Fracking good or bad?

Radio 2 dissed that one last week, the methane was in the tap water long before the fracking

 

My main concern over the water supply would be that if there were to be some type of disaster and the water was contaminated with radioactive waste, then I don't have much confidence in the oil companies or any of the governmental departments to respond to this effectively especially if it would effect their precious profits.

 

I'm against it on the grounds of the physical damage to the local environment and the fact that we already have the technology available to us (nuclear).

At which point they sue the "Frackers" who pass the cost on and blow me, our energy is dearer!!!

Totally agree Shiney and @Jack McHammocklashing

I thought that they called time on it five or six months ago. As in just long ago enough for it to be forgotten about (or am I being cynical?).

Much like wind, the costs of maintenance are prohibitive.
The harsh reality is that the perpetual motion machine does not exist and nuclear is the closest thing to it.
I am envious of New Zealands energy generation system, but they only have about 3 million people to provide for.

 

If I remember correctly, BFBS also carried a story on fracking.

 

Fracking's a bit akin to using a straw to extract the final drops from a bottle of pop, but in this scenario it's about extracting the final drops of fossil fuels, and when they've gone - and before very long they will be gone and we'll be in deep manure, in the dark and cold, so long as we remain largely dependent on non-renewables.
As I see it, fracking is just a quick and cheap fix. Cheap in the simplest economic terms, but quite possibly more expensive in broader ecological and environmental terms. It just buys us a bit more time before the lights go off.

 

Very true but most of our lamb and ostrich comes from there (probably yours too ) and the farmers are very worried about the effects of fracking on their livelihood.
The environmentalists are also up in arms as that region has many plant varieties which are unique and found no where else.
The man in the street is also pretty unhappy about it as the only ones that will benefit from it will be the government officials and the fracking company.

 

What frustrates me is that the government have just gave 3.8 billion pounds of our money to "the green investment bank" (chaired by baron Kelvin the former governor of the BBC) to invest in green energy projects, surely with that kind of money they can put solar panels on every house in the UK!! After all it's our money, perhaps I've overlooked something I don't know.

 

There's enough hot air spoken by our MPs to possibly fuel a power station.

 

I can tell you how "things" work in my part of the world.
Government sets aside a large amount of cash for a "green trust" and some prominent figure is appointed as the director of the trust.
This persons friends then quickly form "research companies" to investigate all sorts of crack pot ideas for renewable energies that of course need lots of "investment" to continue.
Guess where the money goes?
I have a suspicion that things are pretty much the same over there.

 

Lot of one sided views here, and too many, IMHO, influenced by news headlines and TV soundbites.

I am not pro Fracking, I would prefer we didn't do it. I don't particularly worry that it will be bad - it might be, then it will improve, and in 10 years we won't remember what the fuss was. Same as everything else - including the perceived cost of exploiting North Sea Oil - what a marvel that has been, and a huge boost for the industry in having solved the enormous engineering problems they faced. We've not actually had much in the way of huge pollution, which was a worry initially - but we have had a couple of rigs blow up, killing lots of people who were working on them. Remember Piper Alpha?

So here's my view:

Get your energy bills out from 10 years ago. Are you using 50% less (units) than you used to? I am meaning Winter heating fuel, Electricity, Water and Car fuel - Petrol/Diesel?

If not then you are part of the problem.

Fossil fuel is running out, so that means a number of things:

• It gets more expensive to get it out of the ground
• Less acceptable forms become cost effective to mine - e.g. shale gas, and certainly fracking
• Consumers need to be incentivised to use less
• Producers need to be incentivised to find alternative, more acceptable, sources (e.g. "Green energy")

If government declared that we were going to solve our energy problems by putting the industry on a war footing then the problem would be solved in a few years. Even a government that took bold decisions could solve it in a reasonable time. Hard to get either of those conditions in the current climate. Politicians prefer to be popular - they want to be re-elected.

We are actually using more energy, per capital, not less than a decade ago. We have all sorts of fancy gadgets that need power, many are left on Standby soaking up power all day (Turn them off please - that means "off at the wall)", few have good efficient power supplies - most have cheapest-price power supplies with poor efficiency. Have you got a low energy pump on your central heating system? or the old one that has been there fore 20 years? they use ridiculous amounts of energy (compared to a modern, energy efficient pump - you won't even be offered an energy efficient pump on a new installation, unless you think to ask, they cost more to buy even though that is saved over the course of their lifetime). We expect to have a warm house in winter, rather than wearing an extra sweater like the old days.

The country needs to use less energy. To wean everyone off their petrol guzzling cars, and into more frugal vehicles (or just to reduce their mileage), and to insulate their homes properly, and turn off everything on standby, the price needs to go up. I think it needs to go up 10% more than inflation (and it has been doing so). Part of the price increase will come from oil running out, part from fuel duty taxes rising - probably part from speculators, even if we think they are scum.

The government also needs to provide incentives. It can use the extra tax to pay for the incentives. So if you install solar panels you get a kick-back, which means that folk will do it. I don't care if the government gives you solar panels for free, or a kick back, or something else. Pick one, any one will do. You may pick a different one to me, doesn't matter, we are both right. Converting to use alternative energy requires grant money to make it happen. Once established, and factories are producing it in great numbers, prices will fall due to the economises of scale, and the product will become better (cheaper, smaller, more efficient, etc) and everyone will want it and be able to afford it. Until then sponsor it. Any way you like, pick a method that the fewest people will object to.

Spin off benefit: we will then buy less energy from abroad, so if we have lots of locally generated power/fuel we then have less balance of payments problems with Saudi Arabia (which costs us a huge amount of tax payer's money paying the interest because our country has to borrow money because of the imbalance). We would also have less reliance on other countries holding us to ransom for energy. Remember Sheikh Yamani doing that a few decades ago? The world's economics crumbled in the course of just a few weeks. Nothing to stop that happening again, tomorrow maybe. We need energy independence and, love it or hate it, Fracking will get you that. So will Nuclear, or Wind/Solar/etc. However, Wind/Solar/etc. is a Long Game, you can't have that quickly. Its new technology, not enough production capacity, we need to get to 2nd or 3rd generation technology before it gets to be really good ... no quick fix there. Nuclear would be fine, you could have that tomorrow, provided you don't object, but the NIMBYs cause decades of public enquiries ... a War Footing would solve that too ... wouldn't be popular though, and politicians: they do like to be popular - otherwise they get voted out.

So how are we doing on sponsoring alternative energy? Well ... we were doing all right, but we are losing our nerve now. Finances are bad - the worst possible thing for Alternative Energy, because it needs state sponsoring for 20 - 30 years to really get the ball rolling, was for a bunch of Bankers to wreck the economies of all the countries in the world. Blue Sky projects are the first to get the chop when that happens, and thus you lose the pure science research.

Then you get some political argy-bargy. Those Prats in the Labour government kicked this one off with "No fuel price increases if we get into power". That is a vote-getter, for sure! but it sounded the death knell for the subsidy for Green Tech at a stroke. In fact it turned out worse that that, Conservatives did a knee-jerk and said "we'll reduce prices now" and told energy companies to give each household a £50 price cut (there must be precious few houses where £50 is going to make a life-change difference, or even cause anyone to want to vote Conservative.) But ... what it did mean was that the Conservatives told energy companies they could do this by NOT having to pay the Green Levy - that has been raised and paid out, for several years now, for insulation of houses for people who couldn't afford it, and for other sponsor ship of Green Tech. So now that is in jeopardy.

People are moaning about Fuel Duty going up too (not surprising, keep raising a price by 10% more than inflation every year and the pips will squeak at some point). So they have frozen that, on more than one occasion. Less money into support of Green Tech,.

So that's why you are stuck with fracking. People had to do more to insulate their houses, reduce the fuel bills, and use less fuel BEFORE NOW. We, collectively, haven't done enough. So now you have to accept unacceptable sources of energy as a consequence.

That would be OK provided this time, for the LAST TIME, we actually fix our energy usage, and pour the money into becoming energy self-sufficient, and from renewable resources. We could have done that with North Sea Oil money, but we squandered a lot of that badly. Likelihood is that we will do it, again, and in a decade or two, when Fracking runs out, we'll either have an even less palatable choice to make about what fiel we use then or the lights will start going out.

Governments should NOT be giving the Tax on Fracking companies to local authorities - they have no history of having been efficient and frugal!! The money should go directly to fixing the Green Tech issue in this country.

I hear a lot about Business being greedy - and it is, and that should be controlled somehow. But the people are greedy too. They have become complacent, and think it is not their job to make a change, someone else should do that, or government should enable it (within reason that's fine by me).

Cut all your utility /fuel usage by 50% - be prepared to pay for insulation etc.
Install / Use renewable energy only (switch to a green electricity tariff) - even if it is more expensive
Get all your friends to do the same
Problem sorted.

 

@Kristen

That is a very, very and have to say I agree with a lot of it.
However the spanner in the works IMHO is government.
What percentage of the cost of fuel (any fuel) are taxes and levies and how much of it goes back to direct research and incentives for alternative fuels/energy?
See where I'm going with this?
Governments have a terrible track record when it comes to "balancing the books" have been squandering those taxes and levies on all sorts of other "expenses" for years.
The way I see it, the more people that convert to alternative fuels, the less of this income for the state coffers which in turn will lead to increased taxes elsewhere.
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means suggesting that we should not use as much renewable energy as possible, but don't expect to have loads more disposable income left over.