SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


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



To: i-node who wrote (616728)6/20/2011 3:29:31 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Respond to of 1575517
 
"the potential for exposure to toxics is significant over time."

From what, sun-burn?



To: i-node who wrote (616728)6/21/2011 2:59:53 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575517
 
"But the BIG claim against fracking (contamination of water tables) is simply not supported by the science."

Science!...... The chemicals they use for fracking are a big secret of the drillers so how can any reasonable science be done. Why do the drillers refuse to reveal them? BTW, NY state has legislation pending to require that info be made public....