FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Fracking is back
Fracking is back
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Everyone will when the water-table is contaminated" But but....that cant happen...surely. Our elders and betters wouldn't allow it! I can see the price of potable water shooting up when they've done the damage. How many tory mps have shares in water companies??? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Your be happy for it if Russia decided to stop selling gas to us.We need to produce our own energy and agree renewable but until everyone is gas free that's not going to happen. " Yup, that pretty much sums it up  | |||
"Everyone will when the water-table is contaminated" Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all | |||
"Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all" True, but I can say that the same companies using the same technology have contaminated thousands of Sq miles of US ground water and the contamination is still spreading. So you will forgive me if I make my assumptions based on others experience. You are free to draw your conclusions based on corporate propaganda, but I would remind you of Union Carbide the US corporation that poisoned Bhopal after poisoning parts of the USA. They also claimed that they had learned from the mistakes they made in the USA when moving to India and just like the Tories the Indian government of the day were more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting their population. Also many Indians (like you) refused to believe that a US corporation would poison India for profit. They were wrong then, what do you think the odds are that you are now? Remember as you live in Upton by Chester its your water that is at risk.  | |||
"Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all True, but I can say that the same companies using the same technology have contaminated thousands of Sq miles of US ground water and the contamination is still spreading. So you will forgive me if I make my assumptions based on others experience. You are free to draw your conclusions based on corporate propaganda, but I would remind you of Union Carbide the US corporation that poisoned Bhopal after poisoning parts of the USA. They also claimed that they had learned from the mistakes they made in the USA when moving to India and just like the Tories the Indian government of the day were more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting their population. Also many Indians (like you) refused to believe that a US corporation would poison India for profit. They were wrong then, what do you think the odds are that you are now? Remember as you live in Upton by Chester its your water that is at risk. "I do not live in Upton by Chester but you are right but I hope that times have moved on and that fracking will be safer now and are government is putting the right checks and balances in place. I would rather no fracking but it will happen so we have to make sure it is safe | |||
"I do not live in Upton by Chester but you are right but I hope that times have moved on and that fracking will be safer now and are government is putting the right checks and balances in place. I would rather no fracking but it will happen so we have to make sure it is safe" LoL It is still your water that will be poisoned, and you really should take more notice of what Tory MPs say. Remember it is one of them who said that fracking should not be allowed in the Tory heartland just in the northern wastelands. Now why would Tories only be granting fracking licences in the north? Or had that little bit of honesty failed to registrar with your pin sharp intellect that hopes 'that times have moved on'?  | |||
"I do not live in Upton by Chester but you are right but I hope that times have moved on and that fracking will be safer now and are government is putting the right checks and balances in place. I would rather no fracking but it will happen so we have to make sure it is safe LoL It is still your water that will be poisoned, and you really should take more notice of what Tory MPs say. Remember it is one of them who said that fracking should not be allowed in the Tory heartland just in the northern wastelands. Now why would Tories only be granting fracking licences in the north? Or had that little bit of honesty failed to registrar with your pin sharp intellect that hopes 'that times have moved on'? "Nuclear power worries far mor,Sellafield or whatever they call it now is not that far away,a nuclear accident is far more deadly than fracking.You can purify water but nuclear is far more deadly.We get poisoned everyday with pollution from cars etc the chemical works in Runcorn and Ellesmere Port the horse has bolted sadly | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Nuclear power worries far mor,Sellafield or whatever they call it now is not that far away,a nuclear accident is far more deadly than fracking.You can purify water but nuclear is far more deadly.We get poisoned everyday with pollution from cars etc the chemical works in Runcorn and Ellesmere Port the horse has bolted sadly" Really? Lets deal with this in order... Firstly regardless of which part of Upton you live in if I were you I would be more concerned with the BNFL reprocessing plant (sorry URENCO UK reprocessing plant) in Capenhurst. You know the one about 2 or 3 miles from where you live... Secondly, I would advise you to do a little research and work out how many have been killed worldwide as a result of radiation poisoning (include all those killed directly or indirectly by nuclear explosions of all kinds) and then compare that to the numbers killed over the same period by exposure to hydrocarbon poisons. I would be willing to bet that the annual death toll from exposure to petrochemicals and the by-products of burning hydrocarbons far exceeds all the deaths (ever) worldwide from fissionable materials. But hey, as you say, you think nuclear is far more dangerous, and it is too late to do anything other than help the petrochemical and hydrocarbon industries continue to poison everyone. I am sure they both thank you for your support. | |||
| |||
"The risk Vs return of energy produced by Nuclear currently cannot be beaten. Nothing can come remotely close to it. Renewables, while sounding like the future is sadly not up to the task, not even anywhere near any scale. Fossil fuel unfortunately is still the way we need to go along with Nuclear & renewables thrown into the mix to look a bit sexy. Nothing much will change this until we either invent / discover a new clean plentiful strong power source or we change the way we live to such an extent it would resemble living 500 years ago." Not so. Fact is the petrochemical industry have been stopping the development of renewables for decades and will continue to do so until all the oil is used up or the planet is dead. It is the nature of capitalist profit driven corporations and until we make it unprofiable for them to continue with their present business model nothing will change in the same way as nothing changed in the tobacco industry until it became unprofitable to continue with their business model when they quickly came up with vaping to extend their corporate lives. | |||
| |||
"Interesting. I've worked in power generation & distribution for over 20 years, I know what's required to generate a unit of power on most forms of production. I have not been "privy" to the "stopping of development on renewables" as you imply. If someone had solved cold fusion I'd hazard a guess we'd know about it. Fact is the Sun nor the wind provides us with anything like what we use & I don't see anything changing anytime soon. I can understand your view point on technology advancement suppression though but I don't think anything earth shattering has been kept from us." Just 1 example... A civil servant that went on to work in the petrochemical industry made a mistake and placed a decimal point 2 places to right of where it should have been and as a result killed the Slater wave duck generation system in the 70's. Of course as soon as the government pulled funding the petrochemical industry bought up all the patents and copyrights and still refuse to let the system be developed although it extracted nearly 100% of wave energy when tested in Scotland. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"and the ducks are shit anyway unless in rough seas" Not according to the report that said the civil servant that did the sums put the decimal point in the wrong place... | |||
"Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all True, but I can say that the same companies using the same technology have contaminated thousands of Sq miles of US ground water and the contamination is still spreading. So you will forgive me if I make my assumptions based on others experience. You are free to draw your conclusions based on corporate propaganda, but I would remind you of Union Carbide the US corporation that poisoned Bhopal after poisoning parts of the USA. They also claimed that they had learned from the mistakes they made in the USA when moving to India and just like the Tories the Indian government of the day were more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting their population. Also many Indians (like you) refused to believe that a US corporation would poison India for profit. They were wrong then, what do you think the odds are that you are now? Remember as you live in Upton by Chester its your water that is at risk. ". It's not actually, he lives in Chester which means he's North West water which means he doesn't get ANY water from ground water. Your right though in the rest of your mantra. | |||
| |||
"It's not actually, he lives in Chester which means he's North West water which means he doesn't get ANY water from ground water. Your right though in the rest of your mantra." Since when did NW Water stop using their aquifer abstraction order powers to draw water from the Cheshire sandstone aquifer? Because every year for the last 20 years they most certainly have used abstraction orders to draw extra water from the Cheshire aquifer much to the displeasure of Cheshire farmers who have found that their boreholes have been drying up because the water table has dropped below their allowed abstraction depth (at least around Frodsham). | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel." I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. | |||
"I do not live in Upton by Chester but you are right but I hope that times have moved on and that fracking will be safer now and are government is putting the right checks and balances in place. I would rather no fracking but it will happen so we have to make sure it is safe LoL It is still your water that will be poisoned, and you really should take more notice of what Tory MPs say. Remember it is one of them who said that fracking should not be allowed in the Tory heartland just in the northern wastelands. Now why would Tories only be granting fracking licences in the north? Or had that little bit of honesty failed to registrar with your pin sharp intellect that hopes 'that times have moved on'? "Can you define what you mean by 'the north' please? | |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now." Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. | |||
"Nuclear power worries far mor,Sellafield or whatever they call it now is not that far away,a nuclear accident is far more deadly than fracking.You can purify water but nuclear is far more deadly.We get poisoned everyday with pollution from cars etc the chemical works in Runcorn and Ellesmere Port the horse has bolted sadly Really? Lets deal with this in order... Firstly regardless of which part of Upton you live in if I were you I would be more concerned with the BNFL reprocessing plant (sorry URENCO UK reprocessing plant) in Capenhurst. You know the one about 2 or 3 miles from where you live... Secondly, I would advise you to do a little research and work out how many have been killed worldwide as a result of radiation poisoning (include all those killed directly or indirectly by nuclear explosions of all kinds) and then compare that to the numbers killed over the same period by exposure to hydrocarbon poisons. I would be willing to bet that the annual death toll from exposure to petrochemicals and the by-products of burning hydrocarbons far exceeds all the deaths (ever) worldwide from fissionable materials. But hey, as you say, you think nuclear is far more dangerous, and it is too late to do anything other than help the petrochemical and hydrocarbon industries continue to poison everyone. I am sure they both thank you for your support. " I'd imagine that the number killed in pointless wars eclipses it | |||
"Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all True, but I can say that the same companies using the same technology have contaminated thousands of Sq miles of US ground water and the contamination is still spreading. So you will forgive me if I make my assumptions based on others experience. You are free to draw your conclusions based on corporate propaganda, but I would remind you of Union Carbide the US corporation that poisoned Bhopal after poisoning parts of the USA. They also claimed that they had learned from the mistakes they made in the USA when moving to India and just like the Tories the Indian government of the day were more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting their population. Also many Indians (like you) refused to believe that a US corporation would poison India for profit. They were wrong then, what do you think the odds are that you are now? Remember as you live in Upton by Chester its your water that is at risk. .
It's not actually, he lives in Chester which means he's North West water which means he doesn't get ANY water from ground water.
Your right though in the rest of your mantra."The North West does use water from boreholes. I know of at least one HUGE brewery that uses them. In Salmesbury. Near Preston. Not far from the proposed fracking. | |||
| |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. " One of the big problems with wind & sun power is it isn't always windy enough to run and can then quickly become too windy to run. Same as sun, here in the UK we don't get enough sun to be any more than a token effort. Both wind and sun power panels / turbines would be needed in such high numbers to make any decent dent in the power we need that we simply don't have enough land mass to place them, that's not even taking into account the cost of building large structures that don't produce much power to start with. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Heres interesting fact . If we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today’s prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession. "and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen. | |||
"Heres interesting fact . If we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today’s prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession.
and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen."What has been the infrastructure investment in oil and gas? Pipelines. Tankers and ports. Security? Guarding all of this oil infrastructure in unstable parts of the world? How about the wars and conflicts and associated costs related specifically over the fight for resource? Lives. Add the environmental cost. The potential for future conflict as a consequence. Not economical? Really? | |||
"and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen." Really? Is that the best put-down you can come up with? How about building solar power farms in Spain (lots of that is semi-desert), then there are the US deserts of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, after that we could move on to Australia and South America. Seems to me that there are plenty of deserts going round the world to make the supply of power quite easy. After all we can build pipelines that pump crude oil and gas (which is corrosive and explosive) half way round the world so why not electricity? Now who would have a vested interest in pumping out propaganda that would make you think its just not possible? Do you think maybe you have been gaslighted by the fossil fuel industry? Just a question? I'd like to hear your thoughts? | |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. One of the big problems with wind & sun power is it isn't always windy enough to run and can then quickly become too windy to run. Same as sun, here in the UK we don't get enough sun to be any more than a token effort. Both wind and sun power panels / turbines would be needed in such high numbers to make any decent dent in the power we need that we simply don't have enough land mass to place them, that's not even taking into account the cost of building large structures that don't produce much power to start with." There is huge investment in energy storage. Batteries. Compressed gas. Hydroelectric. Conversion to hydrogen. It's coming fast. Look at Australia and China right now. That's not to mention the generation of Thorium salt reactors which was ignored because they didn't generate the right material for nuclear weapons but are potentially far safer. Might have to buy that off the Indians and Chinese though. | |||
"Heres interesting fact . If we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today’s prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession.
and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen."We have to keep oil pipes safe and when there's s leak it's an environmental disaster .Solar doesn't have this issue and it's easier and cheaper to push electricity around the planet than its is oil and gas .Whats the transportation costs of fossil fuels ? People couldn't imagine electric cars replacing petrol 30 years ago . China us leading the way in production and on a small scale it's already begun Tunisia has started a 4.5 He plant in the Sahara to sell electricity to Europe . China installed 24gw of solar plants in the first half of 2018 alone .Its the future and It will happen. | |||
"and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen. Really? Is that the best put-down you can come up with? How about building solar power farms in Spain (lots of that is semi-desert), then there are the US deserts of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, after that we could move on to Australia and South America. Seems to me that there are plenty of deserts going round the world to make the supply of power quite easy. After all we can build pipelines that pump crude oil and gas (which is corrosive and explosive) half way round the world so why not electricity? Now who would have a vested interest in pumping out propaganda that would make you think its just not possible? Do you think maybe you have been gaslighted by the fossil fuel industry? Just a question? I'd like to hear your thoughts?" Synchronicity | |||
"Heres interesting fact . If we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today’s prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession.
and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen.
We have to keep oil pipes safe and when there's s leak it's an environmental disaster .Solar doesn't have this issue and it's easier and cheaper to push electricity around the planet than its is oil and gas .Whats the transportation costs of fossil fuels ?
People couldn't imagine electric cars replacing petrol 30 years ago .
China us leading the way in production and on a small scale it's already begun Tunisia has started a 4.5 He plant in the Sahara to sell electricity to Europe .
China installed 24gw of solar plants in the first half of 2018 alone .Its the future and It will happen."Spooky
It's clearly reasonably obvious as three of us have mentioned similar things over a couple of minutes. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen. Really? Is that the best put-down you can come up with? How about building solar power farms in Spain (lots of that is semi-desert), then there are the US deserts of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, after that we could move on to Australia and South America. Seems to me that there are plenty of deserts going round the world to make the supply of power quite easy. After all we can build pipelines that pump crude oil and gas (which is corrosive and explosive) half way round the world so why not electricity? Now who would have a vested interest in pumping out propaganda that would make you think its just not possible? Do you think maybe you have been gaslighted by the fossil fuel industry? Just a question? I'd like to hear your thoughts?" Best put down ?!?!?! It wasn't a "put down" what so ever will... fucking hell, you do get angry quite easily, lighten up for god's sake. Ok you seem to know far more than me about this subject, I presume you've worked in the sector far longer than I. Have a good day  | |||
"Heres interesting fact . If we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today’s prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession.
and getting this power all around the globe from the desert, keeping supply safe, same thing, quick calculations by someone with too much time on their hands, it will never happen.
We have to keep oil pipes safe and when there's s leak it's an environmental disaster .Solar doesn't have this issue and it's easier and cheaper to push electricity around the planet than its is oil and gas .Whats the transportation costs of fossil fuels ?
People couldn't imagine electric cars replacing petrol 30 years ago .
China us leading the way in production and on a small scale it's already begun Tunisia has started a 4.5 He plant in the Sahara to sell electricity to Europe .
China installed 24gw of solar plants in the first half of 2018 alone .Its the future and It will happen."I'm not saying any of that won't happen in the future, I'm saying right now it isn't enough. | |||
"Best put down ?!?!?! It wasn't a "put down" what so ever will... fucking hell, you do get angry quite easily, lighten up for god's sake. Ok you seem to know far more than me about this subject, I presume you've worked in the sector far longer than I. Have a good day "I note you don't deny a single thing I say, but insinuate that you working in the sector is all that is needed to counter what I have said. Guess by that standard the toilet cleaner in CERN knows more than 99.999% of the world about subatomic physics, cosmology and the origins of the universe. | |||
"Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all True, but I can say that the same companies using the same technology have contaminated thousands of Sq miles of US ground water and the contamination is still spreading. So you will forgive me if I make my assumptions based on others experience. You are free to draw your conclusions based on corporate propaganda, but I would remind you of Union Carbide the US corporation that poisoned Bhopal after poisoning parts of the USA. They also claimed that they had learned from the mistakes they made in the USA when moving to India and just like the Tories the Indian government of the day were more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting their population. Also many Indians (like you) refused to believe that a US corporation would poison India for profit. They were wrong then, what do you think the odds are that you are now? Remember as you live in Upton by Chester its your water that is at risk. .
It's not actually, he lives in Chester which means he's North West water which means he doesn't get ANY water from ground water.
Your right though in the rest of your mantra.
The North West does use water from boreholes. I know of at least one HUGE brewery that uses them. In Salmesbury. Near Preston. Not far from the proposed fracking.". Brewers aren't North West water, they don't use bore holes and it's why they were the only water company to issue a hosepipe ban this summer. | |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. One of the big problems with wind & sun power is it isn't always windy enough to run and can then quickly become too windy to run. Same as sun, here in the UK we don't get enough sun to be any more than a token effort. Both wind and sun power panels / turbines would be needed in such high numbers to make any decent dent in the power we need that we simply don't have enough land mass to place them, that's not even taking into account the cost of building large structures that don't produce much power to start with." This simply isn’t true. On our current level of affordable tech the UK could almost exclusively run on renewables. Imagine what we could develop of the government had the will to push it even slightly. | |||
"Brewers aren't North West water, they don't use bore holes and it's why they were the only water company to issue a hosepipe ban this summer." 3 points: 1 North West Water do not supply water to Manchester, that is done by United Utilities who get their water from the Lake District. 2 It was United Utilities had a hosepipe ban 3 As I have already said NWW have always abstracted water from the Cheshire Sandstone Aquifer and for the last 20 years they have used 'emergency abstraction orders' to extend their abstraction quotas thus lowering the water-table in the Frodsham area below the maximum depth that farmers are allowed drill boreholes and extract water from the aquifer. (Unless you know different and my farmer friends who are having to buy water from NWW are lying.) | |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. One of the big problems with wind & sun power is it isn't always windy enough to run and can then quickly become too windy to run. Same as sun, here in the UK we don't get enough sun to be any more than a token effort. Both wind and sun power panels / turbines would be needed in such high numbers to make any decent dent in the power we need that we simply don't have enough land mass to place them, that's not even taking into account the cost of building large structures that don't produce much power to start with. This simply isn’t true. On our current level of affordable tech the UK could almost exclusively run on renewables. Imagine what we could develop of the government had the will to push it even slightly." If I am so wrong then and the UK could run on almost all renewable energy "and for that to happen it has to be cost effective" then why isn't it happening much more quickly than it is then ? or are you subscribing to will's conspiracy theories about petrochemical magnets single handedly dictating what's what. I'd be interested to hear how the National Grid would balance the demand vs load peaks & trough's we go through daily just by using renewable form of energy which we have very little control over. Sorry for my ignorance in not knowing or understanding how we'd control wind speed & cloud cover / sunshine to raise & lower power demand of 35,000mw over a typical 24hrs requirement. Please, I'm genuinely interested in how we should be doing it. | |||
| |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. One of the big problems with wind & sun power is it isn't always windy enough to run and can then quickly become too windy to run. Same as sun, here in the UK we don't get enough sun to be any more than a token effort. Both wind and sun power panels / turbines would be needed in such high numbers to make any decent dent in the power we need that we simply don't have enough land mass to place them, that's not even taking into account the cost of building large structures that don't produce much power to start with. This simply isn’t true. On our current level of affordable tech the UK could almost exclusively run on renewables. Imagine what we could develop of the government had the will to push it even slightly. If I am so wrong then and the UK could run on almost all renewable energy "and for that to happen it has to be cost effective" then why isn't it happening much more quickly than it is then ? or are you subscribing to will's conspiracy theories about petrochemical magnets single handedly dictating what's what. I'd be interested to hear how the National Grid would balance the demand vs load peaks & trough's we go through daily just by using renewable form of energy which we have very little control over. Sorry for my ignorance in not knowing or understanding how we'd control wind speed & cloud cover / sunshine to raise & lower power demand of 35,000mw over a typical 24hrs requirement. Please, I'm genuinely interested in how we should be doing it." There are answers to all your questions, they’re well documened. Typing out the responses here would take all day. If you want I can find some articles that explain for you? As for why we’re not going down the renewables route, it’s purely political. I suspect that the fossil fuels industry have a lot to do with it. Again this is well documented. They use a variety of tactics from publishing false scientific papers, lobbying governments, promoting misinformation about climate change and the role fossil fuels have it in. Trying to discredit green energy technology. As long as enough of the electorate have doubts on renewable energy, then there is less political will. A lot of the Tories, such as Rees Mogg, have investment companies whose funds heavily rely on the big oil companies. (As well as arms manufacturers, hence them always voting for war). So it’s not in their interest to promote renewables. I could go on and on. But I don’t want to get into a huge debate. If you don’t believe the science and tech behind it, there’s nothing I can do or say. | |||
"If I am so wrong then and the UK could run on almost all renewable energy "and for that to happen it has to be cost effective" then why isn't it happening much more quickly than it is then ? or are you subscribing to will's conspiracy theories about petrochemical magnets single handedly dictating what's what." Maybe you could start by asking why when there are dips in power requirements the first power sources to be disconnected from the national grid are wind turbines (and they are the cheapest source of power once erected and connected to the grid). At the same time you may want to ask why so many wind turbines are always idle while some of those around them are turning. I suspect that you really don't want to know the answer. | |||
"For all the renewables available, every one of them is very expensive for the amount of power you get back for the cost & effort put in to get it. Germany is the classic example of what happens when you have one of the biggest renewable energy markets in the world. Very very high energy prices, one of the highest renewable energy producing nations but energy poverty building quickly in the population and yet they still have the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuel. I always here that renewables are expensive .Solar panels continue to get cheaper and cheaper .Also what price can we put on the earth then and what price to our civilisation is acceptable . The biggest looming costs will be dealing with climate change this century .Trillions of dollars could of been saved if we acted earlier.Thd sane could be saved if we act now. Wind is by far the most cost effective renewable. If the government subsidied renewables to the same degree they subsidise the fossil fuels industry, they could pay us to use electricity. The problem isn’t affordability. It’s purely a question of political will. One of the big problems with wind & sun power is it isn't always windy enough to run and can then quickly become too windy to run. Same as sun, here in the UK we don't get enough sun to be any more than a token effort. Both wind and sun power panels / turbines would be needed in such high numbers to make any decent dent in the power we need that we simply don't have enough land mass to place them, that's not even taking into account the cost of building large structures that don't produce much power to start with. This simply isn’t true. On our current level of affordable tech the UK could almost exclusively run on renewables. Imagine what we could develop of the government had the will to push it even slightly. If I am so wrong then and the UK could run on almost all renewable energy "and for that to happen it has to be cost effective" then why isn't it happening much more quickly than it is then ? or are you subscribing to will's conspiracy theories about petrochemical magnets single handedly dictating what's what. I'd be interested to hear how the National Grid would balance the demand vs load peaks & trough's we go through daily just by using renewable form of energy which we have very little control over. Sorry for my ignorance in not knowing or understanding how we'd control wind speed & cloud cover / sunshine to raise & lower power demand of 35,000mw over a typical 24hrs requirement. Please, I'm genuinely interested in how we should be doing it." As I said, the work I in energy storage. I listed the options above. You are right that we couldn't replace the entire infrastructure today but there is a range of viable technology and development that is genuinely imminent. It requires political will. The economics do not make sense only for petrochemical companies who have not already been investing in their replacement. Remember Kodak? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. " Ugh. Google the Ffestiniog Power Station, as an example of how to store the electricity. Forget solar power in the uk it’s not currently viable on a big scale. It’s far more suitable for domestic water heating here. Between tidal and wind. There is plenty more we could and should be doing. Offshore wind farms have extremely reliable consistent wind. I don’t know where you’re getting the information in your quotes from. But they seem random and unreliable. | |||
| |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. " And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? | |||
"The tide can be relied upon never to stop unless we lose the moon. We have some of the biggest tides in the world .I pointed out the potential energy from tidal power is 10 GW." with you on that bob I’d also have every new build have solar panels and ever hill in the land swamped with wind turbines aswell so much more we could do but always get folk crying not near me boils my piss | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation?" Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. | |||
"The tide can be relied upon never to stop unless we lose the moon. We have some of the biggest tides in the world .I pointed out the potential energy from tidal power is 10 GW. with you on that bob I’d also have every new build have solar panels and ever hill in the land swamped with wind turbines as well so much more we could do but always get folk crying not near me boils my piss " Practically every government building since the 50s could have solar panels retrofitted. They are all flat-roofed. Then a concerted effort to actually insulate homes and reduce energy use which it was decided that the supply companies should be responsible for | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability." Nobody is saying that it is possible immediately. Faster though. Much faster. Luckily China is taking a lead and bringing down prices with scale. Unfortunately we are not jostling to be at the front of an inevitable future. Better than the USA which is turning around to retrace its steps with "clean" coal. | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability." So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy?" Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. " I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. | |||
"Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough." Let me try one last time... WHY DOES THE NATIONAL GRID FIRST TAKE WIND GENERATED ELECTRICITY OUT OF THE GRID WHEN THERE IS OVERPRODUCTION? WHY NOT TURN OFF THE GAS TURBINES AND SAVE THE GAS? Are you getting it yet? We do not fully use our capacity to generate electricity from wind when the wind is blowing now! Our policy is to burn gas and oil rather than use free wind generated electricity right now! I understand that the concept of not turning off the wind turbines is hard to grasp but please try. Once you master the concept you may open your eyes and start asking why only 2 or 3 of the wind turbines in a farm of 10 or 12 are working and not the rest? You may even start noticing how the active turbines rotate in sequence thus proving that all are actually capable of generating power just most sit idle all the time. At that point you may start wondering exactly how much of our power could be produced by the renewables we already have in place if all were used. That may lead on to a question about how much of a finite resource is being squandered to boost the short term profits of BP and the other petrochemical multinationals? | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. " The production and storage capacity have to be built. Once that is done then this stops being an issue. So did the conventional power stations and fuel transport network. Electric cars could also be added to the grid when on charge overnight. Requires work and investment but certainly possible. | |||
"Just your assumption,you cannot say for certain if at all True, but I can say that the same companies using the same technology have contaminated thousands of Sq miles of US ground water and the contamination is still spreading. So you will forgive me if I make my assumptions based on others experience. You are free to draw your conclusions based on corporate propaganda, but I would remind you of Union Carbide the US corporation that poisoned Bhopal after poisoning parts of the USA. They also claimed that they had learned from the mistakes they made in the USA when moving to India and just like the Tories the Indian government of the day were more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting their population. Also many Indians (like you) refused to believe that a US corporation would poison India for profit. They were wrong then, what do you think the odds are that you are now? Remember as you live in Upton by Chester its your water that is at risk. .
It's not actually, he lives in Chester which means he's North West water which means he doesn't get ANY water from ground water.
Your right though in the rest of your mantra.
The North West does use water from boreholes. I know of at least one HUGE brewery that uses them. In Salmesbury. Near Preston. Not far from the proposed fracking..
Brewers aren't North West water, they don't use bore holes and it's why they were the only water company to issue a hosepipe ban this summer."Errr...i worked there. They extract from boreholes about a mile from the site. So they would have to switch to mainswater. Your beer is going to go up in price and their Burtonisation technique will have to alter. | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up." So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ? | |||
" So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. The production and storage capacity have to be built. Once that is done then this stops being an issue. Requires work and investment but certainly possible." Not true according to a poster on here, everything's built already but not used. | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?"You’re being deliberately obtuse, not reading the arguments put forward. So what’s the point in trying to discuss this | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?
You’re being deliberately obtuse, not reading the arguments put forward. So what’s the point in trying to discuss this"Not so. I was stating that until we can "store" green produced energy and feed that back into the grid when needed then renewables will not give a significant supply to the yearly demand of the UK. You came up with a Hydro power plant as to how to store electric. Hydro uses just over roughly 30% of it's electric to pump masses of water up hill first before a short but on demand flow of water to produce electric can occur, which then needs electric to pump it all back up hill again. So that is not really a electric storage capability. "So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy?" Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand." That's what I said, we cannot store the wind and solar "renewable" energy to be used on demand. You then said " I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up " So either we can store renewable energy in sufficiant amounts or we can't "right now", not 10 years down the line, I'm talking about now. | |||
"Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?"Conspiracy theory my arse! Try opening your eyes and ears then ask very simple questions. When the answers don't match the continual evidence of your eyes it is a fair assumption that you are being shafted. Of course you could just take the word of the fossil fuel industry that there is no alternative to burning their expensive and polluting products. Just as many believe them when they say they are not damaging the environment and the main contributor to man-made climate change. After all they spend billions each year worldwide on lobbying and buying politicians because of how altruistic their corporations are and how clean their products are. | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?
You’re being deliberately obtuse, not reading the arguments put forward. So what’s the point in trying to discuss this
Not so.
I was stating that until we can "store" green produced energy and feed that back into the grid when needed then renewables will not give a significant supply to the yearly demand of the UK.
You came up with a Hydro power plant as to how to store electric.
Hydro uses just over roughly 30% of it's electric to pump masses of water up hill first before a short but on demand flow of water to produce electric can occur, which then needs electric to pump it all back up hill again. So that is not really a electric storage capability.
So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy?"
Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only.
Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand.
That's what I said, we cannot store the wind and solar "renewable" energy to be used on demand.
You then said
I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do.
I give up
So either we can store renewable energy in sufficiant amounts or we can't "right now", not 10 years down the line, I'm talking about now.
"They are trialling an energy storage system in California. Advanced Rail Energy Storage (ARES), uses a lot of trains and gravity. Now being developed on an industrial scale. | |||
| |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?
You’re being deliberately obtuse, not reading the arguments put forward. So what’s the point in trying to discuss this
Not so.
I was stating that until we can "store" green produced energy and feed that back into the grid when needed then renewables will not give a significant supply to the yearly demand of the UK.
You came up with a Hydro power plant as to how to store electric.
Hydro uses just over roughly 30% of it's electric to pump masses of water up hill first before a short but on demand flow of water to produce electric can occur, which then needs electric to pump it all back up hill again. So that is not really a electric storage capability.
So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy?"
Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only.
Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand.
That's what I said, we cannot store the wind and solar "renewable" energy to be used on demand.
You then said
I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do.
I give up
So either we can store renewable energy in sufficiant amounts or we can't "right now", not 10 years down the line, I'm talking about now.
"Just read through your comments. Why are you obsessing over the idea of “right now”, no one seems to be suggesting we can turn off the fossil fuel stations tonight. Just that it would have been possible with more investment in the past and would be possible with investment for the future. | |||
 | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?
You’re being deliberately obtuse, not reading the arguments put forward. So what’s the point in trying to discuss this
Not so.
I was stating that until we can "store" green produced energy and feed that back into the grid when needed then renewables will not give a significant supply to the yearly demand of the UK.
You came up with a Hydro power plant as to how to store electric.
Hydro uses just over roughly 30% of it's electric to pump masses of water up hill first before a short but on demand flow of water to produce electric can occur, which then needs electric to pump it all back up hill again. So that is not really a electric storage capability.
So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy?"
Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only.
Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand.
That's what I said, we cannot store the wind and solar "renewable" energy to be used on demand.
You then said
I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do.
I give up
So either we can store renewable energy in sufficiant amounts or we can't "right now", not 10 years down the line, I'm talking about now.
"So you complained that we don’t have enough “battery storage”. So I demonstrated that you don’t need batteries. That you can use hydro. IE pump water up when excess electricity is generated, and let down when you need more juice. This is one example of how the power can be stored. If we’d have invested more in the 80s then we would have way more electricity generated from renewable sources. If we start now, just think where we could be in 10 years. What’s your beef with renewable energy? | |||
"Ok simple question regarding renewable energies flexibility , What happens when we have very little wind to power the turbines ? "which happens quite a lot" or too much wind speed so they can't run ? "also happens throughout the year" What happens when the countries covered in cloud so solar capacity drops through the floor? which also happens a lot Currently the only option is a large chunk of supply by Nuclear, Gas & Coal until battery storage is in full large scale usage which will then make renewables more viable. And still even when given a hint of what you should be questioning your question is back to front. How about you ask why our generating policy is not to use gas and oil turbines as the backup and use renewable's and nuclear as our primary generating options? Maybe ask why the generating option that requires the burning of fossil fuel to generate every watt should be preferred over an option that does not require any energy input after installation? Let me think on that one.... Ohh, possibly because we only have a fraction of renewable energy sources built which only works if the weather's good for it. Come on Will, be realistic, you can't have something that isn't built yet, that's why fossil fuel is used because you can just turn the damn thing up or down, on or off very quickly and easily. You can't just say use wind turbines / solar etc instead when we'd need 10x the amount we have now to do the same job and hope it's windy and sunny enough. Today we are running good for wind & solar though, generating nearly 19% of total demand. Once a few more billion has been ploughed into the production of renewable energy sources it can only improve, but until mass scale power storage is the norm then I don't see renewables going past 40% of demand capacity / capability. So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy? Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only. Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand. I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do. I give up. So we have enough battery storage capacity already built integrated into the grid to save enough power from wind & solar NOW to nearly use just renewable energy, but someone is choosing not to use it. Will's conspiracy theories may hold some water after all
Interesting, I'd presume there's links to this information ?
You’re being deliberately obtuse, not reading the arguments put forward. So what’s the point in trying to discuss this
Not so.
I was stating that until we can "store" green produced energy and feed that back into the grid when needed then renewables will not give a significant supply to the yearly demand of the UK.
You came up with a Hydro power plant as to how to store electric.
Hydro uses just over roughly 30% of it's electric to pump masses of water up hill first before a short but on demand flow of water to produce electric can occur, which then needs electric to pump it all back up hill again. So that is not really a electric storage capability.
So what’s your argument? The country was right not to even try, and should continue that policy?"
Nope, my point is the UK can't like what has been said be ran on renewables only.
Renewable energy until it can be stored in sufficient quantity will not supply a significant % of yearly demand.
That's what I said, we cannot store the wind and solar "renewable" energy to be used on demand.
You then said
I’ve demonstrated to you that we can store the energy and we can generate a lot more than we do.
I give up
So either we can store renewable energy in sufficiant amounts or we can't "right now", not 10 years down the line, I'm talking about now.
So you complained that we don’t have enough “battery storage”. So I demonstrated that you don’t need batteries. That you can use hydro. IE pump water up when excess electricity is generated, and let down when you need more juice.
This is one example of how the power can be stored.
If we’d have invested more in the 80s then we would have way more electricity generated from renewable sources. If we start now, just think where we could be in 10 years.
What’s your beef with renewable energy?"Your right about hydro electric storage .We have one in the UK. The Dinorwig Power is a pumped-storage hydroelectric scheme, near Dinorwig, Llanberis in Snowdonia national park in Gwynedd, northern Wales. The scheme can supply a maximum power of 1,728-megawatt (2,317,000 hp) and has a storage capacity of around 9.1-gigawatt-hour (33 TJ). Its purpose is not to help meet peak loads but, as a "Short Term Operating Reserve", to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. | |||
"and the ducks are shit anyway unless in rough seas Not according to the report that said the civil servant that did the sums put the decimal point in the wrong place..." How convenient | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm all for renewables how ever some of the most scenic country side in Ireland is being blighted by masses of huge wind turbines. Some will say a small price to pay for helping the environment however it would be much better if these turbines could be placed off the coast or some reliable method of harnessing tidal power was invented. " Indeed, off shore wind farms are the way it’s going now. Ireland has a history of allowing planning across the beautiful countryside. I would say that wind turbines look better than a coal fired power station. | |||
"Your be happy for it if Russia decided to stop selling gas to us.We need to produce our own energy and agree renewable but until everyone is gas free that's not going to happen. Yup, that pretty much sums it up "But it's ok to fuck up local environments for said energy? | |||
"Your be happy for it if Russia decided to stop selling gas to us.We need to produce our own energy and agree renewable but until everyone is gas free that's not going to happen. Yup, that pretty much sums it up
But it's ok to fuck up local environments for said energy?"Fully agree., it's amazing how people are so focused on fracking when there's so much news on how we abuse the planet, plastic in the oceans, polar caps melting, wildlife in the world dying out etc.. yet on they plough with this irresponsible fracking | |||
| |||
"They do fracking in the US, and I see no evidence of contamination there. So while we still require fossil fuel, we should do what we can to be as self sufficient as is possible. Also I’m not a fan of wind farms, I hate what they have done to the horizon on Brighton seafront. The view has been spoiled and especially those once amazing sunsets." You’re very reliable. You fall on the wrong side of every discussion. | |||
"They do fracking in the US, and I see no evidence of contamination there. So while we still require fossil fuel, we should do what we can to be as self sufficient as is possible. Also I’m not a fan of wind farms, I hate what they have done to the horizon on Brighton seafront. The view has been spoiled and especially those once amazing sunsets. You’re very reliable. You fall on the wrong side of every discussion. " That would depend on which side of the discussion you are looking from, if you are saying you are always on the right side then yes he would be on the wrong side!  | |||
"They do fracking in the US, and I see no evidence of contamination there. So while we still require fossil fuel, we should do what we can to be as self sufficient as is possible. Also I’m not a fan of wind farms, I hate what they have done to the horizon on Brighton seafront. The view has been spoiled and especially those once amazing sunsets. You’re very reliable. You fall on the wrong side of every discussion. That would depend on which side of the discussion you are looking from, if you are saying you are always on the right side then yes he would be on the wrong side! "It’s all good, I’m happy I’m not on the same side as him... | |||
"They do fracking in the US, and I see no evidence of contamination there. So while we still require fossil fuel, we should do what we can to be as self sufficient as is possible. Also I’m not a fan of wind farms, I hate what they have done to the horizon on Brighton seafront. The view has been spoiled and especially those once amazing sunsets. You’re very reliable. You fall on the wrong side of every discussion. That would depend on which side of the discussion you are looking from, if you are saying you are always on the right side then yes he would be on the wrong side!
It’s all good, I’m happy I’m not on the same side as him..."I think it would be good if we were on the same side. Would be better if you understood the impact of fracking, and if you cared more about climate change and the environment. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. " good on you Scotland! Just shows the "profit before principles" greedy mantra of the tories | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. " . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are. | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. " Thank God then for Desalination / distillation, as global warming melts the ice caps, fracking uses up fresh water we have then we just make the extra sea water into drinking water and that negates the climate change water flooding the world problems | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are. "Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader ". So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?. Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute "The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government. Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented | |||
| |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented ". Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?. All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?. I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?. It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY. | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY."Lancashire CC refused permission for fracking. The government overturned it. What price democracy eh? | |||
| |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY.
Lancashire CC refused permission for fracking. The government overturned it. What price democracy eh?". So what!. You don't think windmills get blocked at local level only to be overturned at national level?. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY."Oh come on! How can I be a nimby? Lancashire's miles away from me. As for experts knowing more than me, they're bound to have a biased view. You think they're being honest in their propoganda? After all the adverse publicity from other sites? This isn't something new. There's material evidence from the mess they've made elsewhere | |||
| |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY.
Lancashire CC refused permission for fracking. The government overturned it. What price democracy eh?.
So what!.
You don't think windmills get blocked at local level only to be overturned at national level?."Jeez, you dont half come out with some drivel. Clearly yet another process that you dont understand, but feel the need to comment on... | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY.
Oh come on! How can I be a nimby? Lancashire's miles away from me. As for experts knowing more than me, they're bound to have a biased view. You think they're being honest in their propoganda? After all the adverse publicity from other sites? This isn't something new. There's material evidence from the mess they've made elsewhere ". So the Brexit experts who claim Doom are biased? | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY.
Lancashire CC refused permission for fracking. The government overturned it. What price democracy eh?.
So what!.
You don't think windmills get blocked at local level only to be overturned at national level?.
Jeez, you dont half come out with some drivel. Clearly yet another process that you dont understand, but feel the need to comment on...". Do you want me to site all the cases of wind farms blocked at local level, I can if you want, it's a long list. Ps 90% of them get overturned at national government level, just like every single nuclear power station ever commissioned. Jeez you don't half know jack shit about what you bang on about. | |||
"Won’t lie I got about halfway through these comments and switched off by the same people saying they same things. Thankfully in Scotland this dangerous practice of extracting gas isn’t allowed thanks to the clever use of planning laws, and fingers crossed it remains that way. 2 historical point 1) extracting gas by digging holes in the ground isn’t a new thing in the past coal was mined and smashed under pressure to extract gas without the use of chemicals in water so why the use now? 2) once water is contained this way that’s it that water is done and there’s only so much water on this planet so you have two options 1: continue to extract fossil fuels like this and die of thirst in the future or 2: ditch fracking and use the money and effort defending it to invest in renewable energy. Remember the same water you used for your morning coffee had been cleaned up and reused for hundreds and thousands of years don’t let big companies deplete this resource. . That's a laugh, thankfully in Scotland we just pollute the oceans and seas while maintaining a high level of smugness about how green we are.
Go pay some taxes instead of leaving it working classes ya pie scoffing tory freeloader .
So Scottish water oil drilling doesn't pollute? I mean this is the caring loving socialists snp in charge up there polluting the oceans while reaping the taxes from it?.
Oh wait of course, it's only bad when the Tories pollute
The government are pushing fracking through, overriding local government.
Yes oil drilling pollutes. Its unfortunate MORE pollution by an even worse method for worse readons is being implemented .
Yes because all the engineers, scientists and geologists who work on the fracking rigs and work on the new techniques no less than you? There opinion is worth less than yours?.
All the extra financial benefits of it don't suit you or your outlook?.
I mean cmon drilling in the sea is just as risky, just as bad but the Scots are all for it with the right regulation of course, aren't you?.
It seems to me that your a bit of a NIMBY.
Lancashire CC refused permission for fracking. The government overturned it. What price democracy eh?.
So what!.
You don't think windmills get blocked at local level only to be overturned at national level?.
Jeez, you dont half come out with some drivel. Clearly yet another process that you dont understand, but feel the need to comment on....
Do you want me to site all the cases of wind farms blocked at local level, I can if you want, it's a long list.
Ps 90% of them get overturned at national government level, just like every single nuclear power station ever commissioned.
Jeez you don't half know jack shit about what you bang on about."The word you're searching for is cite not site ffs. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry " That's interesting to know thanks.. | |||
| |||
"Short answer is that we still need it." Shorter answer is that we are heading for climate catastrophe if we don't reign in carbon emissions. | |||
"If we can see out the nations reliance on fossil fuel by fracking, then why the fuck not? Sooner or later renewable energy will replace them, so it won’t be forever. I’m all for it..." Problem is the chemicals being used and the resulting permanent pollution, plus the small return for the extraction efforts. | |||
"If we can see out the nations reliance on fossil fuel by fracking, then why the fuck not? Sooner or later renewable energy will replace them, so it won’t be forever. I’m all for it... Problem is the chemicals being used and the resulting permanent pollution, plus the small return for the extraction efforts. " I’m not convinced, in fact far from it. Especially the bit about small returns, if that was the case then nobody would bother. Like when the Saudis flooded the market with cheap oil. Everyone else stopped producing, it wasn’t worth the effort, even in the US. | |||
| |||
"If we can see out the nations reliance on fossil fuel by fracking, then why the fuck not? Sooner or later renewable energy will replace them, so it won’t be forever. I’m all for it... Problem is the chemicals being used and the resulting permanent pollution, plus the small return for the extraction efforts. I’m not convinced, in fact far from it. Especially the bit about small returns, if that was the case then nobody would bother. Like when the Saudis flooded the market with cheap oil. Everyone else stopped producing, it wasn’t worth the effort, even in the US." Small return : environmental damage ratio i should have said. | |||
"Short answer is that we still need it. Shorter answer is that we are heading for climate catastrophe if we don't reign in carbon emissions." . Do you see anybody else reigning in the emissions?. I'm all for reigning in when China does or India does or Germany does or Russia does, but they aren't, there getting a competitive edge from cheap fossil fuel energy. Until that changes we should carry on as normal. | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry " . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it." This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? " . Tell me why it's different?. I don't hate green energy that's just stupid,I like cheap energy, if it's green great, even better. There is no great danger from fracking, they regulate it very well and it's got scientists, engineers and geologists backing it as safe, on the other hand you've got slightly unhinged whackos claiming all sorts of conspiracy theory rubbish about what it will do to x y and z, all of which has no scientific credibility whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it. | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? . Tell me why it's different?. I don't hate green energy that's just stupid,I like cheap energy, if it's green great, even better. There is no great danger from fracking, they regulate it very well and it's got scientists, engineers and geologists backing it as safe, on the other hand you've got slightly unhinged whackos claiming all sorts of conspiracy theory rubbish about what it will do to x y and z, all of which has no scientific credibility whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it." How about the large amount of methane escaping through the ground and it's 30 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas? | |||
" whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it. " I don't doubt their knowledge, i doubt their honesty! | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? . Tell me why it's different?. I don't hate green energy that's just stupid,I like cheap energy, if it's green great, even better. There is no great danger from fracking, they regulate it very well and it's got scientists, engineers and geologists backing it as safe, on the other hand you've got slightly unhinged whackos claiming all sorts of conspiracy theory rubbish about what it will do to x y and z, all of which has no scientific credibility whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it." Okay my comment wasn’t helpful. But to make a serious reply, as this is a field in which I have some knowledge. Look at the scientists that publish works stating that fracking is safe. Their research is most often funded by the oil companies. There are plenty of scientists, not wackos, who are not funded by oil companies who have published work that details the dangers. On another note, we should be moving away from fossil fuels to curb our CO2 emissions. | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? . Tell me why it's different?. I don't hate green energy that's just stupid,I like cheap energy, if it's green great, even better. There is no great danger from fracking, they regulate it very well and it's got scientists, engineers and geologists backing it as safe, on the other hand you've got slightly unhinged whackos claiming all sorts of conspiracy theory rubbish about what it will do to x y and z, all of which has no scientific credibility whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it. Okay my comment wasn’t helpful. But to make a serious reply, as this is a field in which I have some knowledge. Look at the scientists that publish works stating that fracking is safe. Their research is most often funded by the oil companies. There are plenty of scientists, not wackos, who are not funded by oil companies who have published work that details the dangers. On another note, we should be moving away from fossil fuels to curb our CO2 emissions. " | |||
| |||
"All the moaners are probably the same ones that stopped wind farms being built that is what really annoys me. " . I think the main concern about fracking is that there was earthquake in Lancashire until it was stopped , then another 4 tremors in the week that they recommemced , so definitely sounds dodgy to me ,,, and my main moan about wind farms is that there are not enough of them , | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? . Tell me why it's different?. I don't hate green energy that's just stupid,I like cheap energy, if it's green great, even better. There is no great danger from fracking, they regulate it very well and it's got scientists, engineers and geologists backing it as safe, on the other hand you've got slightly unhinged whackos claiming all sorts of conspiracy theory rubbish about what it will do to x y and z, all of which has no scientific credibility whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it. Okay my comment wasn’t helpful. But to make a serious reply, as this is a field in which I have some knowledge. Look at the scientists that publish works stating that fracking is safe. Their research is most often funded by the oil companies. There are plenty of scientists, not wackos, who are not funded by oil companies who have published work that details the dangers. On another note, we should be moving away from fossil fuels to curb our CO2 emissions. " . Ok that's interesting, I haven't found any myself, perhaps you could pass on the links for me to view myself. | |||
| |||
| |||
"All the moaners are probably the same ones that stopped wind farms being built that is what really annoys me. . I think the main concern about fracking is that there was earthquake in Lancashire until it was stopped , then another 4 tremors in the week that they recommemced , so definitely sounds dodgy to me ,,, and my main moan about wind farms is that there are not enough of them , " The earthquakes that occurred were less than 0.5 on the Richter scale which is equivalent to the tremors you get from a car driving past your house. They are non-events. Abandoned coal mine settlement produces bigger tremors. The problem with wind turbines is they don't produce power when you need it, they produce power when the wind blows. You have to keep power stations running ready to meet demand when the wind can't, and these power stations charge a lot for their electricity because they can't sell it when the wind blows. So we pay for the wind turbine and the power station when we could just pay for the power station. It would be like using a sailing boat for the Dover Calais ferry but having a regular ferry as well for when the wind doesn't blow. | |||
"All the moaners are probably the same ones that stopped wind farms being built that is what really annoys me. . I think the main concern about fracking is that there was earthquake in Lancashire until it was stopped , then another 4 tremors in the week that they recommemced , so definitely sounds dodgy to me ,,, and my main moan about wind farms is that there are not enough of them , The earthquakes that occurred were less than 0.5 on the Richter scale which is equivalent to the tremors you get from a car driving past your house. They are non-events. Abandoned coal mine settlement produces bigger tremors. The problem with wind turbines is they don't produce power when you need it, they produce power when the wind blows. You have to keep power stations running ready to meet demand when the wind can't, and these power stations charge a lot for their electricity because they can't sell it when the wind blows. So we pay for the wind turbine and the power station when we could just pay for the power station. It would be like using a sailing boat for the Dover Calais ferry but having a regular ferry as well for when the wind doesn't blow." What about improvements in battery technology? | |||
" The problem with wind turbines is they don't produce power when you need it, they produce power when the wind blows. You have to keep power stations running ready to meet demand when the wind can't, and these power stations charge a lot for their electricity because they can't sell it when the wind blows. So we pay for the wind turbine and the power station when we could just pay for the power station. It would be like using a sailing boat for the Dover Calais ferry but having a regular ferry as well for when the wind doesn't blow. What about improvements in battery technology?" Batteries are improving but at moment we are nowhere near an economical grid-scale storage solution. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Oops , another earthquake in Lancashire , only a small one though , so nothing to worry about , fracking suspended " Seems there have been quakes nearly every day since they started. So much for it being perfectly safe. | |||
| |||
"17 earthquake,s in 9 days,fracking will cease till Monday " Having the weekend off then. Guess that saves on weekend premiums for the plant operators and complaints about local disruptions over the weekend. Business as usual on Monday tho... | |||
"17 earthquake,s in 9 days,fracking will cease till Monday Having the weekend off then. Guess that saves on weekend premiums for the plant operators and complaints about local disruptions over the weekend. Business as usual on Monday tho..." Don’t know,this one measured .8 | |||
"17 earthquake,s in 9 days,fracking will cease till Monday Having the weekend off then. Guess that saves on weekend premiums for the plant operators and complaints about local disruptions over the weekend. Business as usual on Monday tho...Don’t know,this one measured .8 " . I wonder what the official measurement is before they decide to take another look at this ???? And I don't mean ' take the weekend off ' ,, I mean ' take another look at this ' | |||
| |||
" The problem with wind turbines is they don't produce power when you need it, they produce power when the wind blows. You have to keep power stations running ready to meet demand when the wind can't, and these power stations charge a lot for their electricity because they can't sell it when the wind blows. So we pay for the wind turbine and the power station when we could just pay for the power station. It would be like using a sailing boat for the Dover Calais ferry but having a regular ferry as well for when the wind doesn't blow. What about improvements in battery technology? Batteries are improving but at moment we are nowhere near an economical grid-scale storage solution." I tried stating this obvious fact earlier in this thread and got shouted down by confused members | |||
"The situation isn't suprising. Despite the Democrat rejection of fracking it's imposed on us by the tory government members with gas/oil invested interests, plus the judge who unduly sentenced the activities to prison has links to the oil & gas industry . You men the democratic rejection at local level by NIMBYs just like we get for nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and are all pushed through by national democratic party's at a state level!. There is no more corruption by Tories over this than labour pushing through wind farms in Devon. We need energy, lots of it that is reliable, cheap, plentiful and secure, none of your green bullshit can do that (yet). When it can we'll do it. This is nothing like Labour pushing through wind farms. What are you talking about? Why the hate for green energy? . Tell me why it's different?. I don't hate green energy that's just stupid,I like cheap energy, if it's green great, even better. There is no great danger from fracking, they regulate it very well and it's got scientists, engineers and geologists backing it as safe, on the other hand you've got slightly unhinged whackos claiming all sorts of conspiracy theory rubbish about what it will do to x y and z, all of which has no scientific credibility whatsoever, so as long as fracking is safe (and all the reports by experts say it is) I'm all for it. Okay my comment wasn’t helpful. But to make a serious reply, as this is a field in which I have some knowledge. Look at the scientists that publish works stating that fracking is safe. Their research is most often funded by the oil companies. There are plenty of scientists, not wackos, who are not funded by oil companies who have published work that details the dangers. On another note, we should be moving away from fossil fuels to curb our CO2 emissions. . Ok that's interesting, I haven't found any myself, perhaps you could pass on the links for me to view myself." . I'm still waiting for these links? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"They might stop when they trigger a 8.6 "If any site records a seismic event of magnitude greater than 0.5, operations have to be halted and pressures immediately reduced. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Another 4 earthquake,s today " But but!! The scientists said it was safe 
Who in thier right mind would inject acid into the earth where it does not belong and expects nothing to go wrong
They are still saying it’s safe, so when the tremors get even stronger who are they going to Blame ? | |||
"Another 4 earthquake,s today But but!! The scientists said it was safe
Who in thier right mind would inject acid into the earth where it does not belong and expects nothing to go wrong
They are still saying it’s safe, so when the tremors get even stronger who are they going to Blame ? "The Americans? | |||
"Another 4 earthquake,s today But but!! The scientists said it was safe
Who in thier right mind would inject acid into the earth where it does not belong and expects nothing to go wrong
They are still saying it’s safe, so when the tremors get even stronger who are they going to Blame ? "project fear ... followed by remain voters, the eu council, immigrants, corbyn, foreigners and the green party | |||
"Another 4 earthquake,s today But but!! The scientists said it was safe
Who in thier right mind would inject acid into the earth where it does not belong and expects nothing to go wrong
They are still saying it’s safe, so when the tremors get even stronger who are they going to Blame ? "It'll be those namby pamby tree hugging, sandal wearing do gooder pc luddite types who are stopping the march to the next new treasure the planet has worthy of ravaging.. Whatever the cost.. | |||
| |||
"The only reason why Fracking “works” and I say that loosely in America is the remoteness of where they are doing it. The UK is simply too small for this to done on such an ad hoc basis. It’s too risky to the limited water table. Those Earth tremors are case in point. " Were you listening to me at work yesterday?!  | |||
