Sorry, I was looking for something factual about fracturing, not that sort of garbage. Fracturing is only allowed in cased wells, cased to a depth well below the drinking water table. While there is occasionally problems with casing it is an exception rather than the rule. Trying to regulate rare failures with respect to drinking water contamination is not a viable approach. I license a densitometer used on most frac trucks, so I know a little about how things work.
Ray Dog- If you build 5,000 20MW plants, you can achieve economies of scale you can't with the 800 MW designs. It is a cool idea- I hope it takes off. E.g. our campus could have it's own 50 MW plant, stuff it 30 feet underground in undisclosed location, service it once every 25 years. Ag- of course we can agree. It's easier when we ditch the labels some here obsess by. You're right about regulation- it has played a large role in making this a timely and more expensive process. I think the Energy Act of 2005, signed by Bush/Congress worked to have the DOE pre-approve certain designs to hasten the process somewhat. But look- this is not one of those issues that you can just cut out the bureaucratic fat. It's a friggin nuclear plant. There are geopolitical, terrorism and safety concerns in addition to our power supply. It's going to be bureaucratic- and it should be to some degree. And I love nuclear power. NIMBYs- I f'n hate them in the power sector. These douchebags use electricity, but don't want to allow plants to generate it in their backyards. It's not the particular type of power plant they hate [insert type here- coal, wind, hydro]- it's the plant itself. Anytime you meet a NIMBY ask them these two questions: Do you use electricity? OK, so if you don't like that type of plant, I assume you're ok with the other type in your backyard correct?
Ag- of course we can agree. It's easier when we ditch the labels some here obsess by. You're right about regulation- it has played a large role in making this a timely and more expensive process. I think the Energy Act of 2005, signed by Bush/Congress worked to have the DOE pre-approve certain designs to hasten the process somewhat.
Hornpharmd, I generally enjoy your posts and always appreciate your input. Unfortunately though, the link you provided is related to Cole-Bed methane. CBM have been drilled into for a long long time. They've been fracturing CBM's for at least 20 years. While that article is probably accurate on a lot of details, much of the hype nowadays is over hydraulic fracturing in shales - all of which are often well below USDW's. The public has been so severely misinformed that many think that hydraulic fracturing will directly contaminate USDW's. In my opinion, the real issues are around surface contamination - not downhole. If the states would adapt more rigid regulatory requirements around surface containment and pit construction/lining, this would be a non-issue.
Something to consider: making fuel from algae is really hard and will not happen at scale for at least 5 more years. I'm citing myself on this one, so take that for what it's worth.
Unfortunately though, the link you provided is related to Cole-Bed methane. It talks about both. And the reason I had posted the link was b/c the other poster had questions about the environmental laws that the gas industry has been allowed to go around. That info can be read here as well: www.earthworksaction.org/halliburton.cfm
