Bankers and fracking

[Maclintick]

Bankers should be boiled in oil for sport for all that I care, but fracking made the U.S. energy independent, and Biden’s decision to reverse it wasn’t wise, imo. Until clean fuels become a reality, I’d rather get petroleum from fracking than from Putin or the likes of OPEC

Unlike the US, fracking isn't commercially viable in the UK. Truss's lifting the ban is irrelevant except as a sop to her far-right backers. As it says in the article posted by Pulcie:
"Unlike the gas-bearing shale deposits in the US, the shale resource in the UK is “heavily faulted and compartmentalised”, making it far harder to exploit at any scale." So it's difficult to extract, and there's fraction of the amount originally estimated i.e not worth the candle to Cuadrilla or presumably anyone else.

[Petrushka]

Unlike the US, fracking isn't commercially viable in the UK. Truss's lifting the ban is irrelevant except as a sop to her far-right backers. As it says in the article posted by Pulcie:
"Unlike the gas-bearing shale deposits in the US, the shale resource in the UK is “heavily faulted and compartmentalised”, making it far harder to exploit at any scale." So it's difficult to extract, and there's fraction of the amount originally estimated i.e not worth the candle to Cuadrilla or presumably anyone else.

Also, as a commenter on the Guardian has pointed out, no company will be interested in investing if Labour close it down.

[Serial_Apologist]

Also, as a commenter on the Guardian has pointed out, no company will be interested in investing if Labour close it down.

This announcement is yet another right wing sop - in this case to the climate sceptics. The next two years are going to seem unbearably long.

[gradus]

Bankers, fracking's too good for 'em.

[Constantbee]

Bankers should be boiled in oil for sport for all that I care, but fracking made the U.S. energy independent, and Biden’s decision to reverse it wasn’t wise, imo. Until clean fuels become a reality, I’d rather get petroleum from fracking than from Putin or the likes of OPEC

Mm ... I didn't know that. We're much smaller than you but we do have a huge coastline, so wave energy becomes a viable option, except that it fails to attract sufficient investment. Our home is off grid for gas so we're dependent on oil A relatively low cost adaptation to our heating system would enable us to use hydrogenated vegetable oil as a carbon neutral alternative to domestic kerosene. Not yet available here, though. I think Truss is underestimating the opposition there's going to be to fracking when it starts, and there will be ugly scenes.

[cloughie]

Mm ... I didn't know that. We're much smaller than you but we do have a huge coastline, so wave energy becomes a viable option, except that it fails to attract sufficient investment. Our home is off grid for gas so we're dependent on oil A relatively low cost adaptation to our heating system would enable us to use hydrogenated vegetable oil as a carbon neutral alternative to domestic kerosene. Not yet available here, though. I think Truss is underestimating the opposition there's going to be to fracking when it starts, and there will be ugly scenes.

I agree about the wavepower - the waves will continue when fossil fuels have gone, the sun isn’t shining and the wind is not blowing! Also cheap power from this source could be harnessed locally to desalination plants to boost the lack of water in periods of drought and indeed more generally when the privatised water companies do not want to build reservoirs to supply the inhabitants of all these houses which are being built!

[oddoneout]

What irritates and bothers me in equal measure is that all the talk is of finding new ways of meeting demand . Surely it is at least as important to reduce, or at least not continue to increase, demand and use the capacity already available to best purpose, which means among other things ways of dealing with "overproduction" of renewables. Insulate Britain's message is spot on even if their methods aren't. Perhaps if as much support were given to efforts to address those issues as is given to keep the oil giants happy we might see some progress. There are ideas and project out there but there is a complete lack of joined up thinking - possibly because there seems to be no policy. Piecemeal is not the way forward; pushing people to buy electric cars that can be used as "free" battery storage is not the solution, it is part of it.

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree about the wavepower - the waves will continue when fossil fuels have gone, the sun isn’t shining and the wind is not blowing! Also cheap power from this source could be harnessed locally to desalination plants to boost the lack of water in periods of drought and indeed more generally when the privatised water companies do not want to build reservoirs to supply the inhabitants of all these houses which are being built!

What a good idea!

[Dave2002]

What irritates and bothers me in equal measure is that all the talk is of finding new ways of meeting demand . Surely it is at least as important to reduce, or at least not continue to increase, demand and use the capacity already available to best purpose, which means among other things ways of dealing with "overproduction" of renewables. Insulate Britain's message is spot on even if their methods aren't. Perhaps if as much support were given to efforts to address those issues as is given to keep the oil giants happy we might see some progress. There are ideas and project out there but there is a complete lack of joined up thinking - possibly because there seems to be no policy. Piecemeal is not the way forward; pushing people to buy electric cars that can be used as "free" battery storage is not the solution, it is part of it.

Sometimes it is perhaps better to just not do something, rather than do it and try to offset the environmental damage.

This does, of course, imply value judgements, and some people have to decide - though which people they are is open to question.

In Inverness there is a fairly new and quite interesting installation, called Ness Hydro. It is a structure containing two Archimedean screws, and there are notices nearby explaining the eco friendliness, the ingenuity of the design, and the environmental impact of this. Apparently it generates enough energy to power 50% of the annual "requirements" for the fairly nearby sports centre. Given that the sports centre itself would have had an environmental impact in terms of energy and other factors - use of concrete and steel etc., one option would have been not to build it as a facility in the first place! That would have offset the whole of the energy "requirement" without the need to build a kind of experimental environmental prototype to reduce it by 50%.

OK - that makes me a spoil sport.

[oddoneout]

Sometimes it is perhaps better to just not do something, rather than do it and try to offset the environmental damage.

This does, of course, imply value judgements, and some people have to decide - though which people they are is open to question.

In Inverness there is a fairly new and quite interesting installation, called Ness Hydro. It is a structure containing two Archimedean screws, and there are notices nearby explaining the eco friendliness, the ingenuity of the design, and the environmental impact of this. Apparently it generates enough energy to power 50% of the annual "requirements" for the fairly nearby sports centre. Given that the sports centre itself would have had an environmental impact in terms of energy and other factors - use of concrete and steel etc., one option would have been not to build it as a facility in the first place! That would have offset the whole of the energy "requirement" without the need to build a kind of experimental environmental prototype to reduce it by 50%.

OK - that makes me a spoil sport.

Quite possibly! However it doesn't invalidate your view about not creating a problem in the first place.As the Shard was going up all I could think about was how much power it was going to need in order to function and what measures were (or were not) being taken to reduce that. I can't remember the detail but demand is something like the equivalent of a small town(22,000 inhabitants is the figure that's stuck in my mind) and needed a complete reworking of the infrastructure in the area just to accommodate the one building - and it won't have been company profits that were used to make the improvements I'll wager.
One thing I would say about the Inverness project is that it does provide the opportunity to assess the usefulness of such techniques and whether there is potential to employ it in other settings, and it's possible that that was a way of funding such research that otherwise wouldn't have attracted any financial interest/ backing. The opportunity for public "education" is also a plus point and can attract funding.
At work a biomass boiler was installed as part of a county initiative to look at renewable/sustainable options for its estate, using funding from some external pot or other. An addition to the existing oil boilers was needed and this was a way to achieve that and at the same time assess whether it had any future elsewhere. The installation of a ground based PV panel at the edge of the site was likewise funded by a specific pot of money to investigate some aspect of renewable energy/ electricity cost offset provision. Neither would have happened without the covering "stories" that enabled access to the funding. Information is collected from both and has in the case of the boiler been used to inform policy I believe; it has certainly been an interesting experience for staff...

[mikealdren]

The problem with fracking in the UK is that no-one really knows what can be achieved, estimates vary so widely it's all speculation until people try it. One thing is certain, private firms won't bother unless it looks promising and we're not talking about risking public money here.

As to wave energy, it is a really great idea but it will never happen while the environmentalists hold sway, the mud flats etc. are far too important.

[Serial_Apologist]

The problem with fracking in the UK is that no-one really knows what can be achieved, estimates vary so widely it's all speculation until people try it. One thing is certain, private firms won't bother unless it looks promising and we're not talking about risking public money here.

As to wave energy, it is a really great idea but it will never happen while the environmentalists hold sway, the mud flats etc. are far too important.

An overstatement - mud flats aren't everywhere: there are plenty of safe offshore places for siting wave energy installations.

[oddoneout]

The problem with fracking in the UK is that no-one really knows what can be achieved, estimates vary so widely it's all speculation until people try it. One thing is certain, private firms won't bother unless it looks promising and we're not talking about risking public money here.

As to wave energy, it is a really great idea but it will never happen while the environmentalists hold sway, the mud flats etc. are far too important.

Wave energy and tidal energy are different things and have different wildlife implications. Unfortunately in the public mind (and it has to be said journalists aren't as precise as they should be) the two are viewed the same as "a bad thing" because of the size of, and concerns around, the lagoon based tidal projects such as the Welsh ones. There are other ways of utilising tidal energy though.
This is of interest https://interregtiger.com/ One hopes it has weathered the double assault of the Truss school of diplomacy vis a vis French friend or foe, and the bungs to mates ersatz budget...
I wonder if any UK government bods will be attending this event? https://interregtiger.com/event/euro...ent-week-esdw/

[mikealdren]

An overstatement - mud flats aren't everywhere: there are plenty of safe offshore places for siting wave energy installations.

I must have been half asleep, I meant tidal energy (which offers us so much potential) not wave energy which, I agree, also has lots of potential.

[Serial_Apologist]

I must have been half asleep, I meant tidal energy (which offers us so much potential) not wave energy which, I agree, also has lots of potential.

Don't worry - I was conflating the two as well. If you could elaborate on why you think tidal energy production might upset environmentalists I'd be interested to learn, because from what I understand there would be minimum detriment?