Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick · 10 January 2019 at 1:30PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

it's only fair to recognise that there has been a lot of success too:

But, a lot (most?) of this success is not driven by UKGov, rather despite their policy decisions.

zeupater · 10 January 2019 at 3:56PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hi Z, and thanks for not using the word NIMBY this time. I think we can have a reasonable chat about the subject and it's good that it's become pretty comprehensive at this level, though the subject is of course vastly greater than my understanding/knowledge.

Regarding your comments about gas consumption and gas capacity, I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand them in context. If consumption is falling, then I don't see the argument for fracking. And I fail to see how generation capacity is impacted by the development (or not) of UK frackgas.

But it's the above paragraph that concerns me the most. I stand by my position that developing more UK gas production will encourage less action to decarbonise. But more importantly, in your response you referred to UK frackgas being more expensive (my bold), but the argument for fracking was that it would produce cheaper gas, and reduce the UK gas price for consumers (I disagree as it would have to water down the whole European gas market).

For your position to stand - that UK gas costs more putting pressure on reducing consumption - then we'd have to be buying it, but no UK gas consumer nor supplier would buy it v's the cheaper European gas market price, so the industry would fail on economic grounds, something I've been suggesting from the start.

I've been thinking about your earlier statement that our not utilising fracking, means gas elsewhere has to be utilised, and whilst my personal position is that we should take measures to reduce FF gas consumption, not import more, I forgot to mention that fracking is growing in unpopularity, and more and more countries are blocking or banning it. Even in countries like America and Australia where a lot of fracking takes, there are a number of state bans.

LIST OF WORLDWIDE FRACKING COUNTRY BANS

So worst case, my anti fracking everywhere position, would mean more conventional gas extraction 'somewhere', but I've covered that previously as frackgas has a higher CO2e than conventional gas extraction, so what we really need to do first is to continue to reduce our gas consumption to minimise/eliminate LNG imports.

On the subject of LNG imports, the report you linked to previously gave figures for 2011*, which stated that 47% of imports were from LNG. This article I've found showing imports upto the first half of 2018 now have LNG imports at 9%:

*The report states a consumption of 101bcm, but looking at other charts, it seems those figures relate to 2010 not 2011, so going back to the UK stats I posted previously, we see a 2010 UK consumption of 1.1m GWh's, v's approx 0.9m GWh's for 2016 and 2017. I don't know what the 2018 figures are yet.

Also the article I posted a while back on 2018 leccy production (not gas consumption) stated that gas consumption fell by 4% in 2018 (v's 2017).

I mention this to support my belief that annual RE rollouts can match or exceed any future annual increase in demand placed on leccy from heat pumps and EV's. And as mentioned previously, we can of course roll out RE generation faster if we so wished.

I'm wholly aware that my responses might appear to be difficult, or pedantic, but I hand on heart, are not trying to do that, I'm honestly just trying to respond to each of the issues you raise, and explain why I'm not convinced that fracking is needed, and why I think the alternatives (demand reduction, RE, and bio-gas) are preferable not only in the medium to long term, but I think in the short term too. Hopefully. :think:

Hi

No need for the thanks about nimbyism .. just read more carefully & the position becomes clear! ...

Regarding consumption .. it's simply the differential between kW & kWh ... even if annual kWh falls, the peak power demand (kW) will grow until the impact of heatpump technology in the domestic environment experiences significant growth at which point maximum gas peak power demand (that's total, direct gas & gas for generating electricity!) happens. It's illogical to maintain argument based on total annual energy (kWh) as we're looking at the combination of future heating (kWh) and backup gas generation capacity (kW) at the same time. In terms of backup generation, the only consideration which involves energy (kWh) would be to size strategic storage, however what those opposed to developing distributed gas extraction continually miss is that it actually is the strategic store ... when there's no demand, there's no extraction!

Regarding the cost of fracked gas ... It should be clear from what was written leading up to the text you chose to highlight is that there's inconsistency in the argument made by those who oppose. The argument that extraction is expensive so there's no profit doesn't stack up with the position you raise regarding it being cheap!. It's almost certain that extraction in the UK will cost more than that experienced in the USA as the reserves here are thought to be multiple times deeper, our safety and environmental standard requirements for license issue are tighter, and everything here costs more ... however, that doesn't guarantee that the product will be more expensive than imports!

Regarding global or European gas market pricing .... we're not really talking about vast gas facilities with terminal nodes, in line storage, port & tanker facilities, transnational interconnectors etc. which comprise the international gas market and drive prices ... in discussion are extraction sites which are close enough to hookup to existing mains infrastructure and not too far from centres of demand. Unless there's a plan to float supertankers up the canals or build transmission pipelines from each site to the nearest major coastal terminal, then there's no need for there to be any link between the product prices and the international market price.

It doesn't really matter what you or I think about fracking .. if tracked gas is needed and exists it will be extracted. It's really no use raising public opinion, believe me - the first time that something like temporary supply rationing happens and the level of personal comfort is impacted, that opinion will change ... it's not as if it's even a low possibility, as already mentioned - we were close to that happening within the last 12 months & we've got a lot more reliance on gas coming down the line!

I can't understand why the report I linked has been raised to argue a point on LNG in the UK market on a CO2e and market penetration basis (which is particularly irrelevant to the crux of the discussion!), before going on to ignore the reason it was first referenced by repeating previous claims on the relative emissions of gas sources which the report tends to dispute. It's accepted that the report is a few years old and supply/economic statistics chànge, however, the science behind the chemistry of various gas types and sources tends to vary very little and as previously highlighted, the report describes typical emission ranges for comparison as opposed to being selective .. as such, the contents of the report, as introduced, are valid in respect to why they were referenced.

At this point I don't really know where this discussion is going as you've effectively ignored the evidence supplied and brought everything back to where it all started .. all that's happened is the introduction of tangential remarks which were mostly irrelevant ... I simply joined the discussion to help inject realism and research based on years of experience in the field of various forms of risk management & mitigation as opposed to preconceptions, but going around in circles and rebuffing forms of tangential obfuscation doesn't get anyone anywhere ...

In summary, those taking your viewpoint are either right or they're wrong ... if there are absolutely no impacting issues within the decarbonisation transition phase then they can sit back and smile, but problems could be very serious resulting in many deeply furrowed brows & major consequences. Through correctly employing risk mitigation, whatever happens a smile would be the likely outcome ... it all depends on how far everyone is prepared to stand back to assess the full picture, combined with what they're personally willing to gamble on everyone's behalf through swaying opinion! ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 · 10 January 2019 at 5:46PM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

No need for the thanks about nimbyism .. just read more carefully & the position becomes clear! ...

That's a shame, I didn't understand why you kept using that word as it didn't seem to fit any of the comments in the discussion. And I thought perhaps you'd chosen not to use it as it's quite rude and unfair to label myself (and (all) anti-frackers) as such when we have strong and genuine feelings on the matter. In fact, as Wales has blocked fracking, the only way I could be a NIMBY is if I supported fracking.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding consumption .. it's simply the differential between kW & kWh ... even if annual kWh falls, the peak power demand (kW) will grow until the impact of heatpump technology in the domestic environment experiences significant growth at which point maximum gas peak power demand (that's total, direct gas & gas for generating electricity!) happens. It's illogical to maintain argument based on total annual energy (kWh) as we're looking at the combination of future heating (kWh) and backup gas generation capacity (kW) at the same time. In terms of backup generation, the only consideration which involves energy (kWh) would be to size strategic storage, however what those opposed to developing distributed gas extraction continually miss is that it actually is the strategic store ... when there's no demand, there's no extraction!

I completely understand that but it doesn't work. If gas generation of leccy is held at neutral, or reduced, then the total gas consumption and peak demand will fall.*

As more GCH shifts to heat pumps, with improved insulation too, then space heating demand for gas will fall.

For gas demand (peak and total) to rise the sum of the two would have to be greater, so the extra leccy demand for heat pumps would have to come from gas generation and exceed the reduction in demand for space heating gas, and the growth of RE generation. That doesn't seem at all likely based on the growth of RE generation during the last 10yrs, nearly 3% of leccy demand pa.

*Perhaps, and based on previous remarks you've made, you mean the possibility of a wider margin of gap as leccy demand rises but all hell breaks loose on the RE front with a drop in everything at the same time. I accept that possibility, but again that's a gas generation capacity issue and I don't see how fracking influences that.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding the cost of fracked gas ... It should be clear from what was written leading up to the text you chose to highlight is that there's inconsistency in the argument made by those who oppose. The argument that extraction is expensive so there's no profit doesn't stack up with the position you raise regarding it being cheap!. It's almost certain that extraction in the UK will cost more than that experienced in the USA as the reserves here are thought to be multiple times deeper, our safety and environmental standard requirements for license issue are tighter, and everything here costs more ... however, that doesn't guarantee that the product will be more expensive than imports!

Firstly, I don't believe frackgas will be cheap in the UK. I've always believed (like you) that it will be more expensive than the US. That's why I have consistently claimed that it won't benefit us (price wise) the same as the US.

Also, in the US they added a lot of frackgas to a small(ish) gas demand, whereas with other European nations banning fracking, and the failure of fracking in Poland, the UK will be adding a small amount of frackgas to a large gas market. So even if it was cheaper, it would have little to no impact on the European market price.

Secondly, I didn't claim it would be cheap, I pointed out that your suggestion that frackgas would benefit us environmentally by pushing up the price (I like the idea of higher gas prices BTW so agree with the environmental argument there) doesn't work, as we won't buy the more expensive frackgas, so the industry would fail on economic grounds.

The only impact it could have on prices is actually the opposite. If demand rose and supply couldn't match it, then the price would rise. When it reaches the economically viable price point for UK frackgas, that would kick in freeze the price, or reduce the price rise that would otherwise ocurr without the increase in supply.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding global or European gas market pricing .... we're not really talking about vast gas facilities with terminal nodes, in line storage, port & tanker facilities, transnational interconnectors etc. which comprise the international gas market and drive prices ... in discussion are extraction sites which are close enough to hookup to existing mains infrastructure and not too far from centres of demand. Unless there's a plan to float supertankers up the canals or build transmission pipelines from each site to the nearest major coastal terminal, then there's no need for there to be any link between the product prices and the international market price.

The UK price will reflect the European market price due to the pipeline connections we have. Prices do rise when demand is high and storage is low, and at that point shipments of LNG gas are sent here, or diverted (where contractually allowed) from their previous destination.

As previously explained, I completely agree that frackgas is better than LNG, since that's simply frackgas that also incurs additional energy to cool and transport it. But I've also been clear that I'd prefer other measures too both, I've also pointed out that LNG as a percentage of our gas imports has fallen considerably.

zeupater wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what you or I think about fracking .. if tracked gas is needed and exists it will be extracted. It's really no use raising public opinion, believe me - the first time that something like temporary supply rationing happens and the level of personal comfort is impacted, that opinion will change ... it's not as if it's even a low possibility, as already mentioned - we were close to that happening within the last 12 months & we've got a lot more reliance on gas coming down the line!

Actually, on this specific issue, what you and I think does matter. Public opinion has been successful in reducing worldwide fracking. And I disagree that it will be extracted regardless, since as I pointed out and referenced, more and more countries are acting against fracking.

We had a similar situation in the EU many years ago with Canadian tar sands oil, and the UK's attempts to find ways to help get it into Europe, despite it being classed as one of the most environmentally unfriendly sources of oil.

Again regarding your comments on gas, as far as I can see, based on government stats, RE deployment, and energy efficiency, gas consumption in the UK is falling.

The UK, and the world, has now recognised the need to reduce all consumption of FF's. So as I've consistently claimed, we have to move away from it anyway, so creating any new UK interests (especially jobs) will make 'anti-natgas' moves more tricky.

I was very careful not to be rude, nor to state you were wrong when this issue of gas consumption came up before, and I suggested you check all my research as I could have made a mistake. However, if you can't find fault, then as explained above, I don't see why (FF) gas demand will increase going forward, at least not as a trend (annual fluctuations may of course occur.)

zeupater wrote: »

I can't understand why the report I linked has been raised to argue a point on LNG in the UK market on a CO2e and market penetration basis (which is particularly irrelevant to the crux of the discussion!), before going on to ignore the reason it was first referenced by repeating previous claims on the relative emissions of gas sources which the report tends to dispute. It's accepted that the report is a few years old and supply/economic statistics chànge, however, the science behind the chemistry of various gas types and sources tends to vary very little and as previously highlighted, the report describes typical emission ranges for comparison as opposed to being selective .. as such, the contents of the report, as introduced, are valid in respect to why they were referenced.

I have no problem with the report, I'm simply pointing out that it shows that frackgas has a higher CO2e than conventional gas. The report puts forward the case that frackgas is much lower in CO2e than coal, which is entirely true, however, this is where the issue of the reports date becomes important, since the government has made a massive policy change to eliminate coal by 2025, so the savings against coal are now mute.

Also since then, there have been an absolute multitude of news reports and articles on the US fracking industry that have found that fugitive emissions are far, far worse then reported.

I did read your link (I'm surprised you never apologised for that unusual attack you made on me) and I do accept that the report is still valid - but things have moved on, and there is now additional facts and information to digest.

I don't agree that the penetration of LNG is irrelevant to the crux of this discussion. For me, as explained repeatedly, the justification for fracking is strongly linked to LNG, so the large reduction in LNG should be considered.

zeupater wrote: »

At this point I don't really know where this discussion is going as you've effectively ignored the evidence supplied and brought everything back to where it all started .. all that's happened is the introduction of tangential remarks which were mostly irrelevant ... I simply joined the discussion to help inject realism and research based on years of experience in the field of various forms of risk management & mitigation as opposed to preconceptions, but going around in circles and rebuffing forms of tangential obfuscation doesn't get anyone anywhere ...

I'm afraid that's wholly unjustified. It's also quite rude, which again I don't understand given your normal approach of open debate.

I haven't ignored anything you've said, that's untrue. I've simply disagreed with your position, and I thought I'd provided facts, evidence and links to support my position each time. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing your position, as I may of course be wrong, but based on what you've posted, and I've found, I'm not convinced by your argument's in support of fracking.

I'm baffled by the claims of tangential remarks. I would suggest the exact opposite. I thought I'd been following you, and responding to the points you raised. When you said gas consumption was rising I posted information to suggest that wasn't correct. Your response was to say that consumption didn't matter, and then say that gas generation capacity was important (I agree), and that this was linked to fracking (I disagree), but I could be misunderstanding your point here as I don't really see how the link can be made.

zeupater wrote: »

In summary, those taking your viewpoint are either right or they're wrong ... if there are absolutely no impacting issues within the decarbonisation transition phase then they can sit back and smile, but problems could be very serious resulting in many deeply furrowed brows & major consequences. Through correctly employing risk mitigation, whatever happens a smile would be the likely outcome ... it all depends on how far everyone is prepared to stand back to assess the full picture, combined with what they're personally willing to gamble on everyone's behalf through swaying opinion! ...

HTH
Z

I agree, and to best mitigate risk, and make a headstart on the massive reductions we need to make anyway in FF gas consumption, I have suggested what I believe to be better options than fracking (anywhere in the world) - enlarged UK gas storage, bio-gas production, more RE leccy generation, better efficiency and insulation, accelerated move towards heat pumps.

I strongly believe that we both have the same medium to long term aims and opinions on those solutions. Correct me if I'm wrong, and again no rudeness is implied with my assumption.

So all we differ on is how we best get through the short to medium term period. I accept that you consider fracking acceptable, and you might be right, but my thoughts and consideration on the matter come to a different conclusion.

Can we please just agree to disagree on this issue, as I'm more than a little uncomfortable about a number of remarks you've made, and I'm becoming convinced that you think I'm being rude or difficult, when I'm honestly not - I have a position that I think I've set out well and fairly, even if you disagree with it, and even if it turns out to be wrong.

All the best mate.

Edit - Just to add, if you strongly believe I've been dismissive of anything you've posted, then can I suggest that's accidental due to my missing it, missing it's importance, or simply not understanding the importance. I've appreciated this detailed discussion and have not (knowingly) been acting on the defensive. M.

zeupater · 10 January 2019 at 8:57PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That's a shame, I didn't understand why you kept using that word as it didn't seem to fit any of the comments in the discussion. And I thought perhaps you'd chosen not to use it as it's quite rude and unfair to label myself (and (all) anti-frackers) as such when we have strong and genuine feelings on the matter. In fact, as Wales has blocked fracking, the only way I could be a NIMBY is if I supported fracking.

I completely understand that but it doesn't work. If gas generation of leccy is held at neutral, or reduced, then the total gas consumption and peak demand will fall.*

As more GCH shifts to heat pumps, with improved insulation too, then space heating demand for gas will fall.

For gas demand (peak and total) to rise the sum of the two would have to be greater, so the extra leccy demand for heat pumps would have to come from gas generation and exceed the reduction in demand for space heating gas, and the growth of RE generation. That doesn't seem at all likely based on the growth of RE generation during the last 10yrs, nearly 3% of leccy demand pa.

*Perhaps, and based on previous remarks you've made, you mean the possibility of a wider margin of gap as leccy demand rises but all hell breaks loose on the RE front with a drop in everything at the same time. I accept that possibility, but again that's a gas generation capacity issue and I don't see how fracking influences that.

Firstly, I don't believe frackgas will be cheap in the UK. I've always believed (like you) that it will be more expensive than the US. That's why I have consistently claimed that it won't benefit us (price wise) the same as the US.

Also, in the US they added a lot of frackgas to a small(ish) gas demand, whereas with other European nations banning fracking, and the failure of fracking in Poland, the UK will be adding a small amount of frackgas to a large gas market. So even if it was cheaper, it would have little to no impact on the European market price.

Secondly, I didn't claim it would be cheap, I pointed out that your suggestion that frackgas would benefit us environmentally by pushing up the price (I like the idea of higher gas prices BTW so agree with the environmental argument there) doesn't work, as we won't buy the more expensive frackgas, so the industry would fail on economic grounds.

The only impact it could have on prices is actually the opposite. If demand rose and supply couldn't match it, then the price would rise. When it reaches the economically viable price point for UK frackgas, that would kick in freeze the price, or reduce the price rise that would otherwise ocurr without the increase in supply.

The UK price will reflect the European market price due to the pipeline connections we have. Prices do rise when demand is high and storage is low, and at that point shipments of LNG gas are sent here, or diverted (where contractually allowed) from their previous destination.

As previously explained, I completely agree that frackgas is better than LNG, since that's simply frackgas that also incurs additional energy to cool and transport it. But I've also been clear that I'd prefer other measures too both, I've also pointed out that LNG as a percentage of our gas imports has fallen considerably.

Actually, on this specific issue, what you and I think does matter. Public opinion has been successful in reducing worldwide fracking. And I disagree that it will be extracted regardless, since as I pointed out and referenced, more and more countries are acting against fracking.

We had a similar situation in the EU many years ago with Canadian tar sands oil, and the UK's attempts to find ways to help get it into Europe, despite it being classed as one of the most environmentally unfriendly sources of oil.

Again regarding your comments on gas, as far as I can see, based on government stats, RE deployment, and energy efficiency, gas consumption in the UK is falling.

The UK, and the world, has now recognised the need to reduce all consumption of FF's. So as I've consistently claimed, we have to move away from it anyway, so creating any new UK interests (especially jobs) will make 'anti-natgas' moves more tricky.

I was very careful not to be rude, nor to state you were wrong when this issue of gas consumption came up before, and I suggested you check all my research as I could have made a mistake. However, if you can't find fault, then as explained above, I don't see why (FF) gas demand will increase going forward, at least not as a trend (annual fluctuations may of course occur.)

I have no problem with the report, I'm simply pointing out that it shows that frackgas has a higher CO2e than conventional gas. The report puts forward the case that frackgas is much lower in CO2e than coal, which is entirely true, however, this is where the issue of the reports date becomes important, since the government has made a massive policy change to eliminate coal by 2025, so the savings against coal are now mute.

Also since then, there have been an absolute multitude of news reports and articles on the US fracking industry that have found that fugitive emissions are far, far worse then reported.

I did read your link (I'm surprised you never apologised for that unusual attack you made on me) and I do accept that the report is still valid - but things have moved on, and there is now additional facts and information to digest.

I don't agree that the penetration of LNG is irrelevant to the crux of this discussion. For me, as explained repeatedly, the justification for fracking is strongly linked to LNG, so the large reduction in LNG should be considered.

I'm afraid that's wholly unjustified. It's also quite rude, which again I don't understand given your normal approach of open debate.

I haven't ignored anything you've said, that's untrue. I've simply disagreed with your position, and I thought I'd provided facts, evidence and links to support my position each time. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing your position, as I may of course be wrong, but based on what you've posted, and I've found, I'm not convinced by your argument's in support of fracking.

I'm baffled by the claims of tangential remarks. I would suggest the exact opposite. I thought I'd been following you, and responding to the points you raised. When you said gas consumption was rising I posted information to suggest that wasn't correct. Your response was to say that consumption didn't matter, and then say that gas generation capacity was important (I agree), and that this was linked to fracking (I disagree), but I could be misunderstanding your point here as I don't really see how the link can be made.

I agree, and to best mitigate risk, and make a headstart on the massive reductions we need to make anyway in FF gas consumption, I have suggested what I believe to be better options than fracking (anywhere in the world) - enlarged UK gas storage, bio-gas production, more RE leccy generation, better efficiency and insulation, accelerated move towards heat pumps.

I strongly believe that we both have the same medium to long term aims and opinions on those solutions. Correct me if I'm wrong, and again no rudeness is implied with my assumption.

So all we differ on is how we best get through the short to medium term period. I accept that you consider fracking acceptable, and you might be right, but my thoughts and consideration on the matter come to a different conclusion.

Can we please just agree to disagree on this issue, as I'm more than a little uncomfortable about a number of remarks you've made, and I'm becoming convinced that you think I'm being rude or difficult, when I'm honestly not - I have a position that I think I've set out well and fairly, even if you disagree with it, and even if it turns out to be wrong.

All the best mate.

Edit - Just to add, if you strongly believe I've been dismissive of anything you've posted, then can I suggest that's accidental due to my missing it, missing it's importance, or simply not understanding the importance. I've appreciated this detailed discussion and have not (knowingly) been acting on the defensive. M.

Hi

May I respectfully request that you drop the ongoing 'victim' approach that's been employed a number of times recently and simply review the posts made in the entire exchange from ...

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Interesting - Greater Manchester and London will join N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales in effectively banning fracking.

For me personally, I don't see the point of wasting time on an industry that even in the US with far better economic and geological arguments for shale gas has still proven to be a financial disaster.

But, more importantly, we can't create new FF reserves, when the vast majority of known reserves can never be used/burnt as that would take us past the carbon budget for 1.5/2.0C rise. And if we allow fracking, then how do 'we' reduce/ban gas consumption in the future, when we would owe a responsibility to the new industry and its employees.

Greater Manchester tells fracking firms they are not welcome

... where 'financial disaster' the 'creation' of reserves was raised, through the reasoning for mitigation and why local supply could be leveraged to assist in emissions reduction, through to today's post where you've effectively taken the discussion in a full circle, seemingly without understanding what's been discussed apart from from your own contributions as evidenced by the latest post above.

Let me be clear ... your idea that "If gas generation of leccy is held at neutral, or reduced, then the total gas consumption and peak demand will fall." is the fallacious assumption that we've be revolving around for days ... there's a difference between the peaks in annual energy (kWh) and the maximum power generation demand (kW) which gas generation capacity will need to be in place to meet demand when RE sources can't ... annual energy consumption can fall significantly without being able to reduce installed capacity, additionally, without investment in a strategic renewable energy storage solution, the current gas generation capacity will increase in line with the reduction in coal generation and the expansion of the EV sector ... the fact that much of the additional capacity will be idle for the majority of the time is just something that we need to accept during the main transition period, probably long after that too, however, there will be occasions when the full capabilities will be called on and some of these will involve extended periods, possibly months ... this is what I've been attempting to convey, first raising as the difference between the 'maximum annual' & 'maximum spot' peaks, yet I do note that the penny is starting to drop within the asterisked addition to the above post ...

*Perhaps, and based on previous remarks you've made, you mean the possibility of a wider margin of gap as leccy demand rises but all hell breaks loose on the RE front with a drop in everything at the same time. I accept that possibility, but again that's a gas generation capacity issue and I don't see how fracking influences that.

.. with the fracking influence you overlook being the opportunity to generate on a distributed basis at extraction point itself, thus replacing the need for separate (but limited!) strategic gas reserves storage, ensuring that gas that isn't used remains in the ground, and providing the ability to capture the energy normally wasted in any flaring activities for use in either increasing production or generation efficiency or to supply neighborhood heating schemes, thus reducing or eliminating any perceived emissions differentials between gas extraction sources.

Please do refrain from the urge to reply to this post until you've expended considerable time in reviewing & understanding the logic behind what you've been arguing against for the past few days as well as attempting to recognise the tangential injections, where they are, and their relevance ...

HTH
Z

michaels · 10 January 2019 at 9:39PM

Haven't had time to read it all but:

The govt comment re using the market to determine gas storage seems strange given that they pay for backup leccy generation capacity. Almost seems like the lights going off matters politically but gas prices spiking to the extent needed to secure supply from abroad is fine (plus this assumes that all other countries will play by the market rules and not embargo gas exports to protect their own citizens when it comes to the crunch - madness imho.

AFAIK no one has said fraking is the solution, just that we should do the research to find out if it could be a part of the solution or not.

Whilst UK fracked gas will not impact on global and hence local prices and so not alter the economic pressure to switch to renewables their is one economic circumstance where it could make a difference - that would be where the UK economy was constrained by a balance of payments crisis, not impossible considering we already run a trade deficit every year.

Martyn1981 · 11 January 2019 at 9:35AM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

May I respectfully request that you drop the ongoing 'victim' approach that's been employed a number of times recently and simply review the posts made in the entire exchange from ...

Hi. I'm not playing the victim, you seem to have been unusually aggressive from the start. I suspect that's because you didn't think I'd been taking your comments seriously, and I apologise for giving that impression. I do think this issue can raise a lot of emotion, and I do understand why you went as far as talking about grieving relatives as you believe in this possibility and the positives of fracking. But my disagreement with your position is my true belief, I'm not trying to be rude nor dismissive.

zeupater wrote: »

... where 'financial disaster' the 'creation' of reserves was raised, through the reasoning for mitigation and why local supply could be leveraged to assist in emissions reduction, through to today's post where you've effectively taken the discussion in a full circle, seemingly without understanding what's been discussed apart from from your own contributions as evidenced by the latest post above.

I'm sorry but I genuinely don't understand that paragraph. My claim of it being a financial disaster in the US related to the industry itself, which I understand lost money every year, though some articles last year suggested 2018 might be profitable, but I don't know if that's happened or not.

I'm not trying to go in circles, I've simply stuck to my belief that I don't think the industry will be viable in the UK. I totally accept that I could be completely wrong, but if UK costs are higher, and the gas price has fallen significantly since then, and may I add that the carbon tax should keep rising, then I honestly think it won't be viable - that's my opinion, I'm not ignoring your thoughts and comments.

zeupater wrote: »

Let me be clear ... your idea that "If gas generation of leccy is held at neutral, or reduced, then the total gas consumption and peak demand will fall." is the fallacious assumption that we've be revolving around for days ... there's a difference between the peaks in annual energy (kWh) and the maximum power generation demand (kW) which gas generation capacity will need to be in place to meet demand when RE sources can't ... annual energy consumption can fall significantly without being able to reduce installed capacity, additionally, without investment in a strategic renewable energy storage solution, the current gas generation capacity will increase in line with the reduction in coal generation and the expansion of the EV sector ... the fact that much of the additional capacity will be idle for the majority of the time is just something that we need to accept during the main transition period, probably long after that too, however, there will be occasions when the full capabilities will be called on and some of these will involve extended periods, possibly months ... this is what I've been attempting to convey, first raising as the difference between the 'maximum annual' & 'maximum spot' peaks, yet I do note that the penny is starting to drop within the asterisked addition to the above post ...

I still believe that total gas consumption will continue to fall, especially FF gas, but I concede that peak demand could go up, as noted in my additional comment yesterday. I'm sorry I missed that bit in earlier comments. I'm hopeful that with the addition of tidal generation, and an excess of off-shore wind generation, more interconnectors and even perhaps the somewhat controversial use of more bio-mass, that situation might not arise, but thinking about it more you are probably right. My main issue here was the link between capacity and fracking, but I get that idea now - see next section.

zeupater wrote: »

.. with the fracking influence you overlook being the opportunity to generate on a distributed basis at extraction point itself, thus replacing the need for separate (but limited!) strategic gas reserves storage, ensuring that gas that isn't used remains in the ground, and providing the ability to capture the energy normally wasted in any flaring activities for use in either increasing production or generation efficiency or to supply neighborhood heating schemes, thus reducing or eliminating any perceived emissions differentials between gas extraction sources.

Regarding local generation, yes I hadn't thought of that as a potential source of additional gas generation. But my understanding was that a large number of fracking wells are needed, and that new wells need to be created regularly as pressure drops, so I don't know how practical that solution is. It might be perfect and local wells (+ new local wells?) can supply a new generation plant for a decade or more, or there will be limitations on the size of the plant and its longevity. Do you have any more info on this as it's an interesting suggestion I hadn't come across before?

Is there any potential for smaller more mobile generation, or would efficiency work against this?

zeupater wrote: »

Please do refrain from the urge to reply to this post until you've expended considerable time in reviewing & understanding the logic behind what you've been arguing against for the past few days as well as attempting to recognise the tangential injections, where they are, and their relevance ...

HTH
Z

Just to be clear I wasn't criticisng the use of tangential injections, I was simply pointing out that you'd injected them, but then seemed to be having a go at me for them, which I found somewhat baffling:

zeupater wrote: »

I simply joined the discussion to help inject realism and research based on years of experience in the field of various forms of risk management & mitigation as opposed to preconceptions, but going around in circles and rebuffing forms of tangential obfuscation doesn't get anyone anywhere ...

So in one post you seem to be having a go at me for the tangents, then (when I defend myself) in the next you seem to have a go at me again for negativity towards them. This is quite funny, and hopefully we can both laugh this one off as simple confusion as the debate went on and got longer and we both replied back and for to different issues.

Regarding your request that I refrain from replying until ..... that again is an example of what I've suggested seems out of character and unnecessary. I am considering the matter, as much as I'm capable, but you seem to be implying that if I don't agree with you, or fully understand everything you are saying, that I'm at fault. I don't agree with the overall premise of UK fracking, and have, I believe, supported my position. That doesn't mean I'm right, nor you are wrong, it's just my current position on the matter.

Anyways, I think you have made some good points, and I hope that I've made some too. Clearly neither of us have found those arguments convincing enough to change our overall position but it has been an interesting discussion.

One thing that I think all of us who've commented seem to agree on is that frackgas won't reduce the cost of UK domestic gas. That's very important to me, because I feel that's how it was being 'sold' to the UK public when the idea was first promoted, and probably misled a lot of people. The suggestion of cheaper, possibly much cheaper gas is an understandably strong argument for many.

It's also clear (I think) that we can all see a balance of payments issue here. I'd like to think that other UK based solutions, as discussed previously, are a solution to this, particularly the LNG element, but appreciate it is a big issue especially as current UK gas production falls. Perhaps my hopes that we can stay ahead of the curve are optimistic, but they are genuine if UK policies make a strong enough effort.

I guess we will just have to see how things go, if other regions support or block fracking, and if the current fracking can overcome the seismic issues that keep halting work. It may be that the current fracking renders this debate mute through success or failure.

All the best.

Edit - Just to add, because you mentioned looking back to the start of this discussion, the point I've always made is a need to increase efforts on low carbon deployment as a counter to fracking, and that fracking could have a negative impact on such measures (the rate of deployment). That is what is being proposed, suggested in the article for the government

The combined authority’s proposals on fracking are part of a wider, more ambitious environmental plan. Manchester city council, one of its10 local authorities, has already agreed to the goal after accepting advice from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The wider region is expected to follow suit soon.

Cities such as Berlin, Boston, Copenhagen, London and New York have joined the the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80%-100% by 2050 or sooner.

The new policy will be announced on Monday as part of the Greater Manchester spatial framework, which sets out a strategic plan for the city region until 2037. Local leaders have agreed to include concerns about the impact of the exploitation of new sources of hydrocarbons. They believe that the government’s support of fracking means there is less of an imperative to invest in new zero-carbon technologies, slowing the speed at which these become financially viable and/or technically feasible.

Obviously a counter to the need for gas generation is crucial to an anti-fracking position.

zeupater · 11 January 2019 at 3:57PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hi. I'm not playing the victim, you seem to have been unusually aggressive from the start. I suspect that's because you didn't think I'd been taking your comments seriously, and I apologise for giving that impression. I do think this issue can raise a lot of emotion, and I do understand why you went as far as talking about grieving relatives as you believe in this possibility and the positives of fracking. But my disagreement with your position is my true belief, I'm not trying to be rude nor dismissive.

I'm sorry but I genuinely don't understand that paragraph. My claim of it being a financial disaster in the US related to the industry itself, which I understand lost money every year, though some articles last year suggested 2018 might be profitable, but I don't know if that's happened or not.

I'm not trying to go in circles, I've simply stuck to my belief that I don't think the industry will be viable in the UK. I totally accept that I could be completely wrong, but if UK costs are higher, and the gas price has fallen significantly since then, and may I add that the carbon tax should keep rising, then I honestly think it won't be viable - that's my opinion, I'm not ignoring your thoughts and comments.

I still believe that total gas consumption will continue to fall, especially FF gas, but I concede that peak demand could go up, as noted in my additional comment yesterday. I'm sorry I missed that bit in earlier comments. I'm hopeful that with the addition of tidal generation, and an excess of off-shore wind generation, more interconnectors and even perhaps the somewhat controversial use of more bio-mass, that situation might not arise, but thinking about it more you are probably right. My main issue here was the link between capacity and fracking, but I get that idea now - see next section.

Regarding local generation, yes I hadn't thought of that as a potential source of additional gas generation. But my understanding was that a large number of fracking wells are needed, and that new wells need to be created regularly as pressure drops, so I don't know how practical that solution is. It might be perfect and local wells (+ new local wells?) can supply a new generation plant for a decade or more, or there will be limitations on the size of the plant and its longevity. Do you have any more info on this as it's an interesting suggestion I hadn't come across before?

Is there any potential for smaller more mobile generation, or would efficiency work against this?

Just to be clear I wasn't criticisng the use of tangential injections, I was simply pointing out that you'd injected them, but then seemed to be having a go at me for them, which I found somewhat baffling:

So in one post you seem to be having a go at me for the tangents, then (when I defend myself) in the next you seem to have a go at me again for negativity towards them. This is quite funny, and hopefully we can both laugh this one off as simple confusion as the debate went on and got longer and we both replied back and for to different issues.

Regarding your request that I refrain from replying until ..... that again is an example of what I've suggested seems out of character and unnecessary. I am considering the matter, as much as I'm capable, but you seem to be implying that if I don't agree with you, or fully understand everything you are saying, that I'm at fault. I don't agree with the overall premise of UK fracking, and have, I believe, supported my position. That doesn't mean I'm right, nor you are wrong, it's just my current position on the matter.

Anyways, I think you have made some good points, and I hope that I've made some too. Clearly neither of us have found those arguments convincing enough to change our overall position but it has been an interesting discussion.

One thing that I think all of us who've commented seem to agree on is that frackgas won't reduce the cost of UK domestic gas. That's very important to me, because I feel that's how it was being 'sold' to the UK public when the idea was first promoted, and probably misled a lot of people. The suggestion of cheaper, possibly much cheaper gas is an understandably strong argument for many.

It's also clear (I think) that we can all see a balance of payments issue here. I'd like to think that other UK based solutions, as discussed previously, are a solution to this, particularly the LNG element, but appreciate it is a big issue especially as current UK gas production falls. Perhaps my hopes that we can stay ahead of the curve are optimistic, but they are genuine if UK policies make a strong enough effort.

I guess we will just have to see how things go, if other regions support or block fracking, and if the current fracking can overcome the seismic issues that keep halting work. It may be that the current fracking renders this debate mute through success or failure.

All the best.

Edit - Just to add, because you mentioned looking back to the start of this discussion, the point I've always made is a need to increase efforts on low carbon deployment as a counter to fracking, and that fracking could have a negative impact on such measures (the rate of deployment). That is what is being proposed, suggested in the article for the government

Obviously a counter to the need for gas generation is crucial to an anti-fracking position.

Hi

Regarding 'playing the victim' .. it certainly looks like it when you review the posts .,. 'attack', 'unfair', 'aggressive' .,. all seemingly used to personalise the discussion, as is the continual attempt to personalise the term 'nimbyism' each time it's been used.

Regarding grieving relatives ... You must understand that in the context of where it was used it is the outcome of failure to mitigate and is a component part of risk analysis. The two components of risk analysis are likelihood and impact and the management strategy depends on the severity of each, from acceptance through to lowering one or both, so where the impact severity involves death it must be considered as extremely important ... this is why it was raised - in a scenario where energy supply is highly restricted or unavailable there's a high probability of death, particularly amongst the elderly/vulnerable & anything that increases the probability of supply issues has to be highlighted for mitigation, which in the scenario in discussion can only realistically be addressed through reducing the likelihood as opposed to outcome. For any government or individual to intentionally ignore this would be akin to being criminally remiss, so there's no argument & mitigation measures must be investigated, which obviously includes local gas reserve exploration - and that's what the government are trying to do!

Regarding the USA experience on shale gas ... The argument raised is that extraction is so expensive that it's been catastrophic failure, yet elsewhere there's agreement that the product is remarkably cheap, so the reasonable conclusion is that much of the potential margin is restricted by transportation infrastructure in a vast country where centres of demand may not correlate to point of supply ... However, the initial predicted reserves within the UK seem to be in a band encompassing many of the centres of demand from England's north Midlands to north of the Liverpool/Leeds conurbations, so probably completely different. As previously mentioned, unless someone is allowed to explore the potential, then no-one can comment in any way with any supportable authority.

On circles ... Having had the questionable açcuracy of relative carbon emissions (that's NG vs fracked) raised and the issue that no-one can make accurate assessments until exploration has occurred on numerous occasions, the circle was closed by repeating the very same preconceived carbon emissions as used at the beginning.

Regarding gas consumption continuing to fall ... It will continue in the UK, but the fall is unlikely to be linear as you expect, it's far more likely to spike as EV take-up accelerates and the benefits of lower carbon heating sources have yet to be banked ... the reduction will move away from the year-on-year incremental improvements which we've seen and towards various troughs & spikes whilst transitioning, so obviously towards a time where trend analysis or multi-year averaging becomes a more valid tracking approach .... However, as continually raised, the issue is supply mitigation, not annual energy usage. It's not the annual consumption that we're discussing, it's the potential for lack of gas generation resources or availability of fuel to run them to have dire consequences throughout the transition period & how the risk or impact can be mitigated over that entire period with a reasonable amount of confidence that the solution is robust in all scenarios.

Regarding local generation, extraction pressure, reserves etc ... The fact is that nobody knows because of the opposition to investigate. The very fact that you're opposed to looking means that you're opposed to finding the answers to the questions you pose ... we simply can't do anything but guess based on experiences in areas of the world where conditions & relative locality may be completely different.

Regarding mobile generation ... Units certainly exit & are readily available, but what would really be required would be modular solutions that could be relocated over a period of months as opposed to the days that typical mobile solutions need .. but again, the specification can only be discussed after exploration has been allowed to happen!

On tangents ... Again, here we go off on a diversion ... when we're discussing NG vs localised UK fracked reserves relative carbon emissions then LPG, LNG, coal, USA, Australia etc are injected into the conversation, all of which are irrelevant because the only valid comparison is NG vs unexplored reserves within the UK ... the core of the discussion revolves around the unwillingness of various groups to allow exploration here on the grounds that are unprovable, most of the members of which are content to exploit reserves from elsewhere on a daily basis ... if this is not considered nimbyism then I'd find it hard to understand how anything else could be!

Regarding taking time to reassess, read, understand etc before starting to reply .... from what you've posted in this discussion there's plenty of evidence & even acceptance that it's not been done .. for example, replying negatively to a long post after reading a pretty detailed attachment and doing so within 4minutes then, after this was highlighted, going on to post acceptance that you read the attachment later, before raising the closed issue as a perceived personal attack on multiple occasions and going on to claim that the attachment had been read at the time ..... If the appropriate effort had been expended resulting in an understanding of what was conveyed beforehand, then this ridiculous set of exchanges would not have been necessary .. from later posts it's clear that some pennies have dropped, all that's necessary now is to consider what else all of the other posts really contain without resorting to the need to immediately construct replies ...

Regarding the edit ... Yes, we all want low carbon energy sources, it's the transition to those sources and the mitigation of risk that's in discussion & therein lies a crucial consideration ... mismanagement of the transition risks provides a far greater worry in terms of impact, support & timescales than the possibility of a little more CO2 being released into the environment by using gas from a different source ... in this respect it's the maintenance or reduction of the transition timeline on both a UK & global basis that's more important and it's inevitable that this will lead to global competition for resources by individual nations ... yes we're an island, but we need to consider what is likely to happen elsewhere and how it would impact our own plan!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 · 11 January 2019 at 7:27PM

[Any comments trimmed down are to save space, not to misrepresent.]

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Regarding 'playing the victim' .. it certainly looks like it when you review the posts .,. 'attack', 'unfair', 'aggressive' .,. all seemingly used to personalise the discussion, as is the continual attempt to personalise the term 'nimbyism' each time it's been used.

Hiya. Again, I'm not playing the victim, I'm simply asking you to be less rude and personal. I'm using the words because your tactics here smack of playing the man not the ball. This is not your usual approach to discussions and I simply don't know why this issue, or my discussion points have caused such aggressive responses. Honest Z, I'm not trying to be difficult, I think there have simply been some misunderstandings that provoked your ire.

I think the use of nimbyism here is both unwarranted and overused. My reasons for opposing fracking are not based on nimbyism, and whilst some objectors may be, I think your repeated use of the term is unreasonable. Genuine concerns about FF reserves, pollution, miss-direction of energy/expense etc are not nimbyism.

I don't know how we got here, but I really don't want to argue. I have an opinion, it differs from yours. I may be right I may be wrong, but we can still have a friendly chat on the matter. In fact the temperature seems to have dropped already (I hope).

zeupater wrote: »

For any government or individual to intentionally ignore this would be akin to being criminally remiss, so there's no argument & mitigation measures must be investigated, which obviously includes local gas reserve exploration - and that's what the government are trying to do!

I agree that all measures must be considered, and investigated (to a degree). However, I don't agree that means that exploration and extraction has to take place if, and this has been my position from the start, alternative measures are employed instead.

I hope that makes sense, and this is my belief even if fracking was successful, as I feel that will be seized upon as a way to take the foot of the 'gas' pedal.

It's really important that you accept that that is where I'm coming from, and where most of my fears regarding fracking stem from. I assume you have noted it, and understand that whilst you may think I'm being too optimistic, I don't (rightly or wrongly). I think this is a good and strong argument, but accept you may disagree with it, and it may wrong.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding the USA experience on shale gas ... The argument raised is that extraction is so expensive that it's been catastrophic failure, yet elsewhere there's agreement that the product is remarkably cheap, so the reasonable conclusion is that much of the potential margin is restricted by transportation infrastructure in a vast country where centres of demand may not correlate to point of supply ... However, the initial predicted reserves within the UK seem to be in a band encompassing many of the centres of demand from England's north Midlands to north of the Liverpool/Leeds conurbations, so probably completely different. As previously mentioned, unless someone is allowed to explore the potential, then no-one can comment in any way with any supportable authority.

I can only go by the articles I read, and the reduction in UK (Europe) gas prices, combined with tougher shale conditions suggests to me that being economic will be hard. But of course I don't know, I'm just backing up my position that even if successful I think fracking is a bad idea, so the risk of failure could act as a delay on RE action, a bit like nuclear 'exploration' has diverted government attention.

BTW - there have been rumours that Hitachi is to officially pull out of Wylfa, which have pushed up its share price today.

zeupater wrote: »

On circles ... Having had the questionable açcuracy of relative carbon emissions (that's NG vs fracked) raised and the issue that no-one can make accurate assessments until exploration has occurred on numerous occasions, the circle was closed by repeating the very same preconceived carbon emissions as used at the beginning.

Yes, I've stuck to my guns, I'm not sure what I'm missing. I'm not trying to be difficult, though clearly I'm annoying you. [At this point I'm starting to see the funny side, and I deeply hope you can too. Please have a laugh, I think this is all down to some confusion (lost in translation)]

So back to the link, I'm looking at conventional gas GHG's around 410-440(ish) and shale estimates at around 420-540(ish) is that what we are both talking about? I hope I haven't been using the wrong numbers. Obviously LNG and coal is much higher, no issue there.

So, just based on that, it looks like fracking is worse. If you are suggesting we don't know the actual figures till we investigate, then I agree. But if the odds start of against shale gas GHG levels, and I personally think economically successful shale is a bad thing, then hopefully you can see where I've been coming from, from the start.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding gas consumption continuing to fall ... It will continue in the UK, but the fall is unlikely to be linear as you expect, it's far more likely to spike as EV take-up accelerates and the benefits of lower carbon heating sources have yet to be banked ... the reduction will move away from the year-on-year incremental improvements which we've seen and towards various troughs & spikes whilst transitioning, so obviously towards a time where trend analysis or multi-year averaging becomes a more valid tracking approach .... However, as continually raised, the issue is supply mitigation, not annual energy usage. It's not the annual consumption that we're discussing, it's the potential for lack of gas generation resources or availability of fuel to run them to have dire consequences throughout the transition period & how the risk or impact can be mitigated over that entire period with a reasonable amount of confidence that the solution is robust in all scenarios.

Just to be clear, I don't think gas consumption will fall in a linear fashion, I didn't intend to imply that, I think it will continue to fall as a trend, as it has. The last few years have spiked a bit as we accelerated coal reduction, but the trend still looks good.

As explained before, I think RE generation can outpace any additional demand from EV's* and leccy space heating. But if we do need to burn more gas for generation for heat pumps, I'd have thought this extra would be less than the corresponding savings from a shift away from GCH gas consumption.

*Earlier I suggested 20%+ for car EV's, and 10%+ net after reduced refinery leccy consumption, that's for all cars as all EV's. Let's say that the rollout speeds up, as you know I really hope so, but is a realistic figure +10% of sales each year?

If you agree then we have 10% this year, 20% next year etc to 100% in 10yrs time of new sales. So in 10yrs we have 550%, or 5.5yrs of EV's, so about 1/3 to 1/2 of cars on the road if all of them survive. So that's an increase in leccy demand of about 5% over 10yrs, but we've been managing nearly +3% pa from RE this last decade. Of course we have to add in other transport, but the margin here is very large, perhaps 6x domestic EV's.

That's why I believe RE deployment can outpace additional leccy demand, and thus maintain a reduction of gas consumption (for the leccy part). If we are falling behind then Re rollout can be accelerated, we are not going flat out.

Please don't think I'm quibbling over annual fluctuations, but I don't think there will be a spike in demand. But just to be fair, the government did say/suggest that after this years CfD auction, there may not be any subsidy pot available till 2025 - in which case my future projections become BS.:o

Regarding security of supply, I agree that it's top priority, but I have suggested alternatives to frackgas previously. We may disagree on the source of the gas, but I think we agree completely on the importance of this issue.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding local generation, extraction pressure, reserves etc ... The fact is that nobody knows because of the opposition to investigate. The very fact that you're opposed to looking means that you're opposed to finding the answers to the questions you pose ... we simply can't do anything but guess based on experiences in areas of the world where conditions & relative locality may be completely different.

Actually it was more my surprise at the idea of locating generation near the shale gas as I thought they had a short life expectancy, perhaps 2yrs, whereas gas capacity would need several decades to recoup costs. I've since done some more trawling, but I get a massive range of figures from the anti-fracking side of around 1-3yrs for commercial gas production from wells, to the pro-fracking side that they can produce energy for 20yrs. Different terminologies, always fun.

At this point you will probably have a chuckle at me, that we won't know till we try, but then I'm back to wanting a non FF gas alternative ... more circles, sorry.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding mobile generation ... Units certainly exit & are readily available, but what would really be required would be modular solutions that could be relocated over a period of months as opposed to the days that typical mobile solutions need .. but again, the specification can only be discussed after exploration has been allowed to happen!

Don't take offence, but wouldn't there be an issue of efficiency here v's the big plants. Any reduction in efficiency would impact the CO2e element.

zeupater wrote: »

On tangents ... Again, here we go off on a diversion ... when we're discussing NG vs localised UK fracked reserves relative carbon emissions then LPG, LNG, coal, USA, Australia etc are injected into the conversation, all of which are irrelevant because the only valid comparison is NG vs unexplored reserves within the UK ... the core of the discussion revolves around the unwillingness of various groups to allow exploration here on the grounds that are unprovable, most of the members of which are content to exploit reserves from elsewhere on a daily basis ... if this is not considered nimbyism then I'd find it hard to understand how anything else could be!

Conversely, my raising of multiple issues regarding fracking, in multiple countries, shows that I'm trying to consider the whole picture, and provide fuller responses and justifications for my position on this issue. You are right that to be fully informed I need UK frack data, but we are getting that slowly - and back to my concerns about diverting efforts if fracking is successful.

I agree that those that object to local fracking or UK fracking whilst blindly accepting frackgas from elsewhere are displaying a NIMBY attitude, but that's not been my position as I've consistently argued against national and international frackgas.

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding taking time to reassess, read, understand etc before starting to reply .... from what you've posted in this discussion there's plenty of evidence & even acceptance that it's not been done .. for example, replying negatively to a long post after reading a pretty detailed attachment and doing so within 4minutes then, after this was highlighted, going on to post acceptance that you read the attachment later, before raising the closed issue as a perceived personal attack on multiple occasions and going on to claim that the attachment had been read at the time ..... If the appropriate effort had been expended resulting in an understanding of what was conveyed beforehand, then this ridiculous set of exchanges would not have been necessary .. from later posts it's clear that some pennies have dropped, all that's necessary now is to consider what else all of the other posts really contain without resorting to the need to immediately construct replies ...

Just to repeat, I didn't read the attachment in the 4mins. I accept that I was quick, must have been in the zone.

And I didn't post acceptance that I read the link later, I explained this fact to you. I was honestly shocked that you took such an aggressive tone with me, rather than giving me the benefit of the doubt. That's why I've simply pointed out that some of your responses on this issue have been a little out of character - normally you wouldn't have missed the edit/time issue, and therefore wouldn't have responded thus to me. I hope I can regain the benefit of the doubt.

And I apologise again if I'm not understanding all your points fully, but I am trying.

From my side, you appear to be unmoved by any anti-fracking arguments. Again, now, I'm starting to see the funny side of this, as I may have been seeing 'stubborn' where actually you just have very strong feelings, a bit like me. Perhaps we are too similar (no insult intended).

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding the edit ... Yes, we all want low carbon energy sources, it's the transition to those sources and the mitigation of risk that's in discussion & therein lies a crucial consideration ... mismanagement of the transition risks provides a far greater worry in terms of impact, support & timescales than the possibility of a little more CO2 being released into the environment by using gas from a different source ... in this respect it's the maintenance or reduction of the transition timeline on both a UK & global basis that's more important and it's inevitable that this will lead to global competition for resources by individual nations ... yes we're an island, but we need to consider what is likely to happen elsewhere and how it would impact our own plan!

HTH
Z

Yep, we definitely see eye to eye on the longer term aims. I think it boils down to you seeing more risk if we ignore one of the options, and my fear that that option might lead us astray.

If that last paragraph is correct and fair, then we really aren't arguing over much at all, and at the end of the day, whilst I believe in people power, just the two of us, don't really matter ..... so to speak.

Can we just laugh off the disagreements now? I hope you can see the funny side of this discussion going 'somewhat' awry? :rotfl:

Martyn1981 · 11 January 2019 at 7:35PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

BTW - there have been rumours that Hitachi is to officially pull out of Wylfa, which have pushed up its share price today.

Waffling on for too long, I missed the breaking news:

Hitachi set to cancel plans for £16bn nuclear power station in Wales

Withdrawal by Hitachi would be a major blow to the UK’s plans to replace dirty coal and ageing reactors with new nuclear power plants, and heap pressure on ministers to consider other large-scale alternatives such as offshore windfarms.

Nuclear critics said a collapse of the scheme was not a disaster but an opportunity for a policy shift. Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said: “We could have locked ourselves into reliance on an obsolete, unaffordable technology, but we’ve been given the chance to think again and make a better decision.”

Sara Medi Jones, acting secretary general of CND, said: “With offshore wind now cheaper than nuclear it’s clear there is a clean and workable alternative. We just need the political will to make it happen.”

zeupater · 11 January 2019 at 8:25PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... If that last paragraph is correct and fair, then we really aren't arguing over much at all, and at the end of the day, whilst I believe in people power, just the two of us, don't really matter .....

Hi

I'm not going to play the circles game, you can win in your own mind if you want to, even if it means that the risk you're willing to accept is so dire ....

What's brought me to this conclusion is the above referenced excerpt, the result of which is that the difference between risk mitigation and 'people power' is effectively irrelevant, other than the potential for the avoidable death of a considerable number of people alongside levels of economic chaos that would eclipse the worst imaginable result of brexit, but as you say, 'we aren't arguing over much at all' really .... I'd rather employ decades of experience to identify & manage risk, but then again, I've come across those that have simply kept their fingers crossed & been lucky in the short term ... if the required mitigation measures aren't employed let's all just hope that we're blessed with plenty of luck and everyone else respects our strategy & treats us nicely f it runs out!

HTH
Z

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free