What do you want? Access to energy sources that provide a cheap (cash terms) solution such as natural gas and ultimately nuclear power or a return to some kind of green Utopia, where we all work within two miles of where we live, plough the fields and enjoy subsistence farming? If you are a 'Green' you don't need to respond, I am sure I know your answer!
There is much debate about 'fracking' and the seismic and possible water-table contamination effects of this. I must declare an interest as I work for an oilfield services company, though not on the technical side. The seismic activity is very minor if and when it occurs. Since the drill bore is lined with a cement casing, the possibility of fracking chemicals leaking into the water table are somewhere between zero and non-existent. Those are facts but don't let that stop you from disputing them!
Consider the 'green' energy alternatives.
Wind Power? I read a piece once, which concluded that the energy required to build and install a wind turbine would take 15-20 years at nominal turbine capacity, to be generated. So 15 to 20 years just to stand still. Consider also, that for all wind power capacity, standby generating capacity must be kept in place and kept running for when the wind reduces.
Solar Power? I looked into this earlier in the year, before the changes in FiT came into place and the generating capacity of my roof, which is for a large 4 bedroom house, wouldn't be sufficient for my 4 person family. So, fill the fields with solar panel arrays? That might boost capacity at the expense of agriculture!?!? Again though, we would need standby capacity to supplement those non-sunny hours.
Wave Power? Can't see this being viable and strongly suspect that the transmission loss would make this unsustainable over distances.
Nuclear Power? Seems to me that this is where we will end-up, though the journey there is going to be difficult and made even more so by spineless politicians who know the answer but are in thrall to the media and don't want to risk any public backlash by telling people the truth.
Natural Gas? Must be part of the shortish term answer. Gas is very low-priced in the US because they use fracking to get at the gas and can thereby reduce their dependence on foreign sources of energy. People in Ukraine have seen what happens when they try to assert themselves towards a big supplier (Russia). How long before Europe kowtows?
In truth, all of these energy sources can play a part in meeting our needs but you are deluding yourself if you think there is a 'silver bullet' out there which means we wouldn't have to use natural gas and nuclear power.
Incidentally, why are we spending vast amounts of money which we don't have) on CERN and the Large Hadron Collider? Why don't these scientists devote their time and efforts to finding sustainable sources of energy (preferably clean)? Surely that is more important than the Higgs Boson?
There is much debate about 'fracking' and the seismic and possible water-table contamination effects of this. I must declare an interest as I work for an oilfield services company, though not on the technical side. The seismic activity is very minor if and when it occurs. Since the drill bore is lined with a cement casing, the possibility of fracking chemicals leaking into the water table are somewhere between zero and non-existent. Those are facts but don't let that stop you from disputing them!
Consider the 'green' energy alternatives.
Wind Power? I read a piece once, which concluded that the energy required to build and install a wind turbine would take 15-20 years at nominal turbine capacity, to be generated. So 15 to 20 years just to stand still. Consider also, that for all wind power capacity, standby generating capacity must be kept in place and kept running for when the wind reduces.
Solar Power? I looked into this earlier in the year, before the changes in FiT came into place and the generating capacity of my roof, which is for a large 4 bedroom house, wouldn't be sufficient for my 4 person family. So, fill the fields with solar panel arrays? That might boost capacity at the expense of agriculture!?!? Again though, we would need standby capacity to supplement those non-sunny hours.
Wave Power? Can't see this being viable and strongly suspect that the transmission loss would make this unsustainable over distances.
Nuclear Power? Seems to me that this is where we will end-up, though the journey there is going to be difficult and made even more so by spineless politicians who know the answer but are in thrall to the media and don't want to risk any public backlash by telling people the truth.
Natural Gas? Must be part of the shortish term answer. Gas is very low-priced in the US because they use fracking to get at the gas and can thereby reduce their dependence on foreign sources of energy. People in Ukraine have seen what happens when they try to assert themselves towards a big supplier (Russia). How long before Europe kowtows?
In truth, all of these energy sources can play a part in meeting our needs but you are deluding yourself if you think there is a 'silver bullet' out there which means we wouldn't have to use natural gas and nuclear power.
Incidentally, why are we spending vast amounts of money which we don't have) on CERN and the Large Hadron Collider? Why don't these scientists devote their time and efforts to finding sustainable sources of energy (preferably clean)? Surely that is more important than the Higgs Boson?
No comments:
Post a Comment