Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jun 15, 7:25 AM
    • 8,166Posts
    • 12,862Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 15, 7:25 AM
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9th Jun 15 at 7:25 AM
    MSE Insert:

    We've seen some debate on this thread about the relevance of some posts to the topic.

    To ensure the thread remains on topic for forumites wanting to discuss the latest news we're asking that all posts contain a link to the news you're discussing.

    For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks.

    Back to Martyn1981's original post.

    ---

    I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for posting general news items that may be of interest.

    PV and the 'Solar in the news' thread attract a lot of interest, so here's a thread for all the other goings on.

    Mart.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 09-10-2018 at 10:41 AM.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Page 90
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jan 19, 6:51 AM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    You're right that we can't assume that bio-gas or leccy storage can be delivered as hoped, but your concerns there mirror mine over fracking which is also not guaranteed, and may fail.

    So we share the same concerns if you think about it, but the RE route is one we have to take anyway as gas is not a long term solution since the CO2 is too high to meet our targets.

    So why gamble on fracking when we have to develop the RE alternatives anyway. [Edit - and my main concerns are that it will act as a diversion to slow down the UK's move away from FF consumption, and improve efficiencies/insulation. M.]

    We also need to look at primary and final energy consumption. The 50% of leccy coming from gas is at about 50% efficiency, so by rolling out more RE we can displace about 2kWh's of gas with 1kWh of RE generation.

    I'd hope that better building standards going forward, and a real drive towards better insulation such as EWI on older properties could half domestic space heating needs from gas*, and then taking boiler v's heat pump efficiencies into account, reduce them by a further factor of 4, so one additional kWh of RE generation replacing 8kWh's of gas today.

    [*Not all heating comes from central heating, some comes from solar gain, leccy use, DHW, cooking, body heat (humans and pets), so the % reduction in gas consumption for heating should be higher than the % reduction in heat loss.]

    I'm not that concerned about the EV transition as that will take quite a bit of time and there is no problem in producing more leccy to meet more demand, the UK's RE potential is not restricted by scale, we can roll out more and faster if we want, especially if market forces push us in that direction. I think the electrification of cars will add a gross figure of 20% to leccy demand, about 10% net after refinery savings - [Of course there will be much more again with other transport.] - but that figure will take 20+ years to arrive as we first need to get EV sales up from sub 5% to 50%+ of annual sales, and then the 10-20yrs for the existing ICE stock to 'retire'.

    Also, as we've seen now for a decade, the % of leccy generation from FF's has been dropping each year. I appreciate that those years won't reflect a large increase in EV's and heat pumps, but they are still in there, and as mentioned earlier, we can increase the rate of RE generation deployment if so wish.

    But more importantly, as raised in my previous post, you seemed to be working against a rising UK gas consumption, whilst I was basing my thoughts on a falling demand. In a rising scenario I would have to concede to your argument that we need to consider a source of additional gas production, but it looks to me that UK gas consumption peaked last decade.

    I do think the issue of UK gas consumption is really important to this discussion.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 09-01-2019 at 7:05 AM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Coastalwatch
    • By Coastalwatch 9th Jan 19, 11:33 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 1,762 Thanks
    Coastalwatch
    I do think the issue of UK gas consumption is really important to this discussion.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Thanks guys, I've been following this well balanced discussion, understanding both points of view as each appears, experiencing various levels of emotion from optimism to down right depression as each new post arrives.
    I've not drawn any conclusion or favour one side over the other however something that has lifted my spirits is our own experience of renewable energy over the last year and well documented in other threads.

    We are in transistion from a postion of using no renewable energy whatsoever to possibly being able to furnish all our energy needs, that is heating, lighting, hot water and 8k miles of EV travel solely from that generated by the PV array on our roof. OK, so it's not balanced at any given time but the total output is there. Once complete we shall have no need for FF of any kind.

    The point is if we can achieve this then surely it demonstrates that others can also and eventually the whole country, thus the demand for gas can reduce as progression takes place. Does it also show that the transfer to EV's from ICE vehicles needn't neccessarily increase stress on the Grid?
    I accept that we are fortunate in having a roof space large enough and southish facing but with the technological progress being made with solar panel design/output then in a few years a roof space of perhaps only 50% the size of ours could generate a similar amount of PV.
    So domestically it's possible to generate all the energy requiried to run a house and EV without resorting to burn any form of FF. That doesn't solve the problem for industry but, to some degree, they appear to be sorting this themselves through the various Power Purchase arrangements disclosed recently.
    Afraid I can't offer any consolation with regard to commercial transportation, so a huge question mark over how that might be achieved?
    I'm not sure anyone will understand my drivel or agree with any of it but I at least feel a little more optimistic for having put it down in black and white.
    Do feel free to point out any flaws which exist in the above passage!
    East coast, lat 51.97. 8.26kw SSE, 23 pitch + 0.59kw WSW vertical. Nissan Leaf plus one dirty diesel. Still waiting for V2H and home storage to become available at sensible cost.
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 9th Jan 19, 12:41 PM
    • 2,994 Posts
    • 1,320 Thanks
    NigeWick
    What doesn't change is that gas will be the fallback energy source for electricity and the prime source for domestic heating for decades to come, yes total annual consumption will fall first as efficiencies improve, but the total installed generation capacity will need to remain high to cope with peaks in times of low renewables supply ... effectively, the position we're in dictates that we'll be 'burning stuff' for a while yet!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    I do hope your analysis is wrong and that HMGov get a grip with making building insulation and power use regulations more strict. I shan't hold my breath though.

    I have to ask, how long will North Sea gas last? If it's 20 years, we could buy it off Norway and start on heat pump installation now. I just detest the idea of fracking with its possibilities of earthquakes and poisoning our aquifers. I admit these concerns may be unwarranted but I'd rather be safe now than make my children and grandchildren sorry.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 9th Jan 19, 1:08 PM
    • 2,994 Posts
    • 1,320 Thanks
    NigeWick
    you simply can't assume that renewable energy generation can be balanced by any storage other than massive builds of centralised strategic pumped hydro because of the length of periods of generation lulls and you can't assume that biogas resources can be developed & delivered within the required timescales ....


    As we know, we're knocking on the door of a rapid transition to EVs

    it'll require additional generation capacity which will impact on both total gas consumption and peak gas supply as a backup to RE
    Originally posted by zeupater
    If we believe Tony Seba, it is only a few years until home solar and battery storage are cheaper than the cost of electricity transmission. If every new build has solar & battery we will be a long way on the route to having a resilient supply. I do believe that we will have 100% national renewables. Large scale centralised storage will come too, in the form of multi MWh batteries, pumped hydro and other systems.

    BEVs can be part of the solution due to V2G coming on line. If parked at home, discharge at peak times and charge overnight which will even out generation.

    A generation is 20 years and I suspect if the political will were there, we could get there earlier.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 9th Jan 19, 1:31 PM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    You're right that we can't assume that bio-gas or leccy storage can be delivered as hoped, but your concerns there mirror mine over fracking which is also not guaranteed, and may fail.

    So we share the same concerns if you think about it, but the RE route is one we have to take anyway as gas is not a long term solution since the CO2 is too high to meet our targets.

    So why gamble on fracking when we have to develop the RE alternatives anyway. [Edit - and my main concerns are that it will act as a diversion to slow down the UK's move away from FF consumption, and improve efficiencies/insulation. M.]

    We also need to look at primary and final energy consumption. The 50% of leccy coming from gas is at about 50% efficiency, so by rolling out more RE we can displace about 2kWh's of gas with 1kWh of RE generation.

    I'd hope that better building standards going forward, and a real drive towards better insulation such as EWI on older properties could half domestic space heating needs from gas*, and then taking boiler v's heat pump efficiencies into account, reduce them by a further factor of 4, so one additional kWh of RE generation replacing 8kWh's of gas today.

    [*Not all heating comes from central heating, some comes from solar gain, leccy use, DHW, cooking, body heat (humans and pets), so the % reduction in gas consumption for heating should be higher than the % reduction in heat loss.]

    I'm not that concerned about the EV transition as that will take quite a bit of time and there is no problem in producing more leccy to meet more demand, the UK's RE potential is not restricted by scale, we can roll out more and faster if we want, especially if market forces push us in that direction. I think the electrification of cars will add a gross figure of 20% to leccy demand, about 10% net after refinery savings - [Of course there will be much more again with other transport.] - but that figure will take 20+ years to arrive as we first need to get EV sales up from sub 5% to 50%+ of annual sales, and then the 10-20yrs for the existing ICE stock to 'retire'.

    Also, as we've seen now for a decade, the % of leccy generation from FF's has been dropping each year. I appreciate that those years won't reflect a large increase in EV's and heat pumps, but they are still in there, and as mentioned earlier, we can increase the rate of RE generation deployment if so wish.

    But more importantly, as raised in my previous post, you seemed to be working against a rising UK gas consumption, whilst I was basing my thoughts on a falling demand. In a rising scenario I would have to concede to your argument that we need to consider a source of additional gas production, but it looks to me that UK gas consumption peaked last decade.

    I do think the issue of UK gas consumption is really important to this discussion.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hi

    The issue is that your default position is that because we don't actually know if the quality and quantity of gas derived from fracking we shouldn't look to find out, that the global demand for gas supply along with it's peak production is directly related to the UK experience and future expectations, that there'll be no international competition to purchase from producers, that transition from oil & coal to renewables won't impact on gas as both an intermediate form of 'cleaner' generation and a longer term backup electricity supply source on a global basis, overlooking the reality that wherever the gas comes from it needs to be extracted, missing the point that pressure to leverage gas generation plant capacity is inevitable as long as the plant exists regardless of gas source, insisting that exploring gas reserves is a gamble where it simply provides the possibility of alternative sources without impacting the RE transition timeline ... and probably most importantly .. ignoring the positive impact of successful development of UK reserves through the economic multiplier effect of keeping money in the country which would otherwise be going overseas ... this in itself could go a long way towards financing further decarbonisation.

    It's not rocket science, it's really basic stuff ... if we're going to use gas then that gas needs to be extracted from a source developed somewhere, so in not exploring & developing UK reserves doesn't leave any more fossil fuels underground on a global scale, just on a local one - the problem is that as climate change & emissions reductions need to be considered on a global scale, the argument to not explore & utilise local reserves (if practical) can only realistically be considered as nimbyism or idealistism.

    Finally, the important issue in this discussion isn't 'UK gas consumption', it's the ability for gas fired plant to generate electricity at a level which is effectively guaranteed to meet a realistic maximum renewable energy supply shortfall when demand is high -and- with fuel reserves guaranteed to meet the longest foreseeable timespan of that shortfall -and- with logistics in place to ensure that the fuel reserves can be replenished quickly at short notice ... lots of complexity based on averaging and multi-year peak event gambling here with a simple solution if we can develop local reserves and look to generate electricity close to source, addressing supply, logistics, storage and strategic issues all in one solution, so why not even consider the option that best mitigates risk?

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 09-01-2019 at 1:38 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 9th Jan 19, 2:26 PM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    If we believe Tony Seba, it is only a few years until home solar and battery storage are cheaper than the cost of electricity transmission. If every new build has solar & battery we will be a long way on the route to having a resilient supply. I do believe that we will have 100% national renewables. Large scale centralised storage will come too, in the form of multi MWh batteries, pumped hydro and other systems.

    BEVs can be part of the solution due to V2G coming on line. If parked at home, discharge at peak times and charge overnight which will even out generation.

    A generation is 20 years and I suspect if the political will were there, we could get there earlier.
    Originally posted by NigeWick
    Hi

    Agreed, however .... In December we experienced a period of around 10 consecutive days with pretty poor wind generation and solar was, as expected, abysmal & so far this month we've already had a run of 6 poor days too! ... so in a scenario where resilience is provided by domestic batteries and V2G, but both transport & heating relies on their storage, what capacity would the average household need to provide any form of supply guarantee for this kind of shortfall? .... 100kWh - 200kWh? - more? ... and what happens when demand is high, but a good proportion of EVs are on the road consuming energy as opposed to supplying it?

    I agree that storage provided by V2G & domestic batteries will help shift demand between hours and act as a smoothing mechanism for the grid, but the issue is that this cannot compensate for a renewable energy shortfall lasting days or even weeks .... you're really left with needing massive investment in centralised strategic storage, so with all of the potential nimbyism that would attract it's unlikely that would be delivered quickly, leaving the requirement for an interim solution, a good proportion of which is already in place - gas generation .... all we're really considering is where the fossil fuel should be extracted from, but this needs to be done whilst recognising that there's a considerable amount of hype employed around the prospect of local extraction.

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 09-01-2019 at 7:32 PM. Reason: +poor
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jan 19, 2:38 PM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

    The issue is that your default position is that because we don't actually know if the quality and quantity of gas derived from fracking we shouldn't look to find out, that the global demand for gas supply along with it's peak production is directly related to the UK experience and future expectations, that there'll be no international competition to purchase from producers, that transition from oil & coal to renewables won't impact on gas as both an intermediate form of 'cleaner' generation and a longer term backup electricity supply source on a global basis, overlooking the reality that wherever the gas comes from it needs to be extracted, missing the point that pressure to leverage gas generation plant capacity is inevitable as long as the plant exists regardless of gas source, insisting that exploring gas reserves is a gamble where it simply provides the possibility of alternative sources without impacting the RE transition timeline ... and probably most importantly .. ignoring the positive impact of successful development of UK reserves through the economic multiplier effect of keeping money in the country which would otherwise be going overseas ... this in itself could go a long way towards financing further decarbonisation.

    It's not rocket science, it's really basic stuff ... if we're going to use gas then that gas needs to be extracted from a source developed somewhere, so in not exploring & developing UK reserves doesn't leave any more fossil fuels underground on a global scale, just on a local one - the problem is that as climate change & emissions reductions need to be considered on a global scale, the argument to not explore & utilise local reserves (if practical) can only realistically be considered as nimbyism or idealistism.

    Finally, the important issue in this discussion isn't 'UK gas consumption', it's the ability for gas fired plant to generate electricity at a level which is effectively guaranteed to meet a realistic maximum renewable energy supply shortfall when demand is high -and- with fuel reserves guaranteed to meet the longest foreseeable timespan of that shortfall -and- with logistics in place to ensure that the fuel reserves can be replenished quickly at short notice ... lots of complexity based on averaging and multi-year peak event gambling here with a simple solution if we can develop local reserves and look to generate electricity close to source, addressing supply, logistics, storage and strategic issues all in one solution, so why not even consider the option that best mitigates risk?

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    I don't believe your comments truly nor fairly reflect my attempts to explain my position.

    1. I've clearly stated that I think fracking is a gamble, but also clearly explained that I don't think the gamble is worth it, even if successful, since that will reduce the pressure on us to move away from nat-gas as fast as possible.

    I've also tried hard to point out that we have to move away from nat-gas anyway, regardless of the success or otherwise of fracking, since the CO2 emissions from nat-gas, whilst lower than coal, are still too high to allow us to meet the 80%+ reductions targets.

    2. I have to disagree with your comments about UK and international FF reserves. We already know that the vast majority (about 80%) of known reserves can never be tapped, or the planet's CO2 budget will be breached. Therefore the UK opening up new reserves (or any other country) puts greater pressure on the total. Again, this issue depends upon my multiple references to the need to reduce nat-gas consumption as quickly as possible, something which I believe will suffer if the UK develops its own additional gas industry. So globally, more gas will be burnt, because one country, the UK, won't have reduced its consumption as much as it otherwise would have.

    I don't believe your accusations of NIMBYism are warranted since I don't want to buy the gas from abroad instead of the UK, I want to not buy the gas by reducing the need for the gas.

    3. Again, I'm sorry, and I'm trying so hard (in all my posts if you refer back) to de-escalate this issue, but you previously clearly made an issue of UK gas consumption and it increasing. You referred to peaks, and RE only reducing the increase in gas consumption. I keep trying to respond to what you are raising, but you then seem to change the narrative if I challenge the basis on which you have raised an issue, which is not like you.

    I'm sorry, but I think gas consumption is falling, and that's a significant factor in my position, as we are demonstrating that we can get by with less, so let's do more of that.

    I appreciate your raising the issue of gas generation capacity, but that's not what we were talking about earlier, and you seem to have changed direction. Regarding generation, we already have about 20GW of capacity. That might be enough, or it might not be enough, but more gas generation capacity does not mean we need to burn more gas in total. Something we've discussed for years, and seems to be getting more likely is the possibility of storing RE excess that is above and beyond battery capacity, as gas. Possibly hydrogen, or methane, or just compressed or liquid air. These forms of storage would be used to provide additional leccy supply when needed, either via fuel cells, gas generation plants (as gas), gas generation plants (as compressed air for increased efficiency), or just as compressed air/turbines.


    so why not even consider the option that best mitigates risk?

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Again, I don't think you are being fair to me. I have considered it, I've gone to great lengths to discuss the issue and to give my counter views. To suggest I haven't even considered it is unfair.

    Also, and this is quite important, I don't accept that fracking is the option that best mitigates risk. You might be right, and it might be, but throughout this discussion you have stated this (or similar) as being a pre-determined fact, and I don't understand why, nor on what basis you can make that claim.

    I appreciate your time concerns, but using your excellent method of testing an idea to the extreme, by far the best way to mitigate the risks surrounding the use of FF gas is to reduce and end the use of FF gas, and every step in that direction will also act as a timely risk reduction.


    Look, I don't want to fall out on this issue, and in previous comments have tried hard to get us back to a chatty basis. If this is an issue that causes us both to have/express strong feelings, then perhaps it's best left alone.

    All the best, hope you appreciate I just want to chat, not argue on this issue.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 9th Jan 19, 5:12 PM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    Hi

    The question revolves around whether you used gas today & why you believe you did so ... then analyse what the options are for reducing gas consumption over the short term and how to fund it, followed by the medium term, and only after that look towards the Utopian uplands. Each phase must have it's place and there really aren't any easy shortcuts or I'd be the first to welcome them.

    Whatever the position taken, the reality is that gas not yet extracted is in the ground somewhere and that gas which is needed has to be extracted first. The argument that we can't afford to develop new sources and should utilise what currently exists has always been a flawed concept as the existing sources are continuously being tapped further to maximise returns ... we're discussing gas powered generation to meet renewable energy generation capacity shortfall and that, whatever we may wish for, is the chosen strategic option to see the UK through the transition phase. It is therefore inevitable that gas from both currently tapped supply and wells yet to be tapped will move from underground reserves to aboveground before transportation and consumption.

    Regarding gambling, the exploration of UK reserves neither impacts existing timelines or diverts public purse renewable energy funding from elsewhere with any development costs being bourne by the private sector, so in terms of what's being gambled which would effect the overall transition it's neither time or treasure, so that really leaves the locality of any extraction related emissions, in which case the acceptance of it being elsewhere but not in the UK can't really be considered as many things other than national nimbyism.

    Those who would worry about developing local sources because it will lead to increased consumption and a reduction in renewable energy progress whilst simultaneously raising relative cost issues really need to consider the confusion that the position employs. Utilising non-imported but higher cost gas provides more incentive to ween ourselves off FFs and look to accelerate the development of renewable backup energy sources whilst the economic multiplier effect could be the defined & partially ringfenced source of the transition funding ... logic would tend to dictate that cheaper gas sourced from elsewhere would have a completely opposite effect, yet we seem have to follow the mantra of the vocal anti fracking protest groups for fear that having a totally logical & robust alternative view is somehow a form outlying anti-religious radicalism ... I know because I've had almost the same conversation with an anti-fracking academic environmental activist in the past!

    Regarding the change of direction regarding total generation and generation capacity related to the two future peaks raised ... I totally disagree with the conclusion as the position has been rock solid consistent. We have been discussing the use of gas within a transition period where there will first be an increase in electricity demand, followed by ongoing displacement by renewable energy supply sources which will reduce overall annual gas consumption, however, as repeatedly stated, this does not mean that the installed generation capacity can be seriously reduced (even if part of the generation mix includes tidal!) until there's some form of strategic energy storage built, only after that can backup gas fired generation capacity be decommissioned ... they are the two peaks mentioned and that's the position as consistently raised. The only substantive difference in discussion is the source of the gas to produce power throughout the transition period until the economy is fully operational in 'low carbon' mode ....

    On risk management/mitigation ... As described, the major risk is guarantee of supply, particularly considering the likelihood of a number of central/eastern European economies which are currently heavily dependent on coal fired generation looking to embrace gas as their own interim energy source to assist in emissions reduction. Combine this with the risk of potential economic sanctions & backlash from disputes with Russia and it's foreseeable that Brussels would exercise considerable influence on Norway to ramp-up supplies to EU/EEA members as opposed to exporting to other areas .... just think back to last winter when lack of a workable UK strategic gas reserve and a long cold spell across Europe brought the UK to within sight of energy rationing .... that's what needs mitigation!

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 09-01-2019 at 5:14 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 10th Jan 19, 8:18 AM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

    Those who would worry about developing local sources because it will lead to increased consumption and a reduction in renewable energy progress whilst simultaneously raising relative cost issues really need to consider the confusion that the position employs. Utilising non-imported but higher cost gas provides more incentive to ween ourselves off FFs and look to accelerate the development of renewable backup energy sources whilst the economic multiplier effect could be the defined & partially ringfenced source of the transition funding ... logic would tend to dictate that cheaper gas sourced from elsewhere would have a completely opposite effect, yet we seem have to follow the mantra of the vocal anti fracking protest groups for fear that having a totally logical & robust alternative view is somehow a form outlying anti-religious radicalism ... I know because I've had almost the same conversation with an anti-fracking academic environmental activist in the past!

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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%:

    Imports of LNG decreased by 14% on Q1 2017 and now account for only 9% of total imports as volumes remain muted. LNG 'reloads' started in late 2014 and have continued since with the UK exporting to countries including Brazil, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
    *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).

    Meanwhile the coal-driven output was down 25% despite warnings of a coal comeback driven by high gas prices. Nuclear power also had a weak year, with generation down 8%, mainly due to ageing reactors being taken offline for safety checks. Gas remained the top source of electricity supplies, but fell 4%.
    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.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 10th Jan 19, 8:26 AM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    just think back to last winter when lack of a workable UK strategic gas reserve and a long cold spell across Europe brought the UK to within sight of energy rationing .... that's what needs mitigation!

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Totally agree, and this is something I mentioned previously. The UK's 'policy' on reducing our already small(ish) gas storage is I believe a serious mistake.

    Exclusive - Rough justice? UK snubs call for gas storage capacity review

    They met officials from the department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on Friday but the government declined to open an inquiry, saying market forces would ensure there was enough gas, according to two people who attended the meeting and a third who was briefed on the outcome.

    The government says it is up to the market to determine whether it makes sense to invest in new gas storage and if there are any supply shortages, prices will rise sufficiently to attract more gas from elsewhere.

    “There is still a level of complacency in the government that despite recent events the best course of action is to just accept these price shocks,” said Clive Moffatt of consultancy Moffatt Associates, who attended the meeting and represents several storage developers and industry associations.
    Closure of UK’s largest gas storage site ‘could mean volatile prices’

    One of the solutions to RE generation intermittency is the storage of excess as gas (various forms as mentioned previously). If developed, then this could work well to help mitigate the nat-gas issues too.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 10th Jan 19, 8:52 AM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    This new article is similar to the Guardian article, but possibly worth a skim.

    UK Electricity Generation Falls To 1994 Levels As Renewable Generation Soars

    I do openly criticise the government policy as they've hit PV and on-shore wind hard, and dialed down new build standards, but it's only fair to recognise that there has been a lot of success too:

    The UKs extraordinary progress on growing the economy while lowering electricity use is the result of the most successful, and least well known, European energy efficiency policy, called the Ecodesign Directive, concluded Dustin Benton, Policy Director at the UKs Green Alliance. Over the past decade or so, its been staggeringly successful: over a decade, refrigerators cut energy use by a third, and lighting energy demand has fallen by nearly 80%. Its the reason why UK energy bills have fallen in real terms, and has helped low carbon power become the backbone of the UKs electricity mix.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 10th Jan 19, 12:30 PM
    • 2,994 Posts
    • 1,320 Thanks
    NigeWick
    it's only fair to recognise that there has been a lot of success too:
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    But, a lot (most?) of this success is not driven by UKGov, rather despite their policy decisions.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 10th Jan 19, 2:56 PM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    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.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    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 chnge, 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
    Last edited by zeupater; 10-01-2019 at 3:10 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 10th Jan 19, 4:46 PM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Hi

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


    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!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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 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 chnge, 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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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 ...
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 10-01-2019 at 5:08 PM. Reason: Editing and spelling errors (many)
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 10th Jan 19, 7:57 PM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    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.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    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 ...
    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
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    ... 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
    Last edited by zeupater; 10-01-2019 at 8:05 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • michaels
    • By michaels 10th Jan 19, 8:39 PM
    • 22,182 Posts
    • 102,517 Thanks
    michaels
    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.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 11th Jan 19, 8:35 AM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    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 ...
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    ... 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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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 ...
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    .. 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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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?


    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
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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:

    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 ...
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 11-01-2019 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Added an edit.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 11th Jan 19, 2:57 PM
    • 4,556 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    zeupater
    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.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    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 acuracy 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
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 11th Jan 19, 6:27 PM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    [Any comments trimmed down are to save space, not to misrepresent.]

    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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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).


    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!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    On circles ... Having had the questionable acuracy 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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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!
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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.


    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 ...
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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).


    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
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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?
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 11th Jan 19, 6:35 PM
    • 8,166 Posts
    • 12,862 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    BTW - there have been rumours that Hitachi is to officially pull out of Wylfa, which have pushed up its share price today.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    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.”
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 11-01-2019 at 6:38 PM. Reason: Added more quotes
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,781Posts Today

6,380Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Now come on that's a bit unfair!!!!! I could've done a handstand (well headstand) first if you'd asked! Sheesh! https://t.co/01Pf9Z99B1

  • It isn't statistically representative true. But to say that tells us nothing isn't correct. It shows what people i? https://t.co/JBLu6Cd8a5

  • Very interesting that on my Facebook page (which tends to be more pro Brexit) the same vote, with similar number of? https://t.co/NgYxaQDCnr

  • Follow Martin