Fracking in Sheffield?

[Clown Shoes 10]

I love all these NIMBY responses.

 

If you asked anyone whether they would want a [....insert option here..] next to their house the answer would ultimately be no.

 

It wont matter if its a

 

Power Station

Railway

New Road

New Stores

Hospital

School

College

Church

Mosque

Synagogue

Nature Reserve

Nudist Camp.

 

You cannot get around the fact that wherever they place it, its ALWAYS going to be next door to someone. It does not mean that their requirement isnt a necessary investment for the future.

 

The world changes.

 

20-30 years ago all those people bought nice isolated properties surrounded by fields probably did not expect them to be turned into mass new buyer housing estates usually with a generic chain pub and a Tesco stuck in the middle of it. However they have because the damand for such things became a necessity.

 

No wonder this country is always so far behind the rest of the world. I know what two initials I would like to say to the NIMBYs

 

You missed out....

 

Mobile phone masts

Wind farms

Immigrants

drug rehab centre

mosques

bail hostels

[Waldo 96]

Or freezing to death.

 

Ideally 'the government' (blame who you like - probably Thatcher ) should've come up with a long-term plan to replace the aged nuclear power stations and to increase the generating output - and they should have done that 25 years ago.

 

They didn't though.

 

Why not?

 

Is it because long term planning and investment wasn't politically expedient or instantly financially rewarding for them? Perhaps energy companies unduly influencing the decisions our politicians make?

 

I take the point you make re: the energy crisis we're supposedly in, and the need to be pragmatic. I just wonder this energy crisis is being exaggerated somewhat, in order to pave the way for fracking, to make it more palatable etc. Is that possible to you think?

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Why not?

 

Why didn't they plan ahead? - When have governments ever planned ahead? - They all act as if they think: "If I can put the problem off for 4 or 5 years, it'll be somebody else's problem."

 

The downside to: "No Parliament may bind its successor(s)" is that no Parliament has to accept any responsibility for what its predecessors failed to do.

 

Why not?

 

Is it because long term planning and investment wasn't politically expedient or instantly financially rewarding for them? Perhaps energy companies unduly influencing the decisions our politicians make?

 

The UK's 7 AGRs and 1 PWR were privatised in 1996. Rather less than 25 years ago. It's difficult to see how a company which didn't exist had much effect on (lack of) government policy.

 

I take the point you make re: the energy crisis we're supposedly in, and the need to be pragmatic. I just wonder this energy crisis is being exaggerated somewhat, in order to pave the way for fracking, to make it more palatable etc. Is that possible to you think?

 

The energy crisis is no secret (and has been no secret for many years.) Fracking is (AFAIK) a (comparatively new technique.

 

What makes you think that a novel extraction technique would have had much effect on government policy before it (the technique) even existed?

Edited July 23, 2013 by esme
quote tags

[Waldo 96]

The UK's 7 AGRs and 1 PWR were privatised in 1996. Rather less than 25 years ago. It's difficult to see how a company which didn't exist had much effect on (lack of) government policy.

 

My apologies. I was intending present tense, energy companies of today, unduly influencing political decision makers.

 

The energy crisis is no secret (and has been no secret for many years.) Fracking is (AFAIK) a (comparatively new technique.

 

What makes you think that a novel extraction technique would have had much effect on government policy before it (the technique) even existed?

 

But how long has the fracking technique been known to industry insiders? It seems to me, the energy crisis is receiving more media coverage in recent times. It don't think it's unreasonable to think that the pro-fracking camp would push the media to give more exposure to the energy crisis, so as to make the move to fracking more palatable. That may or may not be the case, I don't know, I certainly don't have any evidence to support the theory (just a suspicious mind).

 

In any case, no-one has commented on my pervious query / point...

 

How long will the gas available via fracking last for? What happens after that?

[melthebell 864]

i love frak its a great game

 

[I1L2T3 10]

Would you rather sit in the dark/cold in winter?

 

While many may wring their hands over global warming etc., tell them they can't run their cars or heat their houses and they'll soon start supporting fracking and extraction of oil from tar sands, regardless of the environmental impact.

 

 

 

 

Gas fired power stations? You might as well say that coal isn't electricity. Well, apart from all those coal fired power stations doted about the place.

 

The point is we are short of generating capacity. The gas can't be used to generate electricity until the generating capacity is available. That means more gas fired power stations being built. And when the gas runs out we're still stuck with buying from the Russians.

 

Shale is a quick and dirty fix that does nothing for long term energy security.

[swarfendor437 14]

And it is also yet another distraction from what is really causing Global warming - Weather Weapons - about 20 around the globe.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

The point is we are short of generating capacity. The gas can't be used to generate electricity until the generating capacity is available. That means more gas fired power stations being built. ...

Shale is a quick and dirty fix that does nothing for long term energy security.

 

Agreed.

 

And when the gas runs out we're still stuck with buying from the Russians.

 

If, of course, they want to sell it to you.

 

Remind me again: What, exactly, does the UK have that the Russians want?

 

Gold? Diamonds? Massive agricultural surpluses? Rare Earths? (You'll need quite a bit of those if you're going to shift markedly towards 'renewable' energy) Football clubs?

 

What if the Russians aren't prepared to sell you gas at a reasonable price?

[dawny1970 10]

The UK's 7 AGRs and 1 PWR were privatised in 1996. Rather less than 25 years ago. It's difficult to see how a company which didn't exist had much effect on (lack of) government policy.

 

My apologies. I was intending present tense, energy companies of today, unduly influencing political decision makers.

 

The energy crisis is no secret (and has been no secret for many years.) Fracking is (AFAIK) a (comparatively new technique.

 

What makes you think that a novel extraction technique would have had much effect on government policy before it (the technique) even existed?

 

But how long has the fracking technique been known to industry insiders? It seems to me, the energy crisis is receiving more media coverage in recent times. It don't think it's unreasonable to think that the pro-fracking camp would push the media to give more exposure to the energy crisis, so as to make the move to fracking more palatable. That may or may not be the case, I don't know, I certainly don't have any evidence to support the theory (just a suspicious mind).

 

In any case, no-one has commented on my pervious query / point...

 

How long will the gas available via fracking last for? What happens after that?

 

if only 10% of gas extracted then they estimate we will have enough gas in the uk to last 200 years!!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

Edited July 23, 2013 by esme
quote tags

[melthebell 864]

And it is also yet another distraction from what is really causing Global warming - Weather Weapons - about 20 around the globe.

weather weapons?? Oo

will that be like hawkwind with their "sonic attack"?

they used to be able to control people in the crowd and make them poop or puke on demand lol

[Hillpig 10]

Estimates seem to state there is about 40 to 50 years worth of fracked gas in the UK.

 

There is over 300 years worth of coal. We should use fracking to get us to a point where we can extract clean coal. The technology is well advanced.

 

Beyond 350 years? we should really leave that problem to those yet to be born.

[Mikes10 10]

Water companies are worried fracking may cause drinking water contamination

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23373618