Mathew Naismith

This conversation is closed.

Is hydraulic fracturing the answer especially when you take in consideration the environmental impact it is having?

Hydraulic fracturing is polluting the underground water which comes up through the cracks caused by the fracturing of the rock & ends up in our water ways. I think we have enough pollutants to deal with above & below the ground now!!

  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +3
    Jan 18 2013: Hydraulic fracturing is just a logic consequence of 'our' worldwide denial of limited fossil fuels and it seems more easy to wring out even the last bit of it deep underground, instead of finally facing and enforcing a fundamental change and paradigm shift in energy production. A view decades ago 'fracking' would have been considered to be 'to expensive' as a method to harvest liquid and/or gaseous fuels. Today it became very popular, which may gives some ideas to the ignorant. And the same goes for oil shale.

    I was happy about the decision of the state I live in, when hydraulic fracturing became forbidden by law due to preservation attempts for ground water and I hope it will always stay this way! We've done and still do enough damage above ground, daily, and better leave alone what fuels our systems most: Clean and fresh water!

    Never trust any and so called 'expert studies' about fracking, which conclude this method to be environmentally 'neutral'. As there is no existing and high resolution ground scanning technology available today, which will be able to detect even the finest capillary cracks, channels and voids, those studies are nothing but plain assumptive. And even if we would have such technology, or the given areas in which fracking has not mixed with ground water (so far), the slightest earthquake was able to change everything and to pollute one of the most precious resources we have, our ground water.

    So no, hydraulic fracturing is not an answer to our environmental and energy problems, it is its plain continuation!
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: This is one more example of how money is dictating how we destroy our world and make it less inhabitable. Big oil does not care about the ECO system, nor do they care about public health and all they really care about is how much more money they can make!
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2013: Now now there is no way to know what they do or do not care about, and saying that they don’t care about public health is the same as saying they don’t care about their own health nor their families’ health.

      Humans often disagree on how to have a happy, healthy and prosperous planet, but to say someone you disagree with on the “how”, does not want the same goal is unfair.
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2013: I have a friend that works in ND and that is what he does. Now I am not going to say names but he has confirmed that they know exactly what they are doing to the environment and that they don't care in the least! So before you assume that I am assuming I recommend you know the facts because I DO!
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2013: I’m not saying rather they or wrong, I’m just saying that only they know what they care about and you can not. If they said that you only cared about the ego system and don’t care about the world economy, I would say they are wrong to think they know what you care about.

          I have no idea what ND is and don’t care; because in all the places I have work in none of them did I know what the people at the top care about.
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2013: If you do not believe this is a real problem then maybe the link below will show you just how big it is and just how careless big oil really is!

        http://www.indiegogo.com/fracturedland
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: Don - I am not a tree hugging owl lover and I believe in keeping the world moving. That is the trouble with those that have your point of view. You don't care, you don't know and you probably voted for Obama. Who knows, the fact is it is easy to know that they do not care. They are smart, and they know that what they are doing is harming the earth and the lives of everyone that lives near one of these sites. To anyone with half a brain that is saying that they don't care. ND stands for North Dakota and is the largest site in the US.

        Not sure why you are even commenting because it is obvious that you are one of those people that could care less. Unless it is happening to you you just don't care and that is the problem with the people in this world.
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2013: Kevin, If you think I’m a Chairman MaoBama supporter and don’t care about others than I’m clearly coming across wrong and I likely made some wrong assumptions as to your comments.

          Sorry!
  • Jan 18 2013: absolutely it's the answer! it's the answer to all those questions energy companies have had about how to keep making money, it's also the answer for their shareholders, and for politicians in a bind as to how to keep providing energy to their constituents when renewable energy is expensive and won't find their campaigns.

    there are a few people affected by bad water as a result of this sure, but they should be happy they live in america, the greatest country in the world! if they don't like it they can just leave. to be honest really if they'd just worked harder they could afford to move somewhere else anyway, and we don't need the government coming in and adding even more regulation onto the energy companies, freedom ftw! (note: being sarcastic, just in case it's been lost on anyone, as tends to happen over the internet.
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2013: Sarcasm?
      No. All those energy companies making money for their shareholders and giving those politicians an edge instead of spending funds on uneconomical renewable energy mechanisms. Let's just close those SOB's down, we don't need the bad water that they must be doing, except we can't prove that in court. They must have bought off the judges too! We can get our energy just like the old days, cut wood from the back 40. Just have to figure out how to charge this laptop so I can tell everybody about it. Sarcasm indeed!
      • Jan 18 2013: well the thing is there are better ways to make energy, and it's sad that all the funds goto thermal power generation companies which makes it artificially cheap (if energy subsidies were ended oil and coal would be no cheaper than solar and wind), and those companies spend a lot of the money on disinformation to make sure people don't understand that the claimed problems with renewable are without merit.

        one of their favourites is to claim that wind and solar have too much downtime, but of course they don't tell you that coal and even nuclear plants spend about 40% of their time switched off for maintenance. another is that solar and wind take up too much space, and of course they don't mention that solar farms are put in the desert on land that isn't useful for anything else anyway, and that wind turbines are usually placed so their blades spin above crop fields which is also otherwise completely unused space.
  • thumb

    W. Ying

    • +1
    Jan 17 2013: .
    It is a kind of INVALID happiness driven by extra-MONEY, which leads us to self-extinction.


    (For INVALID happiness, see the 1st article, points 1-3, 14, at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents)
  • Jan 16 2013: I find it hard to believe that anything that ceates fissures capable of releasing gas, doesn't also release things into the water table. If you look at a cross section of earth, and see the pockets that can be there, how hard would it be for one pocket to infiltrate another? relying on scientific data on something as new and potentially lethal as this could be, is dubious.
  • Jan 16 2013: We're starting to have trouble here in Quebec with fracking. They insured our government that it was safe and because of the money it generated, the governement rolled with it and gave the permits. They had people loan their lands for 2-5 years, with promises it wouldn't cause any problem to the land and that it would be restored.

    Sometimes, the chemicals they use in the fracking water (they don't want to release the composition of which because of patenting) got into the phreatic water and made it un-proper to consumption.

    Sometimes, the soils (which were good farming soils) couldn't be used for farming for a while. Toxic wastes were seeped up by capillarity I think.

    And having an extraction team and gear on your land isn't as discrete as the owner wished to say the least, and soon they realized that what they got paid was ridiculous considering the trouble, noise, and possible waste of their land. And the company made a really insane profit.

    Also, here in Quebec we have hydro-electricity -which plants were built and exploited by the governement. Good clean energy. A bit expensive at first but then, so much more worth it. Why not go with these?

    On another related topic, energy and natural resources should be nationalized by the countries. So that it's owned by government, by the people, for the people. Environmental specialists would be able to say more, practices would have to be transparent and it would all be about long-term development, not short-term profit.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: There is no scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing causes pollution to the environment.
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2013: Before you make that your final stance Lawren you should look to the people that live in the areas where this is happening. I would love to fill you a glass of water from one of the wells and see if you would drink it. I assure you the smell is so bad that even the cattle that the farmers have will not drink it.

      Speaking of cattle in the long run we are all going to know how bad it is because many farmers and ranchers cannot afford to import water for their animals and these very beasts are going to be on your dinner table in the near future.

      bon appetit...
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: you should also look at people who live anywhere, and ask them if they have ever seen space bent. see? theory of relativity debunked.

        scientific method ignores the opinion and personal experience of people. we need evidence.
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2013: You find anyone that understands what your point is and then we can ask them. The evidence is there all you have to do is go looking for it. Far be it for me to set here and try and educate those with closed minds. No you do not need evidence because you are already convinced and it would do no good!
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2013: G'day Krisztian

          Do you want evidence you can see, touch, smell & taste or do you want falsified written evidence because any document & research can be falsified especially through big money but it’s awfully hard to falsify evidence that our own five senses detect which is very obvious in the vid’s I’ve watched.

          Love
          Mathew
        • Jan 18 2013: Unfortunately, the evidence can come too late.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: For now until the next answer comes along, I would say thorium is a good possibility
    • thumb

      Lejan .

      • +1
      Jan 18 2013: Thorium is nothing but a newly hyped yet old and failing technology. Even on TED you can find it, presented by a former NASA specialist and praised as the new holy grail of clean and save nuclear energy production. This is plain false and I was surprised to find it here and out, that even the UC Berkeley is riding this 'dead horse' anew.

      The Thorium pebble-bed reactor technology failed just a view miles away from my hometown and a view days after the Tschernobyl disaster, which was in my childhood and me right within the fallout zone of that 'impossible' incident, which became known as the 'THTR-300 fuel pebble event' since.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor#Thorium_High_Temperature_Reactor

      Thorium is NOT save, as any other nuclear reactor and never will be and it is no alternative as a meaningful energy source! It's nothing but lobbyism, again, and besides banks (recently) there is no other industry I know of that wracked its reputation that efficiently and repeatingly than the nuclear energy business. So you better be careful what you see in Thorium and what you may have missed...
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2013: G’day TED Community

    I thought the link I supplied to do with the science teacher conducting a debate about hydraulic fracturing in her class was one of the best links supplied as I thought it showed an unbiased approach to the discussion, I wonder how that would go on here? No I don’t think so as it got rather unsavoury towards the end, if you step on other people’s ego that is bad enough but when you question their livelihood one must expect unsavoury rebuttals.

    The debate on hydraulic fracturing is by no means an easy debate to manage as it’s very much in line with whaling or deforestation; again you are questioning other people’s livelihoods & tastes. Do we keep using up all the resources until there is nothing left & at the same time pollute what’s left over is a huge debate that will go on forever or until we kill ourselves of.

    To me any further practices that is going to pollute areas of our planet that aren’t already polluted is insane & unethical, we must allow inventions like with harnessing energy from salt water as was shown in one of the links supplied & other inventions that are & where disallowed because of the impact on the world economy to come forth, to disallow such clean energy inventions for the sake of the economy is utterly illogical because we won’t have an economy if we kill ourselves off.

    I would like to thank everyone who participated in this debate; we didn’t resolve anything but we did show how apposing we are on the topic of hydraulic fracturing….Thank You TED

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2013: G’day TED Community

    Do I live in the simple life? No because I live in a city which isn’t Hicksville, meaning I’m not living a country bumpkin life style these days but in the thick of consumerist materialism & this is why I can see wrong even when I’m benefiting from consumerist materialism, to me the benefits of hydraulic fracturing is wrong but to others it’s OK.

    I’m a carpenter/joiner by trade who was teaching woodwork, literacy & numeracy to people with all sorts of disability which is by no means an easy feat, the reason I mentioned this is that I’m no hick-ish country bumpkin who doesn’t know what they are talking about like some people have tried to make out to be.

    Because I can adapt, think & live within more than one mode of thought like consumerist materialism I know this allows me to see more openly & out of the square as I don’t just think in one mode. Consumerist materialism is but one mode of thought & living that some people can only see but there are so many more ways of thinking that would be a lot safer & harmonious than consumerist materialism. I can see hydraulic fracturing leading us ever so deeper within this one mode of thought when there are other ways to live & think by in safer circumstances.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: G’day Mike

    I’m sorry mate if you’re trying to make me out to be dishonest your barking up the wrong tree, who is it who said they looked at the links I provided & said they were biased when one of the links in particular was quite the opposite, you lied to me. If you’re trying a different tack of attack to make me seem dishonest try again.

    Overall: In actual fact you’re utterly right with everything you have said but as I am because we both see life & our environment in a different light, one isn’t wrong or right over the other they are just different & no I’m not being sarcastic but fair dinkum.

    I find this indifference quite interesting because it all stems down to the way we think which could be due to the way we are brought up & to the direction we go in adult hood, I chose spirituality you obviously chose consumerist materialism, like I said one isn’t right or wrong over the other they are just different. I was brought up in the country with relative clean air & chemical free water but obviously you were brought up differently to that, I find our indifferent views quite interesting.

    For someone who is obviously into consumerist materialism to accuse someone who puts life & the environment before oneself of dishonesty seem lame to me which obviously is a last ditch effort to save face which is sad. Mike we are just different people living in a different world literally even though it seems the same chaotic polluted reality.

    One last thing, for someone who doesn’t understand the basic principles of commodities to have ago at a science site such as IONS you would have to be balmy or something.

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2013: G'day Mathew,
      I have gone from annoyance at your prankish attempt at a conversation where many of us were trying to make salient points while you were reveling in some mystical fog to a state of bemusement. Yes, your links were biased, maybe you didn't read them. Just because they say they are not bias don't make them so. And don't feel smug in your mistaken belief that I am uninformed about Environment Sciences. I have both academic and experience in this subject. My credentials aside, my disappointment is that a perfectly good subject has been turned into a cult mysticism with fanatical highpriests who have gone to the extremes of death and destruction in their worship of their god.
      I have never said that fracking is not without side effects, I have said that it's positive outcome out
      weighs the downsides which can be verified and resolved. I have dismissed those claims that could
      not be verified. I have an inclining of the basic principals of commodities, I just don''t hold to Marx's theory.
      Why I sent you that website... the old children's saying of "ducks of a feather flock together."
      You live the "simple life" , I do not. Let's leave it at that.
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: G'day TED Community

    This has gotten a litttle ugly which is typical of anything to do with consumerist materialism & bad mining practices, if hydraulic fracturing didn't add to an already over polluted planet by all means but it looks like to me it's adding to it.

    Yes give me a cave anyday over a toxic & polluted graveyard at least I would be able to drink & bath in clean crystal water & see the stars like I once use too.

    I'm sorry but I'm spiritually minded & can't see the logic in turning something once beautiful into a graveyard that will obviously catch up with us like so many other things man has done in the past.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: The problem with fracking is the economic momentum behind it. That momentum is like gravity. It will not allow you to jump off just because you have a great idea. In a way it (petro-science economic momentum) is like a black hole that will not allow even the light of a good idea escape. It cannot do it even if it wanted to. Who do we have to thank for this? No matter. It will take an unprecedented mass revolt against it to annihilate it. Even the petro industry has solar and wind properties already in place to hedge against such a revolt, just as Ralph Nader predicted in the 1970s. It's time for a global retroactive BTU producers tax.
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2013: Have you been paying attention? This whole conversation is someone's school work and not worth the thought.
      However, your idea of a global BTU producers tax is noteworthy, let's go one step farther. Let us all turn out the lights and close the doors. Everyone goes back to the caves to live just like before the last ice age. No economic momentum by anyone and the the environment will be pristine.
  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: G’day TED Community

    I’ve joined a NOETIC (IONS) site which is a science oriented organisation who conducts their own experiments, one of the things studies is on thought & how it defines how we are going to conduct ourselves through certain taught thought principles & how this affects our lives. You might think what has this to do with hydraulic fracturing? Everything because it’s our train of thought that is telling us that we need more energy to sustain ourselves no matter what.

    Consumerist materialism is but one train or mode of thought we can have & had in human history. So how did we ever get to where we are at without consumerist materialistic thought modes running our lives throughout history? We didn’t use the energy we are now in the past because we were not thinking in consumerist materialistic modes of thought but in a quite a different mode that didn’t, to the same extent, destroy our very environment we rely on to exist.

    The US uses more energy per populous than any other country in the world because why? It’s thinking mode that it wants more & more no matter how it gets it & what it does to the rest of the world. People in the world are getting tired of the gluttonous ways of the US because we are paying for the US to live in this gluttonous consumerist materialistic way which we are paying for in more ways than one.

    What benefits do we get in Australia from these wells? Higher fuel prices, higher natural gas prices & why? Because the US & its gluttonous consumerist materialistic way of living. If we stopped thinking in a mode of consumerist materialism, as we have done in the past life would be somewhat different than what it is today as IONS has proved.

    We are made to believe that we need all these possessions to live a happy for filling life but that couldn’t be further from the truth, the more possessions we are made to believe we want the richer the big boys get not just through energy but what energy produces.

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2013: Now it all comes out, this whole conversation was some sort of games you wanted to play.
      I am the most gullible in these matters, I always believe that people are interested in a real exchange of ideas.
      Fair enough. I would apologize that Australians are paying higher prices for what is happening a half world away, as if I could believe any statement made, but I have heard the old "the USA uses 25% of the world's resources" and only has 5% percent of the world population" . What was never said is the rest of the statement. "they produce 30% of the world's out put. Today that is changing, China and India are growing their output. Oh, and using more resources. Soon you can add those Indians and Chinese to your list of gluttonous, consumerist, materialistic peoples.
      PS I checked out Australia, you guys aren't doing to bad on the consumerism scale.
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2013: G’day Mike

        Yes you should pat yourselves on the back in helping China & India produce more pollution as we needed more pollution in the world, well done indeed, have you stopped patting yourself on the back yet. It’s about time you admitted in helping out in stuffing up the rest of the world & yes we are one of the countries you have helped in this area. You actually help other countries produce more pollution & you’re patting yourself on the back……I’m dumb founded!!!!

        I don’t care who is into consumerist materialism it’s going the way of the dinosaur one way or another either by waking up to ourselves or killing ourselves off all together which of course it looks like the latter because people like you seem to be a dime a dozen.

        If countries like the US use more commodities don’t you think that it will put the price up around the world even half way around the world but your actually saying it doesn’t obviously, you should get your facts right first before discussing something you obviously know nothing about Mike, please as at times I feel like I’m talking to an ignoramus.

        Tell me who devised this consumerist plan in the 50’s so we could use more energy & inturn pollute the world & make the big boys even more wealthier after the second world war? I will give you a guise, he was a US citizen.

        I don’t think it would matter what proof I came up with your going to bury your head in the sand, I just hope not all Americans are like you, in actual fact I know they’re not.

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Jan 21 2013: You are right, I am not the sharpest tack in the box but, I addressed your question with the most honest responses I could make based on my experiences and knowledge. Granted, I hold the opinion that each individual is responsible for his own destiny whether it be to live in a cave or build a huge financial empire selling energy products. Whatever path is chosen, it should be done with honesty and integrity. You have not been so open and you cloak yourself in an organization NOETIC with its rating on quackwatch.com. So, I wish you well there in the outback, watching for bad waters from the local fracking operation.
  • Jan 20 2013: The problem with hydraulic fracturing is that it can not be safely regulated. Impacts vary from immediate concerns to others that spread over time, and distance. Water is contaminated throughout the region where the process takes place. Similarly, wild life is destroyed in the operation around the site. Down the road, structures, like the Tar-Sands pipeline (stretching from Canada to Texas), are erected leading to more environmental hazard and destruction to transport the fossil fuel. Most importantly, however, is that the overall dependency on unsustainable fossil fuel is only increased; therefore, limiting growth of renewable energy, and renewable energy research.

    Ultimately, i can not see how saving pennies for the average consumer and funding a corporate titan outweighs destroying wildlife (throughout continents), promoting unsustainable living, deterring innovative growth, and all this at the mercy of public health.

    To summarize: Saving money in the short term does not outweigh the environmental destruction that comes with fracking (long term and short term).
    • thumb
      Jan 20 2013: Oh my, With fracking in Canada and the Tar Sands pipeline failing, the great nation of Canada is doomed.
      I am sure that fracking in Australia will lead to Lake Mackay draining like a bath tub. God only knows what will happen to the USA with all that fracking going on. If it makes If this keeps up, all mankind is doomed. I did learn of a study by an University in Australia, that if all humans were gone from earth tomorrow, that the earth would be completely void of any sign of human activity in a millennium. Just a thousand years. Maybe a few shreds of pottery. Think of it, just a thousand years. So if us humans do the bad things you're concerned with and lead to the destruction of us all. In a thousand years, the environment won't even remember us. Now, I feel better.
  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: Mathew,
    Let me understand... Fracking, the process for gathering more energy... energy which is the life blood of the entire human civilization, has long term environmental impacts that will bring negative effects on humans. Assuming that these negative impacts are not being mitigated and are being "covered up" ... for profit motives?? is your premise that you are not sure and that is not a good sign.
    What would it take to reassure you that all is not lost and you have reasonable expectations to live a long and healthy life? What could I or any one say that could alleviate your concerns?
    • thumb
      Jan 20 2013: G’day Mike

      What would it take for me to reassure you it is harming people & the environment right now as we speak, I think I have shown through various links that this is exactly what is happening but of course because you are directly benefiting from such ventures you’re going to defend it to the bitter end. People out in Australia like myself might be benefiting in some way but I I’m not blinded by my pocket to the obvious negative effects as you are.


      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: G’day John

    For me to answer the question I poised is hydraulic fracturing the answer especially when you take in consideration the environmental impact it is having? It would be a flat NO because I have concerns for my fellow human being & the environment we rely on to exist & hydraulic fracturing at this stage seems to be threatening that.

    The funny thing is the more they try & cover up the negatives of hydraulic fracturing the worse it looks. Like I said before every venture that incorporates the production of energy for our needs is going to have sort of impact one way or another but the real question here is it worth the long term impacts it going to have on us & our environment? If they could make this a safer bet all means go ahead with it but the further I dig the bigger the cover up’s are getting which isn’t a good sign at all.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2013: This is an interesting subject. But, what I'm hearing is a sounding board for those who are either satisfied with the status quo or dissatisfied with it. Their comments have too little to do with the question poised: "Is hydraulic fracturing the answer especially when you take in consideration the environmental impact it is having?"

    My simple answer is: 'yes it is' but I temper that answer with the postulation we need to increase regulation of the industry to make sure that the environment is not severely impacted and people are "NEVER" harmed. If harm does raise it's hoary head, we need systems in backup to deal with them immediately: systems that are proven to work, not just on paper.

    The fact that regulation may impact profits should be subjective to the harm that it posses to people or the environment. We may have to accept some environmental impact in order to sustain ourselves but plans to rectify this impact can be put into place. We need to be sensitive to both the needs and the method to supply ourselves. We should also be consistently pursuing alternatives on equal par with looking for more resources to drill.
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2013: G’day Ted Community

    The cold fusion device I am talking about doesn’t work properly & I will leave it at that but that doesn’t omit the various other inventions squashed by the big boys including one invention which burns salt water which was shown in one of my links supplied.

    I can’t see any plausible & logical argument for hydraulic fracturing as it’s obviously causing problems we don’t need on top of what we have already got. Anything that puts people’s lives, their health & the planet at risk isn’t a good thing taking into consideration anything that going to make a viable source of energy for us to live on is going to have some sort of impact on us &/or the planet.

    Forget any validation that one might have for or against hydraulic fracturing, if you fracture the bed it’s obvious you are going to have problems because for starters you’re releasing natural toxic residue from the rock but on top of that you’re also adding other toxic substances which the hydraulic companies won’t disclose for a very good reason & what about earthquakes, aren’t they big enough for us yet?

    It’s an obvious cover up in my mind but I suppose if you’re going to benefit from such actions your obviously going to support it no matter what.

    I am spiritually & to a lesser extent scientifically minded & aware & I will always put the health & wellbeing of ourselves & this planet before my own pocket & the world economy which really doesn’t make the world go round as we are told, we do. If we are going to continue putting our own pockets & the world economy before life itself it’s certainly a sad sad world.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2013: Absolutely. there are better ways to make electricity. Except they can't be made profitable. Or we would be using them.
    It is correct that all generation systems are taken down for repairs or maintenance. But people can shutdown a power plant and start it at their will. People have yet learned how to control the winds on a schedule. Now the sun shines for 12 hours a day, that can be scheduled, but days of heavy cloud cover...what to do? People who know this business will tell you that to satisfy power demands, they need 80% minimun controlled supply, ie. power plants, dams, etc. and no more then 20% of uncontrollable, wind, solar, etc. In a small area, wind and solar can be measured and utilized, but in a large area not so much.
    Southern California has desert areas where the sun shines 300 days a year. Seattle Washington is 1500 miles away and has rain 300 days a year. Lets build a solar farm in California and sell the power to Seattle. Wait a minute, the transmission losses over 1500 miles is so great, there is barely any electicity left to sell. Oh damn!
    By the way, those subsidies are not really addition monies given to these companies, they are tax credits... instead of paying outrageous corporate taxes to the government, they pay slightly less outrageous taxes.
  • Jan 18 2013: not the answer long-term (or maybe even short-term) but in the absence of any other viable alternatives to natural gas (at least here in the US) I think unless the government comes down hard, which they will not do given the effect a rise in NG prices would have on the "recovery", we are stuck with it until something unless can clobber NG generation properties and reduce the demand for NG overall.
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2013: G’day TED Community

    I know someone personally who has developed a fully working power plant driven by cold fusion but his not happy with it at the moment because he thinks he can make it a lot more efficient through the setup of the electronics that drive this device & I’m not lying. The biggest problem he’s got however once installed it won’t produce any further revenue back into the economy accept through breakdowns. I told him to sell it to the Chinese at least they will produce them instead of burying them or burying him which has happenedwith others.

    I know there are a number of people out there that are probably paid to make these accusations look fraudulent but the truth is still getting out there as there are so many clean energy devices that have been squashed by the big boys for a good reason of course mainly because they would be missing out on ongoing revenue themselves.

    Love
    Mathew
    • Jan 18 2013: "The biggest problem he’s got however once installed it won’t produce any further revenue back into the economy accept through breakdowns"

      Unless it is made of magicanium, the device will have a capital equipment cost, maintenance cost, and a lifetime (for gen usually 20-25 years). Depending on its cost amortized over power production it may or may not be able to compete with NG. If it can compete with NG on power density (this is highly unlikely and is the main competitive parameter) and price and availability of resource (the elements that enable the fusion reaction) then it will have no problem getting into the marketplace once a fully operational prototype is built and third party tested.
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: G’day Rob

        It sounds like a joke but it’s not as it actually works but not to the point he would like it too, I don’t understand it at all but the amount of energy that is put into the device to run it in the first place is insignificant to its output, it has something to do with something going up & down instead of around but when it goes up & down it loops as well.

        Putting it on the market, could you imagine what that would do to the economy & they won’t have that. I think I better shut up.

        Love
        Mathew
        • Jan 18 2013: actually I can imagine. how ever well it performs it will have a cost of energy (cost of the machine amortised over lifetime of machine + annual operating expense * fixed charge rate / annual energy production). which will be marked up by the utilities. utilities will make about the same profit so they are fine with it. companies and individuals will be able to buy more power and consume and produce more stuff. it would lead to econo mic growth and a general increase in the standard of living which means more growth. it would be very beneficial if managed properly, eg the wealth created was not unevenly distributed which has been a problem recently. anyway overall everyone's or the "special" fews boat rises so it is a net gain. there is no reason for any stakeholders to be against it in the power generation market of the market in general. it is a win win.

          that said the key parameters of success are the levelised cost and the power density. and the power density will determine where it can be located and how much additional transmission cost is involved. that will determine whether it can take market share from natural gas. it will only take share if the combined cost of energy and transmission is less than natural gas. before fracking natural gas was dominating the market. it is all about final cost.
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2013: Mathew,
      Did you understand what you wrote? A cold fusion generator? That invention has escaped some of the greatest minds in physics for 100 years, but your friend has done it.
      His biggest worry is about the revenue generation once it's online?
      Tell him not to worry. Have him contact me. I will be his agent for 10%. I will deal with all those big boys out to squash him. When we are done, I will be one of the wealthiest men in the world and he...will be a god.
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

        How are you going to stop the big boys even if you were one yourself you couldn’t stop the rest.

        This person is quite clever but he did stumble upon this by accident in around about way. In writing such a strange reply I would say you don’t believe me & guess what so what!!

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2013: Mathew,
          Are you kidding me? Since those two weenies back in the late 80s found you can get electron flow from Palladium and Hydrogen based there has been all matter of people looking at the problem. Even the US Navy has done a lot of research. The problem has been in the research that the outcomes have been inconsistent if at all. And you say your friend has the system ready for commercial use? It is not about my belief system. It's about credulity. There has to be thousands of people in Australia that can do what I proposed to do.
      • Jan 18 2013: actually there is a prof at MIT that has repeated the results of the original experiments but with a different set of elements. he figured it would take about 10 years and a couple of bil to get it to commercial readiness. You can see why he is skeptical. big boys do not care. they will get their piece of the pie. as a matter of fact sign Mike because every major industrial products company would be lining up to invest if it has a low total cost. do you have any idea what the delivered cost per kWh is? if it is not around $.07-.08 per kWh it is a non-starter, but some investors might want to see if it can be brought forward. until you have an idea of delivered cost this is all just wool gathering.
  • Jan 18 2013: Mmmmhmmm.
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2013: Everyone wants energy ever since the first caveman brought home a deer that didn't escape a forest fire. No one today is going to give up all those things that energy provides. Does that mean that energy producers shouldn't clean up their messes? Of course not. But all this weeping and wailing on iphones back and forth about the destruction of the earth as we know it is a little....
    About fracking, Most, let's say 99 %, of the stories about fracking causes some farmers well water to burn is not really.... true. How can I say this. OK.
    Most aquifers that provide drinking water to these farmers and very small towns where flaming faucets are the local legends are usually shallow draws seldom deeper the a few hundred feet below ground surface. The gases produce in the flaming faucets is usually methane. Fracking gas is not methane. Frackong gas comes from formations past 10,000 feet below ground level. Thousands of feet of impervious rock formations between the two. Now, is it possible for fracking gas to get into drinking water supplies? Sure, failed seals, cracked well liners. But, as soon as that gauge sends out a low pressure signal, the gas companies are right on it. Production costs and profit margins are paper thin.
    They don't want to lose a cubit foot.
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

      I’m in direct contact with farmers & country people who say what is actually happening. You say the flames coming from the bores & natural springs are from methane & have nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing, why haven’t these wells & natural springs burnt with this methane before the hydraulic fracturing wells where introduced? Please be honest here.

      Your either blind to the facts or you’re deliberately covering up what you know to be wrong with such illogical statements as it’s not just about burning & the decolourisation of the water but the obvious health problems people & animals are having as well.

      Go to one of these polluted areas & all of your five senses will pick up on one thing or another, how much more proof do you need than from our five senses, if your relying on falsified research & documentation, which I’m sure you are, your flying blind & like sheep you will follow without knowing or wanting to know the truth. This is big money we are talking about here & big money can cover-up whatever it likes for the sake of the economy over our health any day.

      What’s more important to you wealth or your health because if you haven’t got your health what have you got?

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: OK, We have an effect, what is the cause? So, the gases from the bores and springs have been tested to insure it was methane. You have contacted the fracking operator and determined the gases they are producing and the depths they are drilling. They are not leaking gases from the wells. The farmers you have contacted have never seen flames or smelled gases before. Now there have been cases here in the states where farmers had gas in their water wells. When the fracking companies came in. they saw it as a way to get expensive new wells courtesy of the fracking company. Not saying that that is happening there, but lets get all the information together and see what was the cause of the effect. It's not about my sensory abilities which have been compromised by old age, I rather gather hard facts and get real solutions. One more question. Find out if any fracking company was sued and lost for damages.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

          Yes I would agree that some farmers would stoop to these levels as there are already natural toxins & gases in the ground of course but if a bore was fine since it was drilled why all of a sudden does the bore water go bad after a hydraulic fracturing plant has been introduced?

          Our artesian basin is quite large & deep in places; could you imagine the mess hydraulic fracturing would do to that?

          How exact is the science of hydraulic fracturing in regard to the fractures in the bed rocks because in some rock formations there are already fissures in this rock which do run up to the surface? Have tremors & earthquakes been calculated within the equation? Could you imagine what an earthquake would do to fractured bed rock!!!!

          The links below are quite interesting & will answer all your questions you could think up.
          http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracpage.htm
          http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343202/description/The_Facts_Behind_the_Frack
          http://scienceandtechnologylady.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/teaching-earth-science-and-hydraulic.html#comment-form

          Love
          Mathew
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

          In relation with the people I know on the land they are having trouble with the quality of water which they never had before & no I don’t think they had it tested but we are talking about properties that has been in the family for a number of generation so they should know if the quality of water is of a much lower quality after hydraulic fracturing plants have been installed or not.

          I suppose you didn’t look at the links I supplied? If you did & if you’re not somehow connected with hydraulic fractioning you wouldn’t, in my mind, need to ask me any more questions or query this any further as all the answers you need are there in the links supplied.

          Look Mike I’m not a greeny but I am spiritually & scientifically minded & have a passion for life over & above the economy because without one’s health you have nothing, I wish the scientist thought that way but they are run by the almighty dollar & the power that be just like the churches where especially in the dark ages, there is a huge similarity the only problem is we have a lot more deadly ways to kill ourselves with these day on a mass scale because of the scientific research.


          Love
          Mathew
        • Jan 18 2013: Can you back those statements up? Are you sure there was gas in the wells before fracking? I am not saying it can't happen, but where is your proof that it did? Cause and effect, before drilling no flames, after drilling flames, I would say cause, Drilling!
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: G'Day Mathew,
        I read your response, but we have not addressed those specific country folks you first spoke. You see, if we talk in broad generalities of things that could go wrong, question motives, base conclusions on unproven hypothesis, we have nothing more then talk over a Foster's. The gas that comes from fracking came be a big help in the economy of any country. It must be done with care as to not cause other problems. The alternative is to do nothing because something might happen. And if that happens, we can talk about how long it will be before mankind crawls back into the caves from where we used to live.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike prt.1

          In relation with the people I know on the land they are having trouble with the quality of water which they never had before & no I don’t think they had it tested but we are talking about properties that has been in the family for a number of generation so they should know if the quality of water is of a much lower quality after hydraulic fracturing plants have been installed or not.

          I suppose you didn’t look at the links I supplied? If you did & if you’re not somehow connected with hydraulic fractioning you wouldn’t, in my mind, need to ask me any more questions or query this any further as all the answers you need are there in the links supplied.

          Look Mike I’m not a greeny but I am spiritually & scientifically minded & have a passion for life over & above the economy because without one’s health you have nothing, I wish the scientist thought that way but they are run by the almighty dollar & the power that be just like the churches where especially in the dark ages, there is a huge similarity the only problem is we have a lot more deadly ways to kill ourselves with these day on a mass scale because of the scientific research.


          Love
          Mathew
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day mike prt.2

          The true alternative is for the multinationals to allow these freer cleaner energy sources to be allowed onto the market instead of squashing them like the hydro car that did actually work. I know this is going to hurt the economy & if it hurts the economy it will hurt the people but we don’t need all this stuff we are being coaxed in buying & owning, it certainly doesn’t bring happiness. Isn’t the US one of the unhappiest people in the world & aren’t the less materialistic nations in the world the happiest.
          Costa Ricans are the happiest, live the longest and produce only one-third the ecological footprint of their U.S. counterparts.
          Seven of the top 10 countries are in Central America or the Caribbean. The exceptions are Vietnam, which came in second, and Colombia and Venezuela, which ranked third and ninth respectively.
          http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/denmark-ousted-100-latest-worlds-happiest-country-561826

          That just shows consumerist materialistic countries like the US & Australia aren’t happy with their materialistic values over happiness & health.

          Love
          Mathew
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: G'day Mathew,
        OK, I did look at your sites. they all had a common theme. Fracking is bad or could be bad. They did not say "Lets examine the situation with an open mind and see were the the evidence leads us",
        Has fracking operations failed and cause local residents some problems,yes. Does fracking operations use a lot of water that is a waste byproduct and must be addressed in it's disposal, of course. These issues can be addressed. Does fracking cause earthquakes, warts and fallen arches, no evidence to address these problems. If you can show a direct,measurable link to a problem then a solution can be addressed. No one can effect a solution on a could be or maybe problem.

        Big Energy companies squashed some great idea to make a xxxx that was cleaner, more environmentally friendly, blah, blah. The didn't squash them, they ignored them. There was no profit to be made. What?, No profit? that's all those big greedy corporations wanted. Yes that's true. Because no big profits, no big companies. no big number of jobs, nothing big is made, everyone is living the good life on a beach in Costa Rica. You don't have a computer to sent this tome over the world wide internet.
        I can't speak for all energy companies, just mine. They are buying fracked gas because it is cheaper then the cost of operating coal fired plants, which they want to shut down, not because of your green, but the bankers green. OK they are not altruistic. They own one of the largest solar farms in the country, it's very profitable when it's sunny. They are part owners of a nuclear power plant and buy surplus power from a distant wind farm, because when it's windy there, power is cheap. What does all this mean to me? I live in a 200 sm home, I have a large TV, all the electronic toys, some duplicate. I don't know what my carbon footprint is, but my cost for electricity, the only energy source in my home averages $100 per month. Not Bad. OK, I do have a number of energy efficient things. (more)
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: Part two.
        Now, why is my power company giving me such a good deal, and have to make a profit to continue to do so, there is another energy company up the street, who wants me for their customer.
        Now, your living in Australia and I live in America. We live in materialistic, profit generating economies, and we have the choice to live as we feel. Many peoples do not. I am sure there are people in Costa Rica that would want to live in our materialistic societies. Many of them have entered our southern border on a daily basis. So, we should agree that people should be free to choose the life style they want to live. If someone in living their lifestyle effects your lifestyle, they should fix it. But if your statement is "my life style is better then your lifestyle"... well, that comes off as a tad pompous and childlike. I bear you no malice to live on a beach and live your lifestlye. Enjoy, go in peace and prosperity.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

          In saying they didn’t examine the situation with an open mind is wrong Mike, the science teacher did just that, in actual fact she held a student debate on the matter but had the one’s apposing fracking arguing for & visa-versa which gives each student a chance to know of the opposing argument a lot better.

          I’m not sure how you made this statement saying it was one sided, obviously you didn’t look at the links properly.

          One of the links did go into the effects of fracking causing earthquakes but even if they don’t cause the actual earthquakes fracturing bed rock under our feet would have to enhance the effects of an earthquakes obviously because you couldn’t say it’s going to stop earthquakes could you?

          Reading your reply it sounds like you are well a truly putting the economy & your own financial situation before anyone else’s health which is sad but the thing is I don’t.

          Mike, if hydraulic fracturing was safe & wasn’t going to add to the already over polluted planet I would be right behind it but that is nowhere near the case as I have shown a number of times through various links.

          You mention that we have a choice to live as we please, I can’t go out at night & see the stars like I once use too or swim in places without fear of some kind of toxic poisoning or drink uncontaminated water from wells that have been polluted by hydraulic fracturing & on top of that we don’t live in a true democracy when we are dictated to so much these days. Mike, we obviously live in two different worlds!!

          Love
          Mathew
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2013: You make some good points about fracking and I agree with more wells coming online, the profit margin will be even thinner. However. We must not forget how blessed we are with the type of Aquifer we have in the USA and the fact we do have a population of people bickering with us about pollution, clean water, and saving our environment. Look at China, what they have done to their country in just the last 20 years to become a formidable financial empire. It's worst than any nightmares we went through back in the 60's and 70's.

      For too long, we have lived with the notion that Science will solve all the problems down the road if we have to operate in earnest now. The truth is, Science is too slow in that regard. We still need to use common sense to take up the slack. If it's dirty coming out, it will only accumulate the longer we burn it.

      Nothing evaporates into space. Gravity keeps everything we pull out of the earth and burn right here among us. It doesn't just seep into the earths core. Every ounce of fossil fuel we have used, minus the miniscule part exploded for energy, is still sitting on the surface of the earth in one form or another. It sits there, mingling with the very same air, dirt and water we and our children consume and play in.

      When we burn a gallon of gasoline, one-billionth of the mass of the gasoline is transformed into energy to push a 2000-pound automobile for 30 miles. The rest, a mass equal to the whole gallon of gas (we can't measure the difference with simple scales), is still here, in our air, our water and our dirt. It never left the surface of the earth.

      In the end, I think most people realize if we don't find new energy and exploit it, we will suffer for it as a nation and individually. Yet, we still need someone nagging at us telling us we better watch out because what good is energy if the environment we live in is sub-livable?
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: Over the years, I have seen a number of screamers who have railed about various "environmental problems" based on hyperbole and lost the interest of the general public with all the preposterous claims. As a result, when real problems were noted, they were ignored.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2013: Yes, I know what you mean. I've heard them also. You can couple them with those who have little to say at all becuase they lack the fundamental understandings of the process to comment so they use what they call common sense, which offers little to understanding complex systems. That's why I offer real math that implicates real situations and actions, that really occur in real life situations.

          It's nice to see someone on the same page with me Mike. Keep up the good work. A little more detail would be helpful, preferably with some math to quantify your statements. Simple stuff like how large is the 'number of screamers', 'what are the different methods they use to rail about the various environmental problems' and, hyperbole comes in many flavors, which flavor are you talking about?
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2013: Mike, here is a web site you may like. I'm concerned with true science progress. When I hear about raising the output of solar cells and a scientific breakthrough then find out it can only be accomplished with a highly toxic, radioactive metal that is so rare it has no commercial applications, I wonder who funded that research and what are their real goals? They discovered something that raised eyebrows but we really can't exploit it because it is severely costly. Maybe the Space industry or Military industry might be able to use it on short order.

          I took the course on genetics at Stanford University and (doing the math) determined that most of what we know about genetics is still hit and miss, as far as exploiting real genetic knowledge. But, when you read the reports in the press, it has wondrous applications for medicine, etc., just not in the near future.

          So I ask, why report such nonsense when it has no real application to real world realities and how much is this nonsensical research costing the tax payer? I say the tax payer because you can't find a lot of support in private industry for it. Do they know something we don't know, like the real extent of sciences ability to exploit the new discoveries and apply them to real world application?

          "..New York Governor Andrew Cuomo noted that when it comes to his state’s rules for fracking he will “Let the science dictate the conclusion.” ~New York Governor Andrew Cumo

          If science fully understand we let it have the final say in such domains, how does this physiologically impact human scientists to alter the rules according to their likes and dislikes about how research should proceed?

          When I was a young programmer in the early days of computers. I spent some of my time napping while my computer looked like I was working hard. Of course I wrote the program that gave that impression.
          I think you will like the web site.
          http://scienceprogress.org/2013/01/duck-rabbit-gas-well/
  • Jan 17 2013: Anyone who is using coal for their electricity, gasoline in their car, using sugar in their coffee or buying plastic from China is promoting devastating ecological damage.

    There isn't much that is attractive about Hydraulic Fracturing, but it's a lesser of evils compared to the current fuel production system. Getting the US and Canada off of "foreign oil" would be a big plus, might even help to rebalance the world economy and thin the cash funds away from religious terrorist groups.

    Personally, I believe that we have more to fear from the damage done to the Everglades and reef system off the coast of Florida due to the sugar industry, thanks to fertilizers, the canal drainage systems and the clearing of forests... and nobody rallied for the displaced Seminoles.
    • thumb
      Jan 17 2013: G'day Addam

      Obviously you didn't read & watch the links supplied.....We are polluting the air the ground & now with hyrdaulic fracturing the subterranean basin so whtat's so good about hydraulic fracturing again?

      On top of obviously polluting the subterranean basin the toxic wast from the drilling process needs to be disposed of as well.

      If the multinationals didn't keep squashing clean free energy inventions I think we would be a lot better of than polluting the subterranean basin with hydraulic fracturing.

      Love
      Mathew
      • Jan 17 2013: I've seen the evidence as presented from both wings, Coke AND Pepsi. I'm a green, btw, total enviro-geek, vegan and all.

        And I'd like to agree with you but sentences like "multinationals didn't keep squashing clean free energy inventions" are a real turn off in logical discussion.

        They don't exist, your technology gods, it's too close to "conspiracy theory".

        I'm not saying "it can't happen"... but I am saying that we are using coal and oil, and your laptop is powered that way just as surely as mine. I don't recall that Tesla ever finished figuring out the "free, clean energy" thing, and Atlas may have shrugged - the fact is that we have been dumping tons of US and allied currency into "securing the Middle East" and the same time our citizens are paying for both sides of the fight. Doesn't matter if we're there for the purpose of securing oil, we buy oil from there regardless.

        Hydraulic fracturing is a way of opening a domestic energy source that is cleaner and more efficient than coal or oil. It's not pretty, but neither are the coal mountains or the oil fields. It's not optimal, it pollutes, but imagine if we had been using natural gas powered container trucks instead of diesel for the last 15 years, imagine how much less carbon would be in the air, how much less cash out of the pockets of those multinationals.

        As far as i'm aware, the biggest heads in the oil biz are just as aware of the "end of big oil" as the rest of us, perhaps more poignantly so - and some of them have lost the most money on attempts at generating "clean energy" through solar and wind collection.

        Of course, windmills face the same "Not In My Back Yard" problem that hydro-frac'ing does, and solar fields take up great swathes of desert, killing fields of cacti and spiny lizards.

        We demand energy, we can demand *clean* energy, but we don't stop using dirty energy.

        You can't really feel good about your sugar, and eat it too.

        Unless you're Ed Begley Jr, of course.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Addam

          I agree with you that it is a cleaner alternative than what we have been using however it’s just as toxic if not more so. Take a look at this link http://www.mining.com/tag/hydraulic-fracturing/

          I’m not into conspiracy theories either however I am in direct contact with a source that confirms that the multinational have stopped such inventions coming onto the markets. If you think about it what would the multinational get out of free clean energy & what would it do to the world economy, of course they will stop such inventions, I think that’s obvious.

          You seem to have excluded all the toxins that are attributed to hydraulic fracturing, like I said we have already polluted the air the ground & now with hydraulic fracturing the subterranean basin which so many rely on for clean water plus by the sounds of it it’s going to run into the sea through underground rivers but it doesn’t stop there the toxic material coming out of the wells has to be dumped somewhere as well.

          I’m sorry but some people are conned to believe that this is our only alternative to what we have been doing, is space next on the list I wonder?

          Love
          Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: Hydraulic fracking seems like a cleaner solution & the supporters of this will tell you it’s much cleaner than coal &oil for a very good reason & the anti-frackers will tell you it’s obviously harmful for the main reason that it’s putting harmful toxins into the ground water which can in some cases rise up through cracks in the surface rocks.

    It doesn’t really matter who is right or wrong here the fact is they do use toxic chemicals to help fracture the rock & it can also release natural toxins that are already sealed in the bed rock, surly no one can argue with that so is it a better alternative? I will point out here that the oil barons & other multinationals have stopped a lot of much cleaner solutions to our energy crises like with a bloke in Western Australia who invented a fully working hydro car but was compelled to sell to a certain oil company & this is one of many so for starers the oil barons & multinational aren’t interested in free clean energy but their own pockets.

    One more thing, what does a farmer &/or resident use when their ground water that they rely on is polluted by these chemical & why frack when there are obvious cleaner solutions that these people keep stopping because there’s no many in it for them & most importantly what is more important our health or their wallets?
    Fracking links
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_axZpB0wZI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSWmXpEkEPg
    Suppressed invention links
    http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/12/cancer-cures-99-mpg-cars-clean-energy.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihp-PBlyN9s

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: Do you have any data or evidence to support a supposition?
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: Fracking is a very controversial subject and very recently it has been given the get go in SA.

    In the context of South Africa I actually believe that fracking could do some good.

    The major issue with fracking is of course the environmental issues but after briefly looking into this subject I believe that these are primarily due to a lack of safety nets and an overall terrible implementation in the USA which is my primary example of fracking. The issues of waste disposal, impermeable wells and water contamination need to be strictly regulated which in the past has not been the case. Compared to other energy sources and their mining methods fracking has the potential to be a lot cleaner and arguably better as fracking gives off less emmisions than coal mining for example as well as providing a much safer working environment for the workers/miners.

    Fracking results in rewards and quickly and is therefore especially useful in the current financial times.

    I am personally for fracking but to tell you the truth it is all about how it is implemented
  • Jan 16 2013: Can anyone actually look into a mirror and honestly tell themselves that we humans have handled our environments correctly, intelligently, humanely, sensibly, fairly, economically, maturely, and efficiently?

    If one is not seriously mentally ill, extremely self-deceived, or completely brainwashed then the answer has to be a resounding, "No!".

    These kinds of decisions are not made in the best interests of the earth, the ecologies it has and for all its inhabitants. They are made solely based on profit for a few, the cheapest way to get it or do it, irregardless of the consequences, and it all is degrading to the planet and the life it supports.

    Anyone who can't see that can only be described today as a "normal lunatic" in my estimation.
    Normal, because they cannot see their own insanity because every one around them is insane too.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: you don't know too much about the subject, do you? i would suggest against relying on greenpeace and similar organizations.
  • Jan 16 2013: With more people we need both more gas and more water. Here in Texas one always has a problem getting these characters ot use enough concrete.