The "water on fire" argument is related to fractures caused by the stimulation going from the reservoir/target area into aquifer layers and failed wells. In some parts of the states the reservoir and aquifers are reasonably close together. So there may be a possibility that in some isolated cases fractures could have propagated up to the reservoir, but as far as I'm aware there is no scientific data supporting this. In most places the reservoir and aquifer are so far away from each other (in the Yorkshire case several thousand feet) that the pressure needed to create those fractures would be HUGE!
The main argument of protestors now is well casing failure, but that's very unlikely too. The problem in North America is that many people have private wells for their water, many of which are already full of methane naturally (I know my other halves parents water fizzes, they leave it on the side to degas before using it) so many of these flame videos are nothing to do with fracking, just naturally occurring methane. Ther have been a few incidences of fracking causing failure of improperly abandoned wells however and gas leaking up through them. Again, as far as I know they are very rare and infrequent.
As for the chemical transportation, much of it is transported by tanker, but much of the actual flow back water is treated on site. I believe in Yorkshire it is going to be treated on site or transported by existing pipeline to their processing facility (that deals with water from their existing wells) and treated there. The problem with US analogies is they used to (and many places still do) have this habit of digging out large pits and dumping the flow back water in those, which are far more prone to leaking than sealed above ground tanks. They also had this odd habit of spreading it on roads in winter, because it was generally salty...
Most of those sort of arguments are missing from the proper objections for the planning application above however, because they have well and truly been debunked, or minimized by legislation and regulation. Most of the objections are now relating to noise, lorry traffic and "local impact" on the community as well as how the area is precieved by tourists. Objections which are fairly standard in many planning applications and where councils and organizations generally have lots of experience in understanding and mitigating.
The argument for nuclear over gas doesn't really make sense? Last time I checked you couldn't buy a nuclear hob to cook your food.
And on a more serious note you can't turn nuclear reactors off and on in short space of time, whereas gas turbines can be cold, then up and ready to generate electricity in half an hour or less. Gas also doesn't need direct subsidies, unlike nuclear. Currently and in the near future a combination of nuclear, gas and renewable is the best option so they don't really need to compete with each other anyway.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
