• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Neil_F

Coach
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
848
Location
Islington
Finally the government has done something that might actually encourage growth. There is an abundance of shale gas in the North of England. It has the potential to dramtically reduce energy prices and also reduce carbon emissions since gas power generation emits a lot less carbon than coal.

In the US, shale extraction has seen the gas price fall by a third and total carbon emissions fall by 5%. It has caused the beginnings of a repatriation of heavy industry as companies invest to extract gas and then dramtic fall in energy prices makes industry more competitive.

Might the same happen in the UK? One problem is, as usual, the planning system. In the US landowners also own the mineral rights below their land whereas in the UK it is owned by the state. That reduces the incentive for local communities to support and endorse shale extraction, particularly when fracking is used.

I would suggest that there is a fourfold benefit possible here: a substantial investment programme and production would be a significant benefit to the UK economy, reduced energy prices would make heavy industry more competitive, carbon emissions would be reduced, and, if the local communities could keep the royalties, it could go a long way to closing the regional inequality gap.

There are obviously some environmental concerns, though the evidence suggests that fracking does not directly pollute either groundwater supplies or the atmosphere. The report on the Blackpool tremors suggests fracking was the cause at an already weak fault. However, the shallow depth means that there would never be a seismic event that caused any damage.

Is there anyone against shale gas extraction? I'm interested to hear an alternative view.
 

Pubey

Guest
As long as the conditions imposed do stop any tremors then I'm all for it.
 

Bielzibubz

President
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
4,757
Location
Eastwood, the posh part of Rayleigh..
I'm all in favor of it, especially if it increases the likely hood of Blackpool disappearing into the sea :winking:

Seriously though. I'm of the opinion that only time will tell if it'll have any lasting damage to the bedrock of certain areas of the UK. I certainly don't believe it's any reason NOT to go ahead with it. At the moment the known benefits considerably outweigh the possible detrimental effects it might have.
 

Pubey

Guest
I'm all in favor of it, especially if it increases the likely hood of Blackpool disappearing into the sea :winking:

Seriously though. I'm of the opinion that only time will tell if it'll have any lasting damage to the bedrock of certain areas of the UK. I certainly don't believe it's any reason NOT to go ahead with it. At the moment the known benefits considerably outweigh the possible detrimental effects it might have.

The benefits aren't certain. The deposits are deep and small and therefore it's not clear how much gas we can pull out. However it does seem that on the balance the potential benefits outweigh the potential dangers.

The US EPA report is due in 2014 and that could be extremely informative because tremors in the US have apparently increased since fracking began (I'm not claiming causation) and so those results should be considered in terms of their potential relevance to the UK.
 

Crabby Shrimper

President
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
3,747
Location
Newport
Fracking, what's the problem?

frak1.gif


This is how it works, right?
 

MK Shrimper

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
52,348
I'm against it for the fact we should just fill this country with nuclear power plants. But we wont due to an ill-educated public and tree hugging hippies who'd have us in the dark ages huddling around candles for warmth.
 

Tangled up in Blue

Certified Senior Citizen⭐
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
31,378
Location
Sant Cugat del Vallès
I'm against it for the fact we should just fill this country with nuclear power plants. But we wont due to an ill-educated public and tree hugging hippies who'd have us in the dark ages huddling around candles for warmth.

Remember nuclear power plants take 10/15 years to build and start producing energy.:smile:
 

markw

Manager⭐
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,565
Location
Bishops Stortford
The benefits aren't certain. The deposits are deep and small and therefore it's not clear how much gas we can pull out. However it does seem that on the balance the potential benefits outweigh the potential dangers.

The US EPA report is due in 2014 and that could be extremely informative because tremors in the US have apparently increased since fracking began (I'm not claiming causation) and so those results should be considered in terms of their potential relevance to the UK.

I know you aid your not claiming causation :) the main reason that tremors have "increased" in the US is that their seismic network now has access to much more accurate and sensitive seismograms so they can measure down to magnitude -1 ish so now they register more tremors around the country.

Caroline Lucas certainly is.Just seen her on the Daily Politics.She cites safety issues and prefers energy from renewable sources.

When she or anyone can come up with a VIABLE renewable energy then we should be all for it... unfortunately no-one has yet

I'm against it for the fact we should just fill this country with nuclear power plants. But we wont due to an ill-educated public and tree hugging hippies who'd have us in the dark ages huddling around candles for warmth.
This is spot on.... not helped by the ones education the public badly being the tree hugging hippies :P

We can just wait for china to nail nuclear fusion reactors and we will be sorted, but until then we have to use oil/gas and fracking works so we may as well use it
 

Pubey

Guest
I know you aid your not claiming causation :) the main reason that tremors have "increased" in the US is that their seismic network now has access to much more accurate and sensitive seismograms so they can measure down to magnitude -1 ish so now they register more tremors around the country.

Indeed, however that means it's a harder job to find out if fracking does cause tremors because it's confounded by other things (better seismograms, other geological activity, other man-made activity).
 

MK Shrimper

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
52,348
What does this mean? :unsure:

The Green Party perhaps, and the utter nonsense about renewable energy sources peddled by the EU? It's all utter bollocks - you would need a wind farm the size of the UK to power the UK....and our weather is very benign.

Chernobyl/5 Mile Island haven't helped, but FFS they were 25/35 years ago. Things have moved on a bit since then.
 

Pubey

Guest
The Green Party perhaps, and the utter nonsense about renewable energy sources peddled by the EU? It's all utter bollocks - you would need a wind farm the size of the UK to power the UK....and our weather is very benign.

Chernobyl/5 Mile Island haven't helped, but FFS they were 25/35 years ago. Things have moved on a bit since then.

Fukushima wasn't long ago...
 

Pubey

Guest
Is that an example of the dangers of nuclear power or the safety of nuclear power?

Neither, it's an example that every now and again a freak sequence of events can lead to a catastrophic outcome. The size of the disaster won't be know for many years, however nuclear power isn't completely free of risk.
 

markw

Manager⭐
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,565
Location
Bishops Stortford
What does this mean? :unsure:

I was at school/college (4 years ago and am currently doing my masters in geophysics so have learnt otherwise) but we never got taught about the benefits of nuclear power, we only ever got told about the disasters which skews everyones opinion, plus lets face it no media outlet is going to report a safely working power plant are they?

Indeed, however that means it's a harder job to find out if fracking does cause tremors because it's confounded by other things (better seismograms, other geological activity, other man-made activity).
Yeah very true, however if the tremors are that small then the elasticity of the crust will mean that nothing actually happens and it sure as hell is not gonna cause damage, unless its on an already moving fault.

The Green Party perhaps, and the utter nonsense about renewable energy sources peddled by the EU? It's all utter bollocks - you would need a wind farm the size of the UK to power the UK....and our weather is very benign.

Chernobyl/5 Mile Island haven't helped, but FFS they were 25/35 years ago. Things have moved on a bit since then.
At the very least... and as you said the weather wont help :P
solar energy will never work unless someone pumps a lot of money into it, which in the current climate will never happen

As for the rest of them tidal/geothermal cost too much in both upkeep and initial cost and hydroelectric will only work in certain places.
 
Top