This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/27/fracking-energy-futures
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Fracking: energy futures | Fracking: energy futures |
| (12 days later) | |
| It is the kind of bonus politicians can usually only dream of: a source of energy capable of reliably providing decades of low-cost, relatively low-emission gas. But yesterday's much trailed report from the British Geological Survey suggesting unexpectedly large deposits of shale gas seems – especially to Conservatives who hate renewables – to hold out the promise of a golden future of long-term cheap fuel for domestic and industrial consumers. Much like the one the US is already beginning to enjoy, as cheap natural gas from fracking drives down energy prices and drives out coal. | It is the kind of bonus politicians can usually only dream of: a source of energy capable of reliably providing decades of low-cost, relatively low-emission gas. But yesterday's much trailed report from the British Geological Survey suggesting unexpectedly large deposits of shale gas seems – especially to Conservatives who hate renewables – to hold out the promise of a golden future of long-term cheap fuel for domestic and industrial consumers. Much like the one the US is already beginning to enjoy, as cheap natural gas from fracking drives down energy prices and drives out coal. |
| Energy security would be a reality. Industries such as chemicals could confidently plan for expansion. Hi-tech jobs would proliferate. Foreign policy would be liberated from the constraint of energy diplomacy. And the balance of power in the tricky negotiations with EDF over the precise terms on which they will build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley would be tipped in favour of the government. All this as fossil fuel imports reach their highest levels since records began in 1990, and with Ofgem warning that the UK's power safety net of surplus capacity will soon be at a dangerously low 2%. | Energy security would be a reality. Industries such as chemicals could confidently plan for expansion. Hi-tech jobs would proliferate. Foreign policy would be liberated from the constraint of energy diplomacy. And the balance of power in the tricky negotiations with EDF over the precise terms on which they will build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley would be tipped in favour of the government. All this as fossil fuel imports reach their highest levels since records began in 1990, and with Ofgem warning that the UK's power safety net of surplus capacity will soon be at a dangerously low 2%. |
| According to the BGS, beneath the Blackpool rock in the Bowland basin there could be 1,300tn cubic feet of shale gas, far more than previously estimated. Even if, as current knowledge suggests, only 15% of it could be extracted, that is still enough to guarantee supply for a generation. And that is only one field in one area; there are shale gas deposits stretching in a fat belt from Lancashire and Yorkshire across the Midlands to most of southern England. In an indication of the new confidence in fracking futures, earlier this month British Gas's parent company, Centrica, bought into Cuadrilla, the only company that has so far done any experimental drilling. Other big suppliers are expected to follow. | |
| Energy policy is always contentious territory, and the battle lines are already clear between those who would go for growth and others who prefer environmental caution. Tory ministers, led by the chancellor and the energy minister, Michael Fallon, are talking up the dash for gas. They propose tax breaks and less stringent planning controls, including a £100,000 bounty for local communities to encourage them to accept shale oil development: compare that with tighter planning and a mere £5,000 windfarm bonus. Even so, it is seems unlikely that the largely rural, and Tory, communities that are so hostile to renewable development will warm to the development of a shale gas field in their backyards. | Energy policy is always contentious territory, and the battle lines are already clear between those who would go for growth and others who prefer environmental caution. Tory ministers, led by the chancellor and the energy minister, Michael Fallon, are talking up the dash for gas. They propose tax breaks and less stringent planning controls, including a £100,000 bounty for local communities to encourage them to accept shale oil development: compare that with tighter planning and a mere £5,000 windfarm bonus. Even so, it is seems unlikely that the largely rural, and Tory, communities that are so hostile to renewable development will warm to the development of a shale gas field in their backyards. |
| The process of fracking is plainly not a cost-free option. Breaking up gas-bearing rock thousands of metres below the Earth's surface by pumping in a mix of sand, water and chemicals under high pressure is a process still in development, and quite apart from the unavoidable threat of industrialising stretches of some of Britain's most beautiful countryside, there are serious questions over its environmental safety. Exploration in Lancashire was halted in 2011 after two small earthquakes, and in the US pollution of the water table and unintended methane gas leaks have both provoked critics. Nor is there any certainty about the future viability of British reserves. As the BGS survey concluded yesterday, it is not clear that they can be exploited commercially, let alone how great a contribution they could make to the energy supply mix. | |
| So there may be scope for optimism, but it must be judged on the evidence, and it must not be at the expense of low-carbon objectives. Yesterday, the energy secretary, Ed Davey, spoke for the environmental wing of the coalition when he offered revived support for green initiatives, including guarantees for loans to the nuclear industry to help the Hinkley negotiations, set subsidy levels for renewables, and introduced a (small) borrowing facility for the green bank. But the much vaunted green deal for energy efficiency is a long way from proving itself. An energy revolution may, possibly, be at hand. But no one should count on it. | So there may be scope for optimism, but it must be judged on the evidence, and it must not be at the expense of low-carbon objectives. Yesterday, the energy secretary, Ed Davey, spoke for the environmental wing of the coalition when he offered revived support for green initiatives, including guarantees for loans to the nuclear industry to help the Hinkley negotiations, set subsidy levels for renewables, and introduced a (small) borrowing facility for the green bank. But the much vaunted green deal for energy efficiency is a long way from proving itself. An energy revolution may, possibly, be at hand. But no one should count on it. |
| • This article was amended on 9 July 2013 to correct the BGS's estimate of the the shale gas resource in the Bowland basin. Its figure was 1,300, not 13,000, trillion cubic feet. A description of the process of fracking, which said sand, water and hydrogen were pumped in at high pressure, was also corrected. Sand and water are used, but not hydrogen. |