Climate Change

[The Gasbuster]

Collis has made the point that a number of threads have been "hijacked" recently, and he is right. He has also claimed that some of the topics we have discussed in recent weeks are "minor issues" (i.e. benefit cheats), then goes on to say there are more important matters, and names climate change as one.

So here is it's own thread.

My point of view is that we have invested more (per head) on renewable energy, than any other E.U. country, especially when you look at the number of onshore and offshore wind farms we have. To me, the rest of the E.U. are not in any position to criticise. France, I believe, has around 80% of it's energy generated by nuclear means (correct E.M.B. ?).

The energy secretary has announced today that all coal fired power stations will be out of commission within 10 years.

Personally, this announcement, plus the investment in renewables in recent years, speaks volumes for this government, and the previous ones over the last 15 years.

However, let's not forget that the U.K. generates less than 2% of the world's pollution.

Meanwhile, India with it's population of more than a billion is increasing the quantity of coal it mines, and is building more coal fired power stations.

I would imagine China are doing something similar . Then there is the U.S.A., who apparently generate around 25 % of the world's pollution (China must be around this sort of figure as well).

The shadow secretary of state for energy stated today that we should be "showing India the way" by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels for generating power.

Really ? will India take note of what we say ? I doubt it somehow.

In essence, bearing in mind the size of the problem worldwide, I would say we are doing more than our fair share. Any further improvements we make will be tiny when you look at the overall picture.

 

Collis, over to you..................

[Lanterne Rouge]

We won`t change China or India`s attitudes no matter what we do or say. Their view is basically why should they be prohibited from modernising their countries because the west (who already have by polluting the world) says so. It`s difficult to argue with that really.

As far as the USA is concerned, they will never change as long as every administration requires the backing of the oil companies and other big business interests to get elected.

All we can do is our best but be aware it won`t make a bit of difference in the great scheme of things.

[The Gasbuster]

Yep, the developing world will always take the lowest cost route; and who can blame them.

India must be spending huge sums on it's space program though ?

[Kid in the Riot]

Well the Tories have made it abundantly clear addressing climate change is not a priority for them, despite proclaiming themselves to be 'the greenest party ever' in the build up to the 2010 election. Another lie - but hey who's counting!

Government funding for renewables is about £1 billion a year. Government funding for the oil and gas industry is about £36 billion. The Tories chose to make further cuts to the renewables budget this year. Seems very short-sighted to me.

I know lots of people that work in the renewables sector and many are being made redundant due to the cuts. Does the oil and gas industry and the massive profits they make really need supporting to the tune of £36 billion? Surely they'd be able to take a hit to their funding better than the still relatively small renewables sector?

The 'we shouldn't bother cus of India and the USA' arguement is a poor one IMO. California in America is one of the most forward-thinking regions in the world in terms of producing renewable energy.

The Dutch have recently put solar panels on their roads so they light up in the dark.

Soon we will have technology to spray paint solar panels onto roofs of houses.

The electric car will hopefully be more widespread in 10-15 years. Main problem at the moment is they only run for 100 miles before you need to charge them.

We're doing ok, but we could be doing so much better. Countries like India and China will follow in course but without putting too much of a downer on things - it could well be too late by then.

[marshy]

23 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Well the Tories have made it abundantly clear addressing climate change is not a priority for them, despite proclaiming themselves to be 'the greenest party ever' in the build up to the 2010 election. Another lie - but hey who's counting!

Government funding for renewables is about £1 billion a year. Government funding for the oil and gas industry is about £36 billion. The Tories chose to make further cuts to the renewables budget this year. Seems very short-sighted to me.

I know lots of people that work in the renewables sector and many are being made redundant due to the cuts. Does the oil and gas industry and the massive profits they make really need supporting to the tune of £36 billion? Surely they'd be able to take a hit to their funding better than the still relatively small renewables sector?

The 'we shouldn't bother cus of India and the USA' arguement is a poor one IMO. California in America is one of the most forward-thinking regions in the world in terms of producing renewable energy.

The Dutch have recently put solar panels on their roads so they light up in the dark.

Soon we will have technology to spray paint solar panels onto roofs of houses.

The electric car will hopefully be more widespread in 10-15 years. Main problem at the moment is they only run for 100 miles before you need to charge them.

We're doing ok, but we could be doing so much better. Countries like India and China will follow in course but without putting too much of a downer on things - it could well be too late by then.

The government has just announced that all coal fired power stations are to close by 2025 and usage restricted from 2023. These were responsible for producing 29% of our electricity last year so let's hope there is a good plan in place to replace them. We will be the first major economy to end reliance on them I believe. Meanwhile Germany moves in the other direction.

The UKIP proposal to develop shale gas and create a sovereign wealth fund from the profits, such as exists in two of the wealthiest countries on the planet, Singapore and Norway, seems fairly sensible to me as an interim measure but no doubt some will howl and find a way of calling it 'racist'.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Climate change is by far the biggest threat to our future generations and the sooner those of all political backgrounds come together on this the better. 

Climate change is real, but for many it remains a subject to be dropped into “worthy but dull, can someone else sort it out” category. We're unlikely to actually become extinct anytime soon, but there's a really rather bad amount of stuff that's going to happen from now until that point. We've never tried to feed billions of people in a situation of climatic instability and its not going to end well I'm afraid. 

It actually haunts me to the point of questioning the morality of having children myself.  What is the world going to be like when my grandchildren are adults?

The problem is that the way the economy works in most westernized countries climate change is never prioritized.  It is not in politicians interests to tackle it because profit comes before everything these days. Future generations will look back with disgust.

As Gasbuster said, the UK is actually one of the better European nations and we should be trying to convey this message to other countries.  But its still not nearly enough and as Kid has mentioned a lot of it is a nostalgia act - we still are not investing nearly enough money and it looks like the Tories are going to make further cuts.

I believe Germany has actually led the way with industrial activism to promote renewable energy industries - it creates skilled jobs. Insulating homes and businesses will also create jobs and tackle fuel poverty, as well as tackling climate change. 

All very depressing really. How it is currently being widely ignored is one of the great failures of mankind. 

 

 

[marshy]

49 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Climate change is by far the biggest threat to our future generations and the sooner those of all political backgrounds come together on this the better. 

Climate change is real, but for many it remains a subject to be dropped into “worthy but dull, can someone else sort it out” category. We're unlikely to actually become extinct anytime soon, but there's a really rather bad amount of stuff that's going to happen from now until that point. We've never tried to feed billions of people in a situation of climatic instability and its not going to end well I'm afraid. 

It actually haunts me to the point of questioning the morality of having children myself.  What is the world going to be like when my grandchildren are adults?

The problem is that the way the economy works in most westernized countries climate change is never prioritized.  It is not in politicians interests to tackle it because profit comes before everything these days. Future generations will look back with disgust.

As Gasbuster said, the UK is actually one of the better European nations and we should be trying to convey this message to other countries.  But its still not nearly enough and as Kid has mentioned a lot of it is a nostalgia act - we still are not investing nearly enough money and it looks like the Tories are going to make further cuts.

I believe Germany has actually led the way with industrial activism to promote renewable energy industries - it creates skilled jobs. Insulating homes and businesses will also create jobs and tackle fuel poverty, as well as tackling climate change. 

All very depressing really. How it is currently being widely ignored is one of the great failures of mankind. 

 

 

Gerald Neubauer of Greenpeace said Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, of the center-left Social Democrats, must stop "the shocking coal boom." No other country produces more brown coal than Germany, he added. "The coal boom now endangers Germany's credibility on climate protection and the energy revolution," said Neubauer. The Social Democrats need to adopt a more critical stance on this issue, he added

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, marshy said:

The government has just announced that all coal fired power stations are to close by 2025 and usage restricted from 2023. These were responsible for producing 29% of our electricity last year so let's hope there is a good plan in place to replace them. We will be the first major economy to end reliance on them I believe. Meanwhile Germany moves in the other direction.

The UKIP proposal to develop shale gas and create a sovereign wealth fund from the profits, such as exists in two of the wealthiest countries on the planet, Singapore and Norway, seems fairly sensible to me as an interim measure but no doubt some will howl and find a way of calling it 'racist'.

They are consulting on it, I believe. The replacement will come in the form of gas, off-shore wind and nuclear - the new Hinckley power station will be producing electricity by the mid-20's.

I'm still undecided on suitability of fracking (shale gas).

[The Gasbuster]

3 hours ago, marshy said:

The government has just announced that all coal fired power stations are to close by 2025 and usage restricted from 2023. These were responsible for producing 29% of our electricity last year so let's hope there is a good plan in place to replace them. We will be the first major economy to end reliance on them I believe. Meanwhile Germany moves in the other direction.

The UKIP proposal to develop shale gas and create a sovereign wealth fund from the profits, such as exists in two of the wealthiest countries on the planet, Singapore and Norway, seems fairly sensible to me as an interim measure but no doubt some will howl and find a way of calling it 'racist'.

Exactly.

This seems to be opposed by tree huggers and small minded Ashton Vale type Nimbys, every time an attempt is made. (As they do with many other things that affect the view or property prices !). 

Some people seem to have made their mind up about this before a concerted attempt has been made. If the correct geological surveys and risk assessments have been made in the target areas, surely it is worth giving it a try ?

Monitor the local environment continually during the process; and should any of the suggested side effects start to materialise, then stop immediately.

Reports suggest we have vast reserves of untapped shale gas in this country.

[...]

7 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Climate change is by far the biggest threat to our future generations and the sooner those of all political backgrounds come together on this the better. 

Climate change is real, but for many it remains a subject to be dropped into “worthy but dull, can someone else sort it out” category. We're unlikely to actually become extinct anytime soon, but there's a really rather bad amount of stuff that's going to happen from now until that point. We've never tried to feed billions of people in a situation of climatic instability and its not going to end well I'm afraid. 

It actually haunts me to the point of questioning the morality of having children myself.  What is the world going to be like when my grandchildren are adults?

The problem is that the way the economy works in most westernized countries climate change is never prioritized.  It is not in politicians interests to tackle it because profit comes before everything these days. Future generations will look back with disgust.

As Gasbuster said, the UK is actually one of the better European nations and we should be trying to convey this message to other countries.  But its still not nearly enough and as Kid has mentioned a lot of it is a nostalgia act - we still are not investing nearly enough money and it looks like the Tories are going to make further cuts.

I believe Germany has actually led the way with industrial activism to promote renewable energy industries - it creates skilled jobs. Insulating homes and businesses will also create jobs and tackle fuel poverty, as well as tackling climate change. 

All very depressing really. How it is currently being widely ignored is one of the great failures of mankind. 

 

 

Nuclear war?

If only we had a proper deterrent ...........

 

Uncle TFR

(EMB? get over here).

[BCFC Jimmer]

7 hours ago, marshy said:

Gerald Neubauer of Greenpeace said Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, of the center-left Social Democrats, must stop "the shocking coal boom." No other country produces more brown coal than Germany, he added. "The coal boom now endangers Germany's credibility on climate protection and the energy revolution," said Neubauer. The Social Democrats need to adopt a more critical stance on this issue, he added

As I said, still much more needs to be done in every country.

 

[Kid in the Riot]

5 hours ago, The Gasbuster said:

Exactly.

This seems to be opposed by tree huggers and small minded Ashton Vale type Nimbys, every time an attempt is made. (As they do with many other things that affect the view or property prices !). 

Some people seem to have made their mind up about this before a concerted attempt has been made. If the correct geological surveys and risk assessments have been made in the target areas, surely it is worth giving it a try ?

Monitor the local environment continually during the process; and should any of the suggested side effects start to materialise, then stop immediately.

Reports suggest we have vast reserves of untapped shale gas in this country.

 

This made me laugh. Show me a neighbourhood/community that isn't concerned by development that may affect views/property prices...or in the case of fracking release methane into the atmosphere, pollute water or cause noise pollution.

I'm sure there's a long list of developers who'd love to know where the areas are in the UK that'll readily accept fracking/housing/stadiums etc on their doorstep without a fight...

[chipdawg]

I have a degree in Environmental Science, currently work in environmental protection (which includes air quality work) and have recently done quite a lot of work on 'fracking' and the environmental issues associated with it (though not on a climatic scale), so....

Climate Change is an inescapable fact. Anyone with any basic grounding in the physical sciences can see that over time the earth is getting warmer. However, the mechanisms behind that warming are far more complex than is ever described in mainstream media. Again, I don't really think you need a Nobel prize in physics to understand the process by which a build up of greenhouse gases could lead to increased temperatures. However, this is clearly not what drives climate change; the geological records, ice cores and fossils show fluctuations in the earths climate going back hundreds of millions of years. This is primarily driven by what are known as 'Milankovic Cycles' (or the Croll-Milankovic Theory) which is a theory by the Serbian mathematician and engineer Milutin Milankovic (who is a fascinating character and bona-fide genius) who predicted almost perfectly the occurrence of ice ages in the geological record through a calculation of the variations in the earths proximity to the sun and wobbles of its axis in orbit. It is a genuine work of mind-blowing mathematical genius. However, most people have never heard of it because the theory, though universally accepted, suits neither narrative on climate change. The environmentalists would have to accept that climate change is driven by natural processes, while the deniers would have to admit that it's happening. So the same argument occurs in perpetuity, with no conclusion in sight because the argument is not even being framed correctly

So does that mean we don't need to worry about industrial emissions and greenhouse gas? I would say we certainly do. While humans are not driving climate change, we're pushing hard on the accelerator and shifting the gears. The same geological records that prove the Milankovic cycles exist, also demonstrate that significant volcanic events such as the Deccan Traps Eruptions, can cause significant climate change through both warming (by release of CO2) and cooling (through he release of particulates). These same contaminants are produced every day be human beings

What is required is a pragmatic approach. An acceptance that climate change is inescapable and that farming practices will have to adapt and that low-lying coastal areas will be inundated, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible to slow things down and lessen the end effect. A more pressing matter in relation to air quality though is the localised effects on people's health. PM10, PM2.5, NOx & Sulphurous Oxides, as well as more aggressively dangerous hydrocarbon, THM, Chlorinated Solvents, heavy metals contaminants are still generated in significant quantities even in this country. DEFRA recently estimated that 200,000 people per year in the UK have their lives shortened by air quality issues (though the science behind that is questionable) and so while it is certainly true that we need the likes of India, China and Russia to alter industrial practices to have a real effect on greenhouse gas emissions, it's still imperative that we control industrial and vehicle emissions in the UK

Thank you class, the lecture on Fracking will begin shortly, hand your papers in at the front

[RedRock]

'India with its population of more than a billion'........ and there you have it.

We're just rearranging the chairs in the Titanic with our attempts to address climate change. Until political and religious leaders have the bottle to say the population explosion is the primary threat to sustaining life on this planet, all systems on which we depend for our survival will plunge into the danger zone. 

Will they do it? No. Bigger populations are supported by politicians of the right as they need need more customers to sustain/ grow markets, of the left persuasion more 'poor' voters help their 'cause' and religiously leaders want more followers. Mankind's selfishness and short-sightedness will be our species downfall I fear. 

Intelligent people like David Attenborough are now speaking out on the subject but they're voices in the wilderness at present. Sad. Spent an entire career doing 'my bit' and encouraging others to do likewise but, frankly, just pissing in the wind. 

[chipdawg]

So now class, to 'fracking'

In laymans terms, fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a process by which a mixture of water, surfactants and an abrasive such as sand is fired at high pressure into an complex of vertical and lateral boreholes which are sunk into shale formations. This high pressure mixture causes the shale to fracture, releasing the natural gas trapped within the strata of the rocks. In the UK, the shale is mostly within 'coal measures' formations and the gas forms through variations on the process which created coal

A comparison is often made to shale gas extraction in the US, but the comparison is not really appropriate on either side of the debate. Shale gas reserves in the US are generally present within the top 50 metres of rock, certainly those in the Appalachian areas which have created the famous 'flammable water', whereas UK shale gas reserves are at depths of typically 400 metres. Coupling that with the nature of water supply in the country (largely centralised, surface water dominated and well protected in planning legislation), the chances of that kind of thing happening here are remote. However, this added depth also means that the kind of profits generated through exploitation of shale gas in the US are unlikely. It's more costly and the gas yield will be lower, while the more 'compact' nature of our shale fields make exploitation more difficult

So what are the environmental risks? As discussed, the depth of shale in this country makes it unlikely that groundwater is going to be significantly affected and even less so that any surface waters will be impacted by the fracking itself. However, the complexity of the geology of Great Britain makes it impossible to actually predict what will happen and uncertainty is often a killer in such situation. Both BGS and the Environment Agency have concluded that actually the far bigger risk is incorrect site management leading to spillage of stored wastes and chemicals. This is obviously a risk that can be managed with effective regulation. The 'earthquake' risk is negligible as far as I can tell, though I would expect people living close to drilling sites will be able to feel the process in the form of noise and vibration which obviously creates a problem on a local level. In fact, circling back to air quality issues I would think that truck movements associated with the fracking sites will actually have the biggest health effect on people living near the drill sites

As for the financial benefits, no one has been able to effectively estimate what the recoverable gas reserves are so we won't know how much is there until we start extracting on a larger scale. I think a conservative estimate would be 'a lot'! The idea of a sovereign wealth fund is laudable and I do like the principle, but there are fundamental differences between the situation here and that will oil reserves in Norway and Singapore. We are looking to exploit the gas for our own domestic use and energy security, whereas Norway and Singapore made their money from trading the oil on the international markets. Therefore, taxation of the gas to generate funds will increase the cost of the gas and will be self defeating. The tax raised on the profits of the companies exploiting the gas is unlikely to be comparable to that raised by North Sea oil

Overall, I think that a properly regulated fracking industry in this country is a no brainer. Personally, I'd like to see the taxes raised recycled into supporting the development of renewables so that when the gas runs out in 30,40,50 years time, we continue to have energy security, but governments don't tend to think that far ahead

Right, before you leave I'd like 2000 words on the socio-economic benefits of reclaiming industrial land on my desk by midday on Monday. Class dismissed

[The Gasbuster]

46 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

So now class, to 'fracking'

In laymans terms, fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a process by which a mixture of water, surfactants and an abrasive such as sand is fired at high pressure into an complex of vertical and lateral boreholes which are sunk into shale formations. This high pressure mixture causes the shale to fracture, releasing the natural gas trapped within the strata of the rocks. In the UK, the shale is mostly within 'coal measures' formations and the gas forms through variations on the process which created coal

A comparison is often made to shale gas extraction in the US, but the comparison is not really appropriate on either side of the debate. Shale gas reserves in the US are generally present within the top 50 metres of rock, certainly those in the Appalachian areas which have created the famous 'flammable water', whereas UK shale gas reserves are at depths of typically 400 metres. Coupling that with the nature of water supply in the country (largely centralised, surface water dominated and well protected in planning legislation), the chances of that kind of thing happening here are remote. However, this added depth also means that the kind of profits generated through exploitation of shale gas in the US are unlikely. It's more costly and the gas yield will be lower, while the more 'compact' nature of our shale fields make exploitation more difficult

So what are the environmental risks? As discussed, the depth of shale in this country makes it unlikely that groundwater is going to be significantly affected and even less so that any surface waters will be impacted by the fracking itself. However, the complexity of the geology of Great Britain makes it impossible to actually predict what will happen and uncertainty is often a killer in such situation. Both BGS and the Environment Agency have concluded that actually the far bigger risk is incorrect site management leading to spillage of stored wastes and chemicals. This is obviously a risk that can be managed with effective regulation. The 'earthquake' risk is negligible as far as I can tell, though I would expect people living close to drilling sites will be able to feel the process in the form of noise and vibration which obviously creates a problem on a local level. In fact, circling back to air quality issues I would think that truck movements associated with the fracking sites will actually have the biggest health effect on people living near the drill sites

As for the financial benefits, no one has been able to effectively estimate what the recoverable gas reserves are so we won't know how much is there until we start extracting on a larger scale. I think a conservative estimate would be 'a lot'! The idea of a sovereign wealth fund is laudable and I do like the principle, but there are fundamental differences between the situation here and that will oil reserves in Norway and Singapore. We are looking to exploit the gas for our own domestic use and energy security, whereas Norway and Singapore made their money from trading the oil on the international markets. Therefore, taxation of the gas to generate funds will increase the cost of the gas and will be self defeating. The tax raised on the profits of the companies exploiting the gas is unlikely to be comparable to that raised by North Sea oil

Overall, I think that a properly regulated fracking industry in this country is a no brainer. Personally, I'd like to see the taxes raised recycled into supporting the development of renewables so that when the gas runs out in 30,40,50 years time, we continue to have energy security, but governments don't tend to think that far ahead

Right, before you leave I'd like 2000 words on the socio-economic benefits of reclaiming industrial land on my desk by midday on Monday. Class dismissed

Excellent posts from you this morning Chip, very informative !

The section that I have highlighted really covers the subject I was alluding to; that the geology of the area concerned really governs how successful / unsuccessful / dangerous this process can be.

I recall seeing a map of the north west shale reserves; and it pretty much covered all of Lancashire. There are plenty of locations within Lancashire which have next to no population concentration, which would appear suitable to at least give this process a try, (assuming farmland with sufficient nearby roads to support the heavy plant required).

As detailed previously, with sufficient surveying and monitoring, this must be worth attempting, bearing in mind your notes above ?

Perhaps more information needs to be provided to nearby (sparse) communities, with the sort of detail you have provided. Getting the locals on side is obviously important, but any eco-warrior types from outside the area should frankly do one, and not interfere.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and delivering your posts in an informative way; without coming across in any way as condescending.

[chipdawg]

14 minutes ago, The Gasbuster said:

Excellent posts from you this morning Chip, very informative !

The section that I have highlighted really covers the subject I was alluding to; that the geology of the area concerned really governs how successful / unsuccessful / dangerous this process can be.

I recall seeing a map of the north west shale reserves; and it pretty much covered all of Lancashire. There are plenty of locations within Lancashire which have next to no population concentration, which would appear suitable to at least give this process a try, (assuming farmland with sufficient nearby roads to support the heavy plant required).

As detailed previously, with sufficient surveying and monitoring, this must be worth attempting, bearing in mind your notes above ?

Perhaps more information needs to be provided to nearby (sparse) communities, with the sort of detail you have provided. Getting the locals on side is obviously important, but any eco-warrior types from outside the area should frankly do one, and not interfere.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and delivering your posts in an informative way; without coming across in any way as condescending.

Cheers! It's a subject I find very interesting and that's a precious thing at work. Most of what I've done is looking at water resource protection and not at a particularly technical level, but you end up reading around the subject quite a lot

Essentially what fracking comes down to in this country is a risk assessment. We know we can get the gas, but we probably won't know how much we can get, how much will escape (methane is a much more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2) or what the effect on the hydrology of our island will be. From what I've seen its a gamble with fairly low risks, so long as the process is well regulated and managed

I think it's really a political issue. The government should have just said "we believe this is of national importance, we're going to take the decisions on whether fracking goes ahead in any given area", but that would run counter to their commitment to localism. So they've instead said, "the decision rests with local people but if their decision isn't one we like, we reserve the right to allow it to go ahead anyway". Local planning authorities are between a rock and a hard place

Fracked gas should only be looked at as a 'bridging fuel' though, it remains non-renewable and will be gone before we know it 

[WhistleHappy]

17 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

Cheers! It's a subject I find very interesting and that's a precious thing at work. Most of what I've done is looking at water resource protection and not at a particularly technical level, but you end up reading around the subject quite a lot

Essentially what fracking comes down to in this country is a risk assessment. We know we can get the gas, but we probably won't know how much we can get, how much will escape (methane is a much more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2) or what the effect on the hydrology of our island will be. From what I've seen its a gamble with fairly low risks, so long as the process is well regulated and managed

I think it's really a political issue. The government should have just said "we believe this is of national importance, we're going to take the decisions on whether fracking goes ahead in any given area", but that would run counter to their commitment to localism. So they've instead said, "the decision rests with local people but if their decision isn't one we like, we reserve the right to allow it to go ahead anyway". Local planning authorities are between a rock and a hard place

Fracked gas should only be looked at as a 'bridging fuel' though, it remains non-renewable and will be gone before we know it 

'Like a 'fart in a colander' ....then. 

(Sorry to be so frivolous in a serious subjuect , just an opportunity to use a once common expression that I not used or heard for quite a while, something in your post reminded me of it)

[Kid in the Riot]

Pretty sure a fracking site in Lancashire was granted planning permision in the summer so we'll see how it goes I guess.

[chipdawg]

15 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Pretty sure a fracking site in Lancashire was granted planning permision in the summer so we'll see how it goes I guess.

As far as I'm aware it was rejected by the local authority, but the government have said they'll force it through. To be honest, this site and one in Pickering which they've chosen to go at first are mental; relatively wealthy, rural locations- obviously people are going to fight back. There are vast former coal fields in Yorkshire which need both the business rates and employment opportunities where they would probably be welcomed with open arms. The geological conditions may be more difficult there, but the political ones are not

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-33313084

[marshy]

2 hours ago, chipdawg said:

So now class, to 'fracking'

In laymans terms, fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a process by which a mixture of water, surfactants and an abrasive such as sand is fired at high pressure into an complex of vertical and lateral boreholes which are sunk into shale formations. This high pressure mixture causes the shale to fracture, releasing the natural gas trapped within the strata of the rocks. In the UK, the shale is mostly within 'coal measures' formations and the gas forms through variations on the process which created coal

A comparison is often made to shale gas extraction in the US, but the comparison is not really appropriate on either side of the debate. Shale gas reserves in the US are generally present within the top 50 metres of rock, certainly those in the Appalachian areas which have created the famous 'flammable water', whereas UK shale gas reserves are at depths of typically 400 metres. Coupling that with the nature of water supply in the country (largely centralised, surface water dominated and well protected in planning legislation), the chances of that kind of thing happening here are remote. However, this added depth also means that the kind of profits generated through exploitation of shale gas in the US are unlikely. It's more costly and the gas yield will be lower, while the more 'compact' nature of our shale fields make exploitation more difficult

So what are the environmental risks? As discussed, the depth of shale in this country makes it unlikely that groundwater is going to be significantly affected and even less so that any surface waters will be impacted by the fracking itself. However, the complexity of the geology of Great Britain makes it impossible to actually predict what will happen and uncertainty is often a killer in such situation. Both BGS and the Environment Agency have concluded that actually the far bigger risk is incorrect site management leading to spillage of stored wastes and chemicals. This is obviously a risk that can be managed with effective regulation. The 'earthquake' risk is negligible as far as I can tell, though I would expect people living close to drilling sites will be able to feel the process in the form of noise and vibration which obviously creates a problem on a local level. In fact, circling back to air quality issues I would think that truck movements associated with the fracking sites will actually have the biggest health effect on people living near the drill sites

As for the financial benefits, no one has been able to effectively estimate what the recoverable gas reserves are so we won't know how much is there until we start extracting on a larger scale. I think a conservative estimate would be 'a lot'! The idea of a sovereign wealth fund is laudable and I do like the principle, but there are fundamental differences between the situation here and that will oil reserves in Norway and Singapore. We are looking to exploit the gas for our own domestic use and energy security, whereas Norway and Singapore made their money from trading the oil on the international markets. Therefore, taxation of the gas to generate funds will increase the cost of the gas and will be self defeating. The tax raised on the profits of the companies exploiting the gas is unlikely to be comparable to that raised by North Sea oil

Overall, I think that a properly regulated fracking industry in this country is a no brainer. Personally, I'd like to see the taxes raised recycled into supporting the development of renewables so that when the gas runs out in 30,40,50 years time, we continue to have energy security, but governments don't tend to think that far ahead

Right, before you leave I'd like 2000 words on the socio-economic benefits of reclaiming industrial land on my desk by midday on Monday. Class dismissed

Singapore has virtually nothing in the way of natural resources. According to Wiki just fifty years ago one-third of the population lived in poverty in slum like conditions. Virtually all energy other than renewables, and water, has to be imported. It has emerged as second or third most prosperous country by per capita GDP by following principles of which many on this forum would disapprove. A business friendly approach with much foreign investment, low levels of tax and high savings rates, self reliance and low levels of social welfare. They also had the common sense to refuse entry to Cliff Richard because his hair was too long.

Anyway Cd good to see you approve of a UKIP policy, the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth fund that can invest in British companies as a shareholder and reap the benefit of dividend payouts but leaving businessmen to direct the fortunes of the company without state intervention from the centre. 

 

 

[chipdawg]

58 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

'Like a 'fart in a colander' ....then. 

(Sorry to be so frivolous in a serious subjuect , just an opportunity to use a once common expression that I not used or heard for quite a while, something in your post reminded me of it)

Which bit? Love the turn of phrase, not sure which part of my post you're referring to 

[chipdawg]

2 minutes ago, marshy said:

Singapore has virtually nothing in the way of natural resources. According to Wiki just fifty years ago one-third of the population lived in poverty in slum like conditions. Virtually all energy other than renewables, and water, has to be imported. It has emerged as second or third most prosperous country by per capita GDP by following principles of which many on this forum would disapprove. A business friendly approach with much foreign investment, low levels of tax and high savings rates, self reliance and low levels of social welfare. They also had the common sense to refuse entry to Cliff Richard because his hair was too long.

Anyway Cd good to see you approve of a UKIP policy, the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth fund that can invest in British companies as a shareholder and reap the benefit of dividend payouts but leaving businessmen to direct the fortunes of the company without state intervention from the centre. 

 

 

I think a sovereign wealth fund is an excellent idea, but I don't think we'll be able to create one of any import from the proceeds of fracking. Realistically, the 5th largest economy in he world should be able to create a fund to invest in business anyway should they choose to, but obviously it needs to be funded by something

Anyway, we are digressing from the matter of the thread

[WhistleHappy]

9 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

 Which bit? Love the turn of phrase, no t sure which part of my post you're referring to 

'...remains non-renewable and will be gone before we know it.'

:laugh:, somehow, farts 'n colanders spang to mind, says a lot about my basic thought processes though, I've revealed too much of my inner self now. I should grow up, but I dont want to wanna be almost 60 yet.. I refuse!  

[chipdawg]

26 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

'...remains non-renewable and will be gone before we know it.'

:laugh:, somehow, farts 'n colanders spang to mind, says a lot about my basic thought processes though, I've revealed too much of my inner self now. I should grow up, but I dont want to wanna be almost 60 yet.. I refuse!  

Ah right, I agree! However, I think 'farting into the colander' is the only option we have right now! And remember, you're only as old (as the the woman) you feel! 

[PHILINFRANCE]

21 hours ago, marshy said:

Singapore has virtually nothing in the way of natural resources. According to Wiki just fifty years ago one-third of the population lived in poverty in slum like conditions. Virtually all energy other than renewables, and water, has to be imported. It has emerged as second or third most prosperous country by per capita GDP by following principles of which many on this forum would disapprove. A business friendly approach with much foreign investment, low levels of tax and high savings rates, self reliance and low levels of social welfare. They also had the common sense to refuse entry to Cliff Richard because his hair was too long.

Anyway Cd good to see you approve of a UKIP policy, the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth fund that can invest in British companies as a shareholder and reap the benefit of dividend payouts but leaving businessmen to direct the fortunes of the company without state intervention from the centre. 

 

 

I think you will find Marshy, that, following Singapore's independence and separation from Malaysia in the 1960s, the English educated Lee Kuan Yew was instrumental in bringing about massive change in virtually a single generation.

Much of Singapore was mainly swamp and, in addition to the poverty and slum like conditions to which you refer, LKY realised that the largely uneducated population needed to be able to fend for themselves.

LKY introduced a free education system and encouraged people to improve themselves; to think and work for themselves, rather than resign themselves to their fate.

The rest, as they say, is history.

   

[marshy]

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I think you will find Marshy, that, following Singapore's independence and separation from Malaysia in the 1960s, the English educated Lee Kuan Yew was instrumental in bringing about massive change in virtually a single generation.

Much of Singapore was mainly swamp and, in addition to the poverty and slum like conditions to which you refer, LKY realised that the largely uneducated population needed to be able to fend for themselves.

LKY introduced a free education system and encouraged people to improve themselves; to think and work for themselves, rather than resign themselves to their fate.

The rest, as they say, is history.

   

Absolutely, pretty much what I was saying. Yet we have a country which has 1% of the world's population, 4% of world GDP, but 8% of the world's welfare budget.

[chipdawg]

7 hours ago, marshy said:

Absolutely, pretty much what I was saying. Yet we have a country which has 1% of the world's population, 4% of world GDP, but 8% of the world's welfare budget.

With the greatest of respect Marshy, that's one utterly useless 'fact' you've picked up from George Osborne. It's actually 7.4% btw, but our welfare spending is almost exactly in line with the OECD average. If we're looking for comparisons, we have the 5th largest economy in the world but only have the 15th largest welfare bill as a percentage of GDP. Stingy bastards...

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/11/27/2053392/welfare-spending-across-the-oecd/

Anyhow, I believe we were talking about climate change

[Moloch]

8 hours ago, marshy said:

Absolutely, pretty much what I was saying. Yet we have a country which has 1% of the world's population, 4% of world GDP, but 8% of the world's welfare budget.

I guess that you think our welfare spend is overly generous since, as a percentage of the world spend, it is double our GDP. However, you are not including the fact that countries like India and Nigeria have next to no government welfare support at all, which will obviously skew this comparison. It is a particularly useless statistic.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

What about the Polar Bears?, there was a confusing row yesterday, one side saying that they were still in decline, but some wildlife organisation saying that they are at record levels and adapting well to the loss of ice flows .