FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Fracking won’t work in the UK
Fracking won’t work in the UK
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Guess the government have got it wrong again, apparently this fracking goldmine we are supposed to be sitting on is a lie, one of the first UK fracking companies admitted that due to the geology of the UK, it will be practically infeasible to extract fuel, and whatever returns we do get are going to be limited and not going to support us at all, and not give us the energy independence we require.
When are these tory supporters going to realise the people whom the voted for are absolute bullshitters? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Guess the government have got it wrong again, apparently this fracking goldmine we are supposed to be sitting on is a lie, one of the first UK fracking companies admitted that due to the geology of the UK, it will be practically infeasible to extract fuel, and whatever returns we do get are going to be limited and not going to support us at all, and not give us the energy independence we require.
When are these tory supporters going to realise the people whom the voted for are absolute bullshitters?"
Interesting statistics on the Us experience say that after 10 years the majority of fracking wells are only giving 10 per cent of the initial output at which point they are no longer economically viable and then they have to be capped off but more importantly these capped wells then need to be monitored long term and that is not allowed for in any of the oil companies published costings….funny that!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Guess the government have got it wrong again, apparently this fracking goldmine we are supposed to be sitting on is a lie, one of the first UK fracking companies admitted that due to the geology of the UK, it will be practically infeasible to extract fuel, and whatever returns we do get are going to be limited and not going to support us at all, and not give us the energy independence we require.
When are these tory supporters going to realise the people whom the voted for are absolute bullshitters?"
It does seem that the drilling companies got their surveys wrong, and that the various UK sites are not really suitable for fracking.
I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the Tory government are incompetent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Guess the government have got it wrong again, apparently this fracking goldmine we are supposed to be sitting on is a lie, one of the first UK fracking companies admitted that due to the geology of the UK, it will be practically infeasible to extract fuel, and whatever returns we do get are going to be limited and not going to support us at all, and not give us the energy independence we require.
When are these tory supporters going to realise the people whom the voted for are absolute bullshitters?
It does seem that the drilling companies got their surveys wrong, and that the various UK sites are not really suitable for fracking.
I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the Tory government are incompetent."
Because Liz Truss is about to lift the ban on fracking  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Guess the government have got it wrong again, apparently this fracking goldmine we are supposed to be sitting on is a lie, one of the first UK fracking companies admitted that due to the geology of the UK, it will be practically infeasible to extract fuel, and whatever returns we do get are going to be limited and not going to support us at all, and not give us the energy independence we require.
When are these tory supporters going to realise the people whom the voted for are absolute bullshitters?
It does seem that the drilling companies got their surveys wrong, and that the various UK sites are not really suitable for fracking.
I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the Tory government are incompetent.
Because Liz Truss is about to lift the ban on fracking "
despite it being a manifesto promice not to at the last election |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Guess the government have got it wrong again, apparently this fracking goldmine we are supposed to be sitting on is a lie, one of the first UK fracking companies admitted that due to the geology of the UK, it will be practically infeasible to extract fuel, and whatever returns we do get are going to be limited and not going to support us at all, and not give us the energy independence we require.
When are these tory supporters going to realise the people whom the voted for are absolute bullshitters?
It does seem that the drilling companies got their surveys wrong, and that the various UK sites are not really suitable for fracking.
I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the Tory government are incompetent.
Because Liz Truss is about to lift the ban on fracking despite it being a manifesto promice not to at the last election "
Yep |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It does seem that the drilling companies got their surveys wrong, and that the various UK sites are not really suitable for fracking.
I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the Tory government are incompetent."
"Because Liz Truss is about to lift the ban on fracking"
That's the rumour. Maybe she won't do it now.
Even if she does, what's the problem? The fracking companies won't bother trying any more, and we've got rid of a pointless bit of legislation.
I don't see any massive incompetence there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It does seem that the drilling companies got their surveys wrong, and that the various UK sites are not really suitable for fracking.
I'm not sure how that demonstrates that the Tory government are incompetent.
Because Liz Truss is about to lift the ban on fracking
That's the rumour. Maybe she won't do it now.
Even if she does, what's the problem? The fracking companies won't bother trying any more, and we've got rid of a pointless bit of legislation.
I don't see any massive incompetence there."
Because, like the OP has stated, fracking doesn’t work in the UK and the tories had promised not to use it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
what do the frackers hope to achieve? there's no clear message from the government about what fracking will achieve. it would be helpful if they came clean rather than chucking out red meat to science deniers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see any massive incompetence there."
"Because, like the OP has stated, fracking doesn’t work in the UK and the tories had promised not to use it "
If it doesn't work, then no one will do it, so we don't need a law to ban it.
If, on the other hand, that one bloke was wrong and it does actually work, then we'll get some useful energy independence out of it.
Either way, given how important gas is to the country, removing the ban seems like a good idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth.  "
Perhaps the government are more interested in continuity of supply than price ?
Rightly or wrongly of course |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't see any massive incompetence there.
Because, like the OP has stated, fracking doesn’t work in the UK and the tories had promised not to use it
If it doesn't work, then no one will do it, so we don't need a law to ban it.
If, on the other hand, that one bloke was wrong and it does actually work, then we'll get some useful energy independence out of it.
Either way, given how important gas is to the country, removing the ban seems like a good idea."
Fracking is not the road to energy independence.
It's a route to even deeper dependence on fossil fuels, and of course healthy profits for fossil fuel companies/Tory party donors.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth.
Perhaps the government are more interested in continuity of supply than price ?
Rightly or wrongly of course "
to be fair, that's an entirely different topic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth."
When I said "energy independence", I was talking about having a local supply, not about price.
But of course, if the UK ever came to the point where we could supply all of our fuel sources, then there would be no need to peg the price to international values. We could completely de-couple from the international markets, and choose our own pricing system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth.
When I said "energy independence", I was talking about having a local supply, not about price.
But of course, if the UK ever came to the point where we could supply all of our fuel sources, then there would be no need to peg the price to international values. We could completely de-couple from the international markets, and choose our own pricing system."
that will only be achieved by abondoning the conservative party's fascistic ideological repression of certain areas of the markets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth.
When I said "energy independence", I was talking about having a local supply, not about price.
But of course, if the UK ever came to the point where we could supply all of our fuel sources, then there would be no need to peg the price to international values. We could completely de-couple from the international markets, and choose our own pricing system.
that will only be achieved by abondoning the conservative party's fascistic ideological repression of certain areas of the markets. "
Or remove our reliance on fossil fuels. Easily done, if the political will was there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth.
When I said "energy independence", I was talking about having a local supply, not about price.
But of course, if the UK ever came to the point where we could supply all of our fuel sources, then there would be no need to peg the price to international values. We could completely de-couple from the international markets, and choose our own pricing system.
that will only be achieved by abondoning the conservative party's fascistic ideological repression of certain areas of the markets.
Or remove our reliance on fossil fuels. Easily done, if the political will was there."
that's what i said, but in more factual language |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
"so long as gas and electricity are pegged to the global market then the notion of energy independence remains an unachievable myth. "
Quite so, I believe we are exporting gas to Europe? Yet our tariffs go up ...
Only winners are energy companies and government with the vat and tax.
Jo public has no chance, one day people will wake up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
Moggy Mogg screwed up today.
Claiming shale gas will bring money into the country - are they planning to sell it?
A drop in the global market at full capacity will reduce price internationally by around £0.00002
Making a few very rich at the expense of damaged housing stock of the less well off from tremors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Moggy Mogg screwed up today.
Claiming shale gas will bring money into the country - are they planning to sell it?
A drop in the global market at full capacity will reduce price internationally by around £0.00002
Making a few very rich at the expense of damaged housing stock of the less well off from tremors."
Why is that a "screw up"?
His job is to serve the fossil fuel industry while continuing to con people into voting Tory. Sounds like he's bang on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't see any massive incompetence there.
Because, like the OP has stated, fracking doesn’t work in the UK and the tories had promised not to use it
If it doesn't work, then no one will do it, so we don't need a law to ban it.
If, on the other hand, that one bloke was wrong and it does actually work, then we'll get some useful energy independence out of it.
Either way, given how important gas is to the country, removing the ban seems like a good idea."
Are you suggesting that there is only ‘one bloke’ who thinks fracking doesn’t work? Why did they ban it then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Moggy Mogg screwed up today.
Claiming shale gas will bring money into the country - are they planning to sell it?
A drop in the global market at full capacity will reduce price internationally by around £0.00002
Making a few very rich at the expense of damaged housing stock of the less well off from tremors.
Why is that a "screw up"?
His job is to serve the fossil fuel industry while continuing to con people into voting Tory. Sounds like he's bang on."
Ahh, meant, let slip.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If it doesn't work, then no one will do it, so we don't need a law to ban it.
If, on the other hand, that one bloke was wrong and it does actually work, then we'll get some useful energy independence out of it.
Either way, given how important gas is to the country, removing the ban seems like a good idea."
"Are you suggesting that there is only ‘one bloke’ who thinks fracking doesn’t work? Why did they ban it then ? "
That one bloke is Chris Cornelius, a geologist and one of the founders of Cuadrilla, who was in the news yesterday after saying that fracking won't work in the UK because of the complex geology.
The government banned it because people thought that it was a bad idea, not because they thought it wouldn't work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If it doesn't work, then no one will do it, so we don't need a law to ban it.
If, on the other hand, that one bloke was wrong and it does actually work, then we'll get some useful energy independence out of it.
Either way, given how important gas is to the country, removing the ban seems like a good idea.
Are you suggesting that there is only ‘one bloke’ who thinks fracking doesn’t work? Why did they ban it then ?
That one bloke is Chris Cornelius, a geologist and one of the founders of Cuadrilla, who was in the news yesterday after saying that fracking won't work in the UK because of the complex geology.
The government banned it because people thought that it was a bad idea, not because they thought it wouldn't work."
It is a bad idea and it won’t work in the UK unless you have the information that says otherwise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Presumably if fracking doesn't work then no business will bother trying to do it now it's becoming a lawful activity again. They are unlikely to waste their money trying if there is no financial gain for them.
I guess we will soon find out.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
"
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it."
If gas can be found, stored and supplied from within out territory, is this not a good thing for energy security?
Nobody has put a timescale on how long it would go on for, and there needs to be exploration to ensure there is is sufficient gas to be found.
If they don't start working it out now, will people be saying in 10 years time, they should have explored all possibilities?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
If gas can be found, stored and supplied from within out territory, is this not a good thing for energy security?
Nobody has put a timescale on how long it would go on for, and there needs to be exploration to ensure there is is sufficient gas to be found.
If they don't start working it out now, will people be saying in 10 years time, they should have explored all possibilities?
"
No, it puts us even more at risk and makes us even more dependent on fossil fuels.
It will exasperate all the problems we have now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it."
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oghunter33Woman
over a year ago
on the hill NordWest of |
"If it doesn't work, then no one will do it, so we don't need a law to ban it.
If, on the other hand, that one bloke was wrong and it does actually work, then we'll get some useful energy independence out of it.
Either way, given how important gas is to the country, removing the ban seems like a good idea.
Are you suggesting that there is only ‘one bloke’ who thinks fracking doesn’t work? Why did they ban it then ?
That one bloke is Chris Cornelius, a geologist and one of the founders of Cuadrilla, who was in the news yesterday after saying that fracking won't work in the UK because of the complex geology.
The government banned it because people thought that it was a bad idea, not because they thought it wouldn't work."
Fracking can be hugely damaging to the environment, it comes with risk of air, ground, water and sound pollution. Also the fracking process releases large quantities of greenhouse gases, including methane. I think fracking was dismissed because of those environmental concerns. It seems those serious concerns have disappeared over night by sheer magic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
If gas can be found, stored and supplied from within out territory, is this not a good thing for energy security?
Nobody has put a timescale on how long it would go on for, and there needs to be exploration to ensure there is is sufficient gas to be found.
If they don't start working it out now, will people be saying in 10 years time, they should have explored all possibilities?
No, it puts us even more at risk and makes us even more dependent on fossil fuels.
It will exasperate all the problems we have now.
"
Could it alleviate in the short-term, allowing us to be better placed for the longterm strategy.
Holding on to your principles religiously is admirable, but not necessarily the answer to realising your principles in this instance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
"
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?"
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0."
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0.
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy "
I've always been a believer in nuclear and have heard about these mini plants. They seem like a good idea.
Problem is that as soon as you mention the bogey word (NUCLEAR) all hell breaks loose.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it."
But who is generating "renewables" (or "unreliables" as they should more accurately be called) or providing the infrastructure for electric cars? Is it little mom and pop stores? Or is it multinationals? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
But who is generating "renewables" (or "unreliables" as they should more accurately be called) or providing the infrastructure for electric cars? Is it little mom and pop stores? Or is it multinationals? "
Good point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0.
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy "
I would imagine fracking is a lot quicker to find and use gas, compared to the time it takes to find the right locations and build the mini nuclear plants.
In my opinion we should do everything in our power to become energy dependent, lots of initiatives moving at the the same time. They can close down the dirtier technologies as and when we have cleaner methods in place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot."
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0.
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy
I would imagine fracking is a lot quicker to find and use gas, compared to the time it takes to find the right locations and build the mini nuclear plants.
In my opinion we should do everything in our power to become energy dependent, lots of initiatives moving at the the same time. They can close down the dirtier technologies as and when we have cleaner methods in place."
Yes, I agree. But that means not investing and building yet more "dirtier" methods, dragging us deeper into the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *..WillowCouple
over a year ago
East Lincs |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time."
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0.
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy
I would imagine fracking is a lot quicker to find and use gas, compared to the time it takes to find the right locations and build the mini nuclear plants.
In my opinion we should do everything in our power to become energy dependent, lots of initiatives moving at the the same time. They can close down the dirtier technologies as and when we have cleaner methods in place.
Yes, I agree. But that means not investing and building yet more "dirtier" methods, dragging us deeper into the problem."
Dirtier? Yes maybe. But I would choose another word. "Reliable" which does not apply to wind or solar.
Even in our house in "sunny" Spain we have a solar water tank. It is absolutely great from March to October.
For the rest of the year we have a choice of turn the gas on or take cold showers.
Try flogging that idea to the masses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page! "
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any."
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case."
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would just add that looking at the paid to pollute website (which looks like it was designed by a 10 year old)
Half of the people in the pics were old enough not just to know better but they were probably wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. LOL. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week. "
Do you know more about fracking in the UK than the founder of Cuadrilla? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week.
Do you know more about fracking in the UK than the founder of Cuadrilla? "
No but I know a bunch of climate change headbangers when I see one.
If he is right then fracking won't attract the investment. If not it will.
We will see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week.
Do you know more about fracking in the UK than the founder of Cuadrilla?
No but I know a bunch of climate change headbangers when I see one.
If he is right then fracking won't attract the investment. If not it will.
We will see."
He was the founder of Cuadrilla, it was in his best interests for fracking to work, it obviously doesn’t |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week.
Do you know more about fracking in the UK than the founder of Cuadrilla?
No but I know a bunch of climate change headbangers when I see one.
If he is right then fracking won't attract the investment. If not it will.
We will see.
He was the founder of Cuadrilla, it was in his best interests for fracking to work, it obviously doesn’t "
I'm confused. Should we ban fracking because it's just a bunch of rich multinationals raking it in and destroying the environment? Or ban it because it doesn't work and the rich multinationals are all stupid so we need to protect them from their own idiocy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week.
Do you know more about fracking in the UK than the founder of Cuadrilla?
No but I know a bunch of climate change headbangers when I see one.
If he is right then fracking won't attract the investment. If not it will.
We will see.
He was the founder of Cuadrilla, it was in his best interests for fracking to work, it obviously doesn’t
I'm confused. Should we ban fracking because it's just a bunch of rich multinationals raking it in and destroying the environment? Or ban it because it doesn't work and the rich multinationals are all stupid so we need to protect them from their own idiocy?"
It should be banned because it is bad for the environment and doesn’t work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
There's more to life than what Putin thinks.
The UK needs to be moving away from fossil fuels. The only beneficiary of fracking is the multinationals that get rich from it.
Moving away is fine but it isn't just a walk around the corner. To get rid of fossil fuels is going to take decades and the lights need to stay on now. While wind and solar can make a valuable contribution they are just not reliable enough. And that's before we get onto where the electricity for the electric car folly is going to come from.
Maybe flying kites into thunderstorms might work.
So choose. Buy Putin's gas or produce our own. But the one sure thing is that the world is going to need a shitload of the stuff for the foreseeable future.
Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
BTW. If multinationals earn a few quid then fine. Remember that the biggest shareholders, you know those nasty capitalists, are actually your pension pot.
No, I removed unethical businesses from my pension investments. Not willing to contribute to destroying the planet for a pension boost.
If green energy got even a fraction of the financial support the fossil fuels industry does, we'd be energy independent, on free non polluting sources in no time.
I would say it was the other way around.
Last time I looked it was "green taxes" to pay for windmills that everyone was moaning about. And I don't think paying for drilling licences counts as "support"
Yes exactly! People were moaning about "green taxes" despite the reality of green energy financial support being a mere fraction of what the fossil fuels industry receives. I wonder why the public's attention is directed towards the tiny fraction which would contribute towards energy independence and cheap electricity for consumers!!! Now we're getting towards being on the same page!
You say a "fraction of what the fossil fuel industry receives"
Receives from where? Please put some meat on the bones of that statement because I don't know of any.
Globally: subsidies of $5.9 trillion in 2020.
UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
So basically it's just the ramblings of a pressure group that have actually given up their court action and are now taking to the streets.
No doubt we will see them glued to the M25 next week. "
Nope. Real life information. But of course you could choose to believe the propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuels industry. Not sure why you'd be proud about arguing against your, and the planets interests. But there you go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add that looking at the paid to pollute website (which looks like it was designed by a 10 year old)
Half of the people in the pics were old enough not just to know better but they were probably wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. LOL."
So you didn't read about the court case and made your mind up based on the website design.
If a slick website is all that it takes to convince you, I can see why you swallow the propaganda from those with all the money so easily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add that looking at the paid to pollute website (which looks like it was designed by a 10 year old)
Half of the people in the pics were old enough not just to know better but they were probably wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. LOL.
So you didn't read about the court case and made your mind up based on the website design.
If a slick website is all that it takes to convince you, I can see why you swallow the propaganda from those with all the money so easily."
They abandoned the court case. Probably because they knew they would lose it. I'm sure that with a strong case they would have carried on.
Now they want to take action on the streets.
In other words they are the usual headbangers that protest about everything but have a solution for nothing.
Stop this, ban that, abolish the other. When asked what they would do it's er.... well.... you know.....er.... Stop ban abolish and on and on ad nauseum.
Maybe a handful of celebs flying in on private jets will help the cause.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add that looking at the paid to pollute website (which looks like it was designed by a 10 year old)
Half of the people in the pics were old enough not just to know better but they were probably wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. LOL.
So you didn't read about the court case and made your mind up based on the website design.
If a slick website is all that it takes to convince you, I can see why you swallow the propaganda from those with all the money so easily.
They abandoned the court case. Probably because they knew they would lose it. I'm sure that with a strong case they would have carried on.
Now they want to take action on the streets.
In other words they are the usual headbangers that protest about everything but have a solution for nothing.
Stop this, ban that, abolish the other. When asked what they would do it's er.... well.... you know.....er.... Stop ban abolish and on and on ad nauseum.
Maybe a handful of celebs flying in on private jets will help the cause.
"
It's interesting to see the effect of propaganda real time. Thank you for sharing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would just add that looking at the paid to pollute website (which looks like it was designed by a 10 year old)
Half of the people in the pics were old enough not just to know better but they were probably wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. LOL.
So you didn't read about the court case and made your mind up based on the website design.
If a slick website is all that it takes to convince you, I can see why you swallow the propaganda from those with all the money so easily.
They abandoned the court case. Probably because they knew they would lose it. I'm sure that with a strong case they would have carried on.
Now they want to take action on the streets.
In other words they are the usual headbangers that protest about everything but have a solution for nothing.
Stop this, ban that, abolish the other. When asked what they would do it's er.... well.... you know.....er.... Stop ban abolish and on and on ad nauseum.
Maybe a handful of celebs flying in on private jets will help the cause.
"
Any fracking in Germany or Spain? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case."
We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer."
Yawn. Well done. You win whatever weird semantic argument you feel compelled to get into. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
Are we the only country to sell home grown energy like gas and oil on the international markets before supplying our own needs? Just seems bizarre to sell on the markets and then buy it back at a higher rate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case."
"We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer."
"Yawn. Well done. You win whatever weird semantic argument you feel compelled to get into."
There's no weird semantics here, just you repeating a familiar untruth, and me picking you up on it. Again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am beginning to think Rees-Mogg is doing this to create outrage and draw attention from something else. It's like those infamous cards of his. Apparently there were only about 3 of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are we the only country to sell home grown energy like gas and oil on the international markets before supplying our own needs? Just seems bizarre to sell on the markets and then buy it back at a higher rate"
We are supplying our own needs. We take enough gas to run the power stations, and sell the rest off to the market.
We have to do it that way because the government a few years ago decided to follow a just-in-time gas supply system, rather than paying to refurbish our aging gas storage facilities.
That turned out to be a bad decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer.
Yawn. Well done. You win whatever weird semantic argument you feel compelled to get into.
There's no weird semantics here, just you repeating a familiar untruth, and me picking you up on it. Again."
Yes well done. You win.
Meanwhile the financial support for the fossil fuels industry costs the tax payer billions. But I'm glad you're happy with winning the argument about what to call it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are we the only country to sell home grown energy like gas and oil on the international markets before supplying our own needs? Just seems bizarre to sell on the markets and then buy it back at a higher rate"
Hate to say it but the Tories closed down our last remaining gas storage (I believe Ms Truss was in charge of the department that decided on this action) so we are completely at the mercy of market forces but what more should one expect of disaster capitalists ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes well done. You win.
Meanwhile the financial support for the fossil fuels industry costs the tax payer billions. But I'm glad you're happy with winning the argument about what to call it."
Apparently I haven't won, because you're still claiming that the fossil fuel industry gets special payouts from the UK government. It just isn't true.
This isn't a semantic argument about what to call the financial assistance, it's a flat out statement that the financial assistance doesn't exist.
Yes, there are tax breaks. Yes, the fossil fuel industry gets them. Yes, so does any other company engaging in R&D. There's no special treatment for fossil fuel companies.
Unlike the "renewables" industry, which benefits from the proceeds of a special tax levied on everyone just to help subsidise them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0.
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy
I would imagine fracking is a lot quicker to find and use gas, compared to the time it takes to find the right locations and build the mini nuclear plants.
In my opinion we should do everything in our power to become energy dependent, lots of initiatives moving at the the same time. They can close down the dirtier technologies as and when we have cleaner methods in place.
Yes, I agree. But that means not investing and building yet more "dirtier" methods, dragging us deeper into the problem.
Dirtier? Yes maybe. But I would choose another word. "Reliable" which does not apply to wind or solar.
Even in our house in "sunny" Spain we have a solar water tank. It is absolutely great from March to October.
For the rest of the year we have a choice of turn the gas on or take cold showers.
Try flogging that idea to the masses."
It's a hard sell for sure.
My husband works for one of those terrible oil and gas companies.
On a flight back home the lady in the next seat told Paul she had been abroad to meet her old school friend, haven't seen her for ages except on Facebook.
Paul told he was returning home from work.
When she realised his employer she used the rest of the flight to tell him was the devil's apprentice.
Didn't think that maybe her journey wasn't 100% essential.
Bless her.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes well done. You win.
Meanwhile the financial support for the fossil fuels industry costs the tax payer billions. But I'm glad you're happy with winning the argument about what to call it.
Apparently I haven't won, because you're still claiming that the fossil fuel industry gets special payouts from the UK government. It just isn't true.
This isn't a semantic argument about what to call the financial assistance, it's a flat out statement that the financial assistance doesn't exist.
Yes, there are tax breaks. Yes, the fossil fuel industry gets them. Yes, so does any other company engaging in R&D. There's no special treatment for fossil fuel companies.
Unlike the "renewables" industry, which benefits from the proceeds of a special tax levied on everyone just to help subsidise them."
Yawn. Well done.
What are we supposed to do. The fossil fuels industry is financially supported by the government to the tune of billions. Arguing about the methodology of the financial is not that relevant. You can see the poster above who believes all kind of random bollocks. And it's down to the misinformation and propaganda put out by the oil companies.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add that looking at the paid to pollute website (which looks like it was designed by a 10 year old)
Half of the people in the pics were old enough not just to know better but they were probably wearing "coal not dole" badges a few years ago. LOL.
So you didn't read about the court case and made your mind up based on the website design.
If a slick website is all that it takes to convince you, I can see why you swallow the propaganda from those with all the money so easily.
They abandoned the court case. Probably because they knew they would lose it. I'm sure that with a strong case they would have carried on.
Now they want to take action on the streets.
In other words they are the usual headbangers that protest about everything but have a solution for nothing.
Stop this, ban that, abolish the other. When asked what they would do it's er.... well.... you know.....er.... Stop ban abolish and on and on ad nauseum.
Maybe a handful of celebs flying in on private jets will help the cause.
Any fracking in Germany or Spain? "
Sadly nothing to frack for.
Believe me though if the Germans had shale gas they would have started months ago.
They are shitting bricks for this coming winter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What are we supposed to do. The fossil fuels industry is financially supported by the government to the tune of billions. Arguing about the methodology of the financial is not that relevant."
Again, you're stating untruths.
The UK government does not financially support the fossil fuels industry. Stop claiming that it does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What are we supposed to do. The fossil fuels industry is financially supported by the government to the tune of billions. Arguing about the methodology of the financial is not that relevant.
Again, you're stating untruths.
The UK government does not financially support the fossil fuels industry. Stop claiming that it does."
It's factually true, in real life.
I'm not "claiming" anything here.
Anyway, as it's plain that you don't actually give a shit about any of these topics and you just try to piss people off. I'll leave you to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer.
Yawn. Well done. You win whatever weird semantic argument you feel compelled to get into.
There's no weird semantics here, just you repeating a familiar untruth, and me picking you up on it. Again.
Yes well done. You win.
Meanwhile the financial support for the fossil fuels industry costs the tax payer billions. But I'm glad you're happy with winning the argument about what to call it."
This financial support for fossil fuels only exists in the heads of conspiracy theorists. Even you could only quote a bunch of nutters with an iffy website and a failed/abandoned court case.
The fossil fuel industry gets no more or less than any other company that does research or exploration. Then when they find something they have to pay billions in licence fees to exploit it.
This extra financial support for the fossil industry is no more than a conspiracy theory myth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer.
Yawn. Well done. You win whatever weird semantic argument you feel compelled to get into.
There's no weird semantics here, just you repeating a familiar untruth, and me picking you up on it. Again.
Yes well done. You win.
Meanwhile the financial support for the fossil fuels industry costs the tax payer billions. But I'm glad you're happy with winning the argument about what to call it.
This financial support for fossil fuels only exists in the heads of conspiracy theorists. Even you could only quote a bunch of nutters with an iffy website and a failed/abandoned court case.
The fossil fuel industry gets no more or less than any other company that does research or exploration. Then when they find something they have to pay billions in licence fees to exploit it.
This extra financial support for the fossil industry is no more than a conspiracy theory myth."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I just took a look at the Paid to Pollute website.
On the Learn More page, the first section talks about how "we need to rapidly decline oil and gas production". Then the next section complains that "the industry has become more and more volatile", and that lots of workers are losing their jobs.
I wonder how they think we will cut out all fossil fuel usage, without anyone being laid off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We cannot feed eight billion people without oil and the internal combustion engine.
As much as I love cars, I accept that oil is too precious a resource to burn for the pleasure & convenience of motoring.
A phased replacement led by technology, not just by legislation is required. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Are we the only country to sell home grown energy like gas and oil on the international markets before supplying our own needs? Just seems bizarre to sell on the markets and then buy it back at a higher rate
We are supplying our own needs. We take enough gas to run the power stations, and sell the rest off to the market.
We have to do it that way because the government a few years ago decided to follow a just-in-time gas supply system, rather than paying to refurbish our aging gas storage facilities.
That turned out to be a bad decision."
Thanks
So if the UK gas goes directly to the power stations why is the power being produced gone up so much. I can understand if the power station gas is bought on the international market it makes the power they produce more expensive but not if they get it directly from the gas producing companies. What happens to the electric produced by the wind farms and solar? Is it sold on international market or sold directly to the energy firms. Sorry for the questions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if the UK gas goes directly to the power stations why is the power being produced gone up so much. ... What happens to the electric produced by the wind farms and solar? Is it sold on international market or sold directly to the energy firms."
Very basically, the way it works is that we get all the suppliers to tell us what they want to be paid for their electricity, and how much power they are offering. We then start at the cheapest, and accept all the offers until we have enough. Everyone then gets paid the price of the most expensive unit purchased.
This means that, if there's not enough local power, we need to buy some in on the international markets. So the solar supplier that is making loads of fairly cheap power, gets paid the full international market rate.
I know you'll ask why we use that system. Well, if we decide to pay them at their offer rate, they'd just increase their offers to get the amount they want. This way we have transparency and can see exactly how much is being produced and by whom.
So it doesn't matter what the cost of production is, the price is determined by the international rates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"So if the UK gas goes directly to the power stations why is the power being produced gone up so much. ... What happens to the electric produced by the wind farms and solar? Is it sold on international market or sold directly to the energy firms.
Very basically, the way it works is that we get all the suppliers to tell us what they want to be paid for their electricity, and how much power they are offering. We then start at the cheapest, and accept all the offers until we have enough. Everyone then gets paid the price of the most expensive unit purchased.
This means that, if there's not enough local power, we need to buy some in on the international markets. So the solar supplier that is making loads of fairly cheap power, gets paid the full international market rate.
I know you'll ask why we use that system. Well, if we decide to pay them at their offer rate, they'd just increase their offers to get the amount they want. This way we have transparency and can see exactly how much is being produced and by whom.
So it doesn't matter what the cost of production is, the price is determined by the international rates."
You explain very well. Thank you again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"To frack or not to frack. That is the question.
Fracking works? Britain becomes self sufficient and could even become a net exporter. Added bonus, it pisses off Putin.
Fracking doesn't work? Hey ho. At least we tried. Result: Putin happy.
Fracking is not tried at all? Then it will always be "what if?" Result: Putin happy.
I say give it a go. If the fracking companies can see a result they will invest. If not then they won't.
Trial fracking on the south coast led to earth tremors so perhaps the man from Caudrilla was right?
These "earth tremors" or as the BBC likes to say "earthquakes" are a bit of a red herring. Most (if not all) can only be detected by sensitive instruments. People actually feeling them is extremely rare.
The limit was set at 0.5 on the Richter scale. You would never even know it happened.
In our area of Spain we regularly get tremors in the 1.0 to 4.0 range. The 4's will give you a bit of a shake, but I'm not talking broken pots and pictures falling off the wall. The 1's you don't even feel and the 2's make you think a heavy truck went past the house.
Most fracking tremors were under 1.0.
Interesting point but the other question is how productive they will be (debatable over the lifecycle of each well) and whether there is any long term environmental monitoring factored into the costings?
Rolls Royce’s mini nuclear plants sound more interesting in terms of providing a base level of energy
I've always been a believer in nuclear and have heard about these mini plants. They seem like a good idea.
Problem is that as soon as you mention the bogey word (NUCLEAR) all hell breaks loose.
"
Yeah in Germany they are scared of it, but then again Merkel was practically in the pocket of Putin, and made Germany dependent on Russian gas.
Germany needs to grow up a little bit and wake up to reality that it needs to move to alternative energy generation methods, such as renewables and nuclear. It cannot cut its nose to spite its face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK: from 2016 to 2020 fossil fuels companies received £9.9 billion in subsidies. The UK's situation is complicated because a lot of it is done the tax breaks etc. If you want to read more, you can look up the "paid to pollute" court case.
We've been through this before. That "£9.9 billion in subsidies" is actually a pressure group defining tax relief as a subsidy. The tax relief in question being available to all UK companies, and in no way fossil fuel specific. It just isn't true.
"Renewables" on the other hand get significant subsidies from the tax payer.
Yawn. Well done. You win whatever weird semantic argument you feel compelled to get into.
There's no weird semantics here, just you repeating a familiar untruth, and me picking you up on it. Again.
Yes well done. You win.
Meanwhile the financial support for the fossil fuels industry costs the tax payer billions. But I'm glad you're happy with winning the argument about what to call it.
This financial support for fossil fuels only exists in the heads of conspiracy theorists. Even you could only quote a bunch of nutters with an iffy website and a failed/abandoned court case.
The fossil fuel industry gets no more or less than any other company that does research or exploration. Then when they find something they have to pay billions in licence fees to exploit it.
This extra financial support for the fossil industry is no more than a conspiracy theory myth.
"
Put as many smiley faces on as you like.
Bottom line is you still haven't put up any actual evidence to back up your statement. Until you do I will call it a lie.
For someone who "knows about climate change" I thought you would have done a lot better than some crank conspiracy theory website. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Never really thought Cracking would be that viable here given the hundreds of years of previous mining the land is had. It must be like swiss cheese under the ground in some places. When you see bulldozers attached to chain cables that's because there is a worry of them falling into a shaft. On top of that the country is densely populated too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
