New Fracking Regulations Proposed by Bytemite

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

New Fracking Regulations Proposed

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 01:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 758
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 24, 2011 5:12 AM

BYTEMITE

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=17748523&title=epa-to-regulate-disposa
l-of-fracking-wastewater

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 24, 2011 5:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There should be one regulation on fracking: none allowed. Same with nuclear power.

The regulatory approach is fundamentally flawed. It seeks to regulate activities by limiting their excesses rather than change their direction and development. So you will hear the NRC say that nuclear power is allowed, provided the industry make certain detailed (limited, and inexpensive) technical changes to their reactors, despite the fact that nuclear energy is a flawed idea... flawed from mining all the way thought disposal.

Same with fracking. Also, I would put tar sands in the same category. Both are environmentally destructive extraction processes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 24, 2011 5:42 AM

BYTEMITE

DT just said pretty much the same thing to me.

I guess I got ahead of myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 24, 2011 5:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I fully agree, Sig. I'm not sure it's possible to get rid of nuclear, at least for a very long time, but I'd like to see a viable alternatives.

Doesn't help to have a President who keeps talking about "clean coal" of course...

Can anyone explain natural gas to me? The ads are bullshit, that's obvious, but I know virtually nothing about it in detail.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 24, 2011 6:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There is less wrong with natural gas (as a fuel) than there is with coal or tar sands. Composed mostly of methane, with some ethane, propane etc it burns cleaner, and it has less of a carbon impact. Most of the power plants in CA are natural gas-fired boilers or turbines. Most of our gas comes from Texas, Colorado, and the SJV.

The problem comes in extracting it. In some cases, it comes up from the ground cleanly. In other cases, it exists between very tightly layered rock, and the only way to release the methane is to break up the rock formation, usually using high pressure water injection... hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The problem comes in when water additives plus natural gas escape from the fracking site and get into the water table. Also, there are huge amounts of dirty water + additives + oily contamination to dispose of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 24, 2011 2:00 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think I can agree with Signe on this one. No more fracking and we need to work on getting rid of nuclear power, I'm not okay with that anymore, we tried, it was too much trouble and its too dangerous, we need to finish up with that experiment.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 24, 2011 2:14 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think I can agree with Signe on this one. No more fracking and we need to work on getting rid of nuclear power, I'm not okay with that anymore, we tried, it was too much trouble and its too dangerous, we need to finish up with that experiment.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

There is dangers n every energy making process. Nuclear overall has a pretty good record. The problem when there is a problem is if going to be big.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:43 AM

BYTEMITE

A good record over 60 years, from material with 10,000 to billion years half life...

But then I consider people getting sickness or cancer to be more subtle forms of failure with that industry.

I can understand the necessity, but I can't ever be persuaded it's safe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:01 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:I can understand the necessity, but I can't ever be persuaded it's safe.

Safe is relative.

Plus with renewed interest in Breeder Reactors even waste may not be a huge deal in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:07 AM

BYTEMITE

You do realize those produce plutonium, right? It's not "recycled" to something happy fuzzy. The wikipedia article even says it outright: they're called breeder reactors because they produce MORE fissile material than they consume (fissile material is breed, multiplied, propagated).

Eventually some of that is going to be waste. And the waste they generate after Plutonium might have a short half-life, but because of that it's technically more dangerous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:39 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You do realize those produce plutonium, right? It's not "recycled" to something happy fuzzy. The wikipedia article even says it outright: they're called breeder reactors because they produce MORE fissile material than they consume (fissile material is breed, multiplied, propagated).

Eventually some of that is going to be waste. And the waste they generate after Plutonium might have a short half-life, but because of that it's technically more dangerous.

The Plutonium is more dangerous, but as you said the waste is short half-like which is the real problem with reactors now.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:53 AM

BYTEMITE

Well, I guess it depends how you define dangerous. Plutonium has a long half life, which means that theoretically less radiation is emitted at any one time, however it is fissile, some kinds can be used for building weapons, and when it DOES degrade, the daughter products have a short half-life and therefore emit a bunch load of radiation.

I guess really I don't have TOO much issue with nuclear power, but we do need a better way to store it or dispose of it I think. There's a company around here trying to get approval for mixed material, meaning they could store a mix of high grade and low grade material so long as the overall radioactivity is below a certain level. But the problem is, some of the high grade stuff poses problems aside from just the radioactivity.

Also people keep wanting to send it HERE, when here is not very safe because of earthquake potential. But it's justified to them because they don't have to deal with it anymore and because there's a popular belief that Utah is some kind of wasteland and polluting it doesn't matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:55 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

It one of those thing that your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Right now I just don't see us meeting our energy needs without some nuclear power. More so as we reduce (hopefully) our reliance on petroleum.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE