Fracking, Emissions and Energy Prices

Gas produces 60% less CO2 emissions than coal. It is also intrinsincally more versatile and far, far less costly to human society. The price of gas in the USA (due to an newly adopted extraction technique called fracking) is collapsing. This is the price of gas in the USA over the last year.
(Forbes article HERE - with graph for prev year from when you read this)

This is the graph on the day of the post

In fact due to a massive adoption of fracking, the USA has managed to markedly reduce it's carbon emmissions while simultaneously rebuilding it's economy. The USA is now, for the first time in 100 years a net exporter of hydrocarbons. They have made great strides to the American Holy Grail of energy independence. The USA is actually winning back industry due to it's low energy cost. The reduction in emission due to the adoption of gas for energy generation has buried any possible so-called "renewable" contribution in the noise.

Today, wind obsessed Europe, politically populated by fracking denialists languishes in perpetual economic crisis. Even Germany, which has been the biggest benificiery from the Euro Zone, (to the cost of just about every other Euro Zone member) suffers with a huge energy price penalty compared to USA. Although Germany at least, has managed to grow its economy,
it is significantly less than the USA. Just to rub salt into the wound the Germans are busily building Lignite burning coal power stations to replace their perfectly good (but highly unfashionable) nuclear plant. Emissions can go only one way.

Fracking can possibly provide us in the UK with similar cheap energy independence. It could provide us with the necessary backstop until someone in government gets enough balls to build the necessary nuclear infrastructure.

But until someone in authority actually gets up off their arse and starts getting a proper and detailed analysis of the fracking potential in the UK we will continue sliding down the slippery slope to where in a few years time there WILL be power cuts.

Looking at the bunch of comedians that pass for a government in this country, I think it is time we all started stocking up on candles.

So Who Supports Nuclear Now?

It is interesting to see exactly who has has changed their opinion on nuclear power.
(h/t to bravenewclimate HERE )

Here a subset from the Brave New Climate post. The BNC post is much more extensive than this but it includes many prominent people who are not seen as particularly "environmental".

I thought it might be interesting to dig the environmentalists and respected scientists out of the noise. (tell me if I missed anyone from the BNC post)

Why this subset? Simply because today many who see themselves as "environmentalists" are by default, anti-nuclear. They close their minds and blankly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that nuclear energy can ever be anything other than the demon of their nightmares.

They don't ever bother with looking at data. Their minds are closed.

Maybe the names below may trigger one or two of them to re-examine their position. After all, the luminaries below changed their position based on the evidence. Maybe their example may get others to examine their position and base their position on scientific fact rather than narrow minded hysteria or what they have been told to think.

Some of these folk are well known, other less so. All are influential and independently minded.

George Monbiot - World renowned environmental Journalist used to be rabidly anti nuclear. Started to see things differently in 2009 then became publicly (and vocally) supportative of nuclear in 2011.

Patrick Moore  Co-Founder of Greenpeace. (not the fat guy who studies the moon) I gather he is generally regarded as persona non grata by our green zealot friends now. Pro nuclear 2003.

Stephen Tindale Former Director of Greenpeace. About as popular with Greenpeace today
as Patrick Moore is. Pro nuclear 2009

Hugh Montifiore one of the founders of Friends of the Earth, FOE evidently regard him with
distinct unfriendliness today ( pro nuclear 2004)

Chris Goodall Green party activist, parliamentary candidate and author. Probably a ex-Green party activist by now.

Stewart Brand  Author of "Whole earth Catalog"

Mark Lynas author "Six degrees"

Chris Smith former Labour party chairman of the Environment Agency.

Prof James Lovelock FRS. Renowned environmentalist. Author giaia hypothesis

Prof David McKay FRS  renowned Physicist and author Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air.

Dr James Hansen world famous climatologist

Prof Barry Brook renowned environmental scientist.

Jared Diamond scientist and author

So how many have gone the other way? i.e. pro/neutral to anti?

According to the BNC there appears to be only one ...

Prof Ian Lowe President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, although he reckons he changed his opinion back in the 1970's so personally I don't think that counts.

A Fitting Place for a Wind Turbine

That is (of course) - In the ditch

(full story here: In The Journal )

To be fair, the thing is just as useless in the ditch as it would be if erected, but at least in the ditch it has a lower profile.

Sadly, this is not going to stop the desecration of Northumberland with these huge ugly, ineffective and eye wateringly subsidised fashion statements.

It should though, be quite entertaining to see how they get it out of the ditch.

Either way, it is going to be expensive. I expect the crane hire boys are already booking their Caribbean holidays on the fees they will get.

One thing the average carpet bagger must appreciate is that Northumberlanders really like to ensure people know how they feel. Espcially after they see their democratic decisions steamrollered by organisations that can (and do) buy their way through the law.

So some naughty Northumberland wag decided they would make things a little clearer to the parasites.

Graffitti is a criminal offence. While it seems that desecrating Northumberland and ripping off the whole country is perfectly acceptable.

Funny that isn't it?