Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/maps-uk-expand-un...

Greenpeace say they have information that suggests some 60% of the countryside including some of London, including Harringay, is in areas being considered for fracking in the 14th round of licensing. I think we should be on the alert, fracking in Harringay would be a disaster - look at what has happened in the States. 

What do other people think?

Views: 342

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What happened in the states ?

They became energy independent and cut their reliance on foreign energy. Possibly negating a logic for foreign wars in the Middle East for oil?

In fact. The price of energy domestically has plummeted, driving A lowering of GHG emissions as coal became uncompetetive and driving a massive increase in jobs as a result of companies that had previously off-shored production to areas with cheap labour such as china as part of what is being called re-shoring, with jobs being brought back to the US

Lets not automatically assume fracking is a bad thing and let's put the NIMBY thoughts to one side until we actually know what the impacts are.

I notice you don't mention the costs of horrendous pollution, both to farmland and human and animal health. As for NIMBY, I don't want fracking anywhere, not just not in Haringey.

 

No, I did not, because I am not clear of what the pollution issues are, and I thought this was the point you were alluding to- I have heard a lot of conflicting information on the topic Sarah, and I would like to know more, and see evidence (not just opinion based on the objectives of either side). 

As with anything there is a cost and a benefit. I have not properly seen this analysis done. Now, I hold by what I have said above, it has radically altered the US economy, and I mean radically. Also, if we can avoid foreign wars in fractious parts of the world that drain enormous amounts of our hard earned resources (cash and soldiers lives) and save hundreds of thousands of lives in those countries then this must play a part in that analysis.

That said, there is a good argument that the changes we have seen in the US may not be as beneficial for the UK- but again, I have not seen the argument or analysis either way. So, all I am saying is lets not rush to judge.

Fair enough on the NIBMY point, but you usually only actually see an issue raised (with anything) when someone has a direct local interest in the outcome.

In America and Australia they tend to take a lot of ground water from aquifers deep down. As the chemical mixes that the various companies use to do the fracturing are a "proprietary" mix they won't say what they're pumping into the ground although we can surmise from the problems some people out in the countryside are seeing with their water (not just full of methane), it's not something you want to be drinking.

I'm not sure we'll see the same issues in London as we drink rainwater. If you're really worried about it buy a few shares in Centrica. It's amazing how blaise you can become about pollution when you're profting from it.

To be fair John, London takes a lot of it water from the massive artesian basis that sits under the city (I do not know how deep it is though in relation to where any gas reserves may be)- which is why our water is so hard (lime scale). So, in that regard, I am sure Thames Water and others would look very hard at any fracking application that may have an impact on this aquifer.

So that got me interested because they give us the impression that our water comes from the sky when there's a hosepipe ban, but you're right. Actually we HAVE to take water from this aquifer or the tube will be flooded. More here.

Exactly when the fountains in Trafalgar Square were first sunk apparently they flowed freely because the aquifer was under pressure. This has slowly diminished as abstraction has increased.

The hosepipe ban thing is because the rain fall re-charges the aquifer, and also affects how much farmers etc need to abstract over and above what they would normally under normal rainfall conditions (putting reserves under yet more pressure). You may also have some reduction in river flow/abstraction (there is some, hence the 'water goes through 7 Londoners before it reaches the sea' type headlines), but it is more to do with aquifer levels I believe...

When will we know what the impacts on the environment are?  

http://rt.com/op-edge/fracking-radioactive-uranium-danger-ecology-057/

Extracting more of their own energy and employing people in America to do it was not the only thing that happened. Here is a link to some videos about the pollution problems encountered in the States and Australia, James.

 

http://www.keepshepherdswellwell.org/films-about-fracking-and-gas-d...

America is now shipping it's coal to Europe's power stations, as they don't burn nearly as much as they used to back in the States. That ain't good. Lets do more anaerobic digestion, biogas and digestate. There are plants dotted around London already.

For example, the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames, served by the West London Waste Authority, use Biogen to recycle their food waste which Biogen uses to create renewable energy. Small example I know but a good idea.

Absolutely, that is the down side Matt in a global economy, we now get a lot more of the US's (cheap) coal...

I am not trying to argue that fracking is the solution (my first post was from my phone and I was possibly more flippant than I should have been), but we have to see a proper analysis on this, and I just have not seen one!

I am all for biogas- I financed $40m of them in Asia a few years ago, so no arguments from me on this score. Similarly, we should all be taking personal responsibility by doing little things like turning lights off in rooms we are not using- if we (and others) do this there is less of a need for the new build nuclear!

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service