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

sheffield_lad

Polly for me the big issue is if we go away from a relatively clean fuel such as gas what do we use to heat our homes with?

Nuclear, solar, wave, tidal etc are great for electricity generation I fully endorse everyone of them but none are an alternative to gas.

80% of all UK properties are HEATED via gas, to change this would be a massive task.

As for fracking, as I said above think of the revenue for the public purse. Many of todays schools & hospitals would not be built if it was not for north sea oil/gas revenue.

PollySouthend

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Apologies for the late reply, I had a long post almost ready ... then had a power-cut ... weather related, but it (conveniently!) just shows that these events are really frustrating ... I've quickly reconstructed the basic gist of the post, but it never feels the same the second time around ....

Anyway, in a nutshell, I 'think' that they say exactly what I would expect them to say, considering the sources !!

Don't worry about the word 'contamination', you do that to water every day (at far higher concentrations than the measured acrylamide in the report you referenced) by simply adding coffee, tea & milk - two of which are relatively toxic and the other classified as a biohazard.

No matter what you may have read, overheard, or been told - hydraulic fracturing of rock in order to recover gas or oil isn't new to the UK - either on-shore or off ... all that's new is the recovery of energy deposits from deep shale, not porous rock ...

Give the eco-warriors the choice of gas or coal and they choose renewables ... explain that renewables cannot cope with peak demand they add nuclear to the mix ... decide to build nuclear and they choose not to agree based on storage ... it just goes 'round ... and 'round ... and 'round like a spinning wheel. The sad thing is that it's usually the same people encouraging others to actually turn the wheel ...

Basically, you can break any argument such as this into three camps ... the 'movers', the 'realists' and the 'naysayers' ... without 'movers' nothing would ever get done, without 'realists' the movers might plough ahead regardless of the cost & outcome, and without 'naysayers' there would be simply be logical progression ....

... see, told you it wasn't as good as the original, which went off and explained about pollution, lights going out and people dying as a result of indecision driven by the 'eco-this' and 'NIMBY-that' negative input groups and was supported in places by references which I can't be bothered to find again (doesn't a powercut make some people bitter ) ... so to conclude this abridged post, here's how I planned to end the original ...

Some of my generation campaigned to 'save the whale' because there was an imminent threat of species extinction ... these days groups have latched on and perverted the causes for which they claim to 'fly the banner' .... you mentioned wave-power earlier & I countered with a much more suitable and predictable energy source, the Severn Barrage ... why haven't we got the Severn Barrage ? - very likely because of all of the campaigns to save the 'ickle birdies and fishies' which are nothing whatsoever to do with the survival of a whole species, just group self-interest to prevent a massive construction project in the neighbourhood, and at the head of these groups, someone wearing a knowing smile whilst leaning on a shepherd's crook ....

HTH
Z

Thanks a very interesting post.

I'm not sure many eco minded people would go for nuclear, the long term costs of that are huge but anyway thats another thing.

It is new the very deep fracking on land. I can see why it works in the US as the country is much less densely populated, less stringent health and safety and land owners can gain wealth from it. Over in the UK it is completely different and no one really knows what the long term impact of this deep deep drilling and extraction is. I'm being told by others here to just shut up and accept it, I like to question what is happening. The only thing I know for sure is no one knows what the impact will be in the years to come, and anyone that thinks they do is wrong.

I think it's very different to saving the whale, that is almost as ridiculous as the on going campaign to save the panda.

I've lived in countries where there were planned and scheduled black outs, it was fine and not aware of anyone perishing.

PollySouthend

sheffield_lad wrote: »

Polly for me the big issue is if we go away from a relatively clean fuel such as gas what do we use to heat our homes with?

Nuclear, solar, wave, tidal etc are great for electricity generation I fully endorse everyone of them but none are an alternative to gas.

80% of all UK properties are HEATED via gas, to change this would be a massive task.

As for fracking, as I said above think of the revenue for the public purse. Many of todays schools & hospitals would not be built if it was not for north sea oil/gas revenue.

Air source heat pump, Biomass,Ground source heat pump,Solar thermal or grow wood, season it and burn it in a smoke free zone approved wood burner.

I do not think any significant revenue from fracking will filter down to schools etc. Not even sure money is what schools and hospitals need, they have had a massive amount poured in by labour and that had little affect on the service.

sheffield_lad

PollySouthend wrote: »

Air source heat pump, Biomass,Ground source heat pump,Solar thermal or grow wood, season it and burn it in a smoke free zone approved wood burner.

I do not think any significant revenue from fracking will filter down to schools etc. Not even sure money is what schools and hospitals need, they have had a massive amount poured in by labour and that had little affect on the service.

I currently survey for ASHP GSHP & (solar), but the pumps are only a viable alternative if you do not have access to gas. Anyone considering such a technology when gas is available will be throwing money away. Besides this the costs of converting the current 80% from gas is enormous.

Compared to how much revenue the North sea has given us (aprox 12billion per year), what Labour put in was little.

There would be a massive take on fracking this money when we have a huge debt cannot be ignored yet the argument always revolves around smaller bills. If we don't have the revenue the tax bill will be higher.

PollySouthend

sheffield_lad wrote: »

I currently survey for ASHP GSHP & (solar), but the pumps are only a viable alternative if you do not have access to gas. Anyone considering such a technology when gas is available will be throwing money away. Besides this the costs of converting the current 80% from gas is enormous.

Compared to how much revenue the North sea has given us (aprox 12billion per year), what Labour put in was little.

There would be a massive take on fracking this money when we have a huge debt cannot be ignored yet the argument always revolves around smaller bills. If we don't have the revenue the tax bill will be higher.

Where exactly has this 12 billion a year gone then? Why are we still in so much debt?

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

goonarmy

As a geologist im bang up for fracking. Id hope to get some work from it but its doubtful. I am unsure if it means an overall reduction in fuel prices but suspect it may delay fuel price increases. So a good thing.

sheffield_lad

PollySouthend wrote: »

Where exactly has this 12 billion a year gone then? Why are we still in so much debt?

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

I am with you on debt and deficit. What I am suggesting is imagine how bad it would have been without north sea revenue?

Where else do you think the money has gone? The public sector pensions, old age pension, NHS, schools, not forgetting behind Germany we have been the biggest contributor to the EU!

Without the North sea we would have been 20yrs or so behind ( AKA Spain), with new infrastructure being built with more money from Germany and a few others.

C_Mababejive

Anyone who thinks fracking in the UK will bring about lower fuel costs is deluding themselves.

The only way YOUR fuel bill will go down is by YOU and YOUR family being more conservative and effective in fuel useage.

As an example,,when im filling the kettle, i fill two mugs from the hot water tap and decant it into the kettle. I could pass on other tight wad tips but I'll spare you. It is this kind of energy husbandry which will control your costs and if enough people practice it,will regulate fuel costs nationally.

enekomh

It's going to raise the prices. They're going to sell it to us as a new system and bla bla bla and that it involves charges and bla bla bla and add an extra environmental tax and there you go, a 5% raise on your bill.
At least we will get free fun fair like attractions with the earthquake it's going to create.

C_Mababejive

enekomh wrote: »

It's going to raise the prices. They're going to sell it to us as a new system and bla bla bla and that it involves charges and bla bla bla and add an extra environmental tax and there you go, a 5% raise on your bill.
At least we will get free fun fair like attractions with the earthquake it's going to create.

True..look on the birht side..you will get duel fuel via your kitchen taps. Just capture the free methane and if your a decent engineer,you can burn it in your boiler.. Its a win win situation..err..apart from those who live in fracking environments which will mostly be oop north. For the afflunet south thats anywhere north of warwickshire.