Shale Gas - Mod note post#117

nedzer2011

NewVision wrote: »

Britain is hitting for fracking. But it will be more expensive than renewables.

Household energy bills will be about £600 higher per year in the coming decades if the UK relies increasingly on gas, the government's climate advisers warned on Thursday.

But the Committee on Climate Change found that bills would only be £100 higher than today's average dual fuel bill of about £1,300, if the country concentrated on renewable power generation, such as wind power.[/indent]

He said paying £100 more by 2020 for renewables was "a sensible insurance" against paying potentially £600 more for a reliance on gas.

Haven't read the report (correct if me if I'm out of line), but the statement/article seems suitably 'wooly'

Note the discrepancy between the "will" statements in the attention grabbing headlines Vs the "potential" in the text.

Focus on the quality rather than quantity with the posting,

Macha

OK enough with the backseat modding. Let's keep this a debate about shale gas and fracking.

NewVision: please start debating or your posts will start being deleted.

SiegfriedsMum

It's all to easy to decide one is for, or against, fracking, and then rush to find lots of "evidence" to back up ones position, and ignore anything to the contrary.

One point worth noting is that this technology has moved on and improved greatly in recent years.

Another polint worth considering is the potential for jobs in Ireland.

A third point is the potential to reduce energy bills in Ireland, and all the benefits that gives not only to households, but also to enable industry to become more competitive.

Additionally, the revenue to the government is likely to be a significant contributor to the states finances.

Of course, we'd also not have to import as much energy from abroad, which would be great for our balance of payments, and might even be able to start exporting energy if the finds of gas are as large as some think.

If your opinion on the topic is based on scary youtube videos, be honest enough to say that the technology scares you, and then lets try to have an adult debate and try to find out the facts on how scary it really is in 2012/2013. To date, my impression is those who oppose fracking are often not open to discussion, or weighing up the pros and cons, but are only interested in shouthing down anyone who is interested in the facts. Lets hope on boards.ie that will not be the case.

Grudaire

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

It's all to easy to decide one is for, or against, fracking, and then rush to find lots of "evidence" to back up ones position, and ignore anything to the contrary.

One point worth noting is that this technology has moved on and improved greatly in recent years.

Another polint worth considering is the potential for jobs in Ireland.

A third point is the potential to reduce energy bills in Ireland, and all the benefits that gives not only to households, but also to enable industry to become more competitive.

Additionally, the revenue to the government is likely to be a significant contributor to the states finances.

Of course, we'd also not have to import as much energy from abroad, which would be great for our balance of payments, and might even be able to start exporting energy if the finds of gas are as large as some think.

A slight rewording and you could be advocating renewable energy sources! :pac:

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If your opinion on the topic is based on scary youtube videos, be honest enough to say that the technology scares you, and then lets try to have an adult debate and try to find out the facts on how scary it really is in 2012/2013. To date, my impression is those who oppose fracking are often not open to discussion, or weighing up the pros and cons, but are only interested in shouthing down anyone who is interested in the facts. Lets hope on boards.ie that will not be the case.

I can't claim to have researched this in any depth, but I have to say that I would not be very trusting of the technology as a base point.

I'm not going to claim that it can't be done safely, but it does seem like it needs a lot of care to be done in a safe manner.
Can we trust commercial interests to balance this safety with profitabilty? I don't know if we can.

Is there a need for fracking is the first question that needs to be considered?

CatFromHue

I have to say I don't know.

Since the English have given it the OK, or are about to, why not put it on the backburner and see how they get on?

Grudaire

CatFromHue wrote: »

I have to say I don't know.

Since the English have given it the OK, or are about to, why not put it on the backburner and see how they get on?

And it'll be worth more by the time we've seen what happens to the Brits

SiegfriedsMum

Cliste wrote: »

A slight rewording and you could be advocating renewable energy sources! :pac:

In fairness this thread is about fracking. Additionally, "renewable enery sources" sound wonderful, but when one begins to do a lilttle research they all have serious flaws. Windmills are no use when the wind doesn't blow, ethanol takes roughly one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol, tidal/wave power is wonderful but not when the tide is in the wrong place, and not when the sea is calm, and so and so on.

Ask yourself how much renewal energy sources have contributed to american energy prices less than halving in the last couple of years?

Cliste wrote: »

A slight rewording and you could be advocating renewable energy sources!



I can't claim to have researched this in any depth, but I have to say that I would not be very trusting of the technology as a base point.

This is exactly the issue I was talking abouit, the fear of the unknown. Your fear is based on fear, and not on facts about fracking. I dont think any one of us should have to trust one side or the other, and we should find out the facts for ourselves.

Grudaire

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

In fairness this thread is about fracking. Additionally, "renewable enery sources" sound wonderful, but when one begins to do a lilttle research they all have serious flaws. Windmills are no use when the wind doesn't blow, ethanol takes roughly one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol, tidal/wave power is wonderful but not when the tide is in the wrong place, and not when the sea is calm, and so and so on.

Well I don't want to get into a deep meaningful argument about renewables (thus derailing this thread) but I will say one thing:

Some of your opinions about renewables seem to be based more on fear, and not on facts about renewables. Tidal power is the single most predictable energy source (you can look up tidal tables for the forseeable future, this determines the heigth and flow and thus we know exactly how much and when we would be getting tidal power)

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

This is exactly the issue I was talking abouit, the fear of the unknown. Your fear is based on fear, and not on facts about fracking. I dont think any one of us should have to trust one side or the other, and we should find out the facts for ourselves.

I did go on to qualify some of my concerns, and reasons for distrust. Like any big industry with a vested interest I definitely pause before taking what is said at face value.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Ask yourself how much renewal energy sources have contributed to american energy prices less than halving in the last couple of years?

I assume that was meant as an answer to "Is there a need for fracking is the first question that needs to be considered?"

I've asked myself this question, and the truth is I haven't a clue.

The questions I personally would be asking are:

• Is it bad for the environment (locally, but more importantly Globally)?
• Can it be extracted economically?
• Is it sustainable, or is it a crutch that can be used for a while before we have to worry about increasing fuel prices again?

SiegfriedsMum

Cliste wrote: »

Well I don't want to get into a deep meaningful argument about renewables (thus derailing this thread) but I will say one thing:

Some of your opinions about renewables seem to be based more on fear, and not on facts about renewables. Tidal power is the single most predictable energy source (you can look up tidal tables for the forseeable future, this determines the heigth and flow and thus we know exactly how much and when we would be getting tidal power)

Thats true except that tides (i) vary in height and (ii) harnessing the tide is not easy (iii) it's very expensive (iv) the most successful designs are static, and only produce energy when the tide is in the right place (ie they dont produce a constant source of power and (v) no business plan has ever been produced to make harnessing the tides, in normal circumstances, viable. (Places such as the Severn Estuary where there is a natural bore might be).

I am not in the least "afraid" of any source of power, and my arguments about tidal power, for example, are based on facts.

Cliste wrote: »

I assume that was meant as an answer to "Is there a need for fracking is the first question that needs to be considered?"

There is certainly a need to find (i) cheaper energy sources and (ii) new and reliable energy sources. The experience in the USA is that fracking has reduced energy prices by over half. They didn't "need" to do that, but that they have done means they are now much more competitive than, say Germany, on world markets. Thats good for jobs in the USA and not good for jobs in Germany.

So successful has the energy policy in the USA been that much of its industry is actually relocating back to the USA from China, almost wholly due to the reduced energy prices due to fracking. They didn't "need" to do that and could have continued paying higher prices for energy, thats true.

Do we "need" to find ways of trying to reduce household bills for energy in Ireland? The answer is no, we don't "need" to, but certainly if we were able to do that wouldn't it be wonderful?

I am not claiming that will happen to the same or a greater extent here, but I think we would be foolish to shut our minds to it, as it will mean Irish industry become less and less competitive, having to pay much more for energy than Irelands competitors.

Cliste wrote: »

The questions I personally would be asking are:

• Is it bad for the environment (locally, but more importantly Globally)?
• Can it be extracted economically?
• Is it sustainable, or is it a crutch that can be used for a while before we have to worry about increasing fuel prices again?

Most industry is bad for the environment. Ireland's cattle industry, for example, is pretty rotten for the environment in that it produces huge quantities of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). The Bord na Mona peat industry is bad for the environment, as is any industry which relies on fossil fuels for transportation. Fracking is a new industry and, like GM foods, it raises fears in some. thats understandable, but hardly a basis for an outright ban.

Certainly in the USA it is extracted very economically and thre is every reason to suppose that as we get better at it, the economics will look even more attractive.

That depends on what you mean by sustainable. Will it run out in 5 years? No. A recent report by KPMG identifies 6622 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. thats a lot of gas!

Fracking is not trouble free, and like every energy source it creates safety and environmental risks. Some countries, like France, have banned fracking in certain areas, and other countries like China and Argentina will probably not be so conservative as they see fracked gas as an important component in rising living standards for their countries.

Grudaire

Ok, firstly you need to begin backing your arguments up. Namely your claim that they have reduced prices by half. (a quick google has this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9747207/Do-not-be-seduced-by-a-fracking-gas-bonanza.html which says yeah prices have dropped - but by an artificial amount due to the barriers to export in the US - ie we won't get the same benefits)

I don't want this to get sidetracked by renewables chat - I do want to learn more about fracking. That said I agree that tidal isn't perfect, but it is 'predictable'.

So we've determined that lower energy prices are good - not that fracking in Ireland will create cheaper electricity

Environment? So it is bad but so are other industries?? Don't go trying to convince me using USA style whataboutery! You don't even compare it to other electricity options!
Economically? appears to be sucessful (although no figures produced)
Sustainable? Figures without context are as useful as a square wheel. How long would that last us at current levels? What about growth? What about the decrease in other fossil fuels?

Damn it give me something concrete to deal with!

getz

Macha wrote: »

[mod]Hi all, can we try to get a debate going about shale gas, rather than just information updates? Sharing links ≠ debate. thanks.[/mod]

i live in the area of england [poulton le fyled] where the shale gas fracking has got the go ahead by the goverment, when they started last year we had earthquakes,now in our case,we have 19 deep salt cavens under us,this is where they propose to store the gas ,we also have a company called wyre tidal energy[tidal barrage scheme]who also want to use those caves,i personally have no problem with fracking,its the storing of the gas in the area of the fracking[under my feet] that i have a issue with,to me its a disaster just waiting to happen.

SiegfriedsMum

Cliste wrote: »

Ok, firstly you need to begin backing your arguments up. Namely your claim that they have reduced prices by half. (a quick google has this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9747207/Do-not-be-seduced-by-a-fracking-gas-bonanza.html which says yeah prices have dropped - but by an artificial amount due to the barriers to export in the US - ie we won't get the same benefits)

If you feel the particular DT article is the authority on fracking, then that’s a matter for you to decide for yourself. One thing which is certain is we won’t get any potential benefits by doing nothing.

Cliste wrote: »

I don't want this to get sidetracked by renewables chat - I do want to learn more about fracking. That said I agree that tidal isn't perfect, but it is 'predictable'.

Even if you judge tidal power to be “predictable”, you seem to ignore the other problems I mentioned, not least that no business plan has been devised to make it economically viable. Compare that to your concern that we might not get the same financial benefits from shale gas, and I have to wonder why you ignore the costs of tidal power and seem to be promoting it, while appearing to rule out shale gas because it is financially viable, it is likely to reduce gas bills, and for the reason that we might not get the same scale of benefits experienced elsewhere.

Cliste wrote: »

So we've determined that lower energy prices are good - not that fracking in Ireland will create cheaper electricity

If fracking does not produce cheaper gas than we can buy from elsewhere, no one is going to be compelled to buy fracked gas. It’s a market and the electricity generating companies can buy gas from wherever they like, and one assumes they will buy gas from the cheapest supplier. If the fracking companies can’t produce it less expensively, then no one will buy their gas.
If there are a number of fracking companies, that will bring competition into the gas market, where currently very little competition exists.

Your guess is that prices won’t fall, and my guess is they will. However, guessing isn’t really the best argument.

Cliste wrote: »

Environment? So it is bad but so are other industries?? Don't go trying to convince me using USA style whataboutery! You don't even compare it to other electricity options!

I have no idea what USA style whataboutery might be. Perhaps you missed it where I compared it to tidal power, which is the only other form of electricity production you brought up.

Cliste wrote: »

Economically? appears to be sucessful (although no figures produced)

The figures for gas prices in the USA speak for themselves. However, price is not the only consideration, as energy security and availability of supply are also considerations.

Cliste wrote: »

Sustainable? Figures without context are as useful as a square wheel. How long would that last us at current levels? What about growth? What about the decrease in other fossil fuels?

Damn it give me something concrete to deal with!

I am afraid my position here is not as your researcher. If you are unsure how much 6622 trillion cubic feet of gas is, then you’ll have to decide for yourself if it’s a lot, or a little.

Grudaire

Oh dear oh dear, you seem completely ignore what I have actually said in my post.

You have mentioned facts three times. Yet your 'facts' have yet to have any backup.

I have tried to find a KPMG report on Irish Fracking - can't find one... does one exist?

I have supplied a link that makes a very simple supply vs demand argument... you have dismissed it without actually refuting anything in it, or providing an alternative argument.

You appear to agree that it is bad for the environment without saying it?

You claim to have compared it to tidal when looking at environmental impact, but actually said:

Most industry is bad for the environment. Ireland's cattle industry, for example, is pretty rotten for the environment in that it produces huge quantities of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). The Bord na Mona peat industry is bad for the environment, as is any industry which relies on fossil fuels for transportation. Fracking is a new industry and, like GM foods, it raises fears in some. thats understandable, but hardly a basis for an outright ban.

SiegfriedsMum

Cliste wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear, you seem completely ignore what I have actually said in my post.

You have mentioned facts three times. Yet your 'facts' have yet to have any backup.

The way a discussion usually works is that one party makes an assertion, and the other party the discusses it and either agrees or disagrees.

For example, you made an assertion about tidal power, and I replied as follows:

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Thats true except that tides (i) vary in height and (ii) harnessing the tide is not easy (iii) it's very expensive (iv) the most successful designs are static, and only produce energy when the tide is in the right place (ie they dont produce a constant source of power and (v) no business plan has ever been produced to make harnessing the tides, in normal circumstances, viable. (Places such as the Severn Estuary where there is a natural bore might be).

You may dispute all or none of those facts, for example that so far tidal power schemes are too expensive and no business plan had been produced to make harnessing the tides, in normal circumstances, viable.

Cliste wrote: »

I have tried to find a KPMG report on Irish Fracking - can't find one... does one exist?

The report I was looking at was a report of the global perspective, as opposed to just Ireland and can be found here http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/shale-gas-global-perspective.pdf

Cliste wrote: »

I have supplied a link that makes a very simple supply vs demand argument... you have dismissed it without actually refuting anything in it, or providing an alternative argument.

The point of boards is not to direct others to newspaper articles and ask them to read them and then provide a critique. The point of boards is to discuss, and if you have a view on an article in a newspaper, then you are at liberty to explain your view here, and discuss it.

Cliste wrote: »

You appear to agree that it is bad for the environment without saying it?

:

I agree many things are bad for the environment, but I don’t think that’s an argument for banning them. What I have said was that

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Fracking is not trouble free, and like every energy source it creates safety and environmental risks.

Cliste wrote: »

You claim to have compared it to tidal when looking at environmental impact, but actually said:

I’ve repeated above exactly what I have said about the problems with tidal power, and if you disagree with any of it I look forward to it.

What I am trying to do here is to take the emotion out of the topic and look at it dispassionately. So what I do is I take your posts line by line, as I have done here, and respond to every line as clearly and dispassionately as I can, to every specific point you make. Your style is somewhat different insofar as, in your responses, it's ironic you accuse me of ignoring what you say when I have, in fact, replied to every single point you have made and when you ignore many points I make. tarting off your most recent reply with, for example, “oh dear oh dear” which is hardly designed to keep things from getting heated.

Grudaire

You keep refering to tidal power - I want to talk about fracking! That's why I have stopped talking about tidal.

STOP going back to tidal power, or else start another thread and I'll chat with you about it there.


Back on topic.

I'll look at the KPMG report later when I have a chance.

How bad is fracking then? I don't think you should keep skirting around the issue of environmental impact. You're in favour, so I assume you know the 'fact's around environmental damage?

SiegfriedsMum

Cliste wrote: »

You keep refering to tidal power - I want to talk about fracking! That's why I have stopped talking about tidal.

STOP going back to tidal power, or else start another thread and I'll chat with you about it there.

I'm confused. In your last post you made a point about tidal power, to which I responded. I dont keep referring to the topic, except to answer points you make about it. You made a charge that I hadn't relplied to you about tidal power, then when I replied you tell me to "STOP going back to tidal power". I am told using CAPITAL letters is the cyber equivalent of shouting, and shouting and issuing commands to other posters is probably not the best way of having an effective discussion.

Cliste wrote: »

How bad is fracking then? I don't think you should keep skirting around the issue of environmental impact. You're in favour, so I assume you know the 'fact's around environmental damage?

At no point have I said I am in favour, or against, fracking, and have said I am in favour of exploring the issue.

If you have an argument to make, I look forward to it.

Grudaire

Shouting is necessary when you don't seem willing to discuss the environmental impact. You are willing to put forward assertations as to the price of the fuel, but none as to the other costs associated!

NewVision has listed a vast list of links crying out the dangers of fracking.

Gasland also makes damning claims as to the dangers of fracking.


Notwithstanding the issues raised above, is it wise for us to start mining a new source of fossil fuels? Surely pumping out more polution will not help, and perhaps put our ecosystem more at risk.

nedzer2011

Cliste wrote: »

Shouting is necessary when you don't seem willing to discuss the environmental impact. You are willing to put forward assertations as to the price of the fuel, but none as to the other costs associated!

NewVision has listed a vast list of links crying out the dangers of fracking.

Gasland also makes damning claims as to the dangers of fracking.


Notwithstanding the issues raised above, is it wise for us to start mining a new source of fossil fuels? Surely pumping out more polution will not help, and perhaps put our ecosystem more at risk.

Hope you don't mind if I join in?

There certainly are certain risks associated with SG extraction, but I suppose the real issue is whether these risks are anywhere as dangerous as quoted in some sources, and whether alternatives are financially or environmentally sustainable?

It's not like renewable sources are installed at zero environmental or health impact. For every 'gasland', you have a similar film like this:

Theres going to be a certain amount of NIMBYism involved in any decision!

Grudaire

In fairness there are laws about how close you can build turbines to peoples houses as a result of these issues. Clearly early developments had them within a cats whisker of houses (as in that youtube video).

But you cannot claim that the issues that fracking have been known to cause are really on the same scale.


On a local scale we're talking pollution, land movement etc

On a global scale we're talking the same issue as with any other fossil fuel.


Is fracking environmentally and economically sustainable? (An i mean more than just profits for the Gas companies)

Grudaire

Had a quick look through the KPMG report, some things that jumped out at me were:

"finding no evidence that the process endangered water supplies, provided the operations were conducted with proper safety procedures."

"Private companies cannot develop a full-scale shale gas industry on their own. They need their local governments to support them with a combination of direct financial subsidies, investments in transportation infrastructures, and favorable regulatory environments."

"Natural gas prices are currently depressed in some regions (e.g. the Americas), and the wealth of newly viable shale gas plays could drop prices even farther." - that ironically backs up the article I linked earlier....!

"It burns cleaner than fossil fuels." - it's not a fossil fuel then KPMG!?

Anyway - interesting read. Thanks!

nedzer2011

Cliste wrote: »

But you cannot claim that the issues that fracking have been known to cause are really on the same scale.


On a local scale we're talking pollution, land movement etc

On a global scale we're talking the same issue as with any other fossil fuel.

True, it's not quite like-for-like but at the same time the potential negative effects of a renewable power (in this case, wind energy) should be considered in any debate. Pollution can be caused by turbine installation, as can land movement, but these risks are usually effectively managed. In other cases, they are not managed well (Derrybrien for instance).

While the problem sets are different with Fraccing, because of experience elsewhere, it's reasonable to say that they could be managed. I think that any experiences in the UK will be priceless to that regard.

micosoft

Cliste wrote: »

You keep refering to tidal power - I want to talk about fracking! That's why I have stopped talking about tidal.

STOP going back to tidal power, or else start another thread and I'll chat with you about it there.


Back on topic.

I'll look at the KPMG report later when I have a chance.

How bad is fracking then? I don't think you should keep skirting around the issue of environmental impact. You're in favour, so I assume you know the 'fact's around environmental damage?

Cliste - all human endeavours have environmental impact. Do you really think building tidal power over and estuary has no environmental impact? Nor the building of Wind Turbines. You seem to think renewables are all pixie dust and joy when most renewables have significant environmental impact (for example the rare earths required for solar). Nobody is suggesting Fracking is without risk or impact. But it's on a spectrum along with renewables. The question then is the risk and impact worth it compared to the risk and impact of alternatives (along with feasibility and cost which are pretty important too) and make a measured decision based on that instead of the "Fracking bad"/"Renewables Good" dichotomy you believe.

micosoft

Cliste wrote: »

Is fracking environmentally and economically sustainable? (An i mean more than just profits for the Gas companies)

Yes. Do ya think Gas will just disappear overnight? We need it for heating, cooking, electricity (when the wind don't blow we need fast backup).

• There is little or no capacity for more hydro in Ireland. Ocean hydro is in it's infancy and still decades away from significant usage.
• Wind is variable and needs backup. Megagrids are decades away.
• Solar is not viable.
• Nuclear is not viable as you need a fleet for Nukes and infrastructure for waste (we can import though).

Where exactly do you expect to get our Gas from?

Macha

micosoft wrote: »

Yes. Do ya think Gas will just disappear overnight? We need it for heating, cooking, electricity (when the wind don't blow we need fast backup).

• There is little or no capacity for more hydro in Ireland. Ocean hydro is in it's infancy and still decades away from significant usage.
• Wind is variable and needs backup. Megagrids are decades away.
• Solar is not viable.
• Nuclear is not viable as you need a fleet for Nukes and infrastructure for waste (we can import though).

Where exactly do you expect to get our Gas from?

Solar is not viable? Where do you get that from? Renewables are variable, which requires a number of technical and regulatory responses. Back up and increased interconnection are two of them.

Yes, we need gas. But do we need Irish shale gas? That's a different question.

Capt'n Midnight

micosoft wrote: »

Yes. Do ya think Gas will just disappear overnight? We need it for heating, cooking, electricity (when the wind don't blow we need fast backup).

• There is little or no capacity for more hydro in Ireland. Ocean hydro is in it's infancy and still decades away from significant usage.
• Wind is variable and needs backup. Megagrids are decades away.
• Solar is not viable.
• Nuclear is not viable as you need a fleet for Nukes and infrastructure for waste (we can import though).

Where exactly do you expect to get our Gas from?

Hydro - if osmosis works we could double hydro here but in the grand scheme of things it's not much

But remember Turlough Hill can pump out 250MW on demand

Solar - The UK installed 993MW of solar last year. Solar cost is dropping 7% a year. 36c/watt is on the Horizon. Transparent panels which can be integrated into windows will become more common.

Wind is variable and there is no sunshine at night. At present wind is limited here to 1.5GW for financial reasons otherwise the limits are 50% from Wind/Interconnectors until someone invests in better frequency management gear. NI will be setting up 200MW of predicatable tidal. We have lots of wind in the pipeline, it's cheaper to build more wind than you need than to build pumped storage to store it.

Megagrids are two or three years away we already have north-south and the east-west interconnectors, there has been plenty of route planning for another pair of interconnectors to the UK


Don't forget we have gas interconnectors too as another way of transferring power. And we have overcapacity of gas plants while we phase out the older ones. something like it will peak at about 11GW dispatchabel capacity on the Island , and that's before you talk about demand shedding