Fracking in Sheffield?

[RootsBooster]

You keep expressing your incorrect opinion that all matter is energy, probably due to something you misunderstood at school.

It doesn't natter how many time you make the claim that matter is energy, it will never be true. Matter as the potential to release energy, but it isn't energy.

 

 

A wooden table is made out of trees, but it isn't a tree.

 

Much like matter is made out of energy, but isn't energy, it does however have the potential to revert back to energy.

 

A wooden table is made out of wood (hence 'wooden'), the table is still wood (along with whatever metals and/or adhesives may be used to assemble it).

Edited January 22, 2014 by RootsBooster
corrected typo error

[Nagel]

This is why I said earlier that it would be good to see one fracking complex established, e.g. 20-30 well heads in a few square miles and all the associated gubbins, in a populated area. Run it for a couple of years, iron out the problems and if it works then great expand it.

 

It seems like a no-brainer to take such a common sense approach rather than going all out.

 

I think this is a good idea, do a test of the technology to show how it works with the industry on their best behaviour. I don't think it matters whether it's in a rural or urban area, but probably best in a more rural area, perhaps the old coalfields of South Yorkshire where people can hardly object to a bit of underground mineral extraction.

 

My one and only concern about fracking is the impact on the English landscape which is a delicate and beautiful thing. This is why I object to onshore wind farms and I'm yet to be convinced that multiple fracking sites won't be equally damaging of the landscape.

[ivanava]

A wooden table is made out of wood (hence 'wooden'), the table is still wood (along with whatever metals and/or adhesives may be used to assemble it).

 

And if someone points to one and asks "what it that", you reply, "its a table", not "its wood", if they ask what it is made from you would then say wood.

 

So when someone points to a door or a car and asks what it is you would reply door or car, not energy.

[RootsBooster]

And if someone points to one and asks "what it that", you reply, "its a table", not "its wood", if they ask what it is made from you would then say wood.

 

So when someone points to a door or a car and asks what it is you would reply door or car, not energy.

 

Yeah, just like you'd reply "door" or "car" and not "matter", your point being?

[ivanava]

Yeah, just like you'd reply "door" or "car" and not "matter", your point being?

 

My point is that methane is matter, not energy, but I concede the the table was a poor example.

 

Maybe a plastic table would have been a better example, its made of plastic and whilst plastic is made from oil, the table is no longer oil.

[JFKvsNixon]

Is the danger from the pollution often associated with fracking, greater than the pollution of debate that are associated with MrSmith and his/her various identities? Taking this into account, is there not an argument for more strict regulation on the usage of MrSmith and his/her various identities in debate to try to nip this problem in the bud?

[I1L2T3]

I think this is a good idea, do a test of the technology to show how it works with the industry on their best behaviour. I don't think it matters whether it's in a rural or urban area, but probably best in a more rural area, perhaps the old coalfields of South Yorkshire where people can hardly object to a bit of underground mineral extraction.

 

My one and only concern about fracking is the impact on the English landscape which is a delicate and beautiful thing. This is why I object to onshore wind farms and I'm yet to be convinced that multiple fracking sites won't be equally damaging of the landscape.

 

The reason I suggested a populated area is because even if proven to be safe and viable in a rural area once it comes to placing a complex close to or in and around a town then people will still resist. The whole process will have to be gone through again because there will then be concerns about house prices etc... The whole package has to be proven - environmentally and economically - and the first test complex is the time to do that. Of course the risk is that based on experience with that test complex people will not accept the industry being close to them. But then that would signal that the industry on the scale proposed is not right for the UK population.

[anywebsite]

The reason I suggested a populated area is because even if proven to be safe and viable in a rural area once it comes to placing a complex close to or in and around a town then people will still resist. The whole process will have to be gone through again because there will then be concerns about house prices etc... The whole package has to be proven - environmentally and economically - and the first test complex is the time to do that. Of course the risk is that based on experience with that test complex people will not accept the industry being close to them. But then that would signal that the industry on the scale proposed is not right for the UK population.

 

You're a bit late, it's already been proven, years ago... http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/natural-gas.aspx?timeframe=10y Gas is half the price it was 5 years ago in the USA, due to fracking, here it's more expensive. Not heard of anything bad happening. Why do you think fracking wouldn't work here despite it being widely used proven technology in other countries & in the North Sea?

Edited January 22, 2014 by anywebsite

[I1L2T3]

And where do the Cubs come into that? They don't as well you know so stop with the lies please.

 

 

 

And he still doesn't get it....

 

Energy is generated when it's capable of being harnessed and controlled by people. That occurs when the gas comes out of the well...

 

But I'm sure you will now change your position yet again and wriggle out. Tell me is it that important to you just because I happen to support a different colour of party to you? It's very sad if that's the case.

 

The wells don't generate energy - that's a nonsense. They can't magic more energy out of nowhere.

 

More accurately fracking is an industrial process that produces gas from shale. The gas is already present in the shale. It is not generated. Once extracted it can be used and I've already described how that happens in terms of classic physics. There is no need to use quantum mechanics to describe the process - you could but it's pointless.

 

My view on this particular point had got nothing to do with politics.

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 15:09 ----------

 

You're a bit late, it's already been proven, years ago... http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/natural-gas.aspx?timeframe=10y Gas is half the price it was 5 years ago in the USA, due to fracking, here it's more expensive. Not heard of any apocalypse happening.

 

Not proven in the UK. That is the point. The technology may be established in the US, fair enough. But whether the regulatory process here is right, we have enough water, people will accept the industry on their doorsteps and the impact on the environment, how it will affect land/house prices, whether it is even economically viable etc...is all hanging in the air.

 

That is why I suggested an initial test complex to get the answers. And is you read that last sentence carefully mine is not an objection to trying it out, but rather a common sense approach to determining whether it is viable. I don't see why we have to go all out right now.

[Obelix]

It's like debating a slice of toast this.... I give up. Revel in your mediocrity it's all you have.