Show of HandsShow of Hands

DrCarpenter April 7th, 2016 2:23am

A new paper conducted by the Geological Survey of Canada found more than 90 percent of large earthquakes in western Canada were triggered by fracking operations. Do you think fracking should be permitted?

10 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Jimmo Texas
04/06/16 9:25 pm

How does fracking effect the movement of tectonic plates?

Reply
suppressedID IMEACH BIDEN
04/07/16 12:41 pm

Not all quakes are tectonic.

ShawPPM1214 Washington
04/06/16 8:51 pm

This is where statistics can exaggerate things...were 90% of these earthquakes 1.0 or less?? Or were 90% of these earthquakes much higher like 4-5?? I lived in Pennsylvania for a couple years recently, and there is a lot of fracking done in the area I lived in. Never had any seismic activity that was ever noticeable...

Reply
davidwhite1 Building it Bigger
04/07/16 10:21 am

Excellent point Shaw.
This is just another example of people with an agenda playing on peoples fears.
The USGS has indicated that fracking can cause micro quakes that cannot be felt and do not cause property damage.
www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9833/3428

suppressedID IMEACH BIDEN
04/07/16 12:44 pm

Not exactly. It was in their sample group, and only indicated safety threats from the quakes. It said nothing about property damage or causal threats like contaminated groundwater.

davidwhite1 Building it Bigger
04/07/16 6:04 pm

EPAs take on threats to ground water.
Basically like any other activity water sources can be threatened.
The EPAs finding indicated no specific increase in threats to water sources.
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

jvberg Winter has Come
04/06/16 8:38 pm

Watch "Gas land", you'll cry

Reply
htcbump Florida
04/06/16 8:27 pm

These earthquakes are tiny!

Reply
fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 7:39 pm

I don't see fracking as any more problematic than other fossil fuel sources. Sounds like it needs to be better regulated in those problem areas. Keep fracking (especially for gas) but aim to phase out fossil fuels overall.

Reply
DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
04/06/16 7:38 pm

Hell no! It's time to be aggressive about climate change. NOW is the time to decide whether we want to do something about it. We don't have time to wait for politicians to decide for us.

Reply
gow488 Korea
04/06/16 7:45 pm

Well nuclear would be the fastest way to tackle climate change. In only a few years you could have most of the energy produced in the U.S. come from a pollution free source. Wind and solar simply isn't efficient enough replace fossil fuel power plants quickly.

voc I am...what I am
04/06/16 7:52 pm

Do you think wind and solar aren't efficient enough or has the oil companies lobbied to keep them down? The technology is there. It can be done extremely efficiently. Not enough money in it.

Jimmo Texas
04/06/16 7:54 pm

How does fracking effect the movement of tectonic plates?

gow488 Korea
04/06/16 8:00 pm

Just 100 nuclear plants provide 20% of all the energy in the U.S.. Nuclear is by far the most reliable and efficient energy source available. If it's cloudy out or not windy then wind and solar plants aren't even making energy.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
04/06/16 8:06 pm

Given the urgency of tackling Climate Change, I agree the nuclear is necessary, even though it may not be desirable. Ideally we should be developing nuclear fusion to eliminate the waste, removing any danger that may exist with current nuclear energy, that is nuclear fusion.

htcbump Florida
04/06/16 8:31 pm

Actually, fracting has produced amazing amount of natural gas. This is why US emissions have dropped the fastest in the world for the last several years.

fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 8:38 pm

@gow488 when you say solar and wind is too inefficient, by what measure?

fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 8:40 pm

@doctorwasdarb Fusion is 20 years away, but it's always 20 years away. Not likely to get useful fusion power on any reasonable scale soon, or soon enough to matter.

htcbump Florida
04/06/16 8:41 pm

Fredd....wind and solar without huge government subsides would go under. Solar is inefficient and wind is ugly and high maintenance. ALL US solar is, well, Chinese.

fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 8:42 pm

We should be pushing more on all fronts IMHO, renewables and nuclear. Current nuclear plants take 4-10 years from planning to operation so there's no time to wait.

gow488 Korea
04/06/16 8:44 pm

You get a lot more energy from a nuclear power plant then from a solar or wind farm. Plus nuclear power plants never have to worry about what the weather is in order to produce energy.

fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 8:47 pm

We should be pushing the development of Gen IV nuclear plants as fast as possible. They will be safe from meltdown, proliferation risks and virtually eliminate the waste problem. Plus they should be far more economical to built than current designs.

gow488 Korea
04/06/16 8:48 pm

The time and cost needed to build nuclear power plants could easily be shortened. It only takes so long to build because of government red tape.

fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 10:54 pm

Sorry. Turns out that I have to be sociable this evening, will pick this up again tomorrow. But gow and htc, exactly how do you feel that solar is inefficient? I don't know what you're getting at unless you clarify.

htcbump Florida
04/07/16 9:28 pm

Solar manufacturing even when subsidized heavily has had numerous company failures and no USA production. Storage, AC conversion, and transmission are all non trivial. China even struggles. Total cost per watt is high. Wind turbines are ugly, noisy, and have reliability issues. Very bad for birds.

gow488 Korea
04/06/16 7:26 pm

Continue fracking for now, but we should start phasing out fossil fuels beginning with coal and begin replacing them with nuclear instead.

fredd TrumpLand
04/06/16 7:37 pm

I agree, but replace with a mix of sources, renewables and nuclear.