Coming to a town near you...........Hydraulic Fracturing

[Baaaald]

In fact coming to a town very near some of you, as permission has been applied for a well in Balcombe.

Watch here to find out what this means for us here in the UK.

Mate they had a feature on this on Sky News with a lovely aerial shot of Balcombe. Really showing off the West Sussex countryside. Apart from the fact it was Ardingly not Balcombe! Muppets!

 

[pb21]

do you agree that the increase of CO2 over the past 100 odd years and global temperature do not always correlate, that there are many other factors involved in the vastly complex system of the atmosphere and that the predictions made for the past 20-30 years on this matter have not be found correct but altered to adjust to new understanding and observations?

Yes, although not sure I would agree with your reasoning about the changes, theories can evolve.

Can you answer mine?

 

[Winker]

problem is, and goes for most renewables, is energy storage. you get a surge of power but its not necessarily when you need it. you need lots of gas generators built to fill the gaps, then contract both the renewable plant and the gas plant to supply energy, which only one will actually supply at the time. if we could have a sensible method to store energy, that would make tidal, wind and solar much more viable and might actually lead to cheaper energy.


I think the answer to storing renewable energy is hydrogen. If the power generated by wind, wave and solar energy was used to electrolyse water, then the hydrogen and oxygen could be stored and burnt to produce power as and when required.

 

[TheBigUnit]

Surely the potential renewable resources we have as an island nation, particularly wave, tidal and wind; far out way the relatively small amount our energy that these Shale Gas reserves have to offer?

 

[CheeseRolls]

Surely the potential renewable resources we have as an island nation, particularly wave, tidal and wind; far out way the relatively small amount our energy that these Shale Gas reserves have to offer?

Potential is not the same as realisable though is it. We will get there on renewables, just maybe not this decade at an affordable cost,

I am not sure that even cheap safe gas, can sort out the mess of an energy sector we have today, but we need something to upset the cosy and costly cartel we have been foisted with.

If we get nothing else out of shale gas, I hope we at least get a proper debate about energy policy, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[JCL666]

what you mean is, there has been research and tests for several years, but only now that its actually going ahead, theres a story for the newspapers to report on and everyone is up in arms.

er.. no even the government have said that PRODUCTION cannot go ahead and we are still in a research phase.......although that hasn't stopped them from preempting a green light by issuing licenses.

The concerns around water contamination won't be dealt with by any research currently available as it's based on the USA experience, which is a very different set up to us in the UK.

Also the economics don't stack up, there's no evidence that we will get cheaper gas.. here's an interesting article
BNEF Chief Executive Michael Liebreich VIP Comment: UK energy policy - a time of consequences | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

In order to offset the decline of North Sea gas we would need approximately 2400 wells to be set up in the UK. Cuadrilla have so far drilled 3 and have already broken the terms of the agreement allowing them to drill. The idea that a bunch of companies that don't have the best safety record are going to adhere to the rules when there is money to be made is a fallacy.

 

[Norman Potting]

Very old!!

Good old Thomas "life and soul of the party, always first with a smile and joke and all round diamond geezer" Malthus?

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, although not sure I would agree with your reasoning about the changes, theories can evolve.

Can you answer mine?

i do agree with them, but the point is the CO2 issue is deceptive. its not that thoeries evolve, the problem is that the overarching theory has stayed the same and the analysis has changed to make the observations fit. X is proof of Y... no wait now X isnt there... Z is proof of Y, see we told you. there hasnt been the predicted heating of northern europe, there hasnt been the predicted multi-degree magnitude increase in global temperatures last (its about 0.6 since 1900), which havent risen past a high in 1998, there hasnt been the mass melting of ice sheets except the north (which is still as large in midwinter i understand). things like solar output and the coriolis effect are ignored, along with the inconvienent fact that while CO2 went up in a near linear manner in the past hundred years, temperatures havent and gone down for decades at a time.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

So when in nature before man were 5000 gallons of chemicals pumped underground to extract gas?

Or millions of tonnes of coal, oil and gas burned to create energy, emitting Carbon Dioxide as a by product.

Surely you can't be arguing that this has no effect what so ever?

So what weather has changed as a direct result of pumping all these gallons of chemicals into the ground? If it is so conclusive, couldn't the worlds weather systems be controlled by pumping chemicals here, or burning stuff there. No, the weather systems far more complicated than that.

How much CO2 was being pumped out by volcanos when they were historically more active? how much came from natural fires, etc... Why has there been periods in history when there was no ice at the poles, and so on... Carbon dioxide is natural, its absorbed by plants and algae. Oil is rotted plant material and so on, so it is just being released back to where it started, to be converted by plants again and stored or released and so on... The carbon dioxide prediction models do not match the real life climate change models.

It's these people that blame all bad weather on man and think we are responsible every time there is drought or flood and say its proof that man is destroying the world so you must invest in wave or wind power or the world will be destroyed. Religion was a way of controlling people, and as its importance has dropped, then a new way seems to have been found, scare them into willingly paying ridiculous sums for expensive technology that doesn't really meet our needs through the fear of global warming / climate change, etc.

Pay more and save the planet, don't and all humanity is doomed and we will die unless we all change our light bulbs immediately. If you question it then your scum, but when the theories don't work out in reality, then it's fine because they can just fiddle the data to make a new theory which must be accepted as fact (or until that one doesn't work and the process repeats again ad infinitum)

 

[woodster]

I think this chap has an interesting part to play

Lord Browne of Madingley


Has political interests in energy.......and yet chairman of the board of directors at cuadrilla, the company involved in fracking.

no conflict of interests there then?

 

[00snook]

So what weather has changed as a direct result of pumping all these gallons of chemicals into the ground? If it is so conclusive, couldn't the worlds weather systems be controlled by pumping chemicals here, or burning stuff there. No, the weather systems far more complicated than that.

How much CO2 was being pumped out by volcanos when they were historically more active? how much came from natural fires, etc... Why has there been periods in history when there was no ice at the poles, and so on... Carbon dioxide is natural, its absorbed by plants and algae. Oil is rotted plant material and so on, so it is just being released back to where it started, to be converted by plants again and stored or released and so on... The carbon dioxide prediction models do not match the real life climate change models.

It's these people that blame all bad weather on man and think we are responsible every time there is drought or flood and say its proof that man is destroying the world so you must invest in wave or wind power or the world will be destroyed. Religion was a way of controlling people, and as its importance has dropped, then a new way seems to have been found, scare them into willingly paying ridiculous sums for expensive technology that doesn't really meet our needs through the fear of global warming / climate change, etc.

Pay more and save the planet, don't and all humanity is doomed and we will die unless we all change our light bulbs immediately. If you question it then your scum, but when the theories don't work out in reality, then it's fine because they can just fiddle the data to make a new theory which must be accepted as fact (or until that one doesn't work and the process repeats again ad infinitum)

The pumping of liquid and chemicals into the ground was referring to Fracking, and not anything to do with Climate change. Sorry if that didn't make sense.

As for your response, if you genuinely believe that the CO2 that man produces is having no effect on the global climate then that's absolutely fair enough. I appreciate that the evidence is not conclusive that CO2 is causing climate change, but as with everything in science often there are no clear cut facts, but theories and counter theories.

I happen to believe that the Carbon we produce is having an effect on the climate, and this effect will continue to show itself over the coming decades. I also believe that each of us has a responsibility to try and reduce our individual carbon footprint. The main reason I think we should do this is that we must be mindful of what sort of legacy we leave behind, what sort of planet we leave our children and grandchildren to live on.

I guess if you don't believe humans have any impact on the climate, then this wouldn't be a consideration. In my case it is though, and I hope that many others feel the same way that I do, and at least try to be a bit more "green".

 

[00snook]

I think this chap has an interesting part to play

Lord Browne of Madingley


Has political interests in energy.......and yet chairman of the board of directors at cuadrilla, the company involved in fracking.

no conflict of interests there then?

It boggles the mind that this sort of thing is allowed.