Problems with Policing Those Opposed to Fracking

[Hope]

http://www.talkfracking.org/news/problems-with-policing-those-opposed-to-fracking/

Any views one way or the other?

[Bubbles]

I'm opposed to it. (Fracking)

But I think it will come regardless of what people think.

There are too many influential people, about to make large amounts of money out of it.

Writing to your MP is also pretty worthless because I don't think they really care about public opinion. ( or at least that's my impression)

It doesn't surprise me that protesters are getting attacked, I've heard other stories on it as well.

The rest of the renewables like wind farms I have no issue with.

I think we risk polluting our water supply, which is not good news on an island as small as ours.

[Sebastian Toe]

The rest of the renewables like wind farms I have no issue with.

I think we risk polluting our water supply, which is not good news on an island as small as ours.

Wind farms can cause water pollution!

http://principia-scientific.org/scotland-s-wind-farms-cause-water-pollution/


Still in favour?

[L.A.]

In my opinion, these opposition groups tend to consist of an 'unholy alliance' of naive middle-class do gooders with rent-a-mob professional trouble makers who simply want any excuse to confront the authorities . . . so I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

As for the Fracking . . . why would anyone be opposed to a low carbon low cost source of energy on our doorstep?

[jeremyp]

As for the Fracking . . . why would anyone be opposed to a low carbon low cost source of energy on our doorstep?

They claim it damages the water table and pollutes the water supply. I don't know if it is true, but fracking is not low carbon cost, anyway.

[Hope]

As for the Fracking . . . why would anyone be opposed to a low carbon low cost source of energy on our doorstep?

For precisely that reason, LA - the low carbon sources of energy are having their funding cut dramatically whilst the high carbon sources - such as fossils fuels (which, of course, include the products of fracking) are being revamped. 

I think we need to get away from the assumption that we can have low-cost energy which we use as if its water, and do some massive rethinking of our energy use.  Do we really need to leave lights on in empty office blocks all night, fo instance?  Why not fit PIRs so that they go on to provide light for the cleanersand security folk when they are there and then go out again once they leave - with perhaps one or two staying on for long-term security purposes.

[L.A.]

For precisely that reason, LA - the low carbon sources of energy are having their funding cut dramatically whilst the high carbon sources - such as fossils fuels (which, of course, include the products of fracking) are being revamped. 

I think we need to get away from the assumption that we can have low-cost energy which we use as if its water, and do some massive rethinking of our energy use.  Do we really need to leave lights on in empty office blocks all night, fo instance?  Why not fit PIRs so that they go on to provide light for the cleanersand security folk when they are there and then go out again once they leave - with perhaps one or two staying on for long-term security purposes.

There has always been a question mark over the long term viability of most 'renewable' energy sources. By most measures it's very expensive energy and the current boom has come about only because of massive subsidies. I don't think it is unreasonable to start to find out whether these energy sources can stand on their merits.

Natural gas on the other hand, remains our most important fuel. It's very low carbon compared to coal and can be readily be converted to hydrogen if necessary. As North Sea gas runs out we import vast quantities, often from politically unstable areas, so it makes a lot of sense to look for a local source.

[Hope]

There has always been a question mark over the long term viability of most 'renewable' energy sources. By most measures it's very expensive energy and the current boom has come about only because of massive subsidies. I don't think it is unreasonable to start to find out whether these energy sources can stand on their merits.

I agree, which is why we need to get away from this whole love affair with 'cheap' - be that cheap fuel, cheap energy, cheap food, cheap services.

Natural gas on the other hand, remains our most important fuel. It's very low carbon compared to coal and can be readily be converted to hydrogen if necessary. As North Sea gas runs out we import vast quantities, often from politically unstable areas, so it makes a lot of sense to look for a local source.

But it is still a fossil fuel, and using it adds to the ever increasing level of carbon (and other toxic chemicals) in the atmosphere.

[L.A.]

I agree, which is why we need to get away from this whole love affair with 'cheap' - be that cheap fuel, cheap energy, cheap food, cheap services.
But it is still a fossil fuel, and using it adds to the ever increasing level of carbon (and other toxic chemicals) in the atmosphere.

Are you actually saying that you want expensive energy? - if so there are always plenty of people prepared to over-charge you 

The way I see it, fossil  fuels will be essential for a good time yet, probably until nuclear fussion becomes a reality, and natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. I suspect that a lot of renewable technologies will just prove to be an expensive waste of time and money.

[jeremyp]

There has always been a question mark over the long term viability of most 'renewable' energy sources. By most measures it's very expensive energy

What about the measure in which over use of fossil fuels makes our planet uninhabitable for humans? That makes them very expensive.

The costs of fossil fuels don't factor in the cost to the environment. If we paid what it really costs to burn coal or gas in a power station, the renewables wouldn't look quite as expensive.

and the current boom has come about only because of massive subsidies. I don't think it is unreasonable to start to find out whether these energy sources can stand on their merits.

All technologies start out expensive and reduce in cost over time. We are beginning to see that with renewables. Giving them a kick start with subsidies can be justified by the fact that our survival depends on them.

Natural gas on the other hand, remains our most important fuel. It's very low carbon compared to coal

That's only a relative measure. When burned, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide. If not burned, it is methane which is even worse as a greenhouse gas.

and can be readily be converted to hydrogen if necessary.

Why would you do that? Just burn the methane.

As North Sea gas runs out we import vast quantities, often from politically unstable areas, so it makes a lot of sense to look for a local source.

Or reduce our dependency on it.

[L.A.]

What about the measure in which over use of fossil fuels makes our planet uninhabitable for humans? That makes them very expensive.

The costs of fossil fuels don't factor in the cost to the environment. If we paid what it really costs to burn coal or gas in a power station, the renewables wouldn't look quite as expensive.

This was the rational behind the Climate Change Levy.

    and the current boom has come about only because of massive subsidies. I don't think it is unreasonable to start to find out whether these energy sources can stand on their merits.

All technologies start out expensive and reduce in cost over time. We are beginning to see that with renewables. Giving them a kick start with subsidies can be justified by the fact that our survival depends on them.

But 'start-up' subsidies can't go on forever.

    Natural gas on the other hand, remains our most important fuel. It's very low carbon compared to coal


That's only a relative measure. When burned, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide. If not burned, it is methane which is even worse as a greenhouse gas.

Natural gas has roughly half the carbon emissions of coal.

Most of our homes are heated by natural gas and that is certainly not going to change overnight - we will need large quantities of natural gas for some time.

(I don't thing anyone is advocating releasing large quantities of methane into the atmosphere)

    and can be readily be converted to hydrogen if necessary.


Why would you do that? Just burn the methane.

Hydrogen is heralded by many as the 'ideal' fuel (having zero emissions) so natural gas (largely methane) could be a useful source.

    As North Sea gas runs out we import vast quantities, often from politically unstable areas, so it makes a lot of sense to look for a local source.

Or reduce our dependency on it.

Obviously, energy efficiency makes sense by any standards, but we can't drastically cut our energy usage without a major economic collapse. Renewable energy sources aren't going to replace fossil  fuels any time soon even in the most optimistic scenarios. We will be requiring natural gas for some time.

[L.A.]

My own view (for what it is worth) is that nuclear fusion will become a reality well before renewable sources have replaced fossil fuels.

In 50 years the government of the day will be spending millions of pounds restoring the landscape by removing derelict wind-farms.

[BeRational]

My own view (for what it is worth) is that nuclear fusion will become a reality well before renewable sources have replaced fossil fuels.

In 50 years the government of the day will be spending millions of pounds restoring the landscape by removing derelict wind-farms.

Nuclear fusion is 10 years away.






And always will be!

[jeremyp]

But 'start-up' subsidies can't go on forever.

They need to go on long enough for renewables to be a good alternative to fossil fuels.

Natural gas has roughly half the carbon emissions of coal.

So, quite a lot then.

Hydrogen is heralded by many as the 'ideal' fuel (having zero emissions) so natural gas (largely methane) could be a useful source.

Methane is a gas whose molecules consist of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. In the presence of oxygen, it will handily decompose into water and carbon dioxide releasing energy in the form of heat.

Hydrogen is a gas whose molecules consist of two hydrogen atoms. In the presence of oxygen, it will handily combine with it to form water and will release energy in the form of heat.

If you try to convert methane into hydrogen you need to find a way of stripping the hydrogen atoms away from the carbon atom. So you need to do something with the carbon atom. My guess is that, if you want to get the same quantity of energy out as just burning the methane, you'd burn it.  So now we are splitting the methane, burning the hydrogen and burning the carbon. Why not just burn the methane in one go?

Renewable energy sources aren't going to replace fossil  fuels any time soon even in the most optimistic scenarios. We will be requiring natural gas for some time.

This is true, but we shouldn't be increasing our dependence on it because it does produce greenhouse gases.

By the way, in January, the installed capacity of wind turbines exceeded the installed capacity of nuclear stations for the first time.

[jeremyp]

My own view (for what it is worth) is that nuclear fusion will become a reality well before renewable sources have replaced fossil fuels.

I'm not at all optimistic about fusion. I don't expect to see practical fusion power in my life time. We know renewables work. We need to put some of our eggs in that basket.

[L.A.]

I'm not at all optimistic about fusion. I don't expect to see practical fusion power in my life time. We know renewables work. We need to put some of our eggs in that basket.

The physics is straightforward, all that is needed is a major commitment to sorting the engineering. Engineering problems like this can be solved when they are really important - and when that happens, most of the renewable sources (at least in developed countries) will just be a pile of useless scrap.

[L.A.]

Methane is a gas whose molecules consist of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. In the presence of oxygen, it will handily decompose into water and carbon dioxide releasing energy in the form of heat.

Hydrogen is a gas whose molecules consist of two hydrogen atoms. In the presence of oxygen, it will handily combine with it to form water and will release energy in the form of heat.

If you try to convert methane into hydrogen you need to find a way of stripping the hydrogen atoms away from the carbon atom. So you need to do something with the carbon atom. My guess is that, if you want to get the same quantity of energy out as just burning the methane, you'd burn it.  So now we are splitting the methane, burning the hydrogen and burning the carbon. Why not just burn the methane in one go?

I'm not a chemist, but I understand that it is a fairly simple procedure to produce hydrogen from methane and the process need not release CO2 to the atmosphere. Hydrogen can then be used for a number of options including fuel cells.

    Renewable energy sources aren't going to replace fossil  fuels any time soon even in the most optimistic scenarios. We will be requiring natural gas for some time.

This is true, but we shouldn't be increasing our dependence on it because it does produce greenhouse gases.

By the way, in January, the installed capacity of wind turbines exceeded the installed capacity of nuclear stations for the first time.

Two points there:

1/ Our nuclear capacity is at a low right now, several installations have reached the end of their life and have not yet been replaced.

2/ The capacity of wind turbines is ZERO when the wind isn't blowing!

[L.A.]

There we are, I knew I'd seen it somewhere:

http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/49_1_Anaheim_03-04_0973.pdf

Obviously there is some loss of energy, but you end up with pure hydrogen and particulate carbon.