.
It'll probably be fine if normal planning regulations are applied and it is well regulated and carefully monitored. However, I doubt if more than one out of three of these will be seen to have applied in retrospect.
Rumours of it being the solution to all the UK's energy problems would seem however to be greatly exaggerated. Cuadrilla themselves said it could fulfil 5-10% of the UK's gas needs, so it is hardly the death knell of renewables - realistically all it can be expected to do is cut down on our future gas imports. CO2-wise, I have yet to see a detailed breakdown of the carbon cost per unit of energy of shale gas, but the general consensus is that there is probably no great saving over other fossil fuels and that it could be less carbon-efficient than imported gas.
I was reading a Time or Newsweek a couple of weeks ago which had an article on the effects of fracking on rural Pennsylvania. Gas extracted, yes, but massive pollution to ground water, uncontrolled escape of hydrocarbons an associated health issues in the local community. The "Haliburton Loophole" would have to be tightly closed before I'd be happy to see it go ahead in the UK. Not a silver bullet, just a variation on the theme of coal/oil/gas/hydrocarbon extraction with its own variation on unexpected side effects. Better to keep everything in the ground until absoltuely necessary and focus on reducing consumption, whatever the source of energy.
Interestingly, the wee drinks business that I work for has come over all green(ish) in the 3 years since I last worked for them and we have a major focus on reducing kwh/litre produced in addition to reducing in absolute terms, the kg CO2 created by our operations.
do you know anything about plastic pyrolysis? (a method of creating fuel by breaking down the waste plastic long-chain polymers to create diesel/petrol/oil equivalents)
Gardenshed wrote:
do you know anything about plastic pyrolysis? (a method of creating fuel by breaking down the waste plastic long-chain polymers to create diesel/petrol/oil equivalents)
I'd not come across it. A quick Google found an article in The Engineer from Dec 2010. I imagine the plant is pretty expensive, probably too much for a lot of local authorities.
But more importantly, is this a topic that can substitute for MMGW and be used to check whether or not Webby is on-line?
I was happily going along with the article until I reached this bit:
Shale gas may accelerate rather than reduce global warming. It emits much greater volumes of methane than does conventional gas.
Er, impurities apart, natural gas IS methane.
Interesting that it states that while there are fears of drinking water contamination, there have been no incidents so far. I've seen You Tube clips of gas coming out of water taps and being set alight.
Article on this in yesterday's Guardian - Singleton which is not a million miles from Claymore Towers is to become the Fracking Capital of the Uk
I understand the £90k given to the village hall for refurbishments is helping.
DaveS wrote:
I was happily going along with the article until I reached this bit:
Shale gas may accelerate rather than reduce global warming. It emits much greater volumes of methane than does conventional gas.
Er, impurities apart, natural gas IS methane.
Yes . . . I noticed this bit as well but couldn't be arsed mentioning it at the time. What I think they meant to say (but were too confused 'cos they are just journos) was that the CO2 emissions associated with the production of fracked shale gas are higher per tonne that those associated with more conventionally produced natural gas. Which seems likely when you think about it.
Its interesting that Cannataxx who wanted to empty some underground chambers of brine and fill them with gas have gone very quiet whilst the shale gas appears to be the new local issue of contention,
Seems someone is determined to blow us up, one way or the other.
