[Gaoth Laidir]

Anyone else with a less childish attitude able to shed some light on BR's claim that

For example the liquid solution used for fracking is radioactive on return and is used in many America states as a deicer on roads and footpaths which intern gets into the drinking water supply.

Having done some searching I was unable to find anything to back up the above, and BR refuses to cooperate.

[Pa ElGrande]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

. . .
Green energy is not causing droughts, heatwaves or freezing conditions that is climate change.

By that logic neither are fossil fuels. How are the raw materials that make up the wind turbines mined and extracted and produced into the final product (Steel, Concrete, plastic, fibreglass, Aluminium, Copper, rare earth metals). When all the assembly and maintenance is taken into account what is the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) and likewise what is the process for Solar panels. The fibreglass blades have a lifespan anywhere between 10 to 30 years depending on the design and environment they operate in and they have to be disposed of eventually. Some of these products tend to go off-line in the evening when electricity demand peaks and only operate reliably in fair weather conditions, and must be backed up by 100% fossil fuel reserve, that requires capital expenditure and maintenance when they are not producing anything. They are not good for grid inertia and cannot be enabled on demand, the cost of their being intermittent is borne by the fossil fuel operators who pass the costs onto the consumer and then we get onto the subject of burning timber . . . this is classified as renewable. Michael Moore and co. covered that last year. Hydro electricity works (most of the time), however it's killed way more people to date than nuclear energy.

[Gaoth Laidir]

I managed to find something relating to questions asked of authorities for spreading AquaSalina (refined brine water from below oil fields, not related to fracking) as deicer in limited extreme cold weather events in Ohio but the fears of the environmentalists are grossly unfounded, it seems. The actual exposure to the public was found to be about 0.6 millirem per year, which is negligible. It's the same as eating 60 bananas in a year. Typical human exposure from natural background radiation is around 620 mrem/year.

https://local12.com/news/investigate...ighway-de-icer



Just for comparison and perspective, 1 millirem is the equivalent of

- Three days of living in Atlanta
- Two days of living in Denver
- About seven hours in some spots in the Espirito Santo State of Brazil.

- an average year of TV watching
- a year of wearing a luminous dial watch
- a coast-to-coast airline flight
- a year living next door to a normally operating nuclear power plant

The loss in life-expectancy from a 1-mrem exposure is about 1.2 minutes, equivalent to:

- crossing the street three times
- three puffs on a cigarette
- 10 extra Calories for an overweight person

So Banana Republic, I would ease off the scaremongering a bit and try to look at these things in perspective a bit before posting a claim like that. As you say, do your research. Now that the facts have changed, maybe you'll change your mind...

[Banana Republic 1]

Originally Posted by Pa ElGrande

By that logic neither are fossil fuels. How are the raw materials that make up the wind turbines mined and extracted and produced into the final product (Steel, Concrete, plastic, fibreglass, Aluminium, Copper, rare earth metals). When all the assembly and maintenance is taken into account what is the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) and likewise what is the process for Solar panels. The fibreglass blades have a lifespan anywhere between 10 to 30 years depending on the design and environment they operate in and they have to be disposed of eventually. Some of these products tend to go off-line in the evening when electricity demand peaks and only operate reliably in fair weather conditions, and must be backed up by 100% fossil fuel reserve, that requires capital expenditure and maintenance when they are not producing anything. They are not good for grid inertia and cannot be enabled on demand, the cost of their being intermittent is borne by the fossil fuel operators who pass the costs onto the consumer and then we get onto the subject of burning timber . . . this is classified as renewable. Michael Moore and co. covered that last year. Hydro electricity works (most of the time), however it's killed way more people to date than nuclear energy.

Well for one fossil fuels totally are!

Nuclear power is part of the solution I’ve not argued against it. I would have reservations about it being in Ireland, power plants that is, purely because the state has given us the luas that didn’t join up, the dail printer and the fiasco of the children’s hospital.

Hydro works and could really utilise wind power but Ireland would need about 30 turlough hill installations. They are studying/building a hydro station in Japan utilising sea water, although you’d imagine the maintenance of such a thing would be never ending.

There are plans put forward to have massive solar farms in North Africa connected to Europe via DC current cables either through Spain or under the med.

The answer for Ireland is wind and solar backed by battery and hydro storage with the interconnection to the European grid.

[Oneiric 3]

Originally Posted by Nabber

It's dirty to make, it's really bad for the local environment and if a resident objects to the eye sores then they are surely Right Wing Nazis. I like green energy, I really dislike the people who champion it as squeaky clean.
Imagine if it was sold on it's merits alone.

That doc I posted on here last year really reveal just how environmentally destructive 'clean energy' is. People who champion wind farms / solar etc don't seem to consider where the materials come from (and which depend totally on fossil fuels to extract) to produce them in the first place, but instead, as you say, just call those who say 'hey, wait a minute...' every name under the sun. Thankfully, society is slowly but surely waking up to these frauds.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

Well for one fossil fuels totally are!

Nuclear power is part of the solution I’ve not argued against it. I would have reservations about it being in Ireland, power plants that is, purely because the state has given us the luas that didn’t join up, the dail printer and the fiasco of the children’s hospital.

Hydro works and could really utilise wind power but Ireland would need about 30 turlough hill installations. They are studying/building a hydro station in Japan utilising sea water, although you’d imagine the maintenance of such a thing would be never ending.

There are plans put forward to have massive solar farms in North Africa connected to Europe via DC current cables either through Spain or under the med.

The answer for Ireland is wind and solar backed by battery and hydro storage with the interconnection to the European grid.

Do you have a source for the 30 Turlough Hill installations? Can't take anything you say seriously without a proper source.

[Banana Republic 1]

Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir

Do you have a source for the 30 Turlough Hill installations? Can't take anything you say seriously without a proper source.

Yes I have a source.

[Pa ElGrande]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

. . .
The answer for Ireland is wind and solar backed by battery and hydro storage with the interconnection to the European grid.

The physical, regulatory, diplomatic and security infrastructure to support and maintain that has to be paid for by the end consumer and fundamentally production and availability of supply are tied to fair weather conditions. I would not like to be the people on an island at the end of the distribution supply chain during a month of severe winter weather that affects much of Europe.

[Banana Republic 1]

Originally Posted by Pa ElGrande

The physical, regulatory, diplomatic and security infrastructure to support and maintain that has to be paid for by the end consumer and fundamentally production and availability of supply are tied to fair weather conditions. I would not like to be the people on an island at the end of the distribution supply chain during a month of severe winter weather that affects much of Europe.

You’d best move then as the future is coming. “Fossil fuel inc get €5 trillion in subsidies annually”.

[Pa ElGrande]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

You’d best move then as the future is coming. “Fossil fuel inc get €5 trillion in subsidies annually”.

Fantasy make believe accounting by the IMF. I'm not kidding, they count fixing pot holes as a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

Broader externalities associated with the use of road fuels in vehicles, such as traffic congestion and accidents (most important) and road damage (less important). Although motorists may take into account (“internalize”) some of these costs in their driving decisions (for example, the average amount of congestion on the road, the risk of injuring themselves in single-vehicle collisions), they do not take into account other costs such as their own contribution to congestion and slower travel speeds, injury risks to pedestrians and cyclists and occupants of other vehicles, and the burden on third parties of property damage and medical costs (van Bentham 2015).

source

[LorenzoB]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

Well for one fossil fuels totally are!

Nuclear power is part of the solution I’ve not argued against it. I would have reservations about it being in Ireland, power plants that is, purely because the state has given us the luas that didn’t join up, the dail printer and the fiasco of the children’s hospital.

Hydro works and could really utilise wind power but Ireland would need about 30 turlough hill installations. They are studying/building a hydro station in Japan utilising sea water, although you’d imagine the maintenance of such a thing would be never ending.

There are plans put forward to have massive solar farms in North Africa connected to Europe via DC current cables either through Spain or under the med.

The answer for Ireland is wind and solar backed by battery and hydro storage with the interconnection to the European grid.

Pity you can't harvest the energy of damp.

[Banana Republic 1]

Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir

I managed to find something relating to questions asked of authorities for spreading AquaSalina (refined brine water from below oil fields, not related to fracking) as deicer in limited extreme cold weather events in Ohio but the fears of the environmentalists are grossly unfounded, it seems. The actual exposure to the public was found to be about 0.6 millirem per year, which is negligible. It's the same as eating 60 bananas in a year. Typical human exposure from natural background radiation is around 620 mrem/year.

https://local12.com/news/investigate...ighway-de-icer



Just for comparison and perspective, 1 millirem is the equivalent of



The loss in life-expectancy from a 1-mrem exposure is about 1.2 minutes, equivalent to:



So Banana Republic, I would ease off the scaremongering a bit and try to look at these things in perspective a bit before posting a claim like that. As you say, do your research. Now that the facts have changed, maybe you'll change your mind...

Fracking Definition: the injection of a fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation in order to open fissures and allow trapped gas or crude oil to flow through a pipe to a wellhead at the surface.

According to the EPA in the US, The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

1, Uranium and its decay products.
2, Thorium and decay products.
3, Radium and decay products.
4, Potassium-40.
5, Lead-210/Polonium-210.

Much of the petroleum and natural gas developed in the U.S. was created in the earth's crust at the site of ancient seas by the decay of sea life. As a result, these deposits often occur in aquifers containing brine (salt water). Radionuclides, along with other minerals that are dissolved in the brine, separate and settle out, forming various wastes at the surface.

The extraction process concentrates the naturally occurring radionuclides and exposes them to the surface environment and human contact, these wastes are classified as Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM).

Exposure risks as cited by the US EPA
TENORM contaminated wastes in oil and gas production operations were not properly recognized in the past, disposal of these wastes may have resulted in environmental contamination in and around production and disposal facilities. Surface disposal of radioactive sludge/scale, and produced water may lead to ground and surface water contamination.


What are these fracking companies doing with this waste brine and what the brine is actually used for can be found in the article below.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...gation-937389/

[Nabber]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

What are these fracking companies doing with this waste brine and what the brine is actually used for can be found in the article below.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...gation-937389/

I tried reading it but couldn't get past the first paragraph

In 2014, a muscular, middle-aged Ohio man named Peter took a job trucking waste for the oil-and-gas industry. The hours were long — he was out the door by 3 a.m. every morning and not home until well after dark — but the steady $16-an-hour pay was appealing, says Peter, who asked to use a pseudonym. “This is a poverty area,” he says of his home in the state’s rural southeast corner. “Throw a little money at us and by God we’ll jump and take it.”

For an Ivy league educated scholar, you surely must have cringed reading this?

[Banana Republic 1]

Originally Posted by Nabber

I tried reading it but couldn't get past the first paragraph



For an Ivy league educated scholar, you surely must have cringed reading this?

Ya it’s long, I suppose they guy wanted to humanise the story as per rolling stone magazine. There are other articles and podcasts which summaries it. Overall it tells the story of these drivers who are drawing this radioactive stuff unknown to themselves. Much like the users Monsanto’s roundup.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

Ya it’s long, I suppose they guy wanted to humanise the story as per rolling stone magazine. There are other articles and podcasts which summaries it. Overall it tells the story of these drivers who are drawing this radioactive stuff unknown to themselves. Much like the users Monsanto’s roundup.

Oh here we go, Monsanto has been mentioned. I assume you meant to write the "users of Monsanto's Roundup". You do know that Roundup's been found to be safe to use and not a carcinogen, don't you?

I'm not sure what your whole point is with this fracking. You copied and pasted that definition above from here (without acknowledgment) as if it's some rebuttal of my post that found your previous comment on deicer radioactivity was completely wrong.