Fracking poses significant risk to humans and should be temporarily banned across EU

[Chippiewill]

A major scientific study says the process uses toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and that an EU-wide ban should be issued until safeguards are in place

A major new scientific study has concluded that the controversial gas extraction technique known as fracking poses a “significant” risk to human health and British wildlife, and that an EU-wide moratorium should be implemented until widespread regulatory reform is undertaken.

The damning report by the CHEM Trust, the British charity that investigates the harm chemicals cause humans and wildlife, highlights serious shortcomings in the UK’s regulatory regime, which the report says will only get worse as the Government makes further budget cuts.

It also warns of severe risks to human health if the new Conservative government tries to fast-track fracking of shale gas across the UK. The “scale of commercial fracking” unleashed by the Government’s eagerness to exploit the technique “should not be underestimated”, it cautions.

The report is due to be published tomorrow – in the week that Lancashire county council votes on two highly contentious planning applications to frack in the county by the company Cuadrilla. If approved, they will be the first commercial fracking sites in the UK.

Last week, council planning officers recommended approval of fracking at one site, Preston New Road, but opposed a second site, Roseacre Wood, but only on traffic concerns, not pollution from fracking itself.

The charity says it will send copies of the report to the Lancashire councillors before they vote.

Late last year, New York became the first US state with significant shale gas reserves to ban fracking for health reasons. Howard Zucker, New York’s acting health commissioner, said he had identified “significant” public health risks and the state’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, compared fracking to passive smoking, a practice that wasn’t understood as a health risk for many years.

The CHEM Trust report also focuses on the potential health effects of the hundreds of chemicals, along with sand and water, that fracking companies use to prise open rocks. It warns of “significant” pollution to air, groundwater and surface waters and threats to wildlife.

Some of these toxic chemicals have been linked to breast, prostate and testicular cancer in humans as well as coronary heart disease, the report says. It outlines how 38 fracking chemicals are “acutely toxic for humans” and a further 20 are mutagenic, or known or possible carcinogens.

The report gives specific examples of hazardous materials used in fracking, including chemicals “associated with leukaemia in humans” and “toxic to sperm production in males”. The trust warns it is “particularly concerned about the use of hormone-disrupting chemicals”.

It is also asking for full disclosure of the chemicals that will be used in the fracking process. Many of the chemicals used in the process remain secret. In the US, nearly 300 products used in fracking fluids contain at least one secret chemical.

The report warns of concerns about “the current regulation of fracking” in the UK, which has “weak points”. Since the passage of the Infrastructure Bill last year, “it is no longer clear how well groundwaters will be protected”. It is particularly concerned that “ongoing cuts in regulatory authorities” will only make matters worse, especially any cuts to the regulator, the Environment Agency, which lost 15 per cent of its staff last year.

Specific issues about fracking in Lancashire are raised, including the suggestion that fracking could harm wildlife in the Wyre estuary, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, home to 11 wading bird species of international importance and three of national importance, as well as important orchids and insects. “There is clear potential for fracking to cause serious pollution incidents with major impacts on the UK especially areas of recognised wildlife interest” the study concludes.

The report makes numerous recommendations to protect health, groundwater and the British countryside. These include no fracking operations near drinking water aquifers, the undertaking of environmental impact assessments for all fracking sites, and effective monitoring even after fracking operations have stopped.

Dr Michael Warhurst, the executive director of CHEM Trust, said: “Our investigation has identified key problems with the way fracking is regulated and monitored. Given the potential for pollution and damage to ecosystems, CHEM Trust is calling for a moratorium on fracking in Europe until our recommendations are in place”.

A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said: “We take the environmental risks associated with oil and gas exploration and production very seriously, including hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, and are committed to ensuring that people and the environment are protected.

“Our regulatory controls are in place to protect people and the environment.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-poses-significant-risk-to-humans-and-should-be-temporarily-banned-across-eu-says-new-report-10334080.html

I still can't believe people don't take this **** seriously, in the US many people's water supplies are literally flammable due to fracking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It sounds like another agency annoyed that their funding is being squeezed.

Of course there's risks with fracking, as there are with many other fuels. No matter how safe oil and gas for example are made, there will always be spills and fires. That's life and the nature of industry. I have to say that as a Lancastrian myself, I really hope the fracking site is approved and is the first of many.

Energy security (less reliance on foreign supplies), cheap energy and the economic benefits - much like Canada has with her tar sands.

[FlyingJesus]

There's no point having a good economy if you kill everyone lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

yes because fracking and tar sands kill everyone.

the stuff about fracking is coming from the same people who used to stand outside nuclear power plants in the 1950s and 1960s with flowers in their hair proclaiming the end of times if we split the atom to generate power. this time all we're doing is using water pressure to force up gas or extracting oil from sands.

i'd also look into opening potentially profitable coal mines too with the emergence of clean coal.

[FlyingJesus]

the stuff about fracking is coming from the same people who used to stand outside nuclear power plants in the 1950s and 1960s with flowers in their hair proclaiming the end of times if we split the atom to generate power.

Can you find something to support this ridiculous claim or are you once again lumping everyone you don't like into one magical being

[GommeInc]

Good, we shouldn't be resorting to fracking. It's dangerous, invasive on property and destructive. Only sensible response so far to fracking. Hopefully it is banned and the US take note.

[xxMATTGxx]

Should have been banned a while ago.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Should have been banned a while ago.

And power our homes and businesses with fairy dust?

[xxMATTGxx]

And power our homes and businesses with fairy dust?

Thanks for only quoting me :rolleyes:

Or is that because you have to be always right Dan? How about you reply to these guys:


Can you find something to support this ridiculous claim or are you once again lumping everyone you don't like into one magical being


Good, we shouldn't be resorting to fracking. It's dangerous, invasive on property and destructive. Only sensible response so far to fracking. Hopefully it is banned and the US take note.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Thanks for only quoting me :rolleyes:
GommeInc; too.

So fairy dust then guys rather than an energy policy based in reality?

[xxMATTGxx]

GommeInc; too.

So fairy dust then guys rather than an energy policy based in reality?

Maybe you should have an early death thanks to fracking.

[GommeInc]

And power our homes and businesses with fairy dust?
Better than destroying roads, communities etc due to the size and weight of the lorries that needs to transport the sand and chemicals.
Or the damage to property which can be caused to underground movement.
Or the dodgy laws created by greedy politicians which effectively allow them to invade your property to drill (though in practice this may never come about - but given the governments of late I simply would not be surprised).
Or the dodgy chemicals being pumped into the ground causing problems to the water table.
Or the damage to the land caused by the way in which the gas is extracted.
Or the over-reliance on a form of energy which is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
Or the fact that the amount of gas extracted is tiny and not all of it can be caught. Only a small percentage is actually taken if I recall correctly.

Let's for once not do what the Americans do.

not forgetting that apparently the amount of vehicles needed to work on sites apparently lead to more road based accidents, but that's inconclusive.

[xxMATTGxx]

Better than destroying roads, communities etc due to the size and weight of the lorries that needs to transport the sand and chemicals.
Or the damage to property which can be caused to underground movement.
Or the dodgy laws created by greedy politicians which effectively allow them to invade your property to drill (though in practice this may never come about - but given the governments of late I simply would not be surprised). Or the dodgy chemicals being pumped into the ground causing problems to the water table.
Or the damage to the land caused by the way in which the gas is extracted.
Or the over-reliance on a form of energy which is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
Or the fact that the amount of gas extracted is tiny and not all of it can be caught. Only a small percentage is actually taken if I recall correctly.

Let's for once not do what the Americans do.

not forgetting that apparently the amount of vehicles needed to work on sites apparently lead to more road based accidents, but that's inconclusive.

Dan doesn't care about any of that - Because Dan is always right.

[GommeInc]

GommeInc; too.

So fairy dust then guys rather than an energy policy based in reality?
Again, better than relying on a form of energy that is out of date and not necessarily going to solve energy woes. Not forgetting the obvious economic impact. Why inject millions of pounds in something that is unreliable? You of all people should know - you discredit wind and solar on the same basis of being expensive and not really producing anything. Same applies to fracking. Nuclear is the way forward, or further development into solar and wind.

Also. Fairy dust is useless. It makes things fly. That's about it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Maybe you should have an early death thanks to fracking.

Any early deaths will be caused by blinded people like you denying this country cheap and reliable energy which results in our energy bills going through the roof. High prices and a foolish energy policy have already caused deaths among the elderly in this country. (https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=70mIVabFJuSq8wfZqoCACg&gws_rd=ssl#q=old+people+heating+death)

Now again, how does the country heat and power itself? Neither you or Ryan have answered the question.


Better than destroying roads, communities etc due to the size and weight of the lorries that needs to transport the sand and chemicals.
Or the damage to property which can be caused to underground movement.
Or the damage to the land caused by the way in which the gas is extracted.
Or the over-reliance on a form of energy which is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
Or the fact that the amount of gas extracted is tiny and not all of it can be caught. Only a small percentage is actually taken if I recall correctly.

Most of this is just wrong, fracking sites are very small indeed much smaller than nuclear power plants, turbine sites or oil plant sites. In addition to this, they are very safe and produce little direct environmental affects which say the tar sands or open coal mine extraction does.

On concerns with ground movement, again this is not a widespread thing that happens with fracking although of course I am sure it has happened: in the cases where this does happen, this is the same as coal mining has done in the past and can easily be dealt with by the courts. If your land starts to crack and becomes unsafe - a very very very small chance - then rightly we have courts of law to seek to redress any of these problems. It's all very simple. Indeed, fracking because of the underground nature of it and little mess is one of the most desirable forms of energy extraction.


Or the dodgy laws created by greedy politicians which effectively allow them to invade your property to drill (though in practice this may never come about - but given the governments of late I simply would not be surprised). Or the dodgy chemicals being pumped into the ground causing problems to the water table.

I don't agree with that either under property rights doctrine. Although that's another topic, and I bet if I were to say argue with xxMATTGxx; over a proposed tram line or airport he'd brush property rights aside as would most people on this forum who don't hold such principles.

I am with you on property rights, although that isn't a fracking exclusive issue. At all.

- - - Updated - - -


Again, better than relying on a form of energy that is out of date and not necessarily going to solve energy woes.

Dismissing something as out of date doesn't mean it doesn't work. And ontop of that, fracking is a relatively new process hence why it is now being discussed where as it was previously out of our reach. We've found new ways to extract gas to heat our homes - and we're going to use it.


Not forgetting the obvious economic impact. Why inject millions of pounds in something that is unreliable? You of all people should know - you discredit wind and solar on the same basis of being expensive and not really producing anything. Same applies to fracking.

I am against subsidies. But that's different to which form of energy works.


Nuclear is the way forward, or further development into solar and wind.

Also. Fairy dust is useless. It makes things fly. That's about it.

Whilst nuclear can be used, it is expensive in clean up costs. And we don't have the time.

Wind and solar? Please, let's have a sensible conversation about energy here. This isn't the Liberal Democrats annual youth conference.

[The Don]

Nuclear and renewables are the way forward!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nuclear and renewables are the way forward!

So really what you are arguing for is 90% nuclear then with some expensive renewables for the gimmick value.

In which case, you may aswell cut the costs and just go 100% nuclear. That'd be a truly honest position based in reality.

[The Don]

So really what you are arguing for is 90% nuclear then with some expensive renewables for the gimmick value.

In which case, you may aswell cut the costs and just go 100% nuclear. That'd be a truly honest position based in reality.

We're making great strides in improving the efficiency of renewables, especially solar, so it's definitely worth the investment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We're making great strides in improving the efficiency of renewables, especially solar, so it's definitely worth the investment.

If it's worth the investment - says you the great energy expert - then why does it take so much government subsidy rather than private investment? If it is such a promising industry and has a workable future, then surely private companies would be piling in and submitting applications left, right and centre.

Renewables will never work, especially on a large scale, for one simple reason that anyone who knows the basics of energy policy knows. I'll let you all suss it. (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/)

[Chippiewill]

then why does it take so much government subsidy rather than private investment?
High up-front costs. The companies which could afford to do this (And are actually in a related industry) without subsidy already make money off oil etc.

[GommeInc]

We're making great strides in improving the efficiency of renewables, especially solar, so it's definitely worth the investment.
Precisely.

I have never understood why we feel that renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money. No new technology "just works" from the start - oil, coil and nuclear never worked immediately, it took centuries to discover and truly master. It takes years of research and some innovation mixed in to truly improve on a form of energy, or anything for that matter (technology, social/political/legal things etc). There is nothing stopping us from getting solar, wind or tidal from overtaking and becoming more successful than non-renewable energy. The only thing stopping innovation and improving are those who either have investments in the old form of energy, those living within a conspiracy, those simply afraid of change or those too impatient to fully discover the future.

Fracking could work, and this report is simply to stop it until full research has been done to find out its effects (as the US rushed it and never properly researched it). It may be made safe and usable, but for now the real focus should be on something that best suits everyone and renewables seem the way forward. The only issue I can see is how to replace gas which is used for cooking and heating.

I simply dislike the idea that fracking simply does not seem fit for the UK. The water table is higher, we have more rivers and natural water sources than the US has in a compressed space, not forgetting reservoirs and old but established law that protects property and ought not to waste the time of judges and the court who have better things to do with their limited resources (going to court is expensive, especially for property issues).

[The Don]

If it's worth the investment - says you the great energy expert - then why does it take so much government subsidy rather than private investment? If it is such a promising industry and has a workable future, then surely private companies would be piling in and submitting applications left, right and centre.

Renewables will never work, especially on a large scale, for one simple reason that anyone who knows the basics of energy policy knows. I'll let you all suss it.

Didn't you study politics Dan? You're hardly in a position to criticise the legitimacy of someones opinions on a topic you're no more well-versed in. Also, I'm not sure why you've got such an attitude considering I haven't said anything to provoke such a reaction, I hope you're not as pigheaded and stubborn in real life as you are on here. You do realise that non-renewable energy companies receive massive amounts of government subsidisation, right? It's worth the investment due to the potential value, not it's current value, which is why the government is keen to invest in them and why private companies are comparatively reluctant to since the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible.

- - - Updated - - -


Precisely.

I have never understood why we feel that renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money. No new technology "just works" from the start - oil, coil and nuclear never worked immediately, it took centuries to discover and truly master. It takes years of research and some innovation mixed in to truly improve on a form of energy, or anything for that matter (technology, social/political/legal things etc). There is nothing stopping us from getting solar, wind or tidal from overtaking and becoming more successful than non-renewable energy. The only thing stopping innovation and improving are those who either have investments in the old form of energy, those living within a conspiracy, those simply afraid of change or those too impatient to fully discover the future.

Fracking could work, and this report is simply to stop it until full research has been done to find out its effects (as the US rushed it and never properly researched it). It may be made safe and usable, but for now the real focus should be on something that best suits everyone and renewables seem the way forward. The only issue I can see is how to replace gas which is used for cooking and heating.

I simply dislike the idea that fracking simply does not seem fit for the UK. The water table is higher, we have more rivers and natural water sources than the US has in a compressed space, not forgetting reservoirs and old but established law that protects property and ought not to waste the time of judges and the court who have better things to do with their limited resources (going to court is expensive, especially for property issues).

There's always going to be someone arguing for the status quo. I'm sure people like Dan would have criticised Karl Benz when he was building the first car, "There's no point investing in this auto-majiggy when we have perfectly good horses and carts which are dimes cheaper and go much faster! The car will never catch on" - 19th Century Dan

Edit: Found him...

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, March, 1825.

[FlyingJesus]

Whilst nuclear can be used, it is expensive in clean up costs.

Have you somehow managed to avoid the entirety of the argument made against fracking or are you intentionally being hypocritical in your hilariously unfounded views

[Chippiewill]

or are you intentionally being hypocritical
FYI asking him if he's being intentionally hypocritical is a tautology as you can't be unintentionally hypocritical. You should either ask him if he's being intentionally inconsistent or if he's just being hypocritical.

[FlyingJesus]

Of course you can if you're plain ignorant

[Circadia]

The fracking site on Preston New Road is 20 or so minutes car drive away and I can't be dealing with that **** I hope it gets ******* banned

[lemons]

BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN!

[-:Undertaker:-]

High up-front costs. The companies which could afford to do this (And are actually in a related industry) without subsidy already make money off oil etc.

If an industry or product is deemed profitable or has a profitable future, then companies and investors - outside and inside of the industry already - will arise and fill that gap. Given the huge amount of publicity and attention that renewables attract, they still rely almost entirely on government subsidies because the fact is that they have no future. As I alluded to earlier, renewables can never make up more than around 10% of the energy on the national grid for the simple reason that a national grid requires stability aka a base load and cannot flucuate..... like the wind or the sun. Even if the technology were developed to store renewable energy, it would still vastly cost more than simply burning the cheaper options of gas, oil and even nuclear.

Anyone who wants to understand energy/the national grid needs to understand this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

For an energy comparison, see hydro-electric power. Despite having a history that spans a century, with a lot of money and political capital put into such projects (Hoover Dam, Suez Dam and the Three Gorges Dam) it is still very expensive and doesn't even produce that much energy. In other words, it's pretty much a dud and has mainly been used for agricultural purposes rather than energy purposes: despite enormous amounts of state funding over the years as there's only so much you can do to improve what is a poor way of generating power.


Precisely.

I have never understood why we feel that renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money. No new technology "just works" from the start - oil, coil and nuclear never worked immediately, it took centuries to discover and truly master. It takes years of research and some innovation mixed in to truly improve on a form of energy, or anything for that matter (technology, social/political/legal things etc). There is nothing stopping us from getting solar, wind or tidal from overtaking and becoming more successful than non-renewable energy. The only thing stopping innovation and improving are those who either have investments in the old form of energy, those living within a conspiracy, those simply afraid of change or those too impatient to fully discover the future.

As above with the hydro-electric example.


Fracking could work, and this report is simply to stop it until full research has been done to find out its effects (as the US rushed it and never properly researched it). It may be made safe and usable, but for now the real focus should be on something that best suits everyone and renewables seem the way forward. The only issue I can see is how to replace gas which is used for cooking and heating.

If renewables are the way forward then please tell me and the rest of the country, before you condemn us to pre-Industrial Revolution amounts of power, exactly how you are going to run a national grid on wind and solar energy when they are incapable of sustaining a stable base load of power for the national grid: and this isn't even considering the enormous costs. I read once for example, that not one power station in the world has actually been closed down as a result of wind replacing it. Why? Because even if you were to build enough turbines to match the output of a regular coal-fired power station (enormous costs), you would need to retain the coal station for the frequent power failings that wind brings with in. In addition, the costs of stopping and starting a coal-fired power plant would be astronomical as well as time-consuming.

Renewable energy is a fantasy.


I simply dislike the idea that fracking simply does not seem fit for the UK. The water table is higher, we have more rivers and natural water sources than the US has in a compressed space, not forgetting reservoirs and old but established law that protects property and ought not to waste the time of judges and the court who have better things to do with their limited resources (going to court is expensive, especially for property issues).

The point is that fracking is coming, and that like in America we'll have virtually no problems with it and life will carry on as usual. For those few who do have problems, as people have problems today with collapsing mine shafts, the courts will settle any disputes/issue compensation.


You do realise that non-renewable energy companies receive massive amounts of government subsidisation, right? It's worth the investment due to the potential value, not it's current value, which is why the government is keen to invest in them and why private companies are comparatively reluctant to since the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible.

Hahahaha oh yeah because government has such a great eye for business decisions. As I have explained above to both Ryan and Will, there is no future in renewables and private companies know it hence why they won't touch it without huge wads of government cash being stuffed into their pockets, and can you blame them? On private companies making business decisions, they are a lot more riskier than you think. It's classic basic economics.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hl82pLGs2rE/U2maPp-iNrI/AAAAAAAAKPI/bl9GVl_D7Qw/s1600/FourWaysMoneyCanBeSpentMiltonFriedman_Shadow.png

Ask yourself this: why would I argue against renewable energy if I thought it was workable? Do you, as many do-gooders do, think I am an evil person who just wants to bring misery or do you think there might actually be some valid scepticism and reasons why I am saying "hold on a moment it doesn't work"?

If I thought renewable energy had a future or worked, then I would be optimistic about it like I am about nuclear fusion power production.


There's always going to be someone arguing for the status quo. I'm sure people like Dan would have criticised Karl Benz when he was building the first car, "There's no point investing in this auto-majiggy when we have perfectly good horses and carts which are dimes cheaper and go much faster! The car will never catch on" - 19th Century Dan

All those great inventions were brought in by private investors, not the government spending huge wads of taxpayers cash for wealthy landowners to place useless wind turbines on their land. It is infact you who is the Luddite here, because you are purposely arguing for an energy which can never fulfil the needs of the national grid (see above) as well as for a method of generating power that is so much more expensive than conventional means with coal and gas burning.

Renewables powering the national grid isn't going to happen, which is why I can finally congratulate the government on some common sense aka fracking.

[FlyingJesus]

Do you ever feel invisible

[The Don]

Dan you put so much energy into being wrong, it's hilarious.

First thing, nobody has said renewables can power the grid alone so you're being deceitful by arguing against a point nobody has raised.

Secondly: "why would I argue against renewable energy if I thought it was workable? "

Because, as shown by your previous posts in this thread, all you care about is what's cheapest right now without regard for the damage it can cause to the environment or humans, or the potential it has in the future. I remember you arguing before that you agreed with Milton Friedman that ford should not have recalled the ford pinto, despite the fact it was fatally dangerous to consumers, since, as you argued "It would be cheaper to let people die rather than recall the cars". That pretty much sums up your side of this argument. When you say renewables will never work, what you really mean is you'd rather have dangerous, unsustainable and cheaper sources of energy rather than pay a bit more.

[Chippiewill]

If an industry or product is deemed profitable or has a profitable future, then companies and investors - outside and inside of the industry already - will arise and fill that gap.
Only if there's a low cost of entry into the market and if there's a short-medium term potential for profit. Since renewables have neither (But do have long-term potential for profit) government subsidies are required to grow the market and develop the technology. We wouldn't have Nuclear power if early development wasn't 'government subsidised'. Considering we should be concerned about the environment it makes sense that the government should subsidise it.

[GommeInc]

If renewables are the way forward then please tell me and the rest of the country, before you condemn us to pre-Industrial Revolution amounts of power, exactly how you are going to run a national grid on wind and solar energy when they are incapable of sustaining a stable base load of power for the national grid: and this isn't even considering the enormous costs. I read once for example, that not one power station in the world has actually been closed down as a result of wind replacing it. Why? Because even if you were to build enough turbines to match the output of a regular coal-fired power station (enormous costs), you would need to retain the coal station for the frequent power failings that wind brings with in. In addition, the costs of stopping and starting a coal-fired power plant would be astronomical as well as time-consuming.
Simple. You innovate and reinvent. There's a reason we're in 2015 practising different medicine, law, technology and so forth. We've developed, learnt and improved. Coal, oil and gas took years to master and now they are becoming unsustainable - it happens with loads of industries and technologies. Coal being one example. Not forgetting the plethora of other factors such as being at the whim of oil and gas suppliers abroad who have made a monopoly out of them AND the merry game of politics. Having rich middle-eastern warloads or royal families pocketing from gas and oil isn't exactly the way forward :P Don't just sling new technology into the useless box. Such a mentality means you would still be using leeches to solve certain ailments. Keep an open-mind and not fear for the future. Solar is slowly developing into something useful - the only hindrance being that battery tech is almost useless at storing vast amounts of energy. Not forgetting if Britain just got over using high amounts of energy by toning down the amount needed to power electricals, we could probably save


Renewable energy is a fantasy.
No no, it happily exists . Those windmills you see blighting the sea are not an illusion.


The point is that fracking is coming, and that like in America we'll have virtually no problems with it and life will carry on as usual. For those few who do have problems, as people have problems today with collapsing mine shafts, the courts will settle any disputes/issue compensation.
Yet it is completely pointless as it is solving a short-term problem and not looking at solving the long-term problems. Not forgetting the fact it costs a lot. You were the one who said wind energy costs a lot for so little yet you seem to support fracking which loses more gas than it catches, and the fct discovering where gas pockets are makes it difficult to find where to mine. Also not forgetting that many areas may be under private property, and although the courts could settle disputes, they shouldn't need to. An Englishman's property is his castle - he should not be violated for the sake of businesses pocketing for a short-term solution. Something the Americans believe in. It seems strange you seem to want to brown nose American culture and ideologies all of a sudden.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Only if there's a low cost of entry into the market and if there's a short-medium term potential for profit. Since renewables have neither (But do have long-term potential for profit) government subsidies are required to grow the market and develop the technology. We wouldn't have Nuclear power if early development wasn't 'government subsidised'. Considering we should be concerned about the environment it makes sense that the government should subsidise it.

But why do renewables have neither? Because they have no future, they cannot power a national grid and they can never compete with the productive power in oil, gas, coal or even nuclear for that matter. On the nuclear point, whilst it did recieve government subsidies and still does that is more related to the miliary purposes of nuclear rather than it's energy capacity. All civilian nuclear plants during the cold war, and even today, enrich radioactive materials to aid nuclear weapons programmes.


Simple. You innovate and reinvent. There's a reason we're in 2015 practising different medicine, law, technology and so forth. We've developed, learnt and improved. Coal, oil and gas took years to master and now they are becoming unsustainable - it happens with loads of industries and technologies. Coal being one example. Not forgetting the plethora of other factors such as being at the whim of oil and gas suppliers abroad who have made a monopoly out of them AND the merry game of politics. Having rich middle-eastern warloads or royal families pocketing from gas and oil isn't exactly the way forward :P Don't just sling new technology into the useless box. Such a mentality means you would still be using leeches to solve certain ailments. Keep an open-mind and not fear for the future. Solar is slowly developing into something useful - the only hindrance being that battery tech is almost useless at storing vast amounts of energy. Not forgetting if Britain just got over using high amounts of energy by toning down the amount needed to power electricals, we could probably save

But here we go again. You are calling coal, oil and gas 'unsustainable' or 'outdated' yet they are still, one hundred years later, powering us. Yes technology does move on, but it comes with efficentcy such as fracking which is a new modern method of reaching gas we ever used to be able to, and there's been enormous advances with clean coal energy, filtration systems, deep sea exploration and deeper oil well extraction. I am not against using advanced methods, but I am against throwing huge sums of taxpayers money at energies which will never power the national grid and will always be expensive/uneconomical (see hydro which has had a hundred years of development).


No no, it happily exists . Those windmills you see blighting the sea are not an illusion.

Sorry, but they are a joke. You really think paying wealthy landowners and turbine companies huge subsidies for turbines which need a coal and gas power station to back them up 24/7 anyway is a sensible way to run an energy policy? You really think that making wind power near 20% of the national grid - which would make it unstable and wind is unstable by its nature - is a clever thing?

If you do then there's always.... http://www.libdems.org.uk/join


Yet it is completely pointless as it is solving a short-term problem and not looking at solving the long-term problems. Not forgetting the fact it costs a lot. You were the one who said wind energy costs a lot for so little yet you seem to support fracking which loses more gas than it catches, and the fact discovering where gas pockets are makes it difficult to find where to mine. Also not forgetting that many areas may be under private property, and although the courts could settle disputes, they shouldn't need to. An Englishman's property is his castle - he should not be violated for the sake of businesses pocketing for a short-term solution.

It is a long-term solution, energy policy ultimately must be guided on economics like most things. If natural gas supplies ever start to dwindle and more gas exploration becomes uneconomical, then we can either import or other former options such as coal may become economical again. And talking of long term, the United Kingdom is believed to have over 300 years worth of coal supplies left.


Something the Americans believe in. It seems strange you seem to want to brown nose American culture and ideologies all of a sudden.

It's actually America, Canada and Australia I want to copy. All three have reduced their energy costs by using the cheap resources such as the tar sands as well as lessening their reliance on Middle Eastern oil which you claim above is a bad thing (it is) but then I don't understand how that logic then leads you to dismiss the form of energy right beneath our feet. As I have said before, that's the only choice we have: it would be nice to power the country using wind but then it would also be nice to have central banks give everyone money. But that's the logic of children.

[Chippiewill]

it would be nice to power the country using wind but then it would also be nice to have central banks give everyone money. But that's the logic of children.

Because children are our future.

[FlyingJesus]

As I have said before, that's the only choice we have

Newcular

[dbgtz]

I don't understand how anyone can oppose this. It's not outright banned fracking, but is most likely making it temporary so that risks to the environment, risks to health etc. can be assessed and if there are large risks, gives time to workout how to minimise those risks to suitable levels to make it a viable option. It's done with just about everything else I don't see why this should be an exception.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Newcular

I'm not opposed to nuclear at all as although it is expensive and recieves subsidies, it serves a purpose both in research and military purposes as well as meaning the national grid isn't reliant on solely gas, oil and coal as in the event of a price rise because of some disaster (see 1970s) it'd help price-wise. But I certainly don't want nuclear to eclipse the likes of oil, gas and coal because of the expenses involved as well as the time it takes to build and then operate nuclear plants.

Oil, gas and coal with some nuclear is a sound energy policy.

[FlyingJesus]

What is investment

[AgnesIO]

Dan doesn't care about any of that - Because Dan is always right.

Until it comes to mathematics, it seems.

---

I'm split on fracking - personally, I don't think we should be doing it due to the vast number of negative side-effects.