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.
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.
Quote from: gme on January 15, 2014, 09:30:36 amI 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization? any thoughts
Aren't BNFL history now? I had it in my head that even British Energy was part of the French EDF.
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.
Quote from: SA Chris on January 15, 2014, 06:57:29 pmAren'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.
Interesting article just popped up in the Grauniad...http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-thirdBP 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.'
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.
Quote from: tomtom on January 15, 2014, 10:42:40 pmInteresting article just popped up in the Grauniad...http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-thirdBP 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.. QuoteProponents 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.
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!
...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.
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 have my own views on what's worthwhile and what's not.
...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.
Quote from: tomtom on January 16, 2014, 11:18:26 amWell 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.
Quote from: Fultonius on January 16, 2014, 11:07:06 am...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.