The cost of the Fracking protests

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Woodylubber, Aug 17, 2013.

  1. No one disputes that we need viable energy sources to meet demand, but if energy policy is determined by economics rather than social necessity, then it's in the interests of the producers to stimulate demand...greater demand=bigger profits....combine this with the systematic suppression of alternatives, environmentally benign substitutes and measures to reduce consumption and you have the biggest money-making scheme imaginable...second only to privatised water supply...Welcome to the UK plc.
    We are quite literally being held to ransom....
     
    Low n slow likes this.
  2. I lived in balcombe years ago and now work in a village where they are trying to get permission to start fracking. Both places are great examples of the worst sort of middle-class nimbyism. A lot of them happily run aga's and drive 4wd and jet off to Tuscany or wherever, but don't want the nasty mess associated with fossil fuel extraction to ruin their little idyll. The only people who can legitimately protest against fracking are people with a consistent track record of protest against fossil fuels and who actively resist using them. The rest of us should shut up and face the enviromental consequences.
    Personally, i think we should have had the balls to elect a government with a bit of long term vision 30-40 years ago so that we could have invested in a mix of nuclear and renewables. Then we wouldn't be in the position of being reliant on Russian gas and looking to an unproved and possibly dangerous process like fracking.
     
    snotty likes this.
  3. Unlike the posh parts of the country where everyone is worried about their view or whether a train might run half a mile from the bottom of their garden, we live with power stations, nodding donkeys, pit heads and the like sat in the countryside. I have no objection to a bit of industrial infrastructure and energy extraction in the UK - it's better than relying on someone else who can turn off the taps when they feel like it. They just need to make sure the wealth is spread about a bit and unfortunately, giving it to local councils is probably as good as flushing it down the toilet.
     
    Lord Congi and Woodylubber like this.
  4. sANDYbAY

    sANDYbAY On benefits-won't sponsor!

    It doesn't really matter what we think about fracking.

    Big Dave is busy bribing local councils with our money to make sure that lots of very rich people in the government and power companies get even richer. As an added bonus it will fund a few hairbrained and useless council initiatives
    I would imagine that when they leave office a worthy MP or two and the particularly helpful Civil Servants will slip quietly onto the boards of big power companies where they manage to work for up to 5 days a year for obscene salaries.

    As for the cheaper gas that we, the great unwashed, have been promised because of the miracle of fracking. It will turn out to be a mirage, a sop to keep us docile while pockets are lined and fortunes enlarged.
    Eventually, after price increases year after year, and only if us Plebs shout loud enough, the price will drop by a token amount for a few months, only to spring back up to a level higher than it was previously.

    Basically, us 'oikes are going to get shafted, just like all the other times.

    Cynical? Yup!
    Prophetic? Yup!
     
    Barneyrubble likes this.
  5. I vote for SANDYBAY for our next prime minister.
     
  6. Like with all this stuff , its ok as long as its not in my back yard , who would say yes to it in their town or village unless their was flavours?
     
  7. True? Yup!
     
  8. Zed

    Zed Gradually getting grumpier

    Go Bob!
     
    sANDYbAY likes this.
  9. Nope. I just have the good sense to realise that modern nuclear plants are the ultimate "renewable" source of energy. We at one point in time led world in this technology - now we have to queue up with everyone else.

    Apart from the ugliness of the things, I'd be perfectly happy to live next door to one.
     
  10. Yep, this, although I'd dispute that fracking is unproven - the technique's been around for donkeys years. Only recently has it been a fit with the green agenda, raising its profile. Before that, nobody paid any heed to it.

    And yes, energy-wise, we need a government that thinks long term and doesn't adhere to the latest fashionable thinking. Unfortunately, Dave flip-flops all over the place, and there's no hope for labour and the lib-dems - they're stuck in a time warp. We genuinely aren't that far away from the lights going out.
     
  11. sANDYbAY

    sANDYbAY On benefits-won't sponsor!

    Well in my Cabinet would be:

    Chancellor of the Exchequer My Mum
    Home Secretary. @kenregency 's Wife
    Foreign Secretary. @lost-en-france
    Defence Secretary. @paradox
    Work and Pensions Secretary. @Barneyrubble
    Education Secretary. @vanorak
    Transport Secretary. @poptop2

    Leader of the Lords. @Lord Charles
    Chief Whip @Tiny-Pie
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
    kenregency likes this.
  12. errrm the pay rise looks good :thumbsup:
     
    kenregency likes this.
  13. sANDYbAY

    sANDYbAY On benefits-won't sponsor!

    Yes but you have to clear it with my Mum first, and she's no pushover.
     
  14. yes but us young maaaaans are good with mumz PM
     
  15. Well that sounds a right bunch off miss fits and reprobates, except for your mum.
    You'll do well.
     
  16. The process itself may be renewable, but the long-term and hidden costs are astronomical, to say nothing of the implications for future generations and the potential for catasrophes. The worldwide nuclear power industry have conveniently limited themselves to the amount of damages they're required to pay following a disaster (The Convention on supplementary Compensation) which means that the private corporations that build, operate and profit handsomely from the plants pay a tiny fraction of the billions it costs to compensate those who are affected. Some of the big plant contracts in the US have been awarded on the proviso that high-level waste can be safely stored for upto two thousand (yes two thousand) years, based on the geology...they can't predict earthquakes within two days, let alone 2,000 years...
    It's inherently unsafe...and man's arrogance is such that we'll always be able to find a technological solution to the problems we create...this is a fallacy...
     
    sANDYbAY likes this.
  17. Health secretary? :)
     
    sANDYbAY and Barneyrubble like this.
  18. sANDYbAY

    sANDYbAY On benefits-won't sponsor!

    You're hired!
     
    physiopro likes this.
  19. Minister for social justice @bernjb56 ?
     
    sANDYbAY likes this.
  20. Yes and no. Inter generational costs may be astronomical and as yet unknown, but possibly not and also possibly not as bad as some of the global warming scenarios, which look almost certain unless we do something. The fact is that we are very energy hungry and no one wants to give up their mod cons and comfortable way of life and we lack governments that make the hard decisions because all that matters is what works in a four year cycle.
     

Share This Page