Do you believe fracking in the UK will bring lower consumer energy costs?

sheffield_lad

Another great post Zeupater you make your points very well.

The only points I would expand on is all the talk of fracking revolves around will it reduce household gas prices, but anti fracking groups and the more sceptical should consider the massive tax benefits fracking can and would pull in.

I am not sure there is a stranglehold via the big six either. Think about mobile phone providers or supermarkets there are only a handful which take the large percentage just like the energy firms.

The current high price of fuel is a mixture of transportation/grid costs and the price of the fuel now from the world markets. Only 5% of the average bill is net profit for energy firms.

zeupater

sheffield_lad wrote: »

... I am not sure there is a stranglehold via the big six either. Think about mobile phone providers or supermarkets there are only a handful which take the large percentage just like the energy firms.

The current high price of fuel is a mixture of transportation/grid costs and the price of the fuel now from the world markets. Only 5% of the average bill is net profit for energy firms.

Hi

When I mentioned the 'big 6' I really didn't mean just their retail business. What needs to be considered is that margin is compounded through the vertical structure of these energy suppliers .... wholesale + storage + generation + retail + admin services gives a more accurate picture, so probably much closer to ~10% would be more likely, and that's just lifting representative figures directly from the summary lines of their published accounts ...

I really can't see a reason why a number of SMEs couldn't develop an on-shore gas resource, place a relatively small turbine on top of it and link it to the grid for local supply, potentially reducing distribution losses .... local agricultural biomass could also be used for bio-gas production within the same site, thus reducing biomass 'fuel-miles', with excess waste heat being used to heat nearby homes or industrial parks ... These fully integrated (gas extraction/production to electricity/gas/heat supply) 'small-scale' distributed-generation operations would open-up affordable opportunities for providers who simply couldn't afford, or even attain planning approval, to build anything close to the centralised generating plant used today - thus removing the investment-scale barrier which currently protects the large generators/suppliers.

HTH
Z

Somniac

1) If we continue to burn fossil at the current rate, we won't need any heating because we will be sweltering. So yeah, cheaper in that sense.
2) Any savings will be spent on cleaning the water supply of the selection of any of the 600 chemicals that might be used. So no not cheaper.
Upside: Loads of biocides, so no creepy crawlies!
3)We will all be underwater.

sheffield_lad

Somniac wrote: »

1) If we continue to burn fossil at the current rate, we won't need any heating because we will be sweltering. So yeah, cheaper in that sense.
2) Any savings will be spent on cleaning the water supply of the selection of any of the 600 chemicals that might be used. So no not cheaper.
Upside: Loads of biocides, so no creepy crawlies!
3)We will all be underwater.

Ummm, I think someone may have been watching too many youtube videos The water table in the UK (unlike the USA),is not as deep as the gas. We do not have deep wells where we extract water. There is almost zero chance of the water ever becoming contaminated.

Gas is actually one of the cleanest fossil fuels, it is also in abundance with about 150yrs worth at current usage.

80% of all housing in the UK use gas for heating. There is no viable/affordable alternative to this and the cost of any change of heating fuel would make HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.

So we heat our homes with gas most modern boilers (last 8yrs), are 85-90% efficient leaving very little gas to escape into the air to pollute.

If you can suggest another viable/affordable way in which we can HEAT our homes fire away but until then we are at the mercy of the world gas markets. Having our own supply (fracked), would create a buffer for energy shocks such as the one we experienced back in 2008 (the year gas and petrol rose 40%), it would also generate huge tax payments which we could use to narrow the deficit never mind the debt.

zeupater

Somniac wrote: »

....
2) Any savings will be spent on cleaning the water supply of the selection of any of the 600 chemicals that might be used. So no not cheaper.
Upside: Loads of biocides, so no creepy crawlies!
3)We will all be underwater.

Hi

I appreciate the concerns which you may have, but it's really not as a bad as some would have you believe. Have a read of #30 on this thread, alternatively, it might just be better to think of the 600 above as being a little overstated for the UK .... (Re section 3.8 : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking#section-a-water-pollution-use-and-disposal-including-chemicals ) ...

HTH
Z

Somniac

Oh the Government says so. Oh it must be ok then.
Just a quick post as time is sort but i will be back to address some of the other arguments in favour.

sheffield_lad

Somniac wrote: »

Oh the Government says so. Oh it must be ok then.
Just a quick post as time is sort but i will be back to address some of the other arguments in favour.

I look forward to seeing and debating your post.

There are too many hysterical reactions on here and in the media. It will make a change to see someone debate the points and offer their views against fracking.

zeupater

Somniac wrote: »

Oh the Government says so. Oh it must be ok then.
Just a quick post as time is sort but i will be back to address some of the other arguments in favour.

Hi

It's nothing really to do with what the government have said ... it's what the licence for hydro-fracturing confines the operators to use as chemical additives. This is a much more rigorous control process than was operated in the USA ... if you say that there were '600 chemicals that might be used' then you obviously believe this to be true either because you are an expert in the field, or have been told/read that there are 600, with the only other alternative being deliberate misinformation targeted at others. Whichever the case, the license in the UK allows for the use of water, 2 chemicals (of which only 1 has been used to date) and low levels of biocide if it is necessary to sterilise highly contaminated water prior to use. The biocides used should be those already approved for use in public water supplies, ie, as per the following tables ... ( http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/drinking-water-products/approved-products/soslistcurrent.pdf ), however, current information states that it hasn't been necessary to treat/retreat the water supply used for hydro-fracturing so far ...

HTH
Z

Somniac

Can you tell me what chemicals are likely to be used in this country?
One of them is hydrochloric acid.
Another is Oxirane orEthylene oxide. A hazardous substance flammable at room temperature, a carcinogenic, mutagenic, irritating, and anaesthetic gas.
The idea that fewer chemicals will be used here is a theoretical one until they start doing it. They have a choice of 750. Do you really believe they will not sacrifice environmental concerns once they have invested their millions and it don't work fast or efficiently enough?
If fracking is fracturing the rock, how can there be guarantees that the chems will not escape into the surrounding rocks and therefore the water table?
Especially if things do not go to plan.
The shale may be deep but an unplanned escape of chemicals could easily contaminate the water higher up. (it seems to me)
The amount of water needed is also an issue isn't it?
2 to 4 million gallons for one well. (a conservative estimate)
Any fracking in the SE of the UK is likely to be for oil anyway and not for gas, creating a whole load of other issues.
Then there is the release of methane and other gases from the ground.
Contamination by methane is an issue in the US. What makes you think it won't be an issue here?

here's a Guardian article you might find interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington

Even Cuadrillas spokesman has said any lowering of bills would be insignificant.
One of the arguments used to justify fracking is the amount we import but we also export it. This is not a policy of need, but greed. Another exercise in pursuit of the quick buck.

goonarmy

Somniac wrote: »

Can you tell me what chemicals are likely to be used in this country?
One of them is hydrochloric acid.
Another is Oxirane orEthylene oxide. A hazardous substance flammable at room temperature, a carcinogenic, mutagenic, irritating, and anaesthetic gas.
The idea that fewer chemicals will be used here is a theoretical one until they start doing it. They have a choice of 750. Do you really believe they will not sacrifice environmental concerns once they have invested their millions and it don't work fast or efficiently enough?
If fracking is fracturing the rock, how can there be guarantees that the chems will not escape into the surrounding rocks and therefore the water table?
Especially if things do not go to plan.
The shale may be deep but an unplanned escape of chemicals could easily contaminate the water higher up. (it seems to me)
The amount of water needed is also an issue isn't it?
2 to 4 million gallons for one well. (a conservative estimate)
Any fracking in the SE of the UK is likely to be for oil anyway and not for gas, creating a whole load of other issues.
Then there is the release of methane and other gases from the ground.
Contamination by methane is an issue in the US. What makes you think it won't be an issue here?

here's a Guardian article you might find interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water-washington

Even Cuadrillas spokesman has said any lowering of bills would be insignificant.
One of the arguments used to justify fracking is the amount we import but we also export it. This is not a policy of need, but greed. Another exercise in pursuit of the quick buck.

Which one of these is worse than the hydrocarbons already natutally occuring in the shale?