Too high a price

York Press: Too high a price Too high a price

J BEISLY’S letter of January 16, contained several points about fracking that I wish to address.

Regarding the cost of energy, although it was reduced in the US, circumstances are different here.

According to Lord Stern, the claim by David Cameron that fracking can drive down domestic gas prices is ‘baseless’. Even the drillers Cuadrilla say the effect on the price of gas will be “basically insignificant”.

Enormous amounts of our fresh water will be needed. This water is then mixed with hundreds of different chemicals (a quarter of which are carcinogenic and half of which are known to cause nervous and immune system disorders). Once blasted into the earth, this will also absorb radiation from the rocks. The resulting toxic sludge will then need storing, transporting and treating. A varying percentage will be left in the ground.

This risky and potentially catastrophic process will be self-regulating, as it is in the US.

Regulation may be tougher here, but this can only make it safer, not safe.

Given that six per cent of wells leak immediately, and 50 per cent will leak in the following 30 years (industry figures), why on earth would anyone in their right mind not consider renewable energy the rational option?

This year could see up to two-thirds of the country licensed for oil and gas exploration. Widespread opposition has already helped to stop fracking in countries such as France.

This industrialised process is one of the biggest threats to the people, animals and environment we have seen.

It is essential that we leave these fossil fuels where they are and use the renewable energy technology we know to be safe, effective and non-polluting.

Helen Whitehead, Vanbrugh Drive, York.

 

• IN response to Tina Duke’s letter in The Press, January 16, I agree wholeheartedly. I believe that France apparently is a no-go country for this fracking exploration, but it is okay for the UK to welcome it.

I live in a village 18 miles from York, five miles from Helmsley, my nearest gas-piped town.

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was deemed far too expensive and not cost-effective to pipe mainstream gas to small communities in the Ryedale area.

Amazingly, fracking surveyors have found large amounts of gas in the Ryedale area, so not being a customer of mains gas and not having the luxury of push-button heating, how am I, and thousands of people like me living in this rural area, going to benefit of their hard-sell of lowering the cost of mains gas?

Pam Reeve, Station Cottage, Gilling East.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:35pm Thu 23 Jan 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Helen, Stern is the last person who should talk of 'baseless,' have you read his government sponsored 2006 report? Let me tell you it is full of hot air, if's, coulds or mights. Of course, politicians on the wave of hysteria took most of this as fact, even though the cost of doing nothing was a fraction of what was proposed. (Read the impact statement that the MP's, save one, didn't)
Pam, if shale gas is found near to you then there should be no reason why you can't be connected to the grid,
Excellent news for all that there is 50 years of shale gas in the UK. Let's just remember that a fracking bore hole is just six inches in diameter. No contest to a giant wind turbine, or even a bank of them!
Helen, Stern is the last person who should talk of 'baseless,' have you read his government sponsored 2006 report? Let me tell you it is full of hot air, if's, coulds or mights. Of course, politicians on the wave of hysteria took most of this as fact, even though the cost of doing nothing was a fraction of what was proposed. (Read the impact statement that the MP's, save one, didn't) Pam, if shale gas is found near to you then there should be no reason why you can't be connected to the grid, Excellent news for all that there is 50 years of shale gas in the UK. Let's just remember that a fracking bore hole is just six inches in diameter. No contest to a giant wind turbine, or even a bank of them! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -6

4:12pm Thu 23 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor?

If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research?

My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here.

Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.
So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor? If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research? My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here. Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead. John Cossham
  • Score: -8

5:29pm Thu 23 Jan 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I have read that the cost of renewable energy is not affordable and we subsidise it through our current energy bills. Bearing in mind that renewables only appear to account for a very small percentage of current energy supply I suppose the question is if we leave the cheaper resources alone and go for renewables will that not leave thousands unable to afford energy at all? What would be the balance of risk against those dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes and the supposed risks of fracking? Mind you I must say the risks associated with fracking being stated by its opponents appear to be getting more and more exaggerated as each day passes.
I have no doubt that energy bills will not come down as a result of fracking in this country, unlike in the states, but believe that may be more due to the greed culture in our main industries and not because of the cost of extraction well that and, as stated above by Mr Cossham, the cost associated with corralling a few hundred objectors and we all know who is already paying for that - yes the thousands of us who just want to live our lives in moderate comfort.
Just on another note was it just me or did all those protesters who were jailed in Russia appear to come from well to do backgrounds? They appeared to be greeted by well to do parents on their return. Is that how they afford to go traipsing round the world burning tonnes of fossil fuels as they go with no apparent job to go to in the name of stopping us getting affordable energy and would those same people suffer like half the pensioners in this country if fuel bills rise to meet their causes? Somehow I think not.
I have read that the cost of renewable energy is not affordable and we subsidise it through our current energy bills. Bearing in mind that renewables only appear to account for a very small percentage of current energy supply I suppose the question is if we leave the cheaper resources alone and go for renewables will that not leave thousands unable to afford energy at all? What would be the balance of risk against those dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes and the supposed risks of fracking? Mind you I must say the risks associated with fracking being stated by its opponents appear to be getting more and more exaggerated as each day passes. I have no doubt that energy bills will not come down as a result of fracking in this country, unlike in the states, but believe that may be more due to the greed culture in our main industries and not because of the cost of extraction well that and, as stated above by Mr Cossham, the cost associated with corralling a few hundred objectors and we all know who is already paying for that - yes the thousands of us who just want to live our lives in moderate comfort. Just on another note was it just me or did all those protesters who were jailed in Russia appear to come from well to do backgrounds? They appeared to be greeted by well to do parents on their return. Is that how they afford to go traipsing round the world burning tonnes of fossil fuels as they go with no apparent job to go to in the name of stopping us getting affordable energy and would those same people suffer like half the pensioners in this country if fuel bills rise to meet their causes? Somehow I think not. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 9

9:27pm Thu 23 Jan 14

gwen4me says...

The U.K. is not America, we do things better here. Permitting fracking would replace all the gas we bring from Russia and the Gulf, so a saving there in terms of carbon. The energy given would be predictable and dependable, unlike the windfarms, wave generators and similar Mickey mouse technology.
Although many conservationists would appear to welcome a return to the stone age, I am not in favour of it.
The U.K. is not America, we do things better here. Permitting fracking would replace all the gas we bring from Russia and the Gulf, so a saving there in terms of carbon. The energy given would be predictable and dependable, unlike the windfarms, wave generators and similar Mickey mouse technology. Although many conservationists would appear to welcome a return to the stone age, I am not in favour of it. gwen4me
  • Score: 4

3:37am Fri 24 Jan 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Well respected, John? Time will tell. BTW, have you actually read the Stern Report? Stern is an economist, not a scientist like Algore !!!!!!!!

Have a read of this:
http://www.google.co
.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&frm=1&sourc
e=web&cd=1&cad=rja&v
ed=0CC0QFjAA&url=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwp
f.org%2Fnew-report-g
overnment-cannot-rel
y-on-stern-review-to
-justify-costly-clim
ate-policies%2F&ei=j
t_hUsiqJMyshQfmxYGAC
w&usg=AFQjCNE9D0c8Ix
n2RJmCRhvLbH4GSvL25g
&sig2=_G8cLXnePXaw8u
CbePY-Wg&bvm=bv.5993
0103,d.ZG4
Well respected, John? Time will tell. BTW, have you actually read the Stern Report? Stern is an economist, not a scientist like Algore !!!!!!!! Have a read of this: http://www.google.co .uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q =&esrc=s&frm=1&sourc e=web&cd=1&cad=rja&v ed=0CC0QFjAA&url=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwp f.org%2Fnew-report-g overnment-cannot-rel y-on-stern-review-to -justify-costly-clim ate-policies%2F&ei=j t_hUsiqJMyshQfmxYGAC w&usg=AFQjCNE9D0c8Ix n2RJmCRhvLbH4GSvL25g &sig2=_G8cLXnePXaw8u CbePY-Wg&bvm=bv.5993 0103,d.ZG4 ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -3

12:13pm Fri 24 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

I can well believe that you take everything the GWPF as gospel truth, after all, they are a well known 'climate-sceptic think tank', funded by people and businesses which have an interest in continuing to pollute, and are tiny, having fewer than 100 members, 40 of whom are either directors, advisers or employees of the organisation.

See this link for some analysis of your favourite pseudo-independent organisation http://www.desmogblo
g.com/what-does-gwpf
-really-stand

Enjoy!
I can well believe that you take everything the GWPF as gospel truth, after all, they are a well known 'climate-sceptic think tank', funded by people and businesses which have an interest in continuing to pollute, and are tiny, having fewer than 100 members, 40 of whom are either directors, advisers or employees of the organisation. See this link for some analysis of your favourite pseudo-independent organisation http://www.desmogblo g.com/what-does-gwpf -really-stand Enjoy! John Cossham
  • Score: 2

12:27pm Fri 24 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

Oh, I haven't read all of the Stern Report... after all, I'm not an economist. But I've read digests of it, commentaries of it, and criticisms of it. And you know, if it were to be rewritten NOW, it would have to say the dangers of anthropogenic climate change are more than when it was originally written, as the evidence is showing that we are headed towards the higher temperatures in the projections.

The other 'new knowledge' is that it is looking likely that the release of methane from the Arctic tundra and undersea clathrates is accelerating. If this 'kicks in' a positive feedback loop, the temperature rise would not be the 2, 4 or 6 degree rise predicted by 'ordinary man-made climate change', but might well be in the region of tens of degrees, in just decades. This has happened before, the fossil record has it in the rocks (or maybe you believe God put the fossils there to confuse us?) and there is no reason to think that such an extinction event couldn't happen again.

So, check that out, if you fancy a really chilling 'good read'!
Oh, I haven't read all of the Stern Report... after all, I'm not an economist. But I've read digests of it, commentaries of it, and criticisms of it. And you know, if it were to be rewritten NOW, it would have to say the dangers of anthropogenic climate change are more than when it was originally written, as the evidence is showing that we are headed towards the higher temperatures in the projections. The other 'new knowledge' is that it is looking likely that the release of methane from the Arctic tundra and undersea clathrates is accelerating. If this 'kicks in' a positive feedback loop, the temperature rise would not be the 2, 4 or 6 degree rise predicted by 'ordinary man-made climate change', but might well be in the region of tens of degrees, in just decades. This has happened before, the fossil record has it in the rocks (or maybe you believe God put the fossils there to confuse us?) and there is no reason to think that such an extinction event couldn't happen again. So, check that out, if you fancy a really chilling 'good read'! John Cossham
  • Score: 1

1:39pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Bigwood says...

Excellent letter from Ms Whitehead. Anyone with a well balanced, thoughtful and long term mindset can not possibly be in favour of fracking.
Excellent letter from Ms Whitehead. Anyone with a well balanced, thoughtful and long term mindset can not possibly be in favour of fracking. Bigwood
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

John Cossham wrote:
So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor?

If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research?

My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here.

Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.
Just curious John, since you obviously don't want fracking (I am neutral on the subject) how do you propose the UK satisfies it's future energy requirements?
[quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor? If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research? My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here. Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.[/p][/quote]Just curious John, since you obviously don't want fracking (I am neutral on the subject) how do you propose the UK satisfies it's future energy requirements? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1

11:31pm Sat 25 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor?

If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research?

My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here.

Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.
Just curious John, since you obviously don't want fracking (I am neutral on the subject) how do you propose the UK satisfies it's future energy requirements?
Thanks for a sensible question, Pinza.

We are incredibly energy-hungry, and wasteful. There are so many things we could do (should do) to reduce our use of energy, many of them creating jobs. I'm not going to list the things we can do, as they're easy to find with a bit of research. Some are behavioural and others technological, most need leadership from our local and national governments, and there does need to be a mass realisation about the need to do so. This is what I'm trying to facilitate.

I have read a fantastic report by Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) called Zero Carbon Britain. This outlines what we'd have to do to become, well, it says it on the tin! It's available online, and offers a challenging but well thought out vision. It involves a national change of diet, serious land use changes, infrastructure, etc etc.

I appreciate that this is a dream, an aim some of us aspire to. Some people do not like change, and are stuck in the idea that economic growth is 'sustainable for ever', which any mathematician will tell you is bs. Most people still don't have the motivation to make the major changes needed.

And to answer your question, based on a reduced need for energy, I'd go for a mix of wind, wave, tide, solar pv, concentrated solar (along with new pan-European distribution infrastructure) geothermal, biomass, biogas, some biofuels, hydro, pumped-storage, and developing technologies to store energy such as springs, compressed air, batteries (in electric cars?) and the molten salt in concentrated solar. We need technology like heat pumps, fuel cells, carbon capture and storage. We probably do still need a bit of fossil gas (with CCS, hopefully) and I'm on the fence re nuclear fission, as I understand its benefits, but feel the costs and risks easily balance these. I also support research into fusion, and am interested in Thorium reactors, although I don't know a lot about them.

Just a reminder, that my personal energy use is a twelfth of the UK average, and so I'm proof, if it's needed, that people can live fulfilling happy lives and use FAR less fossil energy. I'm not imagining everybody could live exactly like me, but if I can cut my carbon by that much, I'd have thought that quite a few others could cut by, say, 50% without too much bother.

How about you, Pinza, where do you stand?
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor? If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research? My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here. Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.[/p][/quote]Just curious John, since you obviously don't want fracking (I am neutral on the subject) how do you propose the UK satisfies it's future energy requirements?[/p][/quote]Thanks for a sensible question, Pinza. We are incredibly energy-hungry, and wasteful. There are so many things we could do (should do) to reduce our use of energy, many of them creating jobs. I'm not going to list the things we can do, as they're easy to find with a bit of research. Some are behavioural and others technological, most need leadership from our local and national governments, and there does need to be a mass realisation about the need to do so. This is what I'm trying to facilitate. I have read a fantastic report by Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) called Zero Carbon Britain. This outlines what we'd have to do to become, well, it says it on the tin! It's available online, and offers a challenging but well thought out vision. It involves a national change of diet, serious land use changes, infrastructure, etc etc. I appreciate that this is a dream, an aim some of us aspire to. Some people do not like change, and are stuck in the idea that economic growth is 'sustainable for ever', which any mathematician will tell you is bs. Most people still don't have the motivation to make the major changes needed. And to answer your question, based on a reduced need for energy, I'd go for a mix of wind, wave, tide, solar pv, concentrated solar (along with new pan-European distribution infrastructure) geothermal, biomass, biogas, some biofuels, hydro, pumped-storage, and developing technologies to store energy such as springs, compressed air, batteries (in electric cars?) and the molten salt in concentrated solar. We need technology like heat pumps, fuel cells, carbon capture and storage. We probably do still need a bit of fossil gas (with CCS, hopefully) and I'm on the fence re nuclear fission, as I understand its benefits, but feel the costs and risks easily balance these. I also support research into fusion, and am interested in Thorium reactors, although I don't know a lot about them. Just a reminder, that my personal energy use is a twelfth of the UK average, and so I'm proof, if it's needed, that people can live fulfilling happy lives and use FAR less fossil energy. I'm not imagining everybody could live exactly like me, but if I can cut my carbon by that much, I'd have thought that quite a few others could cut by, say, 50% without too much bother. How about you, Pinza, where do you stand? John Cossham
  • Score: 1

5:20pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Bigwood says...

The Government missed an ideal opportunity to get away from the carbon economy after the recession. All those hundreds of billions spent on quantitative easing should have been spent investing in kick starting the green energy sector. This would have created thousands of jobs and the money would have been circulated around the economy, not to mention the massive environmental benefits. Instead they gave it too a few fat cat bankers, who instead of lending it to businesses to get the economy going, just kept it to themselves.
The Government missed an ideal opportunity to get away from the carbon economy after the recession. All those hundreds of billions spent on quantitative easing should have been spent investing in kick starting the green energy sector. This would have created thousands of jobs and the money would have been circulated around the economy, not to mention the massive environmental benefits. Instead they gave it too a few fat cat bankers, who instead of lending it to businesses to get the economy going, just kept it to themselves. Bigwood
  • Score: 1

9:18pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

John Cossham wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor?

If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research?

My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here.

Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.
Just curious John, since you obviously don't want fracking (I am neutral on the subject) how do you propose the UK satisfies it's future energy requirements?
Thanks for a sensible question, Pinza.

We are incredibly energy-hungry, and wasteful. There are so many things we could do (should do) to reduce our use of energy, many of them creating jobs. I'm not going to list the things we can do, as they're easy to find with a bit of research. Some are behavioural and others technological, most need leadership from our local and national governments, and there does need to be a mass realisation about the need to do so. This is what I'm trying to facilitate.

I have read a fantastic report by Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) called Zero Carbon Britain. This outlines what we'd have to do to become, well, it says it on the tin! It's available online, and offers a challenging but well thought out vision. It involves a national change of diet, serious land use changes, infrastructure, etc etc.

I appreciate that this is a dream, an aim some of us aspire to. Some people do not like change, and are stuck in the idea that economic growth is 'sustainable for ever', which any mathematician will tell you is bs. Most people still don't have the motivation to make the major changes needed.

And to answer your question, based on a reduced need for energy, I'd go for a mix of wind, wave, tide, solar pv, concentrated solar (along with new pan-European distribution infrastructure) geothermal, biomass, biogas, some biofuels, hydro, pumped-storage, and developing technologies to store energy such as springs, compressed air, batteries (in electric cars?) and the molten salt in concentrated solar. We need technology like heat pumps, fuel cells, carbon capture and storage. We probably do still need a bit of fossil gas (with CCS, hopefully) and I'm on the fence re nuclear fission, as I understand its benefits, but feel the costs and risks easily balance these. I also support research into fusion, and am interested in Thorium reactors, although I don't know a lot about them.

Just a reminder, that my personal energy use is a twelfth of the UK average, and so I'm proof, if it's needed, that people can live fulfilling happy lives and use FAR less fossil energy. I'm not imagining everybody could live exactly like me, but if I can cut my carbon by that much, I'd have thought that quite a few others could cut by, say, 50% without too much bother.

How about you, Pinza, where do you stand?
My position is too complex to go into here, but "if I was in charge" one of my first actions would be to nationalise all means of energy production. They are too basic a human need to be left to market forces. I would leave the EU as a matter of priority since I do not care what European countries think our policy should be on energy or anything else. If I wanted to tackle waste I would cut out unnecessary use of energy by public bodies so buildings such as York Minster and the Walls would not be illuminated at night. This may sound small but if it was repeated in every town in the country it would have an effect.
Wind, tidal etc are uneconomical without huge subsidies and wind farms require an estimated 80% conventional back up so they are meaningless in real terms.
Hydro electric is proven and reliable although it requires large amounts of land so I would investigate every possible site where it could be implemented.
Biomass (to give it's proper name Trees) is silly - the idea of growing trees simply to burn them, and give it the name biomass in order to confuse the public.
As for "fracking" if it is acceptable to burn "non renewables" then we have 100+ years of coal underground so we should reopen the coal mines and stop importing - as we do - 64% of our coal.
[quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: So, CAC, you think you know more than a very well respected Professor? If I didn't know how to have a good laugh at some of the tosh you come out with, I might very well get upset. And if you have more qualifications than Stern, why do you not reveal who you are so we can check you out on LinkedIn and Google your published research? My suggestion to readers of this thread is that Cack is in a tiny minority of people who would welcome having their land fracked just for a few years of 'locally sourced' gas. So, although they have a right to a view, it's pretty unpopular, and once again, it's a lone(ly) voice we hear here. Helen, I think you make valid points. The liquid output of the test frack in Lancashire was driven to Manchester and put through a sewage works, but this didn't remove the radioactivity (which sewage works aren't designed to do) and the radioactive water went through into the Manchester Ship Canal. The cost of treating water in the UK is likely to be one of the things making this industry uneconomical, as is the cost of dealing with the protests and obstructions that will face EVERY drilling which attempts to go ahead.[/p][/quote]Just curious John, since you obviously don't want fracking (I am neutral on the subject) how do you propose the UK satisfies it's future energy requirements?[/p][/quote]Thanks for a sensible question, Pinza. We are incredibly energy-hungry, and wasteful. There are so many things we could do (should do) to reduce our use of energy, many of them creating jobs. I'm not going to list the things we can do, as they're easy to find with a bit of research. Some are behavioural and others technological, most need leadership from our local and national governments, and there does need to be a mass realisation about the need to do so. This is what I'm trying to facilitate. I have read a fantastic report by Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) called Zero Carbon Britain. This outlines what we'd have to do to become, well, it says it on the tin! It's available online, and offers a challenging but well thought out vision. It involves a national change of diet, serious land use changes, infrastructure, etc etc. I appreciate that this is a dream, an aim some of us aspire to. Some people do not like change, and are stuck in the idea that economic growth is 'sustainable for ever', which any mathematician will tell you is bs. Most people still don't have the motivation to make the major changes needed. And to answer your question, based on a reduced need for energy, I'd go for a mix of wind, wave, tide, solar pv, concentrated solar (along with new pan-European distribution infrastructure) geothermal, biomass, biogas, some biofuels, hydro, pumped-storage, and developing technologies to store energy such as springs, compressed air, batteries (in electric cars?) and the molten salt in concentrated solar. We need technology like heat pumps, fuel cells, carbon capture and storage. We probably do still need a bit of fossil gas (with CCS, hopefully) and I'm on the fence re nuclear fission, as I understand its benefits, but feel the costs and risks easily balance these. I also support research into fusion, and am interested in Thorium reactors, although I don't know a lot about them. Just a reminder, that my personal energy use is a twelfth of the UK average, and so I'm proof, if it's needed, that people can live fulfilling happy lives and use FAR less fossil energy. I'm not imagining everybody could live exactly like me, but if I can cut my carbon by that much, I'd have thought that quite a few others could cut by, say, 50% without too much bother. How about you, Pinza, where do you stand?[/p][/quote]My position is too complex to go into here, but "if I was in charge" one of my first actions would be to nationalise all means of energy production. They are too basic a human need to be left to market forces. I would leave the EU as a matter of priority since I do not care what European countries think our policy should be on energy or anything else. If I wanted to tackle waste I would cut out unnecessary use of energy by public bodies so buildings such as York Minster and the Walls would not be illuminated at night. This may sound small but if it was repeated in every town in the country it would have an effect. Wind, tidal etc are uneconomical without huge subsidies and wind farms require an estimated 80% conventional back up so they are meaningless in real terms. Hydro electric is proven and reliable although it requires large amounts of land so I would investigate every possible site where it could be implemented. Biomass (to give it's proper name Trees) is silly - the idea of growing trees simply to burn them, and give it the name biomass in order to confuse the public. As for "fracking" if it is acceptable to burn "non renewables" then we have 100+ years of coal underground so we should reopen the coal mines and stop importing - as we do - 64% of our coal. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree