Fracking poses significant risk to humans and should be temporarily banned across EU

[GommeInc]

We're making great strides in improving the efficiency of renewables, especially solar, so it's definitely worth the investment.

Precisely.

I have never understood why we feel that renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money. No new technology "just works" from the start - oil, coil and nuclear never worked immediately, it took centuries to discover and truly master. It takes years of research and some innovation mixed in to truly improve on a form of energy, or anything for that matter (technology, social/political/legal things etc). There is nothing stopping us from getting solar, wind or tidal from overtaking and becoming more successful than non-renewable energy. The only thing stopping innovation and improving are those who either have investments in the old form of energy, those living within a conspiracy, those simply afraid of change or those too impatient to fully discover the future.

Fracking could work, and this report is simply to stop it until full research has been done to find out its effects (as the US rushed it and never properly researched it). It may be made safe and usable, but for now the real focus should be on something that best suits everyone and renewables seem the way forward. The only issue I can see is how to replace gas which is used for cooking and heating.

I simply dislike the idea that fracking simply does not seem fit for the UK. The water table is higher, we have more rivers and natural water sources than the US has in a compressed space, not forgetting reservoirs and old but established law that protects property and ought not to waste the time of judges and the court who have better things to do with their limited resources (going to court is expensive, especially for property issues).

[The Don]

If it's worth the investment - says you the great energy expert - then why does it take so much government subsidy rather than private investment? If it is such a promising industry and has a workable future, then surely private companies would be piling in and submitting applications left, right and centre.

Renewables will never work, especially on a large scale, for one simple reason that anyone who knows the basics of energy policy knows. I'll let you all suss it.

Didn't you study politics Dan? You're hardly in a position to criticise the legitimacy of someones opinions on a topic you're no more well-versed in. Also, I'm not sure why you've got such an attitude considering I haven't said anything to provoke such a reaction, I hope you're not as pigheaded and stubborn in real life as you are on here. You do realise that non-renewable energy companies receive massive amounts of government subsidisation, right? It's worth the investment due to the potential value, not it's current value, which is why the government is keen to invest in them and why private companies are comparatively reluctant to since the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

Precisely.

I have never understood why we feel that renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money. No new technology "just works" from the start - oil, coil and nuclear never worked immediately, it took centuries to discover and truly master. It takes years of research and some innovation mixed in to truly improve on a form of energy, or anything for that matter (technology, social/political/legal things etc). There is nothing stopping us from getting solar, wind or tidal from overtaking and becoming more successful than non-renewable energy. The only thing stopping innovation and improving are those who either have investments in the old form of energy, those living within a conspiracy, those simply afraid of change or those too impatient to fully discover the future.

Fracking could work, and this report is simply to stop it until full research has been done to find out its effects (as the US rushed it and never properly researched it). It may be made safe and usable, but for now the real focus should be on something that best suits everyone and renewables seem the way forward. The only issue I can see is how to replace gas which is used for cooking and heating.

I simply dislike the idea that fracking simply does not seem fit for the UK. The water table is higher, we have more rivers and natural water sources than the US has in a compressed space, not forgetting reservoirs and old but established law that protects property and ought not to waste the time of judges and the court who have better things to do with their limited resources (going to court is expensive, especially for property issues).

There's always going to be someone arguing for the status quo. I'm sure people like Dan would have criticised Karl Benz when he was building the first car, "There's no point investing in this auto-majiggy when we have perfectly good horses and carts which are dimes cheaper and go much faster! The car will never catch on" - 19th Century Dan

Edit: Found him...

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
The Quarterly Review, March, 1825.

[FlyingJesus]

Whilst nuclear can be used, it is expensive in clean up costs.

Have you somehow managed to avoid the entirety of the argument made against fracking or are you intentionally being hypocritical in your hilariously unfounded views

[Chippiewill]

or are you intentionally being hypocritical

FYI asking him if he's being intentionally hypocritical is a tautology as you can't be unintentionally hypocritical. You should either ask him if he's being intentionally inconsistent or if he's just being hypocritical.

[FlyingJesus]

Of course you can if you're plain ignorant

[Circadia]

The fracking site on Preston New Road is 20 or so minutes car drive away and I can't be dealing with that **** I hope it gets ******* banned

[lemons]

BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN!

[-:Undertaker:-]

High up-front costs. The companies which could afford to do this (And are actually in a related industry) without subsidy already make money off oil etc.

If an industry or product is deemed profitable or has a profitable future, then companies and investors - outside and inside of the industry already - will arise and fill that gap. Given the huge amount of publicity and attention that renewables attract, they still rely almost entirely on government subsidies because the fact is that they have no future. As I alluded to earlier, renewables can never make up more than around 10% of the energy on the national grid for the simple reason that a national grid requires stability aka a base load and cannot flucuate..... like the wind or the sun. Even if the technology were developed to store renewable energy, it would still vastly cost more than simply burning the cheaper options of gas, oil and even nuclear.

Anyone who wants to understand energy/the national grid needs to understand this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

For an energy comparison, see hydro-electric power. Despite having a history that spans a century, with a lot of money and political capital put into such projects (Hoover Dam, Suez Dam and the Three Gorges Dam) it is still very expensive and doesn't even produce that much energy. In other words, it's pretty much a dud and has mainly been used for agricultural purposes rather than energy purposes: despite enormous amounts of state funding over the years as there's only so much you can do to improve what is a poor way of generating power.

Precisely.

I have never understood why we feel that renewable energy is a complete waste of time and money. No new technology "just works" from the start - oil, coil and nuclear never worked immediately, it took centuries to discover and truly master. It takes years of research and some innovation mixed in to truly improve on a form of energy, or anything for that matter (technology, social/political/legal things etc). There is nothing stopping us from getting solar, wind or tidal from overtaking and becoming more successful than non-renewable energy. The only thing stopping innovation and improving are those who either have investments in the old form of energy, those living within a conspiracy, those simply afraid of change or those too impatient to fully discover the future.

As above with the hydro-electric example.

Fracking could work, and this report is simply to stop it until full research has been done to find out its effects (as the US rushed it and never properly researched it). It may be made safe and usable, but for now the real focus should be on something that best suits everyone and renewables seem the way forward. The only issue I can see is how to replace gas which is used for cooking and heating.

If renewables are the way forward then please tell me and the rest of the country, before you condemn us to pre-Industrial Revolution amounts of power, exactly how you are going to run a national grid on wind and solar energy when they are incapable of sustaining a stable base load of power for the national grid: and this isn't even considering the enormous costs. I read once for example, that not one power station in the world has actually been closed down as a result of wind replacing it. Why? Because even if you were to build enough turbines to match the output of a regular coal-fired power station (enormous costs), you would need to retain the coal station for the frequent power failings that wind brings with in. In addition, the costs of stopping and starting a coal-fired power plant would be astronomical as well as time-consuming.

Renewable energy is a fantasy.

I simply dislike the idea that fracking simply does not seem fit for the UK. The water table is higher, we have more rivers and natural water sources than the US has in a compressed space, not forgetting reservoirs and old but established law that protects property and ought not to waste the time of judges and the court who have better things to do with their limited resources (going to court is expensive, especially for property issues).

The point is that fracking is coming, and that like in America we'll have virtually no problems with it and life will carry on as usual. For those few who do have problems, as people have problems today with collapsing mine shafts, the courts will settle any disputes/issue compensation.

You do realise that non-renewable energy companies receive massive amounts of government subsidisation, right? It's worth the investment due to the potential value, not it's current value, which is why the government is keen to invest in them and why private companies are comparatively reluctant to since the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible.

Hahahaha oh yeah because government has such a great eye for business decisions. As I have explained above to both Ryan and Will, there is no future in renewables and private companies know it hence why they won't touch it without huge wads of government cash being stuffed into their pockets, and can you blame them? On private companies making business decisions, they are a lot more riskier than you think. It's classic basic economics.

Ask yourself this: why would I argue against renewable energy if I thought it was workable? Do you, as many do-gooders do, think I am an evil person who just wants to bring misery or do you think there might actually be some valid scepticism and reasons why I am saying "hold on a moment it doesn't work"?

If I thought renewable energy had a future or worked, then I would be optimistic about it like I am about nuclear fusion power production.

There's always going to be someone arguing for the status quo. I'm sure people like Dan would have criticised Karl Benz when he was building the first car, "There's no point investing in this auto-majiggy when we have perfectly good horses and carts which are dimes cheaper and go much faster! The car will never catch on" - 19th Century Dan

All those great inventions were brought in by private investors, not the government spending huge wads of taxpayers cash for wealthy landowners to place useless wind turbines on their land. It is infact you who is the Luddite here, because you are purposely arguing for an energy which can never fulfil the needs of the national grid (see above) as well as for a method of generating power that is so much more expensive than conventional means with coal and gas burning.

Renewables powering the national grid isn't going to happen, which is why I can finally congratulate the government on some common sense aka fracking.

[FlyingJesus]

Do you ever feel invisible

[The Don]

Dan you put so much energy into being wrong, it's hilarious.

First thing, nobody has said renewables can power the grid alone so you're being deceitful by arguing against a point nobody has raised.

Secondly: "why would I argue against renewable energy if I thought it was workable? "

Because, as shown by your previous posts in this thread, all you care about is what's cheapest right now without regard for the damage it can cause to the environment or humans, or the potential it has in the future. I remember you arguing before that you agreed with Milton Friedman that ford should not have recalled the ford pinto, despite the fact it was fatally dangerous to consumers, since, as you argued "It would be cheaper to let people die rather than recall the cars". That pretty much sums up your side of this argument. When you say renewables will never work, what you really mean is you'd rather have dangerous, unsustainable and cheaper sources of energy rather than pay a bit more.