Fracking

[bf2k]

My background is oil & gas development, but two years ago I switched to looking at alternatives and have been working with two companies to help them in their transition for the future. Both companies are service industry types to O&G but many others, Mining/Government/Infrastructure/life Sciences.

One in particular I have helped them set up a small central division for Decarbonization and Energy Transition, as part of this 18 months ago a small technology company was identified for utilizing a waste to hydrogen process, I also helped this technology company to sell 10 years worth of hydrogen to two major companies, that will utilize the hydrogen for hydrogen fueled vehicles. The hydrogen is high purity and ideal for transportation but can be used for anything, presently in discussions with:

• One of the largest Cement producers in the world that want to trial a facility in Germany
  Bu

ild another facility in the Port of Rotterdam, the hydrogen production will go into the European Hydrogen backbone pipeline, the CO2 production will go into the pipeline that presently feeds all the nurseries for agricultural growth, flowers etc. This pipeline is being extended into the N Sea for disposal underground in one of the large Carbon Capture facilities, Porthos.

In addition to the above this company also lead a consortium of over 60 companies, that developed the masterplanning for converting a Northern Municipality in the Netherlands from natural gas heating to hydrogen for home boilers. There are five other municipalities in the wings waiting for the next phase, presently I am also engaged in converting the feed from electrolysis from renewables to utilizing the waste to hydrogen concept.

Plus numerous other small projects regarding hydrogen, such as hydrogen burners on a home and industrial scale or conversion from natural gas or other fuels.

That's quite a list of project.

I'm looking at a much smaller scale. The machine we produce are reliant on Nat Gas/LPG for fuel to generate heat. We deal with quite a dirty airstream so using duct heaters is a bit of a no no. Therefore, the use of hydrogen seems the most logical step. However, the lack of infrastructure like we see with Nat Gas is meaning we're going to need to look at having onsite hydrogen generations (Electrolysis).

The more I explore the hydrogen solution the more I see a massive benefit and wonder why all the effort is being put into other renewables in this country. The H2ermes Project is a wonderful example of how a city can be powered/supplied using this solution.

[IanMcL]

Anyone got their central heating on yet?

[KateR]

That's quite a list of project.

I'm looking at a much smaller scale. The machine we produce are reliant on Nat Gas/LPG for fuel to generate heat. We deal with quite a dirty airstream so using duct heaters is a bit of a no no. Therefore, the use of hydrogen seems the most logical step. However, the lack of infrastructure like we see with Nat Gas is meaning we're going to need to look at having onsite hydrogen generations (Electrolysis).

The more I explore the hydrogen solution the more I see a massive benefit and wonder why all the effort is being put into other renewables in this country. The H2ermes Project is a wonderful example of how a city can be powered/supplied using this solution.

This is the housing project in the Netherlands, 1st municipality as I mentioned:

https://www.gasterra.nl/en/news/gasterr ... en-project

This is the change I am working on for the next five cities, to change the renewable power feed of Wind & Solar to producing hydrogen from waste as outlined in the link below, this option provide a much more stable production at a far lower cost, it produces 3 times more hydrogen than the worlds largest electrolyzer project from wind or solar. The worlds largest electrolyzer project was recently announced using hydro power for the electricity, this waste to hydrogen will produce 1.5 time more than that hydro-electrolysis project!

It produces 11 tons/day of hydrogen, which I am assuming is more than you would need for what you're looking at.

https://www.sgh2energy.com/about

https://www.sgh2energy.com/faq

[bf2k]

It produces 11 tons/day of hydrogen, which I am assuming is more than you would need for what you're looking at.

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look when I get into the office.

We're looking at 250 kg/hr (6 ton/day) for a 3 line plant just to heat our machines. However, if the customer is going to the expense of installing an Electrolyser then that will probably need to be rated at 7.2 tons/day for other heating requirements.

[basil6345789]

As a resident of the Fylde coast at the time I can confirm the earthquakes definitely happened.

Sure it wasn't the wife breaking wind?

[Lowbankclaret]

The "certain people" putting up the price of gas are the buyers around the world who are prepared to pay high prices for gas, while there is a shortage of supply. Last year covid-19 impacted the world. A lot of things stopped and some of those things that stopped stopped buying gas. So, the gas producers had too much gas, so they stopped producing. Simple thing is, as the world has started to open up, some things can happen faster than others. Demand for gas is one of those things that can "open up" quickly. However, re-opening gas wells to produce gas takes longer, hence the global shortage.

But, it's only a "high prices" issue. It will get sorted and the world will re-balance. Meanwhile, keep an extra layer handy for those colder days.

But why is there a shortage??

From what I have read, Putin has restricted gas supplies to force the EU to grant approval for the pipeline he has put in to supply Europe which does not go through Ukraine.
He then turn off Ukraine’s gas forcing its annexation back with Russia.

Not the best plan to have your gas supply from a dictator.

[DocFoster]

Interesting article by Mark Littlewood in the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago.

The current energy crisis should come as no surprise. The market has been tampered with and taxed to such an extent that it can scarcely be called a market at all. Investing in energy supply has become unlike most normal financial decisions. The rate of return you can secure will depend not so much on the extent to which you have discovered some new innovatory process or a wizard way to improve productivity and efficiency. Instead, how the government choses to legislate and regulate the sector in the years to come is likely to be the key determinant of the money you make.

To the sort of mess we currently have in our inflexible energy market, it is usually an amalgamation of a series of factors and an aggregation of poor previous decision-making. Nowhere is this more obviously the case than in our total failure to embrace a fracking revolution and unleash the potential of shale gas.

In the 25 years from 1980, the UK produced more energy than it needed, but since the turn of the century that has started to unravel – we now import more than third of our energy and about 60 per cent of our natural gas. This might not be so bad if we were genuinely sourcing cheap and efficient alternatives to homegrown energy. But it is a problem if we have instead squandered major opportunities in Britain.

A glance across the Atlantic gives a glimpse of what shale gas can achieve. Since 2005, the USA has gone from importing 15 per cent of their gas to being a net exporter. Household energy bills have fallen by around 40 per cent thanks to shale gas coming onstream. Other benefits have been enormous too – literally millions of jobs have been created and fracking has played a major role in America’s impressive 20 per cent reduction in energy-related emissions in the last 20 years.


If we could replicate even a fraction of these results in Britain the results would be tremendous. In 2014 it was estimated by the British Geological Survey that the UK has 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in shale, and if just 10 per cent of this were extracted from the ground it could heat all British homes for a century. However, this is a gift horse whose mouth we have simply decided to stare at.

There is currently a ban on fracking consents and the last operational fracking site in the UK closed in 2019. Successful lobbying efforts by environmentalist campaigners and local residents’ associations have strangled this nascent revolution at birth.

The protests against this new source of gas have hinged on the increase in traffic inevitably associated with running a fracking site, alongside ludicrously exaggerated – or totally baseless - fears about the potential to cause earthquakes or pollute the water supply. Being unimpressed by having busier roads and the associated uptick in local pollution is a reasonable stance to take. However, there is no reason why such disruption could not be resolved easily through offering financial compensation packages to affected households.

It would be too generous to describe the government’s energy policy over recent years as amounting to any sort of strategy. It’s simply been a plethora of panicked interventions, which in turn require further interventions to right the wrongs of previous ones.

The government has, however, made choices. When it comes to fracking, they have decided to allow worries about modest traffic disruption and over-blown environmental claims to destroy the opportunity to access much cleaner, cheaper energy and create many thousands of new jobs.

Craven caution comes at a price and we are now paying it. As more and more energy suppliers go bust, energy bills will skyrocket even further, causing fuel poverty, and avoidable deaths from hypothermia this winter. This is a choice we should surely revisit.

[KateR]

A link to news regarding gas storage and energy security, obviously people have been looking at it, arguments for and against:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-58896311

[Paul Waine]

But why is there a shortage??

From what I have read, Putin has restricted gas supplies to force the EU to grant approval for the pipeline he has put in to supply Europe which does not go through Ukraine.
He then turn off Ukraine’s gas forcing its annexation back with Russia.

Not the best plan to have your gas supply from a dictator.

"Why is there a shortage" - because global demand for natgas is returning as economies open up again as the world "learns to live with" covid-19, on one hand, while restoring production of natgas, which was shutdown when no one was buying, takes longer. All other things being equal, I expect the supply of natgas to return to levels before the pandemic and global gas prices will also fall as the northern hemisphere moves into spring.

You need to speak to Germany about relying on buying gas from Russia. The UK doesn't do this (apart from some small quantities of LNG, when the price is right). Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been built from Russia to Germany (Nord Stream 1 has been in operation for several years), but it's not yet been commissioned. Putin wants to sign long-term supply contracts with Germany on a "take-or-pay" basis. Russia/Putin is aiming to exploit the leverage from the imbalance in natgas production v demand that the world is experiencing.

UK natgas comes from (1) UK's own north sea production; (2) Norway's north sea production; (3) LNG cargos from Qatar and US and other LNG cargos in the Atlantic basin; (4) two gas pipelines connecting UK and Belgium and UK and Netherlands. These two pipelines are also used to export gas to Belgium and Netherlands (and European countries, beyond) when UK has surplus.

[Lowbankclaret]

"Why is there a shortage" - because global demand for natgas is returning as economies open up again as the world "learns to live with" covid-19, on one hand, while restoring production of natgas, which was shutdown when no one was buying, takes longer. All other things being equal, I expect the supply of natgas to return to levels before the pandemic and global gas prices will also fall as the northern hemisphere moves into spring.

You need to speak to Germany about relying on buying gas from Russia. The UK doesn't do this (apart from some small quantities of LNG, when the price is right). Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been built from Russia to Germany (Nord Stream 1 has been in operation for several years), but it's not yet been commissioned. Putin wants to sign long-term supply contracts with Germany on a "take-or-pay" basis. Russia/Putin is aiming to exploit the leverage from the imbalance in natgas production v demand that the world is experiencing.

UK natgas comes from (1) UK's own north sea production; (2) Norway's north sea production; (3) LNG cargos from Qatar and US and other LNG cargos in the Atlantic basin; (4) two gas pipelines connecting UK and Belgium and UK and Netherlands. These two pipelines are also used to export gas to Belgium and Netherlands (and European countries, beyond) when UK has surplus.

14EAFED8-F6B0-4053-A4FA-3F01895D4243.png (1.25 MiB) Viewed 4277 times

If we had a surplus ever, why has gas gone up by over 80%. Next years bills will be over £2000 for just about everyone.

[Volvoclaret]

If we tapped into the vast reserves of shale gas then bills would be coming down and we would have energy security.

[Jakubclaret]

If we tapped into the vast reserves of shale gas then bills would be coming down and we would have energy security.

& the potential for lots of environmental health issues later down the line.

[Paul Waine]

14EAFED8-F6B0-4053-A4FA-3F01895D4243.png

If we had a surplus ever, why has gas gone up by over 80%. Next years bills will be over £2000 for just about everyone.

We had a massive natgas surplus in mid-90s. At that time British Gas had monopoly in supplying gas. The monopoly was broken up commencing 1996 and other suppliers could supply to industrial and commercial consumers. At the beginning of 1996 the wholesale price of natgas was over 20p per BTU, by the end of the year it was below 10p/BTU. Around 1998 this was extended to all residential households. in 1999 the UK-Belgium interconnector was opened and gas could be exported from UK to (parts of) Europe.

In the 1990s coal was the most important fuel for power generation. There was a "dash for gas" in the early part of the 90s - a number of gas fired power stations were built. This was stopped when Labour came to power in 1997 - the NUM still had influence on Labour policy. Then Kyoto took place and the Labour government withdrew the moratorium on new gas fuelled power stations - though they delayed any decisions on building new nuclear plants.

The UK's surplus in natgas has gone on filling the country's needs for gas. Eventually, existing natgas fields will run dry and the only way to maintain the surplus is to invest in new natgas production. The UK has chosen not to pursue natgas production from fracking (that's why this thread is called "Fracking." Back in the mid-2000s the USA was burning a lot of coal in power generation and was importing some of the natgas that it needed. Then they developed the techniques to frack for natgas and, as their techniques improved, they had a massive surplus of natgas and the price fell dramatically for (onshore) US natgas from above $20/mmBTU to below $2/mmBTU. In the 2000s the USA had been planning to expand their LNG import facilities. As their own surplus grew and demand for natgas grew in other parts of the world, the USA started to invest in LNG export facilities. US natgas has also displaced a large number of their coal burning plants - so much so that the USA could show one of the biggest carbon emissions reductions, while not being signed up to Kyoto. (USA significantly increased production of crude oil, also by fracking, has been mentioned already, by KateR, on this thread).

When countries are connected together for the trading of commodities the prices of those commodities in their countries will align (allowing for what is known as "basis" - for example, different shipping costs because of longer or shorter distances). So, the price of (wholesale) natgas is the same in UK as it is in Germany, France, Spain and, further afield, Japan, South Korea.

However, you are referring to the price the consumer pays. The wholesale natgas price is only a part of the consumer's price. Where the UK differs from many European countries are the climate change and social levies that are included in the prices the UK consumer pays. These levies were introduced when Gordon Brown was Chancellor from 1997 and have been added to since then. The levies started with the Climate Change Levy (CCL) followed by Renewable Obligation and the EUETS Carbon Trading scheme - CCL and ETS operated on the "polluter pays" principle; RO required electricity suppliers to invest in renewable energy.

[PeterWilton]

lol. Fracking. What a dumb source of energy in 2021, but it keeps our rulers happy i suppose.

[PeterWilton]

Natural gas is a fairly clean burning fossil fuel. This country should never have allowed its energy security to get in the mess its in.

Some of us have been saying that about our energy security for decades, and now renewable prices are such as they are that the only thing keeping fossil fuels competitively priced are the subsidies they're getting.

It's too late now anyway. Much too late. Time to enjoy the descent instead. Frack all the gas.

[Paul Waine]

The Economist this week leads on the first big energy scare of the green era.

I'd not subscribe, so only quoting from the introduction:

"Since May the price of a basket of oil, coal and gas has soared by 95%. American petrol prices have hit $3 a gallon. Blackouts have engulfed China and India. Britain has turned its coal-fired power stations back on. And Vladimir Putin has just reminded Europe that its supply of fuel relies on Russian goodwill. The panic is testament to how much modern life depends on abundant energy: without it, bills become unaffordable, homes freeze and businesses stall. However, the panic has also exposed deeper problems as the world shifts to a cleaner energy system, including inadequate investment in renewables and some transition fossil fuels, rising geopolitical risks and flimsy safety buffers in power markets. The world may yet escape a severe energy recession: the glitches may be resolved and Russia and OPEC may grudgingly boost oil and gas production. At a minimum, however, the cost will be higher inflation and slower growth. And more scares may be on the way."

[PeterWilton]

The Economist this week leads on the first big energy scare of the green era.

I'd not subscribe, so only quoting from the introduction:

"Since May the price of a basket of oil, coal and gas has soared by 95%. American petrol prices have hit $3 a gallon. Blackouts have engulfed China and India. Britain has turned its coal-fired power stations back on. And Vladimir Putin has just reminded Europe that its supply of fuel relies on Russian goodwill. The panic is testament to how much modern life depends on abundant energy: without it, bills become unaffordable, homes freeze and businesses stall. However, the panic has also exposed deeper problems as the world shifts to a cleaner energy system, including inadequate investment in renewables and some transition fossil fuels, rising geopolitical risks and flimsy safety buffers in power markets. The world may yet escape a severe energy recession: the glitches may be resolved and Russia and OPEC may grudgingly boost oil and gas production. At a minimum, however, the cost will be higher inflation and slower growth. And more scares may be on the way."

******* LOL

So the fossil fuel crisis is because of renewable energy? LMFAO. There's not a shortage of wind, tidal or solar. We're not struggling for uranium. It's petrol and fking gas that's the problem. If we had copy-pasted turbines everywhere and took renewable energy seriously we wouldn't have to rely on foreign sources for our FOSSIL FUELS. The petrol shortage wouldn't be a thing if we had electric cars that we could power through renewable energy sources. We wouldn't need Russian gas if we all had renewable powered heating. This shortage is your industry's fault.

[Hipper]

I'm not sure it is the industries fault as their job is simply to make money for their shareholders. It's the direction they are being asked to go and the 'guidelines' being set for them by our government.

An obvious example is the energy price cap, a political decision which doesn't work in the immediate situation.

Overall the government should be and is responsible for setting the trends in the energy industry (currently the move to reduce fossil fuel use) and for trying to predict the market's behaviour. They've been caught out by being in a major transition of energy supplies and usage, and of course the effects of the pandemic (the prices spike, unless this will prove to be something political). It is of course debateable if this could have been foreseen. But it hasn't been.

The question now is what's to be done about it? I would say a bit of short termism to get us over the price spike (if that is what it proves to be) along with a further major push to get us out of fossil fuel use (remembering that we still need fossil fuel for plastics, although we should try and deal with that too). I do not want us to look at additional fossil fuel explorations including fracking.

[Lowbankclaret]

******* LOL

So the fossil fuel crisis is because of renewable energy? LMFAO. There's not a shortage of wind, tidal or solar. We're not struggling for uranium. It's petrol and fking gas that's the problem. If we had copy-pasted turbines everywhere and took renewable energy seriously we wouldn't have to rely on foreign sources for our FOSSIL FUELS. The petrol shortage wouldn't be a thing if we had electric cars that we could power through renewable energy sources. We wouldn't need Russian gas if we all had renewable powered heating. This shortage is your industry's fault.

The problem with wind power is it’s so variable in what it generates year to year. A friend of mine installed a proven 6kw wind turbine to power his house.
His best year was 15,500 kw
His worst was just under 7,000kw.
Not sure how you plan a countries requirements with such a massive variation.

One of the best methods which is more reliable which is rarely discussed is hydro power from our rivers. Check out whalleyhydro.co.uk. We could have almost an unlimited amount of these and get reliable power generation , which is totally green.

[Hipper]

https://www.whalleyhydro.co.uk/

Is it, and will it be, really more reliable then wind?

I notice the graphs only show cumulative readings, not KWh per month for example. Looking at the graphs seems to show the best months are typically November to April with often low activity in the summer months. I would think this is broadly similar to wind. I suppose that fits more or less with usage but there's no guarantee. Lack of wind recently is one of the factors claimed for our current problems.

Whilst the annual differences are not as bad as your friend's wind power they are still significant - 450,792 KWh and 303,424 KWh.

I would think some better electric storage or energy conversion is still required.

Climate change forecasts seem to show that we will have a more erratic water cycle - more rain in the winter and in greater deluges, and less in the summer.

[Paul Waine]

The problem with wind power is it’s so variable in what it generates year to year. A friend of mine installed a proven 6kw wind turbine to power his house.
His best year was 15,500 kw
His worst was just under 7,000kw.
Not sure how you plan a countries requirements with such a massive variation.

One of the best methods which is more reliable which is rarely discussed is hydro power from our rivers. Check out whalleyhydro.co.uk. We could have almost an unlimited amount of these and get reliable power generation , which is totally green.

Hi Lowbank, some useful hydropower can be drawn from rivers, but unless you can build large dams it will always be small relative to the energy the country requires. The UK hasn't got enough mountains to be able to have a big impact with hyrdopower. Norway can generate all the power the country needs using hydropower, but reliability depends on the weather. Does it snow enough in winter? does the snow melt and fill the rivers at the right time of the year? does it rain enough in the summer months? in 1996 Norway had a shortage of power because the rivers were low and the price of electricity spiked - and electricity supply companies went bust. The population of Norway is roughly a tenth of the UK's. Norway has a larger land area, many more mountains and more snow. An electricity interconnector has recently been commissioned between Norway and the UK, (Blyth, Northumberland): north sea link https://www.northsealink.com/ The link enables electricity to flow from Norway to UK and from the UK to Norway.

[Lowbankclaret]

https://www.whalleyhydro.co.uk/

Is it, and will it be, really more reliable then wind?

I notice the graphs only show cumulative readings, not KWh per month for example. Looking at the graphs seems to show the best months are typically November to April with often low activity in the summer months. I would think this is broadly similar to wind. I suppose that fits more or less with usage but there's no guarantee. Lack of wind recently is one of the factors claimed for our current problems.

Whilst the annual differences are not as bad as your friend's wind power they are still significant - 450,792 KWh and 303,424 KWh.

I would think some better electric storage or energy conversion is still required.


I agree, Ihad not read the site for over a year.

But surely it’s all about having excess capacity, there are hundreds of weirs in Lancashire alone that could have hydro generators installed. Very easy to turn on and off in an instant.

If we are going all electric cars , all options need to be developed ( except nuclear which is way to dangerous to mankind) .

What are 2% electric cars and warnings of electric cuts already.
Climate change forecasts seem to show that we will have a more erratic water cycle - more rain in the winter and in greater deluges, and less in the summer.

[Lowbankclaret]

Hi Lowbank, some useful hydropower can be drawn from rivers, but unless you can build large dams it will always be small relative to the energy the country requires. The UK hasn't got enough mountains to be able to have a big impact with hyrdopower. Norway can generate all the power the country needs using hydropower, but reliability depends on the weather. Does it snow enough in winter? does the snow melt and fill the rivers at the right time of the year? does it rain enough in the summer months? in 1996 Norway had a shortage of power because the rivers were low and the price of electricity spiked - and electricity supply companies went bust. The population of Norway is roughly a tenth of the UK's. Norway has a larger land area, many more mountains and more snow. An electricity interconnector has recently been commissioned between Norway and the UK, (Blyth, Northumberland): north sea link https://www.northsealink.com/ The link enables electricity to flow from Norway to UK and from the UK to Norway.

I read about that, and it’s a great thing.

My point as above is explore all types of generating electric, we will need it going forward. Flooding large parts of land for us will be a struggle as we are already losing large amount of food producing land to housing.

[PeterWilton]

The problem with wind power is it’s so variable in what it generates year to year. A friend of mine installed a proven 6kw wind turbine to power his house.
His best year was 15,500 kw
His worst was just under 7,000kw.
Not sure how you plan a countries requirements with such a massive variation.

One of the best methods which is more reliable which is rarely discussed is hydro power from our rivers. Check out whalleyhydro.co.uk. We could have almost an unlimited amount of these and get reliable power generation , which is totally green.

Tell your friend to put up more wind turbines then, and store the energy when he's producing an excess! That's the solution that's staring us in the face, but one we refuse to enact.

Plaster the ******* things everywhere, turbines, solar, hydro. Paint the country with them and then when they're producing store the excess in batteries to use when they're not producing very much. It might be impractical for your friend to chuck 4 of those turbines up but that's why we shouldn't be depending ONLY on individuals adding renewable power generation tech to their homes. We should make the government do it with the vast swathes of unused land and coastal water that we have.

We are among the windiest countries in the ******* world, and we have among the largest coastlines relative to our country's land mass too. There's no excuse for us to still be using fossil fuels for ANY primary power generation. It should only ever be a backup by now. But it's not because fossil fuels own our governments and now we're getting into areas we're not allowed to talk about on here to protect the feelings of the people who are the problem.

[Lowbankclaret]

My background is oil & gas development, but two years ago I switched to looking at alternatives and have been working with two companies to help them in their transition for the future. Both companies are service industry types to O&G but many others, Mining/Government/Infrastructure/life Sciences.

One in particular I have helped them set up a small central division for Decarbonization and Energy Transition, as part of this 18 months ago a small technology company was identified for utilizing a waste to hydrogen process, I also helped this technology company to sell 10 years worth of hydrogen to two major companies, that will utilize the hydrogen for hydrogen fueled vehicles. The hydrogen is high purity and ideal for transportation but can be used for anything, presently in discussions with:

• One of the largest Cement producers in the world that want to trial a facility in Germany
  Bu

ild another facility in the Port of Rotterdam, the hydrogen production will go into the European Hydrogen backbone pipeline, the CO2 production will go into the pipeline that presently feeds all the nurseries for agricultural growth, flowers etc. This pipeline is being extended into the N Sea for disposal underground in one of the large Carbon Capture facilities, Porthos.

In addition to the above this company also lead a consortium of over 60 companies, that developed the masterplanning for converting a Northern Municipality in the Netherlands from natural gas heating to hydrogen for home boilers. There are five other municipalities in the wings waiting for the next phase, presently I am also engaged in converting the feed from electrolysis from renewables to utilizing the waste to hydrogen concept.

Plus numerous other small projects regarding hydrogen, such as hydrogen burners on a home and industrial scale or conversion from natural gas or other fuels.

I watched with interest James Mays unveiling utube of his new Toyota hydrogen car. That car makes much more sense than an electric car. Unfortunately there are only 11 hydrogen filling stations and they are all in London. With a range of 315 miles and then a similar fill up time to a petrol car. That’s were the investment will end up going I think.

[Lowbankclaret]

Tell your friend to put up more wind turbines then, and store the energy when he's producing an excess! That's the solution that's staring us in the face, but one we refuse to enact.

Plaster the ******* things everywhere, turbines, solar, hydro. Paint the country with them and then when they're producing store the excess in batteries to use when they're not producing very much. It might be impractical for your friend to chuck 4 of those turbines up but that's why we shouldn't be depending ONLY on individuals adding renewable power generation tech to their homes. We should make the government do it with the vast swathes of unused land and coastal water that we have.

We are among the windiest countries in the ******* world, and we have among the largest coastlines relative to our country's land mass too. There's no excuse for us to still be using fossil fuels for ANY primary power generation. It should only ever be a backup by now. But it's not because fossil fuels own our governments and now we're getting into areas we're not allowed to talk about on here to protect the feelings of the people who are the problem.

Number one I don’t think he would get planning permission, there was a large local campaign to stop the original one. It provides all his electric and the excess goes into the grid.
We did chat about adding solar as normally when it’s sunny it’s not windy but the council are unlikely to let that happen either. Farms around here are very restricted on what they allowed to do. He has to have wood windows and they have to be white.


What I do agree with is we should have more turbines, we should have more hydro turbines like the one at Whalleyhydro.

[KateR]

I watched with interest James Mays unveiling utube of his new Toyota hydrogen car. That car makes much more sense than an electric car. Unfortunately there are only 11 hydrogen filling stations and they are all in London. With a range of 315 miles and then a similar fill up time to a petrol car. That’s were the investment will end up going I think.

this is where I'm spending a lot of time and effort at the moment, in hydrogen and for use in transport, have said a number of times I see electric cars as a stepping stone. For example I believe all of Aberdeen's buses are hydrogen, they must be filling up somewhere. I've asked the company I am helping/working with to start targeting municipalities in regard to waste to hydrogen, doesn't need to be O&G type companies, it helps at both ends of the supply chain.

[Lowbankclaret]

Hi Lowbank, some useful hydropower can be drawn from rivers, but unless you can build large dams it will always be small relative to the energy the country requires. The UK hasn't got enough mountains to be able to have a big impact with hyrdopower. Norway can generate all the power the country needs using hydropower, but reliability depends on the weather. Does it snow enough in winter? does the snow melt and fill the rivers at the right time of the year? does it rain enough in the summer months? in 1996 Norway had a shortage of power because the rivers were low and the price of electricity spiked - and electricity supply companies went bust. The population of Norway is roughly a tenth of the UK's. Norway has a larger land area, many more mountains and more snow. An electricity interconnector has recently been commissioned between Norway and the UK, (Blyth, Northumberland): north sea link https://www.northsealink.com/ The link enables electricity to flow from Norway to UK and from the UK to Norway.

Think there are 10 weirs in and around Padiham, so that could provide power for 1000 homes. Fully green and eco friendly . Bet there are 40 to 50 in and around Burnley. So could power 4-5000 homes.

All sources of free eco energy should be looked at and invested in.

[houseboy]

What were they on the Richter Scale and what damage did they do?

What a pointless question. They happened which means it affects stability. What more do you want to stop it, houses falling down?

[bfcjg]

If the Russians turn the gas off or reduce supply will we have missed an opportunity until we can get reliable proper green and clean energy to power Britain.

[Top Claret]

Get rid of Johnson and bring in a proper Tory who will kick Johnsons socialist crazy green agenda into the long grass before he sends us all to the poor house.

We can't afford and don't need to use other countries for our energy needs we have plenty of our own resources

[Stayingup]

Would prefer it didn't happen based on what occurred in Little Plumpton.

What did happen?

Oh by the way t9imes have moved on and in fact any 'rumblings' will feel less than a car going by. This from an expert. But if you want to pay top dollar for Qatar and USA Gas fine.

[Stayingup]

Get rid of Johnson and bring in a proper Tory who will kick Johnsons socialist crazy green agenda into the long grass before he sends us all to the poor house.

We can't afford and don't need to use other countries for our energy needs we have plenty of our own resources

#

Couldn't agree more. Trendy Metro Green elites - stuff them.

[ŽižkovClaret]

I have been wondering if fracking may get another look given energy security issues

[Lancasterclaret]

You might want to take a look at this thread

https://twitter.com/_richardblack/statu ... 3277134849

[ŽižkovClaret]

You might want to take a look at this thread

https://twitter.com/_richardblack/statu ... 3277134849

Informative, if depressing read. I suppose there is still a fringe benefit of it being easier to access/cease than via a pipe from Russia, but aye in normal days its a bit depressing

[Lancasterclaret]

Essentially

"We live in a rainy, windy island surrounded by some of the most powerful tides in the world, lets dig in the ground for our energy needs"

Its utter, total ********

[bfcjg]

Essentially

"We live in a rainy, windy island surrounded by some of the most powerful tides in the world, lets dig in the ground for our energy needs"

Its utter, total ********

The problem being it's until we face this crisis now that not just our but most Western governments will do something about renewable and clean energy, FFS it's not rocket science to realise fossil fuels will run out some day. The immediate concern is low income families may very well freeze whilst we are trawling the world trying to buy gas.

[ŽižkovClaret]

I guess, as we are now, my question would be, if Russia closed the pipeline today, could we seize / coerce a supply from those companies operating closer to home?

[bfcjg]

I guess, as we are now, my question would be, if Russia closed the pipeline today, could we seize / coerce a supply from those companies operating closer to home?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-01-31/

[Lancasterclaret]

The problem being it's until we face this crisis now that not just our but most Western governments will do something about renewable and clean energy, FFS it's not rocket science to realise fossil fuels will run out some day. The immediate concern is low income families may very well freeze whilst we are trawling the world trying to buy gas.

I recommend you read the thread I posted

And the time it takes to actual begin fracking can be easily spent improving our wind, solar and tidal infrastructure

The back plan of nuclear power would take longer, but if we have a long term strategy now, then this will eventually no longer be a problem

[ŽižkovClaret]

I recommend you read the thread I posted

And the time it takes to actual begin fracking can be easily spent improving our wind, solar and tidal infrastructure

The back plan of nuclear power would take longer, but if we have a long term strategy now, then this will eventually no longer be a problem

Sooner we start.....

What was/is your take on the seemingly doomed Morecambe Bay tidal plan?

[Lancasterclaret]

Sooner we start.....

What was/is your take on the seemingly doomed Morecambe Bay tidal plan?

Not sure to be honest

There isn't an economic case for it being a bridge that is for sure, and I'm not sure about the environmental impact on a pretty vulnereable ecosystem

But the Swansea Bay one was very viable

But it costs, and its long term, and in a democracy where everything appears to be short term, that is a real issue

[Jakubclaret]

I wonder if the same people who are in favour of fracking would be so keen if it was on their own doorstep.

[ŽižkovClaret]

I wonder if the same people who are in favour of fracking would be so keen if it was on their own doorstep.

Come on, it would be at least 40ft below

[Paul Waine]

Not sure to be honest

There isn't an economic case for it being a bridge that is for sure, and I'm not sure about the environmental impact on a pretty vulnereable ecosystem

But the Swansea Bay one was very viable

But it costs, and its long term, and in a democracy where everything appears to be short term, that is a real issue

Sorry, Lancs. You comments make me laugh. Swansea Bay, in whichever of the many forms it's been proposed has the same negative environmental impacts on a vulnerable ecosystem, just the same as you state for Morecambe Bay. The reason why we don't have tidal power is because the technology is very difficult to make work, it is massively expensive and, if the proposal involves interfering with how a tidal site is currently existing, runs into all the environmental concerns.

We pay our money and we take our choice. If we want clean renewable energy then we need to pay a lot more for our energy than we do now, plus we need to know how we are going to bridge the periods when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

[Lancasterclaret]

Sorry, Lancs. You comments make me laugh. Swansea Bay, in whichever of the many forms it's been proposed has the same negative environmental impacts on a vulnerable ecosystem, just the same as you state for Morecambe Bay. The reason why we don't have tidal power is because the technology is very difficult to make work, it is massively expensive and, if the proposal involves interfering with how a tidal site is currently existing, runs into all the environmental concerns.

We pay our money and we take our choice. If we want clean renewable energy then we need to pay a lot more for our energy than we do now, plus we need to know how we are going to bridge the periods when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

Sorry Paul, but if you pay the initial costs now as state funded (rather than wasting billions on chasing fraudsters, or taxing energy firms that are making billions), then once the infrastructure is in place, its both cheaper and we achieve energy security

Both which I think everyone should agree are quite important

And regarding the negative environmental impacts with regards to Morecambe v Swansea, they are counter balanced I think with the Swansea one with the economic benefits (end of the day, you don't need another road to Furness with all the love to Barrow that is possible)

But one thing is for sure, fracking isn't the solution

[Lancasterclaret]

And I have to say Paul, I still chuckle at your views and certainties during the Brexit debate

[Paul Waine]

And I have to say Paul, I still chuckle at your views and certainties during the Brexit debate

Whatever floats your boat, Lancs. But, aren't we supposed to avoid politics on this mb?

[TheFamilyCat]

Get rid of Johnson and bring in a proper Tory who will kick Johnsons socialist crazy green agenda into the long grass before he sends us all to the poor house.

We can't afford and don't need to use other countries for our energy needs we have plenty of our own resources

Yep, wind and nearly 8,000 miles of coastline + whatever sun we get.

No reason why we can't be completely self-sufficient and green.