Fractivists Weep

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
Despite claims from anti-fracking activists that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water, a new study by the University of Texas found the process actually saves water and prevents droughts.


“The bottom line is that hydraulic fracturing, by boosting natural gas production and moving the state from water-intensive coal technologies, makes our electric power system more drought-resilient,” Bridget Scanlon, senior research scientist at UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology, said.

Fracktivists weep: Fracking saves water and prevents droughts, says study | Fox News
 

Curious99

New Member
Despite claims from anti-fracking activists that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water, a new study by the University of Texas found the process actually saves water and prevents droughts.


“The bottom line is that hydraulic fracturing, by boosting natural gas production and moving the state from water-intensive coal technologies, makes our electric power system more drought-resilient,” Bridget Scanlon, senior research scientist at UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology, said.

Fracktivists weep: Fracking saves water and prevents droughts, says study | Fox News

I tried clicking through the links to get the original Texas study and got "This page can’t be displayed". Is this legitimate?
 

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
I tried clicking through the links to get the original Texas study and got "This page can’t be displayed". Is this legitimate?

I don't know about the original study - I'd go through the University of Texas web site if I wanted to read the study.
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And more nuke plants would reduce any need to do hydrological fracturing of the earth.

It's tough to defend a process like this.
 

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
And more nuke plants would reduce any need to do hydrological fracturing of the earth.

It's tough to defend a process like this.

I agree with the nuclear solution. Much more preferable than the other solutions. This is part of the reason that choosing against nuclear power is so problematic.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I agree with the nuclear solution. Much more preferable than the other solutions. This is part of the reason that choosing against nuclear power is so problematic.

The problem with nuke is how many jobs it wipes out which, yet again, leads us to the strange bedfellows of the D party; environmental activists and coal miners.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The problem with nuke is how many jobs it wipes out which, yet again, leads us to the strange bedfellows of the D party; environmental activists and coal miners.


how does Nuclear Power cost JOBS ?
someone has to work there ....
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
how does Nuclear Power cost JOBS ?
someone has to work there ....

Come on!

So, you design and build the thing. Supply materials. Then, you get into operations, maintenance and repairs and general staffing, security, janitorial, front office, etc.

That is NOTHING compared to all the jobs that go in those same sort of jobs, design, engineering, general staff, M&R and then the how ever many jobs involved in the constant supply of coal. Or nat gas.

It doesn't 'cost' jobs per se. It is less, way less jobs, than coal.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Agreed. High-tech construction + stringent safety regulations for initial outlay = large loss of jobs for the old way in the near future.

Nuclear is costly initially, but extremely cost effective and non-labor intensive afterward. Unless you live(d) in or near Chernobyl or Fukushima, sadly.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Agreed. High-tech construction + stringent safety regulations for initial outlay = large loss of jobs for the old way in the near future.

Nuclear is costly initially, but extremely cost effective and non-labor intensive afterward. Unless you live(d) in or near Chernobyl or Fukushima, sadly.

You tell 'em! :buddies:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I find it a bit hard to believe that fracking actually uses less water.

They pressure pump water down a well, while coal and nuke plants simply pump in river water.

unless I'm missing something...
 

Curious99

New Member
I find it a bit hard to believe that fracking actually uses less water.

They pressure pump water down a well, while coal and nuke plants simply pump in river water.

unless I'm missing something...
Thanks SamSpade for finding the paper.
A coal or nuke plant heats water to run a steam turbine whereas a gas plant uses a direct combustion turbine to generate power – no water necessary. The paper says the water savings at the power plant end more than offset the millions of gallons necessary to frack the gas well.
In that way it can help a region like Texas deal with a drought although it doesn’t prevent a drought.
The paper does not address the groundwater contamination issue at the well site.
 
Last edited:

Curious99

New Member
Water wells near fracked gas wells report contamination with chemicals and gases (we’ve all seen the pictures of flaming faucets and garden hoses). Industry officials say that the contamination is not due to fracking. There is a lot out there on the controversy.

The intro line on the thread was “Despite claims from anti-fracking activists that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water…” which seemed to imply a link between water use and ground water contamination. The Texas study did not bear that out.
 
Top