Is shale gas a good thing?

[MrGongGong]

I do agree though that windmills are a hideous blot on the landscape
just look at these dreadful examples which have destroyed what was once a beautiful environment

http://images.ownersdirect.co.uk/villa-pombal-portugese-holiday-letting-old-windmills-in-the-village-346636.jpg

maybe we don't all share the same aesthetic ?
how do those who object to wind power (on the grounds of what it looks like) feel about this industrial building ?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8293/7709670006_1ca63a4802_h.jpg

[amateur51]

I do agree though that windmills are a hideous blot on the landscape
just look at these dreadful examples which have destroyed what was once a beautiful environment

http://images.ownersdirect.co.uk/villa-pombal-portugese-holiday-letting-old-windmills-in-the-village-346636.jpg

maybe we don't all share the same aesthetic ?
how do those who object to wind power (on the grounds of what it looks like) feel about this industrial building ?


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8293/7...a63a4802_h.jpg

:ok::biggrin:

[Dave2002]

:seconded: !!

[Beef Oven]

I think it depends on what you mean by carbon emission and common sense. In China there are cities which emit so much filth, including coal dust, that "common sense" would immediately lead almost anyone to believe your statement. In the 1950s (and earlier) there was smog in large cities such as London, and the smog of 1952 killed many people. Again "common sense" would support your arguments.

If by carbon emissions you mean emissions of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide then some people might not understand.

Direct experience of pollution is still possible in cities such as London, but although some of the pollution is carbon related, quite a lot isn't. Such pollution can affect breathing, and also make clothes dirty, though I have to say that compared with the dirt which appeared on white shirts when I was young, I haven't noticed much in recent years. My claim is that direct evidence that carbon emission is bad is unlikely to be experienced by many nowadays in the UK.

Carbon monoxide is toxic.

Nowadays it is less obvious that anything related to carbon emissions is a bad thing. As I recall CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. Even at atmospheric levels of 400 ppm that is still only 0.04% of the total atmosphere, so I submit it is not obvious at all by use of "common sense". I haven't personally been up to the higher levels of atmosphere, and even if I did, I would not have the tools to measure the percentage of CO2. I rely on others, including engineers and scientists, to tell me the levels, which are currently about 400ppm.

If by "common sense" you mean the form of logic and analysis which can be applied by those who are knowledgeable, and read, and have access to data, some of which is reliable, then you are probably restricting the term in unusual ways. On the other hand "common sense" may be held by those who read the Daily Mail, The Times and other newspapers, or watch TV news or listen to radio news and current affairs programmes, where many simply adopt the view taken by the views which are thrust upon them.

I had no idea I'd said so much.

[Flosshilde]

I do agree though that windmills are a hideous blot on the landscape
just look at these dreadful examples which have destroyed what was once a beautiful environment

http://images.ownersdirect.co.uk/vil...age-346636.jpg

It could be argued that without the windmills much of the Dutch landscape wouldn't exist, as they were built to pump water from the polders rather than grind grain (as were most of the East Anglian windmills). So they are integral to the landscape. Of course, the argument is that without windmills generating power the climate will get warmer, ice will melt & sea levels rise, so that power-generating windmills are also essential to the landscape. However, the hills of Scotland (& Wales & Northern England) will still be there even if sea levels do rise, so it's the flatlands of south-east England that really need windmils. Of course, there won't be large windfarms round London, any more than there will be nuclear power stations on the Thames. & we know why that is, don't we.

[Pikaia]

I don't know why people are so opposed to fracking. If there is a power cut you'll be able to light the taps for light & heat.

[MrGongGong]

It could be argued that without the windmills much of the Dutch landscape wouldn't exist, as they were built to pump water from the polders rather than grind grain (as were most of the East Anglian windmills). So they are integral to the landscape. Of course, the argument is that without windmills generating power the climate will get warmer, ice will melt & sea levels rise, so that power-generating windmills are also essential to the landscape. However, the hills of Scotland (& Wales & Northern England) will still be there even if sea levels do rise, so it's the flatlands of south-east England that really need windmils. Of course, there won't be large windfarms round London, any more than there will be nuclear power stations on the Thames. & we know why that is, don't we.

Maybe the lack of wind might have something to do with it ?
Have you ever been to Sumburgh airport ?

As i flew to Schipol today I was thinking about that , I like windmills , there are lots
and as i'm in Switzerland now the sea can rise all it likes (for the next week or so at least !)

I always loved Steve Bell's description of Scotland as "the testing ground" ....... Gruinard Anthrax anyone ?

[hedgehog]

I don't know why people are so opposed to fracking. If there is a power cut you'll be able to light the taps for light & heat.

Indeed. Methane seems to be being consistently left out in the carbon emissions equation at the moment on this thread. Wonder why.................

[Flosshilde]

Maybe the lack of wind might have something to do with it ?

Lack of wind in East Anglia? Have you left your customary (JOKE) off the end of that comment?

[Dave2002]

Indeed. Methane seems to be being consistently left out in the carbon emissions equation at the moment on this thread. Wonder why.................

You are right - I have to some extent overlooked this. However we have mentioned/discussed it. If the methane containment is poor in fracking, then that is really bad news, as methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. On the other hand, if unwanted release of methane can be avoided, then the process can be beneficial. How well it can be contained in practice may perhaps only be determined by trying it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Of course, there won't be large windfarms round London, any more than there will be nuclear power stations on the Thames. & we know why that is, don't we.

And yet they continue to create buildings in the capital that are far uglier than any wind farm.

[hedgehog]

You are right - I have to some extent overlooked this. However we have mentioned/discussed it. If the methane containment is poor in fracking, then that is really bad news, as methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. On the other hand, if unwanted release of methane can be avoided, then the process can be beneficial. How well it can be contained in practice may perhaps only be determined by trying it.

Methane is a valuable resource to burn too. But it is difficult to capture especially in Arctic regions and there is more than enough evidence that it leaks everywhere in current fracking operations. I have had first hand experience of walking alongside bubbling - almost boiling - rivers that didn't bubble like that before nearby fracking (we are not talking about the common lazy bubble of methane from rotting vegetation on the river bed here.)

The point being that if it isn't taken into consideration then any argument rattling off CO2 emissions only is spurious.

[Flosshilde]

Methane is a valuable resource to burn too. But it is difficult to capture ...

Isn't it methane that is produced by landfill sites? I always wondered why it wasn't used as a fuel rather tham simply burning it off.

[Dave2002]

Methane is a valuable resource to burn too. But it is difficult to capture especially in Arctic regions and there is more than enough evidence that it leaks everywhere in current fracking operations. I have had first hand experience of walking alongside bubbling - almost boiling - rivers that didn't bubble like that before nearby fracking (we are not talking about the common lazy bubble of methane from rotting vegetation on the river bed here.)

The point being that if it isn't taken into consideration then any argument rattling off CO2 emissions only is spurious.

Absolutely. If "they" get this wrong any benefits from reduced CO2 emissions and reduced greenhouse gas effects could be wiped out. Indeed it would be quite possible to make things worse than they are already. Industry people and "responsible" planners say this won't happen. Some people said similar things about nuclear power.

[Dave2002]

Isn't it methane that is produced by landfill sites? I always wondered why it wasn't used as a fuel rather tham simply burning it off.

I think some landfill sites do use it more productively - maybe to replace braziers used by the workers!