-   Off-Topic Tech (
-   -   Fracking ban. (

JockoT 10-03-2017 10:46 AM

Fracking ban.
Scotland's government has decided to continue the ban of Fracking, in force since 2015, indefinitely. They are also continuing the ban on all forms of USG (Underground Coal Gasification). 99% of Scots, who responded to the consultation were against USG or Fracking. Central Scotland sits on vast stores of coal and shale. Back in the second half of the 19th century the shale industry was huge and in the early 20th Century Scotland produced 2% of the world's oil. As with elsewhere, Scotland's shale industry closed down with the influx of cheap oil from the Middle East.
The Scottish SNP government, along with most of the people of Scotland, has decided that renewables are the future, and are investing heavily in renewable energy. In 2015, Scotland generated 59% of its electricity consumption through renewable sources, exceeding the country's lofty goal of 50% renewable energy by 2015. Moving forward, the Scottish Government's energy plan calls for 100% of electricity consumption to be generated through renewable sources by 2020, and 50% of total energy consumption (including transportation) by 2030.

oil pan 4 10-03-2017 10:56 AM

That's too bad. Hydraulic fracturing has worked great here.
It has cut the price of natural gas down to between 1/2 to even as low as 1/3 of its peak price and extended natural gas supply from 10 to 20 years to well over 100 years, even with growing demand.

redpoint5 10-03-2017 11:19 AM

Where is the majority of that renewable energy coming from, and how does the grid balance discrepancies in supply and demand?

I've heard it said that the US can't handle more than about 20% renewable energy before it becomes problematic to balance supply vs demand. There is no storage infrastructure here, so production has to exactly equal demand at all times. Any excess production is wasted right back to the ground.

oil pan 4 10-03-2017 11:45 AM

Strangely enough the thing that will allow more renewable power to come on line in the US will be fast acting natural gas turbine power plants that can go from shutdown to full power in under an hour. These plants obviously burn natural gas and fill gaps in demand left by renewables.

In theory you could just build so much wind power capacity that when production is met excess wind turbines go into idle.
In the United states we call that a waste of money.

JockoT 10-03-2017 11:58 AM

We have wind, solar, tidal and hydro power. We also have pumped storage hydro schemes, which return the water back up the mountains when the wind is blowing! Any excess we produce we sell to England, so we can build enough wind turbines to more than meet out needs and sell the extra when we don't need it ourselves.

Xist 10-03-2017 11:59 AM

Huh. This is not what I was expecting:
I read that the instability of renewable energy required European power companies to burn more coal instead of (I think!) natural gas because those plants were able to keep up with rapid changes.

Burning more coal had the expected result.

I tried again and still did not find anything, but that above article states that wood is considered a renewable resource.


That article states that many claim that it is carbon-neutral because the carbon is stored in the trees, you burn it, and then trees regrow and absorb the carbon back! It is the circle, the circle of carbon!

I like trees! Let them absorb carbon and pick on someone else!

But wait!

and there was much rejoicing!


All hands! Brace for impact!

Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker - AEI


It’s a common mistake of politicians and the media to treat jobs as an economic benefit, when in fact, jobs are an economic cost or price of production. As Milton Friedman explained nearly 40 years ago, the appropriate economic objective is to have the fewest number of workers producing the greatest amount of output.

redpoint5 10-03-2017 12:37 PM

Well, I pay $0.08 USD per kWh. What is the price in Scotland? I'm like 65% hydro, and probably more since the bulk of my energy consumption is off-peak.

JockoT 10-03-2017 01:16 PM

We pay $0.19 USD per kWh.

JockoT 10-03-2017 01:24 PM

Scotland has one peat burning plant (in my opinion, worse than coal), one biomass wood, one biomass poultry litter, one landfill gas and one from waste recycling. So they are all burning stuff, which does nothing for the planet.

Xist 10-03-2017 01:54 PM

"It can take 20 years for a forest to recover from a hurricane." Forests Can Handle Hurricanes, Unless Humans Interfere - Atlas Obscura

"One 2007 study found that the amount of carbon lost in Hurricane Katrina could be equivalent to all of the carbon U.S. forests normally absorb in year’s time."

"Even in a drought year, when forests capture less carbon, the boost provided by a cyclone can help forests soak up more carbon than all the vehicles in the U.S. emit in a year."

The Rodeo–Chediski Fire still has not recovered from fifteen years ago. If I ever move out there, I want to try to plant some trees. Otherwise, my goodness that would be a long drive to do that!

This was what I wanted!


As well as acting as a barrier against tsunamis, cyclones and hurricanes, mangrove forests provide society with a range of other 'ecological services'. These include preventing coastal erosion, protecting coral reefs from silting up, and providing a source of timber, food and traditional medicines.
Mangrove forests 'can reduce impact of tsunamis' - SciDev.Net

It sounds like we need more mangrove forests.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright