Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Ban on gas fracking in England lifted in push for energy independence

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Gatorrick22, Sep 22, 2022.

  1. thomadm

    thomadm VIP Member

    2,795
    684
    2,088
    Apr 9, 2007
    There is no such thing as renewables. The Sun and Earth have a finite lifespan. The future is Fusion, not renewables, especially as we move out further away from the sun.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  2. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    10,959
    1,889
    3,128
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    I hear it's 10 years away
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. homer

    homer GC Hall of Fame

    2,625
    820
    2,078
    Nov 2, 2015
    You will hear it again in another 10 years. Hope I’m wrong
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. thomadm

    thomadm VIP Member

    2,795
    684
    2,088
    Apr 9, 2007
    Yeah probably 50-100 years away for an actual production reactor from being viable. Either way, the govs should plan sites for them and build modern fission reactors at those sites and build the grid around them. Makes no sense to me to waste time with Hydro or Solar on a massive scale when climate will potentially change and add risk to power availability. A reactor works 24/7 for decades. Yes, its expensive, but so is power disruption and storage.
     
  5. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    10,959
    1,889
    3,128
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    Distribution is required in both use cases. So you're comparing renewable generation + storage v fission generation. Given current costs and future estimates, I'd mortgage the house and shove all in on renewables
     
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  6. thomadm

    thomadm VIP Member

    2,795
    684
    2,088
    Apr 9, 2007
    My problem with renewables, mainly Hydro and solar is it's very low density. In the case of solar its effectiveness is limited to less than 50% of a 24 hour day best case. The decision to move toward them is mainly an emotional and political one and not based on what's best for our long term future.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    3,878
    813
    268
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    Okay Adam. Stop shilling for the Wealth of Nations.
     
  8. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    3,878
    813
    268
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    yes but it is an energy dense and consistent amount of energy. Battery storage is getting close to being effective. Solar panels on our houses right now could provide 100 percent of the energy you use and there are exciting advances on the horizon.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. LimeyGator

    LimeyGator Official Brexit Reporter!

    Only 17% of Brits support fracking in an autumn poll in 2021. The UK Government also were elected on a very clear manifesto promise not to return to fracking, after its suspension.

    I'm all for energy independence but even best estimates reckon this will account for between 17-22% (best case) of UK Energy consumption in the next 30 years - there are concerns the reserves may fall well below estimates. And just for kicks, it likely wouldn't affect energy bills - which is what people would rally around it for - because of our open gas market, which means it'll end up somewhere around the international average, the NBP.

    It could help lessen our import dependence, by all accounts. But not impacting bills, relying on estimates of unproven reserves, incomplete science around the process here... it's not without a number of risks. It's clearly happening though - so time will tell!
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    5,164
    438
    293
    Jun 1, 2007
    With the balls to the walls push and all the very obvious limitations on renewables, you've got to wonder just who the hell 'our' is.
     
  11. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    10,959
    1,889
    3,128
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    People who like cheaper energy and not being held hostage every 10years by foreign events.

    I'm sure your tin foil surrounds the new companies that stand to make a fortune. Yes - those exist, or will exist. Big Oil could have made the choice to be at the front of this revolution - what with them knowing about the need to get off oil before anyone else - but they chose to obfuscate and dig in their heels. The fact that there will be winners and losers doesn't invalidate the need.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    16,006
    1,182
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Putin is saving the world!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,143
    11,994
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    there is a major cost associated with liquifying and then gassifying the natural gas you import. it is why your nat gas is so high compared to the US or other areas fed strictly by pipeline without the LNG related costs.. the less you import, the more the average price will come down as the cost to transition the gas to liquid and back for transport is removed
     
  14. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,143
    11,994
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    we should know when the facility in france opens. containment field advances are accelerating with computer tech modeling and machine learning capacity.

    I still prefer the smaller scale nexgen nuclear package plants being developed right now by Gates and others. Can be located at sites of previous power plants to tie right into grid. use for baseload with renewables helping for next phase of energy production. use excess capacity for hydrogen production for fuel cell vehicles and/or desal facilities to replenish freshwater resources
     
  15. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    87,735
    26,312
    4,613
    Apr 3, 2007
    I hope it works out for the Brits better than the estimates indicate, my friend.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  16. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    12,909
    1,727
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    I’m all of for expanding nuclear as far as we can take it, and even subsidizing it, but it’s only a modest part of the solution. I read where as much wind and solar worldwide capacity have been added in 2020 and 2021 as all nuclear that already exists (I’m not sure I buy that stat but it may be in the right ballpark). We will be lucky to replace existing nuclear with new nuclear as the older nuclear is gradually decommissioned. Nuclear is slow to build and expensive so it has its limits.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    13,510
    1,889
    1,318
    Apr 3, 2007
    Ironically, the U.S. created China. It started with thinking during the Carter administration that recognizing China (and not recognizing Taiwan) would be a positive for China, and helping China develop their economy would automatically make them more democratic and westernized. Bill Clinton jumped on this idea whole-heartedly (while taking some bribes from Asian businessmen), allowing U.S. mutual funds to not only invest in Chinese manufacturing, but also deliver U.S. technology to these Chinese companies. Clinton felt that manufacturing was a dirty business, and the real money was in the innovation that led to the manufacturing, so he took an active role in pushing U.S. manufacturing out of the country--even his EPA tried to do this (Carol Browner wanted to ban the chlorine molecule, among other things). Unfortunately, it was not widely known that there is a feedback loop between innovation and manufacturing that needs to exist (you cannot design products that cannot be manufactured economically). China quickly invested in universities to develop their own innovation capabilities to take advantage of the feedback loop, while the U.S. was pushing out manufacturing. The U.S. quickly realized that China had no respect for Intellectual Property rights, and that it was far easier to put money and equipment into China than it was to take it out. Eventually, the U.S. found out that China was really good at espionage, and that they were investing much of their profits on developing a modern military that they really didn't need (no one was threatening to invade China). Surprisingly, no president until Dimwit Donald Trump figured out that China was building their military for a reason.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    87,735
    26,312
    4,613
    Apr 3, 2007
    The only thing Clinton was thinking was enriching his pockets with bribes for U.S technology... To even suggest anything other than that is silly. Clinton is nothing more than a world class (dangerous) grifter.
     
  19. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    13,510
    1,889
    1,318
    Apr 3, 2007
    There's less than five billion years left before the sun stops providing light to Earth! Stop investing in solar power! It doesn't last forever, you know! Sure, the solar panels only last 30 years! But what about the sun? It only has another five billion years! There isn't much time left. We need fusion now!
     
  20. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    13,510
    1,889
    1,318
    Apr 3, 2007
    I disagree. Clinton thought he was the smartest person in any room, and therefore he was going to transform government and history with his brilliant decisions. He expected it to work.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1