# Fracking = Worse Than Coal **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 31, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744 "2013-10-31T12:31:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/61 "2013-11-05T17:26:52Z")
1] If the question is “Is fracking safe?”, then the answer is YES, it’s safe for the oil companies, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. Is it safe for the locals? Well, if history is any indication, then NO, there will be a massive economic and environmental toll to pay, using tax dollars, which oil companies don’t pay. But, hey, three and a half a gallon at the pump, buck-o, what’s your problem? 2] Ethanol production starts with extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and ends with releasing it back out … thus it’s said to be “carbon neutral”. This addresses the pollution issues, if you happen to believe CO2 is a pollutant. I believe they make auto engines in Brazil that run on ethanol alone, maybe this addresses the efficiency issues. WARNING: Don’t even run E10 in your boat, ethanol is hydroscopic, meaning it attracts water. You don’t want your engine water-fouled when the tide’s going out. 3] Is there a reference on the claim that cows are 30% efficient? I thought that was more like 5% at the slaughterhouse, half that if you include trucking and grilling. That 16 ounce steak used 50 pounds of corn. 4] This article is off-topic (3053/what-s-the-likeliest-doomsday-scenario), but we do need to stipulate we remain “Absent a breakthrough in solar power, …”. We bathe in kilo-Joules half the day long, that’s enough energy to give one cancer. Plants use it, why can’t we? Maybe we’re not as highly evolved as we think we are. 5] The Pacific Northwest has always used 100% renewable energy sources for the production of electricity. I’m paying 7.8 cents per kW hr, and I’ve seen 4.8 cents at my mum’s house. The negative is salmon populations are down 99.9%, but the fishermen who use E10 gasoline in their boats haven’t been complaining. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/62 "2013-11-06T15:44:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Largely political machinations have caused this. Aside from a limited amount of specialty applications I don’t think we’d be producing a lot of corn ethanol without subsidies and special treatment. Producers respond to subsidies. Its one thing to subsidize solar panels in the hope that solar panels will one day become cost competitive with electricity off the grid. Is ethanol like that? Are we hoping that as we use more ethanol, the return will increase to 800% like sugar cane? > [@watchwolf49](#): > > 1] If the question is “Is fracking safe?”, then the answer is YES, it’s safe for the oil companies, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. Is it safe for the locals? Well, if history is any indication, then NO, there will be a massive economic and environmental toll to pay, using tax dollars, which oil companies don’t pay. But, hey, three and a half a gallon at the pump, buck-o, what’s your problem? I don’t know if you realize how important cheap gas is to our economy right now. If gas rose to $6/gallon we would enter another recession. So there is a massive economic toll to pay for NOT fracking. As far as economic and environmental tolls for oil fracking. They seem minimal. > [@](#): > > 2] Ethanol production starts with extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and ends with releasing it back out … thus it’s said to be “carbon neutral”. This addresses the pollution issues, if you happen to believe CO2 is a pollutant. I believe they make auto engines in Brazil that run on ethanol alone, maybe this addresses the efficiency issues. WARNING: Don’t even run E10 in your boat, ethanol is hydroscopic, meaning it attracts water. You don’t want your engine water-fouled when the tide’s going out. Carbon neutral and not very efficient. > [@](#): > > 3] Is there a reference on the claim that cows are 30% efficient? I thought that was more like 5% at the slaughterhouse, half that if you include trucking and grilling. That 16 ounce steak used 50 pounds of corn. Yeah but I can’t really build steaks any better or cheaper than corn feed. I can make gasoline better and cheaper than ethanol. > [@](#): > > 4] This article is off-topic (3053/what-s-the-likeliest-doomsday-scenario), but we do need to stipulate we remain “Absent a breakthrough in solar power, …”. We bathe in kilo-Joules half the day long, that’s enough energy to give one cancer. Plants use it, why can’t we? Maybe we’re not as highly evolved as we think we are. Fish can breathe in water, why can’t we? Perhaps we aren’t as highly evolved as we think we are.:rolleyes: Let me know when you reach grid parity with solar. > [@](#): > > 5] The Pacific Northwest has always used 100% renewable energy sources for the production of electricity. I’m paying 7.8 cents per kW hr, and I’ve seen 4.8 cents at my mum’s house. The negative is salmon populations are down 99.9%, but the fishermen who use E10 gasoline in their boats haven’t been complaining. > **[List of U.S. states by renewable electricity production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources)** > > This is a list of U.S. states by total electricity generation, percent of generation that is renewable, total renewable generation, percent of total domestic renewable generation, and carbon intensity in 2022. > The largest renewable electricity source was wind, which has exceeded hydro since 2019. Looks like 80% but its still a big number. And I’m OK with economically feasible hydro projects (its effectively another form of solar power). Hell I’m OK with any economically feasible power source. So make it economically feasible and I’ll bite. What I don’t like is when people act like we need to turn our backs on fossil fuels in order for renewables to have a chance to develop or soemthing. That is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/63 "2013-11-06T16:05:54Z")
The Pacific Northwest uses mostly hydroelectric for its renewable energy. Now, don’t get me wrong-- Hydro is _great_. It’s carbon-neutral, its environmental impact is strictly local, it’s both reliable and fast-responding, and it’s cheaper even than fossil fuels. It’s pretty much got everything you could want from a power source. If we could produce 100% of our needs with hydro, I’d be overjoyed. But we can’t. Hydro power is only practical where you’ve got high-volume rivers that significantly drop in elevation. And because it has all of those great properties I’ve mentioned, we already have a hydro dam nearly everywhere that it’s practical to put one. There’s almost no room for expansion, and the places that don’t currently have much hydro power will never have much hydro power. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/64 "2013-11-06T21:06:11Z")
Hydro power isn’t great for Texas in the middle of a drought. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/65 "2013-11-07T14:45:07Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Hydro power isn’t great for Texas in the middle of a drought. Yes, but after listening to the latest candidates for [Governor and Lt Governor,](http://www.dewfeed.com) I bet Texas has a surprising amount of gas and hot air. Certainly, there’s enough supply of that to provide the entire country with power for the next 100 years. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/66 "2013-11-07T15:54:23Z")
Other way around. Texas in a drought isn’t great for hydro power, but hydro power is great for Texas in a drought. Most hydro dams are also water management dams, especially in a dry area like Texas, and those reservoirs can help you get through droughts. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/67 "2013-11-07T16:36:28Z")
Not when the existing reservoirs go empty from lack of water. Build a new dam that still has no water in the reservoir. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/68 "2013-11-11T05:50:07Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Not when the existing reservoirs go empty from lack of water. Build a new dam that still has no water in the reservoir. It keeps the water from flowing out out to the ocean. So unless you’re telling me that none of the water makes it out to the ocean as it is, having dams can help retain water even if they aren’t producing hydro power. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/69 "2013-11-11T06:33:05Z")
I’m saying that the lakes are drying up to empty. Dry ground exposed where there usually is water. So yes, the water isn’t making it to the ocean. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/70 "2013-11-11T19:58:43Z")
One steak feeds you one meal, 50 pounds of corn feeds you for a week. The question isn’t whether we should or shouldn’t frack, but whether it’s safe to do so. I think the larger issue is to whom we assign the burden of proof … should the oil companies be made to prove it’s safe before we let them continue … or do we wait until the tufu-puking, NPR-listening, liberal-whack-job environmentalists to prove it’s unsafe … or (my favorite) turn ELF loose. Hydropower in the West Texas desert … better to build windmills instead. Global warming is good news for Texas … although Houston will be underwater, the rest of Texas should be sub-tropical rain forest. If your house sits on land below, say, 20 feet above sea-level right now … seriously … I’d move. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/71 "2013-11-11T21:18:44Z")
The lakes might be dry now, but they’d have dried up even quicker without the dams. Dams help with droughts, but they don’t completely solve every drought-related problem ever. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/72 "2013-11-11T22:10:44Z")
I would be a lot less hesitant to bash fracking if it wasn’t for this “proprietary” liquid mess that is being pumped into the earth that nobody, not even those doing the pumping, seem to be able to tell us the ingredient list. I understand the need for companies who come up with these things to ensure that nobody steals their ideas and work. But those companies have to know that if they were more forthcoming with the contents that there would be less resistance to fracking which would make their job selling the stuff easier. Unless they really don’t want us to know what’s in that crap… ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/73 "2013-11-14T17:02:34Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Unless they really don’t want us to know what’s in that crap… Considering how fast the oil companies have jumped on this technique, I’d say they want to get the extraction done before we find out. Update from Hanford, they’ve stopped pumping because of hydrogen gas build-up. They’ll miss the 2014 deadline for the low-level radioactive containment. The tanks leaking the high level radiation is still on schedule for a 2065 containment deadline. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/74 "2013-11-21T00:11:04Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > One steak feeds you one meal, 50 pounds of corn feeds you for a week. But cows can eat grass. People don’t do very well when they eat grass. EDIT: Wait, what does this have to do with fracking again? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/75 "2013-11-25T02:56:45Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > According to the Environmental Defense Fund, fracking losses are \<1% using the latest technology. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1304880110 > > That really only applies to the larger companies, and doesn’t mean that the many mom-and-pop drillers aren’t screwing things up. > > I haven’t had a chance to talk with anyone at EDF since the study came out. My understanding is that that study you reference focuses on fracking at natural gas production sites. Is it not possible that the numbers used in the OP relate to fracking at oil production sites? I’d assume that a natural gas site would want to preserve as much NG as possible, while my understanding is that oil sites are perfectly fine with letting NG burn off, float away, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Stryks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@Stryks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stryks)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/76 "2013-11-25T03:13:40Z")
> [@Madman2001](#): > > jzj1 says: \>\> There are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide all the planet’s energy needs many times over.\<\< > Um, no. It would take between 4 and 20 million wind turbines (depending on assumptions, etc) to power the U.S. If you think that this is somehow achievable in the next 10 or 20 or 100 years, let us know how. By contrast, there are some 20,000 right now. > > And, not only would the turbines have to be built, but the grid would have to be completely changed to accommodate the fluctuating power (same with solar). > > What other renewable energy sources are there? Solar? Same problems as wind, except that solar power is never available at night. Hydro? All the good sites are taken. Biomass? Oh, please. Crops? The energy used to produce ethanol is greater than the energy produced. > > And _ **all** _ of these renewables exact environmental damage. Wind turbines and solar panels blight the landscape. Wind turbines already kill thousands of bats and birds. Hydro ruins rivers. And bio-based fuels produce the worst environmental damage of all with fertilizers, pesticides, and the costs of all the machinery necessary. > > If you have any information to the contrary, help us out here. > > Thanks, I find it frustrating that these arguments appear to be sufficient to kill the idea of 100% renewable energy so easily for so many. We take a few issues, most of which could be fairly trivially worked around, and hold them up as a reason not to take the entire notion seriously. And to suggest that it’s not a way forward due to potential environmental damage is to totally ignore both advances in renewable technology which greatly reduce these problems, as well as the considerable damage caused by our current energy choices. I hear people talking about wind farm bird strike and totally failing to mention the devastating effects that the loss of habitat to fossil fuel related activity and the changing climate are having nd will continue to have on these populations. Generally speaking, across the range of renewable energy sources, it is widely believed there is sufficient energy to meet our requirements, both present and future. What we lack is the political and societal will to initiate the change. Yes, it’s complex and requires development and a lot of infrastructure, but the fact that it cannot be done in the next 10 or 20 years is not a reason to never start. And the observation made in point 2 of the original article is essentially valid. If we don’t have the infrastructure and alternative systems on hand when our current energy sources are exhausted then we will be in a very bad place, to put it mildly. At the very least, we need to accept that the infrastructure is going to take a long time to change and stop using it as a reason for inaction. I mean, the existing infrastructure, from the coal mines, gas and oil fields, refineries, pipelines, trains, trucks, tankers, filling stations, power plants, transformers, transmission and distribution lines, and hundreds of millions of gasoline, kerosene, diesel, and fuel oil engines didn’t just spring up overnight. I couldn’t put a figure on it, but we’d have to be looking at some of the most extensive and costly infrastructure ever made by man. We’re talking trillions of dollars over multiple generations. I think the widely accepted reality is that this infrastructure cannot continue indefinitely. It will take a massive investment of money and time to transfer to an alternative infrastructure, and the idea that the replacement would be best if it was both renewable and (relatively) clean should not be too controversial. From what I can see, there are no substantial technological or economic barriers to achieving this goal, and yet the discussion and calls to inaction continue while the clock keeps ticking. While we wait, the window of opportunity to limit the effects of climate change slowly and irrevocably closes. At any rate, that is the way I see it. Here is some further reading on reliability and costs of a 100% renewable global energy supply, if anyone is interested in having a read. [Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies](http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf) A few other related links: [A path to sustainable energy by 2030](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030) [Guardian - Renewable energy can power the world](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world) [Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759) _rant over_ - that kind of got away from me there. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/77 "2014-01-10T22:44:06Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > My whole problem with fracking is the money involves just blinds everyone to any possible problems. Its not blinding us to the potential problems. The money is part of what makes it a viable energy option. > [@Irishman](#): > > I’m saying that the lakes are drying up to empty. Dry ground exposed where there usually is water. So yes, the water isn’t making it to the ocean. So are the lakebeds dry all year or does water make it to the ocean at any time of the year because with good dams, none of the water ever has to make it to the ocean. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I would be a lot less hesitant to bash fracking if it wasn’t for this “proprietary” liquid mess that is being pumped into the earth that nobody, not even those doing the pumping, seem to be able to tell us the ingredient list. > > I understand the need for companies who come up with these things to ensure that nobody steals their ideas and work. Don’t we have a patent system for that? > [@Stryks](#): > > I find it frustrating that these arguments appear to be sufficient to kill the idea of 100% renewable energy so easily for so many. > > Generally speaking, across the range of renewable energy sources, it is widely believed there is sufficient energy to meet our requirements, both present and future. What we lack is the political and societal will to initiate the change. At current prices? Who believes that? or are you saying that with infinite money we could meet all our energy needs with renewable energy? > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s complex and requires development and a lot of infrastructure, but the fact that it cannot be done in the next 10 or 20 years is not a reason to never start. And the observation made in point 2 of the original article is essentially valid. If we don’t have the infrastructure and alternative systems on hand when our current energy sources are exhausted then we will be in a very bad place, to put it mildly. Yes, and every one of those pipelines were built with profit in mind. Every one of those coal mines were dug with profit in mind. Maybe the government can engage in some basic research but if we can’t make solar energy cost competitive, we will simply have to wait until energy costs rise until they are cost competitive. Sour crude was practically worthless for a long time because the cost of extraction and refining was simply not cost competitive with cheap light sweet crude. Now with oil prices where they are, sour crude is being refined. So either the cost of solar panels drop to match coal or the cost of coal rises to match the cost of solar panels. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/78 "2014-01-11T01:04:22Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > My understanding is that that study you reference focuses on fracking at natural gas production sites. Is it not possible that the numbers used in the OP relate to fracking at oil production sites? I’d assume that a natural gas site would want to preserve as much NG as possible, while my understanding is that oil sites are perfectly fine with letting NG burn off, float away, etc. I missed this when you posted. But since the thread is active again, albeit somewhat incoherently, I see it now. You’re making a distinction between sites that doesn’t really exist. Approximating greatly, the determination whether to keep NG or burn it depends more on if you have somewhere to put it (e.g. a pipe) than on anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/79 "2014-01-14T18:41:30Z")
Here’s one study on fracking chemicals: [UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE MINORITY STAFF APRIL 2011 CHEMICALS USED IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservation.ca.gov%2Fdog%2Fgeneral_information%2FDocuments%2FHydraulic%2520Fracturing%2520Report%25204%252018%252011.pdf&ei=7oDVUsmeBu_lsATwl4CwDQ&usg=AFQjCNFBkVp19Ae-1PN-IKtscLHiM4DxlA&sig2=x0gbi7a4nB1DwgjRBSTfDA&bvm=bv.59378465,d.cWc) Warning: .pdf I saw an article – I believe in The Washington Post, although I cannot now cite it – which strongly implied one reason Congress was unhappy about fracking was that at one point the companies doing the fracking asked Congress for permission to keep their proprietary fracking fluid formulas secret, and Congress consented, _explicitly under condition that benzene was not in the formulas_. When the above-cited report came out, it was clear (as reading the report shows) that benzene was in a lot of the formulas. Congress was (supposedly) furious that the companies had blandly claimed “no benzene” to keep their formulas out of the public eye and, in fact, used benzene. Not unlike God saying “thou shalt eat of any tree but this one,” they were unhappy to have their authority flouted so cavalierly. Unfortunately I cannot find a cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![oogabooga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c68b51/32.png) [@oogabooga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oogabooga)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744/80 "2014-01-14T20:29:35Z")
It disturbs me that alot of people seem to misunderstand hydro dams. Some fool even went as far as to claim the amount of water going out is less than the amount coming in. This violates basic physics, although to a small extent, they may be 1/2 right: Nearly all hydro dams are designed to be far too large for the area. At this ridiculous size, they tend to leak alot of water into the ground. But at the time they were first used for electricity, they were trying to keep up with coal power. The only way to do that was to flatten a huge pile of land and use the resulting pressure to make up the difference. Some hippies and environmentalists seem to have developed a rather stupid aversion to this type of power in the meantime, but the fact is a responsibly sized hydro station is no threat at all to any part of the surrounding environment. I’ve said before, these free energy sources don’t (or shouldn’t) produce alot of power at one spot. It seems to mostly be the american/capitalist way to suck everything out of something until it blows up in your face, instead of building smaller, long term, more efficient systems like the rest of the world does. Fracking is of course, a perfect example of this. In fact, humans have been using the potential energy of rainwater for longer than we have records for. Including water wheels to power flour mills, and wheels powering religious ‘artifacts’ in order to impress potential believers in the roman ages when the christians were 1st trying to wow everyone with how great their religion was. Anyway, that’s just hydro dams. I have several (very inefficient by todays standards) solar cells that have lasted over 30 years, despite what someone else thinks about maintenance, but that’s another story. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fracking-worse-than-coal/672744.md?page=5)