Fracking in Sheffield?

This is 100% correct, coal is so abundant and so heavily mined that it's simply too expensive for most to consider alternatives.

 

There has been some good progress in technology that can convert deep coal seams into gas, extract the gas and use that (which is cleaner)

 

Coal is orrible stuff, but it's so cheap it's hard to break away from it's grimy mitts

The pollution problem with coal is a reason that China is investing in nuclear. They're building conventional nuclear plant but recognise the issues with uranium supply - they have to import much of what they use. That is why they are also investing in Thorium research - they have decent deposits of thorium. India has massive deposits of the stuff too and are applying significant research effort.

China's slowly chocking on it's pollution problem.

It's abit of a double whammy of an over-reliance on coal and having loads of the dirtiest type of coal to burn.

Pollution levels in some citys can reach over 400 times recommended 'safe limits'

I know it's not nuclear scientists doing fracking. But are you saying if we don't have fracking then the lights will go out in the labs?

 

Please try a bit harder than that.

 

The point I'm making is a general one and that is that availability of additional fossil fuels reduces the incentives to develop alternatives.

 

I'm not totally opposed to nuclear power in principle, as long as it's safer, not linked to weapons programmes and is less destructive to the environment. I'm pragmatic enough to see a future for it but that is going to be with fuels such as Thorium.

 

I would like to see our government spending more on researching alternatives than ploughing hundreds of billions of quid into fossil fuel subsidies.

I'm saying with cheap energy a lot more things become possible and/or cheaper, including things like nuclear research which can consume large amounts of energy. Nuclear is just part of the energy mix too, it can't replace gas for everything & nuclear plants can't be built as quickly as a gas well.

Fusion should be safer, produce more energy, can't be used for weapons, has abundant fuel & produces no dangerous waste, but it's still years away from the first experimental power station which should produce some power being completed. Newer types of fission reactors, like thorium reactors could be used until then.

Why not allpow fracking in one small area to demonstrate the technology and develop rules and regulations for future fracking? I'm sure somewhere could be found that's acceptable to environmentalists - they're reasonable people.

That's a great idea. I've no problems with anyone protesting, its just the way they continue to circulate lies and mistruths at their protests - referring to that faked footage from the movie Gasland, or referring to US incidents of methane - where there was already methane present before fracking.

They wouldn't be 'environmentalists' without a good selection of lies to support their claims.

I'm saying with cheap energy a lot more things become possible and/or cheaper, including things like nuclear research which can consume large amounts of energy. Nuclear is just part of the energy mix too, it can't replace gas for everything & nuclear plants can't be built as quickly as a gas well.

 

Fusion should be safer, produce more energy, can't be used for weapons, has abundant fuel & produces no dangerous waste, but it's still years away from the first experimental power station which should produce some power being completed. Newer types of fission reactors, like thorium reactors could be used until then.

OK at least you seem to want to have a civil discussion now. So can you refrain from the insults please (post #1002)

Great idea, what about North America?

What about North America? I don't get the point you're making.

I'd say we could use North America as a good example of how not to develop shale gas.

"Family awarded $3MILLION after court finds chemical exposure from fracking on land next to their home left them sick and suffering horror side effects"

No risks are there.

"Family awarded $3MILLION after court finds chemical exposure from fracking on land next to their home left them sick and suffering horror side effects"

 

No risks are there.

What point are you making?

We face poisoning for corporate pocket lining.

Shame on them.

 

Fracking next to me... Not a problem.!

What point are you making?

The point that lives will be wrecked directly by fracking. Land and waterways will be polluted. The point that fracking is dirty, and will have a negative effect on those who have this happen near them, down wind, down stream. The point that if you want justice you'd better be able to fund a case against big business.

This is one last pocket lining rape of the land, by those who can buy themselves a nice plot well away from it all.

The point we don't need to do this, it's a quick profit for the privileged who couldn't give a crap about your average man, your average man who knows far less about this than they do MP's expenses fraud, and look how utterly criminal that behaviour has been. This is nothing to do with securing energy supplies, it's a supply of cheap dirty cash, at our expense, nothing more.

---------- Post added 27-04-2014 at 03:41 ----------

Please note: France have banned this type of fracking, absolutely, for environmental reasons.

Why would they do that ?

Article.

OK at least you seem to want to have a civil discussion now. So can you refrain from the insults please (post #1002)

What are you on about pal? Not insulted anybody & if I had I wouldn't stop because you told me to. When did they make you mod?