To: i-node who wrote (616728 ) 6/20/2011 3:01:41 PM From: Alighieri Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575517 Fracking, as does any drilling, has an environmental downside. But the BIG claim against fracking (contamination of water tables) is simply not supported by the science. For the amount of energy you get out of fracking, it probably is a better ecological value than solar. And it certainly is better on a cost per per kW basis. In several states people are complaining of contaminated water...others are complaining about the big rigs barreling through rural roads 24/7...nothing is without impact and we don't yet know what the impact will be from fracking large scale (you do of course)...I am quite sure that, if not closely regulated, fracking would be akin to strip mining or worse, a water contamination hell. Solar, which has been deemed a 'green" solution to energy problems, has its own problems. For example, the Mojave project which supplies 500MW (small city) for a fraction of a day, occupies 6,000 acres. Not only does it totally disrupt that 6,000 acres ecologically, the potential for exposure to toxics is significant over time. Nothing has zero impact and all technologies are assessed for impact...but common sense would tell one that covering 6000 acres of desert with parabolic mirrors has minimal consequence...certainly less than injecting nasty chemicals deep into the soil of rural america. And yes, the eyesore aspect is a strong ecological negative. Do you know what the word "ecological" means? But there also is the toxic chemical and disposal consideration. LOL...but not from fracking? You must be the conservative version of an environmentalist...LOL... But the average homeowner just isn't going to be interested. At 25c/W from your utility and in the proper geography lots of people ARE interested. And fortunately there are open minded people out there to counter the regressive redneck effect. Al