Price cap
- Thread starter jj4091
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,786
- Reaction score
- 704
- Country
We're already fracking under the North Sea.
Onshore fracking takes a massive amount of water - it won't happen.
Other countries eg France are far more suitable for fracking than us. (Apart from the water!)
Onshore fracking takes a massive amount of water - it won't happen.
Other countries eg France are far more suitable for fracking than us. (Apart from the water!)
So why was Boris saying gas is an important part of their greening plan and oddly talking about opening up another known field?
Fracking = more demo's by people who live where it can be done. Maybe we should just lock them all up if they complain?
Imo ?? What with this cost of living caper
Gas
Leccy ect
It is going to lead to civil unrest unless government get a grip
And even if they do get a grip there will still be civil unrest imo
Riots ??
Looting ???
Dunno but people are not going to stand around and see there lives turn to S ###
Gas
Leccy ect
It is going to lead to civil unrest unless government get a grip
And even if they do get a grip there will still be civil unrest imo
Riots ??
Looting ???
Dunno but people are not going to stand around and see there lives turn to S ###
Sponsored Links
I think it's more of a remote might rather than wont happen. A new N Sea field more likely but to appreciate why there is a need to understand why gas is seen as needed.
LOL I invited people to guess Germany's attitude to nuke and use of coal. No takers. They see the long term commitment aspects of nuke as a problem. There is talk of making our next nuke build have an 80 year life. The current one is 60. It's rather long time. Coal like gas can easily be turned on and off and decommissioned. On nuke the decomishioning costs have to be continuously recalculated during the life of the station and the total cost is paid as the electricity is used.
Hopefully getting the numbers right and the company running them doesn't go bust. They might do at 59.9999 years.This German talking about it also mentioned the need for storage and hydrogen. This could result in a need to produce far more renewable energy than a country currently uses.
In practice Germany's attitude will also relate to public opinion but it is an interesting view. No energy source has a zero greenhouse style footprint. There was mention yesterday that off shore is now cheaper than on. The German sees that as part of the solution but probably not all in their case.
He's an idiot
He is just repeating what experts are telling him. The view on gas seems to be a pretty general thing all over. Ideal for change over periods as it's flexible. That still seems to apply to no nuke and nuke solutions. We appear to be going down the nuke route as are others. It seems Germany isn't.
You see the basic problem is that as things change there has to be a means of making up for shortfalls if they happen. Wind is not a consistent thing. One answer to that may be the potential for production to be way way over needs - that appears to be where Germany may be heading but who knows what they might do with solar. Seems they have been able to get 3% of need from hyrdo for some time.
Not really. Boris was saying we should put money into Gas production in response to the gas price rises. No one else agrees with him as it takes so long to bring new production online.
Gas is useful as a stopgap when renewables are quiet, but that doesn't mean more gas power plants or additional investment in gas fields. But that's not what Boris said.
On renewables there's been loads of studies about the cheapest way to get to 100% renewables, they all feature overcapacity to some degree. Exactly what approach we'll go for will be shaped by how the various prices evolve
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,786
- Reaction score
- 704
- Country
Water guzzling, polluting, earthquake generating, inconveniently sited fracking has too much against it in the UK.
There are waterless methods but they have drawbacks apart from increased cost. There are next to no Standards for them which was a major problem with the trad method. There may be even less with the waterless ones. The US are sloppy on standards.The rock has to be right, pressure right, water content right. Methane leaks are almost inevitable, and the stuff is 86x worse as a greenhouse gas than C02. (down to 28x averaged over 100 years, as it oxidises). It wouldn't reduce the price of gas in the uk, having to be sold on the open market, and it wouldn't reduce pollution. It would save us having to export the pollution by buying LNG.
The Welsh and Scots are against it mainly for geological disturbance and risks to aquifers. The general public in England are not in favour, because it's new and dangerous - they won't be convinced by a change of stuff pumped.
Theoretically, 10-15% of our gas needs could be provided, but every time someone else looks at the potential, extra factors reduce the potential.
There should be more LNG available for a while. The Chinese were buying it from the Middle East but they can use Russian gas instead now, to an extent.
Not an easy sell, is it?
There are waterless methods but they have drawbacks apart from increased cost. There are next to no Standards for them which was a major problem with the trad method. There may be even less with the waterless ones. The US are sloppy on standards.The rock has to be right, pressure right, water content right. Methane leaks are almost inevitable, and the stuff is 86x worse as a greenhouse gas than C02. (down to 28x averaged over 100 years, as it oxidises). It wouldn't reduce the price of gas in the uk, having to be sold on the open market, and it wouldn't reduce pollution. It would save us having to export the pollution by buying LNG.
The Welsh and Scots are against it mainly for geological disturbance and risks to aquifers. The general public in England are not in favour, because it's new and dangerous - they won't be convinced by a change of stuff pumped.
Theoretically, 10-15% of our gas needs could be provided, but every time someone else looks at the potential, extra factors reduce the potential.
There should be more LNG available for a while. The Chinese were buying it from the Middle East but they can use Russian gas instead now, to an extent.
Not an easy sell, is it?
It's not. One of our catches at the moment is having to pay top whack for LNG to get it. There has even been mention of ships diverting here.
Whoops forgot to mention Truss mentioned fracking as a possible solution.
Fraccing has been around since 1947.
D
Deleted member 18243
And is in use in parts of Britain.
This is probably an excellent look at fracking in the UK as it just lists factors and doesn't push anything at all It gives some useful info on how things currently are. Needed to put things into perspective.
www.lse.ac.uk
The general comments are backed by a number of sources on the web. It wont be of much help really and there are still feasibility aspects hence pilot studies - needed before anyone would put serious money in.
LNG has another greenhouse problem - compressing it. Maybe it's all powered by wind farms. The storage in Wales appears to be large thermoflasks. They work on the basis of use or sell to the market. Exempt from certain rules even when we were in the EU. They are owned by various oil / gas multinationals. LNG ports cropped up in another thread. This gives a run down of where they are / more planned
Things have changed a bit since then but in a way that is likely to encourage use.
I saw mention of capping the price of our N Sea gas. Long ago I read an article about new methods of extending the life of oil wells to get more out of them. I remember it as I think it was around the time that Mrs T sold the fields saying near exhausted anyway. This is also I believe the time when more gas started to be used to generate electricity. A Times article. Companies being approached to get into this area and low cost loans to help. I believe this is done by the gov agreeing to back debt and still is in some privatised areas. Do we own the gas - pass.
It appears that attempts have been made to get more nuke stations ever since but have fell on stony ground. It would appear it can be profitable for companies to own and operate them now on the basis of what we will be expected to pay for the electricity generated. The same will apply to wind etc. On nuke EDF have put as much work as they can into building them directly into the UK. It seems the go ahead for number 2 may have been given or more likely political rant so will be at some point.
How much shale gas is there in the UK and what is the status of fracking? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
What are the potential reserves of shale gas in the UK? Much interest and concern has been expressed about the...
www.lse.ac.uk
The general comments are backed by a number of sources on the web. It wont be of much help really and there are still feasibility aspects hence pilot studies - needed before anyone would put serious money in.
LNG has another greenhouse problem - compressing it.
Maybe it's all powered by wind farms. The storage in Wales appears to be large thermoflasks. They work on the basis of use or sell to the market. Exempt from certain rules even when we were in the EU. They are owned by various oil / gas multinationals. LNG ports cropped up in another thread. This gives a run down of where they are / more plannedThings have changed a bit since then but in a way that is likely to encourage use.
I saw mention of capping the price of our N Sea gas. Long ago I read an article about new methods of extending the life of oil wells to get more out of them. I remember it as I think it was around the time that Mrs T sold the fields saying near exhausted anyway. This is also I believe the time when more gas started to be used to generate electricity.
A Times article. Companies being approached to get into this area and low cost loans to help. I believe this is done by the gov agreeing to back debt and still is in some privatised areas. Do we own the gas - pass.It appears that attempts have been made to get more nuke stations ever since but have fell on stony ground. It would appear it can be profitable for companies to own and operate them now on the basis of what we will be expected to pay for the electricity generated. The same will apply to wind etc. On nuke EDF have put as much work as they can into building them directly into the UK. It seems the go ahead for number 2 may have been given or more likely political rant so will be at some point.
D
Deleted member 18243
Who else's hands would you put it in?
Sponsored Links
