Fracking in Sussex? Fracking Firm Test Drilling in Balcombe

[somerset]

google it

No, go on,... fill me in with the solutions you seem so convinced will help power the world for 7billion plus people in 50 years from now,....don't forget, you cant use fossil fuels, they will have run out, you cant use tidal barrages, the eco-warriors wont allow it, you cant use wind turbines, blot on the landscape apparently, you cant use solar in large parts of the world for obvious reason,.... I wait to hear your answers. I don't need to google, the answer is nuclear, but I am interested to hear what you propose.

 

[somerset]

don't forget, they're still lying about the leaking at the moment and still haven't sorted the mess.

Granted the mess is still being worked on, but please, lying??... they have 13 national and international organisations working directly on the issue, there will be nothing hidden, not possible.

 

[dougdeep]

Because.....?

I think that should be the reply to every question on here. How did Bridcutt play? Which is the best restaurant in Brighton? Who's posh? It might give you an answer but it may lack something in feeling and opinion.

 

[somerset]

...... but it may lack something in feeling and opinion.

.. .. you are accurate with this statement at least.

 

[Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms]

No, go on,... fill me in with the solutions you seem so convinced will help power the world for 7billion plus people in 50 years from now,....don't forget, you cant use fossil fuels, they will have run out, you cant use tidal barrages, the eco-warriors wont allow it, you cant use wind turbines, blot on the landscape apparently, you cant use solar in large parts of the world for obvious reason,.... I wait to hear your answers. I don't need to google, the answer is nuclear, but I am interested to hear what you propose.

Strikes me as a bit odd that you're willing to dismiss tidal barrages and wind farms on the basis that some people object to them but are equally as willing to dismiss the objections of others to nuclear...

 

[somerset]

Strikes me as a bit odd that you're willing to dismiss tidal barrages and wind farms on the basis that some people object to them but are equally as willing to dismiss the objections of others to nuclear...

I don't dismiss them, I am all for them, the eco masses aren't of course. I see wind and tidal options as a complementary option in the provision of power, but even the most optimistic estimates circle somewhere around 20% max as what these 'renewable' sources can achieve realistically. Nuclear is the only viable option to fill the gap as gas/oil declines to levels not sustainable over the next 50 years. I say bring on wind farms, bring on the Severn Estuary Barrage,.... sadly the objectors will delay indefinitely whilst our power sources become more French and Russian in nature.

Note: I don't dismiss the nuclear objections, I acknowledged them further up this thread, but the nuclear industry ( both civilian and military) is the most advanced sector of the scientific community, the by-product issues are being improved constantly, its manageable now, but think about 30 years from now, it will be a non-issue by then.

 

[One Love]

Because.....?

that's what you told him to do earlier in response to one of his questions.

 

[somerset]

that's what you told him to do earlier in response to one of his questions.

... in a helpful context in response to a very broad ranging question,..... are you twelve or something, is this a 'wanna be in my gang' scenario?

 

[One Love]

I don't dismiss them, I am all for them, the eco masses aren't of course. I see wind and tidal options as a complementary option in the provision of power, but even the most optimistic estimates circle somewhere around 20% max as what these 'renewable' sources can achieve realistically. Nuclear is the only viable option to fill the gap as gas/oil declines to levels not sustainable over the next 50 years. I say bring on wind farms, bring on the Severn Estuary Barrage,.... sadly the objectors will delay indefinitely whilst our power sources become more French and Russian in nature.

Note: I don't dismiss the nuclear objections, I acknowledged them further up this thread, but the nuclear industry ( both civilian and military) is the most advanced sector of the scientific community, the by-product issues are being improved constantly, its manageable now, but think about 30 years from now, it will be a non-issue by then.

As you seem to be an authority on energy and I am not, can you explain to me why the government reduced the tariff on domestic solar appliances stopping that expanding industry dead? Surely the more homes that were producing their own energy would have been the way forward.

 

[One Love]

... in a helpful context in response to a very broad ranging question,..... are you twelve or something, is this a 'wanna be in my gang' scenario?

Errr didn't enter my head.

WTF was that!!!

 

[somerset]

As you seem to be an authority on energy and I am not, can you explain to me why the government reduced the tariff on domestic solar appliances stopping that expanding industry dead? Surely the more homes that were producing their own energy would have been the way forward.

..two words..... austerity measures.... but unit costs are down too, so it was expected by the industry, just not down to the levels that were imposed.

 

[CheeseRolls]

As you seem to be an authority on energy and I am not, can you explain to me why the government reduced the tariff on domestic solar appliances stopping that expanding industry dead? Surely the more homes that were producing their own energy would have been the way forward.

The argument for this, was that the technology was stagnating. The subsidies were encouraging lower cost production of existing technology (looking at you China) and not enough investment in new technology. Essentially we just followed the Germans on this one. Thermodynamic solar panels look very interesting, but currently attract no subsidy. These work even when the sun isn't shining, which is quite handy in Northern Europe.

 

[One Love]

The argument for this, was that the technology was stagnating. The subsidies were encouraging lower cost production of existing technology (looking at you China) and not enough investment in new technology. Essentially we just followed the Germans on this one. Thermodynamic solar panels look very interesting, but currently attract no subsidy. These work even when the sun isn't shining, which is quite handy in Northern Europe.

So has this resulted in more investment in new technology?

 

[CheeseRolls]

Somerset - Aside from waste and the massive costs associated with decommissioning, there is also a major problem with Nuclear generation in a market economy. It looks a lot like the same problem as investment banking. Companies are happy to take the profits during the good times, but when things go bad, it is left to the government and the tax payers to clean up the mess.

If you try to put all of the risk in the private sector, as this government has, you will be left with no one prepared to build new nuclear stations. If you keep some of the risk in the public sector, you face the wrath of taxpayers, plus the valid claims from competitors, that this is an unfair subsidy. My guess is that this works in France, because the state has much tighter control over the energy sector, my hunch is that you would not support the UK going down this path.

 

[portlock seagull]

Believe me there will be mass blackouts for a generation before our energy problems get resolved. Humans will argue until real events overtake in form of crisises. By then of course it'll take eg a further 20 years to build whatever the solutions are. In between the arguing will continue because parliaments only last 5 years and very few governments have the balls or time to implement long term strategies. Whoever the opposition is, its their job to harang and find fault in whatever the govt of the day is saying. And so it goes on and on without anything happening except the demand for energy continues to rise, exacerbating the situation obviously.

Ps I'm from Balcombe, no one else is on this board it's seems so you can all do one with your arguing, we just want everyone to go now and let the exploratory work happen. Then, only then, can the informed debate begin.

 

[Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms]

I don't dismiss them, I am all for them, the eco masses aren't of course. I see wind and tidal options as a complementary option in the provision of power, but even the most optimistic estimates circle somewhere around 20% max as what these 'renewable' sources can achieve realistically. Nuclear is the only viable option to fill the gap as gas/oil declines to levels not sustainable over the next 50 years. I say bring on wind farms, bring on the Severn Estuary Barrage,.... sadly the objectors will delay indefinitely whilst our power sources become more French and Russian in nature.

Note: I don't dismiss the nuclear objections, I acknowledged them further up this thread, but the nuclear industry ( both civilian and military) is the most advanced sector of the scientific community, the by-product issues are being improved constantly, its manageable now, but think about 30 years from now, it will be a non-issue by then.

That's a bit more like it as an argument, though it's not what you said.

 

[somerset]

Somerset - Aside from waste and the massive costs associated with decommissioning, there is also a major problem with Nuclear generation in a market economy. It looks a lot like the same problem as investment banking. Companies are happy to take the profits during the good times, but when things go bad, it is left to the government and the tax payers to clean up the mess.

If you try to put all of the risk in the private sector, as this government has, you will be left with no one prepared to build new nuclear stations. If you keep some of the risk in the public sector, you face the wrath of taxpayers, plus the valid claims from competitors, that this is an unfair subsidy. My guess is that this works in France, because the state has much tighter control over the energy sector, my hunch is that you would not support the UK going down this path.

On a purely personal level, I have no objection who shoulders the risk, but nationally you are correct, the object first, ask questions later society we have all helped create over the last 25 years will not support a subsidised energy strategy, particularly a strategy that has the 'nasty' word 'nuclear' at the heart of it.

Its ok, I am reconciled to us being a net importer of energy from France (nuclear) and Russia (gas),...... I worry for my children and their children to come, but we are too far down this NIMBY society path now to change anything.

 

[somerset]

That's a bit more like it as an argument, though it's not what you said.

It was, its just that I structured my comment in a mischievous manner to provoke further debate, and ( wishful thinking) some sort of grand energy vision from @Badfish.

 

[BadFish]

that's what you told him to do earlier in response to one of his questions.

Is the correct answer

 

[BadFish]

No, go on,... fill me in with the solutions you seem so convinced will help power the world for 7billion plus people in 50 years from now,....don't forget, you cant use fossil fuels, they will have run out, you cant use tidal barrages, the eco-warriors wont allow it, you cant use wind turbines, blot on the landscape apparently, you cant use solar in large parts of the world for obvious reason,.... I wait to hear your answers. I don't need to google, the answer is nuclear, but I am interested to hear what you propose.

You can't have nuclear because lots of people oppose that too.