Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Fracking
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Author 
 Message
Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3040
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 17 3:17 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:

the likes of murdoch (see genie energy) have been very quiet, one of the reasons he wants brexit is that eu environmental law is a little restrictive to extreme energy production

I'd be dismayed if UK environmental regulations were relaxed in a post-Brexit world.

Mind you, I'm dismayed by the whole Brexit thing, too, so I guess I should be prepared to be disappointed.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 8826

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 17 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I am afraid that the present government is likely to either get rid of or relax a lot of environmental legislation if it helps their friends make a quick buck. Similarly I am pretty sure that 'in these times of austerity' there won't be the money to pay for agricultural, forestry or environmental grants or subsidies on 'green' power generation.

Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3040
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Worth a read.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the principle of fracking, one thing that everyone can agree on is that any form of hydrocarbon-based energy production isn't sustainable. Would love to see the prototype Green Gasmill work out - will be watching

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Shane wrote:
Worth a read.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the principle of fracking, one thing that everyone can agree on is that any form of hydrocarbon-based energy production isn't sustainable. Would love to see the prototype Green Gasmill work out - will be watching


It would be good to see an unbiased report. There's pros and cons but the cons don't get mentioned in the press releases. What could the land that grows the grass be otherwise used for, how many lorries trips are going to be required to move the grass about etc, etc.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 8826

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

There are plenty of ways of making methane, and I agree with you Treodactyl, transport is a major problem. We generate plenty of brash when cutting trees, but even chipping that and getting it to a power station used a lot of fuel. Any waste material; rubbish, brash, straw etc. is an ideal candidate for producing gas, but the trouble is making it fuel effective.

Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3040
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Treacodactyl wrote:
Shane wrote:
Worth a read.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with the principle of fracking, one thing that everyone can agree on is that any form of hydrocarbon-based energy production isn't sustainable. Would love to see the prototype Green Gasmill work out - will be watching


It would be good to see an unbiased report. There's pros and cons but the cons don't get mentioned in the press releases. What could the land that grows the grass be otherwise used for, how many lorries trips are going to be required to move the grass about etc, etc.

Must admit, my first thought was "sounds like good grazing land to me". I'd say that the 97% claim is probably a little ambitious, but I can see this has potential as a smaller part of a more varied mix of power supplies.

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 3977
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

My thought is its just another Green push to reduce cattle numbers,
There are 2 farms near here that have installed anerobic digesters for their slurry,but considering the transport involved in moving cut grass I doubt it goes any further than the experiment stage.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 32959
Location: yes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

the battery/motor tech for personal transport is just about ready for economically viable mass production, it seems plausible that electric wagons and farm machinery will follow . therefore the cutting and delivery side of the process might become both co2 neutral and efficient enough to be viable.

it does seem a waste of grazing though. a lot of energy/co2 could be saved by grazing rather than feedlot meat production.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Shane wrote:
Must admit, my first thought was "sounds like good grazing land to me". I'd say that the 97% claim is probably a little ambitious, but I can see this has potential as a smaller part of a more varied mix of power supplies.


Unless I've missed it there's no mention of how they manage the grass, just claims about how good it is for wildlife. From the picture they show they seem to just be referring to large scale silaging which isn't great for wildlife. I also get a bit worried when people start referring to making use of marginal land and that often means damaging delicate habitat.

I agree that the tech is useful, and some farms have been digesting their slurry for decades but until I seem some proper details I'll remain sceptical.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 32959
Location: yes
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 17 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

"marginal" land that is well managed using grazing is very biodiverse and wildlife rich as well as productive.
trying to get several green silage crops off it would both degrade the soils and reduce the wildlife value.
there are good reasons that such land was historically used for part year grazing and perhaps one cut for hay.

round here the ings have been greatly improved in both productivity and biodiversity by the use of such a management system as have the lower derwent water meadows that rosewood work.

imho the use of such land for a monoculture grass crop as biofuel is both destructive and probably would become less and less viable as the soil condition was degraded by a combination of compaction, nutrient removal and artificial fertiliser use to retain crop yield.

there are "marginal" land areas that are suitable for biofuel growing such as willow coppice or fast growing upland softwoods (grouse moors and ex pitprop forestry areas seem ideal) and there are assorted untapped "waste" feedstocks with potential for digesters ( sewage sludge seems like a good one to start with)

so this proposal hasn't got my approval from what i know about it so far.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 8826

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 17 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Downland doesn't work well for use of 'marginal' land either, as it works far better as sheep or rabbit grazed turf. Growing long grass it ends up as scrub land.

James



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 2865
Location: York
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 17 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Mistress Rose wrote:
and I know that developers of all projects don't look at that. ("Microgeology")


Do you? Really?

Have you read any of the geological investigations that are underway on the chalk at the moment?

I don't presume to know the latest findings in brain surgery, or in agriculture, or economics. That's because I don't spend my life involved in those sectors.
I trust brain surgeons, farmers and economist to know their field of expertise.

I know, by name, those that are involved with the cutting edge research on fracture flow on the chalk. I manage two of them. One of those that I manage is internationally acclaimed for her understanding of karstic flow dynamics.

I've been involved in regulation of environmentally risky things now for a very long time. And I get really fed up by people who "know" stuff. What they normally mean is they have a gut feeling that's something's the case. Or that based on past experienced, its likely to be the case.
Regulators can't be as slap-dash. If we pin our colours to the mast, sure as shit we need to be on the money. Because every word is scrutinised by the operator, their solicitors, and by the anti-frack loby.

Trust me on two things (probably the same 2 things I mentioned to you last time I posted here a year or more ago). Firstly, micro fractures in the chalk are intensely studied. And secondly, in terms of relative risk, your concerns regarding damage to the chalk from cracking are disproportionate to what you already live with. Do you, for example know how close you are to your nearest landfill? Or tannery? Or scrapyard? Chances are, at least one of the above will be close-by. You are at a much greater risk from a known pollutant that's dug into the chalk than a possible risk that's miles beneath the chalk.

Worry about what's next to you.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25697
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 17 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

James wrote:
I trust brain surgeons, farmers and economist to know their field of expertise.


Farmers? I wouldn't trust some of them but then I know of cases where they've been successfully prosecuted and wonder why more haven't been caught.

I get your point though and nice to see you again.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 8826

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 17 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I hope you are right James. My experience has been that the microgeology has been ignored when building the motorway resulting in frequent landslides, all be it not large ones, and necessitating rebuilding the motorway bank twice. We do live in a sensitive area as far as water supplies are concerned, and I know that a landfill site was blocked because of concerns about water pollution. The nearest scrapyard is on the greensand not the chalk, and to the best of my knowledge we have no tanneries in the area; certainly none that my son, who buys hides for leatherwork has found anyway. Petrol stations, particularly the one down the road do concern me as I have a memory of a sink hole somewhere around there and just hope it is under the attached supermarket car park. I am sure that most people do their job professionally, but I would be the first to admit that I didn't know everything about my subject when I was doing engineering.

Nick



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 33683
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 17 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Treacodactyl wrote:
James wrote:
I trust brain surgeons, farmers and economist to know their field of expertise.


Farmers? I wouldn't trust some of them but then I know of cases where they've been successfully prosecuted and wonder why more haven't been caught.

I get your point though and nice to see you again.


Lack of resources, usually. It's reliant on the EA, or Trading Standards, or the local council to prosecute, depending on the offence. None of them have spare cash, so they can't deal with everything. It's a case of prioritising.

And, James, very good to see you. I assumed you'd simply over distilled.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25
Page 25 of 25
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright 2004 marsjupiter.com

<-- -->