Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Fracking

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1

    Post Fracking

    I would think that GasFrac a company that doesn't use water in the Fracking process would be doing much better since
    they are in the United States now. I sure would like to hear what others think of this company.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by brown7228 View Post
    I would think that GasFrac a company that doesn't use water in the Fracking process would be doing much better since
    they are in the United States now. I sure would like to hear what others think of this company.
    GasFrac has been fracing in Alberta for a number of years. They use propane and it has its pros and cons. It is a bit more volitile than the other fracing agents. There is more oppurtunity for combustion while fracing over water, Diesel frac oil and the hyrochloric acid that is used in the oil plays. The propane might be better for mother earth but that is for someone way more informed than i to discuss.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1
    The oil and natural gas boom brought about by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has reignited a national debate over developing the country’s vast Energy reserves.
    Fracking has become a hot-button political issue across the country, particularly in New York, where the practice faces a four-year ban.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    151
    If we truly wanted to have sustainable, reliable home grown energy we would be pushing for rapid deployment of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). We have enough easily available reserves to last millennia. And there are economically available reserves estimated to last for megannums. Indeed, the entire world could be run at US levels of usage with a mere 6600 tons annually. That is about the amount to be found in the waste stream of a single Rare Earth Element mine.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    71
    Hi . . I looked at a you tube video of LFTRs and the message I took was 'OK, the waste products were corrosive 50 years ago and we are still waiting for a 'litttle' improvement in technology to get over the problem' . . given the major nature of this problem, isn't it a bit early to start pumping this product if a solution hasn't come out in the the last 50 years ? it's one thing to say it's simple, but if a major problem hasn't been solved since 1963? come on . .

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    151
    Do you have a link? I have never heard of the WASTE products being corrosive.

    I've heard antagonists claim the the molten SALT is corrosive, and it is... except that we know of a number of materials that handle it just fine. It is one of those lies by partial truth that the anti-nuclear, anti-LFTR crowd love coming up with. One of these things ran for ~5 years without significant issue. And given the low cost of the piece-parts, it would be economical to build one and replace the various parts regularly just in case; until we built up a fuller track record.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    71
    Hi - well, it was in the video I found immediately on googling LFTR so it is not difficult to find. I quite agree that lies and partial truths are well embedded on both sides of every argument, so that the truth is often difficult to find.

    I was looking for something behind the propaganda. As an EE I meet arguments that various items can be improved easily if only the right amount of money could be found to develop it. A proportion of those can't be solved even with infinite money, because they are limited by the laws of nature.

    An example from 200 years back is a suggestion for a water wheel which uses a part of its power to pump water back up to the top, so that it can recirculate once again and produce free energy. That is an example of a 'good idea' that was eventually found to contradict the new laws of physics and thermodynamics.

    We know flourine is extremely corrosive and even dissolves glass, but I don't know if that is the problem with LFTRs . . if there is a problem

    For the proponents, LFTRs are the answer to everything. For those against, they are garbage from start to finish. It's a debate with megaphones. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but the methods of propaganda do not allow enlightened ideas to come through.
    Last edited by Alan; 02-28-2013 at 12:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Hi - well, it was in the video I found immediately on googling LFTR so it is not difficult to find. I quite agree that lies and partial truths are well embedded on both sides of every argument, so that the truth is often difficult to find.
    Try the Wikipedia article on LFTR. It is fairly balanced.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I was looking for something behind the propaganda. As an EE I meet arguments that various items can be improved easily if only the right amount of money could be found to develop it. A proportion of those can't be solved even with infinite money, because they are limited by the laws of nature.
    True, but every technology involved in LFTRs has been built. Yes they must be scaled, but that is fairly simple engineering. And yes they can be improved, perhaps greatly, given technical advances since they were last built. But this is generally proven technology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    An example from 200 years back is a suggestion for a water wheel which uses a part of its power to pump water back up to the top, so that it can recirculate once again and produce free energy. That is an example of a 'good idea' that was eventually found to contradict the new laws of physics and thermodynamics.
    As I said,I there is nothing new in LFTRs, just better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    We know flourine is extremely corrosive and even dissolves glass, but I don't know if that is the problem with LFTRs . . if there is a problem
    But we don't use fluorine gas except in the fluorinator, which is old hat technology. Every enrichment plant uses fluorinators. Nothing new, nothing unproven. What is used in the primary and secondary loops are fluoride SALTS which are among the most stable chemicals known to man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    For the proponents, LFTRs are the answer to everything. For those against, they are garbage from start to finish. It's a debate with megaphones. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but the methods of propaganda do not allow enlightened ideas to come through.
    You have to understand that there are two types of "antis", those who just hate the very idea of anything nuclear, and those with a big stake in a technology that LFTRs would eclipse. Since pretty much all LFTR supporters were supporters before there were even irons to be in the fire, their motives are perhaps a bit more selfless.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    23
    Please see #45 in my list on the dangers of nuclear plants. Thorium reactors have inherent dangers.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwagn View Post
    Please see #45 in my list on the dangers of nuclear plants. Thorium reactors have inherent dangers.
    What "list on dangers"?