When will MPs wake up to Shale?

Dennis Churchill

We will have to wait until the next round of Lobbying bids are completed.

Hugh Janus

It simply won't happen if Huhne has anything to do with it. I too (I suspect like many others) have been waiting for a positive reaction from the Dept of Energy, but while he is there he values his ridiculous CO2 targets far more highly than a potentially excellent source for OUR OWN gas for years to come.

I dread to think what would have happened to North Sea oil if he had been in charge when it was discovered....

Frederick de Fossard

Saw Lawson at the Oxford Union last night discussing this! Very good timing, Fraser. It really is baffling that this isn't being exploited, it's terrible how the government have totally swallowed the wind farm myth, and also believed the scare mongering about extracting Shale. Urgh.

Punishment of Luxury

Matt Ridley- The man who bankrupted Northern Rock

Ruairidh

You know the answer.
It is ideological.
Shale gas is not green enough.

The 200tcf figure is a bit spurious as it is one estimate from a private company (on overisght of their statements the way a listed company has). However as more companies drill and more and more reports and estimates get published the issue will be impossible to ignore. I've got my fingers crossed we follow the USA and see gas prices fall 70% as this resource comes onstream.

boulay

surely the subject for the next e-petition!

Rhoda Klapp

In answer to the question in your post, because they are useless political class bastards who are feathering their own nests against the interest of the electorate. Which I think will do for many another question.

PayDirt

Fraser, you talk as if all the DECC has to do is get out there and drill a few holes around Blackpool. Where is the economic analysis? How does it stack up against currently imported gas (in terms of cost, project NPV, etc). I bet there are nothing firm about how the stuff will be taxed, so it's a long process for gas exploitation companies to get from plans, valuations, farm-ins and farm-outs, etc etc. Whatever the outcome, I would draw your attention to the totally different picture that shale gas presents compared to North Sea gas. In the NS a typcial well may produce 5-100 MMscf/d. Shale gas wells produce what, 100 Mscf/d each? How many wells is that then. As yet nobody knows.

jazz606

Get real folks. The unholy alliance between the power companies, government and leftie greenies isn't going to be broken up by a trivial thing like the discovery of 200 trillion cubic feet of easily recoverable energy on the doorstep.

Sally Forth

The US are now the world's top producer of natural gas because of the shale gas revolution. A tenfold rise since 2009. All of which is helping make them more self sufficient energy wise. If we can exploit these resources and develop others then maybe we'll be less inclined to get involved in the mess set out in Peter's last post.

Peter From Maidstone

I agree with Rhoda. We do not have a functioning representative democracy. We have Government against the people.

Heartless (cynical) Perry

As before, buy gold, baked beans, wind farms.

Ignore sensible reliable energy sources.

Faceless Bureaucrat

On the coldest day of last Winter, Wind Turbines only contributed an embarrassing 0.01% to the National Grid.

'As The Economist says in this week's issue, the discovery of Shale in Lancashire has uncertain implications but one thing's for sure – it "undermines the economic logic of the government's energy policy".'

And you wonder why a Government which has been caught with its trousers down on energy policy ensures that Shale is airbrushed from the Committee's Report?...

FB

PayDirt

I take it that all the would-be politician's posing on this site know so so little about how the modern economy works. OK let's ask our MP's to deliver a nice fat Christmas present for us the electorate, whether it is freedom from the Communist EU or free gas for life. Bonkers. And sad.

MilkSnatcher

Does this now mean Lancashire will seek a referendum on devolution from the UK?

Chris lancashire

Rhoda and Peter: Whilst generally agreeing with you, remember this was a HoC Committee - it illustrates the general uselessness of the average MP in any field outside of politics - not just the government. Yet again it shows how narrow is the experience of the vast majority of MPs.
Fortunately, the Fylde development does not require any major input from government - just keep out of the way please.

Hangmansknotinn

Is it any surprise that Chris Huhne's department isn't conforming to common sense? The Shale gas revolution will come eventually; there's only so long a government can shell out on wind turbines.

Barbara

I thought carbon capture and storage was being abandoned (see Longannet for details)?
What's he on about?

Nick B

Action needs to be taken to stop largescale downgrading of the UK's landscape by inserting wind turbines all over the place. Rural lives are being ruined by these giant spinning cruciforms.

The Poles are right on with Shale. San Leon Energy have started tentatively drilling for shale and will doubtless make Poland (& Soros) very wealthy(ier).

Rhoda Klapp

PayDirt, putting up a straw man and demolishing it does not usually count as a point, much less an achievement. Nobody said free gas, except you. Nobody expects a free ride outside the EU. But both things, if realised, would give us a little help on the road to self-determination. We will need to exchange the political class for a new one though, that seems essential.

Sally Forth

@Barbara

CCS looks very expensive when applied to old coal plants. He's talking about trying to de-carbonise the gas at source.

PayDirt

Rhoda I think you missed the point. Which was, how much is HM Govt going to tax the Blackpool gas exploiters. The gas is a freebie, it pays tax and it's cheap, wow.

Faceless Bureaucrat

@ PayDirt

You are really Chris Huhne and I hereby claim my prize...

FB

Percy

Chris Huhne, says it all really.

michael

It has been suggested that shale gas deposits are located in areas that are have relatively high levels of natural gamma radiation.
Could the issues not be 'greened up' by disposing of low level reprocessed nuclear waste into these mined areas on the basis that it will have minimal environmental impact.

Rhoda Klapp

PayDirt, pardon the misunderstanding. One cannot help but think that this discovery is being- suppressed?, ignored? for ideological reasons. I for one would like to know how good the estimate is, and how much it will cost. Maybe it isn't so good, maybe it is expensive compared to other people's gas in a free market. But we must know. And we pretty much need a complete rehash of energy policy, right now, or we are screwed.

PayDirt

The normal procedure would be for a discovery to be tested. How much does it flow? The Govt to decide how much to tax the company producing and selling the gas, after all they would not like the electorate to suspect that they are missing out on a windfall tax opportunity. So when we know how much a well flows (we pretty much know how much each well costs) then the economics can be run and passed to HM Govt so they can cream off the tax and the gas sold to consumers will be the same as it is on the world market, give or take.

Male4Shale

I'm told that the law regarding drilling under people's homes is different to in the US; in the UK the permission of each individual is required before drilling. Added to that, I understand the majority of shale is expected to be found beneath London and the Home Counties, and bob's your politically expedient uncle.

Baron

why should they wake up to Shale when they are successfully ruining the country with their insane green policies, come on, Fraser, this is what you get when those in charge de-couple from the governed, it's about time you'd figure it, too.

Mike Spilligan

1.There are too many vested interests for any real impetus in any change to the status quo.
2.It wasn't discovered by Huhne, so it's not valid.
3.Our MPs have, by and large, almost no technical/scientific knowledge or background and are mostly innumerate.
4.Huhne's priority right now is probably how to justify going to the Durban climate conference to show the UN/IPCC how important he is in "battling climate change".

Ken

Hmmm.. not one word about how shale gas is recovered. Ever heard of fracking? Hugely unpopular in the US, Canada and France where three permits have now been cancelled due to environmental concerns about this type of drilling.

Unless and until shale can be recovered in a less damaging fashion, (thorium-based) nuclear offers a better alternative. Huhne and his loony windmills must go first of course.(See French News http://bit.ly/tEfPNk)

Hexhamgeezer

The yanks, in the blink of an eye are well on their way to gas self sufficiency and exporting.

One would think that any prospect of us doing the same would have the Govt leaping at the chance. But dave, chris and chums aren't.

One wonders why. Surely the odious Huhne isn't miffed that as soon as his ideological 5th columnists have rendered our massive coal reserves illegal, another chance of the country being self sufficient in a 2nd major energy source appears.

And dave with patrician disdain stands by and does jack.

Hugh Janus

Hangmansknotinn,

You say: "There's only so long a government can shell out on wind turbines".

My dear chap, it is you, me and all the other good folk on this site who are paying for these farms by way of a hidden subsidy on all our fuel bills. The idea that the government is coughing up is fanciful in the extreme!

oldtimer

It is necessary to recall that this coalition is marching to a different tune, called the Carbon Plan. This Carbon Plan, with an enthusiastic foreward signed by Cameron, Clegg and Huhne implements the Climnate Change Act passed through Parliament by MilibandE, when he was Sec of State for Energy and Brown was PM. It was, and remains, an unholy alliance to deprive the UK, its citizens and businesses, of the advantages of low cost energy, free from foreign interference, pressure and price gouging.

This state of affairs will prevail so long as Cameron, Clegg and Huhne retain a stranglehold on energy policy. The solution is obvious. Maybe those Conservative and Labour MPs who had the gumption to challenge three line whips yesterday will now turn their attention to energy policy. It certainly needs it.

TGF UKIP

Calm down dear Fraser, calm down. Have you never heard the old saying - if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.

It struck me right from the start that no matter how good Cuadrilla's geologists might be, their PR people were absolutely brilliant.

That there is useable gas there seems true, as is the fact that developing shale gas reserves in the vast open expanses of Texas is rather different from exploiting them when they lie in a populated area like the Fylde. Equally, from what I have read the calorific content of shale gas, like methane, is nowhere near that of conventional gas.

As that area of the North West certainly needs a substantial economic boost, it is to be hoped that these resources can be developed but from my long time experience as an investor in a methane to electricity generator, I can tell you that it is going to be a very lengthy process to get there.

As far as the HoC report is concerned, it has Yeo's corrupt and sticky fingers all over it. What is striking, though, is that the more that "climate change" scepticism grows and the more reasons there are to be doubtful, the more rabid your people become, Fraser.

Indeed, I was again struck by Matthew Sinclair's analogy in his excellent "Let them eat Carbon" (a snip at £9.99) that where your mates are now is the equivalent of their counterparts c 1850 outlawing the use of coal as an energy source.

To repeat the point made many times in yesterday's debate - when all three main party leaders agree, you just know its got to be wrong.

alexsandr

boulay@October 25th, 2011 12:06pm

There already is one but the question is wrong!!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14271

El Sid

PayDirt is right, people shouldn't get carried away with UK shale gas. At present it's merely at the "interesting" stage - there's still a lot of uncertainty on the numbers, both the volumes and the costs. There may well be a lot of gas there, but it probably won't be cheap, in fact it could need more subsidy than many onshore wind farms.

@Tim Hedges - it's true that shale gas needs a lot of drilling and hence a lot of rigs. A well in a conventional reservoir might drain a radius of a mile or more, in shale it's only a tenth of that. However the rigs required are not rocket science and the capex is not a particular economic factor; the lack of rigs is a bit of a factor in how quickly these resources can be exploited.

It also means you need a huge number of wells - in the American desert they can have thousands of wells at a spacing of one per 5-10 acres, even if you drill several wells from a well pad you're still going to need a huge density of wells and you just won't get planning permission for that in much of England. It can take 4 years or more to get permission for just one well in the Home Counties, places like Lancashire will be easier but a lot of the time you end up putting wells in sub-optimal places just because that's the only place you can drill.

The big elephant in the room is cost though. Matt Ridley blithely assumes that "the gas well will need no subsidy" when in fact it probably will, at current gas prices. The cost price of US shale gas is still controversial, but it's a lot higher than conventional gas - and there's various technical factors that mean UK shale gas could be twice as expensive again. You could be looking at anything up to 70-90p/therm; North Sea gas comes in at about 30p/therm and even then some fields get switched off in the summer as demand slows. We won't get a firm grip on the costs of UK shale gas for a few years yet, but even if there is a lot of shale gas, that doesn't mean it's a lot of cheap gas.

The volumes are also disputed - some geologists reckon that Cuadrilla's figure of 200tcf could be more like 20tcf. And that's gas in place - you only recover 10-15% of that (probably at the bottom end, given the planning constraints). So you're looking at Lancashire being somewhere in the region of 2-30tcf recoverable - for comparison, the UK consumes about 3tcf per year.

El Sid

@Male4Shale - you're thinking of the Fayed/Bocardo ruling which was overturned. However it is different in the US, where oil under your land belongs to you rather than the Crown, so people are less NIMBY about the whole thing... You still need planning permission though. Noone's seriously talking about he Kimmeridgian under London, but there are existing oil wells in Surrey and surrounding counties, there's talk of 6tcf in the Weald. The Carboniferous up north and offshore is a more likely target though. There's still planning issues up there, but it's not quite as densely populated.

TGF - it's all methane, there's no particular problem with the energy content - gas from old coal mines can be quite diluted by CO2 and other things, but that's also a potential problem with some conventional fields. From shale it's usually OK.

@Rhoda and others - I don't think there is a particular coverup, it's just too soon to tell at this stage - and we certainly don't have enough information to base an energy policy on shale gas. The BGS gets it about right - we _may_ have considerable resources, which _might_ be important in the future. It's worth noting that geologists are a bit sceptical in general about UK shale gas - so I wouldn't get too taken in by Cuadrilla's spindoctors, good though they are. There's no real substitute for several years of drilling and prolonged flow tests - boring and frustrating, but that's the scientific reality.

Nick Grealy

There are three choices to generate electricity going forward: set fire to gas, set fire to coal or set fire to money.
In gas, we may, in a year or two when the Cuadrilla drilling is more advanced know more about the choice of setting fire to UK gas or imported US shale gas in the form of LNG.
UK energy policy can well afford a year or two delay, before people do something they may regret in subsidising nuclear, off-shore wind or CCS.

Today, we simply don't know yet. Although I will mention that every estimate of US shale production has been shown to understated and fields consistently produce far more gas than anticipated and at far lower costs. The US story that is really interesting is shale oil - coming out of nowhere. If I had said three years ago that the US will be oil independent by 2020, I would have been locked up. But I said that last year and Goldman Sachs said it this year.

UK Shale is going from ignorance to amazement, via a lot of denial by the energy "experts" who missed it. The only prudent choice we can do today about UK shale is to run an energy policy that uses shale as "what if". By this time next year everything may have changed - let's hope for the better but if not, well we're broke anyway. Let's do next year on reality, not hope, denial or hype.

Draughtsman

TGF UKIP - the 'conventional' natural gas we are using now is methane - the simplest hydrocarbon. Dependent on its source it does sometimes need enrichment with higher hydrocarbons to bring it up to the correct calorific value for the public supply.

Re Caudrilla's discovery, you can take the 200 tcf figure seriously. The Bowland Shale bed is extremely thick, about 3000 feet, which is an order of magnitude thicker than the most of the shale plays in the US. Yes exploitation of shale gas does require the drilling of many wells but one they are fracked the gas flows and all that is required subsequently at the surface is a small valve enclosure. The drilling rig moves on so you are not going to end up with derricks all over the place.

Apart from domestic use a large volume of relatively cheap gas would also do wonders for the chemical industries that use gas as a feedstock. In the US the abundance of shale gas has led to renaissance in the chemical industry. Can we afford to turn our backs on all of this and leave the gas in the shale?

Rhoda Klapp

Yes, I'm wary of the hype. I can also see that widespread development of shale elsewhere will have an effect on prices. I am not worried by fracking per se, if it is at all dangerous, there will need to be rules. Planning? We'll have to make it worth the while of the landowner. Cost? If it works, do it, if it doesn't, don't. Oh, apply those same rules to all types of energy. Our energy policy is still screwing us though, and planned carbon limits are just plain stupid.

How lovely it would be if the government realised that cheap energy is so good for the economy that the best recovery plan they could have would be NOT to tax it. Some hopes.

Justathought

The best recommendation in the conclusion of the report is "An energy security strategy should be published in single, dedicated document."
(Paragraph 20

Heartless Perry

Afterthought: as with the EUSSR, presumably the H2B will need proding and poking in the Right Direction to get energy sorted out.

daniel maris

Well, what a load of tosh.

1. Wind and solar energy (indeed all forms of renewable energy) can be stored economically through both methane production (from water and air) and pumped storage (pumping water back uphill into hydroelectric reservoirs). Also, you have to remember that wind energy is not the only type of renewable energy. Biomass, biofuel, energy from waste, tidal, hydro, wave, solar and geothermal can all be used to make good low wind days.

Germany (which has been doing much better than us economically) is pioneering these storage methods.

2. Once the infrastructure is in place, wind energy is extremely cheap. Even looking at levelised prices it's as cheap as coal and recently wind energy beat natural gas in a big Brazilian tender exercise.

3. The Blackpool field may be useful but it will take a lot of time to ramp up production; there is a real earthquake danger (as there is with geothermal as well); and it is not clear how easy it will be to develop the field in what tends to be an area of either outstanding beauty or urban concentration. Also, as someone has pointed out, we don't actually know yet how the cost will compare with cheap imported gas (LNG brought in on ships).

And another thing: a test of Rossi's energy catalyser (E cat) is due to take place on 20th October. If the claims of a cold fusion-style process are confirmed, then we might not need natural gas, or possibly wind energy either.

Andy Wilson

Guys (and Gals), we've been almost here before. loomup Pumpherston in my native Scotland. If you can make oil out of Shale, perhaps you can get gas. As for the environmental inpact, ever hear of subsidance from Coal Mines. Would we ever have had an Industrial Revolution if someone hadn't taken a Risk>

David Ossitt

Rhoda Klapp

“If it works, do it, if it doesn't, don't. Oh, apply those same rules to all types of energy. Our energy policy is still screwing us though, and planned carbon limits are just plain stupid.”

As is usual; Rhoda gets right to the point, I would want her on my side in any debate.

Mike Spilligan

Update: According to Dominic Lawson in today's (25th) Independent, there are signs that there'll be a "dash for gas".
Huhne, apparently in a House answer on 19th October, mentioned that even now USA gas price is about half Europe's and he didn't show reluctance to follow through - it really is a "game changer".
It takes the HoC a month to wake up to anything important.

Jon Stack

Of course the masterful Chris Huhne has a plan to save the planet and save energy: let's use shale gas fired electricity generators as spinning reserve for when the wind drops off.

Val Duncan

Ha... the H2B would need proding and poking to get ANYTHING done.

daniel maris

It will be interesting to compare and contrast the UK and Germany in 20 years' time if Germany continues with its green policies. Wind and solar energy are getting cheaper and more efficient all the time. Shale gas will always be difficult to get out of the ground.

Wind and solar energy provide a good spread of jobs and economic stimulus around the country. They guarantee energy independence.

With wind turbines we will be able to reuse the platforms and towers when the turbines reach the end of their natural life. If the turbines last longer than 20 years (the cost parameter that is usually deployed) then the cost of wind energy falls dramatically.

Tidal energy at La Rance in France - a renewable form of energy - is the cheapest in Europe by a long way.

The worst thing we could do now is saddle ourselves with the huge costs of building a new generation of nuclear reactors.

Andy Wilson

@Daniel. So it's dead easy to store Energy is it? I'm a Physicist and Engineer and have to tell you that to store Energy in Bulk is HARD. The Ben Cruiachan Pumped Storage facility near Oban involved hollowing out a Mountain, a convenient Loch of the right size, depth and height not being available. Conversion from one form of Energy to another e.g. Electricity to Hydro /Battery / Flywheel / Methane involves considerable losses. It's called Thermodynamics. I do wish commentators wouldn't glibley assume that these things are straight forward e.g. Severn / Solway Barrrage. They're NOT.

Richard of Moscow

Welcome back to the real world, Fraser!

It is a simple question of whether, inter alia, Huhne and Cameron are corrupt or just thick.
I suspect both.

Daniel Maris: “Germany (which has been doing much better than us economically) is pioneering these storage methods.”

- Germany expects to be importing 40% of their gas from Russia when (if) their Luddite energy policy comes in. Then we’ll see how well they do economically.

daniel maris

Richard of Moscow,

The Germans are not stupid. Of course they have to use a bridge to a total renewable energy economy but it will just be a bridge.

With all the renewable energy sources the initial capital outlay is huge...but that's also the case for motorways systems, rail networks, canals, bridges and so on. But once you are past the pay back period, they are nearly all very cheap forms of energy.

With the new Toyota battery - giving drivers a range of 1000kms at a fifth of the price of current batteries and with much better safety - we may be near the end for the hydrocarbon economy in vehicular transport. Electric cars are cheaper to maintain and to fuel.

Of course, we need to look at the figures, but I feel the overall economic benefit of a renewable energy approach is better than import-dependent energy or probably even domestic shale gas.

daniel maris

Andy Wilson -

Methane production from wind energy uses well established processes: electrolysis and the sabatier reaction. We already have the infrastructure in place for methane (our natural gas network) and it can be stored easily.

In May of this year the Germans started work on a 6.3MW capacity renewable methane plant after a pilot 25KW capacity plant was successful.

Pumped storage is easier in some places than others.

Of course we shouldn't run away with the idea that large scale storage is a daily requirement for renewable energy. It's a really a way of guarding against those small number of days during the year when wind and solar aren't able to carry much of the energy burden.

We also shouldn't run away with the idea that other energy systems are problem-free. The UK had about 7 nulcear power stations out of operation simultaneously a few years' back. France had to close down several reactors during a very hot summer.The Fukushima disaster has meant the loss of an incredible 9GW of energy in Japan. We've seen the effects before of coal strikes and political shut downs of Russian gas. Wind and solar are both very resilient - with little or no down time.

daniel maris

This from the US EIA suggests natural gas prices are going up in the USA (by 4%)

*ttp://205.254.135.24/steo/

Of course, if you have a system built entirely on renewable energy one of the advantages will be that you have far less price volatility as you can completely disconnect from the international market.

Mr L

I live not too far from Blackpool.

I would far rather have gas drilling than all the ghastly windmills that festoon this area to no purpose whatever except to enrich the companies that run them and make Mr Huhne feel better.

But be warned: the forces of the greenie propagandists are massing. I was talking to some sensible people this morning who were very opposed to this drilling because of the 'possible earthquakes'. Somehow the truth must be told once it is established clearly.

Hexhamgeezer

Sorry daniel but

.....if you have a system built entirely on renewable energy one of the advantages will be that you completely disconnect from reality.

daniel maris

Mr. L - Why don't you read up on the subject. Of course fracking can lead to earthquakes - they're talking about draining trillions of cubic feet of rock of gas. Why wouldn't there be subterranean movement of rock? The same can happen with geothermal extraction of heat, so this is a partisan "greenie" point!

And would you really prefer to have your house subside than watch wind turbine blades turn in the distance.

Rhoda Klapp

Daniel, the entire problem with renewable is in what you said. If they are going to get cheaper some day, why would we want to use them now? If there is ever a solar panel cheap enough to justify use without subsidy in the UK, people will use it. The same for wind, althought that is more problematical. If it needs subsidy, it's no good. If it is economical, it does not need support. Getting in ahead of the rush with something which needs subsidy, which needs a 25 year guarantee of a FIT rate, paid for by pensioners who can't afford the solar panels themselves, that makes no sense. Doing all that when the chinese don't, as a token gesture towards a hypothetical danger, well, that's just plain daft. And that is our current enrgy policy. Suicide.

Andy Wilson

@Daniel Thank You for Your comments. I agree that Methane production and indeed Water Hydrolysis is quite possible - but then it's always been, but oddly not often used. I didn't know about the German design, but would suggest that 6 MW is trivial. Using Old Units, 1000 Horsepower is about 1.3 MW, our German friends are bulding a plant of about 4000 HP - equivalent to rather less than one WWII Lancaster Bomber. How many of these things are we going to need?

By the same token, a simple calculation shows that at the average energy reaching the surface of 187 Watts/Sq metre, it would take nearly 2 Hectares to generate 1 MW.

Similarly with Tidal Barrages. They would be great if run with Distilled Water - but they're not. Silt screwed up the Rance Barrage, if memory serves.

I don't say that it can't be done, but the machines have to be vast.

I take your point about Nuclear and Coal not being 'reliable'. I did my first degree during the Miner's strike of 1971, so know that, where humans are concerned, nothing can be taken for granted. However to say that Solar and Wind have 'little downtime' is surely wrong. Solar works for less than half the day - on good days. And Wind has a habit of not blowing when it's cold - and since weather systems can well be bigger than the British Isles, it's not uncommon for it not to be blowing anywhere!

Someone mentioned Rossi. I do so wish he's got it to work. I met Fleishman once and can aver that he's no charlaton - but his idea wasn't reliable to say the least. However, it's October 25th and I haven't seen any news of a breakthrough.

daniel maris

Rhoda,

That's a very simplistic analysis. There was no way the motorway system could have been built in the UK in the 1960s without subsidies. The same goes for bridges and the Channel Tunnel. But to say that these things have not been of huge economic benefit does not follow.

Personally I don't believe Feed In Tarrifs are the right way to fund the development of the renewables network. I would propose a special house purchase tax, similar to stamp duty, which would (unlike most taxes) result in real and immediate benefit to the tax payer in terms of reduced energy bills.

The Chinese are now the biggest investors in wind energy on the planet. Keep up!

Our current energy policy is suicidal in that we are committing to an energy technology (nuclear) that will be hideously expensive for all time and will endanger our most precious possession our land.

daniel maris

Hexhamgeezer -

I think you are stretching reality in suggesting that the Germans who are committed to a 100% renewables solution must be off their chumps.

Let's take this piece by piece.

1. Do you accept that a 100% renewables solution is feasible?

2. If not, why not?

Rhoda Klapp

Daniel, as I recall Mrs T would not subsidise the channel tunnel, and it went bust, or was at least a shambling zombie for years. Motorways? Infrasructure, not the same thing at all. But a too-expensive solar panel, or an iniefficient windmill, they will never come right. Subsidy makes it worse, it encourages subsidy farmers. If they were any good, people would buy them. Personaly I think spray-on or on-a-roll solar panels for a few pence a square foot might make sense. I don't think they make sense now. No amount of the wromg ones will make it right. The bad is driving out the good. Gresham's law of energy subsidy. And you want to tax it somehow? That will not make it good. Competition in the real marketplace would. If we had a real marketplace. We don't, we have a regulated subsidised slanted nightmare.

I still have my doubts about Rossi. His behaviour is not consistent with somebody who has something. It looks like a scam. But let's hope it is true.

daniel maris

Apologies on the Channel Tunnel, it wasn't directly subsidised although I think they were given an operating licence for free - the equivalent of giving government land or crown coastal areas free for construciton of wind turbines.

I am arguing that energy is infrastructure. I believe I am right in saying construction of the national grid was subsidised.

The idea that competition exists in the energy field is a bit pathetic. It never has really, it has tended to operate as an oligopoly.

Rossi's behaviour is difficult to read for sure...proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

daniel maris

Andy Wilson -

The big test of Rossi's 1 MW machine will be on 28th October - Friday.

I should have said maintenance or emergency downtime. The downtime to wind and solar are highly predictable. But of course lots of other renewables don't (as a rule) have supply downtime e.g. hydro, sea current, energy from waste, bio fuels, biomass...

daniel maris

Andy Wilson -

6 MW might sound trivial but of course what you are looking to do is store energy to cover say 30 days a year of very low wind or solar. So 6MW is the equivalent of the output of nearly 2GW for one day(stored energy over 330 days). And that's a LOT of energy.

Maybe 10 such plants in the UK could bridge the energy gap on those problem days (given you would also ramp up hydro, EfW and other systems).

Richard of Moscow

daniel maris
October 25th, 2011 9:17pm

"Of course, we need to look at the figures, but I feel the overall economic benefit of a renewable energy approach is better than import-dependent energy or probably even domestic shale gas."

Yes, agreed on both points, but I fear the politicians are of such "low quality" that we will not coolly examine all the options, be it Thorioum nuclear, hydro, shale etc.

The Germans are not stupid, the French usually are, but both economies would collapse without Russian gas, and both do not expect this to change for the foreseeable. Very good for world peace (both have more than once started war on Russia) but we certainly don't want to be in the same boat.

The earthquake fears, however, are unfounded - no serious (ie dangerous) earthquake has ever been caused by human activity.

Hexhamgeezer

daniel maris @ 3:46am

Sorry Daniel,

Have tried to post a (clean) reply