UKC

https://www.facebook.com/events/1524388561165172/

Click the link to see pollution threat to lancs.

In reply to paul mitchell:

The blurb mentions radioactive waste. I had no idea they were planning to frack under Sellafield. Am I missing something?

PS I'm no fan of fracking - there has been a test site within 10 miles of my home - however as an engineer who likes to challenge things, and looks for scientific data, I do think there's been a lot of ill informed hysteria whipped up over the issue by the 'professional protesters' - many of whom have lifestyles my taxes seem to be supporting.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Flow back water from the well will contain naturally radioactive material (NORM) that is found in the oil and gas host rocks and has transported been back to the surface, I presume that’s what they are referring to.

In reply to ebdon:

A bit like the elevated background radiation in Eskdale having less to do with Sellafield and more with the local geology.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:


I don't know about fracking, but coal burning releases plenty of radiation. There's lots of radioactivity deep in the earth, and plenty of things become activated. XKCD puts the radiation level of living within 50 miles of a coal plant at 3x that of a healthy nuclear fission plant - http://xkcd.com/radiation/

In reply to wintertree:

Yeah exactly.. Radiation is everywhere from rocks to fruit..

I don't think fracking is the end of the world people make out, but the main issue in the States is it has crashed gas prices.. Which isn't a good thing as finally the U.S. was waking up to looking at more efficient cars.. We now fill up our cars for not much over £20.. It's about $1.95 a gallon around us at the moment...

In reply to paul mitchell:

What I always wonder is how Fracking compares to Coal Mining. I believe Coal Mining causes earth tremors, it certainly causes subsidence, I guess it intereferes with water supplies and the like and the muck that comes causes an eye sore. In fact would the Peoples Republic of Yorkshire who lament the loss of the Coal fields, actually campaign against them if they were proposed as a new idea now?

In reply to SCrossley:

You can bet your mortgage that the people protesting against fracking contain many of the people who protested against pit closures in the 80s.

Clearly mining does significantly mote seismic damage than fracking.

Question, if fracking was named eco mining. Would there be as much opposition to it? The oil companies missed a trick there

In reply to 3leggeddog:


Really, I don't see much evidence to support that.

In reply to paul mitchell:

I live within spitting distance of the plant on the news tonight.

I also believe everything that the government and large corporates tell me. However I'm guessing that the household water taps in Knott End with gas pouring out of them and can be lit with little flames is quite normal too.

In reply to paul mitchell:

We wont need fracking as a source of gas for the future.

http://www.aecb.net/forum/index.php?topic=3550.0

This is going to happen in the UK

In reply to paul mitchell:

http://www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=281460

In reply to icnoble:


What's going to happen in the UK?

In reply to icnoble:

DIYnot Hahahahaha
Bunch of idiots!

In reply to IainRUK:



I don't think many claim that it's the "end of the world" do they?

Fracking is still based on non-renewable energy, and I think that is the basis for objection for many people. Introducing it to the UK now, when we should be investing much more in renewables, correctly raises doubts and questions in the minds of huge numbers of people. As far as I am concerned, that's a good thing, especially when the long term impacts on our environment are, to some degree, unknown.

As you say, the impact on fuel prices is also important, and will not encourage people to conserve energy resources. Yet another reason why it isn't the end of the world, but is definitely a very questionable initiative.

In reply to 1234None:

That's the other issue.. Why invest in renewables when we can frack...

We need to but how our energy sector works we don't need to..

In reply to paul mitchell:

The rumour linked above is that gas boilers will be banned from 2016 in new build homes. I can see how that might happen as more effective insulation reduces the requirement for heating to almst zero, certainly within the range that an electric wall heater can supply. Modern apartments don't have gas boilers and that's probably good because a wall heater is reliable, light and easy to install and doesn't require maintenance.

In reply to IainRUK:


Because, erm....renewables are..errrm....renewable and the fuels produced by fracking aren't. Fracking still requires huge investment, and when the returns are finite it just doesn't make sense to me. Those in favour are taking a very short term view.

In reply to 1234None:


Where as renewables have a low investment cost and are then infinite, requiring no on going investment.

I've no problem with contines fossil fuel extraction, if it enables us to focus our wealth and technology on a viable future power source. Sadly we are barely funding fusion research, procrastinating on sufficient fission plants and continuing to encourage the view that renewables are a viable solution. All of that is the idiocy, not the fracking.

In reply to wintertree:
Renewables are PART of a viable solution. Diversity of supply is much more secure than putting all our eggs in one basket, although I do agree about procrastination. I think energy policy should be decided by an independent or cross party committee - long term solutions are just not conducive to 5-year careerist politicians.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


They *could* be part of one, but once we have several different viable fusion reactor designs that can run off heavy water and breed tritium from lithium, you have a lot of diversity that just doesn't need renewables - the only thing renewables bring to the party is environmental damage, ongoing distributed maintenance and a highly uneven supply. They might have a role as a stop gap on the path to much lower impact energy, but I don't see them having much or any relevance if compact 200MW fusion devices become common. The future is only a matter of when, not if.

I would also argue that any renewable heavy scheme isn't as diverse as it looks, because delivery of consistent power from it is heavily reliant on either gas plant or magic storage technology that's not even fully conceptualised yet.

> I think energy policy should be decided by an independent or cross party committee - long term solutions are just not conducive to 5-year careerist politicians.

Yes please. Education as well whilst you're at it. Health to. Energy first though, as if the supply situation gets much worse...

In reply to 1234None:

I always find this eco debate interesting amongst climbers. Climbers seem to be generally quite environmentally aware, and if I am reading your posts correctly you certainly are, yet looking at your profile and favourite climbs list your quite happy to travel the world wasting a non renewable resource and releasing carbon, for a pointlesss self centered pursuit*, which seems a little contradictory.

* I do this to so I`m not trying to take a moral high ground

In reply to 1234None:

see the point.. you just missed by a bloody mile...

yes, but when we ca get cheap gas, we'll frack, like in the US..

In reply to SCrossley:

exactly.. and want cheap fuel in their car... cake.. eating it..

In reply to SCrossley:



Fair point and I'm aware of this. I wasn't claiming to have a zero carbon footprint. I only travel when it's absolutely essential...including when there are stellar routes to be climbed in exotic locations

In reply to IainRUK:

Cheap for now. When it starts to run out it won't be, whereas renewables would be if we invested in them now instead. I am more than aware that it's about the cost of energy, but in the long term which option is the cheapest?

In reply to 1234None:

you seem to think I'm pro fracking?

In reply to IainRUK:

Not especially, no. Just killing a few dull hours in a city where there ain't a lot to do by engaging in the discussion.