Give us a fracking break!

[turbobloke]

With respect WTF does 'viable in their footprint' mean in the real world when these are incapable of sustaining our economy unassisted and already subsidised to the hilt while only operating at current (or future) scale due to political foolishness...

[Mr Whippy]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Mr Whippy said:

Fracking only wins because the other two are st.

Agreed.

Mr Whippy said:

That doesn't mean fracking is then good, it's just less st than the other two.

No human endeavor is without consequences, as risk/reward/cost/practicality/commercial viability goes, fracking/gas for energy is at the top of the pile.

Mr Whippy said:

At least in that image, fracking is great but it's not sustainable.

There's several hundred years of fossil fuels left, we won't need them as viable alternatives will be found. Those alternatives don't exist (except nuclear), unless you want civilization to collapse, we are going to have to continue using fossil fuels for now.

Mr Whippy said:

Wind and solar will be viable in their footprint forever, while fracking won't.

They are not commercially worthwhile, they cause widespread industrialistion of the countryside, massive toxic chemical wastelands, and through their life barely recover the energy required to make them, and they are intermittent and non-dispatchable so you require the fossil fuel infrastructure AS WELL, and they make the grid difficult to ballance and put up energy costs massively. So they are pointless. Wind turbines also cause substantial health problems through infrasound such that Germany/Poland etc. are banning them within ~2km of habitation now.

German countryside before/after.

https://youtu.be/sDeyruhSWY4

Mr Whippy said:

As for better ideas.

How about moving all that solar to the roofs of new build housing stock? Suddenly the solar footprint is zero, and we already have to look at roofs on houses?

How about a long-term goal of reducing dependence on gas for stuff like domestic heating and cooking, reserve it for industrial uses where it's important, and make residential properties run on things like GSHP, ASHP, etc?

Solar runs at 8% of faceplate power in the UK (wind ~31%) and cannot power the country, as I said the panels barely recoup the energy to make them (EROEI is poor) and cause massive toxic pollution. The sun only shines at a certain low power, you cannot improve the panels, you just have to cover a massive area. No financial of practical sense in it. Solar PV in Europe is a "non-sustainable energy sink" to quote the latest thinking.

Heat pumps are ludicrously expensive/weak, again make no financial sense for household heating.

Mr Whippy said:

Yes fracking is the best of a load of st ideas. And I'm willing to run with that if we use it to support better ideas for a sustainable long term future.

What happens in 50 years when the fracking gas has all gone, North Sea oil has all gone?

We either start getting off the fossil fuels now with a sustainable realistic plan (not poor implementations of renewables) and use fracking to subsidise it, or we gamble that something else cheap and easy will land on our lap in 25-50 years time.

That's completely lame if that's the best we can achieve.

We've got to look for future energy sources, obviously, we don't have any answer yet, and fighting over fracking and implementing wind/solar is all just wasting/diverting time/attention/effort/resources.

You're missing my point somewhat.


Yes fracking is at the top of the pile, because our pile is st, because we've not invested anything in viable long term energy alternatives for decades (ignoring all the crap green stuff that doesn't really work)


Alternatives don't currently exist, but they can in the future, and that is exactly what government should be aiming for now. The fracking windfall should primarily benefit the energy security of the future UK.


Heat pumps are not expensive or weak. Several of my family members are now running with extra money in the bank after paying off install/running costs vs oil heating (despite low current prices), and they have superior heating and hot water supply in their homes.


No there are no proper future answers yet, and there won't be while businesses don't see a viable need to look for them, and government use short-term outlooks to find solutions.


So the answer that fixes all these issues is, allow fracking, but ensure that the primary beneficiary of the wealth isn't just businesses making profit for the short-term, but is the government investing it into a secure long-term plan for sustainable energy for the benefit of the country as a whole.


We rarely give anything to the future any more, a legacy for the next generation... often all we give them is more debt.

This is an opportunity to give them something they can at least thank us for, and it'll ultimately provide wealth and prosperity above what we'd otherwise have in the future too.



So I'm pro-fracking, IF the profits go to a worthy cause.

Big companies profit margins for £££ CEO pay and benefits for example, are not a worthy cause for the consumption of societies resources!

[TheExcession]

Mr Whippy said:

As for better ideas.

Mr Whippy said:

How about moving all that solar to the roofs of new build housing stock? Suddenly the solar footprint is zero, and we already have to look at roofs on houses?

This is fking insane. I was driven through parts of Lincolnshire back in January and witnessed acres and acres and acres of land given up to solar stupid cells.

Of course what a sensible idea - you are aware that when it gets dark solar panels won't light or heat your house?

You are aware you can't just turn coal or gas fired powered stations 'up or down a bit' to achieve the ' Creature Comforts utopia' that you envisage?

Mr Whippy said:

That's completely lame if that's the best we can achieve.

Very lame indeed - you might even address the energy budget required to install these power-plants-of-necessity-to-our-modern-ongoing-life-style.

Would you offer a cost/return/benefit analysis for hooking up a few million homes with solar panels on their roofs to the National Grid, and then also point out what we can do when it is night time or god forbid it is cloudy for a few weeks?

[Jockman]

I tried to get solar panels on my commercial property on a 1.7 acre site - would have generated excellent HW and Heating.

Sorry, roof facing the wrong way.

[Mr Whippy]

TheExcession said:

Mr Whippy said:

As for better ideas.

Mr Whippy said:

How about moving all that solar to the roofs of new build housing stock? Suddenly the solar footprint is zero, and we already have to look at roofs on houses?

This is fking insane. I was driven through parts of Lincolnshire back in January and witnessed acres and acres and acres of land given up to solar stupid cells.

Of course what a sensible idea - you are aware that when it gets dark solar panels won't light or heat your house?

You are aware you can't just turn coal or gas fired powered stations 'up or down a bit' to achieve the ' Creature Comforts utopia' that you envisage?

Mr Whippy said:

That's completely lame if that's the best we can achieve.

Very lame indeed - you might even address the energy budget required to install these power-plants-of-necessity-to-our-modern-ongoing-life-style.

Would you offer a cost/return/benefit analysis for hooking up a few million homes with solar panels on their roofs to the National Grid, and then also point out what we can do when it is night time or god forbid it is cloudy for a few weeks?

Welcome to PH, where context doesn't matter.

The point was the 'vs' diagram.

Solar lost out to fracking primarily because of floor space being used up.

If you put them onto building roofs then the biggest negative for solar in that diagram disappeared.



I'm also completely aware when it's dark they do nothing, but so do humans generally. And lets assume for a second if we put them on homes we can also do things like per-household energy storage, or using them to heat water in tanks ready for the evenings DHW usage? No national grid problems then. But oh noes, national grid gets less money, energy companies have less control! We can't have that in our crony world!

Currently no energy used in 'fields of panels' is stored from what I'm aware of.

So yes I agree, fields of panels are stupid. If you're gonna do solar panels, do them smart! That's the point of my point! Do brainy stuff, rather than the st that our government comes up with which is box ticking and crony satisfying policy only.




As per feed into the national grid, again I'm not the one saying we should. I'm just saying fracking only looks so good against solar and wind in the diagram because the current solar and wind we have are terrible. Even good versions would lose out to fracking, but it wouldn't look so dire in that diagram!

Fracking is STILL better than them in many ways and I support it.

But fracking is still a turd itself next to what could be a really smart energy infrastructure, if we actually spent some money on something!




To sum up for those hard of thinking and reading.

• I do not support st energy policy, which is what we appear to have.
• I do not support fracking if the proceeds simply go to feed profiteers.

• I DO support good energy policy that has joined up thinking and long-termism in mind.
• I DO support fracking if the windfall goes to support the above energy policy!

Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 25th May 16:20

[TheExcession]

FredClogs said:

A lot of these guys don't believe that CO2 is an issue

TRUE

FredClogs said:

green house gas effect doesn't exist

FALSE - very few, if any of us deny there is a 'Greenhouse Gas Effect'. The pertinent points being;

1. What is its magnitude related to CO2 CH4?
2. Is there any causality to humans burning fossil fuels - to which the current answer seems to be a resounding NO. Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 levels appear to lag behind global temperature changes.

FredClogs said:

climate change is all lies and that fossil fuels will last forever.

Even my 9yr old son understands and knows that to be utter rubbish. What's your excuse?

FredClogs said:

It's just what they think and if you do think that then obviously renewable energy does seem a bit daft.

It's not 'what we think' it is what the data is telling us.

Renewable energy is not in essence particularly daft. There are places in the world where solar power and wind power make viable sense.

What does not make sense is forcing subsidised renewables upon a tiny island to the West of Europe, bordering on the Atlantic.

Mr Cloggs, answer one question please - What makes the wind blow?

[TheExcession]

Oi!!!

Freddy fking wooden shoes

“Nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms,

The figure - 14,000 dead wind turbines - comes from Andrew Walden of the American Thinker in his report on the demise of a wind farm at Kamaoa, Hawaii.

It was abandoned in 2006 after 21 years of haphazard operation. Besides killing migratory birds and bats - leading some smart alecks to call them Cuisinarts - wind turbines are expensive to operate.

“The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us,” Walden wrote.

“Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles - but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California big three locations - Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio - considered among the world’s best wind sites.”
Wind isn’t the most important thing about wind turbines. It is all about the tax subsidies.”

Hey Freddy Wooden Shoes - I copied from Google above - you too can go Google and ready the reports.

Wind energy is a fking disaster.

[Mr Whippy]

TheExcession said:

"Wind isn’t the most important thing about wind turbines. It is all about the tax subsidies.”

Crappy government policy has been breaking long-term sustainable energy policy for a long time, in all manner of ways.

We need proper capitalism to do the bits it does well, and government to do the bits it can do well.

Right now we've got the worst blend of the two!

[TheExcession]

Hey Freddy!

Three separate news items on the same day last week reflected three different aspects of what is fast becoming a full-scale disaster bearing down on Britain.

I should probably bow out now before I call 'Full Retard' on another PH poster, especially because this is a thread about fracking - and not about fking the consumer.

Do your research Freddy. You might learn some thing.

[turbobloke]

No names no pack drill but a lot of folks don't have the time or the inclination to look into this type of topic as deeply as others, and the same folks tend to believe what they read on the BBC website and hear on BBC news. The romantic appeal of powering the kettle using the beating of fairy wings is appealing and credible in some quarters. It may indeed be time to retire to the bar for a while and decrease the blood level in your alcohol Ex

[andymadmak]

Mr Whippy said:

Solar lost out to fracking primarily because of floor space being used up.

If you put them onto building roofs then the biggest negative for solar in that diagram disappeared.

In part, but only part. In this country solar power lost out because, well, it's not very good here. Darkness, snow, heavy rain etc all affect panel performance.
It's OK for heating a finite amount water ( a bit like turning your immersion heater on before taking a bath) but for providing usable energy to drive other household and industrial requirements 24/7 it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Part of the issue is how to store excess energy, particularly energy generated from renewable sources. At present we can't do it very well - aside from simple schemes such as pumping some water up a mountain or such like to let it fall back down we need power and the renewable source is offline -
Battery technology is not there yet, and despite many promises it looks like it won't be there for a while to come.

One interesting proposition is to take excess renewable energy and use it to convert something into a storable fuel. I am aware of at least one project that involves taking CO2 and converting it to CH4 using excess renewable energy to facilitate the process.

[TheExcession]

andymadmak said:

One interesting proposition is to take excess renewable energy and use it to convert something into a storable fuel.

There is no excess 'renewable' energy. Grid watch will show you this.

andymadmak said:

I am aware of at least one project that involves taking CO2 and converting it to CH4 using excess renewable energy to facilitate the process.

Go on, we're all ears. Linky please

[andymadmak]

Sorry, I should have made it clearer, the UK does not show an excess of renewables EVER! This is not the case of other parts of the world though.

I can't give you a link to the CO2 to fuel projects though, for some fairly bvious reasons, but I can tell you that I know of two for sure, and I am told of a couple of others. Of those that I know about one works, but only on a very small scale at the moment. The other one,which I know quite alot about, has been proven to work on a much larger scale, but there are technical issues surrounding harvesting the fuel produced. These issues can be overcome.
The processes both still consume more energy than they produce ( obviously!) but the efficiencies measured in the second process to date have been high enough to potentially make it more than viable.
Sorry to be so cryptic, but I am sure you understand the need for this.

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 25th May 22:30

[hidetheelephants]

Mr Whippy said:

If those 39,000 people live on top of the site, then that is fair enough in my view.

If you start to say they don't have 'valid' reasons, then who says what valid reasons are? Surely the council is there to represent the people who live there and the industries already there.

If they're all ignored, and their reasons deemed valid, then is that democracy?

It sounds more like corporate dictatorship to me.

If those 39000 failed to have valid reasons for their objection then the council is quite right to reject them.

Mr Whippy said:

Fracking is the perfect example of the intent. An opportunity to do good, but there is no mention of any good from the proceeds of it. That sums up the intention.

Smash and profit grab. And they can feck off if they think I'm supporting that.

They will pay royalties on any and all gas and oil produced and if I remember correctly there's a local gain share on offer as well; what more do you want?

Mr Whippy said:

At least in that image, fracking is great but it's not sustainable. Wind and solar will be viable in their footprint forever, while fracking won't.

Solar blows goats, the EROI on panels is less than 1 which in plain english means they cost more energy to make than it will produce in its working life. It's likely this figure will improve but expecting it to leap upward by an order of magnitude is not realistic. The only reason it was included in the subsidy bonanza was political pressure and the net result is a load of middle class people being paid to generate not very much electricity.

Mr Whippy said:

What happens in 50 years when the fracking gas has all gone, North Sea oil has all gone?

We either start getting off the fossil fuels now with a sustainable realistic plan (not poor implementations of renewables) and use fracking to subsidise it, or we gamble that something else cheap and easy will land on our lap in 25-50 years time.

Hopefully we'll have acquired a more adult attitude toward nuclear power by then; it's already quite a good and safe way of making electricity and with some concerted investment in research and development could be much more efficient, cheaper and safer. There's enough fissile material on earth to power humanity for thousands of years(sustainable power in any practical sense) although I hope it won't take that long to discover practical fusion.

[Efbe]

what about Hydro?

[hidetheelephants]

Efbe said:

what about Hydro?

It's ok but it can cause a lot of environmental damage if it's not done properly, there aren't that many sites left in the UK to put it as the easy/good ones are already done and it's on a par with offshore wind in the cost stakes.

[turbobloke]

hidetheelephants said:

Efbe said:

what about Hydro?

It's ok but it can cause a lot of environmental damage if it's not done properly, there aren't that many sites left in the UK to put it as the easy/good ones are already done and it's on a par with offshore wind in the cost stakes.

Also, whatever you say, don't mention the methane emissions from hydro. It doesn't actually matter, but some uninformed types think it's a worse sin against Gaia than tax gas while simultaneously praising hydro's green creds.

[FredClogs]

TheExcession said:

Hey Freddy!

Three separate news items on the same day last week reflected three different aspects of what is fast becoming a full-scale disaster bearing down on Britain.

I should probably bow out now before I call 'Full Retard' on another PH poster, especially because this is a thread about fracking - and not about fking the consumer.

Do your research Freddy. You might learn some thing.

Daily Telegraph = Research... Hmmmm

[Efbe]

turbobloke said:

hidetheelephants said:

Efbe said:

what about Hydro?

It's ok but it can cause a lot of environmental damage if it's not done properly, there aren't that many sites left in the UK to put it as the easy/good ones are already done and it's on a par with offshore wind in the cost stakes.

Also, whatever you say, don't mention the methane emissions from hydro. It doesn't actually matter, but some uninformed types think it's a worse sin against Gaia than tax gas while simultaneously praising hydro's green creds.

wouldn't building dams in hilly areas could create thousands of these across the country.

are there quite strenuous requirements around the flow/speed of water required?

[turbobloke]

Efbe said:

turbobloke said:

hidetheelephants said:

Efbe said:

what about Hydro?

It's ok but it can cause a lot of environmental damage if it's not done properly, there aren't that many sites left in the UK to put it as the easy/good ones are already done and it's on a par with offshore wind in the cost stakes.

Also, whatever you say, don't mention the methane emissions from hydro. It doesn't actually matter, but some uninformed types think it's a worse sin against Gaia than tax gas while simultaneously praising hydro's green creds.

wouldn't building dams in hilly areas could create thousands of these across the country.

are there quite strenuous requirements around the flow/speed of water required?

The claim is that most suitable natural sites are taken. Building smaller localised versions to power communities is an option but it's expensive.

I'm not current (no pun intened) on the precise requirements of the different types and designs of hydro, more on the "non-polluting" (not quite) / "environment impacting" aspects