UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: SA Chris on August 14, 2013, 12:18:00 pm
-
General dislike of Cameron aside, what do people think about fracking in general?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23662583 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23662583)
Personally it scares the crap out of me pumping all these nasty chemical underground, but how likely are they to actually get into groundwater? My geological knowledge is a bit limited.
-
http://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8 (http://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8)
One point in its favour - its a bit cleaner than coal. Everything else seems to go against it for me. The fact that the government are falling over themselves to invest in fossil fuels at this point in time speaks volumes; reducing CO2 output seems to have fallen off the political agenda completely... I despair.
-
Briefly (I have work to do today...)
the fracking planned/suggested for the UK is much deeper than many of the places in the US where there have been problems - and a much greater distance between the gas deposits and any aquifers. This greatly reduces chances of contamination. There is still an opportunity to contaminate water supply where the pipe goes through the aquifer and this depends on how well sealed the pipe is. AFAIK UK regs on this are pretty tight. So I would suggest its probably 'safe' in a general way in the UK. Of course transporting chemicals etc.. across the country, pumping them into the ground, ensuring their disposal, where to get large quantiies of water from etc.. are all opportunities for fuck ups and to lead to bad stuff happening... When operational they can sell the gas via the existing pipeline infrastructure which reduces our needs to import LPG etc..
BUT - for me the real kicker no-one in the media seems to be picking up on here is that its a carbon heavy form of energy. It would add to our CO2 outputs not reduce them.. In bigger picture terms its BAD for the world.. It might be great for the UK economy in the short term but... *sighs*
Fracking UK will also get very very generous tax breaks - and I lament how further advanced our RE industry might be if it were to receive such tax breaks... Whilst not a U turn, the coalition seem to have 'slowed down' on their promises for the renewable sector and greening the UK energy industry.
Overview: It'll probably be safe in the UK - but I disagree with it happening in the first place.
-
When I've looked at the US, it seems to involve huge numbers of wells in a grid to exploit an area. Presumably that would be the same here? I'm not sure how it will work given our rather denser population patterns.
-
I work in a lab that tests chemical waste before it gets treated and there is a bottle of 'fracking water' on the side.... May have a look what's its got in it....
-
The fact that we're all online all day shows that we has a great reliance on electricity. Our economy relies on it. Therefore we need, at this point, to use this reserve. There are some safety/environmental issues with fracking that must be acknowledged, however they seem to be far less significant than the damage done to areas such as the Niger delta through leaks/arson/terrorism etc. At least (global warming aside) it's our mess.
-
There's no denying we need (and perhaps consume excessive amounts of) energy, but we need fresh water more. For ourselves and the food we eat. Alternative sources should be investigated, but I don't think fracking is a viable one.
As others have mentioned above the tax breaks could probably be better spent on RE options.
-
JB first of all I hope you know that the lighting your taps thing has nothing to do with fracking, but is naturally occurring in that area, I wanted to watch that film but the more I read about it the more I realised that there was a lot of bull in there in between facts.
I think if fracking was just happening in the North West and not Sussex then it probably wouldn't have the media spotlight so much.
What I didn't realise before is (correct me if I'm wrong) that this gas can't be used in power stations, and will only form domestic supplies, and as such they need a shit load more infrastructure to get it into households.
As a slight aside, from what I've read it sounds like successive governments have fucked up our energy policy to being at the point in the next few years that they may have to reinstate some coal power stations to make sure we have some breathing space in power production and don't start getting black outs. Just another area where attempting to tender to private companies has failed. [socialist emoticon]
-
Overview: It'll probably be safe in the UK - but I disagree with it happening in the first place.
TomTom's on the money.
The video you posted Johnny and many others like it have since been proven to be fake apparently. Even if it were caused by groundwater carrying dissolved gases as a result of the fracking process, it would be a lot less likely to happen in the UK. In the US, the laws on casing and securing well bores onshore are a lot less stringent than those in the UK, hence it's likely to be more safe.
On the issue on high density of wells, this is also an entirely valid point. Fracture density is important to extract gas from the very low permeability shale, you can't just pop one well in and expect it all to flow to the well as would happen in a conventional hydrocarbon accumulation in a permeable reservoir unit. Therefore, multiple wells are needed to open a large network of fractures (or reopen an existing network of fractures). A lot of older (some up to 30-odd years) fracking operations in the US rely on many wells in a small area in order for fractures to propagate around the well and join up with each other, and the easiest way to do this is to drill hundreds of vertical wells. However, since horizontal drilling and multiple well-head technologies have been developed, it's possible to drill many wells from one location and drill horizontally with one well to do the job many wells used to do, and also to drill many horizontal wells from the same location, greatly reducing the need for multiple well-heads as seen in the US. As the Bowland shale is very extensive and quite thin however, it'd still need a quite a lot of wells to exploit it, but not on the scale of the US (their prime fracking basin, the Marcellus shale, covers an area of two or three times that of the UK if I recall correctly).
Drilling and fracturing fluids used are often quoted to be 97% water (I think it has to be fresh, not saline) and the rest made of surfactants ("ones found in most household cleaning products") to keep things moving and proppants (physical fracture-keeping-open things) such as sand. One of the most important issues is that fracking is very intensive on water supplies, with water needing to be piped (but more likely carried in lorries) to the well-head. As water supplies in the UK are already at a tipping point (no new reservoirs have been built in the UK in the last 40 years, leading to an increased reliance on abstraction of water from rivers, endangering habitats and causing supplies to be running short) this is no good thing.
Of course, with such a valuable resource under our grounds, you'd think it'd be a good idea to let people exploit them and tax the frack out of it so we can pump that money in to renewables. Great idea, unless you're a Tory and your chums need to make a quick buck.
Fracking? For me, no, from an environmental and economic point of view. From a geological point of view, it's perfectly safe if wells are designed and cased properly (remember, natural hydraulic fracturing has been occurring underground for about 4.56 billion years and will continue to do so as long as there's water under the ground).
-
Would there be a ukb political party that I could vote for please?
-
Lets face it we couldn't do much worse.
As said before dense for PM.
-
Suggest you watch the film 'Gasland' for a slightly biased view of how f'ed up the US got its approach to Fracking - there's no doubt it's caused some issues there but that's mostly due to poor control of drilling fluids rather than the Fracking process itself.
As for supposed issues with micro-tremors the media like to hype on about every once in a while, it's basically not an issue and bigger ground vibrations are induced by human activity all over the place on a daily basis.
With the correct controls in place I have no gripes with it as a potential energy source as, lets face it, it'll be a long haul before any of the 'alternatives' form a viable mainstream source of power supply.
-
With the correct controls in place I have no gripes with it as a potential energy source as, lets face it, it'll be a long haul before any of the 'alternatives' form a viable mainstream source of power supply.
Sadly - in the UK RE and in particular wind could have (by now) taken up a load of the slack fracking will probably fill... If we'd given the RE better tax breaks as well maintaining higher feed in taffifs for things like domestic PV we might not need it... There have been several days this summer when greater than 50% of German electricity production has come from domestic PV.. It can be done..
Working in Hull, its heartbreaking watching a fledgling RE industry stall because major European companies (in Hulls case Siemens) are holding back on investing - because of doubts on the coalitions commitment to RE and the EU....
Both RE and Fracking are in many ways sticking plasters to get over a short term gap in energy before more nuclear plants can be constructed - but I know which plaster I prefer...
-
(sorry if the above is a bit ranty... typing in haste..)
-
Sadly - in the UK RE and in particular wind could have (by now) taken up a load of the slack fracking will probably fill... If we'd given the RE better tax breaks as well maintaining higher feed in taffifs for things like domestic PV we might not need it... There have been several days this summer when greater than 50% of German electricity production has come from domestic PV.. It can be done..
Working in Hull, its heartbreaking watching a fledgling RE industry stall because major European companies (in Hulls case Siemens) are holding back on investing - because of doubts on the coalitions commitment to RE and the EU....
What he said.
-
, lets face it, it'll be a long haul before any of the 'alternatives' form a viable mainstream source of power supply.
If you're correct, and I very much fear you are as long as politicians continue to do their best to make sure of it, then we're all in very deep dog doo-doo indeed.
-
I'm absoluately amazed that climate change has been so effectively wiped off the agenda. Such amazing short termism.
I knew that the recession was clearly going to hit renewables a bit, but I hadn't expected the wholesale "fuck the environment, we need to make LOTS OF DIRTY MONEY" attitude. I suppose most of the current raft of polticians puppets of the rich will be long gone by the time it really hits so they don't give a fuck.
I guess the fact that we will ALL have to take a bit of a hit to our living standards to prevent catastrophic climate change is just too big a pill to swallow...
-
Switch to Ecotricity. Same price as big 6 suppliers plus about 20 quid a year, but all electricity sourced from renewables.
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/ (http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/)
Nice people too. Happy to discuss all issues with you, and not afraid to take a principled stand on non energy issues.
-
A clear conscience for 20 quid. Bargain. :tease:
-
A clear conscience for 20 quid. Bargain. :tease:
makes great sense with yer clean conscience. Electricity all from wind, solar and tide. Gas from food waste and algae.
No fracking, no nuclear. What more can you get for your 20 notes to make the world more sustainable?
-
Ecotricity can't actually control where the energy that comes out of your plug socket comes from, or the gas in your boiler? I thought the idea was that they just invested your extra £20 in these technologies.
Be happy to be proved wrong.
-
Ecotricity can't actually control where the energy that comes out of your plug socket comes from, or the gas in your boiler? I thought the idea was that they just invested your extra £20 in these technologies.
Be happy to be proved wrong.
that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables. You can have the standard tariff without the extra which does as you say. It's all in their details.
Happy to prove you wrong
-
I'm increasingly coming to the view that carbon taxes and trading on these taxes/levys is the best way to deal with controlling CO2 production... Would require global co-operation etc.. So probably never happen but...
-
Outlawed, it's a nice idea, but that electricity was being made by RE anyway.. Though if enough people went that way they would raise the demand for RE sufficiently to increase output in theory.
We need Falling Down to comment on this. Iirc he has things to do with the energy industry and might be in a far better place to comment...
-
However you cut it tomtom, id rather support a RE company than the nuclear or fossil fuel industry.
Even the government chief science bod said on radio technically the UKs energy needs could be met through RE alone.
I put my money where my mouth is and back RE.
-
that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables.
Link please? This sounds interesting, but at the end of the day it's the government that will decide the country's energy policy.
Also if you have a link from a reputable source showing the RE could provide our energy needs without something like nuclear providing a base load, that would also be interesting. There's a big difference between being potentially able to produce the terrawatts, and not having black outs after a still grey week!
-
I'm only just catching up on a read of this and I'm woefully uninformed so can't express an opinion other than 'sounds bad but we need energy' TBH.
However, there's been a thread over on ukcaving for a while, and again, not read it, but the gist seems to be an exploration license on or near the Mendips, which is a national park (and again, no idea where the NP boundary is or where the license extends).
http://www.frackfreesomerset.org/ (http://www.frackfreesomerset.org/)
and the thread on ukcaving http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=15228.0 (http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=15228.0)
-
UG there's a map in the BBC article at the top which shows where licenses for exploration have been granted
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64735000/gif/_64735576_shale_deposits_v3_464.gif (http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64735000/gif/_64735576_shale_deposits_v3_464.gif)
There's a lot of stuff on the BGS website too, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas/#ad-image-0 (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/shalegas/#ad-image-0)
-
Also if you have a link from a reputable source showing the RE could provide our energy needs without something like nuclear providing a base load, that would also be interesting. There's a big difference between being potentially able to produce the terrawatts, and not having black outs after a still grey week!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec)
Hardly a reputable link but the energy is certainly there in bucketloads & the technology is hardly challenging. In concept it's just a bunch of steam engines. Requires international co-operaton to build the infra-structure though.
-
that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables.
Link please? This sounds interesting, but at the end of the day it's the government that will decide the country's energy policy.
Its all explained on the ecotricity website that was originally linked to by outlawed.
-
Slackers I had a look at the website and could find anything solid there, you of all people know the value of a direct link, otherwise one could just offer google.com as a link to anything.
Requires international co-operaton to build the infra-structure though.
Cool, we'll probably have nuclear fusion first then!
-
Cool, we'll probably have nuclear fusion first then!
Looks like it. Having said that it's only true for Europe. The US & China have their own deserts they could use.
-
Carbon tax/carbon market - the way forward....
I sat next to a "Carbon broker" on Singapore > London a couple of years ago and he very well explained how a carbon market was starting to work.. for example, he was working with a bus company in India - that was replacing its fleet. This would cost c.$40m to do with regular diesel buses. Hydrids would cost $50m - but he could find someone wanting to offset their carbon emissions to pay the bus company $12 for the saved CO2 by moving from the diesels to the hydbrids - making it $2m cheaper for the bus company etc..
Along similar lines - my car as CO2 of 107g/km. If we price carbon at c.£10 tonne - then I could be 'paid' £500 a year for the carbon 'saving' over a regular car with say 160g/km (for my mileage etc..). This then starts to make peoples choices to a lower carbon product/usage whatever far more attractive.. If you place a value on carbon - then it shifts the economics significantly..
I'm sure there are many holes in my arguments - but bear with the concept - and until we (as consumers - as a world) are made to pay for carbon emissions they are not going to change... We can campaign and shout about it as much as we like, but sadly things will only change when the economics say so... $$$$ kerching.
-
that's where the extra optional cost comes in. It guarantees that the energy you use will be put into the national grid from renewables.
Link please? This sounds interesting, but at the end of the day it's the government that will decide the country's energy policy.
Also if you have a link from a reputable source showing the RE could provide our energy needs without something like nuclear providing a base load, that would also be interesting. There's a big difference between being potentially able to produce the terrawatts, and not having black outs after a still grey week!
first point. Ecotricity website explains plainly how they work.
Can't give a link for second point. Was an interview on radio 5 a while ago. When interviewer asked could UK meet all its energy needs from RE, the answer was technically yes. Which i took to mean, its the political will that is lacking.
Grey dull windless days negated by huge tidal potential round entire coast.
I was just pointing out there is a RE supplier that are cheap, committed to the cause and easily available for everyone. I agree with ecotricity, the more people sign up, the more political pressure it puts on govt to invest in RE.
Also feeds into fracking debate. Gas from food waste and algae.
If we all dump the big 6 suppliers, just maybe we can tell the govt to frack off.
-
Can't give a link for second point.
This is worth a read. Some points have been negated by new technology. For instance it makes the point that
south facing roofs would be better used for solar water heating than PV whereas the two can now be combined) & I'm in no position to check the numbers but basically it's technically possible to get our current levels of energy from RE within the UK borders.
However it would involve losing (or at least modifying) a lot of agricultural land which is another crisis on the way.
Ergo the plan to put the solar plants in places where some extra shade would actually help agriculture.
-
I was just pointing out there is a RE supplier that are cheap, committed to the cause and easily available for everyone. I agree with ecotricity, the more people sign up, the more political pressure it puts on govt to invest in RE.
The Co-op get my money for electricity and gas, their website is less green and has less cartoons of smiling faces on but they seem to offer an similar service for electricity, but not the green gas thing, which is the most interesting part http://www.cooperativeenergy.coop/good-with-energy/our-energy-source/ (http://www.cooperativeenergy.coop/good-with-energy/our-energy-source/)
Also reminded me of article about Norway importing waste to burn for energy http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/norway-waste-energy (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/norway-waste-energy) maybe we could do this too if we could find somewhere to build incinerators (the desolate north)?
-
The tricky think with the UK domestic energy demands is that in winter we predominantly use gas for heating..
This is not something that can be readily replaced by electricity - well technically its easy but not many people will want to fork out the £££ to get rid of their boilers/radiators and replace them with alternatives..
Tidal can provide 24/7 regular power by using stations / facilities at different locations around the coast - but from what I've read only a percentage of our energy needs can be realistically met by this... (ie the potential is there but many of the sites are too costly to exploit)
-
maybe we could do this too if we could find somewhere to build incinerators (the desolate north)?
Already one near Sheffield City Centre (its about 10 minutes walk from my house).
They need to be clean as otherwise health risks for various different things increase for those in the vicinity.
-
True (to me) it makes sense to use gas where gas is the most suitable option - cooking, hot water and heating (when undertaken in the most efficient way; (an efficient boiler, a well insulated house, and the thermostat turn down to as low as necessary) but it doesn't make sense (to me anyway) to burn it to produce electricity. For all our other needs; lighting, appliances etc etc surely RE produced electricity is best environmental option.
-
When I was cycle touring in the Hebrides (regardez moi) I met a guy who worked for a company that invested in renewables, he said there were a lot of promising prototypes for tidal technologies but no-one had really cracked it yet.
TomTom you're right about gas, that's why this green gas idea is so interesting, need to do some reading on a website with less cartoons...
Slackers is that the Veolia incinerator? do you ever get odours from it, or is the stack high enough to disperse any potential smells? There seems to be the tech in place now to scrub the outputs to stop local pollution.
-
Slackers is that the Veolia incinerator? do you ever get odours from it, or is the stack high enough to disperse any potential smells? There seems to be the tech in place now to scrub the outputs to stop local pollution.
1) Yes
2) Not that I notice
3) No idea
-
he said there were a lot of promising prototypes for tidal technologies but no-one had really cracked it yet.
Well except for barrages which are well proven technology. A Severn barrage could generate a significant percentage of Uk needs, but at an environmental cost in terms of habitat loss; an estuary with the second biggest tidal range in the world is remarkable for many reasons. Its a shame Dr Peter Robins of LPT fame doesn't come on here for anything other than flogging houses, as he knows all about this stuff.
-
People at work have several contracts with tidal RE companies for their R&D... I've seen a few designs and sadly so far none have really proved their worth to my knowledge.. two real types of tidal power
1. Barrage type - retain water and release etc..
2. Tidal flow devices - things that you moor on the bed and they have impellers (or such devices) that turn as the tide ebbs and flows..
#1 works but as JB pointed out tends to have loads of environmental concerns etc...
#2 Works, but lots of issues to get around. such as bloody harsh environment, sometimes a need to move up and down with the tide to keep in the fastest flowing area, need to work over a range of velocities (during the tidal cycle), need to work in both directions (tide in, tide out etc..). Like wind energy there is also an economy of scale (larger leads to greater efficiency) but of course you only have so much depth of tidal flow...
Still its an interesting field and its encouraging to see a range of what start as 'shed' projects getting R&D funding up to prototype testing. Some nice examples of british inventors trying things out (and sadly so far not getting the magic combo..)...
-
I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead. Compare their minimal habitat loss to Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima, Windscale Irish Sea pollution etc.
Because of Hinckley Point and Oldbury nuclear power stations academic papers advise against eating resident fish such as flounder, because of toxic levels of mercury and cadmium in Bristol channel.
A wind/tidal power malfunction is a minor accident, a nuclear malfunction is a major environmental catastrophe.
RSPB partner with ecotricity. For every bird lost to wind turbines 5 are lost to nuclear
RE No toxic waste, and you can't make nuclear bombs from it.
-
I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead.
I think you're right. The Severn should take one for the team ;) (please do not ever quote me on that in a professional capacity!) but it'll never happen....
-
I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead.
I think you're right. The Severn should take one for the team ;) (please do not ever quote me on that in a professional capacity!) but it'll never happen....
you're right, it wont happen. Bristol was surveyed, people voted massively for tidal and wind power. Ignored. Getting expansion of Hinckley Point courtesy of EDF and huge taxpayer subsidy. It's all lies. One reason they wont drop Nuclear is because of weapons. The US tell UK they have to keep producing and UK bows down
-
Why are barrages necessary for tidal power? I don't get why it's not possible to build just a few underwater turbines with foundations on a few piles in the sea bed without the need to totally enclose a body of water. Surely any moving water will generate more power than moving air?
-
http://www.seageneration.co.uk (http://www.seageneration.co.uk)
-
I don't get why it's not possible to build just a few underwater turbines with foundations on a few piles in the sea bed without the need to totally enclose a body of water. Surely any moving water will generate more power than moving air?
I have had similar thoughts for years but it seems the technology is not there yet. I have reservations about big barrages due to habitat loss.
Personally I am strongly in favour of nuclear to fill the gap between weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and getting tidal/ solar/ fusion/ etc up to the required scale.
I am not convinced that the local environmental 'catastrophes' we have seen, even Chernobyl & Fukushima (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima), have had a worse effect on local biodiversity than, say, the average farm. A modern generation of nuclear power stations would carry less risk and produce less waste than the crumbling 60s relics that are typically held up to scare us. Nuclear is like flying - on paper it's the safest, but for some reason folk still find it terrifying. Being advised to not eat the fish is not the same as them growing a second head.
-
Yeah, that type of thing. Away from any good surf spots obviously! :) (NIMBY me).
(This was ref to the seageneration thing)
-
Why are barrages necessary for tidal power? I don't get why it's not possible to build just a few underwater turbines with foundations on a few piles in the sea bed without the need to totally enclose a body of water. Surely any moving water will generate more power than moving air?
Ahem... as I said earlier....
Lots of issues to get around. such as bloody harsh environment, sometimes a need to move up and down with the tide to keep in the fastest flowing area, need to work over a range of velocities (during the tidal cycle), need to work in both directions (tide in, tide out etc..). Like wind energy there is also an economy of scale (larger leads to greater efficiency) but of course you only have so much depth of tidal flow...
And to add to that.. in many estuarine and marine environments (e.g. Severn, Humber - and places like Menai straights) the bed is mobile - ie its silt and sand, so moves about throughout the year as well as over longer time scales. This means that your impeller/turbine can be swamped by a sand bar (for example) or the fastest area of flow could move to the other side of the estuary - where your turbine is not...
-
How's that turbine in the mouth of Strangford Lough doing?
-
Lots of issues to get around. such as bloody harsh environment, sometimes a need to move up and down with the tide to keep in the fastest flowing area, need to work over a range of velocities (during the tidal cycle), need to work in both directions (tide in, tide out etc..). Like wind energy there is also an economy of scale (larger leads to greater efficiency) but of course you only have so much depth of tidal flow...
And to add to that.. in many estuarine and marine environments (e.g. Severn, Humber - and places like Menai straights) the bed is mobile - ie its silt and sand, so moves about throughout the year as well as over longer time scales. This means that your impeller/turbine can be swamped by a sand bar (for example) or the fastest area of flow could move to the other side of the estuary - where your turbine is not...
Yup, all of which would be issues if it was a barrage (except maybe last). And all of which are issues which are dealt with by offshore O&G industry and other industries (like harbours) on a daily basis.
I'm sure there are problems, I'm just saying that surely tidal doesn't have to equate to barrage ?
-
Personally I am strongly in favour of nuclear to fill the gap between weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and getting tidal/ solar/ fusion/ etc up to the required scale.
Bear in mind that a promising wave power program was cancelled in the 70s because the govt of the day 'lied' (they claim a convenient mistake) about the cost of nuclear . What's stopping development of RE is lack of govt funding & the only way nuclear is going to get built is by throwing huge amounts of govt money at it.
We need to solve this (in reality ten years ago) & nuclear has always proved expensive & slow to construct.
-
Barrage is actually much simpler. Just thick sea wall enclosing a body of water. You then make a couple of holes in the wall and whack your turbines etc.. in there.. Folk have been doing the like for 100's of years. Sure, its loads more concrete, but much simpler and you don't have to worry about many of the challenges I outlined earlier..
The forces are also pretty high, with tidal flows going up to 3-4 m/s which means you have to have pretty strong anchors/foundations/piling etc.. The problem as I see it is that to generate enough electricity you would need (say across a tidal bay/estuary) 10-20 spread out across it instead of one big one... this makes your infrastructure, cabling, piling blah blah blah that much more expensive..
The tidal 'potential' in the UK is huge - but what is economically usable (once you factor in the engineering) is less huge...
Sorry if I'm sounding a bit down on it - like I said at work we've seen quite a few come and go - and go bust... There are also the tidal power devices that need electricity to generate electricity :) thats another chestnut...
-
the only way nuclear is going to get built is by throwing huge amounts of govt money at it.
We need to solve this (in reality ten years ago) & nuclear has always proved expensive & slow to construct.
I'm quite happy for the government to throw loads of money at it - I can think of no better cause. Renewables are hugely important but the country as a whole, and industry in particular, will still need a solid bed of carbon neutral generation capacity that is not weather/ season dependent. Nuclear may be slow but it remains the only available option to replace the current bed of coal-burning power stations.
I agree this debate should have been finished ten years ago. I am still in shock at Germany's decision to abandon nuclear. However well their renewables are doing their total power output has gone down, but CO2 production has gone up. All because of scare mongering after Fukushima at which, let's not forget, NO ONE DIED as a result of radiation. (And was caused by a freak natural event. Tsunamis are not a realistic risk to Germany).
-
If the cost is comparable & (remember that we have no reliable figures for the cost of nuclear from start to finish as it's never been done) then I'd rather see the money go to a Desertec style project I mentioned earlier.
Once done the problem is solved permanently & we gain food production capacity rather than losing it.
-
A reall good balanced blog post on the global impact of fracking (well worth a read). Interesting how the economics of the different fossil fuels lead to shifting (though not necessarily better) CO2 emissions:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/is-shale-gas-good-or-bad-for-climate-change (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/is-shale-gas-good-or-bad-for-climate-change)
-
If the cost is comparable & (remember that we have no reliable figures for the cost of nuclear from start to finish as it's never been done) then I'd rather see the money go to a Desertec style project I mentioned earlier.
Once done the problem is solved permanently & we gain food production capacity rather than losing it.
Desertec is a lovely idea but exactly the reason why we need new nuclear asap, to replace the fossil fuel base and bridge the gap to such technologies. PV in the desert might be current tech but storing and moving the power long distance is not, nor have we seen too many models of such international cooperation. I doubt the cost would be 'comparable' either.
-
The government needs to stop looking for private companies to invest and just suck up some more imaginary debt and get some nuclear power plants on line!
-
Desertec is a lovely idea but exactly the reason why we need new nuclear asap, to replace the fossil fuel base and bridge the gap to such technologies. PV in the desert might be current tech but storing and moving the power long distance is not, nor have we seen too many models of such international cooperation. I doubt the cost would be 'comparable' either.
Doesn't have to be moved too far;
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/international-news/121654-dubai-tops-list-as-worlds-top-co2-polluter-from-energy-use.html (http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/international-news/121654-dubai-tops-list-as-worlds-top-co2-polluter-from-energy-use.html)
-
The government needs to stop looking for private companies to invest and just suck up some more imaginary debt and get some nuclear power plants on line!
Yup. Its a bit more pressing than HS2 IMHO...
-
the only way nuclear is going to get built is by throwing huge amounts of govt money at it.
We need to solve this (in reality ten years ago) & nuclear has always proved expensive & slow to construct.
I'm quite happy for the government to throw loads of money at it - I can think of no better cause. Renewables are hugely important but the country as a whole, and industry in particular, will still need a solid bed of carbon neutral generation capacity that is not weather/ season dependent. Nuclear may be slow but it remains the only available option to replace the current bed of coal-burning power stations.
I agree this debate should have been finished ten years ago. I am still in shock at Germany's decision to abandon nuclear. However well their renewables are doing their total power output has gone down, but CO2 production has gone up. All because of scare mongering after Fukushima at which, let's not forget, NO ONE DIED as a result of radiation. (And was caused by a freak natural event. Tsunamis are not a realistic risk to Germany).
Tsunamis are a UK risk, archaeological record for bristol channel and Norfolk prove that. When Scotland goes independent and no longer uses Douneray as a nuclear waste timebomb, where will England hide it's nuclear waste? London, Sheffield? We could always sell the toxic crap to third world countries and pretend it doesn't exist.
Nuclear energy has no place in a sane world. Embrace renewables or face extinction
-
Tsunamis are a UK risk, archaeological record for bristol channel and Norfolk prove that.
True; whilst not impossible, they are very highly improbable, and a minimal risk compared to that on the Pacific rim. Just build one at a sheltered spot like Ellesmere Port or Grangemouth it can only improve the look of these places.
-
Tsunamis are a UK risk, archaeological record for bristol channel and Norfolk prove that.
True; whilst not impossible, they are very highly improbable, and a minimal risk compared to that on the Pacific rim. Just build one at a sheltered spot like Ellesmere Port or Grangemouth it can only improve the look of these places.
they do happen. That's a fact. The precautionary principle should govern judgement. UK has freak tsunamis every now and then due to plate tectonics.
So you're happy to have a nuclear plant in your garden and bury the waste under your house? If not dont wish it on anyone else.
No radiation deaths due to Fukushima? You gotta be kidding? http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1790423 (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1790423)
-
Some interesting comments on this thread. As usual with UKB there are a load of "good" evidence based points where people have researched a bit around the topic. However statements such as the following are misleading and do not give a correct picture of the environmental impact of different energy options.
I think severn barage and other tidal 'mills' should go ahead. Compare their minimal habitat loss to Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima, Windscale Irish Sea pollution etc.
Because of Hinckley Point and Oldbury nuclear power stations academic papers advise against eating resident fish such as flounder, because of toxic levels of mercury and cadmium in Bristol channel.
Are you really saying that Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima and Windscale Irish Sea pollution have caused more habitat loss than a potential Severn Barrage? If you truly mean this (and I have understood you correctly) then you are clearly mis-informed. What habitat loss has been caused by the afore-mentioned nuclear accidents??? Yes, they resulted in the release of radioactive contamination into the environment. However this has NOT resulted in any substantial long term habitat loss.
The largest "habitat loss" in any of these cases is probably at Chernobyl, where the enforcement of the 30 km exclusion zone has removed people from this area. Only a very small number of species that commonly co-exist with humans have been effected, e.g. there has been a reduction in the abundance of barn swallows. The vast majority of species have benefited from the abandonment of contaminated land. If you have access to an academic library see the following as a starting point: Pikulik, M. M. & Plenin, A. E. 1994 Dynamics of the biological diversity of fauna of Belarus after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Radiation Biol. Ecol. Special Issue, 33–34
Anyway I digress. It is good to see a debate surrounding the wider energy mix, than just "no fracking". At the end of the day we need to get our energy from somewhere. The difficulty is deciding which environmental impact is the most acceptable: habitat loss from tidal barrages, potential environmental contamination and long term waste storage issues with nuclear power or carbon releases from fossil fuels.
These impacts needs to be weighed up against one another. There is no such thing as energy without an environmental impact. It just depends what you think the most acceptable impact is...
-
Desertec is a lovely idea but exactly the reason why we need new nuclear asap, to replace the fossil fuel base and bridge the gap to such technologies. PV in the desert might be current tech but storing and moving the power long distance is not, nor have we seen too many models of such international cooperation. I doubt the cost would be 'comparable' either.
It's thermal not PV so really old tech (in concept) & no need for storage. The infrastructure for moving it is , as you say, the expensive bit but I can see no reason it can't be as accurately costed as any big infrastructure project ( I doubt that can be said of nuclear)
-
Tsunamis are a UK risk, archaeological record for bristol channel and Norfolk prove that.
True; whilst not impossible, they are very highly improbable, and a minimal risk compared to that on the Pacific rim. Just build one at a sheltered spot like Ellesmere Port or Grangemouth it can only improve the look of these places.
they do happen. That's a fact. The precautionary principle should govern judgement. UK has freak tsunamis every now and then due to plate tectonics.
So you're happy to have a nuclear plant in your garden and bury the waste under your house? If not dont wish it on anyone else.
I thought the recorded ones were believed to be due to massive landslides on the Canaries (somewhere) and Norway? Given that arecheological records and supposition are the only knowledge about them, shows the remoteness of the risk.
And just because I'm saying your concerns regarding tsunamis are poorly grounded doesn't mean all of a sudden I want waste buried under my house, or indeed anyone's. Stop making suppositions.
-
Outlawed - I like your passion for the debate..
But Tsunami risk in the UK is tiny - and those that historically have struck were small (1-2m) - their impact was probably much greater as there were effectively no coastal flood defences in that time.. Most of the East coast is protected against surge tide heights, so it would be unlucky for the very rare tsunami to hit at the same time as a king tide... (I'm not sure how you'd get one from the east coast..). 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)..
I used to set my first year tutees (I'm an academic if you hadn't guessed) a 'get them warmed up' type essay on 'compare the impact of nuclear vs coal power on humans'. If you do a straight body count - then surprisingly (to them usually) you find that a few dozen people have died immediately after nuclear incidents (direct result) and c.5-50 000 total (make up your own numbers really in this range - that seems to be what the journal articles do) from shortened life expectancy from the accidents (mainly Chernobyll). When you look at coal - there are hundreds to low thousands of people every year who die in the extraction process (mining incidents etc..) - and several thousand to 10 thousand (per year) who have die prematurely due to the pollution of burning the stuff..
Its easily if not more 10:1 Coal to Nuclear in the body count... thats before you start factoring in any global warming effects which will start to come in at some point..
I appreciate the jist of this thread debate is more towards RE vs Fracking/Fossil fuels - but I think we need to consider that Nuclear power is possibly the lesser of several evils.
Put it another way - I've done some work at this place: ranger uranium mine in Australia. Its not an especially big pit (its tiny in the open cast mining scheme of things) but at one point in the early 90's, uranium from this mine was generating 10% of the WORLDS electricity... thats just one small (comparatively) sized hole compared to the huge tracts of the earth being removed for coal open cast mines...
(see edits on tsunamis made a couple of in after the OP)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg/800px-Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Uranium_Mine)
-
Tsunamis are a UK risk, archaeological record for bristol channel and Norfolk prove that.
True; whilst not impossible, they are very highly improbable, and a minimal risk compared to that on the Pacific rim. Just build one at a sheltered spot like Ellesmere Port or Grangemouth it can only improve the look of these places.
they do happen. That's a fact. The precautionary principle should govern judgement. UK has freak tsunamis every now and then due to plate tectonics.
So you're happy to have a nuclear plant in your garden and bury the waste under your house? If not dont wish it on anyone else.
I thought the recorded ones were believed to be due to massive landslides on the Canaries (somewhere) and Norway? Given that arecheological records and supposition are the only knowledge about them, shows the remoteness of the risk.
And just because I'm saying your concerns regarding tsunamis are poorly grounded doesn't mean all of a sudden I want waste buried under my house, or indeed anyone's. Stop making suppositions.
first paragraph. There's no proven known reason for these occasional tsunamis, except that we know they do happen.
Second paragraph. You're right. My bad for being a tad spikey. Accept my apologies
-
Outlawed - I like your passion for the debate..
But Tsunami risk in the UK is tiny - and those that historically have struck were small (1-2m) - their impact was probably much greater as there were effectively no coastal flood defences in that time.. Most of the East coast is protected against surge tide heights, so it would be unlucky for the very rare tsunami to hit at the same time as a king tide... (I'm not sure how you'd get one from the east coast..). 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)..
I used to set my first year tutees (I'm an academic if you hadn't guessed) a 'get them warmed up' type essay on 'compare the impact of nuclear vs coal power on humans'. If you do a straight body count - then surprisingly (to them usually) you find that a few dozen people have died immediately after nuclear incidents (direct result) and c.5-50 000 total (make up your own numbers really in this range - that seems to be what the journal articles do) from shortened life expectancy from the accidents (mainly Chernobyll). When you look at coal - there are hundreds to low thousands of people every year who die in the extraction process (mining incidents etc..) - and several thousand to 10 thousand (per year) who have die prematurely due to the pollution of burning the stuff..
Its easily if not more 10:1 Coal to Nuclear in the body count... thats before you start factoring in any global warming effects which will start to come in at some point..
I appreciate the jist of this thread debate is more towards RE vs Fracking/Fossil fuels - but I think we need to consider that Nuclear power is possibly the lesser of several evils.
Put it another way - I've done some work at this place: ranger uranium mine in Australia. Its not an especially big pit (its tiny in the open cast mining scheme of things) but at one point in the early 90's, uranium from this mine was generating 10% of the WORLDS electricity... thats just one small (comparatively) sized hole compared to the huge tracts of the earth being removed for coal open cast mines...
(see edits on tsunamis made a couple of in after the OP)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg/800px-Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Uranium_Mine)
but if UK can be RE energy self sufficient, we should challenge nuclear and fossil fuel lobbies. Not just sit back and take their crap? We've sat back long enough, and paid for the privilege of not questioning their hegemony.
-
they do happen. That's a fact. The precautionary principle should govern judgement.
If the precautionary principle was used to that level we wouldn't be able to do anything! What if there were a big earthquake in London? It would fall down! By showing you fear a UK Tsunami shows you have no ability to assess risk, and thereby rather undermines your assessment of the risk posed by nuclear.
So you're happy to have a nuclear plant in your garden and bury the waste under your house? If not dont wish it on anyone else.
Well for one, no one is suggesting putting a plant in my garden. If they were to bury it with the kind of schemes mooted, in suitable geology I wouldn't give a toss, no. Far too much emotion and not enough judgement in this debate. Which coming from climbers, whose hobby involves assessing risk, is disappointing.
Secondly though, and far more importantly, if we were to build an IFR, the current waste would be the fuel, and it would be recycled until none were left (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/02/nuclear-reactors-consume-radioactive-waste).
No radiation deaths due to Fukushima? You gotta be kidding? http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1790423 (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1790423)
As Tomtom said 'make up your own figures'. The official figure is zero - unlike the figure for coal. Renewables are the long term ideal, but Nuclear is the only hope we have to wean ourselves off fossils fast enough to avoid serious climate change. Renewables alone are not a solution.
-
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.
-
but if UK can be RE energy self sufficient, we should challenge nuclear and fossil fuel lobbies. Not just sit back and take their crap? We've sat back long enough, and paid for the privilege of not questioning their hegemony.
You are 100% on the money. And maybe in the future we may be renewable energy self sufficient, but I think for now it's a case of either fossil or nuclear. Neither is sadly not an option.
Can't deny everyone has to do as much as they feel they can to reduce consumption in the first place though.
-
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
-
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".
-
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.
-
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).
-
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...
-
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.
:offtopic:
-
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.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg/800px-Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Uranium_Mine)
Hmm, just spotted the crag in the background - any good?
-
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..
-
UK has freak tsunamis every now and then due to plate tectonics.
:lol:
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide)
-
I did say Norway in my answer, I should at least get half a mark.
-
Yes indeed, but you didn't show your working I'm afraid.
-
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).
-
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy (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....
-
Not as much as it would states like Bangladesh where 70% of the country is on a delta... Sadly.
-
I'm guessing they have a pretty high population density aswell :ohmy:
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?
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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, 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 (http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/a_look_at_centrica_s_ensign_project_off_the_coast_of_norfolk_and_suffolk_1_1431622)
-
You can't throw a buzzard around here without it getting chopped by a turbine,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland (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.
-
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 (http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/birdwatchers-see-rare-bird-killed-by-wind-turbine-1-2980240)
-
One bird? Is that all it killed? What about all the hundreds of species being pushed to extinction by global warming?
-
Ha, I hope you don't that was an attack at wind power? Was just a response to Chris's buzzard comment. I think we need to do everything we can...
-
No, it was an attack on Daily Mail NIMBYs, not you!
-
One bird? Is that all it killed? What about all the hundreds of species being pushed to extinction by global warming?
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/24/us-wind-turbines-kill-14-million-birds-and-bats-every-year (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/24/us-wind-turbines-kill-14-million-birds-and-bats-every-year)
slightly more than 1??
-
Wind energy plans were part of the 'stopgap' put in place by the last government before nuclear could come on line (20-30 years).
I've been in seminars in Hull - where in the North Sea offshore wind turbines should be commissioned at a rate of 1 every 5 days from 2015-2020. Its a very large number - and the turbines in question are typically twice the size of the largest on land. But whilst not stopped many of these plans have been slowed down considerably by the energy co's seeing a cooling on the idea from our present government. The Wind co's need to have a gaurunteed min price for 20 years etc.. in order to put the things in and the word from the Government has not necessarily reassured them. Along with wobbles about whether we will be part of the EU in 3 or 4 years time.
sorry about the spellign in a hurry
-
Balcome is conveniently near Brighton and London. Would the demo regulars be on duty ay Rawtenstall or Heptonstall in January?
-
It's also conveniently not a shale gas well, other than it being operated by the same company I don't get why they're protesting it so much.
-
The tidal 'potential' in the UK is huge - but what is economically usable (once you factor in the engineering) is less huge...
Catching up with this interesting debate had me reaching for the only resource I use on this stuff: sustainability without the hot air (http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html). This awesome book is free to download.
Nice section on tidal - MacKay points out that the entire North Sea is in fact a tidal pool and tidal stream farms could in principle be constructed - though no one yet did this so it is a long way off.
He reckons maximum conceivable (cost no object) tidal energy production for the UK is 11kWh per person per day (having converted total production into this unit for ease of comparison). Other studies suggest more like 4kWh pppd. For comparison average energy consumption is about 125kWh pppd (in the UK). So tidal could contribute and is reliable but is only part of the solution - and only then if someone figures out how the hell to harness it.
As has been touched on, a big issue with a lot of renewables is that they are not reliable and we dont have much storage capacpity. I think most reasonable options for hydro pumping storage (e.g. Dinorwig) have already been developed in the UK. The problem renewables typically fail to deal with are how to (a) guarantee accommodating peak demand and (b) ensure frequency regulation (as demand fluctuates on a second by second basis you need to keep frequency matching). We need quick-response generation facilities for this - i.e. not wind or solar.
There is also the problem of slow start up and shut down speeds of many power generators. At night (under low demand/base load) even when the wind blows and the operator "flips the switch" to use wind farm generation, they cannot simply shut down a coal power station for 2 hours - they simply let it "piss into the wind" and nevertheless happily can claim another 0.2% (or whatever) of UK electricity came from RE - despite the coal still burning! These sort of generation facilities are also often kept running as "hot reserve" ready to be used when demand bumps up.
One final thought (a depressing one - apologies). My synopsis of a talk I recently heard given by an economist is that *all* the fossil fuels we can manage to extract will be used up - it is only a question of over what period of time. This is because the extraction cost is so much lower than the market price for oil, gas, coal etc. So economics says "we will use it ALL". Unfortunately it seems that we/someone will.
It reminded me why I've never been a fan of economics...
-
Like reading the Daily Mail, you get to feel righteous indignation which releases adrenaline.
-
For those wanting to read up on the SCIENCE behind fracking and its possible impacts - some useful resources here:
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/shalegas (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/shalegas)
and references
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/Policy%20Meetings/Suggested%20Further%20Reading%20-%20Final.ashx (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/Policy%20Meetings/Suggested%20Further%20Reading%20-%20Final.ashx)
-
. So economics says "we will use it ALL". Unfortunately it seems that we/someone will.
It reminded me why I've never been a fan of economics...
Whether that's true or not we can be sure that it won't be homo sapiens doing it.
There seems to be more than enough oil for climate change to drive us extinct without even touching shale gas & coal.
-
http://blog.abundancegeneration.com/2013/08/are-utilities-going-the-way-of-kodak/ (http://blog.abundancegeneration.com/2013/08/are-utilities-going-the-way-of-kodak/)
Interesting. Although probably slightly biased considering the source.
-
Scotland approves huge tidal power project (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24100811)
-
So Fracking
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/09/15/is-there-a-media-blackout-on-the-fracking-flood-disaster-in-colorado/ (http://www.texassharon.com/2013/09/15/is-there-a-media-blackout-on-the-fracking-flood-disaster-in-colorado/)
-
Could we restrict links posted to sensible websites? So a fracking site is underwater and some things are leaking; can you imagine what else has been underwater in CO during the floods?! Power stations, petrol stations, refineries, etc. etc.
-
The website is a bit nuts, but the overall message is important -
Fracking in a flood risk area is clearly not a good idea... I suspect this would not be allowed to occur in the UK as part of the IA for any site.. Its also worth noting that the sites in the UK are heavily bunded - so they obviously have to oblige by the same regulations for storing chemicals on site as anywhere else...
USA - different regulation system - which can (I think) vary from state to state....
-
I heart UKB...
-
Its also worth noting that the sites in the UK are heavily bunded - so they obviously have to oblige by the same regulations for storing chemicals on site as anywhere else...
Would have needed to be a bloody great bund to keep all that Colorado floodwater out! Not sure that's what bunds are designed for.
-
Its also worth noting that the sites in the UK are heavily bunded - so they obviously have to oblige by the same regulations for storing chemicals on site as anywhere else...
Would have needed to be a bloody great bund to keep all that Colorado floodwater out! Not sure that's what bunds are designed for.
Bunds are generally designed to keep stuff in. So if you have an oil spill - it can't leak down or sideways.. But (to a degree) would do things the other way around. No way you'd be allowed to keep open stores of oil/chemicals/contamianted water in a flood risk area.
One of the main findings from the 08 Pitt report following the 2007 floods was a need to assess critical infrastructure situated in flood risk areas (power stations, water treatment works, bouldering walls etc..) in order to protect them from future events etc..
-
Scotland approves huge tidal power project (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24100811)
This is fantastic. I've been wondering where stuff like this has been for years, be keen to learn more about the technology if anyone's seen anything.
-
Scotland approves huge tidal power project (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24100811)
I concur. 40% of highland homes from one source? Brilliant!
-
just watched "Gasland part 2" after seeing the first documentary a couple of years ago, and a few youtube clips of affected people in the mean time.
some science in there, but mostly lots of actual cases where groundwater has been contaminated, and people are getting sick.
Worth watching.
i'm turning more and more against it, as it is coming closer to the netherlands (where i live). The government is trying to allow test-sites, but communities don't want them. What's more: some big companies that use water (breweries for instance) are dead set against it.
-
P.S. this documentary (gasland 2) also focusses on the fracking lobby, their influence and their methods :counter-insurgency taken from the military and "denail" taken from the old tabacco lobby
-
Apparently companies need permission to drill/frack underneath your property (http://wrongmove.org/).
This has the potential (depending on precise location) to undermine the mine surveys done when I bought my house a number of years ago.
-
undermine the mine surveys
Very good.
-
Apparently companies need permission to drill/frack underneath your property (http://wrongmove.org/).
But frackers can obtain that permission under compulsory purchase order. You can't stop them but you can haggle over a share of profits. Relevant case summary is here (http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0032_PressSummary.pdf). In this case the drillers didn't obtain permission and so trespass was found against them, but in the end no damages were awarded because there was no possibility of loss to the landowner (Mohamed Al Fayed) whose property was drilled under.
-
I'm sure the cunts in charge will just abolish the law anyway. :wank:
-
rewriting the european laws as we speak:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/europe/lobbying-bonanza-as-firms-try-to-influence-european-union.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/europe/lobbying-bonanza-as-firms-try-to-influence-european-union.html)
-
Cameron said English local authorities would receive all the business rates collected from shale gas schemes - rather than the usual 50%. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550)
-
The word 'bribe' has been bounded around the media. As a description of the policy its about right I recon...
None of the anti fracking groups in the UK are pedalling the Carbon heavy line... which to me is the strongest argument. Green Tory government my arse.
Maybe those local govt kickbacks will help pay for the flood defences as the sea continues to rise... (I am being sarcy..)
-
It is a bribe and one which most councils will find hard to turn down seeing as they've been shafted by the cuts. You couldn't make it up etc.
-
What would you (Slackers, Finbarr, Jasper, TomTom et al) rather see, if not shale gas? Just curious, because all I see is complaints against, without suggestions of anything better.
Nuclear. Massive solar parks. Massive tidal barrages. Massive windfarms. Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station burning train-loads of coal imported from Russia. North Sea gas and oil. Hydro. Hydro battery schemes in the Lake District and Snowdonia.
Or do you all have mini-hydro and geo-thermal schemes in your back gardens and solar PV on your rooftops and are going to hunker down through the blackout, waiting for cold fusion to arrive?
-
Pete:
Severn tidal barrage yes. Solar farms are great (not visible if sighted correctly). Solar PV on houses is a great idea (look at Germany for example) and yes more wind. Though much of this (aside from the Severn) is a stopgap for the time taken to add more Nuclear.
We've got to kick this carbon habit...
-
What would you (Slackers, Finbarr, Jasper, TomTom et al) rather see, if not shale gas? Just curious, because all I see is complaints against, without suggestions of anything better.
Nuclear. Massive solar parks. Massive tidal barrages. Massive windfarms. Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station burning train-loads of coal imported from Russia. North Sea gas and oil. Hydro. Hydro battery schemes in the Lake District and Snowdonia.
Or do you all have mini-hydro and geo-thermal schemes in your back gardens and solar PV on your rooftops and are going to hunker down through the blackout, waiting for cold fusion to arrive?
I don't have much of an opinion about fracking as I've not done enough reading to make an informed decision. I linked the above story not specifically because of fracking but the pernicious way the government have gone about gandering support for it by putting the squeeze on councils and then dangling a carrot in front of them if they go with fracking. I'd rather see such efforts used to encourage development of sustainable/renewable energy sources as fracking is just as finite as all other fossil fuel resources and adds to CO2 emissions (an obvious downside which I don't need to do much reading to work out as its self-evident).
I've thought for a long time that whilst the technology for nuclear fission, solar, wind, wave and tidal are being developed we should fall back on nuclear fusion. Its too late now, but it would have been great if more work had been done years ago on using thorium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_as_a_nuclear_fuel) rather than plutonium or uranium. Far, far superior in terms of abundance, greater energy output (in part from the breeder reactor aspect), substantially lower half-lifes so less problematic waste to deal with, although it needs a kick-start from something like Uranium and there are other drawbacks as Wikipedia explains. It was clearly ignored as it didn't have the handy artefact of producing fuel for nuclear weapons :wall:
-
I see. So wind farms are ok, despite the huge loss of efficiency of cabling ashore the electricity. And despite the fact that there is virtually no long-term evidence of how much maintenance and down-time the turbines require. It's already becoming apparent, 5-10 years down the line from the first offshore windfarms going online, that the quoted lifetime for blades and motors are way too optimistic - the rope access technicians who work for me have been repairing blades at a rate of every 2 years - not the figures given by manufacturers (7-10 years). I predict another Trawsfynydd on a large scale (nuclear cocncrete monolith in the middle of Snowdonia, useful life of 20 years, for those unaware). Offshore wind power is a massive ripoff and we're going to wake up in twenty years, look out to sea and wonder what the fuck we were thinking. IMO.
Tidal barrages are ok? But the impact on estuary wildlife is quite severe from the studies I've seen/heard about? Kill the fish and birdlife, as long as we don't emit carbon :-\ Just saying.
Nuclear is ok? - why is nuclear acceptable and fracking isn't? Because it isn't carbon-emitting? What about the inescapable fact that we have to have gas - for heating and to fuel gas-fired power stations - nothing is going to change that in the next 15-20 years so it makes a lot of sense to have our own supply of gas instead of importing it via pipelines and LNG shipments from Russia.
-
You're forgetting about the damage to the part of the planet where the coal/oil/gas came from - which (nowadays) isn't at home - so thats alright then...
Have a look at the pics of the Yorks/Notts coalfields 30-40 years ago.. or the coast up nr Sunderland when they were chucking the coal waste into the sea.. Prefer that to rows of matchsticks on the horizon of an offshore wind setup?
Been over to Easington recently - or the LPG terminal in Pembroke? Attractive non? Ah - I forget the concentric rings in my cuppa that the 6 trains that rumble 1/2 mile past my house every day (in Hull) leave on their way from the docks to Drax...
Google open cast coal mining. Or have a look at pics where the oil sands being mined in Canada at the moment.. luuurvely...
As a developed country - I think we are in a better position to make choices about where our energy comes from than many nations. And I think these choices should be less carbon intensive....
-
No I'm not - you're completely missing my point. My point is not that it's not ok to use coal or gas from Eastern Europe - I think that's retarded, so blatantly retarded. But we therefore need something other than Eastern European coal and gas. And Wind/Tidal isn't going to fill the gap, so what is going to fill the gap? Nuclear. Except that takes 15-20 years to build. So what are you going to use for the next 15-20 years? Now fracking comes along, of course it makes sense compared to the 'alternatives'.
Fracking versus coal/gas from Eastern Europe. Shit versus double shit.
Windfarms - they aren't on 'the horizon'. They're right in front of my nose everyday I look out to sea from Llandudno. The horizon is 22 miles away, the windfarms are right fucking there.. They piss me off a little bit. And they're covered in lights at night. And they're inefficient and constantly needing repair. In short they're bollocks and I'm convinced there's a French dude pissing himself laughing at our expenses for being such muppets to buy hook line and sinker the bullshit sold to us by energy companies, because we thought it would be all green and cast rainbows.
Google open cast coal mining. Or have a look at pics where the oil sands being mined in Canada at the moment.. luuurvely...
I actually worked on the oil sands in Northern Alberta for two and a half years, at 3 of the (then 6) refineries and have seen first-hand the damage, pollution and scale of the place and know how many mega tonnes of carbon Suncor and Horizon emit per year, which is why I know trying to save carbon with windmills is a drop in the ocean, literally.
-
And Wind/Tidal isn't going to fill the gap, so what is going to fill the gap? Nuclear. Except that takes 15-20 years to build. So what are you going to use for the next 15-20 years? Now fracking comes along, of course it makes sense compared to the 'alternatives'.
You're correct about the energy gap - wind cannot meet this, tidal could definitely offset some of the gas (both open stream as in the Pentland Firth 86MW tidal array and barrages - yes, it'll fuck up some habitat, but it'll be the very same habitat that gets fucked by the rising sea levels.)
So, gas is going to play a big part in the next 15 -30 years. No one in industry (green or fossil) will deny that. We have made our bed by being too slow and too weak to sort out any proper alternatives and we will have to lie in it.
Now, we have quite big offshore gas resource in the UK. There's still plenty gas out there and it's well known how to get it out and what the side effects are. Fracking just seems immensely risky when you look at the previous attempts. Why bother?
Windfarms - they aren't on 'the horizon'. They're right in front of my nose everyday I look out to sea from Llandudno. The horizon is 22 miles away, the windfarms are right fucking there.. They piss me off a little bit. And they're covered in lights at night. And they're inefficient and constantly needing repair. In short they're bollocks and I'm convinced there's a French dude pissing himself laughing at our expenses for being such muppets to buy hook line and sinker the bullshit sold to us by energy companies, because we thought it would be all green and cast rainbows.
Right, let's start with the word I hate the most when comparing low-carbon vs high-carbon energy sources: - Efficiency. It means nothing. Really, the only metrics worth discussing are the cost/unit energy (£/MWH etc.) and the carbon (and other) emissions.
Put it this way, let's compare coal to wind:
Coal - ~40% "Efficiency"
Wind - 20% to 40% (dependant on wind spee)
What does this really tell you? Nothing. One technology needs open cast mines, rail and ship delivery etc. The other uses wind - who cares if it's not used very efficiently, it's free!!
So, then you have to think about the cost of constructing each and the price of the fuel and the cost of running etc. Then the picture gets worse for wind, especially offshore, as coal is still a relatively cheap source of fuel when you add everything up.
That's why we need either subsidies, or a carbon tax, to make cleaner energies seem cheaper.
In my mind we have 2 alternatives - 1) Keep trying to convince ourselves that we can live of cheap energy and continue to fuck the planet - nice long term thinking there!
or 2) accept that the cost of living is going to have to increase for a while to prevent serious damage to the environment.
The bottom line is, it seems your main objections are based on: Looks, a bogus belief that efficiency matters and not really accepting that we are fucking the planet with carbon and other emissions.
Do you think that because wind can't cover all our needs we shouldn't have any?
-
No I'm not - you're completely missing my point.
Maybe try and explain yourself better first? :p
Our present wind and RE expansion plan (that has gone on hold since the change of Government) along with an expansion of gas power stations (that does not seem to have gone on hold since the change of Government) was designed to fill the energy gap. But wobbles in the future of the tarrif paid, whether we are going to be in Europe or not have seen the big RE companies stall or in some cases pull out. So we now have a larger energy gap. At least thats what the wind RE people I know have told me..
PS: Retarded is not the best word to use.
-
Nuclear (thorium) - with offshore gas to fill the gap. I do also think that a lot more people should be investing in household solar - both water and electric, but I can't talk as I haven't...
-
Windfarms - they aren't on 'the horizon'. They're right in front of my nose everyday I look out to sea from Llandudno. The horizon is 22 miles away, the windfarms are right fucking there.. They piss me off a little bit. And they're covered in lights at night. And they're inefficient and constantly needing repair. In short they're bollocks and I'm convinced there's a French dude pissing himself laughing at our expenses for being such muppets to buy hook line and sinker the bullshit sold to us by energy companies, because we thought it would be all green and cast rainbows.
Google open cast coal mining. Or have a look at pics where the oil sands being mined in Canada at the moment.. luuurvely...
I actually worked on the oil sands in Northern Alberta for two and a half years, at 3 of the (then 6) refineries and have seen first-hand the damage, pollution and scale of the place and know how many mega tonnes of carbon Suncor and Horizon emit per year, which is why I know trying to save carbon with windmills is a drop in the ocean, literally.
There is a lot of NIMBYism around the windfarms, I feel the opposite, they make me feel happy every time I drive past them at the thought of energy being created from thin air! The idea of them needing repairs and having down time as a point against them is laughable; I'm sure you will have driven along the M56 and seen one of the Ellesmere Port refineries flaring off fuel because it's too expensive to turn the cracker off? Having downtime on a turbine seems somewhat sedate in comparison.
Secondly if that's your stance re: other countries having massive carbon outputs (China 'winning' by miles) why would you be bothered at all about us using gas from Asia and Eastern Europe, we may as well get on with it as we are not the worst right?!
-
Current wind farms are new technology too, design and materials will improve, just like any other piece of machinery.
We could also all try and use less energy in the first place?
-
I see. So wind farms are ok, despite the huge loss of efficiency of cabling ashore the electricity. And despite the fact that there is virtually no long-term evidence of how much maintenance and down-time the turbines require. It's already becoming apparent, 5-10 years down the line from the first offshore windfarms going online, that the quoted lifetime for blades and motors are way too optimistic - the rope access technicians who work for me have been repairing blades at a rate of every 2 years - not the figures given by manufacturers (7-10 years). I predict another Trawsfynydd on a large scale (nuclear cocncrete monolith in the middle of Snowdonia, useful life of 20 years, for those unaware). Offshore wind power is a massive ripoff and we're going to wake up in twenty years, look out to sea and wonder what the fuck we were thinking. IMO.
Tidal barrages are ok? But the impact on estuary wildlife is quite severe from the studies I've seen/heard about? Kill the fish and birdlife, as long as we don't emit carbon :-\ Just saying.
Nuclear is ok? - why is nuclear acceptable and fracking isn't? Because it isn't carbon-emitting? What about the inescapable fact that we have to have gas - for heating and to fuel gas-fired power stations - nothing is going to change that in the next 15-20 years so it makes a lot of sense to have our own supply of gas instead of importing it via pipelines and LNG shipments from Russia.
Its disingenuous to polarise one energy source v's another v's another as the solution isn't one or the other, but a bit of everything that is required accompanied by a reduction in consumption.
All have pros and cons, and that includes fracking the disadvantages of which are highlighted elsewhere in this thread, but with current usage levels there is little choice.
-
they make me feel happy every time I drive past them at the thought of energy being created from thin air!
Me too.
Plus the early signs are that offshore windfarms are very good news for biodiversity. The foundations create artificial reefs and, more importantly, the trawlers can't get in amongst them. You won't get such spin-offs from fracking.
I also think they are becoming a serious source of power faster than people realise. In Denmark, wind energy output exceeded 100% of the country's needs on Nov 3rd - not just powering a whole country but generating export profits too! In 2013, they provided more of Spain's energy than any other source (21%). In Portugal, 70% of power was generated by renewables in Q1 2013. We are a little behind in the Uk, but last month wind provided more than 10% of total energy needs for the first time - peaking at 17% on the 21st Dec.
-
Must have been a pretty windy day! Guess demand will drop in summer months too, in spite of it being theoretically less windy.
-
Cameron said English local authorities would receive all the business rates collected from shale gas schemes - rather than the usual 50%. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550)
Deja vu? (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund)
-
I'm not anti wind, anti gas, anti nuclear, anti fracking, anti coal even.
This is what I'm anti. I'm anti people whinging and bleating about the inevitable development of opportunities as they arise, especially if they can't propose an equally good realistic alternative. Bleat on about Thorium and tidal arrays, I agree everything should be pursued. But Thorium isn't going to heat your semi-detached anytime soon, or supply you with electricity.
Gas is required now and for the medium term. Virtually everyone still needs oil for transport and manufacturing. I'd give even the most ardent climate-change neurotic 7 days in a country shut down due to the oil and gas supply being cut off, before they developed a new set of beliefs about climate change.
The bigger picture - shale gas in the UK hasn't 'only just' become known about, it's been known about for years but the political and economic picture didn't make it worth pursuing. Now Scotland are possibly splitting in the near future and suddenly, as if out of thin air, shale gas comes over the horizon (one covered in windmills perhaps). Shale gas is a very sensible hedge against volatility surrounding Scottish North Sea oil/gas. Also, it's a very powerful political hedge against one of Alex Salmond's biggest bargaining chips.
The political picture changes as soon as the rest of the UK, post Scotland leaving, have a secure supply of gas for the next 20 years thanks, and perhaps as a consequence the price of gas goes down - and part of Scotland's future revenue stream suddenly doesn't add up to as many billions as it did prior to shale gas being developed. I don't think it's a co-incidence that fracking is being fast-tracked this year of all years.
Pointing out that windfarms need downtime and repair = laughable? What? Why is it laughable to point out the cons of anything? I too get a glowing feeling from seeing turbines producing electricity on windy days - that's one of the pros. But it's sensible to question how much total electricity a turbine produces and to point out that the downtime due to blade and motor repair is way higher than originally claimed by the energy companies and investors. I was speaking to someone last week and they were telling me about the carbon fibre repairs they'd carried out on blades and how they last about 2-3 years in some cases before the next repair. Windfarms have just as many investors looking for good returns as any other investment opportunity, they aren't some angelic creation there for the greater good. Consumers will foot part of the cost if wind farms aren't profitable. I've got serious doubts we'll be thinking the same about wind farms in 20 years time if the current schedule of downtime and repair is anything to go by. The electricity they produce also isn't 'free' - the time, money and public/political will invested in wind farms are all finite resources which haven't been invested in some other source of electricity generation (Thorium perhaps...) as a consequence.
It's amazing and interesting how an opposing voice in debates like these often gets labelled as that of a climate-change denier - hence: Secondly if that's your stance re: other countries having massive carbon outputs (China 'winning' by miles) why would you be bothered at all about us using gas from Asia and Eastern Europe, we may as well get on with it as we are not the worst right?!
Where have I said that!?? You're putting ideas into my post that I didn't type and don't think.
I do however think if you're trying to make important decisions then you need to try to understand as much as possible about the larger context, and understand what saving some thousands of tonnes of carbon actually means overall. Especially if you're using 'saving x thousand tonnes of carbon' as a justification for something. It isn't defeatist to understand that it might not really make any difference in the long term to make compromises in the short-term. I also don't think any UK political party has that sort of long term policy, but that's a whole other discussion. The public and media aren't blameless there for not allowing a system to exist in which long term policies are allowed to take precedence over short-term gratification.
This:
both open stream as in the Pentland Firth 86MW tidal array and barrages - yes, it'll fuck up some habitat, but it'll be the very same habitat that gets fucked by the rising sea levels
= the utilitarian view. Also, invest in sun-cream and jet skies.
edit: TomTom, 'retarded' = fine in my view.
-
yes, it'll fuck up some habitat, but it'll be the very same habitat that gets fucked by the rising sea levels
This sounds like an extremely spurious point. I doubt very much if sea levels will rise quick enough to 'fuck up some habitat'. I think its far more likely rising seas will force cultivated land to be handed back to nature. I did an access job a few years ago involving exactly this - knocking down the sea wall on the Essex coast to return good farmland to saltmarsh and hence reduce storm surge pressure on the Thames barrier.
Whereas I think tidal barrages will have a serious effect on habitat. I'm undecided as to whether the benefits will make this worthwhile, and would prefer to see tidal turbine arrays developed.
-
Precisely. 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'.
There's a theory which describes how, in order to invent and put into mainstream use new, non-fossil-fuel, energy technologies, you need current sources of energy or else the whole system collapses in on itself. This is how I see shale gas, oil, coal, gas, wind, tidal, solar etc., as current sources of energy to hopefully enable us to get far enough down the road to better technologies. If we run out of current energy sources too soon, or run out of the will to keep pursuing the expensive alternatives (in terms of investment and energy expended) it's called the energy trap: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)
Climate change is something different again. An unintended consequence which we're going to have to endure and try to manage the best we can, because the consequences for the developed world of falling into the energy trap might be far worse than the consequences of climate change (for the developed world. For the developing world it's the other way around).
-
There's a theory which describes how, in order to invent and put into mainstream use new, non-fossil-fuel, energy technologies, you need current sources of energy or else the whole system collapses in on itself. This is how I see shale gas, oil, coal, gas, wind, tidal, solar etc., as current sources of energy to hopefully enable us to get far enough down the road to better technologies.
:agree: and that is what I was trying to convey (but appear to have failed to do so).
-
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.
-
:agree: 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.
-
Power to the elbow of Sam Etherington, kite surfer, and his multi-axis wave power unit.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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 :shit: 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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
Defo for Nuclear. I'd would have rather seen all the spunked on Quantitative Easing pumped into some reactors and concrete.
-
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..
-
We the taxpayer should take the risk, after all we've bailed out the fucking banks.
-
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). :-\
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization)
? any thoughts
-
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.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization (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.
-
I think it's being piloted in some places here, would be more efficient apparently if landfill was separated better.
-
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.
-
Ben P - I think separation of waste to allow for gas generation from anaerobic digestion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion) and incineration of waste http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/14/norway-waste-energy (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!
-
Fracking not political? Quite a few MPs with a conflict of interest (http://wdm.org.uk/carbon-capital/nexus). /via @Chris_Locky3r (https://twitter.com/Chris_Locky3r/status/423445909997768704)
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.
-
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.
-
MPs
... conflicts of interest should automatically disqualify you from voting within the House of Commons/Lords.
This should be on the statutes.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization (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.
-
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.
-
Shouldn't we be comparing ourselves with what's been happening in Poland and not the USA?
-
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.
-
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...
-
If we are still part of the European market by the time we get the fracked gas...
-
Ha! Good point! Up the UKippers :D
-
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
-
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.'
-
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.
-
Interesting article just popped up in the Grauniad...
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-third (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.
-
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...
-
Interesting article just popped up in the Grauniad...
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/15/bp-predicts-greenhouse-emissions-rise-third (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.
-
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!
-
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)...
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
...
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/ (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)), it might be the signal to move to a different economic system.
-
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..
-
It wasn't reporting on it in an entirely unbiased way though was it.
-
...
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).
-
..
Can we have your views on this please? You don't seem shy about giving us your views on everything else ;)
This:
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/ (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/)), it might be the signal to move to a different economic system.
is what I think will happen. Whether or not it's I think it's the best outcome doesn't matter.
-
..
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).
I think if you believe that this will actually happen, in our current economic system, then you may as well also believe in a supernatural benevolent spirit, or unicorns or something.
-
I was more interested in your views of what technologies you thought were worthwhile - that seemed to be what your post was driving at: which ways of reducing our carbon output are worthwhile.
The graduated change is the obvious and somewhat depressing prediction that comes about due to the wealth and influence of people selling hydrocarbons.
-
..
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).
I think if you believe that this will actually happen, in our current economic system, then you may as well also believe in a supernatural benevolent spirit, or unicorns or something.
Well - I'd rather hope that somewhere along the line people will see sense (other governments have tried (and failed) e.g. Australia's now defunct carbon tax).
I try to be optimistic about the future!
Its either that or buy some more tins of beans for the bunker ;)
-
In the short-term:
I believe shale gas is sensible if it replaces coal, perhaps entirely, in the overall UK mix - the total resource and rate of extraction is still uncertain.
Limited tidal and wind - I honestly don't think wind is going to look attractive in 20 years after we get a longer-term idea of how much downtime the turbines suffer and we understand the true cost, and where that money could have been invested instead into other tech. I personally think turbines are part a money-making bandwagon/ part useful resource.
Solar PV and water heating on all new housing and retrofit to existing housing. In combination with better insulation, widespread awareness of fuel use through better metering/thermostats.
Domestic waste power plants like the one next to my office in Runcorn.
Carbon storage (perhaps in combination with shale gas operations?)
Emissions scrubbing retrofitted on all exisitng coal-fired power stations (already in place on most?)
Co-gen to supply more waste heat to domestic and commerical premises.
Mid-term:
Nuclear makes sense to me, especially if someone had the courage to try non-military fuels.
An end to importing fossil fuel - a UN or similar enforced ban.
Better storage technology to make intermittent energy sources more viable.
Versions of today's billionaires like Bill Gates etc. getting into the clean energy sector and shaking things up.
Long term:
Pick whatever you want out of your imagination and combine with whichever economic system you believe will exist - space solar PV, Tesla electricity transmission, Nuclear fusion, moon-based power stations could be as carbon-emitting as it's possible to be - who cares!, fuel cells, Dawes vegetable cars...
Economic collapse and slave labour...
-
There seems to a bit of a generation gap I'd posit at around 40/45. The older have seen various nuclear/ acid rain/ ice age doom-mongers come and go, and have learned to ignore them and carry on. The younger pretty much without exception, seem to have realised global anthropogenic climate change is real and more likely than not catastrophic. My possibly vain hope is that in the next ten years the balance of power in world governments will shift to the latter, and clean energy will become a given and not a political football. Of course it might be too late and too slow, or we might have some global event that really panics 'em. But I doubt it. Debate on these matters seems to a be a lot less about science and more about proclaiming your gut instinct.
-
Tom - BP don't have any shale reserves and have their growth strategy around deepwater offshore in Europe.
Also, the financial analysts were saying the same thing about the US too. We don't know if the guys who wrote the report have for example, invested billions in an LNG import facility in Essex....
Still, I don't have enough research and my interest is only as a layman. I suspect though that basic supply and demand does influence pricing.
-
Debate on these matters seems to a be a lot less about science and more about proclaiming your gut instinct.
I think the issue with this debate is that it stretches far beyond science and is tied up with people's perceptions (as you say) and government policy. No government is going to have the minerals to say (for example) 'right we are going all in for micro generation and all new affordable housing will be fitted with PV and we are going to retrofit all council owned properties over the new five years. Oh by the way this will add 10% to your tax bill but you'll see the returns in cheaper energy.'
-
If anyone's interested, the prices the government guarantees to large scale renewables projects are in the document on this page; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-renewable-technologies-cfd-contract-terms-and-strike-priceon (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-renewable-technologies-cfd-contract-terms-and-strike-priceon) page 7. The price for new nuclear seems to be £92.50/MWh according to the bbc, whilst a quick google suggests the wholesale prices are approx £60/MWh on our current grid. I'm unsure about how this ties into other possible government funding approaches for these kinds of projects - whether this is 'it' so to speak, or whether there are many other sources of funding for large projects in addition. Anyone know? Also, does anyone know who funds the storage of waste from nuclear and the decommissioning - is it the company who own the plant or the gov?
-
Barrows, I believe the price includes decommissioning - but is quite a bit above the market rate (ie what the French pay for the same).
-
If anyone's interested, the prices the government guarantees to large scale renewables projects are in the document on this page; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-renewable-technologies-cfd-contract-terms-and-strike-priceon (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investing-in-renewable-technologies-cfd-contract-terms-and-strike-priceon) page 7. The price for new nuclear seems to be £92.50/MWh according to the bbc, whilst a quick google suggests the wholesale prices are approx £60/MWh on our current grid. I'm unsure about how this ties into other possible government funding approaches for these kinds of projects - whether this is 'it' so to speak, or whether there are many other sources of funding for large projects in addition. Anyone know? Also, does anyone know who funds the storage of waste from nuclear and the decommissioning - is it the company who own the plant or the gov?
Not sure if that includes the storage/decommissioning costs...but as a reference, the decommissioning of Dounreay is currently costing between £50-70million per annum....
-
Barrows, I believe the price includes decommissioning - but is quite a bit above the market rate (ie what the French pay for the same).
I'm sure I don't need to say this, but this is quite normal in the power generation world - it is very difficult to compare future new-build elec prices to whole sale elec prices being produced from facilities >10 years in age - particularly where the bulk of the elec cost is buried in capex rather than the fuel price (as is the case for nukes).
-
At some point the unit cost will drop/alternatives will increase and this will become viable/economical...
Chemical process turns any plant matter—even trees—into biofuels (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/chemical-process-turns-any-plant-mattereven-treesinto-biofuels/)
Original : http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1246748 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1246748)
NB - Its a new chemical technique which doesn't require expensive & concentrated acids and alkali's and is renewable as the required chemical is extracted from plants as a by-product of the process.
There's a discussion thread on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1vrg97/chemical_process_turns_any_plant_mattereven/) which includes contributions from one of the researchers jerljer (lead author on the paper).
-
Debate on these matters seems to a be a lot less about science and more about proclaiming your gut instinct.
I think the issue with this debate is that it stretches far beyond science and is tied up with people's perceptions (as you say) and government policy. No government is going to have the minerals to say (for example) 'right we are going all in for micro generation and all new affordable housing will be fitted with PV and we are going to retrofit all council owned properties over the new five years. Oh by the way this will add 10% to your tax bill but you'll see the returns in cheaper energy.'
PV has limited use in the UK since it does sod all for peak demand.
Wind isn't much better either, since it's equally unreliable.
Tidal is perhaps a little better.
Wave has potential.
Geothermal - not in this country.
That doesn't mean they can't have a role to play, but it means that until we make serious improvements in production or storage*, renewable energies can't be the basis of our generation. I'm of the opinion that the lack of national and global investment in renewables is basically criminal. But that's where we're at right now.
Until we can convince our government(s) to invest properly in renewables, we require investment somewhere else. The latest-gen nuclear has a lot of advantages, particularly with reduced waste, but the government is purchasing an old-tech plant instead. To be fair, we'd need a big push on nuclear to make the lastest-gen stuff pay. But then, maybe that's what we need.
In the meantime we'll increasingly be forced to rely on more risky or harmful extraction methods for non-renewables. The global future is currently one of fracking, tar-sands and oil-shale. I hope the dutch built those dams well...
*Or long distance transmission. A relatively very small patch of essentially empty Saharan desert covered in PV could power Europe, no problems. Except for the massive investment cost, the politics, and the geopolitical vulnerability brought about by the possibility of sabotaging the transmission lines!
-
Fracking should be embraced and supported as a good source of energy, jobs, investment and so on.
As for the whingeing watermelon twats blocking the road, nothing a bit of cs spray and water cannon won't sort out.
-
As for the whingeing watermelon twats blocking the road
It's not a road. (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fifty-anti-fracking-protesters-arrested-barton-6707207)
-
I'm sure the cunts in charge will just abolish the law anyway. :wank:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/12/fracking-will-be-allowed-under-national-parks (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/12/fracking-will-be-allowed-under-national-parks)
-
Let's just call it eco-mining and celebrate the benefits it will bring to our rural economies.
I love fracking and nukes.
-
Other changes reversed on Monday included residents being notified on an individual basis of shale gas operations in their area, gas leaks other than methane being recorded and a legal requirement for environmental impact assessments at sites.
This is really not good news, EIA's are relatively cheap and will at least make the fracking companies consider the environment in which they are working in a structured way.
I had hoped it had gone quiet on the fracking front due to the fall in fuel prices.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/02/fracking-banned-in-uk-as-government-makes-major-u-turn
Well well well!
-
Core blimey!
-
On Radio 6 earlier the news was implying it wasn't a proper ban, only that they won't grant further licences unless further evidence emerges of the benefits.
The cynic in me feels like the timing of this, with an election looming, isn't a coincidence... Though hopefully I'm wrong!
-
Anyone would think there was an election coming up! :D
-
On Radio 6 earlier the news was implying it wasn't a proper ban, only that they won't grant further licences unless further evidence emerges of the benefits.
The cynic in me feels like the timing of this, with an election looming, isn't a coincidence... Though hopefully I'm wrong!
Oh I think you're absolutely spot on, very much a carefully timed announcement.
Good news regardless.
I saw that the opposition line was the obvious "it's not a proper ban", which to be fair I don't think it is. That said, surely it's an eminently sensible stance to say it won't happen unless clear evidence emerges that it is safe?