You call that a hook? It's made of nothing more substantial than whimsy. Even you must surely notice that you can never find anyone to agree with you about anything. Your allegation of a violation of a fundamental law of physics by the IPCC was a particularly flagrant example of that, but it seems to apply to everything you say, on any topic.
If I was wrong you'd be able to show that I was wrong.
Instead you wriggle and back peddle in vain attempt to save face.
If I was wrong you'd be able to show that I was wrong.
Instead you wriggle and back peddle in vain attempt to save face.
The idea that I have "back-peddled" is another of your fantasies. And nobody can ever show you that you are wrong in a way that will convince you, because you are in a permanent state of denial - as with the IPCC SLOT claim, which only you (out of all the people on the planet) are able to see.
"The (Conservative and Liberal Democrat) Government is to announce plans to offer up vast swathes of Britain for fracking. The so-called “14th onshore licensing round”which will invite companies to bid for the rights to explore in as-yet untouched parts of the country, could lead to thousands of new fracking wells, it is understood............Mr Hancock wants to speed up the time it takes for companies to get approval to drill for shale gas. At present firms have to wait around 15 months for permission to drill but Mr Hancock wants to half (sic) that ahead of the election.
“The new guidance published today will protect Britain’s great national parks and outstanding landscapes. Building on the existing rules that ensure operational best practices are implemented and robustly enforced,” Mr Hancock said.......... As part of the new planning rules, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, will intervene if a fracking company appeals against a decision by a local authority not to grant a shale gas exploration application. It means companies will be less likely to bully local communities into granting applications using the threat of legal action.
CPRE said: “[We] will want to look at the details of this new round of licencing, but this change in rhetoric is very welcome. The Government has previously stoked opposition by giving the impression that it is committed to fracking whatever the consequence and however beautiful the location. If fracking is to happen, we need to proceed with great caution and the highest possible safeguards. There is also a need to differentiate between shale oil and shale gas. While there are strong arguments that shale gas can be less damaging than alternatives such as coal.............shale oil should not be exploited anywhere in the UK, and certainly not in protected areas.”"
"The (Conservative and Liberal Democrat) Government is to announce plans to offer up vast swathes of Britain for fracking. The so-called “14th onshore licensing round”which will invite companies to bid for the rights to explore in as-yet untouched parts of the country, could lead to thousands of new fracking wells, it is understood............Mr Hancock wants to speed up the time it takes for companies to get approval to drill for shale gas. At present firms have to wait around 15 months for permission to drill but Mr Hancock wants to half (sic) that ahead of the election.
“The new guidance published today will protect Britain’s great national parks and outstanding landscapes. Building on the existing rules that ensure operational best practices are implemented and robustly enforced,” Mr Hancock said.......... As part of the new planning rules, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, will intervene if a fracking company appeals against a decision by a local authority not to grant a shale gas exploration application. It means companies will be less likely to bully local communities into granting applications using the threat of legal action.
CPRE said: “[We] will want to look at the details of this new round of licencing, but this change in rhetoric is very welcome. The Government has previously stoked opposition by giving the impression that it is committed to fracking whatever the consequence and however beautiful the location. If fracking is to happen, we need to proceed with great caution and the highest possible safeguards. There is also a need to differentiate between shale oil and shale gas. While there are strong arguments that shale gas can be less damaging than alternatives such as coal.............shale oil should not be exploited anywhere in the UK, and certainly not in protected areas.”"
Why is it The so-called “14th onshore licensing round and not just The 14th onshore licensing round. Did the previous 13 rounds never happen, or is there some other reason you are casting doubt on its existence?
Why is it The so-called “14th onshore licensing round and not just The 14th onshore licensing round. Did the previous 13 rounds never happen, or is there some other reason you are casting doubt on its existence?
It is a direct quote from the Telegraph article in the link.
In fact, it all is - including "half" as a verb. Personally, I would have used "halve".
Thanks for the warning! I will keep hitting F5 until your eagerly awaited post appears!
;-)
By the way, did anyone else hear on Radio 4 this morning that Solar Panel firms will be advised to stop only installing panels on South facing roof as these generate most power at mid-day, when demand is low.
Panels facing East or West generate less power, but spread the supply from solar so are more useful. They need to adjust the tariffs if they want people to listen, otherwise people will just keep pushing power into the grid when it isn't needed.
Thanks for the warning! I will keep hitting F5 until your eagerly awaited post appears!
;-)
By the way, did anyone else hear on Radio 4 this morning that Solar Panel firms will be advised to stop only installing panels on South facing roof as these generate most power at mid-day, when demand is low.
Panels facing East or West generate less power, but spread the supply from solar so are more useful. They need to adjust the tariffs if they want people to listen, otherwise people will just keep pushing power into the grid when it isn't needed.
I'd like to see the source of this because south facing panels generate electricity from 6am to 6pm, albeit most is at noon, but it will still be significant from about 9am-3pm. A southeast facing panel would produce power from dawn to 3pm but most would be at 9am, when the sun is still relatively low. East or west facing panels are useless for half the day.
I'd like to see the source of this because south facing panels generate electricity from 6am to 6pm, albeit most is at noon, but it will still be significant from about 9am-3pm. A southeast facing panel would produce power from dawn to 3pm but most would be at 9am, when the sun is still relatively low. East or west facing panels are useless for half the day.
The Today Program, this morning. Sorry, I didn't catch the names of any of the speakers.
Yes I heard the R4 item on solar panels. Apparently this came up in Germany where there are a lot more solar panels and so they want to spread out the mid-day peak.
If they start installing them to face other directions to spread the mid-day 'generating peak' how will it affect ofsetting the value of generated power in tarriffs? Existing installations will continue to generate more kWh but less usefully at peak times and benefit financially, while newer installations would face, say south-east or south-west, generate less power and income and be less popular. They'll need to adjust tarriffs.
The Today Program, this morning. Sorry, I didn't catch the names of any of the speakers.
Figures. The London-centric media types assuming the Sun rises in the South. cAGW hasn't weirded reality quite that much.
They vaguely have a point. Installations would be done to maximise profit not in response to actual demand. But then that's always been a fundamental flaw with solar and wind. Solar will generate money.. I mean power during the day while the house may be empty and demand low, but unless combined with storage, does nothing to help the evening peak. Especially in Winter.
Yes I heard the R4 item on solar panels. Apparently this came up in Germany where there are a lot more solar panels and so they want to spread out the mid-day peak.
If they start installing them to face other directions to spread the mid-day 'generating peak' how will it affect ofsetting the value of generated power in tarriffs? Existing installations will continue to generate more kWh but less usefully at peak times and benefit financially, while newer installations would face, say south-east or south-west, generate less power and income and be less popular. They'll need to adjust tarriffs.
Exactly the point I made earlier.
People will not willingly generate less electricity unless there is an incentive to generate power at useful times of the day. Tariff adjustment is needed, not just a change in guidance.
Thanks for the warning! I will keep hitting F5 until your eagerly awaited post appears!
;-)
By the way, did anyone else hear on Radio 4 this morning that Solar Panel firms will be advised to stop only installing panels on South facing roof as these generate most power at mid-day, when demand is low.
Panels facing East or West generate less power, but spread the supply from solar so are more useful. They need to adjust the tariffs if they want people to listen, otherwise people will just keep pushing power into the grid when it isn't needed.
Thanks very much. One does one's best. My first comment? Just to hear the word "fracking" and a big black cloud descends. Then there is an even bigger black cloud on the realisation that a big black cloud is a million times more pleasant than fracking itself. I will do this in three ways - hard line, curmudgeonly compromise, and thankful. To be hard line, my strong preference is for no fracking. My second choice is for it to only occur alongside pre-designated networked/industrial corridors, something which the Government hasn't done with the scope in today's licencing. And I haven't got a preferred third option. That is it - so it certainly shouldn't be fast tracked as is now occurring.
What ordinary people need to know is that almost all who were in a previously licenced area remain so and millions who weren't previously in a licenced area are so from today. For everyone in those areas, be they buying or renting property, their local roads could soon be choc-a-bloc - add an extra half hour onto your daily journey at least - and their local environment could become grim. Actually, grimmer than grim. For those lucky enough to be home owners or paying a mortgage, they are now in a position where the value of their property could fall dramatically, pushing some into negative equity, and where their options for moving home are to be in any case constrained.
Remember that advert years ago when a happy couple danced out of an estate agents with keys? The smiles always made the task of it seem easier than it tends to be. But now, if their purchase is in any part of one half of the country, then from the outset they are potentially buying a hell hole. And many who want to trade up at any time - or down - will need to get on their bikes. That is, to find a region where noise, dirt and floodlight, industrialisation, health hazard and visual blight are not likely to occur just around the corner. Yes. The Coalition has just killed home owning democracy as we know it, building on the half it murdered by making much home buying unaffordable.
On curmudgeonly compromise, the good news is that everyone whose lives are to be so blighted will at least have some sort of pressure release. They will be able to escape to the National Parks and - I really hope from the words that have been uttered today - also the AONBs for a moment's respite. Some who are not tied to an area because of work and schools may even decide to spend most of the year in a caravan in such places and largely abandon whatever is left of their actual home. As Caroline Lucas says, the fact that fracking has not been completely ruled out even there is a scandal but that it should take place only in exceptional circumstances is at least something. And, yes, from a position currently in the South East, I really do hope that will help to protect not only the South Downs but the North York Moors, the Jurassic Coast and many other fabulous places we can still call Britain.
One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that semi-cosy Mr Pickles is probably in post only until next May. A majority Tory Government from 2015 will almost certainly lead to a new Secretary of State who is to the countryside what Netanyahu is to Gaza. Plus there is now an industry pal at the head of the Environment Agency to do the deals. Labour? Don't forget it was Lord Smith who was in favour of fracking in the National Parks so at most, I think, we can say that their policy from today is identical to that of the Coalition. And then you have the BBC pitching in with their Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin claiming: "If environmentalists succeed in stopping fracking in the UK by stirring up local objections they will actually make the greenhouse effect worse in the short term." Clearly he needs a few lessons on the impacts of methane unless misinformation has been ordered.
On the thanks, to Michael Meacher and Hilary Benn for designating the New Forest and the South Downs National Parks. I don't live in either but fully appreciate that their actions could well have made a significant difference to their future. To CPRE, who I have for a long time supported, for their efforts and the National Trust for changing their minds. To Greenpeace, obviously, and especially to the Green Party which I hope will battle long and hard to protect all of the environment from this madness for all of the general public. Currently our thoughts are with the good people of Belcoo in Northern Ireland in their resistance to the brutal war that has been declared on them.
Thanks very much. One does one's best. My first comment? Just to hear the word "fracking" and a big black cloud descends.
Just an observation, but every time there is a discussion on energy or the climate, Black Cloud descends with utter bilge and pseudo-science poppycock.
You have obviously made your mind up based on emotional arguments rather than facts or knowledge, so there is little point in explaining (yet again) the basis for fraccing and why it will be low risk in the UK. I suppose it's much better to rely on gas from places like Russia and Qatar, where the supply is guaranteed for decades to come
Just an observation, but every time there is a discussion on energy or the climate, Black Cloud descends with utter bilge and pseudo-science poppycock.
You have obviously made your mind up based on emotional arguments rather than facts or knowledge, so there is little point in explaining (yet again) the basis for fraccing and why it will be low risk in the UK. I suppose it's much better to rely on gas from places like Russia and Qatar, where the supply is guaranteed for decades to come
I would be in favour of relying on Russia and Qatar, yes, plus Norway, Canada and even the United States if I really had to as they have to do something with their monstrous glut. The location of the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 should stand. The US and the EU need to immediately repair the damage they have deliberately caused in relations with Russia. And then we might have a good interim energy mix that will sustain us until political enlightenment and technological advancement. Ultimately they should also provide us with some sort of decent fall back position.
Just an observation, but every time there is a discussion on energy or the climate, Black Cloud descends with utter bilge and pseudo-science poppycock.
Damn. You beat me to it...
Regarding fraccing; do you have a view on why the major oil and gas companies don't seem that interested in exploration in the UK? Do they fear brand damage due to public opposition, or do they just doubt its viability?
Regarding fraccing; do you have a view on why the major oil and gas companies don't seem that interested in exploration in the UK? Do they fear brand damage due to public opposition, or do they just doubt its viability?
Small, low value in the near term. Better to invest money in big projects elsewhere in the world. If it's successful, then the majors will move in if the returns are high enough.
Small companies with low overheads can make the opening moves in basins like this which are low cost to develop. The daily overheads of a company like BP or Shell are massive so they need big projects to keep going.
Small, low value in the near term. Better to invest money in big projects elsewhere in the world. If it's successful, then the majors will move in if the returns are high enough.
Small companies with low overheads can make the opening moves in basins like this which are low cost to develop. The daily overheads of a company like BP or Shell are massive so they need big projects to keep going.
Perhaps fracking could take place at beautiful Tar Sands?
Small, low value in the near term. Better to invest money in big projects elsewhere in the world. If it's successful, then the majors will move in if the returns are high enough.
Small companies with low overheads can make the opening moves in basins like this which are low cost to develop. The daily overheads of a company like BP or Shell are massive so they need big projects to keep going.
Very similar to the pharmaceutical industry. Small companies do the high risk experimental work and big companies move in where the results look positive.
I would be in favour of relying on Russia and Qatar, yes, plus Norway, Canada and even the United States if I really had to as they have to do something with their monstrous glut. The location of the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 should stand. The US and the EU need to immediately repair the damage they have deliberately caused in relations with Russia. And then we might have a good interim energy mix that will sustain us until political enlightenment and technological advancement. Ultimately they should also provide us with some sort of decent fall back position.
Buying gas from Qatar means we fund terrorism.
Buying gas from Qatar, the US or Canada means it has to be transported by sea, which is probably more risky than fracking. Have you considered what would happen if a shipload of gas decided to explode at a port?
Comments
If I was wrong you'd be able to show that I was wrong.
Instead you wriggle and back peddle in vain attempt to save face.
Depends how much mainstream science you ignore to conclude they're not economically viable.
“The new guidance published today will protect Britain’s great national parks and outstanding landscapes. Building on the existing rules that ensure operational best practices are implemented and robustly enforced,” Mr Hancock said.......... As part of the new planning rules, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, will intervene if a fracking company appeals against a decision by a local authority not to grant a shale gas exploration application. It means companies will be less likely to bully local communities into granting applications using the threat of legal action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10994412/National-parks-to-be-protected-from-fracking-Government-says.html
CPRE said: “[We] will want to look at the details of this new round of licencing, but this change in rhetoric is very welcome. The Government has previously stoked opposition by giving the impression that it is committed to fracking whatever the consequence and however beautiful the location. If fracking is to happen, we need to proceed with great caution and the highest possible safeguards. There is also a need to differentiate between shale oil and shale gas. While there are strong arguments that shale gas can be less damaging than alternatives such as coal.............shale oil should not be exploited anywhere in the UK, and certainly not in protected areas.”"
Why is it The so-called “14th onshore licensing round and not just The 14th onshore licensing round. Did the previous 13 rounds never happen, or is there some other reason you are casting doubt on its existence?
It is a direct quote from the Telegraph article in the link.
In fact, it all is - including "half" as a verb. Personally, I would have used "halve".
Thanks for the warning! I will keep hitting F5 until your eagerly awaited post appears!
;-)
By the way, did anyone else hear on Radio 4 this morning that Solar Panel firms will be advised to stop only installing panels on South facing roof as these generate most power at mid-day, when demand is low.
Panels facing East or West generate less power, but spread the supply from solar so are more useful. They need to adjust the tariffs if they want people to listen, otherwise people will just keep pushing power into the grid when it isn't needed.
I'd like to see the source of this because south facing panels generate electricity from 6am to 6pm, albeit most is at noon, but it will still be significant from about 9am-3pm. A southeast facing panel would produce power from dawn to 3pm but most would be at 9am, when the sun is still relatively low. East or west facing panels are useless for half the day.
The Today Program, this morning. Sorry, I didn't catch the names of any of the speakers.
I'm sure its available on iPlayer.
If they start installing them to face other directions to spread the mid-day 'generating peak' how will it affect ofsetting the value of generated power in tarriffs? Existing installations will continue to generate more kWh but less usefully at peak times and benefit financially, while newer installations would face, say south-east or south-west, generate less power and income and be less popular. They'll need to adjust tarriffs.
Figures. The London-centric media types assuming the Sun rises in the South. cAGW hasn't weirded reality quite that much.
They vaguely have a point. Installations would be done to maximise profit not in response to actual demand. But then that's always been a fundamental flaw with solar and wind. Solar will generate money.. I mean power during the day while the house may be empty and demand low, but unless combined with storage, does nothing to help the evening peak. Especially in Winter.
Eh? It rises in the east and is at it's strongest when in the south.
I think you'll find it's not just in London this happens but in most if not all of the areas covered by this advice.
Exactly the point I made earlier.
People will not willingly generate less electricity unless there is an incentive to generate power at useful times of the day. Tariff adjustment is needed, not just a change in guidance.
Thanks for quoting Jellied Eel, I have him on ignore for some reason!
Didn't you know the sun rises in the South for media types, in the West for manual workers, the North for Civil Servants and East for everyone else?
Thanks very much. One does one's best. My first comment? Just to hear the word "fracking" and a big black cloud descends. Then there is an even bigger black cloud on the realisation that a big black cloud is a million times more pleasant than fracking itself. I will do this in three ways - hard line, curmudgeonly compromise, and thankful. To be hard line, my strong preference is for no fracking. My second choice is for it to only occur alongside pre-designated networked/industrial corridors, something which the Government hasn't done with the scope in today's licencing. And I haven't got a preferred third option. That is it - so it certainly shouldn't be fast tracked as is now occurring.
What ordinary people need to know is that almost all who were in a previously licenced area remain so and millions who weren't previously in a licenced area are so from today. For everyone in those areas, be they buying or renting property, their local roads could soon be choc-a-bloc - add an extra half hour onto your daily journey at least - and their local environment could become grim. Actually, grimmer than grim. For those lucky enough to be home owners or paying a mortgage, they are now in a position where the value of their property could fall dramatically, pushing some into negative equity, and where their options for moving home are to be in any case constrained.
Remember that advert years ago when a happy couple danced out of an estate agents with keys? The smiles always made the task of it seem easier than it tends to be. But now, if their purchase is in any part of one half of the country, then from the outset they are potentially buying a hell hole. And many who want to trade up at any time - or down - will need to get on their bikes. That is, to find a region where noise, dirt and floodlight, industrialisation, health hazard and visual blight are not likely to occur just around the corner. Yes. The Coalition has just killed home owning democracy as we know it, building on the half it murdered by making much home buying unaffordable.
On curmudgeonly compromise, the good news is that everyone whose lives are to be so blighted will at least have some sort of pressure release. They will be able to escape to the National Parks and - I really hope from the words that have been uttered today - also the AONBs for a moment's respite. Some who are not tied to an area because of work and schools may even decide to spend most of the year in a caravan in such places and largely abandon whatever is left of their actual home. As Caroline Lucas says, the fact that fracking has not been completely ruled out even there is a scandal but that it should take place only in exceptional circumstances is at least something. And, yes, from a position currently in the South East, I really do hope that will help to protect not only the South Downs but the North York Moors, the Jurassic Coast and many other fabulous places we can still call Britain.
One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that semi-cosy Mr Pickles is probably in post only until next May. A majority Tory Government from 2015 will almost certainly lead to a new Secretary of State who is to the countryside what Netanyahu is to Gaza. Plus there is now an industry pal at the head of the Environment Agency to do the deals. Labour? Don't forget it was Lord Smith who was in favour of fracking in the National Parks so at most, I think, we can say that their policy from today is identical to that of the Coalition. And then you have the BBC pitching in with their Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin claiming: "If environmentalists succeed in stopping fracking in the UK by stirring up local objections they will actually make the greenhouse effect worse in the short term." Clearly he needs a few lessons on the impacts of methane unless misinformation has been ordered.
On the thanks, to Michael Meacher and Hilary Benn for designating the New Forest and the South Downs National Parks. I don't live in either but fully appreciate that their actions could well have made a significant difference to their future. To CPRE, who I have for a long time supported, for their efforts and the National Trust for changing their minds. To Greenpeace, obviously, and especially to the Green Party which I hope will battle long and hard to protect all of the environment from this madness for all of the general public. Currently our thoughts are with the good people of Belcoo in Northern Ireland in their resistance to the brutal war that has been declared on them.
You have obviously made your mind up based on emotional arguments rather than facts or knowledge, so there is little point in explaining (yet again) the basis for fraccing and why it will be low risk in the UK. I suppose it's much better to rely on gas from places like Russia and Qatar, where the supply is guaranteed for decades to come
I would be in favour of relying on Russia and Qatar, yes, plus Norway, Canada and even the United States if I really had to as they have to do something with their monstrous glut. The location of the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 should stand. The US and the EU need to immediately repair the damage they have deliberately caused in relations with Russia. And then we might have a good interim energy mix that will sustain us until political enlightenment and technological advancement. Ultimately they should also provide us with some sort of decent fall back position.
Regarding fraccing; do you have a view on why the major oil and gas companies don't seem that interested in exploration in the UK? Do they fear brand damage due to public opposition, or do they just doubt its viability?
Small companies with low overheads can make the opening moves in basins like this which are low cost to develop. The daily overheads of a company like BP or Shell are massive so they need big projects to keep going.
Perhaps fracking could take place at beautiful Tar Sands?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjia7BsP4Bw
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/30/energy.oilandpetrol
Very similar to the pharmaceutical industry. Small companies do the high risk experimental work and big companies move in where the results look positive.
I wouldn't use keyhole surgery to put a valve in a body, knowing it was going to leak.
Buying gas from Qatar means we fund terrorism.
Buying gas from Qatar, the US or Canada means it has to be transported by sea, which is probably more risky than fracking. Have you considered what would happen if a shipload of gas decided to explode at a port?