Shale gas has the potential to meet all UK gas needs for 30 years, David Cameron said as he accused some opponents of fracking of being irrational and "religious" in their opposition.
3o years. Is that it? Then what? Is it irrational to ask? I do so because at 55 even I have a fair chance of seeing fracking out on this basis, and I'm already well into the top half of the population by age.
Forgive me if you think it's irrational to make the point, but I don't think it is.
Fracking, its merits and demerits apart, does seem increasingly like the last gasp of those dedicated to carbon to fry the planet. And for that reason alone it's rational to ask why it is that we think it so important and why the bigger question, which is "what's next?", isn't the one at the top of the agenda.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am by no means convinced by the case for fracking in the UK. At the same time I am quite sceptical of many of the scare stories put about by the opponents. But what I do find convincing is the argument that some fuel is necessary to meet transient (peak) demand (even if the main base load were to be met by nuclear) and that gas is better than any of the alternatives. By better I mean cleaner and less polluting.
But what I am also cynical enough to suspect is that gas will not be used merely to meet transient changes in demand but will be used for generating base load as well because politicians will dodge the difficult decision to go nuclear.
Politicans don’t have to think more than a few years into the future as that’s the probable extent of their careers. They’re the wrong people to be making long-term decisions which will seriously affect the rest of us as they’ll only consider the short-term consequences. Industry bigwigs are too as they’ll probably be motivated entirely by self-interest. Hmmm…
Fracking is (slightly) cleaner than oil so it might be argued that it could be a transitional fuel towards a green grid and renewables.
However, that needs to be weighed against the potential geological side effects and whether the infrastructure required to extract the gas would be cost effective.
Ultimately, it is still burning carbon though, and we need to stop doing that if the UK is to meet its legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Energy security is a huge headache, linked to the wider issue of climate change. I’d feel more confident if our energy industry was not in the hands of people whose prime motive is profit. Carbon / greenhouse gas emissions are arguably the most pernicious market failure we face.
I understand that fracking in the U.S. is generally geologically easier than it would be in the U.K. – so does result in 90% of gas used in the U.S. being produced by fracking. I somehow doubt for us it would be cheaper!
To throw some light(or heat) on the matter the following are worth reading.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html
Drilling at 5,000 feet or so for fracking,would hardly affect the water table directly – but surface operations might. So far,I think incidences of seismic problems have been very rare,and minor.
I agree,the large scale use of natural gas should be interim – but to what mainly? Nuclear?
Cameron is the ultimate corporate shill. Speculative figures such as 74,000 jobs and £3bn of investment should be viewed with suspicion as they are sure to be wildly optimistic as well as relating to a currently unknown level of reserves.
His promise of cheaper energy bills has already been discounted by industry analysts, who know the market in the UK is rigged, and that overall supply will not increase to cause prices to fall but lead to the companies switching production to more profitable activities.
My instincts are with the environmentalists who have been proved right on most major issues for the last 50 years.
@ Neil
Further to the above, with its reference to Cameron as “the ultimate corporate shill” this post from Another Angry Voice is highly pertinent:
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/fracking-tories-osborne-howell-browne.html
It’s strange those who hyperventilate about leaving a certain set of accounting figures for future generations are so careless about burdening them with the real resource legacy of a completely toxic environment.
You can’t buy new aquifers.
There are worrying reports from the States
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579294794222692778
Using gas instead of coal would lower CO2 emissions by nearly a half over current emissions from electricity generation.
Anyone contemplating wind turbines for baseline is obviously not aware of the current, and serious, problems with their reliability. Mind you, it isn´t exactly put about publicly..yet.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/51885.pdf
At this time coal is providing 37.5% of power, gas at 27% (CCGT), nuclear at 15.8% and wind at 8.9%. Solar doesn´t really come into it.
Lockheed-Martin seems to be sure that it/they will have 100MW fusion generators working in the next 5-8 years..hmm
Not much seems to be about concerning the power grab, worldwide, by major corporations. That´ll be game over.
It’s difficult to make the case that fracking is a symptom of our addiction to carbon fuels whilst at the same time failing to take account of the fact that the US is actually reducing their carbon footprint entirely due to their…fracking. Ironic or what?
The gas obtained from fracking is similar to natural gas ie. methane, but the process has been found to create more leakage. Electricity generated by gas instead of coal may reduce carbon emissions but methane can have a greater impact on the greenhouse effect. Methane is already emitted into the atmosphere by natural processes – rotting vegetation, cows’ digestive systems and volcanic activity.
Perhaps the obsession with CO2 reduction is motivated by the opportunity for the energy suppliers and the bankers financing them to increase their prices and profit margins.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/how-big-a-problem-is-methane-leakage-from-natural-gas-fracking
My interpretation of the article you cite is that fracking is not more harmful than other forms of gas extraction. Plus the point is made that while methane is more active, it is a tiny fraction of the total of greenhouse gases, and it stays in the atmosphere for a very short period of time (20 years) compared to CO2 (at least centuries). (Although the article doesn’t mention potential methane release from Arctic zones which may well be a catastrophic tipping point.)
It does mention that the rapid fall in gas prices has rendered many other forms of energy generation (nuclear, renewables) uneconomic. That, in the end, may be one of the most insidious effects of fracking.
Rob, I think we get nearer the answer when the Global Research article highlighted by SyzygySue is taken into consideration. Those of us who were involved in unravelling the Enron situation can see parallels here.
Fracking is only a desperate stop gap. Nuclear Fusion ius agame changer if and only if it can be made commercially viable.
Unfortunately, the energy yield from renewables can not fill the gap left by fossil fuels sufficent to meet the needs of the current world population.
The BBC’s documentary (Horizon I believe) “Can we build a Star on Earth?” is very infomative. Here’s a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7891787.stm
The results from NIF are encouraging and I hope for the sake of humankind that the huge technical hurdles can be overcome.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621
Back to David Cameron – words fail me – I’ll refrain from commenting on the grounds that I will breach Tax Research UK’s etiquette!
Given we are already apparently set for a 4 degree world wide average temperature rise by 2100, what we need to do is leave that stuff in the ground.
A 6-8 degree rise is assessed as the end of all but vestigial agriculture. We can survive without fossil fuels, seriously, but without agriculture?
I have relatives who may expect to be alive then, and I daresay they’d like to have descendants.
‘At a time when much of the world is looking with a mix of envy and excitement at the recent boom in USA unconventional gas from shale rock, when countries from China to Poland to France to the UK are beginning to launch their own ventures into unconventional shale gas extraction, hoping it is the cure for their energy woes, the US shale boom is revealing itself to have been a gigantic hyped confidence bubble that is already beginning to deflate. Carpe diem!… There’s only one thing wrong with all the predictions of a revitalized United States energy superpower flooding the world with its shale oil and shale gas. It’s based on a bubble, on hype from the usual Wall Street spin doctors. In reality it is becoming increasingly clear that the shale revolution is a short-term flash in the energy pan, a new Ponzi fraud, carefully built with the aid of the same Wall Street banks and their “market analyst” friends, many of whom brought us the 2000 “dot.com” bubble and, more spectacularly, the 2002-2007 US real estate securitization bubble.[6] A more careful look at the actual performance of the shale revolution and its true costs is instructive.’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fracked-up-usa-shale-gas-bubble/5326504
I think that the interests of the City of London may be more significant to Cameron et al, than solving the UK energy crisis… which needn’t be a crisis anyway. Making electricity is easy, its the politics which get in the way.
6h of sunlight falling on the world’s deserts could provide the annual global energy need – Desertec
CAT and others suggest investment in an HVDC national/international grid to join up the already available renewable technologies could produce zero carbon Britain within a few decades.
This needs wider coverage. Germany to spend 8% of GDP on renewables compared with what is happening in USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE3LojVWkrQ&feature=related
Perhaps you would like to look at prophesied population decrease in the future?
Japan has a rapidly increasing population of elderly, and the birth rate has fallen through the floor. By 2100 it will be basket case. Ditto a lot of countries. The UK birth rate for the indigenous population mirrors Japans. By 2100 the population increase will have stalled and fallen back. Effectively, that will be the start of another mass extinction.
The average global temperature has risen 0.85 degrees centigrade in 150 years. In the last 17 it has risen 0.0 degrees centigrade. It is expected to rise again in the future BUT all the forecast rises are as a result of computer modeling, and none of the different models agree with each other. We can also look at the falling electricity consumption of the UK and then project that into falling production and more efficient and lower emission generation. While calling ¨FIRE¨ in a theatre that is actually on fire, is an action that any responsible person would do, shouting ¨FIRE¨ in a place not on fire is not.
Note also that ¨global warming¨ is a phrase not in regular use anymore, even among those of that disposition. It has changed to ¨climate change¨.
I am quite satisfied your claim is wrong and irresponsible
Which claim?
That there is no warming
The thing that worries me somewhat about Cameron’s rush to Fracking is the coming EU – US Free trade agreement, especially the bit called Investor Dispute Settlement procedure. Here a corporate investor in Fracking in the UK could sue our socks off for their lost profits if we should change our minds (with an election). In effect we are about to give a large junk of our democracy to prop up the fading USA.
“In effect we are about to give a large junk of our democracy”
You are right, if reports I read are correct. And it applies very widely indeed – not just to fracking. I’m not even sure if a change of mind is needed. I think there are examples where merely rejecting an innovation could give the IP owner and/or the entrepreneur the right to compensation for ‘loss of potential earnings’.
BTW I think you mean ‘chunk’ but ‘junk’ works in a surreal sort of way. 🙂
More on a similar subject here http://newint.org/blog/2014/01/16/eu-banks-city-in-it-together/. All very cosy, isn’t it?
Sobering report from BP on shale gas in the UK. Not sure if they have an axe to grind though.
It´s a matter of record, at least in this country, that the temps I gave above are accurate.
http://mclean.ch/climate/England_Scotland.htm#fig01
Of course, when the various responsible institutes get around to homogenizing the records, things get a little different. But the recording in the above show what the thermometers recorded.
After the many FOIA requests and the mass interest in what things are actually like, rather than what others would have you believe, things have cooled down a bit….
Of course things are still warming up, but nothing like as much as others would make out.
Anyway, I note that the BP ¨energy outlook to 2035¨ is out now, you may, time permitting, like to look at it (or listen/look at the webcast version):
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/energy-outlook.html
It #is# worth a look..
That looks like a pretty clear record of warming to me
‘It´s a matter of record, at least in this country, that the temps I gave above are accurate.’
But that is, forgive me for saying it bluntly, a very naive interpretation of data.
First, climate data is ‘noisy’ which means you can always pick sequences which appear to buck the trend. Nevertheless the trends are there.
Next, the global climate depends on multiple energy stores, and the transfer of energy between them. For the last couple of decades the oceans have been absorbing more energy than expected. This energy does not go away and if anything may be in a form that is even more destructive since it is the oceans that fuel hurricanes.
Finally, climate change is not just about temperatures recorded in individual places at particular times: it is a global phenomenon. Much of it is counter-intuitive – increasing temperatures in some places will likely be matched by extreme cold in others.
Around about 2020 (+-) we will know for sure.
China will still be increasing its CO2 output, and so will India.
I´m betting on the average temps staying within historical averages.
One thing is sure. Nothing the UK does will make a jot of difference.
¨First, climate data is ‘noisy’ which means you can always pick sequences which appear to buck the trend. Nevertheless the trends are there¨
That works both ways.
A look at a lot of averages, worldwide, recorded over many years (I picked the CET because it is the longest record in the world) shows that the temperature increase is, at the moment, less than one degree centigrade over the last 150 years.
Nobody, and that includes very many sceptics/skeptics, is disputing that global temperatures are increasing. The debate is about the extent and the rate of rise.
Constructing graphs of the temperature rise to alarm, by making the scale read in tenths of a degree, is another thing…if you graph in whole degrees the rate-of-rise is less impressive!
Actually, energy does go away, it radiates upwards and away as well as being absorbed.
There are far more things influencing climate than CO2, or the other ¨greenhouse¨ gases.
Maybe you should also consider that none of the current crop of climate models forecast the ¨slowdown¨ (although it was never really ¨fast up¨ anyway).
Chaotic is a better description of global climate!