This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Council have just voted yes. Locals don't seem to like it though.
2
2
1
In reply to Indy:
booooo. not good news. fecks sake, one of the most beautiful areas in the country.
booooo. not good news. fecks sake, one of the most beautiful areas in the country.
Post edited at 22:07
9
3
In reply to pebbles:
Don't worry. It all takes place many kilometres below ground. And above ground will pale into insignificance beside electricity pylons and wind farms. The average B&Q will have more impact.
Don't worry. It all takes place many kilometres below ground. And above ground will pale into insignificance beside electricity pylons and wind farms. The average B&Q will have more impact.
28
12
In reply to digby:
mm. so we won't worry our little heads about those little problems like water air and noise pollution eh?
mm. so we won't worry our little heads about those little problems like water air and noise pollution eh?
11
11
In reply to digby:
Having read on theecologist.com (or whatever the url is) about methane released during fracking which negates it's 'vaguely green' credentials (which I've not seem mentioned in the wider press), I'd rather have the wind turbines and pylons and fields of solar panels. It wouldn't be impossible to restore the landscape back to looking something like it was (with it still 'looking natural' even if the ground looks a little different afterwards) should something else renewable come along which is more viable, like a method of harnessing tidal power which is efficient and cost effective, and we'd all probably have more of a chance of a nicer future if we can avoid run away climate change.
I find it a depressing step in the wrong direction.
> Don't worry. It all takes place many kilometres below ground. And above ground will pale into insignificance beside electricity pylons and wind farms. The average B&Q will have more impact.
Having read on theecologist.com (or whatever the url is) about methane released during fracking which negates it's 'vaguely green' credentials (which I've not seem mentioned in the wider press), I'd rather have the wind turbines and pylons and fields of solar panels. It wouldn't be impossible to restore the landscape back to looking something like it was (with it still 'looking natural' even if the ground looks a little different afterwards) should something else renewable come along which is more viable, like a method of harnessing tidal power which is efficient and cost effective, and we'd all probably have more of a chance of a nicer future if we can avoid run away climate change.
I find it a depressing step in the wrong direction.
Post edited at 22:35
14
6
19
5
In reply to Timmd:
Enjoy that Shangri-La. Somewhere else. I don't want it.
> I'd rather have the wind turbines and pylons and fields of solar panels.
Enjoy that Shangri-La. Somewhere else. I don't want it.
6
4
12
In reply to Indy:
Disappointing to see this imposed on a community against their will. We really should be leaving this in the ground and investing heavily in clean alternatives.
jk
Disappointing to see this imposed on a community against their will. We really should be leaving this in the ground and investing heavily in clean alternatives.
jk
19
3
In reply to digby:
and climate change? Suppose that's just greenwash too is it?
> You need to worry about scare mongering, myth making and ignorance.
and climate change? Suppose that's just greenwash too is it?
10
4
11
In reply to pasbury:
Gas is pretty much the cleanest of the fossil fuels with modern gas burning plants being highly efficient. I'd rather see gas fracked and burned than coal mines and burned. Mining and burning gas is the least worse fossil option, and if you want your lights and heating to stay on in the winter we need it now.
If only it was being done to run an economy with a driving goal of fully moving to clean energy...
> and climate change? Suppose that's just greenwash too is it?
Gas is pretty much the cleanest of the fossil fuels with modern gas burning plants being highly efficient. I'd rather see gas fracked and burned than coal mines and burned. Mining and burning gas is the least worse fossil option, and if you want your lights and heating to stay on in the winter we need it now.
If only it was being done to run an economy with a driving goal of fully moving to clean energy...
Post edited at 10:47
13
In reply to wintertree:
Maybe, but it still releases CO2 which we as a country are supposed to be committed to reducing emissions of. I believe there is a LOT of gas in the N Yorks shale. The only way to reduce fossil hydrocarbon emissions of CO2 is to not burn them i.e. leave them in the ground.
When I see the innovation going on with the likes of Elon Musk's Solar City and Tesla R&D and then compare them with our initiatives to secure our energy future, ours seem despairingly stupid, short-sighted and damaging.
Maybe, but it still releases CO2 which we as a country are supposed to be committed to reducing emissions of. I believe there is a LOT of gas in the N Yorks shale. The only way to reduce fossil hydrocarbon emissions of CO2 is to not burn them i.e. leave them in the ground.
When I see the innovation going on with the likes of Elon Musk's Solar City and Tesla R&D and then compare them with our initiatives to secure our energy future, ours seem despairingly stupid, short-sighted and damaging.
7
2
In reply to pasbury:
To be fair to the UK, as despicable as I find the regressive tax nature of our feedin tariffs, they and others like them around the worlds have been a key part of driving down the cost to manufacture solar PV for people like solar city.
There's also a lot of electric car R&D and manufacture going on in the UK.
Where we are stupid - and where solar PV and EVs won't save us - is in sufficiently funding R&D on future energy technologies such as fusion and intrinsically safe fission reactors. We barely spend a pittance despite living on borrowed time.
Solar and wind and storage without fission or fossil carbon is not a very good solution for the UK and it's basically all we've got to look forward to at this rate. Tidal helps the UK, not so much most of the worlds population.
> When I see the innovation going on with the likes of Elon Musk's Solar City and Tesla R&D and then compare them with our initiatives to secure our energy future, ours seem despairingly stupid, short-sighted and damaging.
To be fair to the UK, as despicable as I find the regressive tax nature of our feedin tariffs, they and others like them around the worlds have been a key part of driving down the cost to manufacture solar PV for people like solar city.
There's also a lot of electric car R&D and manufacture going on in the UK.
Where we are stupid - and where solar PV and EVs won't save us - is in sufficiently funding R&D on future energy technologies such as fusion and intrinsically safe fission reactors. We barely spend a pittance despite living on borrowed time.
Solar and wind and storage without fission or fossil carbon is not a very good solution for the UK and it's basically all we've got to look forward to at this rate. Tidal helps the UK, not so much most of the worlds population.
Post edited at 12:30
6
In reply to jkarran:
I'm not in favour of this, but we need to recognise that this wasn't imposed from outside, but by their democratically elected representatives on the council.
> Disappointing to see this imposed on a community against their will. We really should be leaving this in the ground and investing heavily in clean alternatives.
I'm not in favour of this, but we need to recognise that this wasn't imposed from outside, but by their democratically elected representatives on the council.
12
In reply to toad:
Brown envelopes come in many forms
> I'm not in favour of this, but we need to recognise that this wasn't imposed from outside, but by their democratically elected representatives on the council.
Brown envelopes come in many forms
3
2
In reply to wintertree:
The biggest barrier to clean energy investment, innovation and roll-out is the vested interests of Governments & big energy companies around the World. Its a global problem, not an isolated one the UK can buck on its own, and therefore global cooperative action is needed - not just words.
> Where we are stupid - and where solar PV and EVs won't save us - is in sufficiently funding R&D on future energy technologies such as fusion and intrinsically safe fission reactors. We barely spend a pittance despite living on borrowed time.
The biggest barrier to clean energy investment, innovation and roll-out is the vested interests of Governments & big energy companies around the World. Its a global problem, not an isolated one the UK can buck on its own, and therefore global cooperative action is needed - not just words.
In reply to wintertree:
Yes we've really dropped the ball badly on nuclear. The point about these technologies is that they are the future, so they're good things for a country to invest in and get good at making.
Yes we've really dropped the ball badly on nuclear. The point about these technologies is that they are the future, so they're good things for a country to invest in and get good at making.
5
In reply to toad:
Elected or not one might wonder who those representatives are actually representing, their electorate, party head office or other interests. A tour of Rydale doesn't leave one with the impression this is a welcome development.
Contrast the planning process with that for building a community-backed grid-scale wind turbine where any and every protest, no matter how nebulous is a serious impediment.
Where a contraversial decision like this goes against the expressed wishes of a significant part of the local community it potentially affects I think imposed is a reasonable choice of word.
jk
Elected or not one might wonder who those representatives are actually representing, their electorate, party head office or other interests. A tour of Rydale doesn't leave one with the impression this is a welcome development.
Contrast the planning process with that for building a community-backed grid-scale wind turbine where any and every protest, no matter how nebulous is a serious impediment.
Where a contraversial decision like this goes against the expressed wishes of a significant part of the local community it potentially affects I think imposed is a reasonable choice of word.
jk
Post edited at 13:10
3
In reply to jkarran:
It's far too important to have governments, who think in terms of five years, to be deciding energy policy. We need an independent, or, at the absolute least, cross-party body who can afford to look at fifty, one hundred, two-hundred years forward, which are the real short to medium term timescales.
It's far too important to have governments, who think in terms of five years, to be deciding energy policy. We need an independent, or, at the absolute least, cross-party body who can afford to look at fifty, one hundred, two-hundred years forward, which are the real short to medium term timescales.
4
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
We have one:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/...
The menu on the left of the members list covers overview, Inquiries (i.e. areas of specific interest) and reports, etc...
There's lots we can say about this group, mostly negative no doubt, but it is a select committee that cold be improved, given more profile, prominence, scrutiny, power(!?) and...its a bit odd it doesn't have a Green Party member!
> It's far too important to have governments, who think in terms of five years, to be deciding energy policy. We need an independent, or, at the absolute least, cross-party body who can afford to look at fifty, one hundred, two-hundred years forward, which are the real short to medium term timescales.
We have one:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/...
The menu on the left of the members list covers overview, Inquiries (i.e. areas of specific interest) and reports, etc...
There's lots we can say about this group, mostly negative no doubt, but it is a select committee that cold be improved, given more profile, prominence, scrutiny, power(!?) and...its a bit odd it doesn't have a Green Party member!
1
In reply to pasbury:
I'm just kicking off leading some research programmes on 'small nuclear' with very big company backing. The delivery horizon will be after I retire though
I'm just kicking off leading some research programmes on 'small nuclear' with very big company backing. The delivery horizon will be after I retire though
In reply to jkarran:
Like in any planning process- controversial or not- it is democratic as it represents North Yorkshire, which includes areas outside where the fracking may take place.Local opposition was strong, but outside the immediate area probably not so.
It s the same on things like travellers sites - opposition on the door step is very high- away from it less so.
Like in any planning process- controversial or not- it is democratic as it represents North Yorkshire, which includes areas outside where the fracking may take place.Local opposition was strong, but outside the immediate area probably not so.
It s the same on things like travellers sites - opposition on the door step is very high- away from it less so.
Post edited at 14:51
In reply to Valaisan:
The Select Committee does do a lot of very good analysis and scrutiny, and as with many Select Committees, if the Government of the day actually paid any attention to their findings, we'd be in a better place than we are. However, the sad fact is that the Government is perfectly at liberty to do its own thing and pay no heed whatsoever to Select Committee advice. It's also the case that the big energy companies have very effective lobbying operations - to the extent that they have senior staff seconded into DECC - in order to help shape policy in a way that favours fossil fuels.
And I wouldn't read too much into the fact there isn't a Green Party MP on the committee - there is only one Green MP, and she's on the Environmental Audit committee.
The Select Committee does do a lot of very good analysis and scrutiny, and as with many Select Committees, if the Government of the day actually paid any attention to their findings, we'd be in a better place than we are. However, the sad fact is that the Government is perfectly at liberty to do its own thing and pay no heed whatsoever to Select Committee advice. It's also the case that the big energy companies have very effective lobbying operations - to the extent that they have senior staff seconded into DECC - in order to help shape policy in a way that favours fossil fuels.
And I wouldn't read too much into the fact there isn't a Green Party MP on the committee - there is only one Green MP, and she's on the Environmental Audit committee.
1
In reply to neilh:
There's some robust criticism of our local councillor on my town's Facebook page - while both are in North Yorkshire, Skipton isn't that close to the fracking site, North Yorks being the enormous county that it is.
There's some robust criticism of our local councillor on my town's Facebook page - while both are in North Yorkshire, Skipton isn't that close to the fracking site, North Yorks being the enormous county that it is.
Post edited at 14:56
In reply to Indy:
The main problems with fracking that have arisen abroad e.g. contamination of the water table are more related to poor practice, poor well casing and lack of oversight at the well itself. This is a near surface problem where methane escapes from the well itself into the surrounding rocks.
One should remember there is only one confirmed report of fracking fluids being found present in drinking water near fracking sites, where the quantity is in parts per trillion and nowhere near unsafe limits. It also states explicitly that; 'Although much of the concern shown by the public focuses on the possibility that some of the 1,000 compounds used in HVHF could migrate upward from the target shale, such upward leakage has never been documented. This is probably because HVHF fluids remain trapped in deep rock strata.'
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6325.full
The other issues regarding heath degradation of communities near fracking sites is that there are often no baselines for samples to be compared against. Thus getting hard scientific evidence for contamination is difficult as there is nothing to compare it with for a specific site.
If you look at the arguments against fracking in the UK, they are more commonly related to NIMBY syndrome i.e. people getting moody about excess traffic, loss of tourism, affect on local business, house prices etc. The other being earthquakes, which is just sheer bloody ignorance from the public. The health worries are still there, but I think they are mostly underlain by bad stories emanating from the US.
Other quirky things surrounding fracking come into play with renewable energy plans. For example, the geothermal projects in the south west. One lost its funding due to earthquake fears, whilst the Eden project was approved because they used the term 'enhancing bedrock permeability' as opposed to 'fracking'. There is so much stigma regarding that word its unreal. I think the general populous needs to be educated properly before decisions are made.
On a larger scale note, I think the effect on global geopolitics of shale gas production/ shift of nations towards shale gas, is something to keep an eye on.
The main problems with fracking that have arisen abroad e.g. contamination of the water table are more related to poor practice, poor well casing and lack of oversight at the well itself. This is a near surface problem where methane escapes from the well itself into the surrounding rocks.
One should remember there is only one confirmed report of fracking fluids being found present in drinking water near fracking sites, where the quantity is in parts per trillion and nowhere near unsafe limits. It also states explicitly that; 'Although much of the concern shown by the public focuses on the possibility that some of the 1,000 compounds used in HVHF could migrate upward from the target shale, such upward leakage has never been documented. This is probably because HVHF fluids remain trapped in deep rock strata.'
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6325.full
The other issues regarding heath degradation of communities near fracking sites is that there are often no baselines for samples to be compared against. Thus getting hard scientific evidence for contamination is difficult as there is nothing to compare it with for a specific site.
If you look at the arguments against fracking in the UK, they are more commonly related to NIMBY syndrome i.e. people getting moody about excess traffic, loss of tourism, affect on local business, house prices etc. The other being earthquakes, which is just sheer bloody ignorance from the public. The health worries are still there, but I think they are mostly underlain by bad stories emanating from the US.
Other quirky things surrounding fracking come into play with renewable energy plans. For example, the geothermal projects in the south west. One lost its funding due to earthquake fears, whilst the Eden project was approved because they used the term 'enhancing bedrock permeability' as opposed to 'fracking'. There is so much stigma regarding that word its unreal. I think the general populous needs to be educated properly before decisions are made.
On a larger scale note, I think the effect on global geopolitics of shale gas production/ shift of nations towards shale gas, is something to keep an eye on.
16
1
In reply to Indy:
My old neighbouring council, who 5 years were voting out, because of local pressure, a wind farm and a biomass/waste burning power generating plant.
Think they need to decide how they plan to power their homes if they don't want fracking either.
I suspect the council took a balanced view, for once.
My old neighbouring council, who 5 years were voting out, because of local pressure, a wind farm and a biomass/waste burning power generating plant.
Think they need to decide how they plan to power their homes if they don't want fracking either.
I suspect the council took a balanced view, for once.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
One of the councillors owns half northallerton high street and has blocked numerous businesses setting up there over the years, if they were likely to compete with his own interests. No a pleasant chap(apparently).
> There's some robust criticism of our local councillor on my town's Facebook page - while both are in North Yorkshire, Skipton isn't that close to the fracking site, North Yorks being the enormous county that it is.
One of the councillors owns half northallerton high street and has blocked numerous businesses setting up there over the years, if they were likely to compete with his own interests. No a pleasant chap(apparently).
In reply to jkarran:
>
As the area has a population of circa 600K and the issue has had loads of publicity, the fact that only 4400 have bothered to object would show that really the vast majortity of the local community are not really that bothered.
>
>
> Where a contraversial decision like this goes against the expressed wishes of a significant part of the local community it potentially affects I think imposed is a reasonable choice of word.
> jk
As the area has a population of circa 600K and the issue has had loads of publicity, the fact that only 4400 have bothered to object would show that really the vast majortity of the local community are not really that bothered.
6
In reply to Lenin:
You're out by roughly a factor of 10 on the population. Easy mistake to make.
The thing that really boils my piss is that if this were a community turbine project it'd be in the bin had they received just one of those 4400 objections or even if there were mere suspicion someone might object were it approved.
jk
> As the area has a population of circa 600K and the issue has had loads of publicity, the fact that only 4400 have bothered to object would show that really the vast majortity of the local community are not really that bothered.
You're out by roughly a factor of 10 on the population. Easy mistake to make.
The thing that really boils my piss is that if this were a community turbine project it'd be in the bin had they received just one of those 4400 objections or even if there were mere suspicion someone might object were it approved.
jk
Post edited at 16:33
1
3
In reply to jkarran:
I got the population from here http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/23704/North-Yorkshire-population-infor... which council is in question?
> You're out by roughly a factor of 10 on the population. Easy mistake to make.
> The thing that really boils my piss is that if this were a community turbine project it'd be in the bin had they received just one of those 4400 objections or even if there were mere suspicion someone might object were it approved.
> jk
I got the population from here http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/23704/North-Yorkshire-population-infor... which council is in question?
Post edited at 16:40
3
In reply to Lenin:
Have you seen the size of North Yorkshire? It's hardly a surprise the good folk of Whitby, Harrogate, Ingleton and Selby don't have too much to say on the matter.
Try Ryedale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryedale for a realistic measure of the population likely to feel or fear this decision impacts them directly.
jk
Have you seen the size of North Yorkshire? It's hardly a surprise the good folk of Whitby, Harrogate, Ingleton and Selby don't have too much to say on the matter.
Try Ryedale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryedale for a realistic measure of the population likely to feel or fear this decision impacts them directly.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
So the people whose backyard its in got mildly agitated and those a a few miles away are not really bothered. So if it was in say Whitby, Harrogate, Ingleton and Selby would the people of Ryedale not really care.
So the people whose backyard its in got mildly agitated and those a a few miles away are not really bothered. So if it was in say Whitby, Harrogate, Ingleton and Selby would the people of Ryedale not really care.
2
In reply to jkarran:
4,400 out of 52,655, 8.36% were against.
Are you suggesting the majority have to submit to the (considerable) minority, yet again?
Just for the record, I would live next door to any fracking site or power station, I consume energy ...
> Try Ryedale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryedale for a realistic measure of the population likely to feel or fear this decision impacts them directly.
4,400 out of 52,655, 8.36% were against.
Are you suggesting the majority have to submit to the (considerable) minority, yet again?
Just for the record, I would live next door to any fracking site or power station, I consume energy ...
2
1
In reply to Lusk:
I'm just pointing out that is a very big formal objection to a planning proposal that appears to reflect a widespread objection in the area. 8% objecting in writing does not imply 92% support this. If this were for a renewable energy project it'd be dead in the water.
Bully for you.
jk
> 4,400 out of 52,655, 8.36% were against.
> Are you suggesting the majority have to submit to the (considerable) minority, yet again?
> Are you suggesting the majority have to submit to the (considerable) minority, yet again?
I'm just pointing out that is a very big formal objection to a planning proposal that appears to reflect a widespread objection in the area. 8% objecting in writing does not imply 92% support this. If this were for a renewable energy project it'd be dead in the water.
> Just for the record, I would live next door to any fracking site or power station, I consume energy ...
Bully for you.
jk
3
1
In reply to GarethSL:
The general public are educated. The idea that everyone would just agree with fracking if they "understood" is another way of saying that you think them stupid because they don't share your opinion.
The general public are educated. The idea that everyone would just agree with fracking if they "understood" is another way of saying that you think them stupid because they don't share your opinion.
2
In reply to XXXX:
The general public aren't educated with a degree in geology or a masters in petroleum geology, so I consider my opinion well founded thanks. Which isn't an opinion really, more fact.
I look at it from a very scientific point of view and understand the technical aspects. The issue isn't that the public are stupid, not that at all. I strongly believe that there is a serious amount of misinformation and scaremongering, if you will, regarding shale gas. It's our fault as geoscientists for not informing people in a way that is reasonable and we'll understood regarding the technical aspects, which relate very strongly to most of their fears.
The general public aren't educated with a degree in geology or a masters in petroleum geology, so I consider my opinion well founded thanks. Which isn't an opinion really, more fact.
I look at it from a very scientific point of view and understand the technical aspects. The issue isn't that the public are stupid, not that at all. I strongly believe that there is a serious amount of misinformation and scaremongering, if you will, regarding shale gas. It's our fault as geoscientists for not informing people in a way that is reasonable and we'll understood regarding the technical aspects, which relate very strongly to most of their fears.
11
In reply to Indy:
I'm very much against fracking, it's just about knackered the oil patch - lets ban it and keep drilling offshore and get the oil price back up over a $100.
I'm very much against fracking, it's just about knackered the oil patch - lets ban it and keep drilling offshore and get the oil price back up over a $100.
5
1
In reply to GarethSL:
A big part of it are the emissions from fossil fuels, not just any safety issues. We were told by a govt commissioned report that we had to massively reduce them. This has been backed up belatedly by the agreement in Paris. David Cameron also said vote blue get green. They then proceed to slash subsidies on renewables, and want to copy America and get into a whole new fossil fuel market. It just doesn't make sense. Its all miss messages.
A big part of it are the emissions from fossil fuels, not just any safety issues. We were told by a govt commissioned report that we had to massively reduce them. This has been backed up belatedly by the agreement in Paris. David Cameron also said vote blue get green. They then proceed to slash subsidies on renewables, and want to copy America and get into a whole new fossil fuel market. It just doesn't make sense. Its all miss messages.
In reply to jkarran:
does Lusk really have the temerity to suggest 8% objecting in writing is a realistic measure?
does Lusk really have the temerity to suggest 8% objecting in writing is a realistic measure?
In reply to GarethSL:
Humm .... as a 56 year old geologist who knows quite a lot about the oil and gas industry I'd suggest you as a 26 year old might not be as knowledgeable as you think you are! I'm pretty sure whilst the general public arn't as clever as you think you are, they do have the final say - or they should do - it's their (our) country. Your job is to articulate the facts and the benefits of your activity and they get to decide if you can do it - but since you don't actually do it you're just adding to the noise. I'm strongly in favour of examining if fracking will work in the UK - but I'm not sure it will, because I know how its done in the states and we can't do that here.
Humm .... as a 56 year old geologist who knows quite a lot about the oil and gas industry I'd suggest you as a 26 year old might not be as knowledgeable as you think you are! I'm pretty sure whilst the general public arn't as clever as you think you are, they do have the final say - or they should do - it's their (our) country. Your job is to articulate the facts and the benefits of your activity and they get to decide if you can do it - but since you don't actually do it you're just adding to the noise. I'm strongly in favour of examining if fracking will work in the UK - but I'm not sure it will, because I know how its done in the states and we can't do that here.
6
3
In reply to cander:
What do they say? We want cheaper energy! We want cheap produce (that depends upon cheap energy)! We don't want windmills! We don't want biomass plants! We don't want fracking! We certainly don't want fission! We don't want carbon emissions! Edit: At least, that's what the minority that write to the planning committees say. If it's the same people objecting to each alternative I have no idea.
Something has to give somewhere. Well, lots of things have to give in lots of places...
> the general public [...] they do have the final say
What do they say? We want cheaper energy! We want cheap produce (that depends upon cheap energy)! We don't want windmills! We don't want biomass plants! We don't want fracking! We certainly don't want fission! We don't want carbon emissions! Edit: At least, that's what the minority that write to the planning committees say. If it's the same people objecting to each alternative I have no idea.
Something has to give somewhere. Well, lots of things have to give in lots of places...
Post edited at 23:37
6
In reply to GarethSL:
>
I consider your opinion biased, in favour of releasing Carbon.
> The general public aren't educated with a degree in geology or a masters in petroleum geology, so I consider my opinion well founded thanks. Which isn't an opinion really, more fact.
>
I consider your opinion biased, in favour of releasing Carbon.
3
2
In reply to Valaisan:
I know about the select committee, but it's ultimately down to the government of the day to do whatever they want in terms of actual policy.
> We have one:
> The menu on the left of the members list covers overview, Inquiries (i.e. areas of specific interest) and reports, etc...
> There's lots we can say about this group, mostly negative no doubt, but it is a select committee that cold be improved, given more profile, prominence, scrutiny, power(!?) and...its a bit odd it doesn't have a Green Party member!
I know about the select committee, but it's ultimately down to the government of the day to do whatever they want in terms of actual policy.
In reply to cander:
Learning every day, but I will keep my neck wound firmly out thanks.
Perhaps you mean we, given your articulation above?
If you (or anyone) has 20 mins spare time, maybe someone a little knowledgeable/ clever than me can discuss it; youtube.com/watch?v=XAsAYP4DIr4&
He also covers the social aspect quite well. My previous posts echo some of what is mentioned.
> Humm .... as a 56 year old geologist who knows quite a lot about the oil and gas industry I'd suggest you as a 26 year old might not be as knowledgeable as you think you are!
Learning every day, but I will keep my neck wound firmly out thanks.
> I'm pretty sure whilst the general public arn't as clever as you think you are, they do have the final say - or they should do - it's their (our) country. Your job is to articulate the facts and the benefits of your activity and they get to decide if you can do it - but since you don't actually do it you're just adding to the noise.
Perhaps you mean we, given your articulation above?
> I'm strongly in favour of examining if fracking will work in the UK - but I'm not sure it will, because I know how its done in the states and we can't do that here.
If you (or anyone) has 20 mins spare time, maybe someone a little knowledgeable/ clever than me can discuss it; youtube.com/watch?v=XAsAYP4DIr4&
He also covers the social aspect quite well. My previous posts echo some of what is mentioned.
1
2
In reply to wintertree:
Interestingly, Portugal has recently powered the ENTIRE country for four days on renewables only. Granted they probably don't have as much industry as us, but still a very impressive achievement!
Interestingly, Portugal has recently powered the ENTIRE country for four days on renewables only. Granted they probably don't have as much industry as us, but still a very impressive achievement!
4
In reply to GarethSL:
which 20min?
here's one for those with a bit more time: youtube.com/watch?v=mSWmXpEkEPg&
> If you (or anyone) has 20 mins spare time, maybe someone a little knowledgeable/ clever than me can discuss it; youtube.com/watch?v=XAsAYP4DIr4&
which 20min?
here's one for those with a bit more time: youtube.com/watch?v=mSWmXpEkEPg&
In reply to Gordonbp:
Interesting - this should be our aspiration too in the long term - not scrabbling about for hydrocarbons.
Interesting - this should be our aspiration too in the long term - not scrabbling about for hydrocarbons.
1
In reply to Indy:
I have mixed feelings.
A lot of the local protests were NIMBYism, which, though holds weight for the locals, isn’t a contributory factor to a considered national energy strategy. They also have Flamingo Land nearby, which is the bigger eyesore……..
I don’t think the safety scaremongering helps as most (all?) is rubbish and undermines the argument against.
I don’t like the idea of new hydrocarbons and totally believe a combination of nuclear, renewables and storage is the future, however that future is a long way off, so we need something to bridge the gap. Gas is the best hydrocarbon we have for a power station (comparatively clean and can respond to demand) so it makes sense but will this just stifle investment and progress in the renewables field until the gas has been milked for every penny of profit at which point we’ll still not have a sustainable energy source?
I have mixed feelings.
A lot of the local protests were NIMBYism, which, though holds weight for the locals, isn’t a contributory factor to a considered national energy strategy. They also have Flamingo Land nearby, which is the bigger eyesore……..
I don’t think the safety scaremongering helps as most (all?) is rubbish and undermines the argument against.
I don’t like the idea of new hydrocarbons and totally believe a combination of nuclear, renewables and storage is the future, however that future is a long way off, so we need something to bridge the gap. Gas is the best hydrocarbon we have for a power station (comparatively clean and can respond to demand) so it makes sense but will this just stifle investment and progress in the renewables field until the gas has been milked for every penny of profit at which point we’ll still not have a sustainable energy source?
In reply to wintertree:
I whole heartedly agree, we're not putting nearly enough money into developing tidal and renewable energy, and fusion and fission too. In the UK we're really daft not to exploit the fact we're surrounded by tides...
> To be fair to the UK, as despicable as I find the regressive tax nature of our feedin tariffs, they and others like them around the worlds have been a key part of driving down the cost to manufacture solar PV for people like solar city.
> There's also a lot of electric car R&D and manufacture going on in the UK.
> Where we are stupid - and where solar PV and EVs won't save us - is in sufficiently funding R&D on future energy technologies such as fusion and intrinsically safe fission reactors. We barely spend a pittance despite living on borrowed time.
> Solar and wind and storage without fission or fossil carbon is not a very good solution for the UK and it's basically all we've got to look forward to at this rate. Tidal helps the UK, not so much most of the worlds population.
I whole heartedly agree, we're not putting nearly enough money into developing tidal and renewable energy, and fusion and fission too. In the UK we're really daft not to exploit the fact we're surrounded by tides...
1
In reply to Ban1:
Watch out for bubbles then as my house sinks , I am already regularly below the local water table !
> Won't be long before everywhere follow suit
Watch out for bubbles then as my house sinks , I am already regularly below the local water table !
In reply to Timmd:
Where I work we are working on Fuel Cells .
(or at least we bought the company who had the technology, but there is a huge market, being predicted.
Where I work we are working on Fuel Cells .
(or at least we bought the company who had the technology, but there is a huge market, being predicted.
In reply to Timmd:
https://scienceogram.org/summary/
Scroll down a bit.
I'd happily pay a small increase, 1p/kWh maybe (I don't know! Random number generating here), towards a Nationalised Fusion Research project.
It's a massive world changer when they finally crack it.
https://scienceogram.org/summary/
Scroll down a bit.
I'd happily pay a small increase, 1p/kWh maybe (I don't know! Random number generating here), towards a Nationalised Fusion Research project.
It's a massive world changer when they finally crack it.
3
In reply to Timmd:
We are trying, and I am in favour of sensible schemes, and there are trials ongoing for wave generators , but the sea is a tough place.
There are also knock on concerns.
The example that I have used before was of putting a wave machine array offshore, and capturing x megawatts of power from the sea off that shoreline, so then the power of those waves is depleted by that amount of power, and the waves are smaller, so if there was a surfing resort there , that would not work, so that bay is ruled out.
There thare are bays where the shore is eroded, that then feeds sand to a seaside resort down the coast, no waves , no sand no resort.
Then there are wildlife concerns, feeding area, wading burds looking for food that depend on the waves, which might disrupt what they feed on.
So yes we need the technology , and it has to be efficient and robust, and cost effective, but you then cannot just put them anywhere .
Similar concerns exist for Tidal.
> I whole heartedly agree, we're not putting nearly enough money into developing tidal and renewable energy, and fusion and fission too. In the UK we're really daft not to exploit the fact we're surrounded by tides...
We are trying, and I am in favour of sensible schemes, and there are trials ongoing for wave generators , but the sea is a tough place.
There are also knock on concerns.
The example that I have used before was of putting a wave machine array offshore, and capturing x megawatts of power from the sea off that shoreline, so then the power of those waves is depleted by that amount of power, and the waves are smaller, so if there was a surfing resort there , that would not work, so that bay is ruled out.
There thare are bays where the shore is eroded, that then feeds sand to a seaside resort down the coast, no waves , no sand no resort.
Then there are wildlife concerns, feeding area, wading burds looking for food that depend on the waves, which might disrupt what they feed on.
So yes we need the technology , and it has to be efficient and robust, and cost effective, but you then cannot just put them anywhere .
Similar concerns exist for Tidal.
3
In reply to Indy:
I think this is a good thing, if (and only if) the process is carried out with rigorous regard to environmental issues and is carried out openly with all materials and chemicals in use being public knowledge. Whether this is going to be the case I'm not sure.
At the end of the day, if they mess it up it will reinforce the case that fracking without harming the environment is not possible and it will be very hard for anyone to get planning permission to frack in the future (a good thing), if they are successful and can extract gas without messing up the environment then this gives us some short term energy security (a good thing).
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that burning gas is a long term solution in any way, but we need something to bridge the gap left by coal whilst renewables and nuclear take up the slack. It's debatable if large nuclear power stations will ever be economical in the UK. Small modular reactors may be the way forwards but are not something we'll see in the short term.
I think this is a good thing, if (and only if) the process is carried out with rigorous regard to environmental issues and is carried out openly with all materials and chemicals in use being public knowledge. Whether this is going to be the case I'm not sure.
At the end of the day, if they mess it up it will reinforce the case that fracking without harming the environment is not possible and it will be very hard for anyone to get planning permission to frack in the future (a good thing), if they are successful and can extract gas without messing up the environment then this gives us some short term energy security (a good thing).
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that burning gas is a long term solution in any way, but we need something to bridge the gap left by coal whilst renewables and nuclear take up the slack. It's debatable if large nuclear power stations will ever be economical in the UK. Small modular reactors may be the way forwards but are not something we'll see in the short term.
1
In reply to Gordonbp:
It is impressive, and I understand that the UK recently did the same, albeit for a shorter period (but still encouraging). Having said that, it is a bit of a one-off fluke at the moment and there is a long way to go to achieve this on a regular basis.
> Interestingly, Portugal has recently powered the ENTIRE country for four days on renewables only. Granted they probably don't have as much industry as us, but still a very impressive achievement!
It is impressive, and I understand that the UK recently did the same, albeit for a shorter period (but still encouraging). Having said that, it is a bit of a one-off fluke at the moment and there is a long way to go to achieve this on a regular basis.
1
In reply to Lusk:
Meanwhile, the ITER project is subject to even more delays:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-fusion-idUKKCN0XT0LY
I remember when was doing my physics degree in the late 70s being told that we'd have fusion generation 'within 30 years'. Or, if those delays take place, 60 years. It's a lovely thought, but not something to depend on in the next few decades.
> I'd happily pay a small increase, 1p/kWh maybe (I don't know! Random number generating here), towards a Nationalised Fusion Research project.
> It's a massive world changer when they finally crack it.
Meanwhile, the ITER project is subject to even more delays:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-fusion-idUKKCN0XT0LY
I remember when was doing my physics degree in the late 70s being told that we'd have fusion generation 'within 30 years'. Or, if those delays take place, 60 years. It's a lovely thought, but not something to depend on in the next few decades.
In reply to Jim C:
Every form of electricity generation has environmental costs of one sort or another, and pretending otherwise is a bit pointless. Ultimately, decisions needs to be made about the degrees of compromise that we as a society are willing to make in order to develop low-carbon electricity. Your example of a surfing resort could easily be derided as just another case of NIMBYism.
> We are trying, and I am in favour of sensible schemes, and there are trials ongoing for wave generators , but the sea is a tough place.
> There are also knock on concerns.
> The example that I have used before was of putting a wave machine array offshore, and capturing x megawatts of power from the sea off that shoreline, so then the power of those waves is depleted by that amount of power, and the waves are smaller, so if there was a surfing resort there , that would not work, so that bay is ruled out.
Every form of electricity generation has environmental costs of one sort or another, and pretending otherwise is a bit pointless. Ultimately, decisions needs to be made about the degrees of compromise that we as a society are willing to make in order to develop low-carbon electricity. Your example of a surfing resort could easily be derided as just another case of NIMBYism.
In reply to Jimbo C:
The problem is we don't build renewables on the scale that we need to or even nuclear while we have relatively cheap gas, especially so where it's 'our' gas. People just make the argument that it's 'uneconomical' which is hard to argue with as it is and will remain so if we don't price in the harm done by climate change.
If the goal really were short term bridging as we phase out coal we could just keep buying our gas, at least that way there is more pressure to move on from gas, not to drag it out for another 30 or 40 years while we figure out how to squeeze the last dregs out of our shale.
jk
> Don't get me wrong, I don't think that burning gas is a long term solution in any way, but we need something to bridge the gap left by coal whilst renewables and nuclear take up the slack. It's debatable if large nuclear power stations will ever be economical in the UK. Small modular reactors may be the way forwards but are not something we'll see in the short term.
The problem is we don't build renewables on the scale that we need to or even nuclear while we have relatively cheap gas, especially so where it's 'our' gas. People just make the argument that it's 'uneconomical' which is hard to argue with as it is and will remain so if we don't price in the harm done by climate change.
If the goal really were short term bridging as we phase out coal we could just keep buying our gas, at least that way there is more pressure to move on from gas, not to drag it out for another 30 or 40 years while we figure out how to squeeze the last dregs out of our shale.
jk
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
What are the general ideas/hopes/aspirations?
> I'm just kicking off leading some research programmes on 'small nuclear' ...
What are the general ideas/hopes/aspirations?
In reply to tony:
The times, they are a changing though. ITER as you say rumbles along with ever more delays. However, the same advances in sensors, computer modelling, real time control technology and so on that are transforming the space launch industry (by allowing smaller players to be competitive) are seeing many smaller groups pursue alternative fusion designs to Big Tokomaks. Some of them are funded up to ~ $0.2Bn (Tri-alpha) and 3-4 of them are making significant progress. Each awaits their own breakthroughs (as does a follow on to ITER that would actually export power to grid) but unlike ITER these alternatives hold the promise of one day lowering the cost of electricity one day, and should commercialise a lot faster than ITER if their breakthroughs come.
Like you say, I wouldn't count on it when making long term plans for energy. To be fair you can't accuse the UK government of counting on unproven technology in their long term plans. Largely to do with the lack of long term plans.
> I remember when was doing my physics degree in the late 70s being told that we'd have fusion generation 'within 30 years'. Or, if those delays take place, 60 years.
The times, they are a changing though. ITER as you say rumbles along with ever more delays. However, the same advances in sensors, computer modelling, real time control technology and so on that are transforming the space launch industry (by allowing smaller players to be competitive) are seeing many smaller groups pursue alternative fusion designs to Big Tokomaks. Some of them are funded up to ~ $0.2Bn (Tri-alpha) and 3-4 of them are making significant progress. Each awaits their own breakthroughs (as does a follow on to ITER that would actually export power to grid) but unlike ITER these alternatives hold the promise of one day lowering the cost of electricity one day, and should commercialise a lot faster than ITER if their breakthroughs come.
> It's a lovely thought, but not something to depend on in the next few decades.
Like you say, I wouldn't count on it when making long term plans for energy. To be fair you can't accuse the UK government of counting on unproven technology in their long term plans. Largely to do with the lack of long term plans.
1
In reply to Lusk:
I'd happily pay 2x my current energy prices for heating oil and electricity if that increase was guaranteed to go into funding a diverse range of fusion research.
It's more than that - a viable fusion reactor is the only piece of missing technology to build an interstellar space probe that could be sending back images form the nearest star systems within an adult human lifespan. I do worry though that whatever the eventual solution of energy that is both low-environmental-cost and to-cheap-to-meter is going to change the world for the worse, by removing the current limits to population growth before many societies have undergone the demographic shift. Absolute poverty, drought etc. could all be cured if energy was cheap and clean enough.
> I'd happily pay a small increase, 1p/kWh maybe (I don't know! Random number generating here), towards a Nationalised Fusion Research project.
I'd happily pay 2x my current energy prices for heating oil and electricity if that increase was guaranteed to go into funding a diverse range of fusion research.
> It's a massive world changer when they finally crack it.
It's more than that - a viable fusion reactor is the only piece of missing technology to build an interstellar space probe that could be sending back images form the nearest star systems within an adult human lifespan. I do worry though that whatever the eventual solution of energy that is both low-environmental-cost and to-cheap-to-meter is going to change the world for the worse, by removing the current limits to population growth before many societies have undergone the demographic shift. Absolute poverty, drought etc. could all be cured if energy was cheap and clean enough.
Post edited at 16:38
1
In reply to wintertree:
for how long? as long as it takes? (if ever)
> I'd happily pay 2x my current energy prices for heating oil and electricity if that increase was guaranteed to go into funding a diverse range of fusion research.
for how long? as long as it takes? (if ever)
Post edited at 16:44
In reply to malk:
I'd like to see the state significantly fund non-giant-tokomak fusion research for a decade, and then step back and review progress, findings and new developments and then re-visit the question of funding for another decade.
> for how long? as long as it takes? (if ever)
I'd like to see the state significantly fund non-giant-tokomak fusion research for a decade, and then step back and review progress, findings and new developments and then re-visit the question of funding for another decade.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Taking the standard 'bespoke' approach out of nuclear power station design. Standardisation, scalable modularisation and 'off the shelf' wherever possible. I know squat about nuclear, but loads about intelligent control and optimisation. Others in my team lead on advanced manufacture and materials.
On one of the other comments, I've given evidence to the Parliamentary Climate Change Committee before, headed by Tim Yeo, and it was the toughest grilling I've ever experienced.
> What are the general ideas/hopes/aspirations?
Taking the standard 'bespoke' approach out of nuclear power station design. Standardisation, scalable modularisation and 'off the shelf' wherever possible. I know squat about nuclear, but loads about intelligent control and optimisation. Others in my team lead on advanced manufacture and materials.
On one of the other comments, I've given evidence to the Parliamentary Climate Change Committee before, headed by Tim Yeo, and it was the toughest grilling I've ever experienced.
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Ok thanks.
Encouraging to hear. What was the subject matter?
> Taking the standard 'bespoke' approach out of nuclear power station design. Standardisation, scalable modularisation and 'off the shelf' wherever possible.
Ok thanks.
> ... I've given evidence to the Parliamentary Climate Change Committee before, headed by Tim Yeo, and it was the toughest grilling I've ever experienced.
Encouraging to hear. What was the subject matter?
In reply to Rob Parsons:
The briefing was to provide evidence on carbon capture and storage, cryogenic energy storage, and then wrap up generally with transient renewables generation and energy storage.
The trick is, they don't stick to the script, and it ended up as a grilling about the state of engineering innovation and invention in the UK.
Uncomfortable doesn't do it justice.
The briefing was to provide evidence on carbon capture and storage, cryogenic energy storage, and then wrap up generally with transient renewables generation and energy storage.
The trick is, they don't stick to the script, and it ended up as a grilling about the state of engineering innovation and invention in the UK.
Uncomfortable doesn't do it justice.
In reply to tony:
I'm really thinking of areas that rely on the tourism. Not the odd surfer , on an otherwise empty beach .
> Every form of electricity generation has environmental costs of one sort or another...... Your example of a surfing resort could easily be derided as just another case of NIMBYism.
I'm really thinking of areas that rely on the tourism. Not the odd surfer , on an otherwise empty beach .
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Thanks for the reply. I'm encouraged to hear that Parliamentary committees do make tough interviewers!
Thanks for the reply. I'm encouraged to hear that Parliamentary committees do make tough interviewers!
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
One with a crystal ball, and plenty of tea leaves?
> We need an independent, or, at the absolute least, cross-party body who can afford to look at fifty, one hundred, two-hundred years forward, which are the real short to medium term timescales.
One with a crystal ball, and plenty of tea leaves?
Post edited at 00:59
In reply to Big Ger:
Scoff as much as you like but I'd settle for one One with some serious scientific/technical knowledge and without a 5 year personal/party aggrandisement agenda.
jk
> One with a crystal ball, and plenty of tea leaves?
Scoff as much as you like but I'd settle for one One with some serious scientific/technical knowledge and without a 5 year personal/party aggrandisement agenda.
jk
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Sometimes a proper, slightly wrong long-term decision is better than no proper decision at all. The French said "We're going nuclear", and nuclear they went. Every five years our governments hedge their bets on the whims of a (purposefully) ill-informed electorate.
> One with a crystal ball, and plenty of tea leaves?
Sometimes a proper, slightly wrong long-term decision is better than no proper decision at all. The French said "We're going nuclear", and nuclear they went. Every five years our governments hedge their bets on the whims of a (purposefully) ill-informed electorate.
In reply to jkarran:
Exactly. It's not like we're lacking the engineering expertise in this country to be able to make decent strategic decisions. We're just lacking the will.
> Scoff as much as you like but I'd settle for one One with some serious scientific/technical knowledge and without a 5 year personal/party aggrandisement agenda.
> jk
Exactly. It's not like we're lacking the engineering expertise in this country to be able to make decent strategic decisions. We're just lacking the will.
In reply to GarethSL:
There are no facts in this debate, which is why we have a debate. There is a range of knowledge and experience from which a best answer can be extracted. That knowledge will come from geologists but also oil industry experts, water company engineers, farmers, maybe even insurance company risk analysts, government regulators, GPs, environmental activists, local councillors, planning officials and the local community.
You regard your science as absolute evidence, but I'm afraid it's just one piece of a bigger picture.
There are no facts in this debate, which is why we have a debate. There is a range of knowledge and experience from which a best answer can be extracted. That knowledge will come from geologists but also oil industry experts, water company engineers, farmers, maybe even insurance company risk analysts, government regulators, GPs, environmental activists, local councillors, planning officials and the local community.
You regard your science as absolute evidence, but I'm afraid it's just one piece of a bigger picture.
1
In reply to jkarran:
Are you aware of the Committee on Climate Change? This is an independent body set up as part of the Climate Change Act with the responsibility of setting the trajectory to the 2050 target and measuring progress. Government aren't required to follow their guidance but so far they mostly have. Ignoring the fact that it's chaired by Jon Gummer (who may divide opinion) the rest of the committee is a pretty solid group of engineers, scientists and economists.
Are you aware of the Committee on Climate Change? This is an independent body set up as part of the Climate Change Act with the responsibility of setting the trajectory to the 2050 target and measuring progress. Government aren't required to follow their guidance but so far they mostly have. Ignoring the fact that it's chaired by Jon Gummer (who may divide opinion) the rest of the committee is a pretty solid group of engineers, scientists and economists.
In reply to jkarran:
Sometimes a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing;
> Scoff as much as you like but I'd settle for one One with some serious scientific/technical knowledge and without a 5 year personal/party aggrandisement agenda.
Sometimes a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing;
> In 1973, the United States Atomic Energy Commission predicted that, by the turn of the 21st century, one thousand reactors would be producing electricity for homes and businesses across the USA. However, the "nuclear dream" fell far short of what was promised because nuclear technology produced a range of social problems, from the nuclear arms race to nuclear meltdowns, and the unresolved difficulties of bomb plant cleanup and civilian plant waste disposal and decommissioning. After 1973, reactor orders declined sharply as electricity demand fell and construction costs rose. Many orders and partially completed plants were cancelled. By the late 1970s, nuclear power had suffered a remarkable international destabilization, as it was faced with economic difficulties and widespread public opposition, coming to a head with the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, both of which adversely affected the nuclear power industry for many decades
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...