Fracking will "seriously undermine efforts to cut carbon emissions" say group (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Fracking will "seriously undermine efforts to cut carbon emissions" say group
12:39pm Wednesday 13th March 2013 in News
A NEW group has been launched in Dorset to oppose so-called ‘fracking’.
Frack Free Dorset was founded after more than 60 people attended a public meeting in Dorchester.
They are opposed to hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, so called ‘fracking’ in principle and in Dorset.
It is now holding another meeting in Dorchester at the Dorford Centre on Wednesday, March 20 at 7pm.
A spokesperson said: “Fracking is an extremely energy-intensive, expensive way of producing gas. Prices are not expected to fall.
“It is chiefly a means of generating new income streams for the gas hydrocarbons industry.
“The British Geological Survey estimates that, at best, reserves represent a very temporary stop gap measure.”
He added: “Dorset has access to many forms of renewable energy and is in a great position to attract investment and green jobs and to contribute to an independent, secure energy future for the UK.
“Burning shale gas will seriously undermine efforts to cut carbon emissions and to meet legally-binding climate targets.”
Fracking involves the injection of of pressurised fluid to fracture rocks and release shale gas.
Exploration licences for most of south and east Dorset have been issued.
In order to begin fracking, companies also require planning permission from Dorset County Council.
Visit frackfreedorset.org for more details.
Comments(11)
Edna Cheese (Mrs)
says...
3:34pm Wed 13 Mar 13
muscliffman
says...
3:35pm Wed 13 Mar 13
l'anglais wrote:Exactly. But log fires are high carbon and horses create methane gas!
What's their alternative?
Log fires and horse and carts.
Fracking will "seriously undermine efforts to cut carbon emissions", so flipping what? It provides efficient energy from natural sources, preferable to nuclear I guess.
With the planet's climate on record as having cooled for over a decade clearly these so called carbon 'greenhouse' gases are not
working too well!
I trust the people attending these baffling meetings are not using cars or turning on any lights or heating!
Green-nerds or NIMBYs - we love them all really, but please for once just shut-up!
Ophilum
says...
5:12pm Wed 13 Mar 13
anigel
says...
6:14pm Wed 13 Mar 13
Rather than being a very expensive method of extracting gas, it is so economical that the cost of gas in America is now under 1/3 rd of what it was before they started it.
Gas is much cleaner and produces much less CO2 than other methods of production like coal which we will continue to need to provide back up to the environmental blight that are bird choppers.
Even the founder of the green movement has said they were wrong to back wind power and that gas would have been better.
And yes I am sure that they have also been spreading fairy tales about oil in your water and flames spewing out of taps despite these stories being proved time and time again to have been occurring before fracking even started and having nothing at all to do with the extraction of gas by fracking.
Frackfreedorset can frack off.
l'anglais
says...
7:31pm Wed 13 Mar 13
Edna Cheese (Mrs) wrote:Those who were protesting about wind farms 2 weeks ago attended the meeting against fracking.
No, offshore wind farms.
The anti-brigade have no solution to our fast approaching energy crisis.
Tony Trent
says...
12:09am Thu 14 Mar 13
Edna Cheese (Mrs) wrote:There are those brainwashed people who equate the distant view of some wind turbines off the shore with the shale on shore being blasted with water or other substances in order to extract gas. The former is a slightly visable but almost totally harmless construction, the latter runs the risk of earth tremors and poisioning of our water supply, and the fact that it could be happenning UNDER OUR FEET (see the available maps). Plus we mustn't forget the dangers of the oil and nuclear we already have. Less hyped up hysteria about wind power and more concern at the far riskier fracking, and the fact that we cannot carry on using fossil fuels without serious consequenses, including spiraling costs (about 6 times that of the much criticised renewable energy costs).
No, offshore wind farms.
anigel
says...
8:05am Thu 14 Mar 13
Tony Trent wrote:Seem to be making up facts as you go there. There is one and only one reason that fossil fuel costs are spiralling and that is the massive subsidies being charged against it in an effort to brainwash the masses that wind power could ever produce reliable economical energy.
Edna Cheese (Mrs) wrote:There are those brainwashed people who equate the distant view of some wind turbines off the shore with the shale on shore being blasted with water or other substances in order to extract gas. The former is a slightly visable but almost totally harmless construction, the latter runs the risk of earth tremors and poisioning of our water supply, and the fact that it could be happenning UNDER OUR FEET (see the available maps). Plus we mustn't forget the dangers of the oil and nuclear we already have. Less hyped up hysteria about wind power and more concern at the far riskier fracking, and the fact that we cannot carry on using fossil fuels without serious consequenses, including spiraling costs (about 6 times that of the much criticised renewable energy costs).
No, offshore wind farms.
mooninpisces
says...
10:31am Thu 14 Mar 13
I'm amazed at how people who are vehemently opposed to a proposed wind farm 9+ miles outside the Jurassic Coast have kept quiet about the gas licences that have been issued for the entire Jurassic coast from Portland to Swanage and beyond, and for 2 offshore sites close to the shoreline at Lulworth and Durlston. InfraStrata's website suggests they hope to start drilling at Purbeck Prospect (off Durlston) later this year.
l'anglais
says...
11:56am Thu 14 Mar 13
Tony Trent wrote:Are you a Geologist?
Edna Cheese (Mrs) wrote:There are those brainwashed people who equate the distant view of some wind turbines off the shore with the shale on shore being blasted with water or other substances in order to extract gas. The former is a slightly visable but almost totally harmless construction, the latter runs the risk of earth tremors and poisioning of our water supply, and the fact that it could be happenning UNDER OUR FEET (see the available maps). Plus we mustn't forget the dangers of the oil and nuclear we already have. Less hyped up hysteria about wind power and more concern at the far riskier fracking, and the fact that we cannot carry on using fossil fuels without serious consequenses, including spiraling costs (about 6 times that of the much criticised renewable energy costs).
No, offshore wind farms.
Because your reasoning would assume that the extraction of oil and gas from our Oceans would create a void that would lead to earthquakes and tsunamis.
Rather than jumping on an unfounded bandwagon, read the studies of qualified geologists.
Wind farms are great but won't provide all of our needs.
Currently Nuclear is the only viable future for the energy of the next century. Unless we all pay 5 per cent extra income tax into R&D for energy for our kids future
Hobad1
says...
8:53pm Thu 14 Mar 13
l'anglais says...
2:20pm Wed 13 Mar 13
Log fires and horse and carts.