Hydrofracking

Post Reply New Topic

You make it sound good.

When coal mines explode, it's because the engineers and/or methane alarms have screwed up.
When oil rigs explode, sink, and result in millions and millions of gallons of oil dumped into one of the richest fishing grounds in the planet, it's because engineers and/or managers screwed up.
When oil tankers run aground and pollute other fishing grounds so badly that they still have not recovered after decades, it's because the ship's captain screwed up.
When oil pipelines burst and leak crude all over the tundra, it's because the maintenance workers and/or the management screwed up.
And when the cracks run a little further than planned, or crack networks appear that are not connected to the ones being plugged by the drilling plan, then YES: IT'S BECAUSE THE ENGINEERS SCREWED UP.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, that doesn't mean that it's not serious, and that doesn't mean that it's whining to complain that you can light you water on fire b/c of badly run hydrofracked wells.

This has happened more than twice, btw. There are reports of it pretty much everywhere large hydrofracking projects have occurred.

Also? Hydrofracking is NOT about oil reservoirs. It's about natural gas.

Here's a list of chemicals used reported by the PA DEP. Scroll down to the bottom for the link to NY's list which is much longer and also contains a very in-depth look at the process.

Web Page Name

Here's another interesting and related story about how the Pennsylvania State Dept. of Homeland Security has been collecting the names of individuals who attended a screening of the film "Gasland."

Web Page Name

To be honest, I'm not really interested in this topic. I'm just wondering if you - number5 - will admit that Obama's cliche centrism and compromise mentality a stupid policy (as we argued about it months ago).

For some of the realities about nuclear reactors see http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman09242010.html

I don't appreciate an attempt to hijack a thread on a topic that is of great importance to me, but I will say this - Compromise is a sign of maturity, something which is deeply lacking in the our current state of affairs. If you wish to discuss it further, please start your own thread.

There are many kinds of fission reactors. Light water reactors have one main problem: they have radioactive waste that is no longer capable of generating enough heat to boil water. So the waste must be disposed of. My recommendation is to dump our radioactive waste in the Pacific and have it settle in the Marianas Trench which is nearly 36,000 feet deep. The is more than enough to keep us from being bothered by the radioactivity.

The right way to go is with breeder reactors. The radioactive "waste" can be recycled.

ruveyn

I wouldn't be so sanguine about such permanent disposal of "useless" radioactive byproducts. Remember that for millennia, petroleum oil was "useless" except as a folk medicine, and even later gasoline was a "waste" byproduct of kerosene refining. There's no telling what use our descendants might have for radioactive "wastes"...

As for storage, glassification seems a viable method. The waste is mixed with sand, then fired into glass bricks, which can be stored in any dry place. I like the method proposed by Dr. Jerry Pournelle: Build a Quonset-hut type structure out in the middle of a desert, perhaps somewhere near Frenchman Flats in Nevada (already rendered radioactive, so no environmental concerns). Put the bricks in the building, which is only there to keep them dry in the event of rainfall. Build a triple fence around it for safety. Every ten feet, put up signs on the fence that read (in at least three languages, so no one can claim they weren't warned), "IF YOU CROSS THIS FENCE, YOU WILL DIE."

Residual radiation from the bricks takes care of security - no need to waste some rent-a-cop's time. Further, it aids the cause of human evolution, by weeding out the exceptionally stupid from the gene pool. (Hey, you've got to ignore the signs, then take the effort to cross three fences and open the building before it'll actually kill you. That's not just normal stupidity, there - that's truly exceptional!)

If you read the material I indicated you will see that all experiences with atomic power are expensive beyond their worth, present serious and, up to now, unsolvable dangers and have produced an industry infected with untruth and unreliability and corruption that makes the effort not worth the expense. Although the reactors themselves may not pollute the atmosphere directly the industries for producing the fuel not only pollute dangerously but subject the workers to noxious materials resulting in horrible diseases. The whole business is a frightful mess. The money invested would be far more usefully spent in developing friendlier energy sources. This is not theory, this is unfortunate unhappy experience.

Non of the "friendly" sources of energy is capable of maintaining an industrial economy. It is either fission or burning high energy density hydrocarbons. I prefer fission. Automated processes for separating the fissile material from the rocks in which they occur can eliminated most of the hazards to workers.

The French manage to generate 70 percent of their electricity from fission generators. If the French can do it, so can we.

ruveyn

See http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05 ... arison.php

One point further. Ruveyn keeps screaming about the uselessness of the government in all matters and all goodness emanates from private industry. The facts of atomic power are ironic. Without government sponsorship and financing the plants simply could not exist.
Atomic power has no attraction for private industry because it is inherently hugely dangerous and no private insurance company would touch it with a light year long pole. Only the federal government would back such an enterprise from very dubious reasons. Almost every operating plant has obvious waste disposal problems and neglecting waste disposal the fierce internal energies of operation have intense corrosive action on all components. There are regular reports of radioactive leakage from currently operating plants and the management of said plants are regularly discovered to be deceptive about the safety of the plants. They simply cannot be trusted with such dangerous operations.
The French atomic power system is entirely a government operation for the above mentioned reasons.

An analysis of fast breeder reactors is at http://www.mail-archive.com/saan_@yahoo ... 00040.html and the conclusion is that they provide no economic or safety solutions for the need for energy and are hugely dangerous, not only for their operating considerations but for the ultimate disposal when they are no longer operational and for their use of plutonium which is highly poisonous and contributes immensely to the dangers of proliferation of atomic weapons.

The methane dissolved in the water escapes when the water exits the pipes and yes, it will ignite.

If they are going to fracture the rock to extract the resources then they need to devise a way to extract the methane from the water this process will contaminate, or they need to pay to connect the affected individuals to non-local water sources and pay for the added cost required for these individuals and farms to use these water sources.

The solution, of course, is to combine the sink with the stove so that the methane produces hot steam when it ignites - an excellent cooking technique. Also, when the steam condenses it produces pure distilled water, germ free.

Hydrofracking is not THE solution to anything. Burning hydrocarbons is not the best way to generate heat. The two best ways are nuclear fission heat generation and using geothermal heat. We have to work on the latter and develop better technology.

In theory controlled fusion is the best, but it is not going to happen. The only fusion we get to use is sunshine.

ruveyn