Slashdot Mirror
German Brewers Warn Fracking Could Hurt Beer
Taco Cowboy writes "Those of you who like free beer, watch out! The practice of fracking for shale gas may ruin the beer you drink. Under the 'Reinheitsgebot,' or German purity law, brewers have to produce beer using only malt, hops, yeast and water. 'The water has to be pure and more than half [of] Germany's brewers have their own wells which are situated outside areas that could be protected under the government's current planned legislation on fracking,' said a Brauer-Bund spokesman. The Brauer-Bund beer association is worried that fracking for shale gas, which involves pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground, could pollute water used for brewing and break a 500-year-old industry rule on water purity."
"it sounded like such a good idea!" ..
The Reinheitsgebot stipulates beer have only THREE ingredients: water, barley and hops. The purity law dates to 1516. Yeast wouldn't be discovered until 1680 and even then wasn't recognized as a living organism.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
And what about the ground water? Obviously, beer is not the main concern of the issues with fracking.
Signature intentionally left blank.
Seriously... People would die if they didn't drink fermented beverages in antiquity.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The real pollution problem with fracking for gas isn't the fact that it's fracking as opposed to more traditional extraction techniques, but that the drilling sites are not well monitored and even existing regulations are not well enforced. In other words, the same crap can happen with conventional drilling. It's also ridiculous that thanks to Dick Cheney, companies don't have to tell the EPA or state environmental departments what the ingredients of their fracking fluids are. At least that's the situation here in the US - as an American I can't speak to the German situation so well. Hopefully they handle it better.
I'm afraid that this is yet another industry that'll screw itself through short term greed, just as lax safety at nuke plants has trashed that industry.
Yes! Let's destroy our clean drinking water in the name of boosting the fossil fuel industry! What a great fucking idea!
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?).
Filtering works great for sand, grit, etc. but is not so easy w/ various mixed in chemicals.
Or if only you could take hydrogen and oxygen gasses and do anything useful with them.
You mean the hydrogen that you get from the electrolysis of water, and the oxygen you get either from that or liquefying air? That'll solve your energy problem.
That's like saying that it's okay to pollute the atmosphere with some poisonous gas (say, for example, chlorine gas) because we can always use technology to re-purify it.
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
Haven't you ever seen The Lorax or Space Balls?
/end sarcasm.
The obvious solution will be to bottled and sell fresh air and water and let those that can't afford it die. Who cares what happens to plant and wild life that can't buy bottled products when we could be creating a whole new industry for some big corporation to make huge profits off something required to sustain life.
Perhaps you would be happier if humans went back to living in caves? Nearly all industry causes some type of waste. There are ways to deal with it responsibly.
The problem isn't that it can't be dealt with responsibly. The problem is we fear -- the past being our guide -- that it won't, at least not until it's already caused us problems.
I am not a crackpot.
Just make sure it stays pure and don't allow US-style rape of resources.
Under present EU and German legislation modern oilfield technology is quite well capable of extracting shale gas in a clean and responsible way without the American effects on the environment and population.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
These are the same people who are now building new coal burning plants because they shut down their nuclear power industry. And the coal they are burning is low quality crap lignite. In some countries in Europe coal consumption is increasing 50% per year.
Some have called it a new golden age of coal in Europe:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance
Now of course they are going to turn their back on much cleaner natural gas because they are afraid that they can't write effective regs for shale gas production?
MOAR COAL!!!
Europe's environmental policy is flat out nuts.
Are you saying he's another Hollywood tree-hugger distorting facts in order to sell movie tickets?
Except that the cost is probably a large multiple of the win you can get from fracking. So why would this be considered an acceptable solution?
Oh, right, because those who get the profits are not the same as those who have to pay the cost.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
What about the water? I know it is the national drink in Germany, but they do drink water too, correct?
1 site contaminated? really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#Groundwater_contamination
Skimming 3 paragraphs shows 3 sites in the US and I'm sure proper research would turn up a lot more. There is a movie about this (arguably propaganda) called Gasland that I have yet to watch. Considering potable water is a necessary resource, and natural gas is not necessary (although it is important). I am very very wary of the proposition of risking one for another.
I think you misunderstand how fracking works. Fracking works by pumping water into the earth. The water is typically not potable, because potable water is expensive. So there's no amount of "monitoring" that can prevent "leaks" because the whole point of the process is to leak. You leak water into the ground under high pressure, and that releases natural gas which can then be exploited.
The problem with fracking is not so much that it would pollute ground water, although it could well do so, but that it will pollute aquifers.
Also, whenever an industry flack says "however, done right..." I wonder if said flack recalls any time in the history of extractive industries when things were "done right." Extractive industries are at their most profitable when things are not "done right," because doing things right is expensive. As long as the costs of not doing things right can be laid off on someone else, the stockholders would sue the asses off of a company that did things "right," because such a company would not be maximizing shareholder value.
So let us not pretend that things will be done right. Let us assume instead that they will not be done right, and plan for that, because that is what is going to actually happen.
I drink from an aquifer. Most of my neighbors drink either from an aquifer or from ground water. People who are on town water in my town do in fact drink from a lake; the lake water is chlorinated, because it has to be, because animals poop nearby. But if you dumped a thousand gallons of hexane in it, the town would be drinking bottled water for the foreseeable future—there's no way to filter that out at the treatment plant. So don't give me this crap about it not mattering whether the water in streams and lakes is contaminated.
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?
In much of Germany, the water in the brewers' wells is so pure, they do not need to filter it.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Nobody drinks from a lake river or stream anymore.
The entire city of Vienna, Austria - and that is: millions of people - drink from mountain streams, whose water is led to Vienna by aquaducts and pipes.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Your post in one line (to save time):
You don't know it'll be done right, I don't know it'll be done wrong, so let's assume I'm correct because I told you I am.
Did that about sum it up?
I am not the original poster, but let me respond with: Yes, and that is why any sane person should err on the side of safety.
After all, if I can't prove you are guilty and you can't prove yourself innocent; I have to assume you are innocent. Because if you are actually guilty, I have merely just not punished you for what you already did. But if you are indeed innocent, I would commit a crime (or at least wrongdoing) on top of yours.
On the other hand, if someone has told you that I wrecked my previous 10 cars, you would probably not lend me your car; even if you have no proof for it and I don't have a proof against it. Here, the safe approach is to not lend me the car (unless I can prove to you I desperately need it and you believe me).
Erring on the side of caution is in itself always a very good thing.
The fine details come from when you believe the scales are in balance. For example, in the above case of the car, the person who told you that I'm a car-wrecker could've been a person that you know very well, or a random maniac with soiled clothing. I think in the latter case you'd be more inclined to believe my (still equally baseless) statement of innocence in terms of car-wrecking.
Now look again back at the track record of all parties in the question of "Is fracking safe?" and ask yourself: Are the scales in balance or even tipped in favour of the safe approack of not allowing fracking? If yes, then choose the safe route. If not, then you can contemplate being adventurous -- but be ready to examine the scales if new evidence comes up.
You see, the problem is not the question itself; just which side you find more trustworthy and reliable in its arguments and proofs.
I think you misunderstand how fracking works. Fracking works by pumping water into the earth. The water is typically not potable, because potable water is expensive.
Isn't one or the key ways of making water potable by filtering it through the ground?
Its not that the fracking water is impure it is that it is actually Fracking MUD, an intentional mix of water, chemicals, (bentonite and others), as well as propellants. It starts polluted.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. Specifically, it requires explaining why fracking liquid injected into a gasfield inevitably ends up in an aquifer, despite these being separated by impermeable layers (which is a requirement for gas to stay put in the first place).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
All fracking is not the same.
Bad fracking
1. Shallow wells
2. permeable layers between fracked shale and aquifer
3. Poor handling of fracking chemicals
Good fracking
1. Deep wells
2. Impermeable layer between shale and aquifer
3. Close monitoring of site and disposal of chemicals.
By the way, a similar thing has bee done for decades in oil fields where hot water is injected down one well to increase production on others. The difference with fracking is the chemicals used to create and hold open the cracks so the natural gas can flow.