Give us a fracking break!

[HD Adam]

I am out fracking today near San Antonio.

No protesters about and if there was, it's probably legal to shoot them

[Evanivitch]

Efbe said:

Ok makes sense. So drax equates to 6% potential total(of 65GW), the other coal stations 2%, and nuclear stations 0.7% each.

If this is right then at peak winter if we lose drax we have issues, but could potentially lose one other coal, or a few nuclear.
It will be way more complicated than this, but gives me a guideline.

So what GW will fracking provide?

Firstly, it's unlikely you would lose DRAX. It's actually 6 generator sets so unless you had a major issue (like the coal yard going up in smoke) you'd be unlikely to lose it all.

Secondly, fracking is about energy security, not production. It will feed existing gas power stations that will produce electricity. But these are more and more exposed to international economics (falling pound ) and politics (volatile russia) as we lose capacity in the North Sea.

[hidetheelephants]

Evanivitch said:

Efbe said:

Ok makes sense. So drax equates to 6% potential total(of 65GW), the other coal stations 2%, and nuclear stations 0.7% each.

If this is right then at peak winter if we lose drax we have issues, but could potentially lose one other coal, or a few nuclear.
It will be way more complicated than this, but gives me a guideline.

So what GW will fracking provide?

Firstly, it's unlikely you would lose DRAX. It's actually 6 generator sets so unless you had a major issue (like the coal yard going up in smoke) you'd be unlikely to lose it all.

Secondly, fracking is about energy security, not production. It will feed existing gas power stations that will produce electricity. But these are more and more exposed to international economics (falling pound ) and politics (volatile russia) as we lose capacity in the North Sea.

Three of the units at Drax are burning wood pellets and the supply chain for those is really tight due to the st energy density, so there's only a couple of weeks supply when everything's working; a strike by dockers in the US or the UK could fritz the whole thing quite quickly.

[Evanivitch]

hidetheelephants said:

Evanivitch said:

Efbe said:

Ok makes sense. So drax equates to 6% potential total(of 65GW), the other coal stations 2%, and nuclear stations 0.7% each.

If this is right then at peak winter if we lose drax we have issues, but could potentially lose one other coal, or a few nuclear.
It will be way more complicated than this, but gives me a guideline.

So what GW will fracking provide?

Firstly, it's unlikely you would lose DRAX. It's actually 6 generator sets so unless you had a major issue (like the coal yard going up in smoke) you'd be unlikely to lose it all.

Secondly, fracking is about energy security, not production. It will feed existing gas power stations that will produce electricity. But these are more and more exposed to international economics (falling pound ) and politics (volatile russia) as we lose capacity in the North Sea.

Three of the units at Drax are burning wood pellets and the supply chain for those is really tight due to the st energy density, so there's only a couple of weeks supply when everything's working; a strike by dockers in the US or the UK could fritz the whole thing quite quickly.

So it's still unlikely you'd loose all 6?

[FredClogs]

Evanivitch said:

Firstly, it's unlikely you would lose DRAX. It's actually 6 generator sets so unless you had a major issue (like the coal yard going up in smoke) you'd be unlikely to lose it all.

Secondly, fracking is about energy security, not production. It will feed existing gas power stations that will produce electricity. But these are more and more exposed to international economics (falling pound ) and politics (volatile russia) as we lose capacity in the North Sea.

As I understand it the gas fracked from Bowland shale or anywhere else in the UK "belongs" to whoever mines it, the licenses and permissions that decide that will be UK government given but there is no guarantee that the gas will be "ours" it'll go to be sold on world energy markets, the increase in supply will obviously effect world markets and gas is obviously easier and cheaper pipe.and.use locally than transport long distances but the idea that "we" will be fracking for "our" energy security is a bit.misleading isn't it?

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments, if I were a cynic of large corporate business and governments motives I'd say there's nothing about the UKs energy security strategy that you couldn't learn in day 1 of a double glazing salesmen's course. Make them fearful, show them the solution tell them they have a limited time to secure the deal.

[Elysium]

Evanivitch said:

hidetheelephants said:

Evanivitch said:

Efbe said:

Ok makes sense. So drax equates to 6% potential total(of 65GW), the other coal stations 2%, and nuclear stations 0.7% each.

If this is right then at peak winter if we lose drax we have issues, but could potentially lose one other coal, or a few nuclear.
It will be way more complicated than this, but gives me a guideline.

So what GW will fracking provide?

Firstly, it's unlikely you would lose DRAX. It's actually 6 generator sets so unless you had a major issue (like the coal yard going up in smoke) you'd be unlikely to lose it all.

Secondly, fracking is about energy security, not production. It will feed existing gas power stations that will produce electricity. But these are more and more exposed to international economics (falling pound ) and politics (volatile russia) as we lose capacity in the North Sea.

Three of the units at Drax are burning wood pellets and the supply chain for those is really tight due to the st energy density, so there's only a couple of weeks supply when everything's working; a strike by dockers in the US or the UK could fritz the whole thing quite quickly.

So it's still unlikely you'd loose all 6?

We lost two nuclear power stations over winter 2014. One of them remains at reduced capacity:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/1...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysham_nuclear_powe...

Don't forget that we are losing most of the coal stations anyway:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2452826/w...

This is an interesting website:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[Evanivitch]

FredClogs said:

As I understand it the gas fracked from Bowland shale or anywhere else in the UK "belongs" to whoever mines it, the licenses and permissions that decide that will be UK government given but there is no guarantee that the gas will be "ours" it'll go to be sold on world energy markets, the increase in supply will obviously effect world markets and gas is obviously easier and cheaper pipe.and.use locally than transport long distances but the idea that "we" will be fracking for "our" energy security is a bit.misleading isn't it?
.

And yet I never said it was "ours".

UK energy security is still a key point. If the UK can't import gas easily, how do you expect the producer to export it? If the frackers can't bring domestic gas to market cheaper than imported gas (that has been liquefied, shipped and gassified) then we'll buy imported gas. But the economics of competition will be there.

And let's not forget, if things really did go to tits with Russia then the government will have the power to manage it in times of emergency.

[Evanivitch]

Elysium said:

We lost two nuclear power stations over winter 2014. One of them remains at reduced capacity:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/1...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysham_nuclear_powe...

Don't forget that we are losing most of the coal stations anyway:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2452826/w...

This is an interesting website:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Nuclear power stations usually consist of a reactor or 2. Largely independent, but if you loose one then you still have a significant gap in the power supply. But it doesn't compare to 6 Drax generators.

And I linked to gridwatch on the previous page, its a wonderful illustration of how green energy must be backed up with nuclear/conventional powersupplies.

[Andy Zarse]

FredClogs said:

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments...

You'll have to explain these subsidies to me Fred, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it that the Govt is actively paying the frackers to explore the shale for gas, or that they can simply offset the cost of exploration against future tax? Surely the gas removed will still incur a significant tax charge, similar to gas extracted from the North Sea?

[turbobloke]

Andy Zarse said:

FredClogs said:

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments...

You'll have to explain these subsidies to me Fred, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it that the Govt is actively paying the frackers to explore the shale for gas, or that they can simply offset the cost of exploration against future tax? Surely the gas removed will still incur a significant tax charge, similar to gas extracted from the North Sea?

Indeed. The idea that tax breaks are a form of subsidy was far enough down that particular foray.

No, tax breaks are not subsidies

Cuadrilla aren't receiving massive subsidies after all.

[Efbe]

turbobloke said:

Andy Zarse said:

FredClogs said:

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments...

You'll have to explain these subsidies to me Fred, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it that the Govt is actively paying the frackers to explore the shale for gas, or that they can simply offset the cost of exploration against future tax? Surely the gas removed will still incur a significant tax charge, similar to gas extracted from the North Sea?

Indeed. The idea that tax breaks are a form of subsidy was far enough down that particular foray.

No, tax breaks are not subsidies

Cuadrilla aren't receiving massive subsidies after all.

isn't he referring to:

"The Treasury has set a 30% tax rate for onshore shale gas production. That compares with a top rate of 62% on new North Sea oil operations and up to 81% for older offshore fields."

Maybe not a subsidy, but same effect

[FredClogs]

turbobloke said:

Andy Zarse said:

FredClogs said:

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments...

You'll have to explain these subsidies to me Fred, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it that the Govt is actively paying the frackers to explore the shale for gas, or that they can simply offset the cost of exploration against future tax? Surely the gas removed will still incur a significant tax charge, similar to gas extracted from the North Sea?

Indeed. The idea that tax breaks are a form of subsidy was far enough down that particular foray.

No, tax breaks are not subsidies

Cuadrilla aren't receiving massive subsidies after all.

Enhanced Capital allowances are allowed to companies that are investing in fracking, one of the reasons Cuadrilla are now finding investment from established UK energy firm Centrica (British Gas) is that Centrica can write off the £60m they've invested in Cuadrilla operations against profits made in other areas of the business and in markets other than fracked natural gas. So in a way it's worse than a subsidy because it distorts competition right across the energy production sector. Similar tax breaks are not available (or being withdrawn) for renewable energy investment.

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

turbobloke said:

Andy Zarse said:

FredClogs said:

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments...

You'll have to explain these subsidies to me Fred, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it that the Govt is actively paying the frackers to explore the shale for gas, or that they can simply offset the cost of exploration against future tax? Surely the gas removed will still incur a significant tax charge, similar to gas extracted from the North Sea?

Indeed. The idea that tax breaks are a form of subsidy was far enough down that particular foray.

No, tax breaks are not subsidies

Cuadrilla aren't receiving massive subsidies after all.

Enhanced Capital allowances are allowed to companies that are investing in fracking, one of the reasons Cuadrilla are now finding investment from established UK energy firm Centrica (British Gas) is that Centrica can write off the £60m they've invested in Cuadrilla operations against profits made in other areas of the business and in markets other than fracked natural gas. So in a way it's worse than a subsidy because it distorts competition right across the energy production sector. Similar tax breaks are not available (or being withdrawn) for renewable energy investment.

What about subsidies to renewables and market distortion, when not long ago you claimed subsidies were the same thing and (above) don't seem to have moved far since then?

Subsidised renewables distort UK market.
https://www.ft.com/content/5164675e-1e7e-11e6-b286...

Renewables subsidies distort and damage the UK energy industry.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mytrah-energy-uk-renewabl...

Renewables subsidies distort German market.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/energy-germany-elect...

In general, handing out other people's money to recipients who haven't earned it by way of a leg-up is not the same as allowing those other people to keep a little more of their own earned money which they've already sweated for without a leg-up.

[FredClogs]

turbobloke said:

What about subsidies to renewables and market distortion, when not long ago you claimed subsidies were the same thing and (above) don't seem to have moved far since then?

Subsidised renewables distort UK market.
https://www.ft.com/content/5164675e-1e7e-11e6-b286...

Renewables subsidies distort and damage the UK energy industry.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mytrah-energy-uk-renewabl...

Renewables subsidies distort German market.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/energy-germany-elect...

Handing out other people's money to recipients who haven't earned it by way of a leg-up is not the same as allowing those people to keep a little more of their own earned money which they sweated for without a leg-up.

As I understand it the largest area of renewable energy source subsidy was taken up by the feeder tariff which went to normal people like you and I and as I've said the subsidies in general on renewable are being withdrawn. The difference between the subsidy and the enhanced capital allowances is that the subsidy on renewable is only for the specific work done in renewables, designed to up the production of renewable energy to help us meet our climate change commitments (I suspect you're on of these that doesn't believe in climate change or fossil fuels, in which case this whole conversation is largely a waste of everyone's time). The enhanced capital allowance is less obvious and more open to creative accounting because it allows large corporation large tax breaks across their macro business for money invested in fracking over very long periods of time.

I'm not an accountant or specifically all that bothered in arguing the point, but if government has been talked into propping up failing large utility companies who haven't managed themselves well through the oil downturn masked under the impression of investment in fracking then I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[Jinx]

FredClogs said:

As I understand it the largest area of renewable energy source subsidy was taken up by the feeder tariff which went to normal people like you and I and as I've said the subsidies in general on renewable are being withdrawn. The difference between the subsidy and the enhanced capital allowances is that the subsidy on renewable is only for the specific work done in renewables, designed to up the production of renewable energy to help us meet our climate change commitments (I suspect you're on of these that doesn't believe in climate change or fossil fuels, in which case this whole conversation is largely a waste of everyone's time). The enhanced capital allowance is less obvious and more open to creative accounting because it allows large corporation large tax breaks across their macro business for money invested in fracking over very long periods of time.

I'm not an accountant or specifically all that bothered in arguing the point, but if government has been talked into propping up failing large utility companies who haven't managed themselves well through the oil downturn masked under the impression of investment in fracking then I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Fred - not stealing someone's money is not the same as giving them money.

[FredClogs]

Jinx said:

Fred - not stealing someone's money is not the same as giving them money.

Taxation isn't stealing and if it is then stealing one persons money and not another based on their investment choices is like double stealing in a way, isn't it?

[snuffy]

All taxation is state sponsored theft.

[Andy Zarse]

FredClogs said:

turbobloke said:

Andy Zarse said:

FredClogs said:

We're giving Cuadrilla massive subsidies in the form.of tax breaks to pave the way and in the future will probably be barreled over to guaranteed pricing before anyone makes more investments...

You'll have to explain these subsidies to me Fred, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it that the Govt is actively paying the frackers to explore the shale for gas, or that they can simply offset the cost of exploration against future tax? Surely the gas removed will still incur a significant tax charge, similar to gas extracted from the North Sea?

Indeed. The idea that tax breaks are a form of subsidy was far enough down that particular foray.

No, tax breaks are not subsidies

Cuadrilla aren't receiving massive subsidies after all.

Enhanced Capital allowances are allowed to companies that are investing in fracking, one of the reasons Cuadrilla are now finding investment from established UK energy firm Centrica (British Gas) is that Centrica can write off the £60m they've invested in Cuadrilla operations against profits made in other areas of the business and in markets other than fracked natural gas. So in a way it's worse than a subsidy because it distorts competition right across the energy production sector. Similar tax breaks are not available (or being withdrawn) for renewable energy investment.

Ignoring subsidies to renewables, which is another subject altogether, surely any company who invests in exporation can offset the cost against profits? Perfectly normal taxation protocol and applies across most industries.

If the Govt gave Cuadrilla a direct grant to explore the shale field then I think it would be logical to call it a subsidy. However, I completely disagree that the proposal to tax future profits (if indeed there are any) at a particular rate is subsidising since there is no direct transfer of money from state to explorer. If Cuadrilla don't bring any gas to the surface, or if they do but fail to sell it at a profit, then it won't have cost HMG a single penny.

In any event exploration is just that, a very risky business. Would you stake your own pension in such a venture? Exactly.

I posed the question above to check I hadn't missed the news whereby HMG was suddenly writing cheques to oil and gas companies, and I am very pleased to learn from you that they aren't. That said, in my view your disgraceful misuse of the word "subsidy" is a deliberate attempt to twist the facts with the intention to mislead. I'd expect this sort of silly behavious from the likes of Greenpeas and Fiends of the Earth, not from someone trying to make a cogent case against fracking. Consequently I have no respect or regard for your position.

[Jinx]

FredClogs said:

Taxation isn't stealing and if it is then stealing one persons money and not another based on their investment choices is like double stealing in a way, isn't it?

Legalised extortion yes (removal of property/funds under threat or menaces) and doing it more than once is standard UK taxation policy (fuel duty followed by VAT comes to mind) .
Again though comparing taking money from one to how much you give to another is not the basis of fair taxation and leads you to the missing pound riddle (you need to compare like with like - so always work to a common denominator - and never quote percentages without a base figure).
Wind power is not an investment as it is only viable with subsidies - true cost is never met by profit - there are many images of failed wind farms rotting online, after the subsidies ran out, if you care to look. Only by distorting the market (enforced purchase, price fixing etc. ) do they become viable but this distortion only increases the price to the consumer. This increased cost to the consumer only makes the non-renewable market more attractive and cheaper requiring greater subsidies to offset this changing differential. Market distortions via subsidy are ultimately self defeating. If you milk the energy cow you will have plenty to drink - adding milk to a dead cow gets you nothing.

[Andy Zarse]

snuffy said:

All taxation is state sponsored theft.

Well if Cuadrilla wants to pay for all its own infrastructure, national road/rail network, healthcare, schools, hospitals, policing, defence, pensions/benefits and all the other things the state provides then I suppose it is. However, since Cuadrilla (or any other company to my knowledge) doesn't, then it isn't...