UKC

Mods: Please can you not move this to the politics forum as it’d be good to get views of environmentalists, scientists etc who might not frequent the politics forum.

Apparently the govt is about to reverse the moratorium on fracking:

1. Has the science changed in the last few years?

2. Can it be brought on line quicker than renewables (from planning approval)?

3. Is it a cheap source of energy?  

4. Is there any way (assuming it is not to be nationalised) the fuel can benefit local communities?

In reply to Tyler:

no idea to most of the questions,  but i thought. fracking was halted not because of "science" but because the media had decided it would kill puppies,  and people got scared.  

In reply to Tyler:

1) Yes, climate change science is stronger than ever, locking into additional carbon intense infrastructure is a very bad idea and probably illegal, see Climate Change Act 2008

2) Probably, if the political will is there to expedite the regulatory framework

3) Not as currently stands, it will still end up priced in line with global hydrocarbon markets, unless 2 

4) See 2, its possible. The community benefit fund model used on wind farms would be a good example 

In reply to Tyler:

Nothing has changed except the Government believes that there are more votes in cheap energy rather than any impact of fracking for gas, including climate change.

In reply to Tyler:

I doubt this is an environmental or scientific decision. More like emergency planning faced with Hobson's Choice.

In reply to birdie num num:

Given the time to spin it up it really isnt emergency planning.

Emergency planning would be reserving the currently active north sea field output for domestic use.

In reply to Tyler:

It keeps the protest circus away from Westminster and distributes it around the country. Blackpool is very deprived,think of it as levelling up. An additional revenue stream from Swampy and co.

Had the process of shale gas extraction been named “eco mining" or something similarly fluffy, would we see the same amount of protest?

In reply to Forest Dump:

Given that the government were talking of dumping the European Court of human rights for their Rwanda plan, I don't imagine they'd bat an eyelid ignoring climate change agreements. 

In reply to HighChilternRidge:

That is how Democracy works.
Possibly a Technocracy is the way ahead, though how one gets from a Democracy to a Technocracy, I have no idea. I assume people would have to vote for it.

In reply to Tyler:

This is a decent overview of how things stand

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-potential-reserves-...

Basically, huge uncertainty over potential reserves and no proven reserves (despite the years of drilling before 2019).

In April, the government asked the British Geological Survey to report on the current scientific evidence. The report was handed to government on the 5 July but the government has so far declined to publish it.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/update-on-scientific-shale-gas-report/

Maybe today if they are making an announcement on fracking?

In reply to Tyler:

Straight to politics forum .... pls

In reply to Mini Mansell:

You've been sold a pup.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-ends-support-for-fracking

Business and Energy Secretary Andrea Leadsom said:

Whilst acknowledging the huge potential of UK shale gas to provide a bridge to a zero carbon future, I’ve also always been clear that shale gas exploration must be carried out safely. In the UK, we have been led by the best available scientific evidence, and closely regulated by the Oil and Gas Authority, one of the best regulators in the world.

After reviewing the OGA’s report into recent seismic activity at Preston New Road, it is clear that we cannot rule out future unacceptable impacts on the local community.

For this reason, I have concluded that we should put a moratorium on fracking in England with immediate effect.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Now the local community has unacceptable impacts.

In reply to Tyler:

Isn't one of the big issues with fracking that methane leakage outweighs the benefits of using is as a fuel (ie the greenhouse effect from the methane leakage had been previously not considered)?

In reply to Tyler:

It won't happen, as they quoted this morning "we will restart fracking, where there is community support". 

Tory voters will only hear the first part, the MPs will quote the second part when the plan fails. 

In reply to Tyler:

It doesn't help that we keep comparing UK to USA. Different geology, not comparable.

Has it reduced the price of gas for US consumers or just gets sold on the international market....?

In reply to Tyler:

This was a question of how the costs to extract compares with renewables, as against what might be done to manipulate the price at which it’s sold to consumers 

In reply to Tyler:

It will certainly be more expensive than renewable but a meaningful comparison is impossible. Extraction costs vary hugely in the US and the costs would be higher in the UK as we don't have the expertise and the economies of scale don't apply. 

Having said that, in the short/medium term gas compliments renewable while we are still developing high capacity storage solutions, so side by side comparisons aren't useful IMO. If we did have a readily available gas reserves i would agree we should use it on that basis (while we develop the storage for renewables). Shale gas isn't it.

In reply to ExiledScot:

I suspect there'll be robust legal challenges as I can't see how an additional 100 north sea license and a dash for fracking gas is compliant with the UKs Climate Change Act 2008. Watch this space I guess!

In reply to Forest Dump:

I'm suspecting their main focuses are false promises that won't be busted until after next GE, they'll have some excuse if in the unlikely event they are elected again. 

In reply to Tyler:

Well perhaps if you get all your news from the BBC and the Guardian the science is settled.  But if you look outside the popular bubble then there are plenty of scientists who would argue that the science is still very much up for debate.

The reality is of course that the Earth has been warming.  To what influence man is responsible for this versus natural climate fluctuations is highly debatable.  What impacts a warming climate will have on us all and whether this will be deeply negative are pure speculation and guesswork at best.  Whether man can control the climate by making CO2 the enemy is highly debatable.  Whether drastic emergency measures to cut CO2 are more harmful to humans than a more gradual and measured approach to decarbonisation is highly debatable.

Anyway, if you are serious about this subject then have a listen to this debate.  Essentially it’s a senior climate scientist who agrees with man-made climate change versus a senior scientist who does not.  Both arguments are presented eloquently and both are subject to rigorous cross-examination so that you can make your ownmind up.  Surely it’s important enough to be worth an hour or so of your time? 

youtube.com/watch?v=4gICW2VL434&

As ever these days with propagandised and politicised science, perhaps it is always best to follow the money.  Who funds the scientific studies and research institutions?  Who benefits financially from CO2 targets and trading?  Who benefits from the extra control over people’s lives that climate policy demands?  Who benefits financially from investment in ‘green’ energy solutions etc, etc.

In reply to Brian Spode:

Follow the money?? Ok great i will. O yeah it led me to BP, Shell and Exxon - all balls deep into fossil fuels and piling up the profits. 

The climate science is settled. Your post was last relevant in 1988. It is disinformation

In reply to LakesWinter:

So you've leapt right in with criticism but you haven't even had time to watch the debate I posted?  Watch the debate and then I will take your points seriously.

In reply to LakesWinter:

Would add, you do also realise of course that BP and Shell are heavily invested these days in 'green' technology, EV charging solutions and infrastructure etc?  But you knew that right?

In reply to Brian Spode:

Their expenditure towards green tech versus foil fuels is still incredibly low.

They just don't want to be left behind.

In reply to Brian Spode:

Who's funding you?

In reply to Brian Spode:

I expect there are two things at play here:

1. Most people with an interest in the subject will have spent a great deal of time doing ‘their own research’ by listening to what the vast majority of the scientific community have been saying for decades so they are not likely to have their minds changed by the opinions of self declared libertarians. You might say this is close minded but if there was something truly ground breaking that goes against the scientific consensus it probably would have broken cover as peer reviewed science rather than via a YouTube video of a politically motivated think tank. So are they presenting any new evidence?

2. This forum has had a lot of people (or maybe just one person) starting accounts to post evidence free, contrarian opinions so is sceptical of yet another. 

In reply to mondite:

Although that might make a great election soundbite for our tough new prime minister, it would be  at a practical level about the worst thing that could be done. 

The UK isn't self-sufficient in gas by a long margin, so preventing export in the few months when we produce too much for the demand (summer, so we export to Europe) would mean an immediate response from the Europeans to prevent export from their side when we actually need it (winter). 

We can't store what we over-produce in summer (because we took a political decision that storage was too expensive to maintain)  and we can't locally produce at a fast enough rate in winter to supply our needs

In reply to Tyler:

Not that I'm aware of, overall

No - AIUI, it would be a minimum of 10 years before we get any meaningful production, so absolutely no use to lowering bills now.

No - not least in terms of cost to the environment. If done by existing companies, it will be traded globally, so sold to highest bidder, depending on licences. Only way it could be done cheaply is if it was a nationalised company, and that won't happen.

If it was a nationalised company or legislation is in place, then all things are possible. Call me cynical, but it probably won't be either of those.

In reply to Tyler:

Whilst peer review can be beneficial you do need to understand it's limitations and it's propensity tending towards group-think.  Frequently, the current peer review process actually serves as a blocker to more radical research, stifling creativity and limiting opportunities for game-changing discoveries.  This benefits greatly the incumbents, and/or those who fund the majority of 'the science'.

In reply to Brian Spode:

Ah right you are, peer reviewed science bad, YouTube opinion pieces good. 

In reply to Tyler:

So real scientists presenting real evidence in a debate including peer reviewed studies = bad in your book, just because it happens to be on Youtube?

In reply to Brian Spode:

Yes, yes, but before all that, what's your interest exactly?

In reply to Tyler:

Probably not much. CO2 still kills our societies if our doomsday weapons don't. British geology isn't likely to yield giga-tons of cheap new gas.

What's the point in rushing, we're not short of gas per-se, we're paying too much for it. It'll sell at the global price, we'll just be importing a bit less which you'd think should help a bit at least since we chose to trash our currency but aren't hydrocarbons traded in USD anyway?

To whom? To the distributor and consumer it'll cost what gas costs on the global market and a few expensively added wisps from Britain will do nothing to shift that. To the producer, there'll be much easier, bigger sources available still around the world so it'll boil down to the price of licences, tax/subsidy regime and how many corners can be cut on the expensive regulatory stuff.

I imagine a tiny fraction of profits will be required by the terms of the extraction licences to go to 'community'. I'd also expect that'll mostly: never materialise due to wells never reaching production or other accounting loopholes and or it'll be used for pork barrel giveaways with benefits being reaped away from the areas of primary impact since reserves and wells develop horizontally. Or simpler still, take Thather's approach, use the new revenue to cut taxes for the tory voting classes.

Fundamentally it's a moment in time where the public might be persuaded quite easily to support something of little to no benefit to them which would ordinarily be widely opposed. If we want the benefit as a (national) community we either create a nationalised extraction capability or we tax it so as to ensure we actually see real value that can be converted back into public services. It's a big gift to multinational polluters who will doubtless also be generous providers of campaign funds and golden parachutes to friendly ministers. Also it'd be a new revenue stream for the treasury though how big it'll really be is part choice, part geology, part geo-politics so remains to be seen.

TLDR: I'm sceptical!

jk

In reply to Dave Garnett:

My interest is in listening to the evidence, the data and the arguments put forward from a multitude of sources, not just disagreeing with or dismissing something because it, or it's presenters, do not agree with my own political leanings.

In reply to Brian Spode:

Because a one-to-one 'debate' makes the balance of informed opinion appear to be 50:50, not 98:2 as is closer to reality when it comes to anthropogenic climate change and fossil fuels.

Piss off.

jk

In reply to Brian Spode:

To summarise, do you believe that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change? 

In reply to Tyler:

What very few appreciate is that, with current technology, it's not possible to put more that 40% renewables onto the grid. This is because the grid needs 'dispatchable' power to maintain frequency and voltage. There are potential solutions to this problem but like many similar issues 'it's about 10 years away'.

We need a energy source for when it's night time and not windy. Natural gas offers relatively flexible power generation that is a lot less polluting that coal or biomass I think.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are being funded. It's more of an indication that you can't begin to entertain different views. 

In reply to Brian Spode:

Could you give us a quick run down on your research on

• vaccines
• covid
• putin
• qanon
• spherical planetary objects 
• the moon landings

if you could present your research/opinion without YouTube links please

In reply to Brian Spode:

This crap has been gone over and over and over. The science is clear at this point. You don't have a 'difference of opinion'. You are wrong, and more than likely you already know it

Get in the rapidly rising sea

In reply to Brian Spode:

What's your view on why the government hasn't published the royal geological society report on fracking? They commissioned it, but aren't so keen to discuss it now they've got it!?

In reply to Tyler:

Which science outcomes are you referring to exactly? If it's CO2 emissions then the answer is no, fracking still emits less than other fossil fuels like oil and gas sources but more than renewables or the same as other natural gas sources. Fracking in the UK does not mean more gas will be burnt however. It just changes were it comes from (unless you consider lower energy prices means we will use more, but this is quite negligible)

If you are referring to the direct impacts of fracking then they still cause earthquakes (although there is some debate around this) and the chemicals still get pumped in to the deep depths where they are of no concern to us (at least for now). Could be a problem one day far in the future and we may or may not have the ability to fix this if it arises.

If they change the planning rules anything can be brought on quickly. Fracking does have a very low start up cost however.

Yes. Fracking was the primary reason why the barrel price went into negative price a few years ago. Too many low investment startups flooded the market.

Apparently the energy companies would offer a discount to local energy bills. I guess there could be a few more jobs in the area. Can't see any other real benefits.

Edit changes in bold.

In reply to Snyggapa:

 

One of the flaws of privatising British gas. When nationalised they did have some incentive to pay out for storage but for Centrica it is just a cost. After all low supplies just means higher prices.

In reply to blurty:

Each new piece of infrastructure also presents compelling reason to keep those cleaner solutions '10 years away'.

jk

In reply to blurty:

It would of course be possible to go all renewables, it just depends how much we value reliability in our energy system.  Without energy storage solutions, currently fossil fuels and Nuclear energy are the only truly reliable sources of energy. 

The conversion to renewables also depends how much people wish to change their lifestyles to allow this to happen as the costs to decarbonise quickly are mind-blowingly huge. 

Someone has to pay for this.  Will you?  Will you also be willing to subsidise the costs for those in society and in other countries who simply cannot afford it?  Because that is what is required if we really want to decarbonise as quickly as we are told we must by the climate doomsters.

Or we could do it at a much more gradual and sustainable pace, adapting to carbon free technology where possible, as it matures and becomes viable, cost effective and beneficial to society as a whole.  And of course once we have worked out a way of making the adoption of carbon free energy less destructive to the environment we are trying to protect (e.g. see the mining of lithium for car batteries):

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/01/south-america-s-lithium-fields-re....

In reply to Brian Spode:

The only money to follow is that paying for your dozens (or by now, hundreds) of email addresses and the endless time you devote to this frankly bizarre engagement with UKC to push climate denialism, to push against covid control measures and to advocate for private healthcare in the UK.

You're one persistent bugger.

Your need for people to debate you resembles a drunk person stumbling in to a bar shouting "all right then, who wants some?  Come an 'ave a go if you fink your 'ard enough" except with a more North American east coast accent.

As for the "debate" you posted, it looks more like a libertarian echo chamber to me pushing pseudo debate as a way of framing misinformation as fact through debating it.  More of a mass debate, if you know what I mean.

In reply to montyjohn:

No, but the way they refuse to engage with the site rules and burn through a few dozen accounts a month isn't exactly normal.  In the same way that someone loitering outside a bank in dark clothes dozens of times a month isn't normal.  It's suspicious as hell, but you instantly try and deflect from that with a criticism of another poster.  I feel like I've seen that playbook followed long before you came along. 

That you mis-frame the totally clear issues over this poster's deceitful and dishonest engagement with the site as narrow mindedness on whatever brief is on their day's mission sheet says more about you than anyone else.

In reply to montyjohn:

No but when they start yet another pop-up account to push those 'contrarian' ideas one does begin to wonder about the motivation.

jk

In reply to wintertree:

Perhaps if you actually looked at the data and evidence out there objectively rather than through your clearly politically motivated rants, then you might actually learn something.

In reply to Brian Spode:

How does politics change geological processes? Or climatic processes? It's either viable, or not? 

In reply to Brian Spode:

As a professional scientist working in environmental science can I just reiterate JK's post. Their is no real debate in the scientific community as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. As the evidence is so blindingly obvious and undeniable. 99% of scientists who work in this area can see this, the only few I come across now who disagree in any way are retired hobby geologists with an axe to grind and outdated data.  

To present this as a 'debate' is completely misleading. This isnt because the opposing side is being shut down by 'the establishment' it's because their arguments are without any credible evidence.

In reply to Brian Spode:

I have learnt something doing exactly that with Covid data and evidence.  I have learnt that you're a [insert preferred insult here] who wouldn't know actual data, evidence or objectivity if it was in 50' high burning letters outside your window.

Pray tell, what is my political motivation?

In reply to jkarran:

Maybe they just feel really strongly about it and want to share, but keep getting booted off for creating a new account. Sounds a bit unfair to me (although I don't know what was said for them to be booted off originally).

On a complete tangent, I think UKC should have a thread that only they can contribute to that explains why each account has been suspended and what they said to warrant it. It would be a fascinating read.

In reply to Brian Spode:

You are a lonely voice Brian! I think the argument has already been won and nearly everyone sees the need to adapt now.

The rub comes when people are asked to give things up; cars, flights, aircon etc. Not a vote winner! 'Something must be done' (but not by me). I saw an estimate of a fourfold expansion will be needed in electricity generation to replace fossil fuels in the UK gas is 1/4 the price per kWh of electricity, given externalities; this will be quite a hit on the UK's P&L to say the least

As a layman I think a sensible energy mix could be 50% nuclear; 50% renewable and 50% standby gas.

In reply to Brian Spode:

Governments and energy companies have been putting off meaningful actions for decades, despite knowing the implications of the continued intensive use of fossil fuels. We are now many years behind where we could have been if energy companies had listened to their own scientists in the 70s and 80s, and had begun the transition to low carbon energy at that time. As it is, all that time has been lost. Distressingly, it is the countries which have made the lowest contributions to GHG emissions which are going to suffer the consequences to a far greater degree than the countries which bear the greatest responsibility.  

All that is something of an aside. What kind of timescale would you envisage for a 'much more gradual and sustainable pace'?

In reply to blurty:

There'll be more renewable than that. Energy storage solutions are much closer than your previous posts suggest, to the extent that some countries are investing heavily now..... just not the UK. So in that sense we are 10 years away, and until we invest now that will be a rolling 10 years!

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Understood Mike. I have some knowledge in this area as I work for an asset investor/ operator with interests in renewables.

Energy storage (and incidentally local data centres) are the hotest topics in infrastructure investing at the moment, and not just because everyone is trying to burnish their ESG credentials; it's a potentially hugely profitable opportunity. 

As far as I'm aware there is not an investable energy storage product out there yet* (nor a way of altering the frequency/ voltage of renewable power fed into the grid).

What do you know of that I dont!

*Edit - apart from pump storage

In reply to blurty:

It's probably too high on the Nuclear side of things.

One of the issue of of Nuclear is it can't react quickly to changes in demand so great for providing say a 25% baseload but more than that becomes wasteful (unless you store it).

I know it gets criticized a lot, but since renewables are getting so cheap, I think we can afford the inefficiencies of hydrogen so I think it's still being overlooked. 

I also think in cities district heating needs to be considered. It works really well with renewables because you can heat a huge ballast of sand when the wind blows, and heat an entire city with it.

Yes, we're talking about massive amounts of heat capacity here, but it's such a simple solution that it becomes very cheap with scale. Does mean digging up all our cities but we did it for broadband (district heating pipes are a bit bigger however and fiber optic cables).

In reply to montyjohn:

We've come close to investing in district heating, but where it's a take-off from an industrial process or incineration. A scheme such as you suggest sounds plausible for sure.

These technologies need a large slug of public investment to prime the pump

In reply to blurty:

Honestly I think you've got the wrong end of the stick from someone on voltage/frequency. Highly efficient inverters are mature tech. We regularly get 40% of our electricity from wind, and people with solar panels get paid for surplus that goes into the grid. It's not a problem.

Storage is developing tech but it definitely is invest-able, from venture to mature. 

I regularly look here

https://www.energy-storage.news/

Li batteries are good for short term grid balancing and they are being deployed globally. Vanadium flow batteries (deployed) and Metal air batteries (large scale trials stating) are promising for longer storage (short - medium). Liquified air looks good for medium (Highview Power for UK). I could go on but there's chicken and egg to this...... investors won't invest if there's no reneawble energy to store. You'd end up using fossil fuel leccy to test the system.

I have to say, if NASA had been this timid about going to the moon they'd never had made it. However, the political will was there so they got on with solving the problems. That's what's missing here, the political will.

In reply to Tyler:

I think what is most relevant is Truss being an enthusiastic advocate for the fossil fuel industry. 

In reply to montyjohn:

We already have lots of grid connected storage (battery and thermal) and more being added all the time. Make it consume smarter, it doesn't even need to feed back, virtual storage (by pausing or advancing non time critical consumption) gets us a long way.

Hydrogen for what?

I don't see the point in district heating really except where there is free/waste low grade heat readily available, we already have wires to move sufficient energy, why bother laying new pipes and installing the machines to interface to them? Maybe for new build estates where one big heat-pump and bio-gas plant can remove many distributed noise sources from the project and cut total install/maintenance costs.

jk

In reply to blurty:

I guess an alternative would be to do it building by building (I'm thinking large blocks of flats).

Same idea, big ballast of sand buried under a car park etc.

It gets heated only when it's:

1. Windy,
2. Night time, so under base load
3. Or any time when there is an excess of production

24 hour draw of heat during the winter.

No idea how much sand you would need to bridge non windy spells. May not be feasible.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Perhaps I misunderstood blutry; I was going to reply to their point but I'll reply here.  

I took them to mean that grid tied inverters (GTIs) on solar etc are a bit demented - they savage every last mW of solar power and push it out on to the grid regardless.  That's fine when they're a minority of the power on to the grid, but as renewables become more of the grid, there needs to be rapid supply limiting/control on the distributed array of GTIs to limit their supply when the demand isn't there, otherwise the grid becomes unstable.  For a stable system it really needs more nuance than simple disconnect thresholds giving almost stochastic on/off modulation with long re-connection times.   Thrash city.

I assume the big wind turbines have smarter control systems, but the installed Solar-PV capacity is just as dumb as a lot of the installed domestic BEV charging points.  Bit of a missed opportunity to look forwards and put some smarts in for grid stability in a more vulnerable era.

An often overlooked point is that grid scale energy storage solves the "nuclear baseload / peak demand mismatch" problem at a cheaper price point ) than it does for renewables (shifting a small fraction of supply by 12 hours vs bridging over multi-day lulls in wind in winter)

In reply to jkarran:

Anything and everything. Planes and lorries being the obvious uses.

I know it's wasteful, but you could run a gas powered PowerStation from hydrogen. It's still better than burning natural gas provided you have the renewable infrastructure to produce enough + efficiency losses.

In reply to montyjohn:

I'm not convinced, commercial aviation is way too conservative. They'll try battery short-haul for a bit of greenwashing then end up with a synthetic/bio version of A1. I think GA will quite significantly and quickly adopt battery electric power.

I suspect trucks will go mostly battery electric in the medium term with lots of hybrid options and maybe if a practical standard emerges with some capacity for overhead power pick-up on trunk roads. Automated drafting road-trains for efficiency.

Shipping? We'll probably see the return of wind in some supplemental capacity but it's begging for a bulk synthetic fuel solution.

I don't think the surplus-electrical-energy to grid-scale-synthetic-fuel* to adapted-thermal-power-station option is a bad idea. It's energetically wasteful but potentially bridges the big winter lulls like nothing else will. It's not currently a great use for surplus renewables though when they could be displacing fossil power.

*H2 being an obvious contender

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Agreed but we should be planning the facilities now, they obviously take time to build and there should come a time when there is a regular surplus of renewable. Yes smarter grid will be required, but if there's a hold up it won't be technological....

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Quite. It's not particularly amenable to a free-market solution though. So we're stuck at should.

Our energy problems haven't been technological for some time.

jk

In reply to wintertree:

Some of the GTIs will respond to frequency shifting on mains to lower the generated power or shut it down completely. Fronius inverters do this.

Moving from 51 to 54Hz will tailor the output power.

In reply to Tyler: I think the potential benefits if fracking in the UK may be overstated and rather a red herring that could become a white elephant. Fracking has turned to US from a net importer to a net exporter of natural gas. A lot of their coal seems are regular and continuous where as those in the UK are much less regular and heavily faulted (hence more tremors) this limits the amount of gas than could be extracted. I understand the pilot project drilling in Lancashire was to investigate this, if it had found a bonanza we would have heard a lot more about it

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Indeed. The time to take action at a 'gradual and sustainable pace' was 30 years ago. Now we need to take much more urgent action that will, unfortunately, be much more expensive.

Yup. Just ask the 33m Pakistanis displaced by flooding about that. Or the 1 in 7 Bangladeshis at risk from sea level rise.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Sure; some do.  Two problems with that in terms of currently installed capacity.  First is that many don’t, read on for the second…

Indeed.  

Have you checked that against the appropriate EREC regulations for the frequency band GTIs are allowed to operate in?  It’s much narrower.  The frequency control in-band signalling is intended for microgrid use.  Any compliant system on the grid will have much narrower disconnect bands.  Which poses a real PITA for in-band (frequency) supply control if you want a mixed mode system that is compliant when on the grid and stable in an islanded microgrid mode….  Some SMA inverters might support in-band signalling within the EREC rules?

Edit; also shifting the grid frequency to 51 Hz (or beyond) would cause merry hell with all sorts of kit.

I’m not saying it’s an unsolvable problem, just that the gear installed to date isn’t set up to solve it.  I suspect a grid scale solution would need out of band signalling to solar, not frequency based control.

In reply to climbingpixie:

obviously the poster with the batshit youtube links whatnot is a troll and should be ignored, but the discussion over the need for 'a gradual pace' for change quite interesting in the way the climate change skeptics have been changing their argument.  Flat denials that anything is happening just don't cut it anymore like they used to a few years ago, so now its down to obfuscation tactics (ooh look a glacier over their just got bigger! or its all urban heat islands innit - if only those filithy Londoners closed the widows).  Similarly its moved on from no need to do anything to - well I suppose we can do something but lets not rush (which is basically saying do nothing).  Which again makes absolutely no sense if your arguing that anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing anyway! its almost like they know dam well their wrong but are very good at coming up with ever changing arguments to fit the narrative designed specifically to confuse and distract the unwary with absolutely no basis in reality... 

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Enthusiasm or not, I don't think shale gas is going anywhere significant in the UK. The original BGS report exaggerated the potential reserves very greatly.

In reply to John Stainforth:

To be fair to BGS this is more of a case of confusion over what is a reserve and a resources and the errors associated with each (as you neatly demostrait)

But yes pretty much all subsequent work has shown there's a lot less then originally thought. As said up thread parallels with the US are unjustified and any reserve at all is yet to be proven!

In reply to ebdon:

The only people who are now judging the UK shale gas reserves to be less than originally thought are those who exaggerated them in the first place.  This misjudgment had nothing to do with a confusion of reserves versus resources; it was just dodgy dossiers.

In reply to John Stainforth:

I honestly dont know what you are talking about. None if the BGS reports try to calculate reserves. In fact the 1st one, the one with the high resource estimate (that is very heavily and appropriately caveated!) Specifically says it isnt touching reserves with a barge pole. 

The only thing that is dodgy is misunderstand of the uncertainty around these figures. Which, as you say have been going down with every subsequent piece of research.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Thanks Mike - will take a look with interest

In reply to ebdon:

Actually, "Ebdon", I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Please explain,

Please be good enough to translate the above into a meaningful English sentence.

Was "misunderstand" simply a careless typo for something like "a general misunderstanding"? I suspect that you meant something far more specific. Please help us by at least giving us some clue about what you're talking about. 

In reply to Gordon

my confusion regarding your post stems from the fact in your initial post you confuse reserves and resources. When I point this out you continue to confuse the terms, claiming the BGS has made an assessment of reserves where they haven't and infact have explicitly stated so in the report.

I think that my second statement is fairly clear but to be explicit I think what has been both misunderstood and misrepresented from the work that BGS has done is the low levels of uncertainty and confidence that can be attributed to the resource estimates. This is explained in the various reports and papers but no one ever bothers to read the small print which makes it difficult when politicians, the energy industry, campaigning groups or indeed yourself misrepresent what has been written.  

Ultimately I agree with you, as does the most recent literature including that published by the BGS, that qunitities of gas available to extract by fracking is likely very small.

It's a shame the Queens death has buried the most recent BGS report as I'd be really interestd to see the findings.

Edited to add: you may find this brief from BGS insightful regarding definitions and uncertainty regarding resource (although not specifically about energy minerals). https://www.bgs.ac.uk/download/reserve-judgement-focus-effort-on-decarbonis...

In reply to Brian Spode:

Unfortunately anyone can upload a YouTube video. It doesn't make their "opinions" into facts. There's a similar one concerning Air Source Heat Pumps which is so full of inaccuracies it's unbelievable yet people take it as gospel...

In reply to ebdon:

You have confused my brother and I. I am a professional geologist and have actually been using the terms resources and reserves for 44 years! In my comment, I should indeed have used the word resources rather than reserves. (I was using the word reserves loosely, not realising I was talking to another professional - for which I apologise.)

In reply to John Stainforth:

Ah sorry, I should pay more attention. For the record I don't work in anything do do with shale gas (but do work for a large public sector research institute, with a very strict policy on social media, hence the cageyness) hmmm who could that be???

Anyway my point with BGS is that I think a lot of the criticism around this is unfair. They were asked by BEIS for information on shale gas, which they have no choice but to provide, its pretty much their job! they did this the best they could with the information available and some of the findings were misunderstood, or in some cases deliberately misrepresented by those with a vested interested in shale gas to support the case for development (tory politicians playing fast and loose with the truth, who'd have thunk it).  Those first reports, with references to the Marcellus shale are a quite cringe making now to look back on but they are nearly 10 years old and very little was known about the geology and structure of the target areas when all this kicked off.  All the more recent research (much of which has been done by BGS) has shown the UK situation is absolutely nothing like you get in the states and all comparisons to the scale of what's gone on out there is not at all applicable to the UK.  

personally I hope the government have misread the public opinion on this and the debate around decarbonation has gone far enough to make UK shale gas a non-starter, especially with the legal challenges that will doubtless follow any application. perhaps I'm being optimistic, I guess it depends how much the industry bribes local communities with the promise of cheap energy bills.

In reply to ebdon:

The original BGS report on shale gas in the UK (particularly, the Bowland Shale) was severely criticised for good reason. The way they integrated the volume of the resource shale with little regard for the geological structure or thermal maturity was breathtaking; and the cherry-picking of the limited geochemical data (assuming they were real data) was something else again.

In reply to Tyler:

Any natural gas that eventually gets produced by fracking (which I doubt will be significant) will likely hit the market as international prices crater in a tidal wave of over supply. 

In reply to Tyler:

Any natural gas that eventually gets produced by fracking (which I doubt will be significant) will likely hit the market as international prices crater in a tidal wave of over supply. Fact is in if you start investing in capacity during a short squeeze like this by the time your asset starts producing you will be coming to an over supplied market as every gas producer is investing in capacity.

In reply to Brian Spode:

A few reasons why I am suspicious of this post.

1. Several statements such as "To what influence man is responsible for this versus natural climate fluctuations is highly debatable." That fly in the face of current understanding without any evidence to back up. As someone once said to me extraordinary claims require extraordinaty evidence. Merely stating something doesn't make it true.

2. "Senior Scientist" like who? Without names it is is meaningless.

3. a youtube video is the kiss of death for me. If I want to learn about facts I go to scientific papers not click on something I don't know to push up their ratings

4. Follow the money is shorthand for fruit loop conspiracy

In reply to Tyler:

In answer to the OP... latest government report has been leaked and......

Shock horror! In a surprise to absolutely no one the science remains pretty much the same https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/15/liz-truss-to-lift-frack...