Are you for or against fracking?

Are you for or against fracking?

Here is Bill Nye's answer:

P.S. Tesla gets a hat tip.

Red Sage ca us | June 23, 2015

I love that guy. His philosophy of science is similar to Bruce Lee's thoughts on martial arts: Use what works. And he is a firm example of someone with a cool head -- unlike a hothead, such as myself -- when it comes to ecological matters.


His description of fracking seems to be the classic definition. I believe that protests of the procedure are because of fracturing that uses high pressure water to expel and separate hydrocarbons from shale, leaving the water polluted, and hundreds of feet below the natural water table it was drawn from. That would be bad.

I forget which Greek god had to roll a boulder up a hill every day... I wonder if he knew a battery system would be developed by mortals using the same principle, so that they could watch 'THE AMAZING RACE' during prime time... But yeah, something must be done, on an industrial scale, to store energy for distribution in a clean fashion. Until that happens, we are lucky that the same principles apply on a residential scale if one wants to get off the grid entirely.

Captain_Zap | June 23, 2015

They use a high pressure fluid, not necessarily water.

vperl | June 23, 2015

And this subject is about Tesla and it's products, how ?

Guess you come here to spout, cry, and stand on your soap box and preach your religious beliefs...

Party on Garth

Captain_Zap | June 23, 2015

Apparently you didn't watch the video.

ian | June 23, 2015

Bill Nye is awesome. Used to watch him as a kid. Thanks for sharing CZ.

Sisyphus is the boulder rolling dude of Greek mythology fame.

Interesting idea on the giant water plunger "batteries". There was a thread here recently that someone was trying to describe a similar way to store energy.

Don't let vperl piss on your Cheerios. He's like the forum Oscar the Grouch.

DTsea | June 24, 2015

Red, it was Sisyphus.

ian | June 24, 2015

Is there an echo in here?

Ha! ;-)

ian | June 24, 2015

Should have added that I have recently rediscovered Bill Nye. Great stuff!

Red Sage ca us | June 24, 2015

Ah. So... That would make Sisyphus the patron deity of perpetual motion?


ian | June 24, 2015

Hadn't thought about it that way. But, yeah, pretty much!

Brian H | June 25, 2015

His comments are beyond stupid. NO instance of fracking gas showing up in well water has turned out to be true. There is generally about a mile of INPERMEABLE rock between gas fields and the water table. Doh. That's what keeps the water table there!

The man is an abomination.

Neech | June 25, 2015

@Brian H

Do you have unbiased scientific proof to back up your claims? I doubt it. The tobacco companies fed us lies for decades about smoking being harmless and that nicotine levels weren't being manipulated to up addiction. Greedy corporations will lie as long as they can get away with it.

DougJohnson | June 25, 2015

Proof only exists in mathematics. Science only disproves, there is no such thing as proof. If enough attempts to disprove something fail, that something is thought to be true, but is always subject to being disproved.

But this study

shows a strong correlation between gas contaminated drinking water wells and proximity to a fracked gas well. Correlation is not proof, but is supporting evidence that fracking may be causing contamination.

-- Doug

Bikezion | June 25, 2015

He talks about blowing a huge hole in the ground to store the energy. What environmentalist would be OK with that? Then he wants to transmit the power with direct current. DC is only efficient short distances. That's the argument Nikola and Thomas has all those years ago.

All he is taking about building is an accumulator. Only oversized and extremely inefficient, if it worked at all. Accumulator's exist in hydraulic systems currently. Every home could have its own little accumulator. No big hole in the ground, and direct current is actually efficient for short distances. Plus no grid. His idea is very dependant on a grid.

DougJohnson | June 25, 2015

High voltage DC is commonly used for long distance transmission and can be more efficient than AC:

-- Doug

vperl | June 25, 2015

The Bill boy is a proven climate hoaxer and religious weather hoaxer fanatic. But, insert your head in hoaxing, religious, fanatic dung, party on...

Mike83 | June 25, 2015

A waste of investments. Solar and batteries (like Tesla's PowerWall) to prevent GW is where the World is headed to the detriment of CCDD interests.

Red Sage ca us | June 25, 2015

As I said... Bill Nye is smarter than I am. Rather than tell someone else they are wrong, he'd rather provide them with the means to prove his points correct. The Grid is needed -- by government, commercial, industrial, and agricultural concerns. So they are the ones who should front the dough to clean up The Grid. Those who are able to independently generate their own electricity for residential applications should not be forced to participate in Grid expansion and maintenance. Our nation, our world, needs distributed power generation just as much as remote power transmission.

Red Sage ca us | June 25, 2015

Wow. Insults. Anonymously on the internet. How... Unique.

Mike83 | June 25, 2015

LOL. it is just who know who.

Timo | June 26, 2015

Flagged vperl two last posts as inappropriate to forum.

vperl | June 26, 2015

I am disappointed your in a hating mode, and as such.... Shame on you.

I forgive you.

Guy2095 | June 26, 2015

The Grid is a great good but one that could and should be vastly improved in many ways.

The problem is that it is predominantly managed and controlled by corporate monopolies to optimize return on investment in order to maximize executive compensation. There is very little in that model to provide motivation to best serve customers, society in general or the local and planetary environment. This is mitigated solely by government regulatory oversight.

It is a wonder that it works for most of us as well as it does.

MitchP85D | June 26, 2015

I am FOR Fracking, until something better comes along. In the meantime, it has kept our energy prices reasonable with very little cost to the environment. The faucet water catching on fire events are a result of natural gas seepage. This has been going on long before the age of Hydraulic Fracturing.

SamO | June 26, 2015

Guess those Oklahoma cluster earthquakes are a result of natural seismic seepage?


Brian H | June 26, 2015

The filmed faucets were enhanced with NG feeds for the gullible.

The Oklahoma earthquakes were insensibly small, and at most served to ease underground stresses. NBD.

sabbia | June 27, 2015

Joined Timo in flagging VPerl. Reason adds to the discussion. Condescension and name calling do not.

Red Sage ca us | June 28, 2015

Guy2095 noted, "It is a wonder that it works for most of us as well as it does."

Yup. Hence, why I am a proponent of individual independence from the grid, even if short term cost is rather high. To me, there is a difference between cost and worth. And it is certainly worth it to not have to rely upon an electric utility.

Brian H | June 28, 2015

Dreamland. Unawareness of deep infrastructure.

SCCRENDO | June 28, 2015

Brian you are here there and everywhere. Take a break and read some science and then come back

Red Sage ca us | June 29, 2015

Dreamland? Perhaps one day you will join us, and the world will live as one.

Brian H | June 29, 2015

Every. Single. Prediction. Or Projection. Of AGW. Has. Failed.
Yet Believers still believe. Dreamland, indeed.

Red Sage ca us | June 30, 2015

No. Every single projection that there is no possibility of a clean, sustainable future without burning carbon based fuels or otherwise polluting the environment on a local, national, or worldwide scale is incorrect. That is the dream we all dream of... The one that you would deny us, with pragmatism that looks to the past, rather than optimism that has hope for a better future.

Brian H | June 30, 2015

"Clean" has nothing to do with it, it's just changing the subject. Removing CO2 is not "cleaning"; there are many vastly cheaper ways to do "clean". It is futile, desperately expensive nonsense, pushed by BSing scare-mongers.

Red Sage ca us | June 30, 2015

Blah, blah, blah... Wha, wha, wha.... Yadda, yadda, yadda... Whatever. Who cares who's lying to you, if you decide which lies you are going to believe?

Dude. Either you dream the dream, or you live the nightmare.

Go burn something. When the world is not observably damaged during your lifetime, you'll feel better. Have cookie, or a beer afterward, just to make sure.


Goose | June 30, 2015

Came to this party late ... But @Brian H: IMPERMEABLE

just sayin

Brian H | June 30, 2015

Combustion is like decay, part of the carbon cycle. You can't just choose the half of the cycle you prefer.

Red Sage ca us | July 1, 2015

So, lemme see if I understand you properly...
There is no such thing as pollution
Nothing needs to be clean, green, or sustainable
Whatever can be burned cheaply is a good thing, especially when there is profit to be generated as a result
Nothing mankind does is of any consequence to the world ecology
There is nothing to save for future generations
Everyone that hopes for something better is deluded
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar
Is that about right, from your point of view?

Brian H | July 1, 2015

No, that's silly nonsense.

-Of course there's pollution, but effective controls are available for actual toxins.
-Buzzword nonsense. Eg, nothing is infinitely sustainable.
-varies, but in general returning organic debris to CO2 is desirable and inevitable; time scale varies.
-Landform changes can be significant, but otherwise effects are part of the game, usually.
-We know as little about what "future generations" will use and need as Victorians knew about what we require.
-"better" has many dimensions; loaded double-talk
-Some are, most imagine stasis or reversion to yesteryear is desirable or viable, and fear the future.

Liberals wallow in a swamp of stereotypes.

ram1901 | July 1, 2015

There are legitimate opposing views regarding the human impact global climate change.
Here is just one example.

It would be nice if all who comment on these forums used these kinds of facts instead of acting like a 10-year old having an argument with a 6 year old.

To answer the forum question: Until we can phase out in a sensible way, the use of petroleum products, and to avoid reliance on nations that hate us, fracking is just one means to an end.

my 2 cents.

wayne | July 2, 2015

The most recent EPA study (4 year) on fracking determined there is no inherent risk to water. Combined with the economic benefits seems clear that fracking is positive.

sabbia | July 4, 2015

@Brian H
(Basically saying that all predictions based on anthropogengic global warming (AGW) have failed.)

Let's start with just one: The earth is, overall, getting warmer.

Brian H | July 4, 2015

There is a warming trend dating from the 19th C, the recovery from the LIA. Other than that, nothing.

Mike83 | July 4, 2015

Continued fraudulent interpretation of global warming evidence is obvious. Yet the liars continue to post opinions that are opposite of the reality of the scientific data.

Tesla-David | July 4, 2015

@Mike83, +1000

Brian H | July 4, 2015

Fool. The fraudulent effort to assign natural trends to "man's fault" is transparent. The Null Hypothesis means you MUST accept any pattern as natural until you have exhaustively established that it is not and derives from something else. The only evidence so far offered is that models with heavily biased parameters can't replicate the trend. Considering that the models have been tested exhaustively for validity and found to have "no skill" on all time scales means their 'evidence' is worthless.

Mike83 | July 4, 2015
bb0tin | July 4, 2015

You said "Every. Single. Prediction. Or Projection. Of AGW. Has. Failed." You are incorrect. Have a read of this link:

You repeatedly post utter nonsense which is easily falsified, move from thread to thread, month by month, year by year, and never tire of being shown to be incorrect and ignorant. You almost always give your opinion on a topic with no supporting evidence. When that opinion is shown to be false you simply move onto your next ridiculous assertion. Are you so enamoured with seeing your posts displayed on your screen that you don't actually care whether what you post is correct or not? An example which demonstrates your ability to blatantly post nonsense, and not care or realise it is wrong, is this thread

You are probably the most post happy person on this forum. Your spelling and grammar posts are at least edifying, and sometimes even amusing. Your posts of gleaned information about Tesla are often useful too. But your posts about Global Warming are singularly ignorant and incorrect opinion. Two out of three isn't bad, but the third is terrible.

bb0tin | July 4, 2015

That last post of mine sounds like a bit of a rant. It was. I was minding my own business, reading some threads I hadn't read before, and come across BrianH posting things which he has posted before, and which I have previously made the effort to research and debunk. This particular time the whole groundhog day mixed with whack-a-mole got to me :-(

Brian H | July 5, 2015

Those predictions of "warming" ignore the recovery of the planet from the LIA, which is a demonstrably natural process. There wasn't enough emitted CO2 until 1950 to even slightly affect temperature, even if the (false) warming mechanism were operative. In fact, negative feedbacks have been demonstrated to rein in any such influences, to the point that a doubling of CO2 would have less than a degree's impact, and there is no prospect of even a single doubling.

And even one failed prediction falsifies the thesis/hypothesis. If A, then B. If not-B, then not-A.