Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Shale gas: 'The dotcom bubble of our times'

31 posts in this topic

Public opinion has been divided very starkly indeed by the government’s invitation to energy companies to apply for licences to develop shale gas across a broad swathe of the United Kingdom.

On the one hand, many environmental and conservation groups are bitterly opposed to shale development. Ranged against them are those within and beyond the energy industry who believe that the exploitation of shale gas can prove not only vital but hugely positive for the British economy.

Rather oddly, hardly anyone seems to have asked the one question which is surely fundamental: does shale development make economic sense?

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't - especially in Britain.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question you SHOULD be asking, is why the frigg Radio 1 is still on the air??!!

.

or is it just me....

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an interim measure then shale gas deposits need to be developed to meet current and short - term requirements - with the proviso that additional taxes raised this way be spent on accelerating renewable energy sources (Tidal and Ocean Current being my preferred option)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is yes it makes economic sense for the UK. there is enough shale for the UK to become self sufficient for the next 50 to 70 years. this would lead to a booming economy a low energy cost economy. with contracts and deals already signed with the US and Canada the UK will no longer import oil from the middle east, and that means better energy security. it also means we will encourage foreign investment in a stable environment for business to grow, big business like nothing more than flicking a switch and the lights come on and are guaranteed to stay on, especially if that energy is competitive (cheap) globally.

Anyway by the time we reach the year 2060 we'll all be living in homes with solar panels installed, and as we look out of our windows we'll see turbines turning in the wind. by the year 2100 the UK will be the world leader in tidal energy. (if the experts map is anything to go by) so invest for your grandkids future, invest - tidal power. i'll also be investing in submarines with underwater tours of Liverpool© ®.

british_isles_in_2100_by_the9988-d583szc.jpg

But back to topic. Lets get FRACKING. look at the USofA soon to be self sufficient in gas and oil thanks to fracking - remarkable. by 2020 the US will be the worlds biggest exporter of oil and Gas. over taking Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar.

The British government believes that shale gas has the potential to provide the UK with greater energy security, growth and jobs. We are encouraging safe and environmentally sound exploration to determine this potential. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used in the extraction of gas from shale rock and has been extensively used over the last 60 years – it is estimated that more than 2.5 million wells have been fracked worldwide. The UK has a strong regulatory regime for exploratory activities but we want to continuously improve it. The UK has over 50 years of experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry nationally.

What is shale gas and oil and fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is a technique used in the extraction of gas and oil from ‘shale’ rock formations by injecting water at high pressure. Shale gas is the same natural gas as is obtained from conventional gas fields, such as the North Sea.

What is the potential?

Scientists from the British Geological Survey (BGS) have estimated that the total volume of gas in the Bowland-Hodder shale in northern England is some 1300 trillion cubic feet (central estimate).

20140405_EBM955_1.png

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/providing-regulation-and-licensing-of-energy-industries-and-infrastructure/supporting-pages/developing-shale-gas-and-oil-in-the-uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Did you not read the article Steve - it cannot be made economically viable when all costs are considered in the context of the UK. We are not the USA and we have very different geology and constraints on where and how we could Frack. The simple reality is that even in the USA, where everything is more favourable, most of the companies are not covering their costs. If you don't cover your costs you go to the wall, which is simple business sense.

Renewables, pumped storage and sensibly managed conventional gas reserves are the only way for the UK to progress to a sustainable energy mix.

On a more personal note - would you willingly see the trespass laws changed to allow a company to Frack under your main asset ? Would you like to have to take a Fracking company to court when your house is damaged by an earthquake because your insurance company has specifically excluded Fracking from your policy ? If Fracking comes both of these issues will become very real for millions of Britains - and this is the main reason why Fracking will be opposed by almost all of the British population and why it is unlikely to ever become a reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not read the article Steve - it cannot be made economically viable when all costs are considered in the context of the UK. We are not the USA and we have very different geology and constraints on where and how we could Frack. The simple reality is that even in the USA, where everything is more favourable, most of the companies are not covering their costs. If you don't cover your costs you go to the wall, which is simple business sense.

Renewables, pumped storage and sensibly managed conventional gas reserves are the only way for the UK to progress to a sustainable energy mix.

On a more personal note - would you willingly see the trespass laws changed to allow a company to Frack under your main asset ? Would you like to have to take a Fracking company to court when your house is damaged by an earthquake because your insurance company has specifically excluded Fracking from your policy ? If Fracking comes both of these issues will become very real for millions of Britains - and this is the main reason why Fracking will be opposed by almost all of the British population and why it is unlikely to ever become a reality.

Br Cornelius

It cannot be economically viable says who, Tim Morgan. he's all doom and gloom. the British government and their experts have carried out research and say different, they say its financially viable to extract and as such onshore Fracking should receive government support through subsidies, just like offshore fracking did, - with Fracking being worth £3.8Billion annually. there is money to be made. The article tries to make the point about it not being economically viable by pointing to fracking companies going out of business. what the article doesnt point out is the fact licences are up for grabs and you'll get small companies trying to jump on the band wagon, like in the days of the gold rush anyone with a pan would have ago but as the market adjusts separating the wheat from the chaff. all you are left with is the market leaders, the ones who have the ability to make it financially viable and with £3.8Billion annually up for grabs you can bet Fracking is here to stay and is financially viable, now lets push aside all the scaremongering the same process as been used in the UK since the 1940's. its nothing new. lets expand our onshore production and get on with the job of securing our energy future. like anything considered new by the ill informed they start looking for witches to burn. if the expansion of onshore gas production needs land laws re-written then lets move with the times and adjust them laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So Steve - only viable with subsidies - like your much hated alternatives.

You just lost your argument there.

And its hardly scare mongering to state that the only real modern frack carried out on the British mainland caused an earthquake.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So Steve - only viable with subsidies - like your much hated alternatives.

You just lost your argument there.

And its hardly scare mongering to state that the only real modern frack carried out on the British mainland caused an earthquake.

Br Cornelius

North Sea oil was subsidised and like any budding industry government helps by offering tax breaks etc.. and they continue to do so, and that goes for existing industries right across the board not just energy. As for me hating alternatives - renewables, I welcome all forms of renewable technology but not to the detriment of the day - the only problem is im not a fanatic and would rather take the slowly slowly catchy monkey approach. example, a wind turbine built in five years time will be more efficient than one built today. i'd rather we built a few today advance the technology and then expand as the technology advances. if we went down a path you subscribe to of i want them now and want thousands of current day turbines at the currently high cost associated with that like any new industry, in five years they'd all need replacing with like for like turbines but more energy efficient ones. costing us billions and this goes for all renewables. so slowly slowly catchy monkey.

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wind turbines are cost competitive with gas over their lifetime - there is no reason to not invest in them now since they represent a good investment at current efficiencies. Its a bogus argument you peddle.

Shale gas has a production cycle measured in just a few years with production falling off rapidly over the first five years. this means that they need to be refracked at regular intervals - each time costing many millions to perform. Total life cycle is less than 30years per well and they have constant high costs over that life cycle. They are in no way comparable to renewables which have a falling cost base over their lifetime.

it is the economic arguments which will see renewables win out over Fracked gas. Fracking is the death throes of an industry which is so heavily embedded within the "system" that they can easily queer the pitch to make them look like they are a sound business model. Its Fraud.

Cameron and his cronies are advocates because they hold massive shares in Fracking companies - nothing more.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality of this article has been known about for at least 5years at this stage and stock market analysts in America have openly declared it a giant "ponzy" scheme for soaking up investor capitol. The smart money has warned to avoid getting burnt, but as in the nature of all bubbles there is a sever temptation to pile your money in in the hope that you can pull it quickly when the bubble bursts - pure crony capitalism at its best.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind turbines are cost competitive with gas over their lifetime - there is no reason to not invest in them now since they represent a good investment at current efficiencies. Its a bogus argument you peddle.

Shale gas has a production cycle measured in just a few years with production falling off rapidly over the first five years. this means that they need to be refracked at regular intervals - each time costing many millions to perform. Total life cycle is less than 30years per well and they have constant high costs over that life cycle. They are in no way comparable to renewables which have a falling cost base over their lifetime.

it is the economic arguments which will see renewables win out over Fracked gas. Fracking is the death throes of an industry which is so heavily embedded within the "system" that they can easily queer the pitch to make them look like they are a sound business model. Its Fraud.

Cameron and his cronies are advocates because they hold massive shares in Fracking companies - nothing more.

Br Cornelius

Currently British wind farms run at 40%, with age degradation that will fall even lower. as it stands wind turbines are not a reliable source of power and quantity cannot be guaranteed. you for example cannot run the national grid with wind turbines making up a percentage higher than 18%. because this leaves gaps in the national grid capacity. which would need back filling by conventional power stations. so that's one sticking point.

So like i said before you'd rather have current wind turbines running at 40% average efficiency and degrading over time. so by 2020 you left with less efficient, obsolete and costing you more in maintenance wind turbines. this in the long run will cost billions - But excellent move by yourself and that's why i cannot and have not taken you seriously when it comes to renewable energy. you don't even understand the fundamentals.

simple facts

Wind Turbines produce electricity for only 70% to 80% of the time. the rest of the time the wind is not strong enough.

A modern onshore wind turbine over the course of a year will typically generate around 26% of its theoretical maximum output, depending on location. For an offshore wind turbine, it is 33%. known as it load factor - In the UK, the average load factor for nuclear, coal and gas was 53%.

i havent got the time now but in short from the government study, -

The rate of decline in performance is greatest for offshore installations in Denmark, with a fall

from load factors of over 40% at ages 0 and 1 to less than 15% by at ages 9 and 10. Onshore

installations in the UK show a more rapid rate of decline – 0.9 percentage points per year over

the first 10 years of operation – than is the case for Denmark, though the normalised Danish

performance curve lies below the UK curve for the first four years. For the UK the normalised

load factor falls to just over 15% at age 10 and to 11% at age 15. With such low load factors it

seems likely that many wind farms will be re-powered – i.e. the turbines will be replaced

– once they reach the age of 10 or 15 at most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Unfortunately that doesn't even come close to Justifying Fracking which has even worse performance over time.

If you are so confident Steve, I suggest you sink all of your money into Cadrilla and wait a few years to see how it does. I'll see you in the poor house. Even better steve I hear on the grapevine that the exploration company "Tamboran" is going out of business soon :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay attention to the €110 billion losses across the industry.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Unfortunately that doesn't even come close to Justifying Fracking which has even worse performance over time.

If you are so confident Steve, I suggest you sink all of your money into Cadrilla and wait a few years to see how it does. I'll see you in the poor house. Even better steve I hear on the grapevine that the exploration company "Tamboran" is going out of business soon :tu:

Br Cornelius

im not trying to justify fracking. because it doesn't need me to, fracking is just another way of extracting the fossil fuels, its nothing new we've been doing it for decades. as for shale today gone tomorrow the British geological survey stated there is enough shale gas of which only 10% needs extracting to supply our gas needs for the next 50 years. the trouble with Fracking is the need for many wells. - its worth noting the continuation of new north sea oil/gas fields being opened.

my vision is simple we go the conventional route, but with a decreasing trend over the next century, Nuclear, Gas, Oil, and we invest in renewables but buying/installing renewables in batches, so we always have the right balance between the latest technology and costs. like i pointed out earlier. no use having 100,000 batch 1 turbines. when that could be split - you could have over a number of years 10,000 batch1 turbines, followed by 10,000 batch2 turbines, followed by 10,000 batch3's and so on. because with each batch the technology improves allows for research and design, development and investment. by the time you've reached batch 10 you've developed a product at least ten times as better as the first batch, and the added bonus is your at the forefront of the technology right where you need to be in any market. makes absolute sense and especially when sites/land is limited, because as each batch becomes more efficient less turbines are needed, which means less land area is required etc... please tell me you can see the logic.

If you want to talk about investments i would invest with centrica/British Gas. who bought a 25% stake in the licence area up here in the North west. (fracking) other investments would be Royal Dutch shell, BP, Royal Mail. Lloyds banking group - TSB, British-American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco. Anglo-Australian BHP Billiton mining. you wont lose money on a fifteen year investment on any of that - throw a few bob into government bonds and your onto a winner. i dont know about seeing me in the poor house, i'd invite you around to the west wing one day. were we can survey the manor. :w00t: Falklands Oil company. a risk at the moment but once they hit the black gold boom. we'll call you Hector Riva

what's that load of rubbish you just posted on youtube RT channel. are the two presenters sane? they look like two extras out of Ghostbusters.

Edited by stevewinn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

what's that load of rubbish you just posted on youtube RT channel. are the two presenters sane? they look like two extras out of Ghostbusters.

Market analysts have been saying what Keiser says for years. the losses speak for themselves Steve. you can try and convince yourself all you like - but they really cannot be considered any sort of an investment and far better analysts than yourself are saying it openly. Could you absorb a 25% loss year on year and survive ? That is the reality of the Fracking industry.

As for improvements in Wind Turbines - its a mature technology based on concepts perfected over a 100years ago. There will be minimal efficiency improvements on what we currently have. However wave and tidal will start to mature as technologies in the next decade and will start to penetrate the energy market in a massive way. Solar is already starting to form the base of much of the renewable input to the grid and as costs continue to plummet year on year this can only get better. Investment in unconventional oil and gas at this stage is dead money and that is why the smart money is ploughing mostly into renewables capacity.

The only strategy that makes sense at this point is to eek out the last remaining North Sea Oil, keep buying Norwegian and Russian Gas and plough as much capitol into renewables as we can possibly manage for as long as it takes. That includes investing billions into research to perfect offshore tidal capacity which will solve all of our problems and reward us handsomely into the bargin for a long time to come.

Your out of date Steve.

Br cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Market analysts have been saying what Keiser says for years. the losses speak for themselves Steve. you can try and convince yourself all you like - but they really cannot be considered any sort of an investment and far better analysts than yourself are saying it openly at this stage.

As for improvements in Wind Turbines - its a mature technology based on concepts perfected over a 100years ago. There will be minimal efficiency improvements on what we currently have. However wave and tidal will start to mature as technologies in the next decade and will start to penetrate the energy market in a massive way. Solar is already starting to form the base of much of the renewable input to the grid and as costs continue to plummet year on year this can only get better. Investment in unconventional oil and gas at this stage is dead money and that is why the smart money is ploughing mostly into renewables capacity.

Your out of date Steve.

Br cornelius

im out of date, well so must the government because their doing it my way, well their way im just repeating and agreeing with them. if that makes me out of date, then so be it. but i'd rather side with the government who have access to the latest findings and experts unlike you whose most powerful tool is google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im out of date, well so must the government because their doing it my way, well their way im just repeating and agreeing with them. if that makes me out of date, then so be it. but i'd rather side with the government who have access to the latest findings and experts unlike you whose most powerful tool is google.

The UK is ****ed Steve, Germany will grind them into the economic dust because the people like Cameron took the selfish short term option and never though of the future. If you want to prosper in the long run you have to think strategically - not just about your spiv friends bank balances.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK is ****ed Steve, Germany will grind them into the economic dust because the people like Cameron took the selfish short term option and never though of the future. If you want to prosper in the long run you have to think strategically - not just about your spiv friends bank balances.

Br Cornelius

oh well, on that bombshell i wish you goodnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not hollow rhetoric or business propaganda Steve, here are the highly placed Tory spivs who will gain massively if Fracking goes ahead, a conflict of interest - it certainly looks like it;

David Howell

Perhaps the best place to start is with George Osborne's own family. His father-in-law, the Conservative peer Lord Howell is a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry. He combines his role as president of the British Institute of Energy Economics (sponsored by Shell and BP amongst others) with the role of energy minister at the Foreign Office. He is notoriously skeptical of renewable energy sources and the sponsors of his institute stand to gain dramatically from the lucrative tax break being handed to them by his son-in-law.

As well as the BIEE lobbying interest that has been widely reported in the press, Howell is also the chairman of another energy lobbying group. In the Parliamentary register of members interests he is listed as chairman of Windsor Energy Group. On the Windsor Energy Linkedin profile (registration necessary) they boast about "building bridges between the public and the private sectors" and brag about their lack of openness and transparency - "discussions are kept non-attributable to allow full and frank exchanges of views". The financial backers of Howell's energy lobbying group listed on their webpage include the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Chinese government, various petrochemical companies including British Gas, British Petroleum, Shell, Marathon Oil, Kuwait Petroleum, Petrofac, PDVSA, and even NATO!

It is absolutely clear that many of the clients of Howell's lobbying groups stand to benefit enormously from his son-in-law's actions.

John Browne

The former chairman of BP and admitted perjurer John Browne who sits in the House of Lords as "Lord Browne" is another member of the current administration with close links to the fracking business. Browne is the lead Non-Executive in government. For those of you that are unfamiliar with what Non-Executives do, they are unelected people that sit in and advise government departments. Of the 60 unelected Non-Executives influencing public policy, almost all of them come from the corporate sector. As the lead Non-Executive, Browne has the power to appoint other Non-Executives (see Baroness Hogg).

Browne's interests in the fracking industry are numerous. His most obvious financial interest in fracking is his chairmanship of Cuadrilla, which is exploring for shale gas in Lancashire and West Sussex. The huge tax break Osborne is giving to the fracking industry will obviously be of enormous benefit to Cuadrilla. Browne is also managing director of, partner in and a major shareholder of Riverstone LLC, the venture capital firm that backs Cuadrilla.

Browne also holds an unspecified number of shares in BP (likely to be extremely substantial considering he received millions of pounds worth of shares a year during his tenure as chairman). BP are another company that would benefit from a fracking tax break. Another of Browne's interests in the shale fracking business is his role as Chairman of Accenture Global Energy Board, which produces reports on the expansion of the shale gas industry like this one and works to promote shale gas extraction as a future energy source.

Browne also has registered financial interests in several other petrochemical companies including White Rose Energy Ventures LLP (director) Fairfield Energy Ltd (director) Schlumberger Business Consulting Advisory Group (member) Mubadala Oil and Gas International Advisory Board (chairman) and Letterone Petroleum Limited (member).

It is undeniable that Browne, who is a passionate advocate of shale gas fracking stands to make significant financial gains from George Osborne's fracking tax break.

Ben Moxham

Moxham is former executive at BP when John Browne was at the helm, he followed the Browne to Riverstone Holdings, which owns 42 per cent of Cuadrilla. Moxham was David Cameron's adviser on energy and the environment, but quit in May just a couple of months before the announcement this fracking strategy (which was obviously many months in the making).

Sarah Hogg

Hogg was appointed to the House of Lords in 1995 by John Major. She is a Non-Executive for the Treasury, a position created for her by John Browne (see above). She has a substantial shareholding in, and sits on the board of British Gas, which has significant shale gas assets in the United States.

Sam Laidlaw

Sam Laidlow is yet another of these unelected non-executives with interests in the fracking industry. Laidlow is the non-executive to the Transport Department is also chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, which recently bought a £40 million stake in one of Cuadrilla's UK shale gas operations.

Ian Taylor

It is not just members of the government that have significant interests in the fracking business, one of their biggest donors also has too. Ian Taylor (who has appeared on AAV before in my expose of major Tory donors) is the Chief Executive of Vitol, a company which owns a stake in Dart energy. Taylor has also donated half a million pounds to the anti-independence propaganda campaign in Scotland. I wonder if people would be so keen to buy into the "better together" propaganda campaign if they knew it was bankrolled by an English major donor to the Tory party with a financial interest in a company with licences to frack in Scotland.

Lynton Crosby

David Cameron's chief strategist has already been implicated in one conflict of interests scandal, which came about in the wake of the Tories U-turn on the introduction of plain packaging legislation for cigarettes, when it was revealed that his lobbying company Crosby Textor is employed by the tobacco giant Philip Morris. Several Liberal Democrat members of the coalition government called for his resignation, but Cameron refused to sack him. Just a few days later Osborne announced his huge tax break for the shale gas industry and it was revealed that Crosby Textor also represents Dart Energy, a firm that holds shale gas extraction licences in Scotland.

http://anotherangryv...ell-browne.html

The tragedy is Steve, i hate to see the god awful mess that is on the cards for Britain as a consequence of this short termist cronism, after all i am British.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a wind turbine built in five years time will be more efficient than one built today..

And five years from now, people will say "ohh, but it's a case of softly softly catchy monkey, a wind turbine in five years time will be more efficient then one built today, might as well wait".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And five years from now, people will say "ohh, but it's a case of softly softly catchy monkey, a wind turbine in five years time will be more efficient then one built today, might as well wait".

That is why you explain to those people who think that, the procedure and the reasons why the industry takes this approach. If you take the approach of waiting for five years, within that five years you'd lose the skills base not only designing, engineering and fabrication of the product but also the skills gained in transporting and installation including the work force and end user. I've already highlighted above the life expectancy and performance of current installed turbines. Its why every company build wind farms in phases.

Here in Liverpool. off Liverpool Bay Burbo flats/bank, the first turbines were installed in 2007, in 2010 they entered a second phase installing more efficient wind turbines than the ones installed in 2007. and no-doubt when they enter phase three which starts next year 2015. - guess what the turbines installed in 2015 will be better than the ones installed in 2010, and even better again than the ones installed in 2007. by the time they reach the last phase of the development in 2022. those turbines being installed will be fifteen years more advance than the first ones built and installed in 2007 by that time the 2007 turbines will need replacing anyway and will be replaced by year 2022 models, having the pillars already installed in the seabed the cost of installing the latest model will be a hell of a lot cheaper than doing a 'fresh' first time installation. which will reduce cost and everyone is a winner.

why such a sensible approach is being questioned on here is beyond me, im more surprised by Br who as a passion for renewables and tackling climate change. and who i once felt had a firm grasp of the issue, by the way this isn't only my approach at the end of the day but the industry as a whole. i just happen to agree with it. i wish some can see the logic or at least see the points im making am starting to think im not putting it across in a readable/understanable format.

edit to add. the use of Gwynt Y Môr wind farm off North Wales would be a better example than Liverpool Bay. due to its size.

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is why you explain to those people who think that, the procedure and the reasons why the industry takes this approach. If you take the approach of waiting for five years, within that five years you'd lose the skills base not only designing, engineering and fabrication of the product but also the skills gained in transporting and installation including the work force and end user. I've already highlighted above the life expectancy and performance of current installed turbines. Its why every company build wind farms in phases.

Here in Liverpool. off Liverpool Bay Burbo flats/bank, the first turbines were installed in 2007, in 2010 they entered a second phase installing more efficient wind turbines than the ones installed in 2007. and no-doubt when they enter phase three which starts next year 2015. - guess what the turbines installed in 2015 will be better than the ones installed in 2010, and even better again than the ones installed in 2007. by the time they reach the last phase of the development in 2022. those turbines being installed will be fifteen years more advance than the first ones built and installed in 2007 by that time the 2007 turbines will need replacing anyway and will be replaced by year 2022 models, having the pillars already installed in the seabed the cost of installing the latest model will be a hell of a lot cheaper than doing a 'fresh' first time installation. which will reduce cost and everyone is a winner.

why such a sensible approach is being questioned on here is beyond me, im more surprised by Br who as a passion for renewables and tackling climate change. and who i once felt had a firm grasp of the issue, by the way this isn't only my approach at the end of the day but the industry as a whole. i just happen to agree with it. i wish some can see the logic or at least see the points im making am starting to think im not putting it across in a readable/understanable format.

Getting the infrasstructure in place now is the top priority. The efficiency gains will be minor and will be constantly accrued in the ongoing maintenance program. The energy crisis is already here and a concerted strategic plan to divest away from all fossil fuels is the best solution. Germany and Norway should be our examples because they are build a firm foundation on which a prosperous economy will grow. Their goal is to be still able to afford energy when everyone else cannot - invest now to save later. The longer we leave it the more costly the future options become as they will all be based on a resource (fossil fuels) which will continue to spiral up in price.

Think strategically and 20-30 years into the future or die as an economy.

With specific regard to Fracking have you ever wondered why Germany has decided it can play no part in its energy mix - the number crunchers have told them its a distraction on the way to their objective of a sustainable energy mix. I trust their judgement rather than Cameron who at best can be considered corruptly influenced on this subject.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK is now regarded as the world leader in offshore wind, with as much capacity already installed as the rest of the world combined. we are already past half way to meeting the target of 30% from renewables by 2020. we have already past our legal binding target of 15% as agreed in 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The UK is now regarded as the world leader in offshore wind, with as much capacity already installed as the rest of the world combined. we are already past half way to meeting the target of 30% from renewables by 2020. we have already past our legal binding target of 15% as agreed in 2009.

Can you show me your source Steve, because that simply doesn't ring true.

Even if it is true its a bit of a cherry picked figure since at the moment Offshore Wind represents a small fraction of the total installed alternative energy capacity. It truly is a sector in its infancy which will improve with time. Onshore wind is where almost all of the world wind capacity is located and where the technology is at its most mature.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.