Fracking or wind farms

I'd have either. Wind generators are stunning and provide renewable energy but I don't have a problem with fracking either. I know it's a finite resource but it will help in the short term whilst we come to a long term solution.

Every time I walki out my front door I seem to notice a new wind turbine. I love them, and so does my grandson.
Fortunately the fracking licence in Lancashire was turned down by the planners, so no fracking yet. Those opposed are very happy, including me.

frack-off.org.uk/the-frack-stops-here-2-live-updates/

Libdems are opposing fracking, too.

www.google.com/url?q=http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/06/30/comment-if-i-m-lib-dem-leader-we-ll-oppose-fracking&sa=U&ved=0CAQQFjAAahUKEwiR_O38_I3HAhWEjSwKHZnkB2A&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGMi-EIkuNlZh5kkekGUZbIJ8szeQ

Sussex has a huge amount of shale and so is definitely threatened with tracking. Haven't met anyone who is happy about it. We have rec ently been forced to have water Meters as we are in a water shortage area. Our water comes from aquafers deep underground. Fracking uses vast quantities of water mixed with chemicals. Where will this end up? The end result will produce yet more carbon, thus ensuring a bigger contribution to global warming.
There is also a plan for a windfarm offshore. No chemicals needed, no vast quantities of water, no carbon.
No brainer��!!!!!

I now live very near the borders of what was a big mining area. They still get the occasional small tremors, from mines collapsing but we have a lot of deep geological faults in Britain which move from time to time in areas with no mining at all.
Opponents of fracking and every other large essential infrastructure development will hype up the possible adverse effects but the hard fact is we need this power or our lights will be going out.
As it is we are now importing oil and gas to the detriment of other people's "back yards" rather that our own.
It would be much cheaper and strategically sensible to secure as much of our national power resources as we can. Realistically while we should continue to go for green energy we re not going to manage without using greenhouse gases for a long while.

As for the environment, just a few miles south of where I live, they started a new opencast mine on a hilltop. There were a lot of complaints about what it would do to the landscape. Shortly after they finished there was no obvious signs of it at all apart from rather bare land which is quickly going back to its natural state.

There are a number of active oil wells already operating onshore in the UK but these are running low

A lot of people are unhappy about the "planting" of acres of solar panels and wind turbines but we cannot live the sort of life we do without generating power so something has to give.

You haven,'t addressed the carbon issue Nell and the chemicals that will be pumped into our aquafers.

Whitewave I am not ignoring the carbon issue at all. I said that we need to strive towards 100% green energy, but realistically we do not yet have the resources in the UK to go for that carbon free option and keep the lights on.

The current UK targets are for 15% of renewable energy by 2020 and 100% by 2050.

So we must still build the on and off shore wind power facilities and increase the number of fields and roofs covered in solar panels that a great number of people seem to object to seeing.
We have no other option at present. Until then we will have to continue using Hydrocarbons.

So why not use our own resources rather than importing them from other people's backyards?

I'm with Vampire I don't mind either but there is small chance of anything round here they say no to everything except hunting defenceless animals with dogs, shooting anything that moves, fishing the rivers dry and discount supermarkets.

Definitely a wind farm! Which is happening here in our mountains now, whereas fracking has been explicitely forbidden (a UK firm was trying to do so and our area would be 'ideal' for them).

The best way forward is to REDUCE the amount of energy used. This does not mean going back to candles and horse and carriage. There is not enough research money and time spent on preserving energy- is is not so lucrative. Cars and washing machines use much less energy than they used to (and water), etc. Much better to insulate buildings properly thatn blasting more and more hot air into them, etc.

When you walk in UK streets in winter and all the shops have doors opened and the heating on full at 25C+ - it is madness. Same for gas heaters in restaurants and pubs, etc. These are forbidden here. And offices and buildings wanting to use Air Con in Summer have to apply for licence and demonstrate they have taken all others measures to protect workers and residents, etc, from the heat- rather than just blast in cold air.

REDUCE - RE-USE (as in using heat from recycling or incineration of rubbish or even bodies, industrial estates where one energy use if then re-used by another, etc) and RECYCLE only as end resort. Much more intelligent than just being obsessed with just producing more ....

Scientists do not agree Nellie only those with a veste.d interest. Obama recognises the urgency. We are spending millions on flood defence, which causes untold misery. We have to tackle this issue and there is simply no time left to put it off

whitewave I am not sure which bit of my comments you feel "scientists do not agree with.

I thought I was talking about the wider picture on energy production not the specifics of fracking.

I think if the will was there we could increase our production of renewable energy. If the time and money that will be spent on fracking was to be devoted to this aim, I am sure significant energy production from renewables would be possible.

As mentioned before other countries seem to manage it.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

I agree with Vampire that wind farms can look amazing. We no longer question pylons but remember studying poem at school 'Pylons' by Stephen Spender which explored their beauty. Written in the thirties I assume it was because of negative opinion about them then. I think wind turbines are inherently more beautiful than pylons.

Oh! I thought we were talking about the two choices Still doesn,'t negate my point though

Sorry , thought my post was clear . Wind farms every time. Spend the money on that .

By pure co-incidence, yesterday I found this paper online, about the economics of wind power.
It was written by an engineer friend (the reason I was googling his name was because I had just heard of his death and was trying to find his obituary)

Whitewave* I was thinking about the much wider picture.

If it were a straight choice between the two options the windfarms would win out every time but the economics and environmental impacts of setting up of either of these systems energy production would need to be part of the calculation.
It would require knowing the full developement costs for of 1Kw of electricity produced by each method of production.
I am sure some geek somewhere has already done those sums.

My other concerns are that turbines need the wind to make them work and surprisingly to some it does not always blow in the UK.

Elegran That post was just a few seconds to late for me to catch.

I am not surprised it's not very efficient but I did not realise it was that bad.

There may, of course, be other studies and calculations that give a different result, but it does indeed sound very wasteful.

The report which of course is challenged by others does not however take into account hidden costs which are attached to other forms of fuel. As I touched on in my previous post, costs attached to hydrocarbons. Issues such as flooding, mass emigration, species decline, sea acidity etc etc should all be considered when deciding whether a particular form or energy is economic. Simply comparing kW hour is too simplistic.

What do you think of this? A nice bit of blackmail.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/coal-company-threatens-to-sue-welsh-borough-if-mine-permit-is-denied

An interesting article about fracking from Durham University.

www.dur.ac.uk/research/news/item/?itemno=25187

The wells would only last up to ten years. So how would that be economically viable?

In 2014 almost 20% of electricity in the UK came from renewables. I find that quite heartening considering the opposition to it.