Is shale gas a good thing?

[Dave2002]

Indeed

It's a shame how the religionists have "foisted" their hideous churches and cathedrals all over the countryside spoiling the view
or ?

:ok: :ale:

Where have the smileys gone? I'm using Mac OS X with Firefox, and they seem to have disappeared from the editing panels.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And when the gas runs out?

Which will an age, since there's the methyl hydrates as well. But when it happens, there will be fusion. Meanwhile, the Germans will be harmoniously living with the environment increasing their emissions burning lignite - loads of that to go at.

[Richard Barrett]

So what you're saying I think is (a) carbon emissions do not present an environmental problem and (b) fossil fuel resources are sufficient to tide the world over (and I suppose also to power the economic growth without which capitalism will in any case implode) until fusion power is viable, which I believe is reckoned to be 50-100 years in the future. And this rather startlingly optimistic vision seems to emerge out of cherry-picking from various not entirely uncontroversial findings and opinions. It reminds me somewhat of the kind of reckless thinking that resulted in the currently ongoing financial crisis.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Where have the smileys gone? I'm using Mac OS X with Firefox, and they seem to have disappeared from the editing panels.

Smileys are disabled on the "Politics and Current Affairs" Threads, to prevent the temptation to use them as childish gesticulations.

:nyernyerfancynotknowingthatemoticon:


(winkeye would be affixed here.)

[ahinton]

So what you're saying I think is (a) carbon emissions do not present an environmental problem and (b) fossil fuel resources are sufficient to tide the world over (and I suppose also to power the economic growth without which capitalism will in any case implode) until fusion power is viable, which I believe is reckoned to be 50-100 years in the future. And this rather startlingly optimistic vision seems to emerge out of cherry-picking from various not entirely uncontroversial findings and opinions. It reminds me somewhat of the kind of reckless thinking that resulted in the currently ongoing financial crisis.

I'm with you on this except to the extent that I cannot equate the development, distribution and use of viable renewable and sustainable energy resources as being somehow incompatible with the notion of economic growth (although if that's not what you meant to imply, fair enough). Had proper investment in these things been made years ago, society (especially its poorer members) would be benefitting from them today and economic growth might even be greater than it is in the absence of much investment (yet) in them. The price of heat recovery ventilation systems and solar themal / PV installations, for example, is coming down and would come down more quickly if they were purchased more widely; the price of fossil fuel exploration, extraction, storage and distribution is unlikely to do the same, so undue dependence upon such fuels is likely in the long run to do as little for economic growth as it will for the environment. Likewise, nuclear fusion, whilst a great idea, will require disproportinately massive investment and reap the benefits from it only a very long way into the future, as you say.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So what you're saying I think is (a) carbon emissions do not present an environmental problem and (b) fossil fuel resources are sufficient to tide the world over (and I suppose also to power the economic growth without which capitalism will in any case implode) until fusion power is viable, which I believe is reckoned to be 50-100 years in the future. And this rather startlingly optimistic vision seems to emerge out of cherry-picking from various not entirely uncontroversial findings and opinions. It reminds me somewhat of the kind of reckless thinking that resulted in the currently ongoing financial crisis.

Well that's as exaggerated as my first reply. However, I'd like to hear from you where in the IPCC reports they indicate just what levels of concern we should have about rising CO2 levels. Leaks of TAR5 indicate that once again climate sensitivity will be reduced, perhaps as low as 1.7 C for a doubling of CO2 - a far cry from the days of 6 C.

On the renewables front in Germany it's clear that the present renewable strategy has failed but what's happening in the USA is reducing emissions, more than anyone else has achieved in the west. So in these European latitudes we should do what we can to reduce emissions and use gas, cut out the coal, build new nuclear and hydro, keep on developing fusion, and send our renewabnle technologies back to the laboratory because they don't pass muster in their present guise. Incidentally the next trial fusion reactor will possibly be a prototype production reactor, not a pure research reactor; this is because so much progress has been made with JET.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Indeed

It's a shame how the religionists have "foisted" their hideous churches and cathedrals all over the countryside spoiling the view
or ?

As if by magic, this very topic has been explored by a reader of the Bishop Hill blog:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/21/energy-impact.html

The main feature is a picture of lower Saxony, no nasty cathedrals or churches that I can see. Nineteen windmills, and 11 shale gas well heads. The well heads have been there since the 70s!

[Dave2002]

Well that's as exaggerated as my first reply. However, I'd like to hear from you where in the IPCC reports they indicate just what levels of concern we should have about rising CO2 levels. Leaks of TAR5 indicate that once again climate sensitivity will be reduced, perhaps as low as 1.7 C for a doubling of CO2 - a far cry from the days of 6 C.

On the renewables front in Germany it's clear that the present renewable strategy has failed but what's happening in the USA is reducing emissions, more than anyone else has achieved in the west. So in these European latitudes we should do what we can to reduce emissions and use gas, cut out the coal, build new nuclear and hydro, keep on developing fusion, and send our renewable technologies back to the laboratory because they don't pass muster in their present guise. Incidentally the next trial fusion reactor will possibly be a prototype production reactor, not a pure research reactor; this is because so much progress has been made with JET.

I can broadly speaking agree with this. However, I find it odd that you seem so sure that fusion will deliver the goods - a faith in technology which has not looked particularly hopeful so far, despite optimism over 50 years ago. On the other hand, renewables technology, which at least has made it into general use, you dismiss because of its problems. What makes you so sure that the problems can't be overcome, or at least ameliorated. As I recall, very early steam engines were hopelessly inefficient, but that didn't stop them being deployed, and eventually engineering tolerances were improved, and new designs came into being, which made steam engines viable for well over 100 years. Obviously the problems with some renewable energy sources are variability - both wind and photovoltaic deliver a relatively unpredictable output. This has consequences, but doesn't necessarily mean that they should be abandoned altogether. Tidal power is much more reliable though. If we can't manage our consumption, then I fear that nuclear (fission) is going to be the best solution.

[Flosshilde]

As if by magic, this very topic has been explored by a reader of the Bishop Hill blog:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/21/energy-impact.html

The main feature is a picture of lower Saxony, no nasty cathedrals or churches that I can see. Nineteen windmills, and 11 shale gas well heads. The well heads have been there since the 70s!

The picture looks a bit dodgy to me - the windmills are very clear & sharp, compared with the rest of the picture - it couldn't be a cut & paste job?

It's a heavily industrialised landscape anyway (farming is an industry) & the windmills don't exactly detract from it - in fact they could be said to enhance an otherwise dull & featureless landscape.

[Beef Oven]

As if by magic, this very topic has been explored by a reader of the Bishop Hill blog:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/21/energy-impact.html

The main feature is a picture of lower Saxony, no nasty cathedrals or churches that I can see. Nineteen windmills, and 11 shale gas well heads. The well heads have been there since the 70s!

Wind turbines and global warming theories really set my teeth on edge!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The picture looks a bit dodgy to me - the windmills are very clear & sharp, compared with the rest of the picture - it couldn't be a cut & paste job?

It's a heavily industrialised landscape anyway (farming is an industry) & the windmills don't exactly detract from it - in fact they could be said to enhance an otherwise dull & featureless landscape.

Go the Bishop Hill site, open the relevant page, click on the picture. Magbify the image all you like, it's very high definition. I can find 6 of the shale sites.

It's Saxony, so the same plane that extends all the way to Cambridgeshire. We manage to do a better job of ruining the landscape in Britain:

http://www.visitscotland-windfarms.com/southern-upland-way-hods-hill/

Anyone for the Southern Upland Way?

[Beef Oven]

Go the Bishop Hill site, open the relevant page, click on the picture. Magbify the image all you like, it's very high definition. I can find 6 of the shale sites.

It's Saxony, so the same plane that extends all the way to Cambridgeshire. We manage to do a better job of ruining the landscape in Britain:

http://www.visitscotland-windfarms.com/southern-upland-way-hods-hill/

Anyone for the Southern Upland Way?

There'll be a fair bit of cognitive dissonance with this one mate!

[MrGongGong]

Wind turbines and global warming theories really set my teeth on edge!

Better not go to the Maldives then matey

Global Warming is NOT a theory
it's a fact

Ask any climber who has been up Kilimanjaro more than twice in the last 10 years
You used to have to take crampons and ice axes
now you just need sunblock and a hankie hat !! (that's a JOKE !)

What the exact process that causes it is maybe more in the theoretical arena BUT i'm more likely to trust real scientists than Lawson and chums

It's also interesting that those so opposed to windfarms on the grounds of how they look seem to make the assumption that somehow our landscape is "natural" rather than a constructed , man made one. We chopped down the forests to fuel the industrial revolution and so on....... the economic and efficiency arguments are somewhat different.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If only it was clear cut that global warming was the cause . . .

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727794.400-kilimanjaros-vanishing-ice-due-to-treefelling.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

(wherein: "•Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change"

[Beef Oven]

Better not go to the Maldives then matey

Global Warming is NOT a theory
it's a fact

Ask any climber who has been up Kilimanjaro more than twice in the last 10 years
You used to have to take crampons and ice axes
now you just need sunblock and a hankie hat !! (that's a JOKE !)

What the exact process that causes it is maybe more in the theoretical arena BUT i'm more likely to trust real scientists than Lawson and chums

It's also interesting that those so opposed to windfarms on the grounds of how they look seem to make the assumption that somehow our landscape is "natural" rather than a constructed , man made one. We chopped down the forests to fuel the industrial revolution and so on....... the economic and efficiency arguments are somewhat different.

See The Inspector's post # 89.