18 ms·

Fracking for Europe [video]

40 points by car 3y ago

gadders 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
There's definitely enough blame to be spread around between several countries for the current mess we're in and for the people suffering from fracking, that I don't know how this could be fixed and make everyone happy. If there was enough cheap, clean, abundant energy for everyone, we wouldn't be in this mess, but since the global energy demand is much higher than the supply of clean energy, it's natural that the less wealthy and influential people and nations get the short end of the stick in the process of supplying enough energy for everyone. Also, capitalism and highly profitable energy production require that the supply be controlled in order to always be below the demand, see the OPEC cartel, so barring momentary fluctuations due to unforeseen events, we'll always have an energy shortage to a degree no matter what. I don't know how this can be solved so that everyone wins and everyone is happy, without creating more global turmoil in forms of economic depression, wars and climate change.
- s5300 3y ago
  [dead]
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Late stage capitalism. Money will find the dirty way to get the gas that makes most profit I guess. Governments should probably encourage more solar, more heat pumps, less gas usage. For the environment and national security.
  - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
    It's hilarious that you would attribute that to capitalism when the Fossil Fuel and Gas industry was one of the most subsidised industries over the last 100 years. Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :)
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :) Was that ever the case? I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another.
      - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
        > I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another. That might be a necessary evil but has nothing to do with Capitalism. Throughout the time we've seen different degrees of government involvement in the market. Capitalism claims the less government involvement, the better. There can be a discussion if a purely Capitalistic market (0 government involvement) can exist but claiming government helped industries are the result of capitalism is just wrong. Capitalism is financial democracy. The market (aka the people) vote with their money. If a company goes down, that's ok, another one will replace it if it was a company that produced a necessary product. The Government getting involved in this process is very anti-capitalistic. Takes away the freedom of people to vote with their money and instead incentivizes companies to ignore the people and just lobby and play the system that the government put in place. So calling that Capitalism when it's the very thing Capitalism tries to avoid is an anti-truth.
        mempko 3y ago
        You do realize that governments created both markets and capitalism right? Markets are older than capitalism and have been tools for governments to provision themselves. In fact, anthropologists couldn't find a society that voluntarily chose markets. Markets are a product of conquest. Capitalism is a product of the feudal system collapsing. Capitalism cannot exist without a strong government because it requires markets, a legal framework that allows you to own property, and a working financial system.
- koheripbal 3y ago
  The only clean energy that is capable of producing constant power is nuclear power.
  - alternative_a 3y ago
    The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible. The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.
    - polotics 3y ago
      Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.
      - alternative_a 3y ago
        Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood. “Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about. Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.
nolist_policy 3y ago
Old and busted: American companies destroying Americas environment. New hotness: France companies destroying Americas environment.
- rapsey 3y ago
  Green movement successes are mostly just moving the dirty work from places that do not tolerate it, to places where it can be done without the locals making noise.
sieste 3y ago
Some interesting bits: Total is fracking in the middle of residential areas, drilling sites hidden from view by portable walls, protected by police from investigations of air pollution, while asthma rates are over twice as high as in the rest of the country. "They [Total] don't get to go everywhere they want to go, but we have a great relationship so I'm happy with Total" (Arlington mayor after revealing a new fountain sponsored through oil and gas revenue.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- koheripbal 3y ago
  There is no correlation between asthma and fracking. There is not even a plausible mechanism for such a causal relationship. That is a very odd point to make.
  - sieste 3y ago
    The video mentions a variety of hydrocarbons emitted from fracking sites (and a noticeable smell), which would be a plausible cause, no? That said, I don't have a dog in this fight and no strong opinions, and happy to be educated with better facts. EDIT: Potentially of interest - "Fracking is linked to asthma increase, study finds" https://www.proquest.com/openview/38707d6ad223efa2d5ac7f3bb8873a76/1 https://www.proquest.com/openview/38707d6ad223efa2d5ac7f3bb8...
    - car 3y ago
      Here the publication from 2016: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2534153 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
- ivanhoe 3y ago
  How exactly can fracking affect the air quality, through which mechanisms? It's known to pollute underground waters and thus the soil, but air? EDIT: nevermind, I've seen another answer explaining it. Leaving the comment just for the consistency reasons...
rob74 3y ago
Fracking for Europe, by a (mostly) French company, done in the United States. Would be interesting to see if methane gas emissions can be actually detected - of course they're not going to flare the gas when the extraction site is in a residential area, that would be too conspicuous. Which of course also begs the question why this has to be done in a residential area. I looked at Arlington, TX on Google Maps and realized that this must be a side effect of the American sprawl: if there is oil/gas to be extracted in the area, you have to do it in a residential area, because there is no open space to be seen anywhere nearby...
- gorkish 3y ago
  The linked video is /extremely/ opinionated and contains much misinformation. Just need to level set on that first -- > Would be interesting to see if methane gas emissions can be actually detected Obviously. But unlike in the video you need to actually use gas detectors instead of a thermal camera and look around the wellheads and gathering pipelines where the gas /is/ and not at some random compressor's engine exhaust heat. Fortunately the folks who maintain these things have qualified engineers who actually know how to use their equipment and the agencies who regulate them have standards that are actively monitored and enforced without requiring the oversight of well meaning old ladies with too much free time. > why this has to be done in a residential area Because it's where the field is, and you have to build gathering systems where the wells are. There is even more oil and gas infrastructure crammed into urban Los Angeles than there is in DFW though.
  - car 3y ago
    Methane can be detected by optical spectrometry. Since methane is not only a pollutant but also a very potent green house gas (30x stronger than CO2), efforts are made to map the sources from the air and space [0-2]. Edit: I found the FLIR camera shown in the video. It is made for gas emission analysis: https://www.flir.com/products/flir-g-series/ https://www.flir.com/products/flir-g-series/ [0]https://www.optica-opn.org/home/newsroom/2022/february/mapping_methane_with_spaceborne_spectrometry/ https://www.optica-opn.org/home/newsroom/2022/february/mappi... [1]https://www.methanesat.org https://www.methanesat.org [2]https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-mission-excels-at-spotting-greenhouse-gas-emission-sources https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-mission-excels-at-spottin...
Garvi 3y ago
What the actual heck? I thought this was declared illegal everywhere in the EU? How and when did this happen and how did I miss this? Figures it would be Germany leading the charge in something this corrupt. Is this happening in other EU countries as well? Edit: I'm an idiot. I'm halfway through the documentary now and realized this is about fracking in the US FOR the EU that made buying pipline gas from Russia illegal. Instead we're forced into buying 6x more expensive US gas. Heavy industry is dead, some of my friends are out of work. Enjoy the pollution. At least it's not just the EU population that is getting the shaft by US industrialists.

40 points by car 3y ago

gadders 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

There's definitely enough blame to be spread around between several countries for the current mess we're in and for the people suffering from fracking, that I don't know how this could be fixed and make everyone happy. If there was enough cheap, clean, abundant energy for everyone, we wouldn't be in this mess, but since the global energy demand is much higher than the supply of clean energy, it's natural that the less wealthy and influential people and nations get the short end of the stick in the process of supplying enough energy for everyone. Also, capitalism and highly profitable energy production require that the supply be controlled in order to always be below the demand, see the OPEC cartel, so barring momentary fluctuations due to unforeseen events, we'll always have an energy shortage to a degree no matter what. I don't know how this can be solved so that everyone wins and everyone is happy, without creating more global turmoil in forms of economic depression, wars and climate change.

s5300 3y ago
[dead]
quickthrower2 3y ago
Late stage capitalism. Money will find the dirty way to get the gas that makes most profit I guess. Governments should probably encourage more solar, more heat pumps, less gas usage. For the environment and national security.
- C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
  It's hilarious that you would attribute that to capitalism when the Fossil Fuel and Gas industry was one of the most subsidised industries over the last 100 years. Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :)
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :) Was that ever the case? I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another.
    - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
      > I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another. That might be a necessary evil but has nothing to do with Capitalism. Throughout the time we've seen different degrees of government involvement in the market. Capitalism claims the less government involvement, the better. There can be a discussion if a purely Capitalistic market (0 government involvement) can exist but claiming government helped industries are the result of capitalism is just wrong. Capitalism is financial democracy. The market (aka the people) vote with their money. If a company goes down, that's ok, another one will replace it if it was a company that produced a necessary product. The Government getting involved in this process is very anti-capitalistic. Takes away the freedom of people to vote with their money and instead incentivizes companies to ignore the people and just lobby and play the system that the government put in place. So calling that Capitalism when it's the very thing Capitalism tries to avoid is an anti-truth.
      - mempko 3y ago
        You do realize that governments created both markets and capitalism right? Markets are older than capitalism and have been tools for governments to provision themselves. In fact, anthropologists couldn't find a society that voluntarily chose markets. Markets are a product of conquest. Capitalism is a product of the feudal system collapsing. Capitalism cannot exist without a strong government because it requires markets, a legal framework that allows you to own property, and a working financial system.
koheripbal 3y ago
The only clean energy that is capable of producing constant power is nuclear power.
- alternative_a 3y ago
  The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible. The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.
  - polotics 3y ago
    Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.
    - alternative_a 3y ago
      Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood. “Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about. Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.

nolist_policy 3y ago

Old and busted: American companies destroying Americas environment. New hotness: France companies destroying Americas environment.

rapsey 3y ago
Green movement successes are mostly just moving the dirty work from places that do not tolerate it, to places where it can be done without the locals making noise.

sieste 3y ago

Some interesting bits: Total is fracking in the middle of residential areas, drilling sites hidden from view by portable walls, protected by police from investigations of air pollution, while asthma rates are over twice as high as in the rest of the country. "They [Total] don't get to go everywhere they want to go, but we have a great relationship so I'm happy with Total" (Arlington mayor after revealing a new fountain sponsored through oil and gas revenue.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 3y ago
There is no correlation between asthma and fracking. There is not even a plausible mechanism for such a causal relationship. That is a very odd point to make.
- sieste 3y ago
  The video mentions a variety of hydrocarbons emitted from fracking sites (and a noticeable smell), which would be a plausible cause, no? That said, I don't have a dog in this fight and no strong opinions, and happy to be educated with better facts. EDIT: Potentially of interest - "Fracking is linked to asthma increase, study finds" https://www.proquest.com/openview/38707d6ad223efa2d5ac7f3bb8873a76/1 https://www.proquest.com/openview/38707d6ad223efa2d5ac7f3bb8...
  - car 3y ago
    Here the publication from 2016: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2534153 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
ivanhoe 3y ago
How exactly can fracking affect the air quality, through which mechanisms? It's known to pollute underground waters and thus the soil, but air? EDIT: nevermind, I've seen another answer explaining it. Leaving the comment just for the consistency reasons...

rob74 3y ago

Fracking for Europe, by a (mostly) French company, done in the United States. Would be interesting to see if methane gas emissions can be actually detected - of course they're not going to flare the gas when the extraction site is in a residential area, that would be too conspicuous. Which of course also begs the question why this has to be done in a residential area. I looked at Arlington, TX on Google Maps and realized that this must be a side effect of the American sprawl: if there is oil/gas to be extracted in the area, you have to do it in a residential area, because there is no open space to be seen anywhere nearby...

gorkish 3y ago
The linked video is /extremely/ opinionated and contains much misinformation. Just need to level set on that first -- > Would be interesting to see if methane gas emissions can be actually detected Obviously. But unlike in the video you need to actually use gas detectors instead of a thermal camera and look around the wellheads and gathering pipelines where the gas /is/ and not at some random compressor's engine exhaust heat. Fortunately the folks who maintain these things have qualified engineers who actually know how to use their equipment and the agencies who regulate them have standards that are actively monitored and enforced without requiring the oversight of well meaning old ladies with too much free time. > why this has to be done in a residential area Because it's where the field is, and you have to build gathering systems where the wells are. There is even more oil and gas infrastructure crammed into urban Los Angeles than there is in DFW though.
- car 3y ago
  Methane can be detected by optical spectrometry. Since methane is not only a pollutant but also a very potent green house gas (30x stronger than CO2), efforts are made to map the sources from the air and space [0-2]. Edit: I found the FLIR camera shown in the video. It is made for gas emission analysis: https://www.flir.com/products/flir-g-series/ https://www.flir.com/products/flir-g-series/ [0]https://www.optica-opn.org/home/newsroom/2022/february/mapping_methane_with_spaceborne_spectrometry/ https://www.optica-opn.org/home/newsroom/2022/february/mappi... [1]https://www.methanesat.org https://www.methanesat.org [2]https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-mission-excels-at-spotting-greenhouse-gas-emission-sources https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-mission-excels-at-spottin...

Garvi 3y ago

What the actual heck? I thought this was declared illegal everywhere in the EU? How and when did this happen and how did I miss this? Figures it would be Germany leading the charge in something this corrupt. Is this happening in other EU countries as well? Edit: I'm an idiot. I'm halfway through the documentary now and realized this is about fracking in the US FOR the EU that made buying pipline gas from Russia illegal. Instead we're forced into buying 6x more expensive US gas. Heavy industry is dead, some of my friends are out of work. Enjoy the pollution. At least it's not just the EU population that is getting the shaft by US industrialists.