[Fultonius]

The cynical part of me thinks that the government wanted gas all along. New CCGT gas stations are cheap in comparison to coal/nuke/RE, safe and produce electricity relatively cheaply. Oh, and they've got the shortest lead times.

Drag heels until past the point where nuclear can be built in time - tick.
Make it essential that gas MUST be built - tick.
Tax breaks for fracking (never would have predicted that one) - tick.

And when they get grilled:- "It is the only viable option to prevent blackouts".

[slackline]

Which coming from climbers, whose hobby involves assessing risk, is disappointing.

Very different scales of risk though, skills in one may not be directly transferable to the other.

Just to chip in, the classic economic formula for calculating risk is

Risk = probability(from 0-1) x cost

I was thinking more along the lines of time-scales...

Humans are very good at assessing risk in a situation where the outcome has immediate (or short-term) consequences.  Far less so when the consequences span just a few generations (living in deltas or on/near fault lines), even worse when its geological time scales.

[tomtom]

Yeah but they fucked away loads of ££££ on infrastructure to import gas - terminal at Easington, Pembroke etc... which may become partly redundant if ol'frackerooney gets going...

(I need a beer).

[tomtom]

Which coming from climbers, whose hobby involves assessing risk, is disappointing.

Very different scales of risk though, skills in one may not be directly transferable to the other.

Just to chip in, the classic economic formula for calculating risk is

Risk = probability(from 0-1) x cost

I was thinking more along the lines of time-scales...

That is the formula including time - its probability a year...

1 in 100 year event causing £100m of damage

Risk = 0.01 x 100
£1m a year....

£1,000 million Tsunami likely every 1000 years..... £1m a year - not worth worrying about....

I have also worked with insurance actuaries... probably the driest and most unemotional people in the world...

[slackline]

Unfortunately a lot of people just don't think like that.  Its compounded further by the way the press almost always report medical risks as relative rather than absolute.

 

[Johnny Brown]

Humans are very good at assessing risk in a situation where the outcome has immediate (or short-term) consequences

As a species? Maybe. As individuals, some are, some aren't. A lot seem to find tiny risks of headline-grabbing consequences - like air travel or nuclear power or vaccination - unjustifiable. The media may be to blame. However I'd like to think climbers are less represented in that group, whether or not they can chug out an assessment matrix.

[Johnny Brown]

Hmm, just spotted the crag in the background - any good?

[tomtom]

Amazing Sandstone outcrops - sadly all in Arnhemland, Traditional owner territory.
200m high escarpments, caves, waterholes, waterfalls... amazing landscape. Prob some climbing in the national parks further south..

[andy_e]

UK has freak tsunamis every now and then due to plate tectonics.

 

Chris - the Canaries mega tsunami theories have recently been debunked my Tusnami/Landslide/Volcanologist colleague tells me (there were mega landslides, but earlier studies cocked up the tsunami estimation)..

Most tsunamis to affect the UK post-glaciation have been caused by remobilisation and gravitational collapse on the Norwegian continental shelf, such as the Storegga mega-slide.

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

[SA Chris]

I did say Norway in my answer, I should at least get half a mark.

[andy_e]

Yes indeed, but you didn't show your working I'm afraid.

[SA Chris]

Surely the end justifies the means?

(I tried that line once after an exam when I got the result right but didn't show how I got there but, surprisingly, it didn't work).

[dr_botnik]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy

Paragraphs 10 & 11

In 1982 Salter invented the idea of a mechanical "duck" which bobbed on the ocean and generated electricity. But the government shut down the UK Wave Energy programme, arguing that his invention would be too expensive to develop further.

It emerged later that civil servants in the nuclear power division of the energy department had "miscalculated" by a factor of 10 the estimated cost of energy production, possibly setting back British wave energy research by 20 years.

I think we've missed the boat for RE, the cynic in me thinks this "mistake" had some pressure from the Nuclear lobby, which was pretty strong in this time period, but it doesn't really serve the current argument to look back to the 80s and think "if only". I'd like to know what it will look like to look back to now in 2020, or 2050. What are our current "if onlys..." is it nuclear? development of RE? I'm pretty sure that all the figures I've seen for RE didn't cover total usage, but also required a drop in consumption, hoping for the silver bullet of "efficient technologies" to enable this is a bit of a pipedream, so what are our realistic options?

I remember an interview with James Lovelock on the radio where he stated he'd be more than willing to have nuclear waste buried in his back garden, it would mean free energy for life for his household (but then he also discussed about how he invented the first microwave to warm up dead frozen rodents for lab experiments, maybe the man is a little less squeamish than the rest of us..)

My brain can't really compute the problems of climate change, however each time I read articles that commensurate the scientific consensus it does fill me with anxiety, more for global equality than much else. But then, in 50 years time, will Britain still be at the top of the food chain? I doubt it, so maybe we should be worried... We're only a little island, a few metres of sea level rise could devastate us....

[tomtom]

Not as much as it would states like Bangladesh where 70% of the country is on a delta... Sadly.

[dr_botnik]

I'm guessing they have a pretty high population density aswell 

On the link you posted earlier tomtom it seems to suggest that a gas economy would limit carbon PPM to 650, which in turn still creates a 3.5 degrees temperature rise, and thats without possible complications of methane escaping during the process... Suddenly fracking seems alot less suitable as a stop gap... Coal is definitly not the answer, nuclear is far too lagging as is development in RE, does this mean we've fucked it?

[i.munro]

. Suddenly fracking seems alot less suitable as a stop gap... Coal is definitly not the answer, nuclear is far too lagging as is development in RE, does this mean we've fucked it?

All we've been discussing so far is electricity generation & that's the easy bit.
Technically it's a solved problem. Either nuclear or desert solar would  provide a solution (in combination with wind & PV) if they had been or get  built.

Transport (air road & sea) & agriculture both use massive amounts of fossil fuels & there isn't a technical solution for that in place yet.

As to whether we've fucked it yet: my understanding is that the climate isn't well enough understood yet to know but my approach would be "when the ship you're on starts to sink you start bailing! You don't calculate the size of your bucket & the distance to port then give up. Better to drown  in 2 hours than rather one & you never know.

[SA Chris]

There are technical solutions readily available; use cars less, use the train, feet, bike, car pool, hybrid bus more. Reduce commuting distance if possible. Buy local produce, be a considerate consumer, reduce, reuse, recycle etc etc etc. If everyone in the UK did this and/or was encouraged to do it more by making it more palatable (by either financial sticks or carrots) then our dependency on fossil fuels would be drastically reduced.

[i.munro]

There are technical solutions readily available; use cars less, use the train, feet, bike, car pool, hybrid bus more. Reduce commuting distance if possible. Buy local produce, be a considerate consumer, reduce, reuse, recycle etc etc etc. If everyone in the UK did this and/or was encouraged to do it more by making it more palatable (by either financial sticks or carrots) then our dependency on fossil fuels would be drastically reduced.

I'd describe those as political or social rather than technical solutions (at least that's what I meant by technical here) Although building train lines  to replace airlines is sort of both.

[Falling Down]

Fultonius, the "government" aren't that smart or sophisticated enough to organise any energy policy, never mind one that was a stitchup in favour of gas.

An interesting footnote to the 60's and 70's development of fission reactors was that they were a vital source of material for the nuclear arsenal at the height of the Cold War.  My Dad worked for the NEA during his career and was a bit disillusioned to find out the power stations were built to feed the munitions industry. 

For the record im generally in favour of fracking to reduce dependence on Gazprom and Rosneft for gas supply.  The regulatory and HSE requirements are much more rigorous here than in the US.   Investment in Nuclear for the longer term is a necessity.

[gme]

I agree with FD on his last points. I have taken a little bit of time to read about Fracking having been asked to sign a petition against it. (i wouldn't as i said i knew nothing about it, unlike a lot of people i was with who happily signed away in ignorance). From what i read it seams pretty safe if done properly and a lot of what is being pushed by the anti lobby is just not true. The only issue that might cause issues is the extraction of water for use in the process especially in areas of the country already short on supply.

The use of gas for electricity production seems to be a necessary measure and one that is better than coal and its our own supply which surely must be a benefit. However it is not the longer term answer as it to will eventually run out.

In my opinion renewables face more problems with planning than any other source. Nobody wants them in their back yard. The opposition to wind power where i live is unbelievable yet they are digging up vast tracts of countryside for coal with hardly a mutter. And often its the biggest supporters of renewables (walkers, climbers, country folks, surfers,bird watchers etc etc.) who are the ones up in arms when they try to build in there favorite spot.

Bowden Doors is effected at the minute and everyone is up in arms many of whom only go there a few times a year. To me it seams a perfect place to put one, low density population and fucking windy as anyone who climbs there can testify. If they can prove that they work (jury out) then they should be able to build them there.

Same with wave and tidal power. As soon as one is proposed near a surf spot the "may" effect the quality of the waves the surfers are up in arms.

Planning laws need changing and the energy policy needs to be decided by non political bodies who can see further than the next general election. What ever we do to benefit the future has little chance of benefiting our generation but we have to get on with it, pay for it and live with the cost.

[Stubbs]

Bowden Doors is effected at the minute and everyone is up in arms many of whom only go there a few times a year. To me it seams a perfect place to put one, low density population and fucking windy as anyone who climbs there can testify. If they can prove that they work (jury out) then they should be able to build them there.

Planning laws need changing and the energy policy needs to be decided by non political bodies who can see further than the next general election. What ever we do to benefit the future has little chance of benefiting our generation but we have to get on with it, pay for it and live with the cost.

I saw this topic pop up re Bowden on the other channel, I recommend not clicking on it! http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=560092

Ah if only there could be an independent body to decide on energy, but it will always be the government that hold the purse strings, and their track record on listening to experts is very poor!

[Fultonius]

Fultonius, the "government" aren't that smart or sophisticated enough to organise any energy policy, never mind one that was a stitchup in favour of gas.

Fair point. Silly of me to credit them with some intelligence! Sadyl it's more likely that no-one had the bottle to do what was needed to pre-empt this mess and gas is what we're stuck with...

In some ways it's ironic that fracking has been carried out just off Norwich and no-one blinks an eye...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/a_look_at_centrica_s_ensign_project_off_the_coast_of_norfolk_and_suffolk_1_1431622

[SA Chris]

You can't throw a buzzard around here without it getting chopped by a turbine,

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

And I'm sure that list is hopelessly out of date. I don't find them that visually obtrusive, the one at Banff is actually quite useful as you can see it on the harbour webcam and tell which way the wind is blowing.

[Fultonius]

Did you hear the one abou the rare bird?  http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/birdwatchers-see-rare-bird-killed-by-wind-turbine-1-2980240

[andy_e]

One bird? Is that all it killed? What about all the hundreds of species being pushed to extinction by global warming?