roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 1:17pm
Fracking is another dead end; even the fracking companies don't think it will make a material difference to UK energy:
Fracking in the UK will be impossible at any meaningful scale and will not help with the energy price crisis, the founder of the UK’s first fracking company has warned.
And more widely, a response to a crisis in supply of fossil fuels by increasing our reliance on fossil fuels which are themselves by definition a finite resource, makes no strategic sense.
[Edit: and that's without even mentioning climate change]
A contradiction there
It cant both be not a meaningful contribution and increase our dependence on fossil fuels. It has to be one or the other.
It's worth noting that much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
No contradiction. "More widely" means "Fossil fuel resources other than UK fracking". UK fracking isn't substantial, but there are plenty of other fossil fuel resources in the world.
re "substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels"
Please stop making vague allusions. If you have a specific point, make it.
roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 1:17pm
Fracking is another dead end; even the fracking companies don't think it will make a material difference to UK energy:
Fracking in the UK will be impossible at any meaningful scale and will not help with the energy price crisis, the founder of the UK’s first fracking company has warned.
And more widely, a response to a crisis in supply of fossil fuels by increasing our reliance on fossil fuels which are themselves by definition a finite resource, makes no strategic sense.
[Edit: and that's without even mentioning climate change]
A contradiction there
It cant both be not a meaningful contribution and increase our dependence on fossil fuels. It has to be one or the other.
It's worth noting that much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
No contradiction. "More widely" means "Fossil fuel resources other than UK fracking". UK fracking isn't substantial, but there are plenty of other fossil fuel resources in the world.
re "substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels"
Please stop making vague allusions. If you have a specific point, make it.
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
jois wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 1:22pm
A contradiction there
It cant both be not a meaningful contribution and increase our dependence on fossil fuels. It has to be one or the other.
It's worth noting that much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
No contradiction. "More widely" means "Fossil fuel resources other than UK fracking". UK fracking isn't substantial, but there are plenty of other fossil fuel resources in the world.
re "substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels"
Please stop making vague allusions. If you have a specific point, make it.
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
Hence "more widely". I've explained what I meant by that twice now. Hope that's sufficient?
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
You made another vague allusion: much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
It would be really helpful if you stopped making these vague statements and instead were specific - in this case about which resource you refer to.
Years ago we wanted to put a tidal turbine in Hurst Narrows in the Solent. This resulted in months of wrangling with two local councils. In the end we went to Iceland where there was a very suitable Fjord. The appropriate Icelandic government Minister came out and had a look and gave immediate permission to go ahead.
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
No contradiction. "More widely" means "Fossil fuel resources other than UK fracking". UK fracking isn't substantial, but there are plenty of other fossil fuel resources in the world.
re "substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels"
Please stop making vague allusions. If you have a specific point, make it.
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
Hence "more widely". I've explained what I meant by that twice now. Hope that's sufficient?
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
You made another vague allusion: much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
It would be really helpful if you stopped making these vague statements and instead were specific - in this case about which resource you refer to.
No still a contradiction, but horse to water and all that if you can't see it after me pointing it out three times, no point labouring it
That wasn't a vague statement, but lithium if you can't work out what finite resource we are dependent on for energy storage for personal transport. I did think it fairly obvious. Buy hey hoe
al_yrpal wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 2:31pm
Years ago we wanted to put a tidal turbine in Hurst Narrows in the Solent. This resulted in months of wrangling with two local councils. In the end we went to Iceland where there was a very suitable Fjord. The appropriate Icelandic government Minister came out and had a look and gave immediate permission to go ahead.
Al
They have loads of fjords, they wouldn't miss one, there is only one Solent
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
Hence "more widely". I've explained what I meant by that twice now. Hope that's sufficient?
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
You made another vague allusion: much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
It would be really helpful if you stopped making these vague statements and instead were specific - in this case about which resource you refer to.
No still a contradiction, but horse to water and all that if you can't see it after me pointing it out three times, no point labouring it
That wasn't a vague statement, but lithium if you can't work out what finite resource we are dependent on for energy storage for personal transport. I did think it fairly obvious. Buy hey hoe
It's only a contradiction if you misinterpreted it first time and then ignored the repeated clarifications. Still, horse to water and all that, no point labouring it.
Sure "finite resource" is very precise.
Lithium can be recycled from batteries - and economics mean it will be if mined resources are not available. Fossil fuels can't be recycled from combustion.
Fossil fuels can never be sustainable - by definition we will transition from them. The only questions are when and how.
But that exert you posted was expressly about fracking, not all the fossil fuels in the world
Hence "more widely". I've explained what I meant by that twice now. Hope that's sufficient?
My specific point was that you had posted a point that contradicted it's self,
You made another vague allusion: much of the strategy for personal transport and energy storage of renewables is also substantially dependent on a finite resource, which seems to be more finite than fossil fuels
It would be really helpful if you stopped making these vague statements and instead were specific - in this case about which resource you refer to.
No still a contradiction, but horse to water and all that if you can't see it after me pointing it out three times, no point labouring it
That wasn't a vague statement, but lithium if you can't work out what finite resource we are dependent on for energy storage for personal transport. I did think it fairly obvious. Buy hey hoe
It's only a contradiction if you misinterpreted it first time and then ignored the repeated clarifications. Still, horse to water and all that, no point labouring it.
Sure "finite resource" is very precise.
Lithium can be recycled from batteries - and economics mean it will be if mined resources are not available. Fossil fuels can't be recycled from combustion.
Fossil fuels can never be sustainable - by definition we will transition from them. The only questions are when and how.
It's a resource and it's finite that's both precise and factual,
There enough lithium in the world to replace all existing cars with electric, not much more.
If that lithium is extractable is another thing, it would require strip mining vast tracks of land and considerable eco damage to do so. That may not be at all popular or eco onical viable unless the price of lithium increased substantially,
It's dirty and subject to the wims of the countries that have it, how much they want for it and how much they are prepared to extract ,very much like oil
The only thing you can say with reasonable certainty is Afghanistan will get very rich very soon and they don't like us much
Last edited by jois on 30 Sep 2022, 3:23pm, edited 1 time in total.
No still a contradiction, but horse to water and all that if you can't see it after me pointing it out three times, no point labouring it
That wasn't a vague statement, but lithium if you can't work out what finite resource we are dependent on for energy storage for personal transport. I did think it fairly obvious. Buy hey hoe
It's only a contradiction if you misinterpreted it first time and then ignored the repeated clarifications. Still, horse to water and all that, no point labouring it.
Sure "finite resource" is very precise.
Lithium can be recycled from batteries - and economics mean it will be if mined resources are not available. Fossil fuels can't be recycled from combustion.
Fossil fuels can never be sustainable - by definition we will transition from them. The only questions are when and how.
It's a resource and it's finite that's both precise and factual,
There enough lithium in the world to replace all existing cars with electric, not much more.
If that lithium is extractable is another thing, it would require strip mining vast tracks of land and considerable eco damage to do so. That may not be at all popular or eco onical viable unless the price of lithium increased substantially,
It's dirty and subject to the wims of the countries that have it, how much they want for it and how much they are prepared to extract ,very much like oil
I agree with you that resources for batteries are problematic.
But it's not at all the same as oil. Oil will run out. Elemental resources for renewables are far more recyclable and sustainable.
It's only a contradiction if you misinterpreted it first time and then ignored the repeated clarifications. Still, horse to water and all that, no point labouring it.
Sure "finite resource" is very precise.
Lithium can be recycled from batteries - and economics mean it will be if mined resources are not available. Fossil fuels can't be recycled from combustion.
Fossil fuels can never be sustainable - by definition we will transition from them. The only questions are when and how.
It's a resource and it's finite that's both precise and factual,
There enough lithium in the world to replace all existing cars with electric, not much more.
If that lithium is extractable is another thing, it would require strip mining vast tracks of land and considerable eco damage to do so. That may not be at all popular or eco onical viable unless the price of lithium increased substantially,
It's dirty and subject to the wims of the countries that have it, how much they want for it and how much they are prepared to extract ,very much like oil
I agree with you that resources for batteries are problematic.
But it's not at all the same as oil. Oil will run out. Elemental resources for renewables are far more recyclable and sustainable.
Lithium will run out, quite probably sooner than oil
It's a resource and it's finite that's both precise and factual,
There enough lithium in the world to replace all existing cars with electric, not much more.
If that lithium is extractable is another thing, it would require strip mining vast tracks of land and considerable eco damage to do so. That may not be at all popular or eco onical viable unless the price of lithium increased substantially,
It's dirty and subject to the wims of the countries that have it, how much they want for it and how much they are prepared to extract ,very much like oil
I agree with you that resources for batteries are problematic.
But it's not at all the same as oil. Oil will run out. Elemental resources for renewables are far more recyclable and sustainable.
Lithium will run out, quite probably sooner than oil
Then use a storage technology pother than batteries.
Gas prices are indeed set on the market and if you buy from that market that's what you pay. There is no reason at all the UK couldn't sell its own gas to its subjects at what ever price it wants
Do you think the Saudis pay the same for oil and gas as the rest of the world ?
The gas will be extracted by commercial companies whose only interest is the benefit of their shareholders, profit (it's called Capitalism). What justification could they give their shareholder selling to UK commercial generators (also making profits) at a discount?
The fracking companies are not social enterprises or "not for profit" companies.
Ian
I'm not really interested in their share holders views just that it is quite possible by one means or another to sell UK gas to UK consumers at a rate below the market value. Which you said was not possible
Who is going to extract what gas? If a company does it they will have investors and shareholders who will want maximum return of investment which means selling at a commercial rate (not a special discounted rate). You might not care about shareholders but our capitalist system does and rightly or wrongly their interests take priority over your views.
Fracking licenses have already been sold. We no longer own that gas.
If you propose that UK gas is sold at massively discounted rates to commercial generators you need to tell us what gas and who will be doing the extracting, etc.
Psamathe wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 12:50pm
The gas will be extracted by commercial companies whose only interest is the benefit of their shareholders, profit (it's called Capitalism). What justification could they give their shareholder selling to UK commercial generators (also making profits) at a discount?
The fracking companies are not social enterprises or "not for profit" companies.
Ian
I'm not really interested in their share holders views just that it is quite possible by one means or another to sell UK gas to UK consumers at a rate below the market value. Which you said was not possible
Who is going to extract what gas? If a company does it they will have investors and shareholders who will want maximum return of investment which means selling at a commercial rate (not a special discounted rate). You might not care about shareholders but our capitalist system does and rightly or wrongly their interests take priority over your views.
Fracking licenses have already been sold. We no longer own that gas.
If you propose that UK gas is sold at massively discounted rates to commercial generators you need to tell us what gas and who will be doing the extracting, etc.
Ian
Any one who can make a profit, it doesn't have to be max profit for it to be commercially viable