Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fracking backers have a long way to go in battle for public
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fracking backers have a long way to go in battle for public opinion
It is important to note that this YouGov poll was a private one commissioned by Ecotricity.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Though, siting an energy intensive factory close to the farm instead of transmitting it miles might make more sense than the present pigs ear
I just don't want them squandering it in a short term popularity blitz.
Plus as technology improves it becomes safer and cheaper.
Are we due any polls this evening?
a) The wind gets 'delivered' by a very recalcitrant weather God(ess), who gives us too little frequently, and at times far too much. Industry requires continuity.
b) The energy required by large factories can be massive compared to the output of even a large onshore windfarm.
c) Siting of factories have other factors as well: for instance access to water for processes, good roads, good telecoms infrastructure, staff and housing. These tend to be away from where onshore wind works best.
Where such a thing might go down well are non-labour intensive items such as server farms. But then you've got the problem of intermittent power supply from the wind farm. Which is, in fact, the biggest problem with wind on a mass scale. Add in the despoiling of massive areas of our uplands, and on a large scale it's a non-starter.
People massively underestimate the energy contained in a simple barrel of oil, and overestimate the energy provided by wind.
The west coast of Scotland would be ideal, The "industry" would not need to be massive, just viable. Plus, there isn't a great deal in the way of job opportunities up there
There are probably some - for instance splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen for hydrogen-powered cars, which would also act as a way of 'storing' the wind power. But there's probably technical reasons why even that's not feasible.
People and industry demand consistent power supplies, and generally the grid and our power companies do an excellent job in providing it. An industry that relied on an intermittent power source would be at a disadvantage unless that source was much cheaper.
electrolosis of brine might be viable (pure, not seawater)
I've been offline for a couple of days - seems quiet though. Too quiet - must be a trap.
The idea isn't new, A lot of the hydro plants in Scotland were attached to aluminum smelters......great up until those pesky bauxite miners decided to smelt their own ore!
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
I wonder whether the troubles in the Ukraine may not have made people more favourably disposed to pay more for a power source outside Russia's control. I think of wind power as a pawl and ratchet that turns, variably it is true, only in our favour. I'm sure J-J will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the UK (including especially Scotland!) is particularly well placed to garner wind power.
In any case, windmills can come down as readily as they go up, like these barn-like prefabs at industrial estates, or the appalling "London Eye".
Bit like today, the locals get there say....then get ignored? ;-)
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wind-farms-can-kill-eagles-without-penalty-f2D11702834
Firstly, the CCGT plants have to be paid for. They cost a great deal of money to build - in some cases, over a billion the 1,500 MW Thorpe Marsh was expected to cost £984 million). This has to be paid back. Then they need maintaining; again, this costs a great deal.
Although CCGT can be switched on and off easily, they're not earning when they're switched off.
Secondly, the turbines themselves are not necessarily the problem in up,and areas. Firstly, they are massively costly themselves. Secondly, they require massive tracks to be built to reach them. In the case of the one local to me that's hardly a problem - it's on an old airfield and I have absolutely no problems with it. When it's in a wilderness area, these tracks can devastate the landscape for millennia. Finally, you need the power lines to reach them. Again, that
Problem solving...it's what humans are good at once they stop arguing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagenham_turbine_1_and_fords.jpg
" it's to do with the damage caused to the landscape in getting them there and maintaining them. "
Yes....it looks the same as those bulldozed tracks the Lairds do to allow the guests argo cat to make the accent.
CS Forester interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041459l
I expect that strides might be possible in battery storage and that researchers are working on it. The problem is one of scale. Certainly small scale advances in battery technology are happening now.
Here in the South Hams we have European law protecting specifically the Greater Horseshoe Bats with protected bat "flyways". It is a law that is in direct conflict with Govt. green energy policy handed down to local planners - to build ever more onshore turbines. We also have 17 of the 18 species of bats found in the UK down here. These bats are clearly a nuisance to the renewable wind industry. For instance, the UK Govt. adopted a rule that turbines shouldn't be sited within 50 metres of a hedgerow (as bats use these to move along and feed). In Europe the distance is four times that - 200m. The rationale was that in Europe they have different species to the UK. But that rationale doesn't stand up in southern England, where we have a number of those same European species.
There is significant anecdotal evidence that turbines cause significant ecological harm. But just try to get access for independent monitors. Not a chance. The irony of killing our wildlife now to, er, protect it from possible doom from global warming in 25-50 years seems lost on the "green" lobby (which in the case of wind turbines is actually often a combination of local landowners and subsidy-hunting big business).
Do you want sudden power cuts?
Do you support unreliable power supplies?
Should Britain trust Gazpom and Vladmir Putin to set a fair price for gas?
But, there are two big drawbacks. One for the Conservatives, another for the Cameroons, specifically.
1. The Conservatives have to give up their monopoly of representing right wing voters in Parliament.
2. The Cameroons have to work with UKIP. They've made it their lives' work to get these kinds of people out of the Conservative Party. Under PR, they'd have to invite them into the Cabinet.
I blame the snooker for making it so quiet here.
Mr. Mark, that's bloody stupid. Reminds me of middle class arseheads feeling better about themselves due to biofuel, the growing of which has led to the destruction of pristine rainforests in south-east Asia for the plantations that grow the crops from which the biofuel is created.
Wind is moronic. I'm not against renewables as a whole, solar and geothermal have great potential, but wind is idiotic. What sort of energy generation scheme is it when you don't know when or even if you're getting it? It's expensive, erratic and generally rubbish.
Mr. F, and Mr. Tokyo, the most important factor is that it would be unilaterally gerrymandering the electoral system for partisan advantage, with no consent asked for or acquired from the British people.
Probably not so daft once everything's battery powered though? (I'm a SF fan - please excuse my Saturday night trolling.)
A lot of their power consumption is in the "de sal" plants. and air conditioning.plus they are more or less guaranteed sunshine.
I would like to see what ecotricity had YouGov ask specifically because the equation is not wind vs fracking as a straight fight, it would be wind energy delivered 150% of today's prices vs fracking at 75% of today's prices. Therein lies the inherent advantage of fracked natural gas, it would at some level bring down the cost of gas in Britain, or at least make the country energy independent again and allow the larger subsidies to be cut.
Really what kills any form of electricity for me that isn't either a long term gain like thorium or fusion is the amount of subsidies required to make them viable. Onshore and offshore wind requires the government to guarantee a certain price for any electricity sold to the grid. They pay for it by making everyone's bills more expensive. Dave only got rid of one part of the green crap, and it was the cheaper one. Even nuclear as has been commissioned by the government (French PWRs) require a guaranteed strike price over its operating life. Whichever company decides to build the nuclear plant has basically got a guaranteed 7% return over the life of the project.
If there was a truly free market in Britain, not only would energy prices be significantly lower, there would also not be any upcoming supply shortage and looming power cuts this winter and next. There would not be any diesel generator plan at the DoE, and neither would the government be looking to subsidise old technologies like PWRs as a last ditch effort to keep the lights on.
Freeing up the market and allowing the nation to move to CCGTs while simultaneously getting thorium reactors out of the experimental stage and into the commercial stage would be the best way secure the future energy needs of the country, but it requires the government to drop all of the green bullsh!t subsidies and think beyond the next election. Sadly that seems unlikely.
Now to cook dinner for two (Vegetably).
Smarmeron - perhaps Scots have RESPECT for politicians?
Something along those lines?
My understanding (!), is that it's to do with political history.
Normal countries do not need penis extensions to feel secure.
I read the introduction to your short story. It made me smile in the first paragraph (I now know what a lagomorph is) and giggle a few times. Now, when will you publish the whole thing?
P.S. Neat chocolate goes better with whisky than wine.
We look on gang culture with disdain, but tolerate our leaders doing much the same.
But either way I don't see the connection between a nuclear deterrent and independence.
They are supposed to be the cream of of humanity, and they argue like schoolkids.
PMQ's anyone?
If only we had politicians who were capable of thinking beyond the next election the country would not be in the mess that it is, and not just with energy.
[tolerate our leaders doing much the same]
Is George Galloway a leader?
But you want to be in a first strike nuclear alliance, NATO. What a bunch of weasels and hypocrites you Nats are.
That's what I like about Mr. G, he does not let his ignorance stand in the way of his arguments.
Something called NATO?
Yes needs 50>
Indy policy is no nukes
Perhaps I should have said in an infinitesimally small and irrelevant subset not worth discussing except on a boring afternoon at work.
Yes. Jo Co is sexy. This has been confirmed by google.
Which is fair enough, but isn't the policy also to belong to NATO?
We could improve parliament no end by introducing those massive foam hands they have in American football, and suitable mascots to enthuse the parties (cheerleaders would be worth considering as well)
Have you come up with that list of western countries that have been invaded in last 50 years.
In the scheme of things, British nuclear weapons aren't that important. But, NATO powers ought to pull their weight, according to their financial ability. Our and the French having them demonstrates to the Alliance's most important member, the USA, that Western Europe is a serious part of the organisation.
Entirely new post: and I'm glad you liked it, Mr. Llama. I know it's on the short side, but as a free story and with plenty of other stuff to write I can't afford to spend more time on something longer.
Edited extra bit: indeed, it's a tiddler. My short story in Malevolence is about ten times longer. Other stuff I've writing/am writing is of a similar size.
[If you're wondering, I have the vague and fuzzy aim of 50-60k for Treasure, but I reserve the right to ignore myself and make it smaller. Or enormous. Like a genetically engineered haddock].
Perhaps I should have said in an infinitesimally small and irrelevant subset not worth discussing except on a boring afternoon at work."
To be fair, I wasn't 100% on the Indy policy thing - Newsnight confuses me.
MalcolmG - we're not on Newnight
" We will be happy to be rid of them"
They could explore that area off Aran for oil? From what I gather the MOD put the mockers on that idea.
141 in two days????
What does the last 50 years have to do with it? You can't just extrapolate past events to predict what will happen in the future.
There's also no guarantee that the US will continue to promise to offer nuclear protection to Western Europe for ever.
I'm sure Cyprus would not have been invaded in 1974 had they had nuclear weapons. Or Ukraine last month.
A courageous and ethical stance.
I'd have thought the backbenchers did enough cheerleading. If you don't like PMQs you don't have to watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
"I'm sure Cyprus would not have been invaded in 1974 had they had nuclear weapons. Or Ukraine last month. "
You mean a limited nuclear war? And here was me thinking the idea was that M.A.D. ensured that would never happen,
(Was someone being ironic when they gave it that name?)