Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

UK nat gas production is never going to be big enough to impact on world (and therefore UK) natural gas prices

Totally agree. I've always said that UK frackgas (most of Europe is already against fracking) will be too small to impact the European gas price, so the main argument that was used, for years, to promote fracking - that it would cut the cost of gas - is now clearly bogus.

The only genuine reason that still remains is a balance of payments benefit, but as previously explained, I believe we would be better off reducing our expenditure on nat-gas, rather than buying UK instead of foreign nat-gas. We save money, and emissions that way, whereas promoting a new UK nat-gas industry will simply stall progress in moving away from said nat-gas.

To me, this all smacks of diversionary tactics, such as the never ending (nor delivering) promise of new nuclear to delay the rollout of RE. Or the 'promise' of hydrogen fuel cell cars to delay the rollout / investment in BEV's to prolong the highly profitable sales of ICE vehicles.

Rolling out even more nat-gas is not going to help us move away from nat-gas. This is not a story/excuse that I'll fall for.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In Utopia I'd certainly agree, however, if the full scale delivery of the above is impossible within something close to the next 10 years then things will start to become a little sticky, especially so when other developed economies turn to gas as a backup source of generation for their own renewables, in which case there would be a period of considerable competition to source supplies ... just think of the effect of displacing coal generation in central/eastern Europe with renewables & gas and the impact this would have on Norway's ability to maintain supply to the UK at anywhere near current levels/costs in open market conditions.

In order to ensure that the UK is able to successfully transition to a low carbon economy at the same time that so many other countries are doing the same it would be extremely foolish, bordering on criminally irresponsible, to not ensure that the country has a transition plan which provides a level of assurance that it will work without massively disruptive consequences. The only reasonable form of mitigation that can form a sound contingency plan is to explore and develop UK reserves to bridge the transition period before all of the technologies you raise can be developed & fully implemented ...

Taking a gamble that there'll be no energy supply issues and therefore no requirement to explore the possibility of utilising UK gas reserves only to find that it was a mistake at sometime down the line would create a situation which would be far more disruptive to the country's decarbonisation timeline and ultimately far more costly in terms of monetary & environmental impact than having a deliverable plan.

Regarding the relative GHG of various gas sources ... I find this interesting ... <link> ... however, unless someone is allowed to explore the quality of the shale gas reserves that exist, nobody would be able to assess what the relative average properties would be - at the moment it's little more than guesswork!

HTH
Z

Hi. To negate the need for UK fracking we don't need to replace all nat-gas, we only need to displace existing (and future) LNG imports as they are a higher CO2 equivalent than nationally based frackgas (due to the energy consumed in liquifying and transporting them).

That way we eliminate the justification for UK frackgas which will be of a higher CO2e to conventional nat-gas, due to the production process and fugitive methane emissions.

The rest of our nat-gas reductions can be carried out as planned over a longer time period.

BTW, your link shows that frackgas has a higher CO2e than conventional nat-gas, but seems to be making the argument for frackgas on the grounds that it's lower CO2e than coal, and of course since 2013 the issue of coal consumption has changed a lot in the UK.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hi. To negate the need for UK fracking we don't need to replace all nat-gas, we only need to displace existing (and future) LNG imports as they are a higher CO2 equivalent than nationally based frackgas (due to the energy consumed in liquifying and transporting them).

That way we eliminate the justification for UK frackgas which will be of a higher CO2e to conventional nat-gas, due to the production process and fugitive methane emissions.

The rest of our nat-gas reductions can be carried out as planned over a longer time period.

Hi

That really assumes that LNG imports wouldn't be affected by global demand and that supply from Norway wouldn't be impacted by developments within other parts of the EU/EEA which Norway would find considerable pressure being placed upon it to help satisfy ... this is a very realistic consideration.

Regarding UK reserves ... it's expected that they'll be far deeper than comparable ones in the USA & therefore many of the issues experienced should be far less an issue, but that's not really the issue .... effectively we have an option to quickly develop large scale strategic storage for imported gas, or look to explore & develop our own reserves, so considering the timescales involved the more practical and less economically risky solution would be the latter!

Anyway, have a look at the link provided as it certainly places context into the discussion, especially when the total cycle is considered!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Anyway, have a look at the link provided as it certainly places context into the discussion, especially when the total cycle is considered!

HTH
Z

I did, hence my previous comments.

But, I've come back now to warn you about something I found, since I know there is no way you would rely on a report you knew was under suspicion.

Firstly, I went searching for a story about the government sitting on a negative report for 2-3yrs then releasing it a few days after issuing Cuadrilla a licence. Here's that story:

Buried UK government report finds fracking increases air pollution

A UK government report concluding that shale gas extraction increases air pollution was left unpublished for three years and only released four days after ministers approved fracking in Lancashire, it has emerged.

The report, written by the government’s Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG), was given to ministers in 2015, but was published quietly on 27 July. Fracking firm Cuadrilla was given the first permit under a new regulatory regime on 24 July, the final day of the parliamentary year.

But whilst searching for this, I kept finding multiple negative claims about the MacKay/Stone report you linked. It seems that they used US data.

I openly admit that the negatives I've found seem to be from the anti-fracking side, so I'm unclear how true the argument is that the 2013 report is now not considered valid. But thought I should let you know (as explained above). I honestly don't know how the qualifications/knowledge of Mr Mobbs stack up.

Whitehall's fracking science failure: shale gas really is worse for climate than coal

zeupater wrote: »

effectively we have an option to quickly develop large scale strategic storage for imported gas, or look to explore & develop our own reserves, so considering the timescales involved the more practical and less economically risky solution would be the latter!

Shirley it's the former? We used to have more gas storage, and the north sea (something or other) that could store large volumes. many other countries have larger storage to reduce the impact of price fluctuations.

Plus of course, said storage could be implemented into the UK's need for longer term storage to help balance out RE, something we will most likely need to do anyway as the percentage of leccy from RE increases, and the amount of leccy also increases to meet a switch to electrical transportation and electrical space heating.

Given that there's a strong probability that UK fracking will be a complete failure, like the larger and more promising frackgas industry in Poland, then we could waste precious time going down the fracking route.

zeupater

Hi

That's precisely why I mentioned that US data had been used - there was no reliable data for the composition of UK deposits at the time & because of opposition to test sites there's still far less than required to base an accurate assessment on.

Regarding having read the referenced report extract prior to posting ... considering the timestamps show intervals of 5 minutes between my post & your reply and only 4 minutes between the reply & your previous post there's questionable little time remaining to access, read, process, understand and formulate a cohesive reply - I couldn't read, review & understand the relevance of the link in double the 4 minutes available, let alone read the referring post and type a reply.

You'll obviously have noted that the data presented describe emission ranges as opposed to presenting single figures as being fact .... that's all that they can really do when analysing substances with varying calorific properties, especially so when relating to multiple supply sources and yet unexplored reserves .... however, there is a correlation between the figures you quote and those in the referenced report, although it seems that extremes of the ranges as opposed to the mean have been employed ....

What is being missed is that leakage risks exist in all forms of storage too, but whatever happens to be the solution, strategic decisions need to be taken now or we can effectively kiss the idea of seriously decarbonising the economy through electrification of transportation and domestic heating goodbye for a couple of additional decades ....

There's a considerable difference between delivering a workable plan and writing a utopian wishlist ... I'd rather there be a fast transition without reliance on gas, however, as it looks like the shortest timeline requires gas to be an important part of the transition mix then we should logically look to mitigate foreseen supply issues and their likely impact on prices whilst almost all of the developed world is attempting the same.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's precisely why I mentioned that US data had been used - there was no reliable data for the composition of UK deposits at the time & because of opposition to test sites there's still far less than required to base an accurate assessment on.

Regarding having read the referenced report extract prior to posting ... considering the timestamps show intervals of 5 minutes between my post & your reply and only 4 minutes between the reply & your previous post there's questionable little time remaining to access, read, process, understand and formulate a cohesive reply - I couldn't read, review & understand the relevance of the link in double the 4 minutes available, let alone read the referring post and type a reply.

HTH
Z

[Part one just to clear the air, and make sure you don't think I'm being rude nor dismissive about your comments.]

Hi Z. I think you are being a little unfair about the report extract and my reading of it. I did read the extract, it's only a (long) page.

Later I started to look at the report, but as explained some concerns came to mind, (which weren't linked to the report, but ironically raised concerns about the report) and as previously mentioned, a lot has changed since 2012/13 regarding coal consumption, to which the link/report does appear to be comparing frackgas CO2e emissions.

You are correct that 4 mins is not enough, and I'll admit that whilst 8mins might be possible for you, I would certainly struggle. However if you check again and note my reference to the edit - 'added a BTW', you'll see it took me a woefully long 16mins.

Please don't think I'm not taking this seriously - though of course my knowledge on the subject is miniscule - it is something I've pondered for some time.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

You'll obviously have noted that the data presented describe emission ranges as opposed to presenting single figures as being fact .... that's all that they can really do when analysing substances with varying calorific properties, especially so when relating to multiple supply sources and yet unexplored reserves .... however, there is a correlation between the figures you quote and those in the referenced report, although it seems that extremes of the ranges as opposed to the mean have been employed ....

What is being missed is that leakage risks exist in all forms of storage too, but whatever happens to be the solution, strategic decisions need to be taken now or we can effectively kiss the idea of seriously decarbonising the economy through electrification of transportation and domestic heating goodbye for a couple of additional decades ....

There's a considerable difference between delivering a workable plan and writing a utopian wishlist ... I'd rather there be a fast transition without reliance on gas, however, as it looks like the shortest timeline requires gas to be an important part of the transition mix then we should logically look to mitigate foreseen supply issues and their likely impact on prices whilst almost all of the developed world is attempting the same.

HTH
Z

Very true, and I do of course agree with the principle of everything you have said.

My issue with the use of frackgas however, is that it means developing a new large scale UK industry, and opening up large new reserves of FF's.

Given that (I think ?) we all now agree that even if the industry is successful in the UK, we won't see a gas price reduction, and the CO2e of fracking whilst lower than LNG and coal is higher than conventional gas, I'm struggling to see any real reason for bothering with it.

That said, I accept the balance of payment issue, but I've discussed this prior, and would rather see a reduction in demand.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not convinced (personally) by the arguments about ensuring a UK source of gas, since I'm not convinced there's a good chance that the industry would even be successful, so that would put us in a worse position having committed time to this venture, and again as mentioned previously, I think a concerted effort to move away from nat-gas would provide better security in the medium to long term.

Since we have to move away from nat-gas to have any possible chance of meeting our long term CO2e goals, then as mentioned previously, I'm worried that any support for fracking will act as a stalling/diversionary tactic making things worse.

Clearly we both agree that a non FF gas strategic policy is the best, and I totally share your concerns over this happening in the UK given government policy decisions, particularly those in 2015. But I still think there's a chance, but a pro-fracking outcome (we already have a pro-fracking govt policy) would seriously undermine the potential.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Clearly we both agree that a non FF gas strategic policy is the best, and I totally share your concerns over this happening in the UK given government policy decisions, particularly those in 2015. But I still think there's a chance, but a pro-fracking outcome (we already have a pro-fracking govt policy) would seriously undermine the potential.

@ Z

This is an afterthought, but as you'll recall I have for many years referred to public opinion on RE and the quarterly surveys that the government carries out on public attitudes.

Whilst the government needs to do what is best for us, not necessarily what we want, I do believe that public opinion should be reflected in their policy decisions.

Over the last 6.5yrs the government (first under DECC now under BEIS) has carried out 27 such surveys. Here's a link to the latest

Under the summary tables Excel link we can see and compare public opinion.

In the first survey the results for "Q15b) From what you know, or have heard about, extracting shale gas to generate the UK’s heat and electricity, do you support or oppose its use?" were

support 27%
oppose 21%

In the latest survey (Nov 2018), the results were

support 15%
oppose 31%

When the question is applied to renewables "Do you support or oppose the use of renewable energy for providing our electricity, fuel and heat?" we see a very different result starting at

support 79%
oppose 5%

and now at

support 80%
oppose 3%

Obviously this neither proves fracking is a good or bad idea, but it should be reflected in government policy unless there is overwhelming proof that fracking is better for us than we think.

NigeWick

Some good points mentioned about fracking. All I'll say is that burning stuff creates pollution and pollution is killing people.

We have the technologies available to stop burning stuff and should invest in them and stop pouring money into fossil or nuclear energy production.

zeupater

NigeWick wrote: »

Some good points mentioned about fracking. All I'll say is that burning stuff creates pollution and pollution is killing people.

We have the technologies available to stop burning stuff and should invest in them and stop pouring money into fossil or nuclear energy production.

Hi

Agree, but to get to the destination in time may require roads to be built along routes which many wouldn't naturally agree with ... the problem that exists is that we are where we are and the destination remains where it is - if the journey had been started earlier then the route could have been better planned to utilise existing resources and we'd not have needed to consider the environmental impact of building the equivalent of unenvironmental motorways to get to where we need to be in time ...

Too much time has been expended on debate, argument & protest by groups with myopic beliefs and agendas without anyone looking at the affect on the available timeline, leaving us with limited options ... effectively it's now down to extending the project timeline or an interim reliance on leveraging UK gas reserves with other options having what boil down to various levels of unacceptable risk to both the economy & life - I'm certainly reticent to be the one to apologise to queues of grieving families that have lost vulnerable relatives because of a combination of energy prices and/or availability during the disruptive phase of the transition to a low carbon future and I expect that there'd be very few that would relish the employment opportunity.

HTH
Z