Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Ty Gwyn

Fracking

Seems the push is on,

Coal was once King,then came North Sea Gas and Nuclear to knock him off top spot,Wind was protrayed to be the new saviour,but they still needed the black stuff,hence the new Drax carbon capture,
Even though a few weeks back the energy minister said coal will be fazzed out by 2020/30,

And the new replacement which they did`nt state, will be Fracked Gas.
gz

The Oil industry has done fracking before in Scotland, the start of the oil industry, leaving mountains of red waste Confused
dpack

gazprom,edl/china nuclear uk and drax or the seven sisters fracking co

hard to choose really

moving water has plenty of energy with no pollution and until the weather stops it is renewable
Mutton

Mmm - but water best harvested via reservoirs and dams - lots of concrete and impact on wildlife that lived where the reservoir now is.

Can do inline turbines via leats - less environmental impact but far more sensitive to periods of drought. Do also have problems on salmon rivers - extra expense of fish exclusion grids.

Best option - use a lot less.
Nick

If only we had massive amounts of water going up and down round the country all the time.
Hairyloon

If only we had massive amounts of water going up and down round the country all the time.

Hmmm. Did I see you on QT yesterday?
Mutton

I think hydropower is an effective generator of electricity - its just not free of its own environmental impact when you come to harvest the energy.

Nick - are you talking about tidal power or the current flooding?
Nick

Tidal/wave power.

I struggle to believe that we can't realistically harvest a tiny percentage of the actions of the sea. My assumption is life isn't hard enough yet for energy companies to look into it.
Mutton

You need to distinguish between

1. Wave power - which is really delayed wind power. There is a hub for plugging in wave power test rigs off Cornwall. Not been following how that is going.

2. Tidal power via a tidal barrier - see La Rance for one that has been going for a long time and the environmental and engineering problems (such as silting up) associated with it.

3. Tidal power as harvested in an estuary - Severn estuary has been comprehensively investigated and the environmental impacts are bad enough that everyone has currently given up on the idea.

4. Tidal stream - which includes partially, or fully, submerged underwater turbines in the tidal stream. Can be a lot of energy, there are test models and even full production models in place in a few locations - Stanford Logh in NI springs to mind - but there is concern regarding environmental impact on dolphins and seals for starters, both in terms of injury and for the dolphins additional underwater noise interfering with their sonar.

But - renewable energy is NOT infinite. If you take enough energy out of the wind or the tidal stream, then you change the climate. There is data on warm areas downwind of large wind farms. I haven't looked for similar data on tidal stream turbines - but there are probably not yet enough of them.

It is back to we have to use less electricity. We cannot safely generate the amount we'd like to use even using renewable. Yes, I know you said 'tiny percentage' Nick, but we need to work out what is really tiny in sustainable terms.

There is also the further problem, that the National Grid was originally built to the infrastructure as it stood - so power stations tended to be built near areas of high consumption. Renewables are not necessarily anywhere convenient in terms of areas of high consumption, and you then have to add in the environmental and energy costs of new runs of pylons to bring the electricity from where it is generated, to where it is used, and then add loss during transmission to the equation - how much is lost when you transport electricity over a long distance.
Nick

You need to distinguish


I don't. I'm not involved at that level.
dpack

wave power extraction with the snake things seems to work on a semi tech scale but needs further work to tweak the engineering .

overshot wheels or archimedes tubes under a leat are low tech but they work

big drop turbines and dams (hoover etc)are rather rough on the landscape but work smaller scale as well which can be less messy

tidal seems problematic in several ways but with research the problems could possibly be overcome in some places or the problems can be offset by adjustments elsewhere

an undershot wheel can be dipped in any moving water ,inefficient but low impact on river life (trout might get swept but a cage can avoid that)

off shore wind was a good scam for the royals (15% of the income from renting the sea bed is a nice earner on top of the investments )but it isnt very effective at making leccy

im having a dejavu moment here Rolling Eyes

the reason these things are not common is the vested interests in fossil/nuke etc prefer to make profit on their monopolies rather than investing /permitting old or new ways to produce energy to sell
Mutton

You need to distinguish

I don't. I'm not involved at that level.

Nick - you made a sweeping statement about 'realistically harvesting' energy from the sea and your assumptions about why it wasn't happening. I spent time providing you with detail as to some of the hazards, and you get all dismissive.
Thanks a bunch.
Nick

Sorry, don't take it that way. Smile

I'm just astounded that there is *clearly* tons more energy than we could use in a life time turning up, every day in the oceans, and we use almost none of it. Actually, I'm not astounded; I can see there's less profit in it than burning dead trees and animals.

But, it's not nearly my field of expertise, nor, especially, interest.
Hairyloon

You need to distinguish between

1. Wave power - which is really delayed wind power. There is a hub for plugging in wave power test rigs off Cornwall. Not been following how that is going.
I heard that it is getting almost no use... I did make an enquiry to someone who appeared to be the relevant chap, but I didn't get a reply.

Quote:
3. Tidal power as harvested in an estuary - Severn estuary has been comprehensively investigated and the environmental impacts are bad enough that everyone has currently given up on the idea.

Why do they seem to only ever look at doing these things on a monster scale which will obviously cause monster problems?
What is wrong with lots of small projects instead?

Quote:
But - renewable energy is NOT infinite. If you take enough energy out of the wind or the tidal stream, then you change the climate.

Wind energy is effectively infinite as it is driven by the sun.
The tide is driven by the kinetic energy stored in the orbital velocity of the moon... use enough of that and the moon's orbit will slow down, but I think we'd have to use a heck of a lot of it.
oldish chris

I'm not convinced that fracking is going to happen. There are a lot of hurdles to jump. Each hurdle will have costs associated with them, all eating away at potential profit and increasing financial uncertainty. Ty Gwyn

There`s to much money floating on this for it not to happen,
France is going fracking,Total is coming here,Centrica has bought into it.
We`ve been fracking oil and gas here since the 60`s,in strata that is more prone to leakage than the lower shale seams below the farewell rock,and none to my knowledge of problems.
Mutton

@Nick - OK, we're cool.



Quote:
3. Tidal power as harvested in an estuary - Severn estuary has been comprehensively investigated and the environmental impacts are bad enough that everyone has currently given up on the idea.

Why do they seem to only ever look at doing these things on a monster scale which will obviously cause monster problems?
What is wrong with lots of small projects instead?

Quote:
But - renewable energy is NOT infinite. If you take enough energy out of the wind or the tidal stream, then you change the climate.

Wind energy is effectively infinite as it is driven by the sun.
The tide is driven by the kinetic energy stored in the orbital velocity of the moon... use enough of that and the moon's orbit will slow down, but I think we'd have to use a heck of a lot of it.

Agreed on large projects - I am deeply fed-up with the whole bigger is better attitude. As well as a lot more reduction of usage, to me it would be better to have small, localised generators for further reducing domestic call on the national grid. Industrial use is all set up to need the heavy duty three phase generation and to have it continuously and reliably - so other than some big hydropower would still need power stations.

I agree that the sun is effectively infinite on a human scale. I agree that the sun drives the wind. But because the planet is finite, so is wind. You do not get something for nothing. Each wind turbine turned by the wind takes some kinetic energy out of the wind flow. There was a theoretical study done a few years ago in Germany, reported in New Scientist, which showed that too many turbines would cause climate change by slowing the wind flow round the planet.
As I mentioned earlier, warming downwind of individual turbines, and whole wind farms has already been measured. The devil is in the detail - while renewable looks infinite, it is not.

Another useful for a while renewable is hot rocks - there is, or was, a test plant at Redruth - and work is getting going again. Eden Project is doing, or looking into it at their place (lost track of where they've reached). But from memory, after about 25 years, the rocks have cooled to the point where they no longer heat the water sufficiently for it to make steam to drive the turbines. Not sure if the rock then re-heats eventually and you can come back to the existing bore hole, or whether you have to keep drilling new ones.

Thorium reactors - they were an alternative to uranium based nuclear power but were not progressed, as they do not produce weapons grade nuclear material as well as energy. There is now development under way - far less radioactive waste. Can also be built small so rather than a national grid, you could have a transit van sized generator for each city.

And research is still ongoing onto nuclear fusion reactors but any working reactors are still a long way off.

But above all, we must live within our means on this planet - nothing except the sun is infinite - coal, nuclear material, wood, land space to build solar panels and the materials from which to manufacture them - all finite.
Hairyloon

Industrial use is all set up to need the heavy duty three phase generation and to have it continuously and reliably - so other than some big hydropower would still need power stations.
Why not move some of the energy hungry industry out to offshore energy farms?
Then you avoid the problem of getting the energy back on shore, so there is no limit to how far offshore they can be built.

Quote:
Each wind turbine turned by the wind takes some kinetic energy out of the wind flow. There was a theoretical study done a few years ago in Germany, reported in New Scientist, which showed that too many turbines would cause climate change by slowing the wind flow round the planet.
As I mentioned earlier, warming downwind of individual turbines, and whole wind farms has already been measured.

Have you got a link to this research?
The idea is about as convincing as homeopathy: the proportion of the energy we extract from the whole is minute. Unless perhaps they are demonstrating equipment so sensitive that it can measure homeopathic changes, then I suspect it is twaddle put about by the anti wind brigade.
Mutton

Industrial use is all set up to need the heavy duty three phase generation and to have it continuously and reliably - so other than some big hydropower would still need power stations.
Why not move some of the energy hungry industry out to offshore energy farms?
Then you avoid the problem of getting the energy back on shore, so there is no limit to how far offshore they can be built.



Because of the costs of taking the raw materials out there and bringing the finished product back - including the energy costs. Not to mention the capital and energy cost of building plant from scratch and having all the workforce get there.

]Each wind turbine turned by the wind takes some kinetic energy out of the wind flow. There was a theoretical study done a few years ago in Germany, reported in New Scientist, which showed that too many turbines would cause climate change by slowing the wind flow round the planet.
As I mentioned earlier, warming downwind of individual turbines, and whole wind farms has already been measured.
Have you got a link to this research?
The idea is about as convincing as homeopathy: the proportion of the energy we extract from the whole is minute. Unless perhaps they are demonstrating equipment so sensitive that it can measure homeopathic changes, then I suspect it is twaddle put about by the anti wind brigade.

It is stuff I read in the last six months, except for the New Scientist modelled article which was several years ago. Last time I looked the down wind measurements from wind farms came up readily on internet searches. I can't remember which specific sites I looked at but they convinced me. Try googling on the search terms. (Sorry in a rush and not got time to go and look for the original sites I read.)
Hairyloon


Why not move some of the energy hungry industry out to offshore energy farms?
Then you avoid the problem of getting the energy back on shore, so there is no limit to how far offshore they can be built.

Because of the costs of taking the raw materials out there and bringing the finished product back - including the energy costs.
Woodchip is not a high value commodity, yet I understand we are shipping it right across the Atlantic. Recently I was looking at bulk buying waste oil for fuel, and it seems to be cheaper to ship it over from Thailand than to buy it locally...
So the cost of shipping is not a convincing argument.
Quote:
Not to mention the capital and energy cost of building plant from scratch and having all the workforce get there.

I had assumed they would live aboard rather than commute, and a lot of plant can be dismantled and rebuilt. Much of it is already conveniently near to docks.

Quote:
]
As I mentioned earlier, warming downwind of individual turbines, and whole wind farms has already been measured.

Have you got a link to this research?...
I suspect it is twaddle put about by the anti wind brigade.
Try googling on the search terms. (Sorry in a rush and not got time to go and look for the original sites I read.)
I am happy to take it on faith that I am right.
If you want to persuade me otherwise, then, at your convenience, please dig out the links.
Mistress Rose

There has been a hot rocks project going in Southampton since the 1960s and as far as I know it is still there; certainly was just a few years ago.

I agree smaller might be better, there is a tide mill at Eling on Southampton Water that has been grinding grain for several hundred years. The tide fills a pond behind the mill and it is let out slowly. Not super efficient, but low tech therefore low cost and seems to be a positive for wildlife. Others such as the one at Fareham creek a bit further east no longer exist, sadly.
Hairyloon

The tide fills a pond behind the mill and it is let out slowly. Not super efficient...
If you are starting out with a free and effectively unlimited resource, does it actually matter how inefficiently you capture energy from it?
Mistress Rose

Personally I don't think so. The time will change on a daily basis, and while it is reliable, or at least predictable, as it will change between springs and neaps, it is not necessarily going to come at a convenient time for power generation. It can, however be programmed in so that other forms of energy, including unfortunately fossil fuel at present, can make up the shortfall at known times. Mutton

@Hairyloon - I was not just talking about money cost, I was also talking energy cost - as in usage. I think it is insane to be importing wood chips and offsets a lot of the point of using renewables. We should be growing locally and using locally.
And I'd better not get started on importing plastic tatt from around the world and how we in the west are exporting energy usage and pollution to China and other such places by buying so much from there.
At present the world is driven by accountancy - a while ago I saw a documentary talking about how a big chain store was having its underwear cut in this country, all the bits transported to Portugal where it was sewn together by cheaper labour and it was all transported back.

So you think about the energy cost of transporting say bauxite to an offshore location for aluminium smelting - that being one of the heavy industrial users of electricity I was referring to earlier. (Further thought - you then have to deal with all the waste products as well.)

And if you have workers living off shore you have to have all their food taken out too.

All of these are energy costs. They may, or may not, be economically viable given it is done with oil rigs, but they are not sustainable or sensible in terms of energy usage.
Hairyloon

@Hairyloon - I was not just talking about money cost, I was also talking energy cost...
I know, but energy costs money, so the point still stands.
Quote:
So you think about the energy cost of transporting say bauxite to an offshore location for aluminium smelting...

Pretty much insignificant compared to the cost of the smelting. Or if it is not, then it is high time we started making more use of sailing ships.
Quote:
(Further thought - you then have to deal with all the waste products as well.)

Meh. Dump them at sea, create an artificial reef. Where's the harm? Wink
Quote:
And if you have workers living off shore you have to have all their food taken out too.

Choose workers that like fish... and put a polytunnel on the roof.
Mutton

@Hairyloon - I was not just talking about money cost, I was also talking energy cost...
I know, but energy costs money, so the point still stands.
Quote:
So you think about the energy cost of transporting say bauxite to an offshore location for aluminium smelting...

Pretty much insignificant compared to the cost of the smelting. Or if it is not, then it is high time we started making more use of sailing ships.
Quote:
(Further thought - you then have to deal with all the waste products as well.)

Meh. Dump them at sea, create an artificial reef. Where's the harm? Wink
Quote:
And if you have workers living off shore you have to have all their food taken out too.

Choose workers that like fish... and put a polytunnel on the roof.

I don't agree about energy costs money so the point still stands - we HAVE to use less energy - we are using far too much at present and must work towards ways of using less. It is all about joined up thinking and I think our discussion has shown the pitfalls and complexities involved in effective reduction of energy usage - everything needs to be calculated. As I said - we are in an accountancy minded world at present - and I think your answer shows that.

In general, I agree about more use of sailing ships - well in theory - but again you'd have to look at the technical details to see if they are really as good as they look. (One of the things about modern society that deeply bugs me - we are FLYING in fresh fruit and FLOWERS from all around the world. The flowers in particular deeply saddens me - how wasteful of the finite resources of this planet is that.)

I'm going to assume that the rest of your answers were not intended to be taken seriously.
Hairyloon

I'm going to assume that the rest of your answers were not intended to be taken seriously.
Reasonably seriously.
The one that was a question does depend very much upon the answer.
Nick

You need to distinguish

I don't. I'm not involved at that level.

See, I say that, but then I inspire Oxford BOFFINS. Sea link.
crofter

Theoretically, you and the boffins are correct. There is a lot of energy there. But as the article admits

Quote:
the harsh environment makes harnessing it a difficult challenge
Nick

Turning liquified dinosaurs into something which makes metal tubes fly around the world is a difficult challenge. We're up to it. Hairyloon

Turning liquified dinosaurs into something which makes metal tubes fly around the world is a difficult challenge. We're up to it.
There are not actually very many dinosaurs in oil: most of it comes from plankton.
Nick

Turning liquified dinosaurs into something which makes metal tubes fly around the world is a difficult challenge. We're up to it.
There are not actually very many dinosaurs in oil: most of it comes from plankton.

My mistake. This makes it much, much easier.
Hairyloon

Turning liquified dinosaurs into something which makes metal tubes fly around the world is a difficult challenge. We're up to it.
There are not actually very many dinosaurs in oil: most of it comes from plankton.

My mistake. This makes it much, much easier.
I would have said that the challenge is in getting the big metal tubes to fly is the challenge rather than the production of fuel to do it.

The relevant point is that we are up for it. On that, I agree: we are.
Nick


I would have said that the challenge is in getting the big metal tubes to fly is the challenge rather than the production of fuel to do it.

You are John Prescott, and I claim my five pounds.
Piggyphile

Quote:
We're up to it.


I don't think we are, most of those in power choose not to see the bigger picture, they just want to line their own nests and big corporations are only interested in profit.

Hard to see how the current society will survive long term without some kind of collapse.
crofter

Quote:
We're up to it.


I don't think we are, most of those in power choose not to see the bigger picture, they just want to line their own nests and big corporations are only interested in profit.

Hard to see how the current society will survive long term without some kind of collapse.

I don't think so either. I look out the window today and see huge waves, lots of energy, but try to put a wave energy harvesting device out there and it will soon break... the metal tubes sometimes stay on the ground if it is too stormy to fly, but the wave machines will be out there all year. Yes, they can be over-engineered, but then the costs (energy costs) to make them and anchor them get higher. Tides, maybe more potential there, but still a very hostile environment.


Offshore wind? Well...

Quote:
(Reuters) - Scottish Power scrapped plans for a huge offshore wind farm on Friday due to tricky ground and wave conditions and the presence of protected sharks, making it the third utility in two weeks to drop a wind project in British waters.


Quote:
"The Argyll Array project is not financially viable in the short term," Scottish Power Renewables' head of offshore wind, Jonathan Cole, said in a statement.
Hairyloon

I don't think so either. I look out the window today and see huge waves, lots of energy, but try to put a wave energy harvesting device out there and it will soon break... the metal tubes sometimes stay on the ground if it is too stormy to fly, but the wave machines will be out there all year.
On the other hand, we probably need to be building sea defences anyway...

Quote:
Quote:
"The Argyll Array project is not financially viable in the short term," Scottish Power Renewables' head of offshore wind, Jonathan Cole, said in a statement.

So we need to find a bunch of people who are prepared to look at it in the longer term...
Or a cheaper way to do it.
crofter


So we need to find a bunch of people who are prepared to look at it in the longer term...
Or a cheaper way to do it.

Or people will have to pay more for their electricity.

Or, make cheaper electricity out of gas?
Mistress Rose

Or go for burning the gas direct. There are a lot of losses in electricity transmission over long distances. A lot of domestic and industrial processes could and often used to be powered directly by coal or gas, but we went 'high tech' and clean, and started using electricity. dpack

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MQHvp_l0qP8/UOhzeN0WxuI/AAAAAAAAAEA/cIOkwK0UEbI/s1600/jonah.jpg

um so that is what a fracking field can look like from the air and here is one from space

http://content.animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/fracking_from_space_nasa.jpg

the dark patches are the great lakes in north america

guess the pro publicity has got a head start
Ty Gwyn

Where in the US is that aerial view from Dpack,it looks quite desolate and away from habitation? Nick

That's ok then. As long as no one can see the mess, we can pretend it doesn't matter. Ty Gwyn

That's ok then. As long as no one can see the mess, we can pretend it doesn't matter.

I was hinting to the fact its away from habitation,so less potential to polluting locals,as we seem to hear all the time through these US links,

Do you honestly think the residents of suburbia gave a damn about the waste tips in Blaenau Ffestiniog as long as they had a slate roof.
pollyanna

If you travel in the Welsh Valleys now you would be hard put to tell the industrial history of the area.

It is lovely. So many trees, the slag heaps grassed over.
Ty Gwyn

If you travel in the Welsh Valleys now you would be hard put to tell the industrial history of the area.

It is lovely. So many trees, the slag heaps grassed over.

And lovely parks for the unemployed to stroll through,dodging the needles and queue`s outside chemists for the methodine user`s,

Much nicer than them places of work.
Hairyloon

So why have we not got scores of those unemployed set to work building wind turbines? Nick

Because Coals' the future! pollyanna

Ty Gwyn, I appreciate the dreadful situation re. lack of jobs. I would not seek to belittle it.

The point I was trying to make was the ability to mitigate the despoilation of the industrial landscape.
Ty Gwyn

So why have we not got scores of those unemployed set to work building wind turbines?

Because you could`nt get them to work in a Colliery either,

It would spoil their morning TV,

Coal is the future,lol,well its not quite dead World Wide,as we in the UK still use a lot of it,70million ton imported ,produced by foreign labour,
What Steel plants we have in the UK supplied with Foreign Coking Coal.

Can we really have a future without Steel?
Ty Gwyn

Pollyanna,
I understand your views on reclamation,driving down the Rhigos into the Rhondda does look green and pleasant,but its not the full picture,and that`s just one Mining Valley,the legacy of the destruction of the coal industry is something that is going to linger for many years to come,whether some people like it or not.
Mistress Rose

You can't just get the unemployed to work either building wind turbines or in a colliery. What is always overlooked is that the jobs often unfilled are skilled, and nobody is willing to train the unemployed. Although it worked in Glenrothes converting coalminers to microelectronics worker with lots of money and training thrown at it, just expecting someone to do another job with no training isn't on. Give people training in a proper job and they can then fill that job if it is provided. Make a few hundred or thousand people unemployed in one place with no other job to go to, no training, nothing, and you get mass depression. Hairyloon

You can't just get the unemployed to work either building wind turbines or in a colliery. What is always overlooked is that the jobs often unfilled are skilled, and nobody is willing to train the unemployed.
Sounds like an excuse to me. There are millions of unemployed and I asked for scores.
There is a skilled work involved in building wind turbines, but there is also gopher work.

The real reason, I think, is that it costs too much to get a design certified to qualify for the Feed In Tariffs, and without that, there is almost no market. I have been informed, from a source that I consider reliable, that the cost of certification is upwards of 80,000. Granted that is peanuts to one of those mega turbines, but what about smaller, domestic ones?
dpack

Where in the US is that aerial view from Dpack,it looks quite desolate and away from habitation?

the dark patch is lake michagan,so north central usa ,i spose the scale is about a thousand miles from side to side of the full photo in the space snap

the arial view im not sure but these and other snaps are in the comments of this article

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/03/west-sussex-landowners-legal-blockade-fracking

i was rather surprised by the topside impact and the number of well heads ,i had thought that the extraction was much more tidy
dpack

some are wyoming ,a fairly low density of population unlike surrey or most of the uk

this is suggested as the acceptable face of rural fracking but transposed to my national park or rural landscape tis still almost as messy as deep mining

http://www.swarthmore.edu/Images/academics/student_projects/es_capstone/Drill%20Sites_Habitat%20Fragmentation.jpg
Ty Gwyn

Thanks Dpack,that`s what i wanted to know,
The scale as you mention ,1,000 mls across,well that will never be here in the UK ,so again alarmist pictures from the US,

That last photo seems more realistic,and as they have not started fracking shale gas as yet,i presume the disturbed ground area`s are where they have drilled investigatory boreholes,and once up and running would be re-instated around the facility as would be regulated in any planning permission.

To be honest,them land owners down Sussex,unless they own the mineral rights beneath their lands,i don`t believe they have a say in the matter.
And take the number of oil and gas wells that have been fracked in the UK since the 60`s,some of them up Gainsborough way have pipelines under nature reserves supplying power stations in Notts,and there has not been this out roar about them over the years.
dpack

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html

so 15 % to the royals and the rest to the treasury of whatever they sell the use of them for
Ty Gwyn

That was my point,the solicitors them Sussex landowners have will take every penny off them,that fact is they are flogging a dead horse,as your link shows,mineral rights have been licenced for years from the crown or CA in the case of coal. Ty Gwyn

On the radio today,a delegation from the Assembly for Wales paid a visit to the Lancs fracking site at Elswick to access the progress of Quadrilla,

Not much noise from Friends of the earth or any of the other No Fracking camps,and this site is on a much larger scale than Balcombe,i wonder why?
12Bore

Geography? Ty Gwyn

Geography?

Do you mean that Friends of the earth and the other groups are not interested in area`s North of the M4,Joe?

On a similar aspect,Swansea Bay was looked at for Coal Gasification but that`s gone quiet,and today there`s been announced that a plan for a tidal barrage has been drawn up to generate electricity,no figure`s mentioned for capacity,but it is supposed to include Oyster beds and a water sports facility costing 850 million,but Westminster has to give the go ahead and backing first,don`t hold your breath.
12Bore

Geography?

Do you mean that Friends of the earth and the other groups are not interested in area`s North of the M4,Joe?
Full time cynic me... Wink
dpack

swansea does have a huge tidal range but it is still big engineering rather than many small in many styles

for the estuary i still think lavernock to weston would be best for a big scheme (the walk from one to the other would be ace )

either would alter the place but the depths are good and the biological impact would be acceptable if the barrages had good offsets for mud feeders etc etc

i knew the area well as a kid and have seen it a few times recently and recon either would not be worse than the alternatives to give that amount of energy from big stuff (nuke or fossil)
vegplot

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/20/5429112/chevron-offers-free-pizza-to-make-up-for-fracking-explosion Nick

And people still moan. vegplot

The American dream free pizza and coke. What more do they want? Nick

A Vienetta, I imagine. dpack

i dont like coke or industrial pizza

but i could make a very bad numby Cool

not under my back yard might be a nice calling card Twisted Evil
Ty Gwyn

Has the company put down any exploration boreholes in the licence area as yet? dpack

not yet as far as i know ,im still thinking i prefer the odd earthquake to pripyat or gazprom but we will see .

i recon the patch in the middle of the map has some prime sites for getting a place to do exploratory drilling

ive been a niyby for nimbys but not a numby yet, spose i could learn if i need to Laughing

if i dont feel the earth move or see destructive practice i might not mind .the usa reports and evidence does look nasty but some of the alternatives are far worse
dpack

there are plenty of "low value" areas of agricultural land with decent access in the middle patch .i suspect there will be plenty of takers for renting a few acres at a good price.

if there are siesmic problems york is a place that could complain effectively so it could be a good testbed for fracking onland in the uk .

another plus is that the drinking water is from the surface rather than from a bored aquifer like quite a few bits of the usa
dpack

dart

other opinions

the pdf is missing but the other stuff is interesting ,the containment failure rates are a bit worrying
Ty Gwyn

That`s a bit misleading,its not shale fracking,its coalbed methane extraction,and considering the seam thicknesses in Queensland,no wonder there is leakage through the strata. dpack

tis a very complicated subject that im trying to make sense of

the aussie thing is gas from the coal measure and the proposed uk is from shale over the coal?
Ty Gwyn

If you notice some of the fracking sites,they are outside of the coalfields,so without looking at a BGS for the area,showing faults,its hard to say if the shale at the site of fracking on some sites goes under the coal,if anything was above the coal ,it would be Methane.

Take Balcombe,a long way from any coal,nearest in the Kent coalfield,and they were fairly deep shafts.
dpack

recon i will have a look at the local deep geology in the library as the online stuff seems (ha ha ha )to be paywalled or just abstracts Ty Gwyn

Dpack,if you send me your e-mail i can forward a piece from the IME,it put`s a lot of things into perspective,on both sides of the fence.

If your library is in a coalfield area,they should hold most of the BGS plans,i can forward one on for example,but this is South Wales,but will give the type of info you need to see how things lie underground.
dpack

thanks pm sent ,i recon trying to gather facts is the best way to make sense of the propaganda from either pro or anti . dpack

thanks ,tis a well put article i will try and resize it and post it


dpack

well it is readable on my screen but it might not be on a phone etc

thanks , see if any firm wants to/can extract gas is a sensible position to take i recon daft to waste time and effort on a vague maybe .

the resource/reserves point is very important as to what can and will happen and until some test bores are done we just dont know if there is extractable gas .

making a fuss about how much there might be is a good way to inflate share prices though Laughing
Mistress Rose

An interesting article. Ty Gwyn, Balcombe is associated with the oilfields in Sussex/Hampshire/Dorset.

Pity the government seems to be relying on shale gas to get us out of the potential energy shortfall.
dpack

the gov are relying on any anvil in a whirlpool to get themselves re elected and a promise of "cheap" "unlimited "energy is just another bit of propaganda ,it puts up share prices and gives an aunt sally for protestors rather than important issues re energy or whatever . Ty Gwyn

An interesting article. Ty Gwyn, Balcombe is associated with the oilfields in Sussex/Hampshire/Dorset.

Pity the government seems to be relying on shale gas to get us out of the potential energy shortfall.


Because for the last 30yrs the both Governments have turned their backs on the one energy source we have ,that they do know the reserves of.

Well picked up Chris,most likely the Gas bearing shale`s lie beneath the Oil bearing strata,so a possibility of Gas fracking there,if and when the Oil run`s out,depending on depth of course.
Nick

the gov are relying on any anvil in a whirlpool to get themselves re elected and a promise of "cheap" "unlimited "energy is just another bit of propaganda ,it puts up share prices and gives an aunt sally for protestors rather than important issues re energy or whatever .

The worrying thing is they don't need to rely on that. There's always the Labour Party, and the libdems.
oldish chris

the gov are relying on any anvil in a whirlpool to get themselves re elected and a promise of "cheap" "unlimited "energy is just another bit of propaganda ,it puts up share prices and gives an aunt sally for protestors rather than important issues re energy or whatever .

The worrying thing is they don't need to rely on that. There's always the Labour Party, and the libdems. Don't worry your pretty little head about politics. The big question is "how much money can be made from it?", various political philosophies will be adapted accordingly.

Thank-you dpack for finding that article, which puts gives a little bit more idea on the magnitude of the financial potential.
dpack

ty gwyn found it ,i just did the photoshop thing so we could read it Wink dpack

i can think of a few places where coal could be had with not much more than pick, shovel,wheelbarrow and few trees .the known reserves are vast and viable and with the advances in robotics etc even unsafe mines could be run with minimal deaths etc .
with sensible processing cleanish energy , feedstock for organic synthesis and carbon capture is possible with enough cash thrown at r and d .

re carbon capture trees seem a good idea and would become the fuel to replace coal in a couple of hundred years and would also replace the oxygen used in burning coal.a new carboniferous age with a high o2 atmosphere lots of trees and giant insects might be a bit odd but interesting.that model basically takes fossil trees and turns some of them back into living trees until we have enough for a sustainable wood based fuel/organic feedstock supply.it does require less energy use/waste as a goal but again with common sense and some r and d i recon it is plausible enough to do the r and d .

the seven sisters will resist such common sense long term thinking by all means available .
Mistress Rose

Unfortunately I don't think that is possible in the UK. Although I am heavily involved in woodland and logs for fuel, so have an interest in that direction, I am sure we cannot grow enough trees to capture all the carbon we produce by burning fossil fuels of any type. We also need farmland to grow crops so we don't have to use fossil fuels to import them, land to manufacture things and somewhere to live. dpack

woodland can produce food ,both veggie and flesh,as well as wood

there are huge areas of upland that are either "sporting"estates or very thin grazing that would produce much more food if reforested with the right trees

some lowland areas would produce more food if reforested

it might be squirrel kebabs rather than a lamb chop but i recon an acre of upland trees would support more kilos of sqizzers /deer/boar etc than an acre of rough grasses would kilos of sheep

it would be a huge change to the landscape/economy but it seems plausible enough to me that spending on some r and d makes sense to see if im correct
dpack

interesting

it looks like the selby mine seams might well come under york ,so they might be after coal bed methane and /or shale gas

the chaps were saying they could not follow one drift in case of subsidence causing flooding in the vale
Ty Gwyn

Apparently they only worked the Barnsley seam in the Selby complex,for fear of subsidence and flooding from the Vale of York,i always thought it was the Vale of Belvoir that run up to York.

As far as i know Stillingfleet was the nearest Pit to York,but don`t know how far North they worked or if the seams go as far as York.or at what depth they were if there.

But i know a man who might know.
Mistress Rose

Dpack, yes in theory you might be right about reforesting uplands, but it is not as simple as that. For a start, you have to persuade the trees to grow. Blanket bog, competition from heather and being eaten by deer are not that conducive to trees growing. In addition you have some rare habitats and red data book species to consider. Then you have to persuade people that they really want to eat squirrel rather than lamb. All possible, but would have to be done carefully and a major change of attitude from the public needed as well as a way of employing those displaced. dpack

it would be difficult to get it done but changes on that scale have happened before both naturally and by human actions

the conversion of say kenya from wild savanna to farmland and city took less than a century because there was a financial incentive .if the incentive to reforest was in place there would be trees quite quickly imho and the odd rare moss would be history like the critters of kenya .

it is geoengineering on a huge scale but so is burning fossil plankton
Mistress Rose

Husband was reading an article in a Forestry magazine this morning. The National Forest is just appointing someone to do woodland management, over 20 years after starting planting. Have never seen the National Forest, but seems a bit late to be starting to me. That is the problem; the people that have these bright ideas don't think it through in the long term, like for at least the next 100 years with woodland. Planting trees is one thing, doing something to keep them going and make the land viable both financially and ecologically is another. Nick

I'm not sure it is too late. I drive past signs for entering the National Forest on the M42 towards Leicester/Nottingham quite often. There's not a tree to be seen for miles, so there may be time to tame it yet. Smile dpack

having done a bit more research it is coal bed methane they are after just north of york and out into east yorks as well.it looks like the coal does extend well beyond riccall and has few faults (which i assume means more trapped gas )

i wonder what they have planned for the dewatering water ,will they try in situ gassification,and how many holes it will take before it isnt profitable .

it is a bit different to shale gas and looking at the australian complaints against cbm it might be a very bad thing to do here.

as our would be masters are acting like georgians being a better sort of luddite might be a good idea re this sort of thing .

with only a basic background in follow the money it wasnt that difficult to find halliburton and a few other well known names involved .although the front companies have pretty,dynamic and/or greenwashing names( a few were very greenwasher even getting "green"into the name) and less of a history than their parents some of that history is rather ugly for instance dart are not popular at home in kangaland which is a good reason for em to want to expand to here.

the more i learn about "fracking"(the term is too broad as there are several styles of boreholes for gas,each with it's own issues) the less convinced i am that the folk who want it done have my (or your)best interests anywhere on their list of things to do.

having looked into it further as for it being cheap,secure almost unlimited clean energy for us i read it as profit and stuff the locals and environment long term.

one big vote anti from me .

i dont have a plan b for securing a sensible energy supply but this crew are well dodgy imh(but better informed than i was)o
Ty Gwyn

Has you`ve found out,its a lot more complex than what the fracking crowd shout about.

How far is Stillingfleet from Riccal?that is the furthest North Pit of the Selby complex i believe,i will find out tonight for sure.
I don`t know of any Collieries North of York,so de-watering would be an issue,
There have been several disused Collieries in Yorkshire and Notts used as Coal Bed Methane sites for several years,so nothing new,the methane is extracted to run generators to generate electricity for the grid.
Coal Gasification/Syngas is a totally different animal,2 boreholes are drilled to the coal seam,one pumps in oxygen i believe and ignites the coal and Syngas is extracted from the other borehole,to close down the oxygen is turned off.
And fracking as you know is forcing water etc down the borehole to force the shale gas out.

There are plans afoot to wean the EU off Russian gas and eventually feed the Ukraine,plans to ship in Gas from the US[Fracked] but mainly from Iraq,good old carbon trading,lol.
And our 30-40million ton of Russian coal will have to be replaced when this country p----s Putin off anymore.
Suppose its better to import the coal and pay dole than create employment here.
Ty Gwyn

North Selby Colliery at Escrick was the furthest North towards York i can find out,i presume the depth of seam would be dipping North and East of York,hence no older workings,

I can see Rob being the new JR of Yorkshire if they bore to the East of York,lol.
Jamanda

I grew up in Selby. My youth was very much affected by coal, and strikes. It was new pit then - it was going to sort out all our energy needs. I could see Drax Power station from my bedroom window. I'd rather we used renewables, but if we have to burn coal. I wish that the Selby fields had been allowed to stay open and fulfil the promise we were told they had. Ty Gwyn

Privatization and RJB shut the Selby complex amounting to i believe 5 Collieries,North Selby,Stillingfleet,Riccall,Gascoine Wood and Wistow,

Subsidence fear`s was one reason mooted at the time as only the Barnsley seam could be worked,will find out more.
Rob R

Subsidence was certainly a problem for a lot of older buildings and, I believe, they couldn't get permission to come under the Derwent/SSSI. I find the drift mine & Selby complex fascinating though, all that work going on underground to dig it & then convey it to Gascoigne wood. It seemed so clean & efficient. I also had opportunity to poke around the Moorends colliery before it was demolished, all modernised but never used. Eerie.

Speaking of fracking - I went through Gainsborough today, too, that's another eerie place, but for different reasons. Laughing

ETA - Gascoigne Wood was in the next a couple of months ago, being a bit pollut-ey
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4
Home Home Home Home Home