[Closed] Fracking bid rejected in Lancashire

From what I've seen down here in the South Downs is a test site drill for exploring fracking. Looks ok to me, only a few trucks around at any one time and takes up less than 1/2 a field.

Are you expecting a huge site or something up there ^^

I think a lot of it has to do with how close the sites are to areas of population. They're not exactly out in the middle of no-where.

I'm sure that the MPs in Westminster know that Lancashire is full of people, and is not just a wasteland. Surely ? 🙄

Nuclear? Well new nuclear has the advantage that it still produces power after sunset when the wind isn't blowing.

Once again, Sellafield, your answers to that please.

Nuclear is great.....until you consider that we still haven't decided what we're going to do with all the waste in Sellafield. Bury it under a mountain ?

I believe that is the plan... Dig a big hole drop it in and walk away.
You could fuse the material in glass or other materials to reduce its ability to leach away.

I am sitting at my desk at work right now with 4 monitors. The amount of energy they use is seemingly not a consideration for the company I work for. Back home I have laptops, tablets, phones, NAS drives, Sonos all burning up energy when I am there. I had nothing like this 5 years ago. If you are trying to plan demand for a 50 year power station lifetime you are going to have a hard job.
If you are in Government you are planning a policy for 3-5 years and then joe public gets to pay for the piss poor planning...

Cuadrilla may want to be near urban centers as my experience of frac sites indicates that without a solid supply of cheap booze and eastern european prostitues the crew will forgo sleep in order to travel to find these things...

Once again, Sellafield, your answers to that please.

What is the question?

The tax breaks specifically for fracking announced by Chancellor George Osborne, with tax on income cut from 62% to 30%, amount to yet another subsidy for fossil fuels

Nuclear? Well new nuclear has the advantage that it still produces power after sunset when the wind isn't blowing.

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

A quick look at their funders and connections should soon make it all pretty clear

Quite - that's the reality of politicians though isn't it. Cameron is quite happily 'cutting all the green crap' whilst lining his and his friends pockets.

From what I've seen down here in the South Downs is a test site drill for exploring fracking. Looks ok to me, only a few trucks around at any one time and takes up less than 1/2 a field.
Are you expecting a huge site or something up there ^^

There is a massive difference between 'test drilling' where you are drilling to evaluate the geology of an area and potential gas volumes and the actual extraction drilling.

Fracking requires multiple drill sites / wells to to exploit the gas containing strata. The example below I believe is in America but its the same principle.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Luckily, tidal energy runs 24/7

Well the tides may be 24hr but any individual tidal power plant isn't. Cardiff Bay would have a daily pattern of producing power for 3 1/2hrs then 2 1/2 hrs with no power.

So again at night, with no wind, there is still no power for 2 1/2 hours a time. And building several tidal plants doesn't solve it either.

http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/

he tax breaks specifically for fracking announced by Chancellor George Osborne, with tax on income cut from 62% to 30%, amount to yet another subsidy for fossil fuels

I don't think you understand what a subsidy is. Paying less tax than before is not a subsidy. The govt is still taxing them.

Paying wind farms more than the market rate for power and paying them not to produce power when it isn't needed is a subsidy.

Interesting stuff, traffic and waste water treatment/disposal was always going to be a much bigger issue here than in the US as we have much tighter restrictions. The water volume required and associated lorry traffic is immense, in the US they can just pour the contaminated water onto roads and wherever they like pretty much but here they will have to transport it off site and treat it, or build on site treatment.

Well pointed out, unfortunately all those lovely low carbon energy sources (except nuclear) tend to be rather dependant on the weather,

Explain how the weather affects the tides, which run very regularly, completely predictably, at different times around the UK, and will continue to do so for many millions more years.

Isn't there an issue regarding water quality in aquifers?

My understanding is that here in the UK it is less so, as the fracking operations will be considerably below the water table, unlike in the US. Could be wrong though.

Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

Because hydrocarbons and nuclear make existing companies and people very rich, and these people give their money to fund political parties that allow them to continue to be rich or become richer, by protecting their business and industry and preventing new competition from damaging their profits and subsequent donations. The power of the O&G industry is immense (eg Ineos have the scottish government by the balls), and big nuclear projects allow politicians to play big money games with foreign countries and businesses like China and France, who must love our government's approach to energy. O&G and nuclear are established technologies and a safe investment, renewable technologies less proven and not of such interest to investors.

If you can find a way for renewables in the UK to make companies and people very rich, then the future is brighter for renewables. I bet if the UK had stuck at developing wind power in the 60s and 70s whilst they were ahead, instead of abandoning it and allowing the german and dutch companies to become highly successful and profitable at it, the UK government would have a very different attitude to renewable energy.

And building several tidal plants doesn't solve it either.

It does if they are in different places around the UK 😉

irc - The question is very simple. What are we going to do with all of the hundreds of tonnes of Nuclear waste in Sellafield, apart from encase it in glass, and then bury in under a mountain in the Lake District ?

Your answer please.

It does if they are in different places around the UK

Yeah, but the overcapacity that you have to build in to the system to cover the slack makes it uneconomic - to guarantee a base load of 20GW you could be building a hundred plus GW of generation capacity, so five times the cost per GW.

What are we going to do with all of the hundreds of tonnes of Nuclear waste in Sellafield, apart from encase it in glass, and then bury in under a mountain in the Lake District

Which is a problem how exactly?

Because Sellafield is decrepit, leaking, rusty old bucket full of holes, with toxic and nuclear waste leaking out, which no-one wants to deal with, and pretend it's not there, mainly because it's "far away".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictures-sellafields-crumbling-tanks-radioactive-4539565

Until we can actually prove that as a nation we can look after out radioactive waste properly, then I'm really not sure that we should go ahead with Fracking, which produces massive amounts of toxic byproducts. Do you ?

Thats a problem with how we're storing it at the moment though, your argument against anybody 'dealing with it' appears to be that 'nobody is dealing with it' - thats not an argument against encasing it in glass and burying it.

so, come on, whats wrong with that?

Edit:

I'm really not sure that we should go ahead with Fracking, which produces massive amounts of toxic byproducts.

One thing has bamboozled me. Why is HM Gov reducing / removing the subsidies for wind generated power, but increasing the subsidies for less'green' energy solutions like fracking and nuclear? Absolutely beats me!

Depends how you spin it.

The giveaways to the Oil and gas industry recently have been in the forms of tax cuts. Reducing a tax rate from 80% to 75% isn't really a subsidy is it. Whereas offering to pay several time the market price for wind energy to try and make it competitive against fossil fuels is a subsidy. And it's not been 'cut', it's been cut for onshore wind as it was generally a bit pants and was never going to be competitive against offshore.

Well there was the study by the EPA in the States which appears to suggest fracking rather than Jimmy Saville was leading to contamination of groundwater.

trailofdestruction - Member

Until we can actually prove that as a nation we can look after out radioactive waste properly, then I'm really not sure that we should go ahead with Fracking, which produces massive amounts of toxic byproducts. Do you ?

What's wrong with burying it under a mountain?

And treating the waste water from fracking isn't actually that bad, like most water water it's eaten up by bacteria. You just do it very very slowly so as not to kill the bacteria in the treatment plant. Hence you tend to need a big pond/tank to store it in for the short term.

Crude oil comes out the ground with a heck of a lot of salty water. which is removed at the refinery. Where do you think that goes?

And what ninfan said +1

slowoldman-instead of reading someone else's view of the EPA report why not read it yourself. Here's the draft.

http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/hydraulic-fracturing-study-draft-assessment-2015

What it does tell you is that they think it generally safe with minimum pollution but there is some.

What they have not looked at because its not their job, is it profitable? Almost all US drillers of fracked oil have not made a profit. The money has come from Wall Street investments, they will never get a return but those investments all paid a commission the the Wall St investment sales people.

The amount of money invested in world wide oil & gas exploration now stands at $500 trillion plus. The Bank of England has started an investigation into this as they believe it will be the next financial bubble, almost all the G7 national banks and governments have now asked to join or look at the findings. A good amount of any of our pensions are part of that money.

Sleep tight.

Well this is what we have got coming;

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/dynamic-response-can-create-virtual-power-plants/1059592#.VY1hdUbLGf4

It's been talked about for a while and trialled on some large estates with some success and it will be applied to domestics in the future.
In plain speak, they are going to turn your shit on and off according to the load on the power stations. Aside from the guff about efficiency, it's mainly because it's expensive to turn power stations up and down. It's supposedly neutral in that they switch as much off as they switch on, and the on intervals are a few seconds so not hugely inconvenient. That's as I understand it anyway.

Yeah, but the overcapacity that you have to build in to the system to cover the slack makes it uneconomic - to guarantee a base load of 20GW you could be building a hundred plus GW of generation capacity, so five times the cost per GW.

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of only generating power from one source, it isn't how things really work. Also have a read about the supergrid - this is the way things are likely to go and something the national grid and other companies are spending a lot on at the moment.

jeez this is one of those cyclical thread topics on here isn't it, a bit of groundhog day!

With both fracking and wind farms Im not sure why they don't just offer to give away free energy to local households. If you gave people free electricity and gas within the local area I bet most opposition would vanish overnight. You might even find you get areas that want you to build a wind farm!!

Which is kind of my point ninfan ( although I maybe explained it poorly ). If we are already producing large amounts of toxic waste, and not dealing with it correctly, ( and no, I don't really thinks that burying nuclear waste under a mountain is a sensible way of dealing with the problem ) then why should we invest in a fuel production system that will produce even more toxic waste ?

Surely we should be going in the opposite direction and trying to produce less waste, regardless ?

and no, I don't really thinks that burying nuclear waste under a mountain is a sensible way of dealing with the problem

Again

Why?

produce less waste regardless

As stated, I'm yet to see a lifetime breakdown that supports the theory that fracking is more polluting than the net damage done in the production of renewable energy sources (including extraction of minerals and rare earth metals etc.)

^ ^ Good Pics.

That gives the scale to something, all I've sen so far is a few portacabins, couple of trucks, what looks like a very small Electric Pylon framework and some bald land.

So you'll understand that I've only one view.

As to all the other arguments about %age this/that well I'll let you carry on with that because TBH I'm not that bothered.

I don't disagree that we all want more energy, and that the raw materials for it have to come from somewhere, and usually at a price, but, I think that in the 21st Century, we need to move closer to the realisation that simply sweeping the toxic waste by-products of that under the carpet for the next generation to deal with, is a pretty rubbish way of looking at the current problem. Wouldn't you agree ?

What's right about it ? Surely we must be able to come up with a better, safer and cleaner solution than simply burying it under a mountain.

Why is that such a good solution, when as we've seen, the people currently handling the storage and processing at Sellafield are not making a very good job of it ?

What's right about it ? Surely we must be able to come up with a better, safer and cleaner solution than simply burying it under a mountain.

Again

Why?

What's wrong with it?

Can you rationalise in any way, or underline a reasonable scientific basis for this not being a way of dealing with something we already have (huge legacy issues from years of nuclear development) and can't just magic away?

Otherwise it's a bit like the Brawndo conversation from idiocracy:

"it's got radioactivity"
So?
"Well, radioactivity is what bombs have"

As for

]the people currently handling the storage and processing at Sellafield are not making a very good job of it ?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the people currently handling the storage and processing are doing a bloody amazing job of clearing up mistakes made forty years ago?

You might even find you get areas that want you to build a wind farm!!

Not all wind farms receive loads of objections, and they do pass income and benefits back to the local communities (or bribery as my old man calls it!). Some are established by local communities themselves too.

Now let me think.... What would I rather have built near my house? Some wind turbines? Or a load of fracking rigs? Hmmmmmmm.......

Now let me think.... What would I rather have built near my house? Some wind turbines? Or a load of fracking rigs? Hmmmmmmm.......

You've done nowt but complain since we took away the coal mine!

😆

😆

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/indonesian-mud-volcano-probably-human-triggered/

What could possibly go wrong?

Now let me think.... What would I rather have built near my house? Some wind turbines? Or a load of fracking rigs? Hmmmmmmm.......

[img] ?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1436353488444[/img]

this is good material, wonder if Davo had a quiet word in DECC's ear.

http://www.davidsmythe.org/frackland/

By the sounds of the Tory environment minister presently on Radio 4, it looks like they're setting the wheels in motion to overrule lancashire County Councils decision to reject the fracking applications, quoting procedural anomalies regarding timescales.

Well I never saw that one coming.

Hurray for their much trumpeted 'Localim' and democracy eh?

We'll empower local authorities! Until they reach what we regard as the wrong decision, then we'll simply ignore them, and it's back to dictat from Westminster 🙄

I usually tune out of politics but I really despise this government.

Can't see the problem myself. It's a requirement we need Gas, just so happens it's in Lancashire as well as many other Counties. You're first.

Can't see the problem myself. It's a requirement we need Gas, just so happens it's in Lancashire as well as many other Counties. You're first.

I still think they should stick one in Surrey first.

Witney looks to be a safe place to live if you don't want fracking nearby.

Can't see the problem myself. It's a requirement we need Gas, just so happens it's in Lancashire as well as many other Counties. You're first.

We'll assume you'll be inviting them to drill a fracking well next to your house, shall we? I'm taking it as read that you would. Not wanting to be a hypocrite, or anything?

Anyway......so it doesn't matter what the people of Lancashire think (hi!) or what their democratically elected representatives decide, after studying all the evidence, and going through the standard legal procedures? No?

I did love the language used by the government spokesman:

"From now on the Secretary of State will be taking a more active role in planning applications, to assist the local authority in reaching the right decision"

Jesus! Kim Jong Un would have bene proud of that thinly veiled threat. Translates as 'You *ing chippy northerners can * right off if you think that you're stopping our mates from raping your environment, while making a *ing fortune in the process, so stop geting ideas above your *ing station. You've had your fun, now do as you're ****ing told!"

Int Democrarcy [b]BRILLIIIIAAAAAAAAAAANNNNTTT!!!!!!![/b]

[img] [/img]

We'll assume you'll be inviting them to drill a fracking well next to your house, shall we? I'm taking it as read that you would. Not wanting to be a hypocrite, or anything?

I'd have no objections. I've an active quarry within a mile of my house. They regularly use explosives. No issues. Fracking would be deeper than that.

I presume the objectors don't use gas for heating or cooking because they aren't hypocrites?

I still think they should stick one in Surrey first.

Well they've been fracking in Dorset for years with no problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266881/Prof-Robert-Mair-Here-are-the-facts-about-fracking.html

We'll empower local authorities! Until they reach what we regard as the wrong decision, then we'll simply ignore them, and it's back to dictat from Westminster

Well no they just want councils to stick to timeframes.

Today’s measures include identifying councils that repeatedly fail to determine oil and gas applications within the 16 week statutory timeframe, with subsequent applications potentially decided by the Communities Secretary.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/faster-decision-making-on-shale-gas-for-economic-growth-and-energy-security

If councils are competent and work to decide applications in the correct time then it's their decision. If they delay for political reasons or through incompetence then the grown ups will do it for them.

They regularly use explosives. No issues.

Do they seep into the groundwater, these explosives?

I presume the objectors don't use gas for heating or cooking because they aren't hypocrites?

Other sources of gas are available. And indeed other sources of energy. We're surrounded by wind turbines. I've no objection to those.

If councils are competent and work to decide applications in the correct time then it's their decision. If they delay for political reasons or through incompetence then the grown ups will do it for them.

You are the Tory Energy Minister and I claim my token small wind turbine on the roof of my Oxfordshire barn conversion

Oh... also worth noting that the delays were due to the frackers twice asking for more time to get together more evidence. Don't let that get in the way of the non-evidence-based narrative you've written in your head though