Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

silverwhistle said:

... As for 'short-sighted greens' against extracting gas, and remember we are talking about non-conventional extraction, the opposition seems perfectly rational from a very localised point of view, with very little going into the local economy and the downsides significant. As you yourself say it would be a short term boost, but any disadvantages such as impacts on aquifers are likely to last longer and a forlorn hope to get any rectification work done with any profits from the venture long since over the horizon. The Alberta Tar sands situation a particularly horrible illustration of the issue ...

Hi

I actually looked into fracking in the UK from a pretty neutral viewpoint over a decade ago and came to my own conclusions based on science & logic as opposed to the general hysteria that abounded at the time (and since) ... IIRC my conclusions at the time were based on hydro-fracturing being a well developed & quite common practice in the UK water supply sector for the development of boreholes (there are a couple within a short distance from where I'm sitting!) and that with UK potential onshore gas reserves being considerably deeper than those often used in overseas comparisons, the contamination of aquifers that everyone seemed to have worries about was of less concern than many were highlighting at the time, especially so a number of vocal groups through the media .... as for cross contamination through use of drilling & well construction chemicals there seemed at the time to be little realisation that the only chemicals licensed for use in the UK were to be lubricants effectively consisting the same material as what is already licensed & widely used in the majority of contact lenses used by millions within the UK & across the globe and therefore direct exposure & internal contact at concentrations well above anything likely to occur if there was to be an issue had already been classified as being medically safe - follow this with investigating & comparing on the extremely tight license restrictions & H&S obligations imposed by the UK on the developers against those from overseas being used by lobbyists & widely reported in the media it became obvious that the level of risk had been well considered and was in no way open to direct comparison ....      

... after these realisations I made my own conclusions on the validity of what was being preached by the protesters at the time, and yes, I do actually know people in a very rural low population density area where the locals had their own opinions which were totally overridden by bus-loads of 'local' vocal protesters that travelled well over a hundred miles to ensure that everyone saw (via a one-sided media driving their own agenda!) that they had mortal concerns that the water they relied on from in their their 'back yards' for their very health & lives were real and they were pleading for support & their local environment, before getting back in their buses & cars and travelling back to their safe & 'totally unpolluted' urban homelands in their hoards when the media disappeared ...

The way that I now see it is that people should feel free to worry, wear itchy robes or flog their own backs in penance for past events if that floats their boat, but believe that most would feel pretty silly for doing so in many cases if they just stopped, did a little research & then made their own mind up instead of acting more like like sheep & lemmings than pretty well educated humans! ...

Just consider the lost tax revenue & economic benefit over (lets say) just the last 5 years - now if that had been ring-fenced for only financing renewable projects would it be logical to conclude that far more could have been achieve than actually has? ... maybe we'd be far further down the path of decarbonising the economy than we actually find ourselves and could now be looking at addressing domestic heating etc rather than still looking at the age-old question of affordability of real schedulable renewable energy supply solutions such as tidal energy ...   

Not trying to be negative, but you can't just wish a solution into being ... it must be worked towards logically & properly financed according to some form of plan!

HTH - Z

Martyn1981

michaels said:

silverwhistle said:

zeupater said:

Hi

This is where michaels' point on economic multipliers becomes relevant - if you can encourage local supply chains using local materials & produce, the money exchanged passes from consumer to supplier, to sub supplier, to producer etc with each recipient paying their own taxes and employees, who pay their own taxes and spend their income as consumers which starts a new loop .... this is where the economic multiplier comes in [SNIP etc.]...

HTH - Z

Well, I seem to recall that from my O level economics though blowed if I can remember the formula for Velocity of Money, it was a very long time ago. But perhaps it could be pointed out that this multiplier effect is more effective in more equal societies, given the propensity of the poor to spend additional income (as opposed to saving) and to consume locally (as opposed to importing expensive cars, wines or taking foreign holidays).

As for 'short-sighted greens' against extracting gas, and remember we are talking about non-conventional extraction, the opposition seems perfectly rational from a very localised point of view, with very little going into the local economy and the downsides significant. As you yourself say it would be a short term boost, but any disadvantages such as impacts on aquifers are likely to last longer and a forlorn hope to get any rectification work done with any profits from the venture long since over the horizon. The Alberta Tar sands situation a particularly horrible illustration of the issue.

I take your point at a national level about import substitution, although COVID seems to be helping our (is it?) 3 to 1 spend on foreign holidays as compared to incoming tourist receipts! But I don't think there would be much sector destruction going on from any emphasis on greener development. Stranded assets are already a fact of life. In the UK at least the current government has actively sabotaged rather than encouraged green moves: think unplanned curtailing of domestic PV, not allowing onshore wind, lowering building standards.

So whilst investment always needs to be targeted and planned, the latter not a forte of this current administration, the one thing business would like is a little predictability. The situation is already predictable enough for the operators of coal fired power stations!

Hmm - opposition to fracking on nimby grounds is justified but nimby objection to onshore wind (apparently banning it was a vote winner in the relevant local areas) is fine? [Only pulling your leg]

That's not really true. The government changed the planning rules so that a small minority of opposition to wind farms locally could be used to override majority support locally and nationally. At the same time they changed the planning laws to prevent strong national and local opposition (and LA opposition) from stopping fracking.
Since the industry has failed economically in the US where they have 'good' shale, and failed miserably in Poland where there is a larger amount of 'poor' shale (like the UK), then wasting monies on an industry that will only create more reserves of FF's, when we can't ever use ~80% of current reserves, and tie us in to future FF burning, or the destruction of a new industry (fracking), makes no sense to me.

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

....Since the industry has failed economically in the US where they have 'good' shale, and failed miserably in Poland where there is a larger amount of 'poor' shale (like the UK), then wasting monies on an industry that will only create more reserves of FF's, when we can't ever use ~80% of current reserves, and tie us in to future FF burning, or the destruction of a new industry (fracking), makes no sense to me.

Hi

That's one of the considerations that I actually rejected when weighing the pros and cons, here's why ....

Firstly the premise of consumption of all known reserves before renewables are taken seriously is a false one; if it were to be true then with currently known fossil fuel reserves being great enough to extend beyond the period we're expected to need to fix the problem before it becomes terminal, the logical conclusion is that there's nothing we can do, so why do anything ...

Not a good position to maintain, so the reasoning moves beyond that hurdle and seeks a path which accelerates the uptake of renewables despite there being ample known FF reserves available in the ground, which there will logically be for centuries, running through to literal eons, simply because that if there's a need to find more, more will be sought!

Okay, having established that at a point in the future energy derived from FF sources will deminish to virtually zero leaving known reserves untapped and that the currently claimed period available to rectify the situation is continuing to be consumed, the answer to the quandary must conform to standard critical path processing ....

If we know what the end goal is & how long we have to get there, all we need to consider is the best steps to take, the resources that need to be allocated & the critical path elements which need to be best resourced so as to knock off the milestones as quickly as possible ..... it is at this point that consideration must be made that the meaning of 'resource' encompasses methodology, manpower, financial & time constraints in that changes to any one constraint  directly impacts on the others - for example, reducing the budget means that the method could become unaffordable or less manpower could be allocated, both of which would extend the timeline, and if that's the case when 'real deadlines' are involved the question becomes 'why bother?'  - conversely, the allocation of more funding to the budget results in the ability to lay down more capital investment, employ more resource and shorten the timeline .....

So, looking at the situation we now need to consider where the earliest changes will likely be developed & happen, and just as importantly, who will be funding those initial stages. We can be pretty sure that it will be the 'developed' economies, particularly those with larger concerned vocal groups & liberal outlooks ... so place the UK pretty near the top of the list! ... so how does the UK (we!) afford to play our part at the leading edge both intellectually & financially? ... it's a question which needs to be asked, but not many seem to want to think though to a conclusion, seeming thinking that it's unimportant and that things will 'just happen' because it's someone else's problem, and that's the problem that a simple realty check should address ....

Okay, we have goal,a timeline & a set of technical solutions, but no idea of how to raise the required funding to make it all happen and whilst everyone talks and talks and talks, we're all still creating more emissions & watching the much reported deadline continue to approach ... tick, tock, tick, tock .... more emissions .... tick tock ... more fossil fuels extracted ... tick tock .... more reserves explored ... tick tock ..... more talking, more whining, more whinging... and on, and on .... 

So, where would we be if considerable viable UK gas reserves had been developed some time ago with the economic benefit ring-fenced for renewables to address carbon emissions? .... could it be that we'd be much further down the line than we are?, would less fossil fuels have been consumed already?, could economies of scale developed as a result already be making the technologies affordable in less affluent countries? ... importantly, could it be that wherever FF reserves may exist geographically, they'd be more likely to remain underground because the reality of economics would deem that they're less likely to be extracted? ....

In a nutshell, that's the kind of thought process that's needed ... Standing back and seeing a big picture as opposed to purely focussing on what is considered necessary on an element basis may have the effect of disrupting a critical timeline just at the time when the timescale is considered most critical ....

HTH -Z

silverwhistle

I don't disagree that longer term thinking is needed, but that would also require some concessions and acceptance of the change from the older technologies. As for ring-fencing of benefits, we didn't manage it at all with North Sea oil unlike the Norwegians, even given their different economy. But the heartening thing about many of the new technologies is how quickly they can be implemented. At the end of a BBC article on off-shore Scottish wind there was a reference for the wind farms projected being operational within 10 years. No mention I could see of HV links to the larger population centres further south but presumably somebody is thinking of them!

zeupater

silverwhistle said:

I don't disagree that longer term thinking is needed, but that would also require some concessions and acceptance of the change from the older technologies. As for ring-fencing of benefits, we didn't manage it at all with North Sea oil unlike the Norwegians, even given their different economy. But the heartening thing about many of the new technologies is how quickly they can be implemented. At the end of a BBC article on off-shore Scottish wind there was a reference for the wind farms projected being operational within 10 years. No mention I could see of HV links to the larger population centres further south but presumably somebody is thinking of them!

Hi

Don't get me wrong, all things being equal I wouldn't be considering the idea of UK on-shore gas extraction for the very reasons that others raise, but as the quandary that needs to be addressed involves a deadline which is said to be unmoveable then we effectively need to consider the fastest path to get from A to B as opposed to the most ethical, cleanest or desirable, so it's not a case of blame the messenger, it's one of blame the science & the scientists that have evolved a consensus .... if they defined a longer period before the deadline then a cleaner approach could be applied & everyone could be happy, but as it is the most likely path to success may not please everyone!!

As a quick analogy (which could be one of many!) ... a company gets planning permission to build the first factory to make the very first & very best electric trucks & construction equipment, which is seen by all as good for the environment ... to make themselves look as important & green as possible, the planning authorities introduce a stipulation that the facility should be seen to be at the cutting edge of all things environmental and therefore no delivery or construction vehicles that use internal combustion engines are allowed to be used, only electric ones! - catch 22, either no build or a very slow manual project which is probably classed as unaffordable -  the lunatics strike again! 

Sometimes you just need to weight the pile of pros against that of the cons and if the balance proves to be beneficial to ensuring success where there's little hope otherwise, then the path forward becomes clearer .... if that involves ring-fencing a particular source of funds to move forward and that in turn means that political feet need to be held to the fire then I'm pretty sure that could easily be impressed on our elected officials at a constituency level in the form of ensured personal accountability! ...

HTH - Z

Martyn1981

Hi Z, perhaps it would help my understanding then if you can explain why it has to be fracking. I get the 'everything after fracking', the ring-fencing, the spending on decarbonisation etc, and I absolutely agree that ring fencing a stimulus supported industry and promoting RE, storage, efficiency etc is a great idea. But what I don't understand is why it has to be built on fracking. It seems a bit like addressing a UK crack addiction by supporting the creation of a UK frack crack industry.

Can't the supported industry be some government RE with all profits to promote RE+, or storage for FFR income, or bio-gas production, perhaps with a ring-fenced VAT increase on FF's? As Johnny Cash might have sung - "Bill or George any damn thing but frack."

Please don't take any offence, I'm not trying to be difficult or blinkered, I just don't quite get why the starting point has to be fracking, especially as there's a good chance the industry simply isn't viable anyway, especially with any meaningful carbon tax, and so my biggest worry is that it would actually hinder decarbonisation by creating an industry that we need to then support/protect.

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

Hi Z, perhaps it would help my understanding then if you can explain why it has to be fracking. I get the 'everything after fracking', the ring-fencing, the spending on decarbonisation etc, and I absolutely agree that ring fencing a stimulus supported industry and promoting RE, storage, efficiency etc is a great idea. But what I don't understand is why it has to be built on fracking. It seems a bit like addressing a UK crack addiction by supporting the creation of a UK frack crack industry.

Can't the supported industry be some government RE with all profits to promote RE+, or storage for FFR income, or bio-gas production, perhaps with a ring-fenced VAT increase on FF's? As Johnny Cash might have sung - "Bill or George any damn thing but frack."

Please don't take any offence, I'm not trying to be difficult or blinkered, I just don't quite get why the starting point has to be fracking, especially as there's a good chance the industry simply isn't viable anyway, especially with any meaningful carbon tax, and so my biggest worry is that it would actually hinder decarbonisation by creating an industry that we need to then support/protect.

Hi

Why does it need to be gas? - well because if the reserves are actually as large as anticipated and accessible, in terms of effect on a significant proportion of money leaving the country which could be recycled and taxed multiple times then it must be classed as very low hanging fruit ... agreed, it's not the only sector to target, but we're talking about going on towards 20billion cubic metres of LNG imports, so at a market price of ~$4/MMBTU we're talking around $120billion ((20/.7014)*4), so say £100billion .... as that's greater than the entire UK automotive sector on just one commodity it would look like a pretty good place to start looking .... (light reading ... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875383/Trends_in_trade_of_Liquefied_Natural_Gas_in_the_UK_and_Europe.pdf

 ) ... I'm open to alternatives if anyone can think of a single commodity or product group which would be considered as being as straightforward to target and offer as much potential for tax benefit as, scale wise, it represents roughly the same value as the annual balance of trade deficit with the whole of the EU! ... that's all products in all sectors!!

Regarding VAT etc .... of course that could be done too, there's nothing to prevent taxation being used to encourage the move away from gas as the uptake of renewable energy increases, but as that's the likely way forward anyway no matter what the gas source, there's little differential economic benefit compared to the value of on-shoring .... believe me, it took quite some time to conclude & accept that this was probably the best way of funding the required level of investment to decarbonise the economy within the timescales that are continually raised by interested groups based on scientific consensus, it's just a shame that they represent the very same groups that would be vocal in opposition to such a proposal, even though its a net carbon neutral funding solution (as in it doesn't increase global emissions, just the location of extraction ... in theory there'd even be a marginal improvement through the removal of LNG processing & transport!)

What we're really looking at is years of missed opportunity which effectively makes the possibility of meeting deadline targets much harder ... the only blame that can be laid is that at the feet of those that protest their own interests without considering the implications .... if we actually do miss unmissable targets, then look no further than those groups that prevent decarbonisation project progress in the name of protecting the 'newts, birds & fishies' which they themselves would be condemning to extinction if the science is correct .... talk about catch-22 ...

HTH - Z

michaels

I have to agree with Z, if there are no local environmental costs to fracking then UK supply is never going to be enough to impact the global price of gas so all it will do is mean that we consume domestic gas rather than imported which is good for the balance of payments and good for tax revenue that can be spent on 'good things' - greening the economy or whatever else.

It could even mean less gas is burned overall, as part of the delay in switching to green energy sources is the cost so if UK PLC is richer (as a result of using its own gas) then it has more money to implement green energy production sooner.

Martyn1981

Some great numbers to wean the US off FF's for leccy:

Unpacking The 90% Renewable Energy In US By 2035 Scenario

One shibboleth that “t’ain’t true” is the common belief that nations can’t afford the cost of transitioning to renewable energy. A new study from the University of California Berkeley and GridLab claims the US could transition to 90% renewable energy by the year 2035. The changeover would cost no more than what the utility industry will spend during the next 15 years anyway, while creating a half million new high value jobs. The best news of all? After retiring most of the existing fleet of thermal generating stations, the wholesale cost of electricity would be 13% less than it is today.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

I have to agree with Z, if there are no local environmental costs to fracking then UK supply is never going to be enough to impact the global price of gas so all it will do is mean that we consume domestic gas rather than imported which is good for the balance of payments and good for tax revenue that can be spent on 'good things' - greening the economy or whatever else.

It could even mean less gas is burned overall, as part of the delay in switching to green energy sources is the cost so if UK PLC is richer (as a result of using its own gas) then it has more money to implement green energy production sooner.

But that would require the industry to work, and for the gas to be profitable (cheaper than European wholesale price). But in the US the industry has lost $320bn and is now receiving bailout monies, it went bankrupt in Poland, and with fugitive emissions, the CO2(e) of US frack gas is worse than coal.

So it's fine to say we could spend all the money on decarbonising the UK, but there's a good chance it will actually lose money, waste time, cause environmental problems, and distract from simply accelerating efforts to get off FF gas.

We know that RE, insulation, efficiency changes (such as heat pumps) will all reduce gas consumption and are labour intensive, and crucially are where we have to go anyway, so let's just get on with it.

Regarding ring fencing, I've always said we should increase VAT on energy bills to 20%, and ring fence the 15% extra for RE, efficiency, insulation, and protection/support for those in fuel poverty. The bonus is that higher prices will reduce demand, and make investment in energy efficiency and PV more economical for homeowners and businesses.