One thing we have learnt this week- anti-fracking protests

We have learnt this week that the UK is not the only place where anti-fracking protests are taking place. Channel 4 news had a major report on anti-fracking protests in Romania. Like in the UK the protesters have moved beyond the usual bearded sandle wearing types. Lots of little old ladies were in evidence as well as Orthodox priests. The Orthodox church has massive influence in Romania and seems to have decided that fracking is satanic.

The situation in Romania is similar, but in many ways worse than in the UK. Similar; in that unlike the US there are no mineral rights to what lies under you, but worse in that there is no compensation at all for communities affected. These communities are desperately poor and all they seem to have got from an oil major so far was yoghurts and T-shirts. They turn up to do seismic tests on farmers land without any warning (or permission). (Something at present is illegal here but our government seems keen to change). The seismic equipment they leave is being vandalised at night or they are driven off by anti-fracking protesters during the day. Whilst many of the claims about the health threats (skin peeling off) are exaggerated, this is part of the world where people will draw water from wells. Contamination of these water supplies must be a strong possibility.

Unlike in the UK though its nice to see the church taking a definite stand. It looks like the anti-fracking protests in Romania will continue.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week- love our planet

This Valentines day maybe we should learn to love our planet more.heart.jpg  The ex environment secretary Caroline Spelman warned this week as the floods worsened we have lost sight of the need to tackle climate change.

She said “This flooding is a sharp reminder that everyone, sceptic or not, has to think about the risk of flooding, whatever they think causes it,” she said. “We need to adapt. What is happening now relates to what we were doing two decades ago [in increasing greenhouse gas emissions].”

Reactions to the links between the flooding and storms here and climate change have fallen into two camps.  The Met office’s chief Scientist has directly linked them to climate change.  Many right wing politicians still seem to be in denial, stating its just natural variation.  Of course now the denial may have another element.  That is if these storms are caused by climate change then at only 0.8 degrees C we are going to be in for a lot more of this type of weather.  Not something most politicians want to talk about.

Nor most Christians apparently.  There is an interview with Andy here explaining why. We can expect to treat our planet as we do and live without consequences.  So this valentines day love our planet.  Ideas of how to do so in our book.

Neil

Posted in climate change, Creation, One thing we have learnt this week | 2 Comments

Energy storage solutions

00009_optCould energy storage have to move up the political agenda?  Over the last two years the world has seen some very extreme weather.  We have had a year of rain in the UK (2012), record winds (2013) and record rainfall and winds (2014 so far), leading to floods.  In Australia there has been record heatwaves, droughts and flood.  The US has had droughts, extreme snowfall and cold weather and a record hurricane.  In the the Philippines there the record typhoon in the Autumn.  As one scientist put it this week we were expecting climate change induced extreme weather like this to kick in the 2030’s – not now.  Things can only get worse.  The sight of a farmhouse flooded out with PV system on its roof got me thinking.

Energy storage is traditionally talked about in terms of time shifting variable renewables production to even out troughs in renewable electricity production.  This is important and currently there as I have blogged about before there is one technology that dominates completely.  That is pumped storage.  The problem with pumped storage are several fold.  Its large (so expensive), still centrally and not locally distributed and potentially environmentally disruptive.

To make the grid more resilient one idea put forward is to break it up in a series of interlinked microgrids.  These are semi independent of one another.  If an area is producing more electricity than it needs it exports it from its area to a neighbouring grid.  The idea assumes a very high proportion of micro and distributed generation such as small wind hydro and of course solar PV.  It also does not negate the need for very large generation kit but would at times very strongly reduce the need for it.  If power lines go down or floods hit or air conditioning demand rise it may be possible to isolate parts of the grid which are unaffected and keep them going.  Of course it also relies on local energy storage.  As we wrote in our book;

A vast number of energy-storage systems have been mooted. Many of these are chemical and we don’t think there will be enough of the earth’s resources to make sufficient systems to meet all demand. There are however mechanical systems that exist, such as flywheels and compressed-air systems.

Could it be that in some cases energy storage is a solution to storm related power disruption? There is such a scheme happening in France but details are sparse.

Neil

Posted in climate change, Renewables, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week – energy efficiency survey

DSCN1674The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has just carried out a poll on energy efficiency in UK.  The findings are for the most part encouraging, but at the same time not wholly surprising.  The top energy efficiency measure being considered was LED light bulbs.  This is an interesting finding.  Up until a year or so ago the light was still rather blue.  As I have blogged on before not only is the light now OK, being warm and indistinguishable from incandescent bulbs of old, but the economics stack up very well, despite the high initial outlay.  It looks like the general public is picking up on this.  The main problem with LED’s is the range they are still not commonly available in wattages higher than an incandescent equivalent of about 60W.

The next most popular energy efficiency measure people surveyed are considering is installing photovoltaic panels (at 9%).  This is again encouraging but not surprising in the same week that the UK energy minister claimed this technology gives a better return than a pension.  Some people would say that’s not hard!  In fact their return is better than savings generally with interest rates being so low.

The big surprise to me is over cavity wall insulation, only 5% of respondents were considering going for this energy efficiency measure.  This is puzzling since the payback is good on cavity wall insulation.  Its easy to do and there is so much concern over gas prices.  Maybe people are concerned over damp issues that used to plague the industry, but I don’t think are a problem anymore.  The energy companies used to subsidise cavity wall insulation but since the green deal its not as cheap as it used to be.  Although the Energy Saving trust still claim its payback is about 3 years (and they are very conservative on such matters).

The last energy efficiency measure that is only at 5% consideration is heat pumps.  This is no surprise.  As we wrote in our book;

Another problem is that ground-source heat pumps are very disruptive to fit. They require either a long length of thin pipe (slinky) to be buried under a wide area of ground (probably an area bigger than an average UK garden to heat an average-sized house) or a borehole. The boreholes need to be quite deep and usually multiple boreholes are required. The disruption doesn’t stop on the outside. These systems work best as low-temperature systems with special radiators or under-floor heating – which is difficult to retrofit in old buildings and therefore expensive.

So a mixed picture – but even if 25% of households started installing LED’s and 9% of households installed PV’s our energy system would be transformed.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

Flooding and food

00019_optOver the last few month or so flooding has been in the news almost everyday.  The met office figures for January 2014 have just been released and show it was the wettest January in England for 250 years.  Records have apparently been kept in Oxford for that long.  Looking at map of the UK the rainfall has been very localised.  Whilst it is centred the middle of southern England its surprising some areas not so far away have had almost normal rainfall and other areas such as the north of Scotland have been comparatively dry.  This latter occurrence happened in 2012 where someone we knew said her relatives on Harris or Lewis could not play football since the ground was too parched.  Meanwhile the rest of us were flooded.  Whilst there has been some flooding in Wales, Kent and parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland the main problems have been on the Somerset levels parts of which have been underwater for a month.  I know this area reasonably well since my Grandparents retired there and I still have relatives in this area.

There are a number of issues relating to the flooding in Somerset that are causing controversy.  Whether the main rivers should be dredged being one.   For what its worth I think they should be.  When I was a child they were.  The recent weather is far worse than has been seen before.  This is in my view clear evidence that the effects of climate change are being seen earlier than we expected.  But to be fair we did have bad weather then and flooding was seemingly managed better.  However, dredging the rivers is probably not the total answer.  This thought raises another issue that is starting to be talked about.  How far should we defend the land against flooding and given this land is largely farmland are we setting up competition between the sea and growing food?

This part of Somerset was traditionally a massive swamp.  I remember my Grandfather pointing to an empty field and telling me Archaeologists had found a Roman port there. It was miles in land from the sea.  Much of the Somerset levels are below sea level and were reclaimed from the sea starting in Roman times and only finishing fairly recently.  They are now rich farmland (mostly Dairy).  The question is should we write off this land and let the sea reclaim it?  This is good to nature in one way, although the type of landscape and comparatively sustainable agriculture comprises an important wildlife habitat.  Its a question not just for this part of the world but vast swathes of inhabited coastal land worldwide as sea levels rise and the weather patterns change.  Chris Smith the head of the Environment agency (responsible for flood management in England) has raised this issue today.

In my view growing enough food at a price that is vaguely affordable for most is one of the most pressing issues over the next few decades.  Man made climate change with its effects on the weather and peak oil will make providing enough food increasingly difficult.  My gut reaction is except in very limited circumstances we should not abandon land to the sea.

Neil

Posted in climate change, Food | 2 Comments

One thing we have learnt this week – blackouts set to become more common

DSCF1114_optThis week two academics have warned we can not necessarily rely on a future without blackouts.  They warn resource scarcity including peak oil, the rising dependency on electricity and more controversially renewables will make blackouts more likely.

The paper by Hugh Byrd, Professor of Architecture at the University of Lincoln, UK, and Steve Matthewman, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Auckland, New Zealand is rather sociological and rather irritatingly the authors seem unable to use scientific notation instead using large strings of zeros.  I also disagree with the point about renewable energy.  The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) have suggested that running on energy system on 100% renewables is completely possible.  This is not to say there could not be problems, ironically many of these problems are what to do when their is excess power rather when their is too little.  (As we have described in Germany.)  Byrd and Matthewman use the example of developing countries running out of hydro-power due to drought.  They could also have added California to that list, the blackouts were not just due to Enron but also lack of hydro-power due to low rainfall.  The problem with these examples are that no one is suggesting using just one type of renewables.  CAT have done detailed analysis that suggest you can balance demand using different types of technologies.  The authors also make a possible mistake seeming to suggest that renewables cannot meet the USA’s air conditioning needs.  I am unsure from the wording whether they mean now (true) or in the future (probably false, although it obviously depends on the growth in use of air con).  Byrd and Matthewman look at some of the consequences of blackouts such as economic costs, transport disruption and crime.

The authors warn that blackouts may become more frequent as electricity demand continues to grow.  Its certainly true that if we electrify heating and transport our need and dependency on electricity will grow.  We need to cut our current demand for energy drastically, something our book suggests how to start doing.  Despite some minor errors this paper is a useful warning going forward.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

The implications of jubilee

harvest finished in autumn_optIn the last post we had a very brief look at the idea of jubilee. In this follow up post I am going to suggest how we might if not have something similar, at least follow the spirit of the jubilee.

As I wrote one the inescapable conclusions about the jubilee was it was an attempt to reduce inequality.   At the moment inequality is rising almost everywhere (at least in developed OECD countries).  Especially in the US and UK.  There has also been much talk of the rise of a new middle class in the “BRIC” countries recently.  An article by Paul Mason in the Guardian recently suggests that these people are not nearly as wealthy as we would think of the middle class in the developed world.

He goes on to write;

What was unthinkable 20 years ago is now becoming tangible: that the real incomes of skilled workers, knowledge workers and managers in “developing countries” are overlapping with those at the bottom of the heap in western society.

Another statistic being banded around last week was that the richest 85 people in the world are worth as much as the world’s 3.5 billion poorest.  The reasons for this are self evident. Off-shoring has hit manual jobs in the West and taxes have been cut for the wealthiest.

Does any of this matter?  I think it does.  There are good practical reasons to make societies more equal.  We all ultimately end up paying the price somehow through crime, bigger prisons, paying for ill health etc.  But I also think its offensive to God.  The prophets clearly saw morality as more than just “personal morality”.  See Amos 2v6 for example.  Jesus and the whole bible does appear to have a bias to the poor (Mathew 25v31-36.  Its not that the rich are less precious to God but as my minister put it recently, he knows they can look after themselves.

So what could we do to follow the spirit of the jubilee?  Looking at a graph provided in the print edition of Will Hutton’s article (link in the previous post) on the total income going the richest 1% of the population, there are some clues.  The 1970’s in the UK was when the wealth difference between the richest and poorest was at its narrowest. Incidentally its also when were at our happiest.  Here are my suggestions;

  • Raise taxes on the wealthy but cut taxes for the those at the bottom of the income pile.  The UK government has done half of this, raising the point at which you start paying taxes dramatically.  However, they also cut the rate of income tax for the wealthiest.  The opposition labour party has just said they will raise the top rate of tax if elected which is causing an enormous political row here.  There is no doubt in my mind that so far the burden of reducing the post crash government deficit in the UK has fallen too much on the poorest and too little on the richest.  At the same time food and energy prices have soared, leading to a cost of living crisis.  We can see the results with burgeoning foodbanks.
  • Strengthen trade unions. In the 1970’s trade unions were very powerful in all developed countries.  They got too powerful, especially in my country.  Mrs Thatcher introduced a whole heap of legislation to control them.  Just recently here some commentators have started to whisper that maybe unions are too weak.  In companies where there are strong unions there are good wages and conditions and these companies have high productivity.  No one wants to go back to the days of the 70’s with wildcap strikes but maybe the German model with union representation on boards is the way forward.  German companies are very successful, they look after their staff and who can remember the last major strike at a large German company?
  • Pay not just a minimum wage, but a living wage.  Over the last 25 years median wages have not increased in real term in the UK and US.  Over the last few years the minimum wage has decreased in real terms.  The UK government is talking about raising the minimum wage way ahead of inflation.  Some of this is politics but some is to do with tax credits.  It may surprise US readers but in the UK the government subsidies Google, Amazon and a variety of other large and small companies.  They do this through tax credits for low paid employees in these companies, who can claim back tax when their income is below certain thresholds.  This is crazy.  It would be better to pay these employees better in the first place.  Then the benefits bill would fall (tax credits are counted as part of welfare).  This idea is known as the living wage, above the minimum wage it is set at a value you can actually live on.  In London many Christians have joined with other faith groups to get cleaners in the city of London paid it.  In the US McDonalds employees went on strike demanding it.  I understand McDonalds response was to print a leaflet telling employees how to survive on low pay.  A living wage fits in with the spirit of the jubilee.
  • Promote full employment.  Not easy this one, especially in a static economy we will have post oil.  As we wrote in “No oil in the lamp” the Christian economist Herman (Daly) the economist is unsure about this; “Daly does not claim to have all the answers; for example he is unsure whether such an economy could support full employment (his counter argument is that he doesn’t think the current globalised one can either).  As I have blogged before many jobs will disappear post peak, but others will be created.  But governments such do everything they can to ensure the maximum number of people are usefully employed.
  • Do a debt forgiveness or a one of wealth tax to pay off national debt.  That well known communist organisation the International Monetary Fund has suggested countries implement a one off tax to pay off national debt.  At the moment we have the crazy situation where much of the tax we pay is going to debt interest.  If we could get that of the government’s books we would have more money to play with.  There are three ways of doing this.  A write-off of debts in keeping with the jubilee concept.  (I would include non-governmental debts in this as well since banks like RBS are apparently struggling to collects the debts they are owed).  A one-off wealth tax or finally unconventional economics from central banks – instead of QE why not “parachute” money in pay off the debt.  If you did any of this you could increase spending or maintain it without borrowing and cut income tax for everyone.
  • Reform the tax system. At the moment most developed countries tax systems are massively over complicated.  Simplifying them would not allow individuals and businesses to avoid tax so easily.  This will not be easy and take a long time.

These are just some suggestions for a new jubilee.  Part of an occasional series on new economics.

Neil

Posted in Economics, Peak oil | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week- renewables target dropped

wind turbine from below taken in France.

wind turbine from below taken in France.

This week the EU decided not to have a renewables target beyond 2020.  The EU did agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% on 1990 levels and produce 27% of its energy from renewables by 2030.  Does this lack of renewables target matter?

The UK government was a leading advocate of not having a renewables target.  I would have kept one.  The real reason the renewables target was opposed by my government is they are increasingly wedded to the idea of shale gas and nuclear.  Both these are chimeras.  However, the move may not be as disastrous as some think.  As Ed Davey the Secretary of State writes in the Guardian article above.

The 2020 renewables target made sense when it was set: it has helped the early investment needed for immature renewable technologies and played a part in driving down the costs of key technologies like solar PV and onshore wind. Yet to repeat this for the 2020s doesn’t make sense. Some renewable technologies are already nearing grid parity, and we need to see investment in other immature low carbon technologies like carbon capture and storage. Our analysis shows that an ambitious emission reduction target will still stimulate massive investment in renewables across the EU, but without all the inflexibility, costs and risks of a technology specific target.

The march of renewables into our economy is unstoppable.  Falling on-shore wind and solar costs will mean that they will be at grid parity by 2020. Even I would question subsidising them if they are not.  There are 5GWp of solar PV farms in the planning system in the UK.  The merits of a renewables target is threefold.  To raise renewables penetration in countries with very low quantities, keep renewables increasing in recessions and possibly encourage some of the more distant less market ready technologies, such as wave and tidal power.  However, as I wrote about Japan and their climate target, the outcome may not turn out to be all that bad.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

What about the jubilee?

JubileeDebtLogo-RGB-WebWhat can we learn from the biblical idea of the jubilee?  I was reminded of this over the last week by a number of things.  First, the disappearance of Mikaeel Kular in Edinburgh.  I went to help search for him.  He lived in one of the poorer parts of Edinburgh and as I approached on my bicycle my apprehension increased when I saw the traffic lights were protected by grills.  (In actual fact the estate where he lived was not as bad as I expected, with new housing).  Second, the relevant passage was covered in my SU notes and third Will Hutton’s article on rising inequality in the Observer.  Lastly, inequality is a major item on the agenda at Davos this year.  Whilst this last fact is difficult to believe as multibillionaires jet in by private helicopter – but it is.

So what can we learn as move to a post oil world from the concept of the jubilee?  In this post I will attempt to pull out some relevant points.  In the next one we will have a look at some practical issues.  Here is the relevant text from Leviticus 25.

The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest. Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your male and female servants, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten.

The Year of Jubilee

“‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. 10 Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan. 11 The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. 12 For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you; eat only what is taken directly from the fields.

13 “‘In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.

14 “‘If you sell land to any of your own people or buy land from them, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

18 “‘Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. 19 Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety. 20 You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?” 21 I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. 22 While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.

23 “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers. 24 Throughout the land that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

25 “‘If one of your fellow Israelites becomes poor and sells some of their property, their nearest relative is to come and redeem what they have sold. 26 If, however, there is no one to redeem it for them but later on they prosper and acquire sufficient means to redeem it themselves, 27 they are to determine the value for the years since they sold it and refund the balance to the one to whom they sold it; they can then go back to their own property. 28 But if they do not acquire the means to repay, what was sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and they can then go back to their property.

29 “‘Anyone who sells a house in a walled city retains the right of redemption a full year after its sale. During that time the seller may redeem it. 30 If it is not redeemed before a full year has passed, the house in the walled city shall belong permanently to the buyer and the buyer’s descendants. It is not to be returned in the Jubilee. 31 But houses in villages without walls around them are to be considered as belonging to the open country. They can be redeemed, and they are to be returned in the Jubilee.

32 “‘The Levites always have the right to redeem their houses in the Levitical towns, which they possess. 33 So the property of the Levites is redeemable—that is, a house sold in any town they hold—and is to be returned in the Jubilee, because the houses in the towns of the Levites are their property among the Israelites. 34 But the pastureland belonging to their towns must not be sold; it is their permanent possession.

35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.”

NIV version

The first thing to say is there is no evidence that this idea was ever put into practice.  It was just too radical and Israel fell into rebellion against God too quickly after they settled in the land.  Second, there was a clear idea of stewardship running through the whole idea (v23/24).  Israel was to remember who ultimately their land and possessions belonged to.  There was also an ecological component present (v11) in jubilee.  This was also about trust.  They had to trust God to provide in that year when they did not plant.  But whilst all these aspects above are important perhaps the most important thing about jubilee was it was designed to reduce the gap between rich and poor (v14-17, 25).  Its this idea we will explore in the next post.

Neil

Posted in Economics, Peak oil | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week-fracking again

Fracking-Wells-frack-offThe big energy news story of the week in the UK is again fracking.  It doesn’t seem to go away.  With apologies to our overseas readers here we go again.  The story so far is as I see it;

In the US fracking for gas has been a highly controversial but apparently successful means of lowering the cost of natural gas.  I say apparently because the rise of fracking natural gas coincided with a world surplus of gas.  Terminals were built in the US to import this gas but were unused.  Some terminals are being set up to export this gas to us (presumably the same ones).  This surplus of gas helped in part to force down US prices.  These prices proved too low to make extraction of the gas economically viable and the same drilling equipment has moved to extracting shale oil (since the oil price has remained high).  Practical experience of fracking in the US has led certainly to gas contamination of water, possibly chemical contamination but also very rapid depletion of wells meaning the whole phenomenon maybe very short lived.

However, after Japan’s nuclear disaster and total nuclear shutdown in Japan and partial shutdown in Germany the surplus of gas disappeared (helped in part by rising demand in the BRIC’s.  The price of natural gas has soared in the US almost doubling (although its still much cheaper than it was.

Meanwhile a variety of other countries have decided they want in on the act including my own. Attempts to frack in the UK have met with very strong protests from climate campaigners and locals.  These are ongoing. One big difference with the US is that individuals here do not own the mineral rights to what is under them (with one or two exceptions such as Orkney and Shetland), the crown does.   This means we don’t have the same levels of financial incentive to cooperate.

The government conveniently ignoring all the above has decided this week to back fracking in the UK (although this probably means England or maybe not) with increased bribes to cash strapped local authorities allowing them to keep all the tax revenue from drilling plus community money, plus individual payments to those directly affected.  Will this be enough to overcome public opposition which according to a recent poll for the Institute of mechanical engineers is rising?  I think not.

Will fracking lower emissions?  BP this week said not.  Very worryingly they expect carbon emissions to rise 29% by 2035.  Part of the problem is that coal use is merely displaced.   So the US has been exporting coal to Europe, although in recognition of rising gas prices coal emissions have recently started rising again in the US.  Will fracking lower prices in the UK.  Again unlikely.  Unlike America we are fully plugged into the global gas network any gas produced here will be sold to the highest bidder.

Is fracking the answer to peak gas and oil.  We think not.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment