AIBU to think women are against fracking because of the science not because they don't understand!

[deeedeee]

'Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science'.

That's what Prof Averil MacDonald, who works for the UK oil and gas industry, says is the reason women are against fracking.

There is clear scientific evidence of the hugely negative environmental, social and climate change impacts of fracking, but she clearly does not want to listen to that!

What could possibly have clouded Prof MacDonald's views on women's scientific judgement? Oh, wait a minute! She chairs the industry body industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas which represents the views of the fossil fuel companies.

Read more here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-dont-understand-fracking-due-to-lack-of-education-industry-chief-claims-a6705166.html

Carol, I obviously completely disagree with you, but thank you for at last a respectful debate.

I have taken great care to not link to or talk about anything that could be construed as "scaremongering" as I agree it is not constructive.

But equally, I've been trying to illustrate that on the opposite side, dismissing counter arguments as "ludricous" and "hysterical" and "anti science" is also not constructive.

There are many debates to be had here in terms of the science of risk, climate change, public health and political and economic ideologies amongst many others..

Dumbing it down to

"flaming taps and eathquakes "

vs

" keeping the lights on and JOBS for all !"

does everyone a disservice!

and lastly

"As far as co2 is concerned, there is still much debate about what the impact of a warmer world will be and whether it is a net benefit/harm to the UK and the rest of the world."

EXCUSE ME? your position makes more sense if you are actually saying that you doubt climate change is real?

I would not be at all surprised if a larger number of women are prepared to admit that they don't know much about fracking.

I don't believe that a large percentage of the male population spends that much time thinking about the science of fracking, except in the battle star galactica sense of the word.

The UK could have had masses of renewable energy in place for decades that would have had the added benefit of reducing coastal erosion
but Nuclear Industry hobbled the decision board and lied about the numbers for Salters Duck.

Wall batteries :
The Tesla Power Wall starts delivering in the Spring and I suspect demand will be utterly massive

merrymouse, do you know much about fracking?

I know very little about fracking and certainly not enough to feel that I could make a confident assessment of its pros and cons. All I can do is assess the reliability of the people providing information. I feel this puts me in the same boat as the vast majority of the population.

(or did you mean BSG fracking? I think men are known to overstate their experience there too!)

DECC estimates that tidal energy could generate 20% of the UK's electricty requirement - but 80% is still a lot to find from other sources.

Yes, electricity is easily transported, but there will also be around an 8% loss in the transmission and distribution network.

Squirrelled
Tidal and wave are not the same ....

Tidal is big projects
Wave is small projects
DECC likes big projects : hence why its precursor killed Salters Duck

The point of things like wall batteries is that they will have much lower transmission losses because the electricity will be staying much nearer to the point of generation

Wind power suffers from lack of storage : things like the Sheringham Shoal work best at 3 rpm because they cannot store above that.
If there was good storage then they could go at 4 rpm much more and store for when the wind drops

current storage is in the form of compressed gas or lumps of coal
future storage will be in the form of blocks on walls

and none of them involve risking the safety of the UKs groundwater supplies as Averils paymasters would like

The US EPA reported on the risk of fracking to drinking water in June 2015. It found that whilst there had been some contamination of drinking water it generally arose by a combination of mechanisms (storage, mixing, transportation of chemicals, treatment and disposal of produced waters as well as injection of fluids), it was not widespread or systemic and the number of cases was low relative to the number of wells.

Squirrelled
What is the population density of West Texas and West Pennsylvania compared with Surrey and Sussex?

Can we afford any risk to our drinking water?

especially when UK citizens, unlike US ones do not own the rights to the water under their land.

There are many discussions on the benefits of global warming, with longer growing periods, better crop yields and increased greening of wild areas. Also there may be more rainfall in drought-prone areas.

Even if you dispute this, the IPCC report (page 79) estimates a loss in global revenue of between 0.2 and 2% at 2.5 degree increase, so one years average growth.
It also estimates cost of co2 from a few USD to a few hundred USD a tonne (4th assessment was between 12 USD gain and 98 USd loss, with an average of $12).

This is a huge range, so unreliable. However, the Guardian article you linked to suggested £78 a tonne, significantly higher than the IPCC estimate of the costs - a bonkers idea imo.

UK research also indicates that hydraulically induced fractures do not extend beyond 600m, and so retaining at least 600m between the reservoir and any overlying aquifer would be sufficient to protect groundwater resources.

Talkin you'd be surprised at just how contaminated a lot of groundwaters already are in built up areas of the UK.

the Guardian article you linked to suggested £78 a tonne
Not me.
And the IPCC's estimate of sticking within 2.5 degrees rise is la la land.

There are many discussions on the benefits of global warming
Sea level rise puts paid to pretty much all of them though.
With southern Manhattan and Central London and Singapore under water, greening of wild areas will be stopped by refugees.

UK research also indicates that hydraulically induced fractures do not extend beyond 600m
Link please

It's all about the economy for you isn't it Carol?

Out of interest, what do you do for a living?

Merry Mouse, so what sources of information do you find reliable?

I'm afraid I don't get the sic fi references :-) Is it battlestar galactica?

Impact of Climate Change on the world economy
www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21676821-new-study-shows-climate-change-likely-sap-productivity-rich

Talkin - it's research done by Durham University. I'm sure you'll find it.

Funded by the Fracking Industry
www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=21542

and the 600m was an absolute minimum safety distance, around 2km was better

so, how many areas in the south of England are 2km from any aquifer
www.boreholewater.co.uk/images/extractionrates.jpg
Not many.

The same US EPA report states that 9.4 million people in the US live within a mile of a fracked well, and 8.6 million people rely on the 6800 public drinking water sources within a mile of fracked wells.

Yup
and the EPA is now enforcing standards.

Fracking is NOT the answer to
(a) energy needs
(b) climate needs
(c) employment needs

therefore transfer that money to technologies that do NOT risk pollution and climate change and get the 20,000 jobs back that have been lost in the UK solar industry in the last year

and make that ferkwit Gideon bring back a proper, progressive, car tax system

Talkin - who do you suggest we listen to on the impacts then - many believe the IPCC is too alarmist whilst you appear to believe they are too optimistic.

Deee - it is all about lifestyle. Using energy benefits all, with transport, access to food, water, heat, light, cooling etc.
If you are going to deny people energy, either through banning things or making then too expensive, you need to outline the benefits for these people. These are mainly measured economically because the more money people have (within reason), the more they are able to enjoy life. Do you want people choosing between eating and heating? Working 50 hours and missing a work life balance to enable hot showers?

caroldecker
The IPCC reports are the outcome of the most almighty committee and political wrangling.
None of the contributors are happy with the final report.

I would suggest that you read the science press, the business press and watch what happens in Paris.

Did you read the Economist article I linked to?

The Economist were total deniers until about two/three years ago and then their readers sent them enough information to make them realise that

• Climate Change is real
• It will have massive disruption effects on the world economy
• Denying it won't stop it
• Early accepters in business and industry stand to profit the most long term

and as deeedeee asked
What do you do for a living?

Durham research is also funded by or partnered with DECC, NERC, Environment Agency, BGS, and the European Joint Research Council, not just funded by IOCs.