'. Once they've done their time (and got you to vote for them again) they will retire on full pensions and won't give a fuck.

Proper values of service in this country are gone forever. Logic within government policy seems to have gone forever. They seem incapable of making a people-led decision. You vote them in and they see that as carte-blanche to disregard promises and do what they want.

Fuck 'em. I'm with the Balcombe protesters. They have the balls and the time I don't have.

Good luck to 'em and fuck the government!


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> I'm with the Balcombe protesters.


Good luck Rich


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

Erin Brockovich is against it and thats good enough for me.


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

Interesting article here... http://rt.com/news/fracking-uk-generous-tax-rate-319/


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Yes, seen that


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

France has banned fracking and they have the wide open spaces we don't have.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i fout thay wos ownly doin it oop norf where it downt mata anywiy !! [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

roddy said:


> i fout thay wos ownly doin it oop norf where it downt mata anywiy !! [smiley=bomb.gif]


That was a crap brummie accent lol


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

mmmm :? ,, best i could do ,, :lol:


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm baffled by opposition to wind turbines. We have some near us and they're not ugly things. 100 years ago it would have been windmills. And ultrasound? Where did that idea come from? [smiley=book2.gif] Have you got scientific sources for that nugget?

I read an article a few months back that said opposition to wind turbines was usually non-existent, but it only takes one resident to stir it up and start a complaint.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Pugwash69 said:


> I'm baffled by opposition to wind turbines. We have some near us and they're not ugly things. 100 years ago it would have been windmills. And ultrasound? Where did that idea come from? [smiley=book2.gif] Have you got scientific sources for that nugget?
> 
> I read an article a few months back that said opposition to wind turbines was usually non-existent, but it only takes one resident to stir it up and start a complaint.


I have one of the biggest wind farms in Europe a few miles away. They seem to turn them all off at anything more than a breeze, I understand the government subsidizes them when they turn them off, the eaglesham moor is one of the most exposed areas in the UK. What's the bloody point of an ugly windfarm that's off more than it's on at our expense?

And pug, they wouldn't be windmill x years ago. Windmills of yesteryear didn't number in the thousands and take up hundreds of square miles of pristine countryside. Not to mention the countless birds killed trying to fly into land on them, to be met by a rotor going a hundred miles an hour! :x


----------

