[reilig]

2 things happened in the progress of green energy:

1. Solar panels have not been delevoped to provide enough energy to meet our needs. We do after all receive feck all sun in this country. Solar panels are great for heating water but not much use for producing electricity of fueling cars.

2. The 1 green energy thing that we do have plenty of is wind. However, NIMBY's exist in every part of the country. Its quite difficult to secure planning for these wind farms on sites that might actually yield a good return.

Personally I'd prefer to live beside a wind farm than a peat/coal/nuclear power plant. I'd also be much happier knowing that the energy that I'm using is produced without pollution. However, if you look at the amount of wind farms that have been objected to and subsequently refused permission because of these objections, it is legitimate to summise that the majority of people in this country don't care how the energy that they use is produced - so long as its not produced near them - through the burning of fossil fuels or most notiably green energy methods.

Originally Posted by frackingishell

great post jinghong.

Interesting take on Obama's visit to Poland- i wasnt aware of that visit.

I feel you're right about the energy causing war.

What i really want to know is- what happened to progress in green energy? I think i mentioned this before, but i remember well being a kid in the late 80's & early 90's and being fascinated by men travelling across deserts in solar powered cars on the news. I knew then about GH gases and how the planet needed green energy. I was filled with optimism, and real excitement.

Anyway, it's now 2011, and sweet f*ck all seems to have been achieved really! Where's the progress? We should be churning out solar panels for pennies at this point.

I firmly believe innovation has been stifled by energy companies with a grip on the world's resources, and the private banking institutions that own these companies. They know the basics of supply and demand, and they know that with prices going up they'll become even more all powerful. The system dominating the human species is flawed, & only benefits a small proportion of the world's population. The people at the helm of this system are driving the ordinary people of the world to destroy this planet, (the only thing making life itself possible), by stripping it's resources, and forsaking everything else to keep pace with food prices, energy prices, and fake consumer demand advertising. This life-game is now all about money, and it's destroying everything else.

I really envy anyone who thinks any of this is happening by accident.It isn't though. Had the R&D money been sunk into Green energy, we wouldn't be where we are today. The people in control know that they can't regulate the price of sunshine. Fuel shortages, higher prices, famines, possible wars are all parts of the game.... I'd be a much happier person if i too lived in blissful ignorance.

[Birdnuts]

Originally Posted by reilig

2 things happened in the progress of green energy:

1. Solar panels have not been delevoped to provide enough energy to meet our needs. We do after all receive feck all sun in this country. Solar panels are great for heating water but not much use for producing electricity of fueling cars.

2. The 1 green energy thing that we do have plenty of is wind. However, NIMBY's exist in every part of the country. Its quite difficult to secure planning for these wind farms on sites that might actually yield a good return.

Personally I'd prefer to live beside a wind farm than a peat/coal/nuclear power plant. I'd also be much happier knowing that the energy that I'm using is produced without pollution. However, if you look at the amount of wind farms that have been objected to and subsequently refused permission because of these objections, it is legitimate to summise that the majority of people in this country don't care how the energy that they use is produced - so long as its not produced near them - through the burning of fossil fuels or most notiably green energy methods.

I think the jury is still out on the viability of wind power - its costs 3 times per MW compared to nuclear. Unfortunanatly this is likely to be reflected in the near future on our energy bills via a PSO charge similiar too(and probably larger) then the one for the midland peat power-stations. The way its being developed in some parts of Ireland isn't particualry green eithier.

PS: Personally I would have no problem living next to a modern nuclear powerstation. The French appear to be happy with nuclear power but have rejected gas fracking which is interesting to say the least

[frackingishell]

rellig thats my point though- these things havent been developed because there hasnt been the money put into them. I don't mean they should be in Ireland. But there should be the tech there now to cover whole areas of desert in the US and elsewhere and power half the planet! Well, ye know what i mean...

As unrealistic as this may sound, i just hope the lads at CERN can come up with some sort of fusion technology before it's stifled or licenced by the energy companies that control the world's energy supplies .I really have lost most hope on the world energy issue- our leaders are inept, and corrupt, and plain useless.

[reilig]

Originally Posted by Birdnuts

PS: Personally I would have no problem living next to a modern nuclear powerstation. The French appear to be happy with nuclear power but have rejected gas fracking which is interesting to say the least

I'd prefer to be living in a mud wall cabin with no job, no car and no electricity than have to live within 100 miles of a Nuclear power station!!

[Birdnuts]

Originally Posted by reilig

I'd prefer to be living in a mud wall cabin with no job, no car and no electricity than have to live within 100 miles of a Nuclear power station!!

Those mad Frenchies!!

[tuppence]

Do you come from Leitrim, Fermanagh, Sligo, Cavan, Donegal. Do you want to learn more about how fracking could effect your farming livelihood, local area and health?

Mr Helmut Fehr German politician and respected authority on fracking is in the Mayflower Centre, Drumshanbo,
Co Leitrim at 3pm on Saturday the 20th August.

Come along, learn more about it.
Spread the word

[tuppence]

Last Thursdays Prine Time on gas extraction in the North West. Part of progr 14.5o mins in approx.
http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1109605

[tuppence]

Lough Allen Conservation Society
is hosting a public information/discussion on the issue of 'Hydraulic Fracturing ('fracking') for shale gas in the Northwest Carboniferous Region*
Location - The Bush Hotel, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co.Leitrim.
Date/Time - Thursday, September 1st, 8pm

This is a public meeting with a short presentation and an open discussion.

All public representatives and interested groups including IFA, Waterways Ireland, Coillte etc.. have been invited to attend.

This issue is causing great concern among all sections of local communities.

[colrow]

I've just finished working on a control system for a gas platform in the North Sea, it was floated out last week. Once its sited on its jacket, a jack up rig will come alongside to drill the well, its going to be a fracked well, I was asking the operator how the fracking was done, what are the poisonous chemicals etc, they said its just very high pressure water at 800 bar, this cracks the rocks and then sand is forced down, to get in the cracks and let the gas flow out.

[tuppence]

Oh if life could be so simple.

I am not an expert but maybe someone should be telling Tamboran because they have said on the record above, that nobody else is doing this without chemicals and they are the first. They are doing because they care about us...there is a swirl of information in the industry as far as I can see.

Research expert from Cornell university a Dr. Ingraffea btw says its’ highly unlikely’ that a company can get profitable gas without chemicals so this is very interesting that the operator says that it can be done in almost commonplace way that out pops the gas! Here is the link to Dr. Ingraffeas article in the Anglo Celt newspaper.
http://www.anglocelt.ie/news/roundup...ged-by-expert/


Conventional and unconventional drilling is miles apart, (no pun intended) fracking is a new technology. Yu cant compare something that is done deep sea in the North Sea with somewhere like Leitrim, Cavan and Sligo that have human and animal population densities. For a start the deep sea conventional drilling that they have indeed being doing for years goes straight down whereas the fracking goes down the well but can go across adjacent as well like spiders tentacles. So you may have a drill site a quarter of a mile away from you cracking shale under your land.
There are other issues that are being sidetracked in all this like the amount of water being proposed that many people say cannot possibly be collected by collecting rainwater, and that they are being disingenuous to claim otherwise, the land mass that is been taken up in the process with eyesore of drills sites per km, the risks of earthquakes, the risks of spillages and accidents from the stuff that’s been brought up that is full of chemicals. The objectively high levels of radon in the earth where they are proposing to do the drilling. And then there’s the little issue of why are we following such a risky procedure for short term gain when there’s minimal economic rewards for us...and the fact that we have targets in renewables we are supposed to be reaching and not. The public health issues and risk of displacing jobs in the farming sector and tourism sector is quite evident in a recent independent European study.

When they talk about Life Cycle analysis it’s about looking at what we have and doing a cost benefit analysis on it. I like to interpret what they are saying as the importance of stalling for a bit and recognising what you have before diving headway into risking these. This I would interpret in this case as recognising sustainable industry in our case farming and tourism, quality of life and the health and safety issues as important for our people. I like to think that someone is listening and that we have learnt our lesson and had a reality check on our values. I have two kids and elderly parents living here. I worry about them.

Heres the report. Its an independent European report so has no reason for bias but reads a bit like a horror story. It is however essential reading in my view. Conclusion is from pg 77
http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/europe_gaz.pdf

[reilig]

Tuppence,

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you put it in simpler language as to what the difference is between what Colrow is talking about and you are talking about?

Also, why could this process that Colrow is talking about not be used in the Lough Allen Basin and would you object to it??

Originally Posted by tuppence

Oh if life could be so simple.

I am not an expert but maybe someone should be telling Tamboran because they have said on the record above, that nobody else is doing this without chemicals and they are the first. They are doing because they care about us...there is a swirl of information in the industry as far as I can see.

Research expert from Cornell university a Dr. Ingraffea btw says its’ highly unlikely’ that a company can get profitable gas without chemicals so this is very interesting that the operator says that it can be done in almost commonplace way that out pops the gas! Here is the link to Dr. Ingraffeas article in the Anglo Celt newspaper.
http://www.anglocelt.ie/news/roundup...ged-by-expert/


Conventional and unconventional drilling is miles apart, (no pun intended) fracking is a new technology. Yu cant compare something that is done deep sea in the North Sea with somewhere like Leitrim, Cavan and Sligo that have human and animal population densities. For a start the deep sea conventional drilling that they have indeed being doing for years goes straight down whereas the fracking goes down the well but can go across adjacent as well like spiders tentacles. So you may have a drill site a quarter of a mile away from you cracking shale under your land.
There are other issues that are being sidetracked in all this like the amount of water being proposed that many people say cannot possibly be collected by collecting rainwater, and that they are being disingenuous to claim otherwise, the land mass that is been taken up in the process with eyesore of drills sites per km, the risks of earthquakes, the risks of spillages and accidents from the stuff that’s been brought up that is full of chemicals. The objectively high levels of radon in the earth where they are proposing to do the drilling. And then there’s the little issue of why are we following such a risky procedure for short term gain when there’s minimal economic rewards for us...and the fact that we have targets in renewables we are supposed to be reaching and not. The public health issues and risk of displacing jobs in the farming sector and tourism sector is quite evident in a recent independent European study.

When they talk about Life Cycle analysis it’s about looking at what we have and doing a cost benefit analysis on it. I like to interpret what they are saying as the importance of stalling for a bit and recognising what you have before diving headway into risking these. This I would interpret in this case as recognising sustainable industry in our case farming and tourism, quality of life and the health and safety issues as important for our people. I like to think that someone is listening and that we have learnt our lesson and had a reality check on our values. I have two kids and elderly parents living here. I worry about them.

Heres the report. Its an independent European report so has no reason for bias but reads a bit like a horror story. It is however essential reading in my view. Conclusion is from pg 77
http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/europe_gaz.pdf

[frackingishell]

Originally Posted by reilig

Tuppence,

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you put it in simpler language as to what the difference is between what Colrow is talking about and you are talking about?

Also, why could this process that Colrow is talking about not be used in the Lough Allen Basin and would you object to it??

Rellig, why don't you ask Colrow to find all that out for you, seeing as he's the one who brought it up on here.? What an odd thing to do- to NOT ask the guy who first mentioned it??? Surely the onus is on him.

Out at sea it's probably straight down well without the chemicals, or else the guy that was talking to Colrow is a complete liar and they are using chemicals, not wanting insiders blowing the whistle. Who knows. Don't take everything you read on here at face value.

One thing i will say is that fracking on land goes down, then goes sideways to interact with as much rock as possible. Nobody here knows what direction the ones in the North Sea go ( i actually don't think there's any fracking going on in the North sea, i think that's a bull**** story....) but ASSUMING it's true, we know nothing about it, so until we get some North sea fracking expert on here, or more concrete information, the point (if there was one???) is moot, and it's completely irrelevant to Fracking on land in ireland.

[reilig]

First of all, there's no need to direct any of your posts in bold writing to me. I can read.

I asked Tuppence because I did not understand the reply that he gave and I thought he might be able to explain it in laymans terms so that everyone who reads it could understand it. People who aren't familiar with the fracking debate lose interest very quickly in an article when it is difficult to understand and they usually don't finish reading it so the poster's point is lost.

I understand what Colrow said, I don't need to ask him again.

I most agree with your point about not taking everything on here at face value.

Just because a group are protesting does not mean that they are the majority or that they are right. (A quote from an intending Green Party County Councillor in the last local election)

People need to get a view from both sides instead of having one opinion rammed down their throath all the time!

Finally, as you said, nobody here knows anything about Fracking in the North Sea. Might it not be worth while exploring if they actually use methods of Fracking in the North Sea without chemicals which would be useful for use in the Lough Allen Basin also?

Perhaps it could become very relevant and help remove people's fears of the chemicals used in Fracking??

Edit: Do we have a "Fracking on Land " Expert on here giving us concrete information or are we just assuming that everything posted here is true? I'm not pro or anti fracking. I just asked in a post at the beginning of this thread if we could have more information about fracking so that I could make my own decision on it. However, it appears to me that this thread has no intention of looking at both sides of the argument and is just a tool to rally the anti-fracking troops.

Originally Posted by frackingishell

Rellig, why don't you ask Colrow to find all that out for you, seeing as he's the one who brought it up on here.? What an odd thing to do- to NOT ask the guy who first mentioned it??? Surely the onus is on him.

Out at sea it's probably straight down well without the chemicals, or else the guy that was talking to Colrow is a complete liar and they are using chemicals, not wanting insiders blowing the whistle. Who knows. Don't take everything you read on here at face value.

One thing i will say is that fracking on land goes down, then goes sideways to interact with as much rock as possible. Nobody here knows what direction the ones in the North Sea go ( i actually don't think there's any fracking going on in the North sea, i think that's a bull**** story....) but ASSUMING it's true, we know nothing about it, so until we get some North sea fracking expert on here, or more concrete information, the point (if there was one???) is moot, and it's completely irrelevant to Fracking on land in ireland.

[Username John]

Originally Posted by tuppence

Last Thursdays Prine Time on gas extraction in the North West. Part of progr 14.5o mins in approx.
http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1109605

I saw fracking bit on Primetime - I am not living in the North West, but watched cos I have been half following this thread.

I thought the anti-fracking rep on the show didnt do well. She seemed to not answer the questions posed, and just came across as saying "Well, whatever you say, I am not going to believe it"
Now, maybe she was justified in doing this, but I felt she didnt back it up with valid arguements.

I appreciate that it maybe a bit of a David vs Goliath battle, when debating against a CEO of a company like that, who probably has had serious media training, etc.

But I found it a bit disappointing, that it wasnt more of a debate.

Just my opinion...

[Oldtree]

came across this today, FIE requesting info from the gov:

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironm...on=view&id=914

the relpy when it comes should be informative and give the offical view point.