Ban 'Fracking' gas extraction in the UK

[rich.]

what i meant is available for mining.

this seems more friendly..apparently..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampent ... -possibly/

[jimmyybob]

Wind farms may well be a bit rubbish at the moment but unless there allowed to develop they wont ever get any better.
I love the new solar arrays (in Spain i think) they reflect the sun onto oil pipes, that heats the oil to 500 odd degrees its then used to boil water make steam and run turbines.
Nuclear is just a whacking great steam engine as well, and despite peoples fears its reasonably safe, i would bet 10 times more people die working at gas and oil platforms than ever have as a result of nuclear.
The Germans still open mine vast fields of lignite (low grade coal) to be burnt in power stations.

The technology is getting better by the day you just have to let it grow.

[Maaarrghk]

I have mixed feelings about fracking. To be fair, the regulations for its implementation here are far more strict than in the US. One trial near Blackpool has already been abandoned due to small tremors.

Lots of people moan about wind power, but tend to be well off "nimbies" who would prefer they go and build chernobyl (with or without the roof, it doesn't matter) where the poor people live. Having said that, wind is not very dependable, but could still be useful for micro generation alongside solar panels. Geothermal looks more promising, but perhaps for larger scale generation tidal turbines may be the way to go as the tides have been known for centuries. Unlike wind, we can calculate pretty accurately how much power will be generated at a certain time so can fit tidal into a combination of various generation methods much more easily. A tidal tubine generates around 5 times as much power as a wind turbine of the same diameter.

We still do have plenty of coal reserves but coal power is a nasty word (OK, 2 words) at present, with eniro-mental-ists bleating that there is no such thing as clean coal. Actually there is, just not on a big enough scale at present. The government funded research station was recently shut down and it's been handed on a plate to the private sector. Don't hold your breath with this ample resource - we have a conservative led government and the last thing they would want to do is create thousands of jobs for miners. I think we can all agree that tories don't like miners.

As for nuclear fission, I am fearful, not just for myself, but for many future generations. Whilst some of the waste is not very toxic (the part that the nuclear lobby will point out at great length) some of it is EXTREMELY toxic - as toxic as toxic can get. And it stays that way for tens of thousands of years. You don't need to lose track of very much of it to have a major problem. I think it's quite wrong for us to leave the management of that crap to future generations. I wonder how many of the nuclear lobby will be happy to live next to a nuclear power station?

There are methods to speed up the half life of some of the most toxic waste, but it still takes many years for it to decay to a reasonably safe state and the processes are hellishly expensive.

Personally, I'm hanging my hopes on nuclear fusion. A tenth of the waste that's a tenth as toxic and (Ithink) a shorter half-life too. A combination of fusion and renewables may be the way to eventually go, but we are probably looking at least 50 years into the future.

[Willy Eckerslyke]

Having said that, wind is not very dependable, but could still be useful for micro generation alongside solar panels.

Wind power coupled with pumped-storage hydro schemes looks to have some potential. When the wind blows, you use the electricity generated to pump water up to a higher reservoir, then use that to generate power when needed and on calm days. But if the nimbys moan about turbines, they'll moan even more about turbines plus dams.
I agree that tidal power has huge potential, but also massive potential for environmental disaster if done badly. Even modestly sized tide turbines can change the sea bed for tens of miles. Silting up a shipping channel or washing away a coastal town's sea defences could be very real risks.

[TerryG]

I object to wind turbines because they are an eye saw. Wave generation appears to be an option for some of our power requirements. Implementation looks like it would be REALLY difficult not to mention maintenance of the turbines. The seven estuary looking like the perfect spot for one I wouldn't want to be the bloke charged with fitting turbines.
Carbon capture is a good stop gap measure. There is a solar carbon capture scheme running in new Mexico which seems to give us the best of both worlds. It allows solar energy to be used in removing carbon from the air. If it is implementable on a large enough scale then we can use the resources we have until a practical solution can be found. There was an idea being batted around last year that a new type of solar cell could be printed on to the windows of office buildings, it is about 20% efficient so it would act much like the tint that is on windows anyway and as the cost isn't huge they would pay for themselves within 2 years making them practical. I haven't read anything in a while so either it didn't work properly or the fashion changed.
Nuclear is brilliant, almost limitless cheap power. As long as you don't let the Russians do your testing or the Japanese design your fail safe systems it is pretty safe. Management of the waste isn't overly difficult, normally it is encased in concrete and buried very deeply (or dropped in the north sea) it should never pose a problem. I agree that if it was to "escape" or get in to the wrong hands it could be catastrophic but it hasn't happened so far. The worst Nuclear disaster in history caused very few deaths (31) I would imagine that more people are killed in gas every year.
Wind may have potential and the only way to improve it is to try it but installing it on a large scale now is a waste of time, money and resources.

[JPB]

I object to wind turbines because they are an eye saw

Seriously? Most of the 3 villages' occupants were full of praise for their appearance and the positive impact that they'd have on tourism, the only real objection in the real world has been the fact that they block out TV reception, physically rather than as a result of RFI, addressed gratis by Scottish Power or whoever owns your local sites.

I refuse to accept that 600+ people in one of the biggest conurbations along this stretch of coast can all be wrong and love to watch the giant turbines from the back garden. I've said that not because of the generous compensation we've all been awarded, nor because of the way in which TV reception has become superb since they paid for that to be dealt with by fitting Chatton-compatible equipment, not even because their presence has at last seen to the final closure of the small, (Polish) coal-fired power station which was responsible for a steady supply of ash for all the local roads.
No, the main reason we were all happy to vote yes was that our 13 turbines are operated by a human being who sits at the middle of their field(s) in his tower and adjusts the blades' curvature, pitch and direction to keep them going in even the slightest breeze yet is solely responsible for making sure that they don't run away with the wind when there's the usual gale blowing.

So you see, although the (Blair, not Major) Government saw to it that the last real mine was closed down, at least one of its 2000 strong workforce has found alternative employment thanks to Scottish Power and their magic wind machinery. Wasn't that thoughtful of them eh?

NIMBY my hind quarters! People who can't think of anything beyond some feeble aesthetic objection aren't the problem, finding enough support from local people is, in most areas. Though I understand that companies based in England have the option of something called compulsory purchase and don't need to think anything for what people want, which might surprise those of you who stay in cities yet manage to come to the conclusion that we're all Luddites elsewhere.

[mach1rob]

No, sorry can't and won't sign, I refuse to end up back in the dark ages and having to wear mud just to keep a couple of nimbys happy.

[Peter-109]

Seconded Rob

[Mitsuru]

After seeing an artical on the tv so I checked so I'm posting a link to it.

Fracking legal challenges planned by Greenpeace

Greenpeace is planning legal challenges to try to stop companies from fracking in England.

The environmental campaign group wants to stop the controversial method of extracting gas from rock.

It claims home-owners have the legal power to refuse the companies permission to drill underground far beneath their properties.

Chief executive of Cuadrilla, Francis Egan, said the company was "confident" underground drilling was safe.

Opponents claim water used in the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, process will be contaminated and could enter domestic supplies.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Anna Jones said fracking "is risky for local environments, risky for our water supplies and risky for the global climate".

"People are right to stand up and say 'Not under my land you don't'."

Greenpeace said a number of residents in areas of potential fracking sites, including Sussex and Lancashire, were joining the campaign.
'Livelihood destroyed'

Here is the ful story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24518661

[TerryG]

They are more than welcome on my land. Land owners get paid very well for access to do it and anything that helps keep gas / electricity prices down can only be a good thing.
I suspect that is a very silly challenge as people haven't been able to stop cross rail, London underground extensions or turning the argument upside-down, you can't complain British Airways are trespassing in your airspace if you live on the flight path.
It is a load of sensationalist nonsense.