IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Shale gas and climate change
Topic Summary: Shale gas is beneficial and the world is not warming
Created On: 18 October 2013 09:43 PM
Status: Read Only
Related E&T article: News analysis: Fracking protestors should find their focus
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 18 October 2013 09:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BryanLeyland

Posts: 44
Joined: 09 November 2001

The opposition to shale gas is largely based on a very misleading movie entitled "Gasland" and that has been seized upon by people who believe in or make money from dangerous man-made global warming and others who oppose economic growth, as "proof" that all sorts of dangers are associated with shale gas. Dozens of authoritative reports from all over the world show that this is not true.

Regarding dangerous man-made global warming, the fact is that there has been no measurable global warming for the last 17 years in spite of the predictions of the now demonstrably worthless climate models. The latest "Summary for Policymakers" from the IPCC claims 95% confidence that man-made global warming is real and dangerous. But the reports upon which it is based show that confidence in this statement has declined since the last report.

Given the above, the UK should abandon squandering millions of dollars on expensive and futile renewable energy subsidies and proceed with projects that will reduce, rather than increase, the cost of electricity. Nuclear, shale gas and coal will help the UK become prosperous once again.

-------------------------
BryanLeyland
 18 October 2013 11:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Bryan,

Have you heard the tail about the ostrich?

Ken Green
 19 October 2013 10:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

I take it you think that DECC have got their head in the sand? Well, this months IET magazine p20 says that the Malaysian government have just ordered 2 new coal fired 1000MVA stations to help them meet their increasing peak demand. They will apparently need to import the coal from Indonesia??
If that is correct then England with an abundance of extractable coal should most certainly not be contemplating closing any coal stations. Just modernizing them would certainly be more economical than most other options.
CliveS
 19 October 2013 01:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

excuse me, Clive

But where is this abundance of extractable coal within the UK? Have we not already dissipated the fAamily fortune by drawing on our capital ?
It is not a coincidence that our mining industry has collapsed - they ran out of seams which could be both economically and safely worked . Today we indulge in large-scale destruction known as opencast "mining" which goes on alongside remedial measures such as the problems that arise from abandOoned workings which revert to nature and flood - not to mention the very real phenomena of subsidence?

One of the reasons why steam has given way to oil on the railways is the non-availability of hard coals (e.g. anthracite) and it would need actuarial skills to determine whether we would do better to import anthracIite instead of oil - which is running out anyway. Our very survival turns on our willingness to either embrace the euthanasia of politicians or the improvement of nuclear generation.

Ken Green
 21 October 2013 11:40 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19430
Joined: 23 March 2004

It is not a coincidence that our mining industry has collapsed - they ran out of seams which could be both economically and safely worked .


Mmmm - now some would say that Mrs T was a visionary, who conserved our coal resources until the economics made it profitable to start digging it up again.

I guess now is the time to define profitable in the face of rising global demand for fuels (of all kinds) and the decline of UK generation capability balanced against a surplus of US coal, displaced by fracked gas

There's still plenty of coal down there Ken - personally, I wouldn't want to go back to winning it

Regards


OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 21 October 2013 04:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

my dear OMS,

You seem to be under the delusion that winning coal is just a matter of pick and shovel?

The shut down of our mining industry means that for a disastrously long period we have not trained any newcomers in a very dangerous occupation of making holes in the ground.

As I have always understood it, the major consideration in closing mines was the opinion of experienced engineers and geologists who also took account of the cost in lives? The opposition to mine closures came from the mining trades unions who were more concerned with their comfortable sinecures; as originally conceived the union officials were men who had experience of working at a coal-face?

It may be true that there is plenty of coal down there, but you omitted to qualify that statement, with reference to the quality of the coal and to its depth and the overlay?

Ken Green
 21 October 2013 06:46 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19430
Joined: 23 March 2004

I'm under no illusion about winning coal, Ken - it was the combined efforts of Mrs T and Mr S that forced me (in part) to look at alternative engineering employment - have you ever worked in mining, given that you think I'm delusional over what's involved.

Who says the brains behind getting it out need to be British - there are plenty of companies that would get it out with no bother, if the price was right - and a lot of them employ British trained mining engineers - where did you think all those guys who found themselves out of a job and standing in line with 3 million others, went to ?

There is always a human cost in mining, but UK mining was actually a pretty safe operation - construction kills far more people, as does sea fishing (pro rata per 100,000) as well as several other professions.

The quality of UK coal is pretty high, and whilst some is deep, a lot is still within relatively easy reach - but most of that is an economic question - ie what's the value per tonne of a finite resource. It's not worth doing when the cost to import is cheaper than digging it up locally - but that balance is shifting.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 19 November 2013 07:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



donaldswifthook

Posts: 8
Joined: 15 October 2010

According to EdF - who should know because they burn a fair proportion of all British coal - the UK Coal Forum estimated the UK's underground coal reserves to be about 105 million tonnes in 2009, about 13 years of then current production. 50% more of UK production was surface mined but there are few remaining open cast sites available. So "an abundance of extractable coal" sounds greatly exaggerated to me, when we already have to import three-quarters of all the coal we burn.
It is interesting to see that shale gas in the US has not only halved their gas prices [compared with the EU, for example] but is holding down our coal prices as they export their resulting coal surpluses. In the UK, we are burning about as much American coal as we are British. We wouldn't have to do that if we fracked our own plentiful shales for gas.

Edited: 19 November 2013 at 07:26 PM by donaldswifthook
 22 November 2013 12:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Donald,

You make it seem that you have sunk a hole in your garden and been down to count the amount of shale gas?

You should beware of figures quoted with great confidence by those who quite often can't count their own toes.

Ken Green
 31 December 2013 01:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Yes Ken, because unlike the many different productive shales in the USA, the geology of all UK shales is certain to be uniquely unproductive. </sarc>

I guess I should add Mark Venables' article to the ever expanding catalog of exclusively anti-shale gas, anti-cheap energy articles by the deep green E&T editorial staff (as detailed in this thread)

Totally biased, one-sided and with zero journalistic questioning or balance: The IET could save money by outsourcing all their articles on power generation to the PR departments of Greenpeace or Vestas. It would make no difference to the content.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.