[petejh]

and that is what I was trying to convey (but appear to have failed to do so).

It's not that you failed to convey it (and I'm not aiming posts at you in particular). It's more that the overall tone of discussion on here is often: whatever the conservatives propose gets automatically vilified. Maybe that's justified in some cases but something like this is far more complex than just conservatives or labour. All parties would be pursing shale gas sooner or later.

Shale gas isn't the problem in itself, it's how it's extracted and what's done during the 'time and energy window of opportunity' created by using it that are the important bits.

[tregiffian]

Power to the elbow of Sam Etherington, kite surfer, and his multi-axis wave power unit.

[Fultonius]

Common in debates about energy/climate change are fallacies such as 'building scheme x will directly result in sea level rise' or 'not building scheme y will lead to sea-levels rising'.

They may not be fallacies. My point was that sea level changes will affect people far more than wildlife. Therefore justifying habitat loss from power plants with that lost to sea level change is bollocks.

Ok, fair point. My point was that really we have to start doing something because every year that we sit around arguing over which way is "best" is another year lost.

The Severn tidal barrage really is a separate issue and debating whether habitat loss is worth the power produced is going to side track this discussion.

That's an interesting blog Pete. I'm off to do some reaidng on Energy Returned on Energy Invested for Shale Gas. So far, it doesn't look good.

Shale gas isn't the problem in itself, it's how it's extracted and what's done during the 'time and energy window of opportunity' created by using it that are the important bits.

Shale gas is estimated to be around twice as effective at causing the greenhouse effect (due to methane leakage) than conventional natural gas.

[finbarrr]

but can we not just leave shale gas in the ground untill we really really need it?

after seeing the documentaries "gasland" and "gasland 2", shale gas seems like the very last source of energy you'd want to pursue.
i used to think nuclear energy was bad, but fracking seems to take the cake.
and apparently there are new nuclear reactors that are twice as expensive but shut down when they malfunction, instead of "melting down".

[slackline]

whatever the conservatives propose gets automatically vilified. Maybe that's justified in some cases but something like this is far more complex than just conservatives or labour. All parties would be pursing shale gas sooner or later.

It was the nefarious way in which 'bribes' for local authorities (LA) were being proposed to promote fracking over everything else.  These were likely in the background for a long time and part of the reason the squeeze has been put on LA's, as government knew they could promote their mates (and no doubt some of their own) vested interests in the companies that will profit from fracking. 

It just stinks of the typical  that seems pervasive across all political parties/most politicians (there seem to be a few who are genuinely interested in doing whats right rather than what will get them re-elected but they are sadly in the minority and dwindling these days).

[petejh]

but can we not just leave shale gas in the ground untill we really really need it?

after seeing the documentaries "gasland" and "gasland 2", shale gas seems like the very last source of energy you'd want to pursue.
i used to think nuclear energy was bad, but fracking seems to take the cake.
...

There are two separate issues here.

One issue is climate change.

The other issue is to do with the consequences of developed nations going into declining total energy supply. More precisely, running out of the political and public will and financial resources to change over into new technologies before financial and civil breakdown.


The two issues are obviously linked, but to get context on the consequences of climate change you need to understand the consequences of developed countries going into declining total energy supply. The energy trap describes a possible set of consequences. Once you've read and understood that you can then decide whether carbon-emitting energy sources are 'worth it' in the short, mid or long term.

[Johnny Brown]

i used to think nuclear energy was bad, but fracking seems to take the cake.
and apparently there are new nuclear reactors that are twice as expensive but shut down when they malfunction, instead of "melting down".

Nuclear is what we should be using to transition off fossil fuels to renewables, not shale gas. Unfortunately it suffers from a terrible image problem due to nuclear weapons and scaremongering surrounding old technology. The real risks from a modern plant are far less than a typical coal-fired power station.

France generates >75% of its electricity from 58 nuclear reactors, with the cheap energy produced making them the world's biggest exporter. They had a couple of minor meltdowns in their early reactors (most recent 1980), both long decommissioned now.

the consequences of developed nations going into declining total energy supply

Personally I think we need a big kick up the arse with our attitude to energy use, and our worship of economic growth on a finite planet. Bring it on.

[petejh]

Of course. It'll be brought on - I don't think there's much if any doubt about that. The wealthy will be last to suffer in any 'doomsday scenario'. If, in 300 years from now, we're still growing as a population on this planet then I can't imagine the horror of being at the bottom of the pile.

[Duma]

The demand side doesn't really seem to have been talked about on this thread, but is prob the most important IMO. politically impossible though of course.

Only other thing I'd say (work in UK Power industry) is the system needs dispatchable plant - this is why CCGT's aren't going away any time soon - neither the nukes (baseload) or wind/solar (variable, difficult to forecast (though less so for solar) etc) provide this - hence the grid needs a fair bit of gas capacity available (as renewables increase this will be increasingly underutilised but no less necessary (this is very bad for business if you are EON/RWE etc) smart meters etc are going to be important hopefully in changing peoples behaviour.

[Falling Down]

I don't have a lot of time to enter into a debate so apologies if I don't respond either in time or with huge paragraphs.

When "fracking" was first developed in the US it was a real experimental situation, a classic case study of innovation.  Unfortunately there are often consequences to experimenting in the real world rather than a lab, especially in a low regulatory environment like the US.  These consequences. Ground water pollution etc were largely down to (a) early stage technology (compare primitive oil wells with the very safe and secure technology in use today) and almost zero regulatory oversight.  Hence lots of issues and films like Gasland.

The regulatory environment in the UK is much, much more stringent here than in the US and I'd rather see the UK developing its own shale reserves as part of our developing energy portfolio for the following reasons.

Economically were are a net importer of gas into the UK, if we're were able to produce more of our own, spot prices would drop (the fall in US has been dramatic) leading to lower prices, particularly for industrial consumers and several of the mothballed steel plants in the more economically depressed areas of the UK could easily open again.

Our environmental regulatory environment is very, very stringent compared to North America with real consequences for those that fail to comply so I wouldn't expect to see any of the stuff that goes on in Gasland, especially that the US have developed the technology to a much more effective and efficient standard than ten years ago.

It will create jobs in the North of England and Wales.

From an energy security perspective, I'd rather be producing our own gas than buying it from the KGB (Rozneft and Gazprom) or OPEC where gas purchasing influences our attitude to oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

Prices will drop for consumers and more cars will be be able to use LPG.

Cards on the table, I'm in favour, call me Sloper if you like, but I don't wear tweed and I'm not a lawyer.

[Stubbs]

I'm for it too, I just hope the reserves nearer to London get developed rather than just those in the "desolate" North, that way there's a chance that people in government will get to see the environmental cost of developing fossil fuel sources and they might get a bit more psyched about windmills...

[Johnny Brown]

What he said, though I'd prefer us to go balls out for nuclear too. Shale gas is still a fossil fuel, and an inefficiently won one at that.

[Falling Down]

Defo for Nuclear.  I'd would have rather seen all the spunked on Quantitative Easing pumped into some reactors and concrete.

[tomtom]

Seen how we're paying over the odds for the new Nuclear stations...? We have to guarantee twice the price the French will pay...

Why? Risk to the investors I guess..

[Falling Down]

We the taxpayer should take the risk, after all we've bailed out the fucking banks.

[slackline]

Should lower gas prices necessarily be an aim?

I understand that there are economic benefits (but I think JB is right about needing a kick up the arse with regards to continual economic growth as its ultimately unsustainable), but lower prices discourages people from minimising usage (or conversely higher prices encourages conservation), certainly at the individual/household level.  Perhaps just stabilising prices would be preferable (or at least keeping their rise in-line with other aspects of inflation so that they don't become a major driving force to inflation itself). 

[benpritch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization

? any thoughts

[gme]

I pretty much whole heartedly agree with falling Down on this one, other than the point about it bringing down prices, which i don't think will happen. I personally think the obsession with the price of fuel is totally wrong as i think that if it continues to go up it will force us all to look at reducing our usage and make the cost of house insulation, new windows or individual power generation etc more economically viable.

In the short term we really don't have any viable options other than the use of fossil fuels and the arguments against fracking seem to be based purely on Nimbyism. Other than the actual burning of the gas the environmental argument seems pretty weak to me. At present we are happy to import gas from other countries but don't want to extract it here.

Long term nuclear projects, coupled with wind, tide and solar are the way forward but again they get blocked by nimbies who do not want them sighted next to there house or favorite view.

I can now see a pretty big wind farm from my house, Middle moor and Wandylaw development of 28 turbines, but it does not bother me in anyway and i refused to sign a petition opposing them, a petition signed by a majority of the middle class populous of the area who signed purely on the basis that they spoil the view. I would happily have one in my garden for my own power generation but absolutely no way i would get planning. As its estimated we would need between 50000- 75000 wind turbines to provide 50% of our power requirements we are going to need a lot more views ruined and a lot more acceptance from the general populous, which just is not going to happen.

Therefore as far as i can see we need gas for a good few decades yet so why not use our own supply.

And one final point, i wish people would stop using this as party politics, is not a Tory issue or a Labour issue its one that really needs to be looked at politics free or we will never get an answer.

[slackline]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization

? any thoughts

Seems an eminently sensible idea.  Not got time to read how much it can produce though.


I should add a caveat I thought of whilst cycling this morning to my above question about not aiming to reduce energy costs. Keeping fuel prices high is a good way to encourage reduced usage, but....

...no one should have to live in fuel poverty.

[SA Chris]

I think it's being piloted in some places here, would be more efficient apparently if landfill was separated better.

[tomtom]

And one final point, i wish people would stop using this as party politics, is not a Tory issue or a Labour issue its one that really needs to be looked at politics free or we will never get an answer.

The need (energy security/availability) is non-polictical - but the solution is highly political.

Theres no way around that. Many vested interests on both sides - as well as ideological differences in how this should be solved.

IMHO fracking in the UK will probably be safe and well regulated. But it signals an intent to continue to be fossil fuel based rather than alternatives. 

I think this is a bad idea - and we will miss an opportunity to move to less carbon emitting methods. Fracking kicks the can further down the alley - but also allows the alley to become dingier and more dangerous!

The argument 'we all have gas' so we can't change etc.. doesnt wash for me. Things can change and can change rapidly. Look at the uptake of domestic PV in Germany and Spain - how rapidly that has expanded in 5-10 years. 

[Stubbs]

Ben P - I think separation of waste to allow for gas generation from anaerobic digestion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion and incineration of waste http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/norway-waste-energy (which i think they do in Sheffield?) provides better efficiency. As with a lot of what has been discussed here planning seems to be the major barrier to a lot of these schemes - down with incinerators and all that sort of thing!

[slackline]

Fracking not political?  Quite a few MPs with a conflict of interest. /via @Chris_Locky3r

Just as there is/was with the privatisation of the NHS. 

Such conflicts of interest should automatically disqualify you from voting within the House of Commons/Lords.

[mrjonathanr]

What he said, though I'd prefer us to go balls out for nuclear too. Shale gas is still a fossil fuel, and an inefficiently won one at that.

I used to have a very dim view of nuclear, and a stint working on the ropes at Sellafield did nothing to challenge that. BNFL appeared very untrustworthy.

But that's BNFL's management, not nuclear per se. I'm all for it in our current circumstances if properly managed.

[mrjonathanr]

MPs 

... conflicts of interest should automatically disqualify you from voting within the House of Commons/Lords.

This should be on the statutes.