This puts the Virus into the shadows

[D_W]

Because you frack - the nimbys here won't allow it.

we had conventional wells here in the old days. Fracking on average has caused less pollution than original wells ever did. The only real issue we had early on was a lack of regulations about who could treat the fracking waters (the municipal water treatment groups would treat and release water that was radioactive from ground sources).

With the radon issues we have here, there's probably plenty of well water here with enough radium to make a geiger counter click.

 

[D_W]

(I'll provide a summary of nat. gas fracking here...

....2006 or so, gas expensive - about $12 an MCF. Gas bill was high, but I'll admit it's a super lazy heat (the furnace doesn't even need cleaning, just inspection once in a while for heat exchanger issues)

fracking comes in and suddenly there are no hotel rooms in rural areas around here. quickly, the capacity gets so high that wells in process get put on hold.

gas now $2 an MCF (this is a fantastic price anywhere in an organized world). Heating bills slashed. If this doesn't help poor people, I don't know what does. It also makes my retirement account bigger and keeps electric rates in check.

Enormous amounts of coal generation here go offline, further improving air quality and greatly decreasing the issuance of steroid inhalers and such, etc (and allowing me to recover more easily from colds which can easily turn into bronchitis for me).

How this is bad for people, I have no idea. There was some mishandling of water on the surface early on and some fallacious movies about the plague of environmental damage and "flaming" kitchen water. For some reason, we see and hear none of that now - it was fantasy. I'm sure it's not pollution free, but nothing is. It's greatly improved the economy hear and provided low cost energy for everyone.

 

[Jameshow]

(I'll provide a summary of nat. gas fracking here...

....2006 or so, gas expensive - about $12 an MCF. Gas bill was high, but I'll admit it's a super lazy heat (the furnace doesn't even need cleaning, just inspection once in a while for heat exchanger issues)

fracking comes in and suddenly there are no hotel rooms in rural areas around here. quickly, the capacity gets so high that wells in process get put on hold.

gas now $2 an MCF (this is a fantastic price anywhere in an organized world). Heating bills slashed. If this doesn't help poor people, I don't know what does. It also makes my retirement account bigger and keeps electric rates in check.

Enormous amounts of coal generation here go offline, further improving air quality and greatly decreasing the issuance of steroid inhalers and such, etc (and allowing me to recover more easily from colds which can easily turn into bronchitis for me).

How this is bad for people, I have no idea. There was some mishandling of water on the surface early on and some fallacious movies about the plague of environmental damage and "flaming" kitchen water. For some reason, we see and hear none of that now - it was fantasy. I'm sure it's not pollution free, but nothing is. It's greatly improved the economy hear and provided low cost energy for everyone.

What about earthquakes we have had reports of them here when test fracking....?

It was stopped for a while not sure of the current state cv-19 etc.

Cheers James

 

[D_W]

What about earthquakes we have had reports of them here when test fracking....?

It was stopped for a while not sure of the current state cv-19 etc.

Cheers James

I believe that's in oklahoma where they're fracking oil. We haven't had any here and we've been fracking the frack out of this place until it's fracking out of stuff.

I'm sure that putting pressure on rocks that want to move will help them move, though. But it's not happening here.

 

[Jelly]

and some fallacious movies about the plague of environmental damage and "flaming" kitchen water.

The flaming water is a real thing... But isn't necessarily linked to fracking.

Apparently the areas where that's been highlighted have aquifers that naturally contain methane hydrates, and the flammable water phenomenon pre-dates the fracking activity.

What it really tells me is that those taps are fed from a private source in an aquifer which probably isn't awful well suited to proving potable water to begin with.

Certainly it's highly unlikely to be treated potable water in the way it's generally understood, as if you attempted to pass methane rich water that off-gasses a flammable atmosphere through a water treatment plant, the municipality running the plant would soom know about it in dramatic fashion...

Between the enclosed spaces with electric motors, agitation with air, and injection of Chlorine Gas followed by UV light exposure, there's a number of ways you could set off a nasty reaction or even explosion (not unlike the time Shell blew up the water treatment plant on one of the UK's biggest gas refineries).

 

[D_W]

That's what I'm getting at - there were definitely videos of flaming water, but nobody asked the critical questions - what's causing it and was it the fracking?

If it was fracking (probably not), how likely is it that the rest of us would have the same issue? Not likely. Nobody asked the question after the video "so, we saw that once. If it's really an issue, they should've been able to put together a montage of flaming faucets near wells all over the place".

I suspect that the flaming water was used as a prop. If there were serious issues here other than outright violations of surface water, we'd know more.

Early on, we had all kinds of stories about dead cows and all sorts of horror movie rubbish. It's all gone. I guess people lost interest. If it was really happening on a regular basis, it would be awfully difficult to lose interest.

 

[gregmcateer]

I would never claim to know any more than "Jack sh** plus 1%" about the energy world, but it seems to me that whatever the pros or con's of e.g. fracking, it is still a carbon based non renewable source and is therefore probably not the best long term plan, whatever the advantage of cheap fuel - or have I missed something here? Genuine question.

 

[sploo]

This new one is not PWR but a new fusion reactor which in theory will not produce waste products that need to be babysat for decades to come but still is not true green energy. Cumbria could be home to UK’s first prototype nuclear fusion power plant - new plans reveal

That's... odd.

Currently there's an experimental Tokomak in Culham in Oxfordshire, but that's not intended for actually generating power. The next generation is ITER (in France), but that's also not intended for commercial scale energy production.

So... there's no way a Cumbria plant would be the UK's first experimental fusion facility, and a fusion reactor that produces energy on a commercial scale is a long, long way off. That article seems a bit fishy; or maybe I've misunderstood it.

 

[alex_heney]

The one thing nuclear has the potential to do that no other power generation method currently has is to give us something in common with the dinosaurs, and that is extinction.

Neither part of that is close to being true.

If we continue to use fossil fuels to generate power at the rate that has been done previously, then extinction is a certainty, not a possibility.

And there is no real possibility of nuclear power causing an extinction event.

 

[Jelly]

I would never claim to know any more than "Jack sh** plus 1%" about the energy world, but it seems to me that whatever the pros or con's of e.g. fracking, it is still a carbon based non renewable source and is therefore probably not the best long term plan, whatever the advantage of cheap fuel - or have I missed something here? Genuine question.

Fracking provides natural gas, which is the least polluting, most energy efficient fossil fuel for use in static applications like power stations and boilers, and can be switched on and off in a minute or so, even in huge Megawatt sized plants (which itself helps make it less polluting).

Switching from other fossil fuels to gas, or ensuring we can remain on it, is a positive in terms of air quality and helps to give us a bit more time to get to carbon neutral, by supporting closing down older coal plants, and because it can act as a standby to pick up the shortfall from wind or solar generation until battery storage is realistic.



Fracking as a technique for preparing geological formations for gas extraction is definitely needed on the UKCS (UK continental shelf) if we want to remain independent around our gas supply until we reach a point of no longer needing gas, and has a history of successful use by North Sea Operators dating back to the invention of the idea...

But "Fracking" the big bad thing which is actually a byword for Onshore Oil and Gas production in locations proximate to people's houses... Is probably not that important all told, a number of the operators had downgraded expectations of reservoir size based on more detailed geological surveys, even before the moratorium was put into place.

I think we can probably move away from gas before the North Sea is completely exhausted at this point, as the pace of change when it comes to renewables just keeps accelerating.



We may need to continue extracting oil and gas after that point in a limited capacity as a feedstock for chemicals to make everything from glues and dyes, to pharmaceuticals and flavourings in fruity sweets...

But I've always contended that oil and gas extraction isn't all that bad compared to burning it as a fuel rather than treating it as an immensely useful source of materials for all the things which make modern life possible...

Our grandkids might end up cursing anthropogenic climate change, but not half as much as they will be cursing us for burning up the one resource which made cheap and plentiful access to polymers, disinfectants, pharmaceuticals etc. possible.

 

[Jacob]

Nuclear depends on continual servicing and control by a stable and skilled workforce.
A simple thing like the next pandemic, if not the current one, could end this overnight and be catastrophic.
The higher the technology the greater the potential fall. And fallout.

 

[Jonm]

This is all very confusing, some on here say it is experimental, others say it is not.

There have been a number of proposals relating to this site including, in the past the involvement of Toshiba. Current proposals include EDF energy and I attach a link to one of their brochures dated 30 July 2020. In the energy world it now seems that you should never call a spade a spade. An incinerator is now a “renewable energy biomass power plant”. In this case the proposal is not for a nuclear power station, it is called the “Moorside Clean Energy Hub”

Looking at the EDF publication, amongst all the verbiage, buzz words and abbreviations the second paragraph gives the proposals which I interpret as follows

A. One number 3.2 GW UK EPR power station. EPR is a “European Pressurised Reactor” or an “Evolutionary Power Reactor”. It is a third generation pressurised water reactor.

B. Unspecified number of “small modular reactors” (SMRs). These are fission reactors which are “small” and “modular” which allows them to be manufactured in a factory and brought to site to be assembled.

C. Unspecified number of “advanced modular reactors” (AMRs). Difficult to know what these are. I include a link to a government website. I think they are not pressurised water reactors but they are modular.

I hope the above clarifies what is proposed. It is a matter of opinion whether you classify an AMR as “experimental” but there is some justification for it.

EDF joins companies and unions promoting Moorside Clean Energy Hub

Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR) Feasibility and Development Project

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I believe that's in oklahoma where they're fracking oil. We haven't had any here and we've been fracking the frack out of this place until it's fracking out of stuff.

I'm sure that putting pressure on rocks that want to move will help them move, though. But it's not happening here.

The worst earthquakes in Oklahoma have been created by pumping waste water back down underground at high pressure into disused wells. Because the geological formations are able to store quite a bit of mechanical energy (they're made of relatively strong rock), the eventual release of that energy causes relatively large tremors. The fluids pumped down there provide extra energy and 'lubricate' faults which allow them to move and release pent-up energy.

 

[Droogs]

You guys are aware that switching over from coal is basically done. There will be only 4 operational coal fired power plants in the UK by 2025. These are Drax, Ratcliffe, West Burton and Kilroot in Northern Ireland and are only kept for emergencies.

edit to add a bit I deleted by accident

 

[Jonm]

C. Unspecified number of “advanced modular reactors” (AMRs). Difficult to know what these are. I include a link to a government website. I think they are not pressurised water reactors but they are modular.

I have just looked up the attachment to the link I gave to the government website. Contracts have been let for studies in to the following reactor types, stable salt, lead cooled, uranium granules embedded in graphite, sodium cooled metallic fuel and gas cooled. Experimental yes, but no proposals as yet for Moorside, but a stated intention to build them, whatever “them” is.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Fracking provides natural gas, which is the least polluting, most energy efficient fossil fuel for use in static applications like power stations and boilers, and can be switched on and off in a minute or so, even in huge Megawatt sized plants (which itself helps make it less polluting).

Switching from other fossil fuels to gas, or ensuring we can remain on it, is a positive in terms of air quality and helps to give us a bit more time to get to carbon neutral, by supporting closing down older coal plants, and because it can act as a standby to pick up the shortfall from wind or solar generation until battery storage is realistic.



Fracking as a technique for preparing geological formations for gas extraction is definitely needed on the UKCS (UK continental shelf) if we want to remain independent around our gas supply until we reach a point of no longer needing gas, and has a history of successful use by North Sea Operators dating back to the invention of the idea...

But "Fracking" the big bad thing which is actually a byword for Onshore Oil and Gas production in locations proximate to people's houses... Is probably not that important all told, a number of the operators had downgraded expectations of reservoir size based on more detailed geological surveys, even before the moratorium was put into place.

I think we can probably move away from gas before the North Sea is completely exhausted at this point, as the pace of change when it comes to renewables just keeps accelerating.



We may need to continue extracting oil and gas after that point in a limited capacity as a feedstock for chemicals to make everything from glues and dyes, to pharmaceuticals and flavourings in fruity sweets...

But I've always contended that oil and gas extraction isn't all that bad compared to burning it as a fuel rather than treating it as an immensely useful source of materials for all the things which make modern life possible...

Our grandkids might end up cursing anthropogenic climate change, but not half as much as they will be cursing us for burning up the one resource which made cheap and plentiful access to polymers, disinfectants, pharmaceuticals etc. possible.

Arguably, we have squandered all that North Sea gas by burning it (to generate electricity)!

It would be an enormous mistake to try and read across from the US to the UK for all sorts of reasons. The Marcellus shale under Pennsylvania covers an area similar to that of the whole of the UK, and the geology is much less complicated than that of the UK. The economics of coal, oil and gas are all different.

For me, a key measure is the marginal cost of production. The Saudis can produce a barrel of oil (or its gaseous equivalent) at a marginal cost of about $5. It is almost certainly impossible to produce a barrel of oil (or its gaseous equivalent) in the UK (or on the UKCS) for less than ten or twelve times that.

It is technically possible to grow bananas (a staple food?) in the UK - but it makes no economic sense since it is much cheaper to ask our friends in hot countries to grow them for us. The sooner we wean ourselves off hydrocarbons - yes, even gas - the better!

 

[Anthraquinone]

Where did anyone get the idea that there were plans to build a fusion reactor ??. These offer some hope for the energy crisis that is coming but are probably decades away from commercialisation. Any planned reactor will be based on fission. There was some recent talk about using a fission reactor to generate hydrogen for use as a fuel - perhaps that is were people got confused.

I am not sure it matters to much though while the world is almost certainly vastly overpopulated compared to the resources available. There is no way that the vast majority of the earths population can have living standards like the developed world has at the moment but that will not stop their efforts to achieve this and who can blame them. There are estimates of the sustainable population that range from 2 billion to 11 billion but no-one really knows. It is not just food and water that will be in short supply but many other raw including the rare earth elements that mainly come from China.

I will not be around to see what happens but my grand children probably will - and how will they look back on our generation.

We have seen how easily and rapidly things can be stirred up and degenerate by politicians only after their hold on power. If minor things like voting can cause this how much worse will it be if there is a real crisis that really effects the global population or the standard of living of the developed world.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

(I'll provide a summary of nat. gas fracking here...

....2006 or so, gas expensive - about $12 an MCF. Gas bill was high, but I'll admit it's a super lazy heat (the furnace doesn't even need cleaning, just inspection once in a while for heat exchanger issues)

fracking comes in and suddenly there are no hotel rooms in rural areas around here. quickly, the capacity gets so high that wells in process get put on hold.

gas now $2 an MCF (this is a fantastic price anywhere in an organized world). Heating bills slashed. If this doesn't help poor people, I don't know what does. It also makes my retirement account bigger and keeps electric rates in check.

Enormous amounts of coal generation here go offline, further improving air quality and greatly decreasing the issuance of steroid inhalers and such, etc (and allowing me to recover more easily from colds which can easily turn into bronchitis for me).

How this is bad for people, I have no idea. There was some mishandling of water on the surface early on and some fallacious movies about the plague of environmental damage and "flaming" kitchen water. For some reason, we see and hear none of that now - it was fantasy. I'm sure it's not pollution free, but nothing is. It's greatly improved the economy hear and provided low cost energy for everyone.

Air quality improved in the UK enormously in the 1970's and 80's as we made the transition from coal to "natural gas" from the North Sea - and we all benefited hugely from cleaner air (including the Scandinavians who objected to the 'acid rain' we created by burning sulphur-bearing coal downwind of them).

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I would never claim to know any more than "Jack sh** plus 1%" about the energy world, but it seems to me that whatever the pros or con's of e.g. fracking, it is still a carbon based non renewable source and is therefore probably not the best long term plan, whatever the advantage of cheap fuel - or have I missed something here? Genuine question.

You've missed nothing! The other point is that, as we are forced to exploit increasingly meagre resources (literally scraping the barrel, because all the easy pickings have been exploited already), we are on a curve of diminishing returns - each new barrel of oil becomes increasingly "expensive" (in resource/$/carbon-pollution terms) to extract.

 

[Jonm]

FAKE NEWS
The proposed Moorside Power Station is NOT experimental. It is of the PWR variety which is the world's most common design. We have one already at Sizewell and another under construction in Somerset, both much nearer London. What's more Londoners are only 100miles away from the largest, and now aging, nuclear station in western Europe - Gravelines which lies halfway between Calais and Dunkirk.
Fortunately we have learnt an awful lot from the Windscale, 3Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Of those 4 only 3MI was a PWR (an early American nuclear PS). The other 3 have all been abandoned as the basis of viable commercial and safe designs.
As Bill Gates said yesterday, the pandemic is a minor problem for man to solve in comparison to Global Warming and nuclear power will have to be part of the solution for the foreseeable future.
So you'd better get used to it, for our children's sake.
Brian

It is not “fake news”. Yes there is a proposal to build a third generation pressurised water reactor however, EDF energy have stated their intention to build Advanced Modular Reactors on the site, these are definately not PWR’s. If you look at my comments elsewhere on this post you will see my justification for this statement.