[AndyR]

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.

It had that exact effect here in N. America - we saw prices tumble from approx $8-10/GJ (with large ongoing yearly price increases predicted) down to $2-3 (with very stable predicted futures prices) in a few years - it really has rewritten the energy market here - it has also had a (generally) very calming effect on electricity pricing.

[SA Chris]

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.

Aren't BNFL history now? I had it in my head that even British Energy was part of the French EDF.

[Falling Down]

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.

It had that exact effect here in N. America - we saw prices tumble from approx $8-10/GJ (with large ongoing yearly price increases predicted) down to $2-3 (with very stable predicted futures prices) in a few years - it really has rewritten the energy market here - it has also had a (generally) very calming effect on electricity pricing.

Exactly.  One the reasons that domestic prices are so high is because Uttilities have to hedge against price fluctuations for imports and err on the side of caution hence we get news stories about paying x for a unit when the spot price is x-y but we the public don't realise that these prices are agreed with suppliers months or years in advance.  Having a stable domestic supply in itself will bring prices down by eliminating the need to buy on the hedged futures market and having the ability to supply a significant volume of domestic gas will bring prices down further because there are no transportation costs involved.  The effect in the US has been very dramatic with companies bringing manufacturing back onshore as well as low prices for consumers.

[Falling Down]

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

? any thoughts

It's already part of the supply but not in sufficient volume to make a difference.

[abarro81]

I thought that the way European gas markets worked meant that gas prices were unlikely to change in the UK like they have in the US? That certainly seemed to be the consensus in the media not long ago when DC said it would bring prices down.

[kelvin]

Shouldn't we be comparing ourselves with what's been happening in Poland and not the USA?

[mrjonathanr]

Aren't BNFL history now? I had it in my head that even British Energy was part of the French EDF.

Yes, this was a while ago, but the point remains the same.

[tomtom]

I thought that the way European gas markets worked meant that gas prices were unlikely to change in the UK like they have in the US? That certainly seemed to be the consensus in the media not long ago when DC said it would bring prices down.

+1
Any gas from uk fracking will just become part the European gas market.. but as it'll only be a tiny producer (in comparison) it may make little difference...

[Stubbs]

If we are still part of the European market by the time we get the fracked gas...

[tomtom]

Ha! Good point! Up the UKippers :D

[gme]

From what I have read it will not have the same effect on prices in the uk as it has in America. This seams to be the consensus across a majority of the media.

It does appear that it will add stability and security to a very turbulent market place though and b

[tomtom]

Interesting article just popped up in the Grauniad...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-third

BP report indicates that shale gas finds will not reduce emissions...

And on price changes

'Meanwhile, analysts at the City firm Brewin Dolphin also poured scorn on Cameron and George Osborne for over-hyping the potential impact of shale in Britain. "We believe the shale industry is unlikely to produce commercial volumes of gas until the end of this decade and that it is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on gas prices," said a report drawn up by Elaine Coverley, head of equity research, and Iain Armstrong, oil and gas equity analyst at the investment house.
"This is due to two reasons; first, commercially available volumes are likely to be significantly lower in the UK than in the US, and second, if UK shale is successful, exploration companies could export the gas to achieve higher prices," they argue.'

[SA Chris]

Aren't BNFL history now? I had it in my head that even British Energy was part of the French EDF.

Yes, this was a while ago, but the point remains the same.

Does it though? The French seem to have a fairly good safety record, would hope the safety culture extends across the organisation.

[petejh]

Interesting article just popped up in the Grauniad...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-third

BP report indicates that shale gas finds will not reduce emissions...

And on price changes

'Meanwhile, analysts at the City firm Brewin Dolphin also poured scorn on Cameron and George Osborne for over-hyping the potential impact of shale in Britain. "We believe the shale industry is unlikely to produce commercial volumes of gas until the end of this decade and that it is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on gas prices," said a report drawn up by Elaine Coverley, head of equity research, and Iain Armstrong, oil and gas equity analyst at the investment house.
"This is due to two reasons; first, commercially available volumes are likely to be significantly lower in the UK than in the US, and second, if UK shale is successful, exploration companies could export the gas to achieve higher prices," they argue.'

Or to look at it from the other side of the bias prism:

Commercial volumes of gas could be available within 6 years.
And:
If gas prices don't drop then, according to Jevon's Paradox, the use of gas would remain the same whist the total carbon output for the same amount of energy currently produced would drop.


and..

Proponents of the fuel have argued that shale gas can counteract dependence on coal. But while shale gas use has increased dramatically, particularly in the US, where it brought down gas prices from $12 (£7) to below $3 (£1.80) at one stage, global emissions have continued to rise as the coal that would otherwise have been used has been exported elsewhere.

So if coal use in the UK declines and shale gas usage increases, then the UK's carbon emissions would drop, everything else being equal.
 
What energy companies do about exporting unused coal, and what other countries do about their own use of coal, does not come under the responsibility of the UK wanting to start using shale gas, and shouldn't factor in the discussion.
That is a separate discussion about where energy companies responsibilities lie, between profit-making and environmental responsibility. The article's point is analogous to saying there's no point in the UK switching to shale gas (which is much cleaner than coal) because other countries are planning on using more coal so the net carbon output won't change. If you believe that then you should also believe there's no point switching to wind/solar/tidal either.

Any article containing the words 'poured scorn on' immediately flags up as biased.

[tomtom]

The problem with the "UK carbon emissions will drop" and "what other countries do about their own use of coal, does not come under the responsibility of the UK wanting to start using shale gas, and shouldn't factor in the discussion" argument is that global warming and its impacts are (ahem) global.. so will effect us..

Being more philosophical - this is probably the root of the problem with a lack of change towards increased carbon emissions...

[Fultonius]

Interesting article just popped up in the Grauniad...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-third

BP report indicates that shale gas finds will not reduce emissions...

And on price changes

'Meanwhile, analysts at the City firm Brewin Dolphin also poured scorn on Cameron and George Osborne for over-hyping the potential impact of shale in Britain. "We believe the shale industry is unlikely to produce commercial volumes of gas until the end of this decade and that it is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on gas prices," said a report drawn up by Elaine Coverley, head of equity research, and Iain Armstrong, oil and gas equity analyst at the investment house.
"This is due to two reasons; first, commercially available volumes are likely to be significantly lower in the UK than in the US, and second, if UK shale is successful, exploration companies could export the gas to achieve higher prices," they argue.'

Or to look at it from the other side of the bias prism:

Commercial volumes of gas could be available within 6 years.
And:
If gas prices don't drop then, according to Jevon's Paradox, the use of gas would remain the same whist the total carbon output for the same amount of energy currently produced would drop.


and..

Proponents of the fuel have argued that shale gas can counteract dependence on coal. But while shale gas use has increased dramatically, particularly in the US, where it brought down gas prices from $12 (£7) to below $3 (£1.80) at one stage, global emissions have continued to rise as the coal that would otherwise have been used has been exported elsewhere.

So if coal use in the UK declines and shale gas usage increases, then the UK's carbon emissions would drop, everything else being equal.
 
What energy companies do about exporting unused coal, and what other countries do about their own use of coal, does not come under the responsibility of the UK wanting to start using shale gas, and shouldn't factor in the discussion.
That is a separate discussion about where energy companies responsibilities lie, between profit-making and environmental responsibility. The article's point is analogous to saying there's no point in the UK switching to shale gas (which is much cleaner than coal) because other countries are planning on using more coal so the net carbon output won't change. If you believe that then you should also believe there's no point switching to wind/solar/tidal either.

Any article containing the words 'poured scorn on' immediately flags up as biased.

Shale gas might emit less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, but the process of extracting it releases loads of methane into the atmosphere. Maybe in the UK we'll be able to reduce methane leaks but I'm yet to be convinced.

We can't think in terms of "what's good for the UK" that's what's got us into this mess in the first place.

[petejh]

Of course, and that argument works both ways and is a stock point brought out by climate-change campaigners -

'We must do what we can on a personal level and hope/trust that the rest of the world follows suit'... Sounds good when said by conscientious individual.

When essentially the same argument is used by the UK government in the case of shale gas - with large dirty caveats - the Guardian article is essentially saying it's not worth trying because it's a global issue. Hypocritical, not much!

[tomtom]

Of course, and that argument works both ways and is a stock point brought out by climate-change campaigners -

'We must do what we can on a personal level and hope/trust that the rest of the world follows suit'... Sounds good when said by conscientious individual.

And is the line our Government is taking.. same argument upscaled from personal to govt..

When essentially the same argument is used by the UK government in the case of shale gas - with large dirty caveats - the Guardian article is essentially saying it's not worth trying because it's a global issue. Hypocritical, not much!

Well I'm not sure Id' go as far as to say the Government is being hypocritical - I think more short sighted (both in time and global scope)...

[petejh]

...

Shale gas might emit less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, but the process of extracting it releases loads of methane into the atmosphere. Maybe in the UK we'll be able to reduce methane leaks but I'm yet to be convinced.

We can't think in terms of "what's good for the UK" that's what's got us into this mess in the first place.

I find this really interesting. Bring that point back to yourself and tell me there's no use in you trying to do anything on a personal level because it's a global issue. It's basically the opposite of what climate-change campaigners have been trying to say and what endless neurotic hippies have been boring me to death with for the last 15 years - 'be the change you want to see etc...'.

I have my own views on what's worthwhile and what's not. Just interested in how opinions quickly switch from espousing acts of well-intended personal choice, even if they make no difference overall, to disagreeing when similar choices are made on a large scale.

[petejh]

Well I'm not sure Id' go as far as to say the Government is being hypocritical - I think more short sighted (both in time and global scope)...

I meant the Guardian article was hypocritical.

[Stubbs]

I have my own views on what's worthwhile and what's not.

Can we have your views on this please? You don't seem shy about giving us your views on everything else 

[petejh]

...
We can't think in terms of "what's good for the UK" that's what's got us into this mess in the first place.

Which sounds fine, but what's the alternative? Wait for every major developed and developing nation to simultaneously change tack and adopt a globally harmonious clean energy policy. Yep, about 100 years should do it, in which time we might as well sit back and put the gas fire on to keep warm according to your logic.

Meanwhile what's probably going to happen is an attempt at a graduated change over, using up the last of the fossil fuel, whilst hopefully developing clean technologies in the background to a level they can be effective in our current economic system which is based on growth. When/if that fails and economic panic ensues (the energy trap: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/), it might be the signal to move to a different economic system.

[tomtom]

Well I'm not sure Id' go as far as to say the Government is being hypocritical - I think more short sighted (both in time and global scope)...

I meant the Guardian article was hypocritical.

*shrugs* I thought it was reporting on a BP report..

[petejh]

It wasn't reporting on it in an entirely unbiased way though was it.

[tomtom]

...
We can't think in terms of "what's good for the UK" that's what's got us into this mess in the first place.

Which sounds fine, but what's the alternative? Wait for every major developed and developing nation to simultaneously change tack and adopt a globally harmonious clean energy policy. Yep, about 100 years should do it, in which time we might as well sit back and put the gas fire on to keep warm according to your logic.

Well the alternative to getting everyone to co-operate and reduce carbon emissions is to just let things carry on and get worse...

Unfortunately for us - the climate system has considerable lags in its response to changes in CO2 levels - so our governments and politicans (and many people) will not know to stop - until things are already bad or its too late (ie we push the system beyond a reversible point).