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

[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.

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.

[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.