Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     
    Much as I want to bash the frackers, they do avoid drilling and pumping through significant faults, whether you want to believe it or not. Apart from the environmental issues associated with fracking in areas with significant faulting (groundwater contamination risks etc) there is also a technical problem whereby the leakage rate through significantly faulted rock makes it hard for them to get enough pressure to effectively hydraulically fracture the rock they are after.

    To the best of my knowledge no one is fracking in Manchester at the moment. Quakes occur when faults suddenly shift and power stations (of all types) are generally situated as far from fault lines as it reasonably practical to place them, plus they are designed to withstand the maximum quake that the UK is likely to ever get, anyway.

    The British Isles is not geologically very active and major quakes are extremely rare (the biggest we've ever had was only 6.1 and that was 75 miles offshore in 1931). Fracking might possible create a magnitude 3 quake by lubricating a minor fault which wouldn't cause a quake big enough to worry about, or even do any significant damage.

    I'm more concerned at the other environmental issues from fracking, as they are more serious by orders of magnitude, than the risk of earthquake.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     
    An argument on slightly dodgy ground (no pun intended) there, JSH. The Japanese plants and their safety systems were designed to "withstand the maximum quake that [Japan] was likely to ever get." I'd be far happier if they stick to avoiding fault-lines rather than engineering to mitigate the consequences of something that wasn't supposed to happen. :wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>An argument on slightly dodgy ground (no pun intended) there, JSH. The Japanese plants and their safety systems were designed to "withstand the maximum quake that [Japan] was likely to ever get." I'd be far happier if they stick to avoiding fault-lines rather than engineering to mitigate the consequences of something that wasn't supposed to happen.</blockquote>

    The counter argument is that Japan is highly seismically active and has several big earthquakes every year. They design to around the same standards as the rest of the world, about 6.7 right under the station (in fact they just bought in the design, as I understand it), and Japan has had magnitude 8 quakes in the past. The chances of the UK ever getting anything like that are so close to zero as to not be worth worrying about (bearing in mind that the Richter scale is logarithmic, not linear, so a magnitude 6 is 10 times greater than a magnitude 5).
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     
    Was the tsunami that did for the Japanese and they are much harder to predict in magnitude.

    I would have thought that 'Frackers' understood fault lines and earthquake risk better than most as it is in their interest to not cause quakes. They are trying to get the gas into a pipe not into a fault line after all.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     
    So why do frackers have to have two fingers sewn together so that they're permanently crossed?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     
    Because when it works they win the lottery :bigsmile:
  1.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: JSHarris</cite>

    To the best of my knowledge no one is fracking in Manchester at the moment. Quakes occur when faults suddenly shift and power stations (of all types) are generally situated as far from fault lines as it reasonably practical to place them, plus they are designed to withstand the maximum quake that the UK is likely to ever get, anyway</blockquote>

    So you dont consider within 10 miles of Manchester close with test bore holes either side of the active Manchester to Birmingham fault line which extends beyond both cities. You only have to look at the coal field maps to see Manchester is linked geologically to Preston
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    Fracking is a desperation too far. :devil:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011 edited
     
    What is your point John?

    Joiner, if fracking for gas is a step to far we better not support Hot Rocks then. They caused a small quake down here. They seemed rather proud of it. Thinking about it we better not support building of hydro electric dams, CCS, and compressed air storage in old salt mines, or mining of any sort. Everything has a risk, just has to be balanced with the benefits.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011 edited
     
    Fracking is the DELIBERATE interference of a natural state of things to get at something whose scarcity we ought really be learning to come to terms with. It's the same argument as against deep-sea oil drilling. Peak oil has happened, live with it! Peak gas has happened, live with it!

    Time to move on.
  2.  
    Steamy Tea

    My point is that the most active fault line we have in the country which runs between Birmingham to Manchester and beyond towards Heysham and Sellafield is being actively lubricated by the fracking operations with one drill rig currently within 2 miles of Heysham. I certainly would not buy a house on this fault line not with the current operations going on and the guarantee of quick extraction over the next 10 years.

    America experimented with lubricating fault lines with the logic that many small quakes would be better than one large quake. The programme was soon abandoned when they realised all they where doing was allowing the quake to travel further along the fault line due to the lubrication.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    And earthquake magnitude has to do with the LENGTH of the fault, so please reassure me that fracking doesn't risk reducing the distance between a "minor" fault-line and a "major" (by UK, nothing-worry-about, standard) fault-line.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/naturaldisasters2

    And something to ponder on this otherwise quiet Sunday morning...

    http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/

    And reading the links to the newspaper articles is also food for thought.

    I can see the headlines now: "Well, who'd have thought it!"
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    Posted By: JoinerPeak oil has happened

    Probably, still lots to use up, and it will be used up until there is a viable alternative (which I suspect will be nuclear and not a renewable).
    Posted By: JoinerPeak gas has happened

    Do you mean just in the UK or World Wide? UK may have happened. There was/is a geologist who worked for the oil industry that claimed that no matter where you drill, if you go deep enough, you will find natural gas, think his name was Gold, was back in the 70's and 80's he was spouting his ideas, he may have been right.

    Peaks in everything happen sooner or later, I think I have exceeded 'Peak Strength', does not stop me doing anything, just means I have to regulate a bit more, just like we are trying to do with our energy use.

    Posted By: renewablejohnthe most active fault line we have in the country which runs between Birmingham to Manchester and beyond towards Heysham and Sellafield


    Would extra lubrication of this fault line (assuming there is a certain amount of natural lubrication from ground water) really significantly change the magnitude of a quake to the point where buildings and life (human) are at significant risk. The EM-DAT database that is used to assess this risk assumes certain criteria to qualify as a natural disaster, to the best of my knowledge the UK does not feature on it for earthquakes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    Posted By: JoinerAnd something to ponder on this otherwise quiet Sunday morning...


    I knew I slept well last night, but that well :bigsmile:

    (15C external temp, 20C internal 10:42 05/11/2011) :wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011 edited
     
    The thing to remember is that it's not fault lines, in and of themselves, that are the major, or even significant, risk indicator for earthquakes, but the differential pressure being exerted on them that might threaten to make them shift by a significant amount (more often than not from tectonic movement in earthquake-prone areas, but in the UK probably just the continued north-south vertical shift as our island continues to gently tilt in reaction to the unloading from the last ice age). The UK has tens of thousands of geological faults, many have no discernible pressure differential and are remnants of the big shifts that took place when the ice melted, or when we were still in a tectonically active region.

    Just because a fault line is there doesn't mean that there is a risk of even a small earthquake being caused by it, unless that fault is already stressed (and most aren't).
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    A hibernating bear just looks as if it's dead. A wise man doesn't go up and poke it with a stick just to check. :shocked:
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>A hibernating bear just looks as if it's dead. A wise man doesn't go up and poke it with a stick just to check.</blockquote>

    True, but if you could, remotely and non-invasively, determine with certainty whether it was or was not dead then you could choose whether or not it was safe to poke it with a stick.

    In the case of geological faults, the pressure between fault surfaces can be assessed and a decision made as to whether or not the fault will remain stable if lubricated or disturbed. Experience over tens of years of seismic and geological surveying associated with oil and gas drilling have confirmed that the measurement methods used are valid.

    I'm no supporter of fracking, but it is reasonably safe to say that, although it can cause earthquakes these will be low in magnitude if the proper survey work has been done beforehand. As they need to do these surveys anyway (as already mentioned there is no merit in trying to frack "leaky" rock) the risk of them causing anything other than a minor tremor is very small, probably vanishingly small in a geologically inactive region like the UK.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    Ha ha. Sorry Jeremy, but is that your 'expert' opinion? :bigsmile::bigsmile::wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011 edited
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Ha ha. Sorry Jeremy, but is that your 'expert' opinion?</blockquote>

    No, far from it, just a brief summary of stuff that I've read up on, from several sources. When it comes to making rational assessment of the risks all we can do is gather as much info as is available and try to use it to form a view. I happen to have a view that the risk is probably low and that if the intent is to show that fracking is an undesirable thing from an environmental perspective then there are far better arguments to use than trying to claim it will cause major earthquakes and damage power stations.
  3.  
    JSH

    I wish at times you would read a lot more than you might end up with some balanced comments. If you did do the research you would find that the recent major quakes in the area have all been shallow and similar depths to the depths at which the fracking is taking place. You would also find out as Joiner mentioned there is a correlation between size of earth quake and length of quake so any process which helps to extend the length of a quake could potentially increase the size of the quake. Finally when it comes to surface damage a shallow quake is far more destructive on the surface than a deep quake of the same order of magnitude hence my concerns over nuclear installations in areas of shallow quake activity. In America fracking is already causing earthquakes in areas without any seismic activity prior to fracking. In other regions dormant faults have been reactivated and you still think that the risk is low. We will see in the next 10 years as the site is developed but I predict we will need to get used to a lot more earthquakes in the area.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2011
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>JSH

    I wish at times you would read a lot more than you might end up with some balanced comments. If you did do the research you would find that the recent major quakes in the area have all been shallow and similar depths to the depths at which the fracking is taking place. You would also find out as Joiner mentioned there is a correlation between size of earth quake and length of quake so any process which helps to extend the length of a quake could potentially increase the size of the quake. Finally when it comes to surface damage a shallow quake is far more destructive on the surface than a deep quake of the same order of magnitude hence my concerns over nuclear installations in areas of shallow quake activity. In America fracking is already causing earthquakes in areas without any seismic activity prior to fracking. In other regions dormant faults have been reactivated and you still think that the risk is low. We will see in the next 10 years as the site is developed but I predict we will need to get used to a lot more earthquakes in the area.</blockquote>

    I'm not disagreeing with you, in principle, and I have read similar stuff to you, it seems.

    What I am saying, and what is supported by all I've read, is that the UK just doesn't have the sort of geology to create major earthquakes, even if the frackers do their worst in inappropriate areas.

    It's a question of the amount of potential energy available at a fault line, which is a function of the pressure differential and the likely displacement. There are places in the world where the potential energy is very high, pretty much anywhere around a plate junction or subduction zone, for example and also where the potential fault movement is also great (San Andreas, for example). Here in the UK we are sitting on extremely old, stable rock, rock that has already de-stressed itself thousands of years ago in the main. We are not in a tectonically active area and don't have faults with either high differential pressures or the scope for large displacements.

    Of course there is a direct correlation between minor earthquakes and fracking, this has been suspected to be the case for some time and the causative mechanism that has been speculated (minor fault lubrication) seems to have been more or less agreed upon recently.

    However, that doesn't mean that there is the likelihood of getting a major (greater than, say, magnitude 5) earthquake anywhere in the UK as a consequence of fracking, let alone one of maybe 6.5 or above that might be liable to cause damage to a power station.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2011
     
    Meanwhile, despite: "The company's "Prism" reactor has been in use for more than 30 years in the US,"

    ...more indecision and waffling costs us a more reliable and secure future (electrical) energy supply...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/30/ge-hitachi-nuclear-reactor-plutonium

    :angry:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2011 edited
     
    See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ubiquity-Science-That-Changing-World/dp/0753812975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322824708&sr=1-1 - weather, forest fires, earthquakes are inherently un-predictable, however fine the data gathering and analysis, and however highly-developed the models and the supercomputers to run them. All are subject to 'the flap of the butterfly wing that becomes a tornado' for no good reason, other than it's within the envelope of probability.

    So, "Be realistic - plan for a miracle'" (or disaster) and don't think anyone's shortcoming is necessarily to blame for, or anything the cause of, the latter. And don't think that sophisticated procedures can eliminate the latter.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011
     
    How widespread is this technology in the UK? Anyone know?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/geoilandgas?v=lvaBDOl-nXQ&feature=pyv&ad=7768634447&kw=
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011 edited
     
    Or in English it is known as heat recovery.
    Basically, though different route, to what a CCGT system does, or a domestic MVHR units does, or what the turbocharger on my car does, or the regenerative breaking on a Prious does.
    If it is really 'free energy' why has GE not given it to everyone.

    And this must always be remembered:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy0UBpagsu8&feature=related
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2011
     
    Better ask the scrap man to come and take mine away then. Pity, 'cos it seemed to work. :cry:
  4.  
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
     
    Brave New World
    Who will be swinging from the rope at the end.

    Hope I have not ruined the ending of the story for those that have not read the book.

    Why I don't think that playing the climate change card is the best way to get us to change, cost and security are probably the best way as the general public can easily relate to money and nationalism.
    Maybe the GBF should set up as a political party along the lines of UKIP/BNP and bully the fair residence of these isle into change through misinformation and dodgy charts.

    JUST JOKING
    JUST JOKING
    JUST JOKING

    :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2011
     
    No, no, no. Pay attention.

    Despite George Osborne's Autumn Statement pulling the teeth of English Heritage and Natural England, et al, in order to stifle opposition to certain technologies, it is NOT a coalition of UKIP/BNP, but Conservative and Liberal Democrats, who actually claim to be the parties who value our traditional democratic principles above all other parties. But then the old Soviet (written) constitution actually held freedom of speech and action to be paramount virtues.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press