Tories grant 18 fracking licences - all north of Leicester

[Werewolf]

Can someone explain why nuclear is a good option in regards to cost? The proposed EDF sites seem very expensive and why have the UK government offered what appears to be 'very'generous unit prices for energy production. £20bn or so seems expensive and decontamination costs will probably sting as well.

IIRC the cost for the proposed EDF deal isn't that much higher than some of the "green" feed in tarrifs, and is based on the price 10+ years in the future so whilst it's expensive compared to now, in 10 years time the average price per unit will only have gone up anyway.

From what I remember some of the green tarriffs had people getting paid something like 2-3 times the retail cost per unit (so something like 5+ times the cost per unit from normal production), whilst the proposed EDF deal is only twice the current wholesale average, and to be honest we need that capacity ASAP, we are running low on spare capacity on the current grid (we've been retiring older stations faster than we've been building new ones), and if the price of oil and gas go up much the average price of conventional power will go up a lot.

 

[doodah]

Thanks Werewolf. I don't mind nuclear at all just thought it appeared to be very expensive.

I will never forgive Greenpeace for their apocalyptic advert of a nuclear power station blowing up like nuclear bomb if attacked!!!

 

[joeyjojo]

IIRC the cost for the proposed EDF deal isn't that much higher than some of the "green" feed in tarrifs, and is based on the price 10+ years in the future so whilst it's expensive compared to now, in 10 years time the average price per unit will only have gone up anyway.

From what I remember some of the green tarriffs had people getting paid something like 2-3 times the retail cost per unit (so something like 5+ times the cost per unit from normal production), whilst the proposed EDF deal is only twice the current wholesale average...

Half-right. The current feed-in tarrif for solar PV is 6.38-13.88 p/KWh, similar to the guaranteed price for Hinkley Point C (£92.50 per MWh).

That's not "5+ times the cost per unit from normal production" though, it's about the average retail price. The levelised cost for solar PV in this country is in the 25-35 p/KWh sort of range (estimates vary).

Note that wind is a lot cheaper, just using solar PV as an example.

 

[MookJong]

It would be nice if one of the TV channels actually explained fracking in an impartial manor and gave the public the facts.

I'm sure there is a lot of scare mongering around it but also like all mining there will be potential dangers to the environment. It would be nice to inform the public and save everyone a lot of time and money protesting if it is actually a non issue.

 

[Jono]

I'll admit I don't know all the facts about fracking, and much of what I think about it may be from scaremongering. But I LIKE my water. Yorkshire (from around here) and Northumbrian (to me) tastes the best in the country.

I don't want to turn on my tap in the kitchen and be all:

I am not a chemist - I can sort of understand why they'd want to use the nasties that they do, and certainly not in such great quantities. I know I wouldn't want to drink any of it either.

 

[Combat squirrel]

 

[alx]

I'll admit I don't know all the facts about fracking, and much of what I think about it may be from scaremongering. .

No offense, but this is why public opinion should have minimal impact on decisions like this.

 

[joeyjojo]

No offense, but this is why public opinion should have minimal impact on decisions like this.

Only if the Council/Government/watchdog/etc. is properly considering the public interest.

If the officials can make fracking safe for people and the environment (i.e. not get chemicals into the drinking water supply) then I agree with you it should be up to them.

But as the decision has been made with a HUGE amount of pressure from a few figures at the top of government, probably to please their mates in Oil & Gas, then I think the public should be sceptical and fight back.

 

[Glaucus]

It is safe, we aren't America with little regulation.

 

[Nutella33]

It is safe, we aren't America with little regulation.

Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/uk-defeats-european-bid-fracking-regulations

http://energyandcarbon.com/uk-failing-lessons-fracking-waste-water/

If the UK is to dispose of high-volume flowback fluids from shale gas by using re-injection into geological formations, much further research into the potential risks of the process and how to reduce them is required. Lessons from the US, where the process has been linked to induced local seismicity and environmental contamination due to poor well construction, have to be learned and not repeated.

We have not been able to discover any research into the potential seismic hazard posed by existing or future injection of wastewater in the UK. Should high volume re-injection activity of flowback fluid be carried out in the UK, it must be carefully monitored to comply with the established traffic light scheme which will be used to measure for induced seismicity from future fracking operations. We also strongly recommend that a research based, industry accepted code of best practice, from which the regulators can adapt the legislation to reduce the risk of environmental contamination must be established before any flowback fluid re-injection permits are granted

http://elj.sagepub.com/content/17/1/8.full.pdf

With uncertainty as to application and potential for gaps in the controls, the question that must be addressed is: what now for the regulation of shale gas and fracking? The objective of fracking regulation (leaving aside questions of whether England should develop a new fossil fuel industry) is to ensure that the exploration for shale gas can proceed in a manner which also protects the environment and public health. Under the current regulatory system, the uncertainty and risk associated with fracking is not justifiable. The very way in which the risks have been assessed assumes that a ‘robust’ regulatory system will be in place; this has fed the justification
for significant instances of regulatory inaction. Clearly the current regulation is not ‘robust’, and the framing of such risks as ‘low’ based on this assumption highlights the deficiencies in this cyclic determination

Maintenance of the current approach and controls will leave areas exposed to potential environmental and health damage

I'm not a NIMBY but the whole process and how it is being implemented seems to be undemocractic, dangerous and ideologically driven without logic and resistant to regulation.

 

[Uther]

So, will this make our bills cheaper, or just make higher profits for companies and never mind the consequences (because I'd be surprised if those peoples mansions will be anywhere near a fracking site...)
I suppose having a fracking site nearby will do wonders for house values...

 

[Glaucus]

great some speculation articles, so nothing solid then.

we can all post stuff saying more research is needed on anything be it normal mining, nuclear, wind turbines, pv etc.


simple fact is people use relatively un regulated America as a reason we shouldn't which is pure nonsense. we have far tighter regulation and when stuff does happen with any thing, it is studied and new rules are applied, that's applied across all industry.

 

[MookJong]

If only we had a public broadcasting channel like a BBC that could discuss fracking and educate the population on it.

Maybe a lot of time and money could be saved.

 

[cainer]

we should keep our gas as an asset for when we really do need it, not just to earn some quick cash for now.

 

[[TW]Fox]

If only we had a public broadcasting channel like a BBC that could discuss fracking and educate the population on it.

Maybe a lot of time and money could be saved.

It would just be dismissed as 'OMG PROPAGANDA' because some people like to pretend we live in some sort of repressive state.

The idea that public opinion should be the allowed to sway a decision like this bizarre. I've got no idea how fracking works and absolutely nothing to do with it in any capacity so why on earth should my view on it be taken into consideration when deciding whether to grant licenses?

Yet this is exactly what people seem to think ought happen.

Let's leave it to the experts and not the pressure groups (Lets be honest, who would bother to respond to a public consultation unless they had a strong view? Almost nobody, which is why all the responses were negative).

 

[Eurofighter]

How much of the money from fracking goes to the government / locals?

I'm not sure about fracking but if it does go ahead it seems they come in, take all the gas then go. Jobs are created but I think they should give more for all the gas they are being allowed to extract.

I would be more likely to support fracking if they paid more tax.

All we get is ruined countryside and the loss of our shale gas, all for a few jobs.

 

[Nutella33]

great some speculation articles, so nothing solid then.

Those are two researched papers with references written by professionals in their field? one co-written by this guy...

http://www.ed.ac.uk/geosciences/people?indv=470

we can all post stuff saying more research is needed on anything be it normal mining, nuclear, wind turbines, pv etc.

Stop trying to link it to well regulated, tightly controlled industry's with few of the risks of injection drilling in an attempt to legitimise it by proxy. Its an absolute failure of an argument.

simple fact is people use relatively un regulated America as a reason we shouldn't which is pure nonsense. we have far tighter regulation and when stuff does happen with any thing, it is studied and new rules are applied, that's applied across all industry.

Apart from the professionals who have looked at UK regulations and claimed them to be unsafe and unsatisfactory, essentially self regulating and the other observations that increased regulation in europe has been resisted by the industry (and certain politicians) and that none of my sources or points have referenced how the US does it but looked at UK industry alone? you keep trotting that line out but it appears to be absolutely baseless.

Let's leave it to the experts and not the pressure groups (Lets be honest, who would bother to respond to a public consultation unless they had a strong view? Almost nobody, which is why all the responses were negative

I think the issue is that the experts are being ignored for political reasons, who have been some of the most influential pressure groups involved. Kind of like how the expert advice completely contradicts current drug policy....so it gets ignored. Experts are only useful when they agree with you and given a stiff ignoring if they counter an ideological drive.

 

[Glaucus]

why use speculation research, when weve been doing fracking for years.

few risks in the other industries, rofl. that's a brilliantly stupid comment.

 

[Bear]

It would just be dismissed as 'OMG PROPAGANDA' because some people like to pretend we live in some sort of repressive state.

The idea that public opinion should be the allowed to sway a decision like this bizarre. I've got no idea how fracking works and absolutely nothing to do with it in any capacity so why on earth should my view on it be taken into consideration when deciding whether to grant licenses?

Yet this is exactly what people seem to think ought happen.

Let's leave it to the experts and not the pressure groups (Lets be honest, who would bother to respond to a public consultation unless they had a strong view? Almost nobody, which is why all the responses were negative).

Thats is I'm voting OUT

 

[Nutella33]

why use speculation research, when weve been doing fracking for years.

so you haven't actually read the papers then and can't actually respond to the issues actually presented? they are comments on the current state of play in regards to regulation. it has nothing to do with "speculation research" or about whether we have been doing it for years or not. It is the issue of massively expanding the technique (10% of licenses in the last year issued) with no proper framework for adequate regulation.

few risks in the other industries, rofl. that's a brilliantly stupid comment.

Power plants and alternative resources are well regulated compared to the numerous professional concerns that surround hydraulic fracking. I'd quite happily have a nuclear or conventional power station nearby, not so much a well site.

But since you are just posting dismissive drivel now it seems, much like the government, you are unwilling to be engaged or productive in the discussion. I'm out. have a nice day