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

[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 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 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.