UK Power supplies Winter 2022/2023. Are you prepared ?

[theoldrouge]

Rather than engaging in trading inconsequential insults 

perhaps you could reread the quote from the report and let us know who you think wrote the report and tell us why they have failed to support their quote to your satisfaction 

If fracking is unsafe, then construction is unsafe, mining is unsafe, and geothermal is certainly unsafe.

So either one rule applies to all of them, the same rules, or if you want to shut fracking down on the grounds that it's unsafe, then you also need  to  shut down the construction industry in this  country.

[unclebulgaria67]

Experts don't appear to agree on risks, so I don't think Government are in a position to decide on whether fracking could proceed in some areas of the UK.  Some of the experts on either side of the argument will be biased.

 

Is there a truly independent organisation that could weigh up all of the available information to help decide if fracking could proceed in a few selected areas ?

 

Government says that fracking can only proceed with the consent of local people. So how may objections need to be received for fracking to not go ahead ?  As was seen with HS2 and compulsory purchase orders on people's homes, objections were simply ignored.

[tobyjugg2]

Must be close to a record for the number of fallacies in one short post there

- without even answering the question except expecting me to answer it

Well heres my answer again - fracking has NO legitimate pros, and is about as sensible as doing your own appendectomy

 

 

"If fracking is unsafe, then construction is unsafe, mining is unsafe, and geothermal is certainly unsafe. "

ROFL - name the fallacies

.. ergo digging your garden and planting turnips is unsafe

 

Even mining - except on a very large scale - like extensive coal mining doesn't come close to fracking

Drilling - even North sea drilling isnt as bad - but has significant risks

 

Geothermal - some risk, but small and FAR more detailed planning - and working great @ eden

Construction? - of mega dams on faultlines -yep, of building a city ... or a solar farm - nope

 

So, ALL fossil fuel extraction has significant risks, albeit most having FAR less than equivalent fracking - too damn right.

 

Renewable energy like wind, solar, and even tidal and dams (provided major fault lines avoided as they should be) - some local environmental issues - but far more benefits including rain/drought/water management and no real world wide environment issues despite massive benefits.

 

So, rather than engaging in fallacies, how about stating your case, with credible supping evidence. I have, you haven't.

Even kwasi doesn't agree with you, and neither does the government report.

 

 

Fracking is actually far worse than building a dam across a fault line - as fracking in the UK is (as shown) is across what geology?

(already linked this....)

and should you bother to follow the logic streams with 'dam across fault line' issue - just what effect to you think trillions of tons of extra sea water caused by human generated climate change are doing to fault lines, volcanoes  and even tectonic plates?

 

 

All of which aside, simple economics and timescales quite readily define renewables as the ONLY solution

to all aspects of the current and future energy crisis,

with fracking quite the opposite.

[unclebulgaria67]

Don't think it is helpful to compare fracking with other activities, as each individual project has to be gone through in exact details to understand risks and if/how these can be mitigated.

 

Personally, if I were in a decision making position on fracking, I would have to receive  overwhelming evidence to support it, as the UK is such a small geographical area, that any issues such as earthquakes and pollution could have such a devastating impact. And the costs of dealing with incidents would fall to taxpayers to meet and costs could far exceed any potential revenues that were estimated.

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Don't think it is helpful to compare fracking with other activities, as each individual project has to be gone through in exact details to understand risks and if/how these can be mitigated.

 

I disagree as long as the comparisons are carefully considered. and one of the main issues with fracking is that the exact risks and plans AREN'T happening - just presentations and assumptions based on (better than) best possible scenarios NOT reality.

 

2 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

 

Personally, if I were in a decision making position on fracking, I would have to receive  overwhelming evidence to support it, as the UK is such a small geographical area, that any issues such as earthquakes and pollution could have such a devastating impact. And the costs of dealing with incidents would fall to taxpayers to meet and costs could far exceed any potential revenues that were estimated.

 

Exactly - even aside from who would reap any benefit and how - and it aint the UK citizens.

Edited September 17, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

and the post before was @theoldrouge... mainly

[tobyjugg2]

So why are you @unclebulgaria67and @theoldrouge acting like evidence (financial, geological and environmental) hasn't been demonstrating that fracking is NOT a viable option, doesn't address the issues it claims to, and only profits a few?

(When it most certainly has - even reluctantly in the Mail)

 

... without either of you giving a single solitary justification for it that hasn't looong been demonstrated false or very misleading at best?

 

 

To paraphrase your own latest statement @unclebulgaria67'wheres the evidence'

 

The default is, and should be:  Prove beyond reasonable doubt its safe and beneficial to the UK population, or (in the words of a dwarf) would ye consider ...  just sodding off

 

Was it 17 earthquakes in lancs in 9 days .. attributed to fracking just a test hole that resulted in it being 'halted'?

- and is the industry looking to make better plans - or pressing for less regulation?

 

 

Seems quite clear to me that we should be following the example of Dáin Ironfoot and telling the frackers and their Trolls to

 

 

 

How far away from the fracking site are the induced earthqukes?

 

Fracking can cause earthquakes tens of kilometres away – new research

PHYS.ORG

---

Earthquakes threaten to be a show-stopper for fracking. In the Netherlands, the largest gas field in Europe will be shut down by 2030 after sustained...

 

 

"the pressure increase created by injection can migrate substantial horizontal and vertical distances from the injection location. Induced earthquakes can occur 10 or more miles from injection wells. Induced earthquakes can also occur a few miles below injection wells."

Learn more: USGS Induced Earthquakes

 

Are earthquakes induced by fluid-injection activities always located close to the point of injection? | U.S. Geological Survey

WWW.USGS.GOV

---

No. Given enough time, the pressure increase created by injection can migrate substantial horizontal and vertical distances from the injection...

 

2019: The Year Fracking Earthquakes Turned Deadly

WWW.INSIDESCIENCE.ORG

---

(Inside Science) -- On Feb. 25, 2019, an earthquake shook the village of Gaoshan in China's Sichuan Province, leaving 12 people injured and two...

 

[unclebulgaria67]

I am allowing for the possibility that in a few remote areas of the UK, that there is enough supporting evidence for fracking to be progressed, without much local opposition.

 

Does not mean that I am in favour of fracking or think it would a sensible viable way forward.

 

If Government allowed fracking to go ahead and there were awful consequences, the public would no doubt blame the politicians responsible for allowing it and not the companies involved.

[tobyjugg2]

44 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

I am allowing for the possibility that in a few remote areas of the UK, that there is enough supporting evidence for fracking to be progressed, without much local opposition.

 

 

So where is your evidence to support holding such a 'thought let alone pronouncing it?

 

1. Tell us, where is such a place - with any oil/gas sufficiently distanced from aquifers, faults and people?

2. Why would frackers be interested in it if there is (easy to get at? and enough to generate a scam frack?)?

3. what benefit there is to the nation if you get past 1 and 2?

 

Surely you have at least answers to those very basic requirements - else what on earth could justify yet another such statement like that from you?

 

.. or pleading a Johnson again - ' I never knew there was no such thing'

[honeybee13]

Big oil giants admit to gaslighting the public:

 

Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aims | Climate crisis | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Fury as ‘explosive’ documents reveal largest oil companies contradicted public statements and wished bedbugs upon critical activists

 

[unclebulgaria67]

"Allowing for the possibility"  is just that. That it is possible that Government allows the go ahead for a fracking site.

 

For example, within the Bowland Shale Formation areas.  But not sure what specific site.

 

The Carboniferous Bowland Shale gas study: geology and resource estimation - NERC Open Research Archive

NORA.NERC.AC.UK

 

[tobyjugg2]

Its entirely likely the current government will do all it can toallow fracking, and entirely likely the next will ban it. Its also clear that rather than requireing permission of locals, the planning changes being made takes it ENTIRELY out of locals hands ..

.. but I was referring to your following statement.. asking for where ?:

 

" am allowing for the possibility that in a few remote areas of the UK, that there is enough supporting evidence for fracking to be progressed, without much local opposition. "

 

So you actually just pulled that out of ... nowhere ... again?

In asking for more clarity as I was 'allowing for the possibility' that you had something to support it. Benefit of the doubt as it were.

 

So,

There are no such sites, unless you can define some .. just as there were no such pros despite your also entirely empty pronouncement.

Feel free to offer some contrary evidence.

 

 

Surely we are discussing serious possibilities, not fracking fantasies extracted from deep within a dark place? or are we?

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Big oil giants admit to gaslighting the public:

 

Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aims | Climate crisis | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Fury as ‘explosive’ documents reveal largest oil companies contradicted public statements and wished bedbugs upon critical activists

 

 

See attached

2022.09.14 FINAL COR Supplemental Memo.pdf

[honeybee13]

Opinion: While EU and US act, UK is unprepared for winter energy crisis

WWW.ENERGYMONITOR.AI

---

The EU has unveiled unprecedented emergency measures, but the UK is largely unprepared for a winter energy crisis.

 

[tobyjugg2]

When you look at what Truss' package is, as far as i can see so far, its about £150 Billion quid (possibly more) of taxpayer money on the taxpayer credit card, with as far as i can see about £100 Billion of that (two thirds) guaranteeing energy company profits (NOT covering costs), with only round about 50 Billion (one third) of that taxpayer money actually benefiting the taxpayer. With even most of that 1/3 going to the better off.

 

Effectively, in very simple terms:

Give me 15 quid and I'll give you a fiver, unless you are poor in which case give me a tenner and I'll give you a quid.

 

Not certain on these amounts by any means - but take a look what the EU has done (and France had already done more of)  with capping the charges and profits energy companies can make - and it roughly balances.

Edited September 18, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[brassnecked]

Here is the cat among the pigeons

Energy: national humiliation | Turbulent Times

WWW.TURBULENTTIMES.CO.UK

---

It has long been my thesis that the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has had only a marginal effect of the energy cost crisis in the UK, in effect...

 

[unclebulgaria67]

The news that EU countries now have over 80% of their target amount of gas stored, which should see them through Winter, must have UK Government concerned how they compare.

 

Would be very embarrassing if lights went out in the UK during the Winter, as the UK had not invested in storage, with Truss having signed off on closure of gas storage site in 2017.

[honeybee13]

I posted an article earlier, UB.

[unclebulgaria67]

HB, yes I did see that. I just noted online that there was now further commentary about how EU countries had worked together to build up gas supplies.

 

Once the state funeral has taken place and the country returns to normal business, then I would expect to see Truss put under a lot of pressure to explain exactly how her Government will ensure the UK has sufficient supplies of energy to meet demand. In addition to the financial support Government will be providing.

[tobyjugg2]

51 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Here is the cat among the pigeons

Energy: national humiliation | Turbulent Times

WWW.TURBULENTTIMES.CO.UK

---

It has long been my thesis that the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has had only a marginal effect of the energy cost crisis in the UK, in effect...

 

 

Nope

 

One example from it

"In another piece published in 2021, Lodge wrote that relying on patchy renewables ..."

- Seen the recent figures where renewable are actually keeping the lights on at a fraction of the cost

 

"and importing more electricity from the EU was simply not sustainable,"

- Not with Brexit and a populist spoiler guvernment - but we should have a renewable surplus being an island with thousands of options for tidal and offshore wind generation

 

"complaining that growing dependence on foreign imports of electricity, as power stations shut without replacement and renewables fail to satisfy demand consistency, was neither a responsible nor secure long-term plan."

- Limited investment in renewables, and any inverstment in coal plants is not a secure long term plan

 

 

and the longer we wait - the worse it will get.

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Huh not sure what happened there - an edit somehow became a new post.

Edited September 18, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Not to give them ideas, but i'm waiting for the frack-heads to start saying 'look how expensive wind and solar is' based on the rampant, obscene, excessive profiteering of the energy companies selling it to UK customers at unjustified high prices, just like they are the North Sea oil and gas ...

and with the collusion of the UK Guvernment blaming the obscene profiteering on the Ukraine invasion ..

Edited September 18, 2022 by tobyjugg2

[theoldrouge]

2 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Here is the cat among the pigeons

Energy: national humiliation | Turbulent Times

WWW.TURBULENTTIMES.CO.UK

---

It has long been my thesis that the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has had only a marginal effect of the energy cost crisis in the UK, in effect...

 

Excellent article @brassnecked

Net Zero was just an indulgence for the good times 

As I have previously said the current crisis has nothing to do with the Ukraine situation 

Still with Sue Ellen in charge of the rubber boaters and JR in charge of energy what could possibly go wrong 

Lefties please queue for your sense of humour bypass

[honeybee13]

I think we can agree to differ without resorting to ad hominem stuff, TOR.

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Simple fact - renewables are buffering us from some of the excesses of profit mongering energy companies, despite the energy companies profit mongering by driving up CHARGES (the actual generation cost price hasn't changed) for renewables.

 

Still no benefits of fracking presented I see ..

Just the usual innuendos and gaslighting