Fracking given the go-ahead in Lancashire despite local opposition(101 Posts)
Can't say it is surprising news. As soon as the government announced they were 'taking the decision away' from the local council who rejected fracking it was a foregone conclusion - why else would they do that after all.
But is absolutely infuriating. What kind of democracy are they still claiming we have in this country of the 'mother of parliaments'. Not to mention, of course, the reason for the initial local rejection, the environmental impact of fracking. Or the general attitude to people who don't live in the rich south-east.
This is a link from a local news source which gives some more background
"Our parish council, our borough council, our county council all threw out this application."
Energy security is rightly a national decision, obviously some locals dont like it but we can only drill where the gas is. Its makes no environmental or financial sense what so ever to import gas from the other side of the world.
I can't begin to explain how much this infuriates me
mathsmum it has little to do with energy security or renewables would be more pushed. I was pleased to hear about the go ahead for a big new windfarm off the Yorkshire coast, but let's face it it was the first good news for a while. Subsidies have never been anything like as high for renewables as they were for nuclear (Hinckley Point anyone?) and have been cut.
"Some locals don't like it", no, not when it is always the north and never the rich south east being abused and exploited. You also missed the point about all of the councils throwing the application out. This is not just 'some locals'. It's the vast majority of the native population.
Whilst you rant about the rich south...don't forget we have oil wells in Poole Harbour... As in just across the water from the most expensive propety in the country outside Mayfair...
Look on Google earth... it is clear as daylight from the sky.
As to the locals objecting. They should put their money where their mouths are and disconnect themselves from the national grid and live of renewable energy only.. Oh and not buy anything made from petrochemicals, or eat food produced using nitrogen fixed fertiliser.
Otherwise they are simple hypocrites... Everything is OK when the oil that powers their lives comes from next to someone elses home... but it i s a different matter if it comes from near them.
"disconnect themselves from the national grid and live on renewable energy only"
Yes, if you have the money to put the renewables in place. Unfortunately very few individuals can do that. We rely on communal purchasing power for most things, only the powers-that-be have been demolishing the capacity of people to act in concert for some time.
You also need to check where the vast majority of energy in the country is currently coming from. Where are the gas fields based, for the most part? Southerners trying to accuse people in the north of nimbyism is beyond rich.
The government, based in London, has been steadily stripping resources out of the rest of the country for some time. Stripping energy out of the north and demolishing the environment while refusing to give us any infrastructure back is not a long-term sustainable path. The social contracts are being broken all over the place. Your smug arrogance will come back to haunt you if things carry on like this.
The locals are objecting because they know the local area. As I understand it, lancashire CC threw out the planning application mainly because of transport issues - large waste wagons, small lanes. Plain simple logistical problems, which Cuadrilla afaik hasn't adequately addressed. Only one of the sites has been approved, the final decision on the other has 'been delayed to allow cuadrilla to give more evidence on the traffic impact'. Hm, that sounds a bit one-sided.
There are major long term problems with fracking that have not been addressed, that cannot be addressed. It was abandoned in the Uk to begin with because the initial explorations near Blackpool caused localised earthquakes. There is also the fact that most fossil fuels need to be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming, and that has been known for some time www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30709211.
How long can the government and the rich individuals they represent ignore facts and science, in all the economic, social and environmental fields, for fgs?
If you want to read one book this year, make it "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. It's a little outdated in one or two areas but the central thesis is sound. Britain of all countries should know that, we have been here before.
Hm, that sounds a bit one-sided
Until you realise that other parties to this decision have also been given further time to make representations.
Fracking or hydraulic Fracturing is actually very safe and any environmental risk is mitigated by multiple layers of controls. The hysteric left will have you believe that this will be the end of the north west - not so. It leaves a small footprint and will secure our energy requirements for years to come. Don't believe they hype from Corbyn
Oh ffs. Look this seems to be a reasonably balanced article from Yale Uni on the actual dangers involved in the process environment.yale.edu/envy/stories/fracking-outpaces-science-on-its-impact
You will note it does not go into the climate science. Fortnum are you going to dispute climate change? In the area of the country that saw substantial flooding just last year?
Renewable energy could secure our energy requirements for a much much longer time with much much lower footprints.
It might be time to remind you who our government is actually working for. It certainly isn't me and other ordinary people, and don't think they won't abandon you when it suits them either. It's a little old but I don't doubt it's still a reasonably accurate portrayal. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-fracking-industry-bosses-at-heart-of-coalition-8707589.html
Phr47 - good, I'd hoped that would be the case. Though I'm not sure the other side would have more evidence as such (nope - that lane is still as narrow as it was... nope, you still cant see round those bends in the section which would need passing places, that'll be fun when your wagon meets a tractor... nope, the other possible way still has that canal bridge.... or whatever).
it has little to do with energy security
In 2003, we were a net exporter of gas. By 2030 we expect to be importing close to 75% of the gas we consume. By making the most of our home-grown gas we can safeguard our own domestic supply whilst also cutting our carbon emissions.
Subsidies have never been anything like as high for renewables as they were for nuclear, Hinckley Point anyone?
Barring miraculous breakthroughs in energy storage technology within the next few years or a populace that is willing to freeze in the dark when the sun doesn’t shine it is simply not possible to replace baseload generation from Hinkley with intermittent solar power.
offshore wind is currently more expensive and that a rise in wholesale prices would cut the implied subsidy in future.
We rely on communal purchasing power for most things
Your trying to have it both ways, either its a communal countrywide energy policy or locals have the ultimate say and force them to buy their own solar/wind farms they dont even want.
Unfortunately very few individuals can do that (go off grid)
Not true, there are plenty of people who live 'off grid', you can buy solar panels for several hundred pounds but I don't think you would be to happy to give up your hot baths in the winter.
You also need to check where the vast majority of energy in the country is currently coming from
We import 40-50% of it
initial explorations near Blackpool caused localised earthquakes
Big deal, earthquakes occur all the time, so a chair fell over... we aren't talking Fukushima.
fossil fuels need to be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming
So we give money to other countries to frack gas, use lots of energy to liquefy it, ship it across the worlds Oceans (polluting them) just so we can say 'aren't we environmentally friendly'. Again
It might be time to remind you who our government is actually working for
Yea employ people in dictatorships to produce our energy overseas or employ people in THIS country to produce our energy. Yea, who are you working for?
The solution is easy, shale, nuclear and renewables until some miraculous time in the future when windmills and sunshine can produce 100% of our needs, 100% of the time, 24 hours a day 365.25 days of the year.
I'd be more convinced it was so simple if the company involved could do a mundane thing like working out the logistics of their waste management from their sites.
I'm not opposed to fracking per se. I'm not opposed things being being in my 'backyard' if they are done properly. For instance, theres a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant quite near to the fracking sites, unobtrusively doing its job - I'm not sure how many people even know its there. But having something imposed against the decision of the local planning authority... unless the reasons for the rejection have been adequately addressed (afaik this has no happened) then hell, yes I'm opposed to that.
You are very naughty..
You must never allow hard facts to interrupt people like Bungle when they are having a rant.
Now go to the top of the class for being a smartarse...
unless the reasons for the rejection have been adequately addressed
The site that has been approved (Preston New Road) was initially rejected by Lancashire on grounds of visual impact and unacceptable noise. There was a public inquiry following which the inspector recommended that the application for this site should be accepted subject to a long list of conditions (covering 12 pages) including stipulations around noise control and visual impact. The inspector was of the view that these conditions reduced the visual and noise impact to acceptable levels. The government has accepted the inspector's recommendations.
The inspector recommended rejection of the planning application for drilling at the other site (Roseacre Hall) on highway safety grounds, which is why Lancashire rejected it in the first place. The government has given all parties time to make further submissions on this subject. They say they are minded to grant planning permission subject to conditions (running currently to 13 pages but could get longer) provided they are satisfied that the highway safety issues identified by the inspector can be satisfactorily addressed.
So, in summary, the inspector thinks that the reasons for rejection of Preston New Road have been adequately addressed. The government has said they will only approve Roseacre Hall if they are satisfied that the reasons for rejection have been adequately addressed.
Of course, others may disagree with the inspector and/or the government as to whether or not the issues have been adequately addressed.
anon you're characterisation of my position as requiring us to ship energy in from other countries is plainly ridiculous when I'm clearly asking for localised renewable energy generation which will generate local jobs and support local economies at much lower environmental costs.
The single biggest energy reserve we have in this country is tidal, we have one of the biggest marine energy resources in the world, and it has not been touched.
Saying that renewables cannot compete is nothing more than an excuse. In Germany they were generating 100% of their energy supplies for some days over the summer. That success can be built on, and more importantly, it must. Battery technology is improving all the time. If renewables had been offered the kind of support given to the hinkley point project we'd be in a much better place already.
It is not just a matter of saying "look how environmentally friendly we are". It is a matter of avoiding catastrophic environmental warming which will kill millions, perhaps billions, around the world. Including several in Britain. But carry on, don't let little things like life - and "facts", professor - get in the way of vested rich interests making more money for themselves.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money.”
Oh, and the idea that it's perfectly easy to live off-grid because a few individuals can afford so,ar panels costing only several hundred pounds just shows which world you're living in. In mine, several hundred is what most of us struggle to pay to our landlords each month. It is you, and people like you, who have the power to make most change. And this is how you choose to use it.
Would you force wind/solar/tidal farms on local residents?
Wind, Solar and Tidal electricity is intermittent so renewable energy needs storage, where do you propose we store all this energy? The technology does not currently exist that can store enough electricity for base load. We are talking, orders of magnitude more storage needed than what we could do now, if it was even possible. Its not just a matter of building a really big Duracell battery.
That is why we need a guaranteed BASE LOAD from carbon free nuclear and low carbon shale gas, creating local jobs and giving us energy security.
In Germany they were generating 100% of their energy supplies for some days over the summer you forgot the end of that sentence, which is: but we’re unlikely to see clean energy supply 100 percent of generation anytime soon.
2011-2015 Germany opened 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. This is more new coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The expected annual electricity production of just these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined. Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer.
Wind, Solar and Tidal produces ELECTRICITY. British manufacturing needs GAS, so even if renewables could be stored to produce 100% base load then we would still need to import gas. Face Palm
It is a matter of avoiding catastrophic environmental warming
I agree and the answer is to use carbon free nuclear and low carbon shale, NOT to go down the renewable route like Germany and having to build loads of new coal powered stations which will be very polluting for the next 50 years.
BungoWomble If you put a tent up in the forest you could use the money you save on rent to pay for a solar panel and be off grid, stop making excuses. You really just love your hot baths like me and would never risk our energy security.
So I say again we either frack our own Shale or we will have to import more and more of it. There is currently NO alternative.
I would give local areas control over where they placed the electricty generation methods they needed. That is why Germany has had such success with renewable energy - it is local government taking back control of necessary energy production. I gather they are building coal stations as well for export of energy. If we were all more self-sufficient via renewables there would be no export market.
If we cannot find places to store energy we will struggle even more to find places to store nuclear waste for a few 10s of thousands of years.
If business wants gas that desperately they will have to find more innovative solutions for harnessing waste gas we produce elsewhere. Obviously hook up here to the internet, or follow Wyke farm's example (https://wykefarms.com/green/) . Assuming they actually want some people with money to do business with. Shale gas is not a low environmental cost and it is not sustainable.
Bungo, the issue with storing the energy from renewables isn't the 'place' as such, its that we simply don't have appropriate technology to do it on a large scale. But that doesn't mean theres still not plenty of scope for more renewables in an intelligent mix....not to mention more emphasis on reduction in energy usage.
I'm not happy about this, but tbh I knew immediately that one of the consequences of the brexit vote was that lancashire would be fracked whether we agree with it or not. And if it was a choice between fracking and more nuclear (the stats on catastrophe aren't acceptable imo in a small island) I'd frack my backyard.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.