Crimean stand-off raises gas worries

Crimean stand-off raises gas worries

Crimean stand-off raises gas worries

First published in Letters by

THE stand-off in the Crimea serves to illustrate the fragility of our energy policy. We are heavily dependent on imported gas, and some of that comes from Russia.

Our responsibilities to the population of the Ukraine are questionable, but even if we wanted to apply sanctions our Eastern bloc suppliers could retaliate by screwing down the supply valve on the pipeline.

This crisis should serve as a wake up call. It is time to halt the rush to plaster the country with wind generators and start a genuine renewable policy, such as tidal barrages with electrical generating capacity.

The natural gas we need could come from native shale deposits, and would actually lower the global carbon footprint since it wouldn’t have to travel from Russia or the Gulf.

Andy Baldock, Villa Grove, York

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:12pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Oaklands Resident says...

Germany is heavily dependant on gas supplies from Russia.

The UK is not.
Germany is heavily dependant on gas supplies from Russia. The UK is not. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 5

3:57pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Correct, most of our imported gas comes from Norway’s North Sea gas. They don’t need so much because they have a much smaller population and they also invested in hydro electricity, not stupid windmills like the UK.
Indeed, Germany takes 40% of its gas from Russia since their Chancellor hysterically started to shut down perfectly good nuclear plants, following the Tsunami in Japan.
Shale gas will certainly help make our coal last for longer while we acquire more nuclear and hydro plants. As for the carbon footprint; I wouldn’t worry, you have been brainwashed with that but it certainly makes sense to produce energy close to home. Shipping biomass from North America just to meet CO2 silly targets, does that make sense?
Correct, most of our imported gas comes from Norway’s North Sea gas. They don’t need so much because they have a much smaller population and they also invested in hydro electricity, not stupid windmills like the UK. Indeed, Germany takes 40% of its gas from Russia since their Chancellor hysterically started to shut down perfectly good nuclear plants, following the Tsunami in Japan. Shale gas will certainly help make our coal last for longer while we acquire more nuclear and hydro plants. As for the carbon footprint; I wouldn’t worry, you have been brainwashed with that but it certainly makes sense to produce energy close to home. Shipping biomass from North America just to meet CO2 silly targets, does that make sense? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -19

4:20pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Correct, most of our imported gas comes from Norway’s North Sea gas. They don’t need so much because they have a much smaller population and they also invested in hydro electricity, not stupid windmills like the UK.
Indeed, Germany takes 40% of its gas from Russia since their Chancellor hysterically started to shut down perfectly good nuclear plants, following the Tsunami in Japan.
Shale gas will certainly help make our coal last for longer while we acquire more nuclear and hydro plants. As for the carbon footprint; I wouldn’t worry, you have been brainwashed with that but it certainly makes sense to produce energy close to home. Shipping biomass from North America just to meet CO2 silly targets, does that make sense?
"Shipping biomass from North America just to meet CO2 silly targets, does that make sense?"
If Europe tells us to, it must make sense.
Mustn't it?
Anybody?
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Correct, most of our imported gas comes from Norway’s North Sea gas. They don’t need so much because they have a much smaller population and they also invested in hydro electricity, not stupid windmills like the UK. Indeed, Germany takes 40% of its gas from Russia since their Chancellor hysterically started to shut down perfectly good nuclear plants, following the Tsunami in Japan. Shale gas will certainly help make our coal last for longer while we acquire more nuclear and hydro plants. As for the carbon footprint; I wouldn’t worry, you have been brainwashed with that but it certainly makes sense to produce energy close to home. Shipping biomass from North America just to meet CO2 silly targets, does that make sense?[/p][/quote]"Shipping biomass from North America just to meet CO2 silly targets, does that make sense?" If Europe tells us to, it must make sense. Mustn't it? Anybody? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -17

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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