Fracking is back

What a bleak and rather unique viewpoint Katie59.

Renewables are enough. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal...Scotland already generates 100% of its needs through renewables. That's not a bigging up of Scotland, just an observation that countries can do it if they want to.

volver

*M0nica*, you and I often disagree about energy policy, and that's a good basis for discussion.

Fracking will be a bl**dy disaster and anybody who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand the issue.

When citing Wytch Farm and saying that there has been no problems there? Well there were no problems in Chernobyl until it exploded. I'm not suggesting Wytch Farm will explode but just saying "its been fine so far" and crossing our fingers won't hack it any more. Also, fracking produces carbon based fuels which will contribute to climate change, which is already impacting the world and will only get worse.

Is the solution to stop people using electricity for any purpose.

No, it's to use renewables. Obviously.

Good points, well made.

Sorry I'm doing other things outside so Im not quick to reply

Global Population.
Take China for instance.
As it industrialised, and urbanised so people lived longer
But the birth rate dropped
The population seemed to stay the same because it was propped up by the oldies living longer.

Eventually the lower birth rate which continued, could not compensate for the older people either leaving the work place or dying.
50 years later (this decade) the facts are obvious.

Ergo China has passed the point of being able to replace its population.
This is accepting the figures they themselves have released

They have passed the point of replacing their numbers, no matter how many children are born.

Germany is very close behind.

I'm sure I am not explaining it well enough (which is why I often advocate reading outside the echo chamber), as my command of language isnt what it could be, and of course I'm not a scientist (and this seems to mean a lot).

But I know the broader my sources the more I learn.

I'm sure Bjorn Longberg (gosh I'm tired of typing his name?) Can defend his perspective for himself.

But in my uneducated way let me say, he is far from a skeptic of climate change.
Far from it.

He is JUST suggesting money isnt centralised to address the issue.
But spent where it is needed locally.
Which a deeper dive than just a google search would have shown you.

I find his approach which includes practical doable answers to the problems totally refreshing

As far from the doom and gloom brigades as one can get.

I genuinely hope that global population stabilizes soon but at the same time the populations in developing countries will want to improve their lifestyle to western standards.
When I see global temperatures and emissions falling I might become optimistic

I simply stated the facts - that fracking has been used onshore and offshore UK for over 40 years without problem.

In recent years it has been used in the north of England in geological measures it has not been used in before to access gas reserves previously not exploited and this has now been stopped because it caused unexpected problems.

I offered no opinions of my attitude to fracking, the exploitation of shale gases and/or the preference for renewables. I just posted some information on fracking.

The rest is just your very fertile imaginations.

World population is already falling. Most countries in the world now have birthrates around or below replacement rate. Any increase in population is driven by longevity. But we will soon reach a stable figure for longevity that is unlikely to rise substantially and world population will start to drop.

In the meanwhile it is possible in the long term to support a prosperous world population using renewable energy. However until we reach that stage, we need to use other forms of energy generation to tide us over. This means nuclear and gas.

Of course, Nirvana is fusion. It will come - but probably not for at least another 50 years.

What this country needs, and which is completely possible, is an insulation programme similar to the great engineering achievement which was the conversion of Britain to natural gas.

A systematic programme of teams of operatives, assessing homes, installing appropriate insulation and draft proofing. Just as with the natural gas conversion scheme there will be non-standard properties, Listed buildings, and other buildings that cause problems and these may take longer to make energy efficient and for some this will be impossible. So it was back in the 1960s.

It will be far more effective in reducing home heating bills than all the 'bread and circuses' being provided by this current government, that addresses the immediate problem but does nothing to provide a long term solution.

If the UK was actually a democracy, and not a dictatorship elected by a minority, we might have a government prepared to address long term issues and not just measures which could, with the help of their billionaire media moguls, help them to win the next election.

MOnica
I couldn’t agree more Re insulation. Our housing stock is an absolute disgrace in this regard.

Regarding insulation, we have had programmes run by the Government but my sister specialises in research for eco programmes and policy where she has found that a lot of people are suspicious of the programmes. Whenever a Council run the programme there are things the fitters have to do to show the properties they are working on and the work done. They have to draw up plans of the property and take photos. A lot of people find this off-putting. Retrofitting seems to be quite a difficult to sell to the consumer even where they are not being charged!
Couple that with the lack of will from Officials and Policy Makers within the House Building Industry to revolutionise the property market with Eco Homes and it is almost impossible to move forward. My sister gets really frustrated because she is passionate about change.

But the whole point of my idea, icanhandthemback is that the scheme is mandatory.

Thinking further, I think it would be better for it to be mandatory for a full energy survey to be done on a house when it is sold. Including recommendations on what needs to be done to it to maximise its energy efficiency. The new owner would then have to undertake the improvements within 5 years of buying the house. This could be checked on and there should be substantial penalties if it is not done. Obviously it would be possible to negotiate changes in how the insulation is done, interior v exterior cladding etc.

You do not 'sell' the system to house owners and eventually landlords aand councils and housing associations. You mandate them.

M0nica, there are loads of home owners who just can't afford that sort of expense. It already costs a fortune to move, the biggest expense being stamp duty, and lots of families move, not because they want to, because they have to for jobs, family size, caring for relatives, etc. Incidentally, you have to have an energy certificate for before you put the house on the market already.

This is from the 2019 Tory manifesto.

Truss has no mandate.

External cladding is much less effective because you still have the masonry to heat up when heating is switched on, also the houses I have seen look very odd. Dry lining internally is very expensive because all the electrics and heating have to be moved as well as disruption of occupation. We did dryline a 2 room annex, a former garage and it cost £10k.

Upgrading insulation on older houses could be made compulsory on sale but would devalue the house by maybe £40k for a 3 bed property compared to new build and new owners benefit.

Upgrading insulation on older houses could be made compulsory on sale but would devalue the house by maybe £40k for a 3 bed property compared to new build and new owners benefit.

I may be being remarkably thick, Katie59, but I completely fail to understand tis sentence. Why would upgrading insulation on an older house knock £40k off its value?

I may be being remarkably thick, Katie59, but I completely fail to understand tis sentence. Why would upgrading insulation on an older house knock £40k off its value?

If you have a house that needs a lot of work, its value is always going to be less than a similar property where everything has been done. It isn't just the amount of money though, it is the upheaval because the work for making your home into an eco-friendly one is enormous and not always feasible for people with young children.

icanhandthemback. A house lumbered with a major insulation bill would be a lot cheaper than one that does not.

Overall the price for 2 similar houses, one a well insulated house and one not, after the uninsulated house had had the work done should be the same. It could be mandatory for lenders to factor the extra cost of installing insulation into the price of the house when offering mortgages.

It is no different from buying a rundown house for renovation and the same limits apply there. There will be many who can afford the reduced price house but not the cost of renovation.

It could also be covered by an interest free, or very low interest loan by the government, with the some simply noted as a charge on the property that has to be repaid when it is next sold and in the meanwhile, the owner can live in a well insulated house with lower fuel bills with no repayments.

The world is facing a very worrying future. We need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels as fast and as possible. It is gping to involve sacrifice and inconvenience for all of us, but it is our children and grandchildren's futures we are destroying if we do not act with determination and resolve.

Excellent idea MOnica!

They seem to be doing a lot of surveying in fields around my village. We’re a bit worried about what it’s for.

I watched a television documentary on fracking some time ago and now think it would make sense in appropriate, yes, appropriate areas.
It takes up little space and the benefits are enormous.

hollysteers

I watched a television documentary on fracking some time ago and now think it would make sense in appropriate, yes, appropriate areas.
It takes up little space and the benefits are enormous.

No benefit to the water table though, in fact it depletes a very precious resource and contaminates it very badly.