Let's stop dabbling and let's get fracking.

Watch
username2766878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I think the case for fracking is clear and we must act now and start extracting the energy potential in this country. Some of our industries (like steel) are being crippled either solely or partially due to high energy costs, to remain an economically competitive country you need cheap fuel. If the thousands of jobs that could be created by fracking isn't enough of an incentive to get the hydraulic drills drilling, then think of energy security and sufficiency.

Why should the UK be forced to grant special geopolitical favours to oppressive Gulf monarchies, whose rulers at an impulse can manipulate the global price of crude oil, just to make sure our cars are filled with petrol? Why should the UK be forced to import a significant portion of its natural gas from Russia, a country whose recent spat with the West means that the flow of gas can be used as a pressure point against our government who have so decisively taken a stance in the Ukraine conflict (verbal if not anything tangible)? Why all that when we have such large untapped reservoirs of energy here at home? Sure by current technological standards only a few percentage points of the reserves might be available to extract (even that makes a huge difference to our balance of payments with regards to energy imports) but technology improves and I am confident it will do so if we allow the industry to get going.

The opponents of fracking cite safety as a key factor that they refuse to support it. But academic reviews from bodies like the Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Public Health UK, to name a few, have said that the health and environmental risks of fracking are low if properly regulated. Now of course I realise fracking is not a long term solution to our energy and I fully support the transition to clean energy which doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but fracking rather than being an obstruction to that target could actually aid it. How? The government could mandate a portion of the revenues gained from fracking be invested in clean energy. Not to mention that natural gas is cleaner than oil and coal, in the US carbon emissions actually fell by 450m tonnes because fracked gas substituted coal. Furthermore, we could set up a sovereign wealth fund if the industry turns out to be really successful, helping out with funding pensions or injecting cash into parts of the public sector which are struggling, or maybe even delivering a tax cut. What are we waiting for?
4
reply
John55
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
What possessed you to write all this a 3:36am?
0
reply
alkaline.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
how the fuk do people remember so much crap off by heart that they can write these argument-questions about it? ://
1
reply
Lemauricien
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I thought this said "let's stop dabbing"

Posted from TSR Mobile
3
reply
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I could see myself being pro fracking if it meant the few areas of wildlife we have left are protected but they will just end up being sold off for a few $$$

That and the monstrous hinkley point c being cancelled
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
I'm wholeheartedly in favour of fracking. There are however, the minor issues of the fact we should be cutting down on energy use, not digging more out of the ground, the fact that across the USA local ground water sources across the country have been contaminated by fracking and the harsh reality that fracking wells are rather short-term ventures and don't bring any significant benefits to their local communities. This is a classic case of the big business tail wagging the political dog against the will of the people who will suffer the consequences of it.

But other than those minor issues, bring it on.
0
reply
Trapz99
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Do you really think I'm going to bothering reading all that
3
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Now of course I realise fracking is not a long term solution to our energy and I fully support the transition to clean energy which doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but fracking rather than being an obstruction to that target could actually aid it. How? The government could mandate a portion of the revenues gained from fracking be invested in clean energy. Not to mention that natural gas is cleaner than oil and coal, in the US carbon emissions actually fell by 450m tonnes because fracked gas substituted coal. Furthermore, we could set up a sovereign wealth fund if the industry turns out to be really successful, helping out with funding pensions or injecting cash into parts of the public sector which are struggling, or maybe even delivering a tax cut. What are we waiting for?
IF I felt this was actually realistically going to happen then I would be a lot more supportive of fracking. But my fear is that fracking will just be used as an excuse to avoid renewable development, and will undermine it.

What we really need is a long term energy plan that guarantees that some tax money from fracking will be directed straight to renewables, so that fracking would be encouraging renewables development. But the Conservatives have repeatedly shown they don't give a flying **** about the environment, so I don't trust them to do any of this.
0
reply
andrewdwilliams
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, published in 2009, reported that "if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly." The IPCC's fifth report, which was published in 2014 but has been criticised as being too conservative, stipulated we will have to switch to mostly renewables by 2050, and completely phase out fossil fuels by 2100, in order to avoid "substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation."

I have not read much into the science of fracking, or the concerns and merits of it either. But my biggest gripe is that if we begin fracking on a large scale, we will set ourselves on a path that we cannot get off in time. The evidence seems to suggest there are greater things at stake than the UK's balance of payments (which appears to have been in deficit since 1998).
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by RF_PineMarten)
What we really need is a long term energy plan that guarantees that some tax money from fracking will be directed straight to renewables, so that fracking would be encouraging renewables development. But the Conservatives have repeatedly shown they don't give a flying **** about the environment, so I don't trust them to do any of this.
Don't give a ****? Except for the billions of pounds worth of renewables subsidies, I assume...

The Renewables Obligation and Contracts for Difference effectively do what you're suggesting in a coherent way.

(Original post by skeptical_john)
I could see myself being pro fracking if it meant the few areas of wildlife we have left are protected but they will just end up being sold off for a few $$$
What? There are enormous swathes of this country that are as wild as they come: the Highlands, the Yorkshire Moors, the Lake District, Snowdonia... need I really go on? Fracking takes place underground. It's surface use is very limited - far more limited than most renewables schemes.
0
reply
TercioOfParma
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by andrewdwilliams)
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, published in 2009, reported that "if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly." The IPCC's fifth report, which was published in 2014 but has been criticised as being too conservative, stipulated we will have to switch to mostly renewables by 2050, and completely phase out fossil fuels by 2100, in order to avoid "substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation."

I have not read much into the science of fracking, or the concerns and merits of it either. But my biggest gripe is that if we begin fracking on a large scale, we will set ourselves on a path that we cannot get off in time. The evidence seems to suggest there are greater things at stake than the UK's balance of payments (which appears to have been in deficit since 1998).
Ultimately, we need to buy time for efficient nuclear power. As good as solar panels and wind turbines are, they simply aren't all that efficient compared with fossil fuels and nuclear power.
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by TercioOfParma)
Ultimately, we need to buy time for efficient nuclear power. As good as solar panels and wind turbines are, they simply aren't all that efficient compared with fossil fuels and nuclear power.
on a cost/production basis wind/solar/tidal are all infinitely more efficient than fossil fuels.
0
reply
TercioOfParma
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Napp)
on a cost/production basis wind/solar/tidal are all infinitely more efficient than fossil fuels.
We use fossil fuels to make renewable power sources though.
0
reply
username2752874
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
I think the case for fracking is clear and we must act now and start extracting the energy potential in this country. Some of our industries (like steel) are being crippled either solely or partially due to high energy costs, to remain an economically competitive country you need cheap fuel. If the thousands of jobs that could be created by fracking isn't enough of an incentive to get the hydraulic drills drilling, then think of energy security and sufficiency.

Why should the UK be forced to grant special geopolitical favours to oppressive Gulf monarchies, whose rulers at an impulse can manipulate the global price of crude oil, just to make sure our cars are filled with petrol? Why should the UK be forced to import a significant portion of its natural gas from Russia, a country whose recent spat with the West means that the flow of gas can be used as a pressure point against our government who have so decisively taken a stance in the Ukraine conflict (verbal if not anything tangible)? Why all that when we have such large untapped reservoirs of energy here at home? Sure by current technological standards only a few percentage points of the reserves might be available to extract (even that makes a huge difference to our balance of payments with regards to energy imports) but technology improves and I am confident it will do so if we allow the industry to get going.

The opponents of fracking cite safety as a key factor that they refuse to support it. But academic reviews from bodies like the Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Public Health UK, to name a few, have said that the health and environmental risks of fracking are low if properly regulated. Now of course I realise fracking is not a long term solution to our energy and I fully support the transition to clean energy which doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but fracking rather than being an obstruction to that target could actually aid it. How? The government could mandate a portion of the revenues gained from fracking be invested in clean energy. Not to mention that natural gas is cleaner than oil and coal, in the US carbon emissions actually fell by 450m tonnes because fracked gas substituted coal. Furthermore, we could set up a sovereign wealth fund if the industry turns out to be really successful, helping out with funding pensions or injecting cash into parts of the public sector which are struggling, or maybe even delivering a tax cut. What are we waiting for?
You've been doing too many AQA Chemistry past papers.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by TercioOfParma)
We use fossil fuels to make renewable power sources though.
Last time I checked the sun/wind/oceans/rivers/heat of the earth and so on were not made by us nor by fossil fuels.
0
reply
TercioOfParma
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Napp)
Last time I checked the sun/wind/oceans/rivers/heat of the earth and so on were not made by us nor by fossil fuels.
No, but the turbines/solar panels/hydroelectric dams are made with fossil fuels. You need to smelt the iron and make the steel to make these things.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by TercioOfParma)
No, but the turbines/solar panels/hydroelectric dams are made with fossil fuels. You need to smelt the iron and make the steel to make these things.
Technically speaking they're made from ore but never the less a one time investment from a blast furnance and such is still infinitely more efficient than feeding coal/oil/gas into the furnance to make steam now isn't it.
0
reply
retardis
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Sorry to but in on such a serious conversation but I swear the thread title said dabbing not dabbling - I thought fracking was a new dance move :no:
0
reply
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by L i b)
What? There are enormous swathes of this country that are as wild as they come: the Highlands, the Yorkshire Moors, the Lake District, Snowdonia... need I really go on? Fracking takes place underground. It's surface use is very limited - far more limited than most renewables schemes.
I don't know if you've ever seen any of these 'vast swathes' for yourself but they are barren, lifeless wastelands. Farmed to death in most parts by sheep and weak farming methods.

And sure they are taking a resource from under ground but the infrastructure required to administer the fracking is vast. Just google a few of them in the US.
0
reply
TercioOfParma
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
Technically speaking they're made from ore but never the less a one time investment from a blast furnance and such is still infinitely more efficient than feeding coal/oil/gas into the furnance to make steam now isn't it.
It depends I think, these things do break, and sometimes quite quickly. It takes a lot of steel to make a wind turbine.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (85)
14.05%
I'm not sure (27)
4.46%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (190)
31.4%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.15%
I'm not a current university student (290)
47.93%

Watched Threads

View All