The Energy Crisis is a Self-Inflicted Disaster – But Fracking is Not the Answer

As energy prices soar, what can be done to lessen the harm to families, businesses and an economy still reeling from the Covid pandemic?

It feels like the Government is fighting a rearguard action. Its energy price cap, its granting of licences for new oil and gas wells in the North Sea, and the announcement earlier this year of plans for eight new nuclear reactors, all feels like too little, too late.

It is a piecemeal and desperate response to a crisis largely of our own making, and only brought to a head by the Russian invasion.

Buoyed by politicians’ acceptance of green ideology, green billionaires have for years successfully lobbied our Governments and financial institutions to greatly restrict investment in fossil fuel exploration and extraction. They also persuaded ministers that nuclear energy is too dangerous and best avoided.

Now, when the wolf is at the door, rather than admitting their mistake, green fanatics not only want more of the same, but demand more of it sooner. At its annual conference last week, Labour – which looks increasingly likely to form the next Government – announced its intention to make the U.K. carbon-free by 2030.

Yet many have grave concerns about the reliability of renewables and whether they will be able to meet the nation’s needs. Even with the new nuclear reactors in the mix, things look far from secure – and those won’t be online for years.

So it is understandable that there is renewed interest in fracking. Liz Truss’s recent lifting of the moratorium on drilling for shale gas was applauded on the Right and by some on the Left. They believe that while fracking may not be the answer to all our energy woes, it would bring considerable benefits: cutting bills, improving our energy security and creating jobs.

But are they right? What is the evidence for these claims? Many supporters of fracking do not appear to have asked themselves that simple but vital question. Even when pressed, they seem uninterested in defending their position with facts, and are far more interested in endlessly urging that we should get fracking as soon as we can. But without considering all the facts, and without giving those with safety concerns a fair hearing instead of dismissing them all as misguided ideologues, it is not possible to come to a sensible and responsible decision.

There is no evidence that fracking would significantly reduce energy costs in the medium and long term. In the short term, while further exploration and initial drilling took place, fracking would not lower bills. Just because extraction companies are eager to drill does not mean the public and businesses will necessarily benefit.

Although it is estimated that there are large reserves of shale gas in the U.K., how much of it is cost-effective to extract is currently unknown. It is possible that considerable amounts of it will not be viable.

It is also hard to see the industry creating a significant number of jobs.

If supporters of fracking have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to provide it: about jobs, about lowering energy bills, and about reducing our dependence on gas imports. After all, it is them who support the construction of wells across the countryside, a very different proposition in the U.K. than in the far larger and less-densely populated U.S. It is them who support daily convoys of water tankers on already trashed roads. It is them who appear to claim there are only advantages, while disregarding doubts and public concern.

I often wonder, would they all be as keen if the drilling was right next to where they live, rather than hundreds of miles away?

And I am often reminded of climate change zealots when I challenge some fans of fracking, so intolerant of dissent many of them seem. It is hard to dispel the idea that part of them supports fracking simply because greens do not.

Looking at the bigger picture, the advantages which fracking enthusiasts assume are obvious seem much less certain. Cries of it is worth a try, and what is there to lose, become much less convincing when all things are considered.

Fracking in the U.K. must be viewed for what it is: part of a panicked response. The truth is, the benefits of fracking are highly questionable and its disadvantages not inconsiderable. And by the time it may bring any benefits, though that is not guaranteed, our needs could be more reliably met by ramping up nuclear power and investing in conventional offshore drilling, alongside the expansion in renewables which is coming whether we like it or not.

Supporters of fracking need to reflect on the wider issues and reconsider their unreserved support. It is particularly disappointing that those with inquiring minds who have challenged the orthodoxies and follies of our age, from the EU to lockdowns, and from Net Zero to identity politics, appear so incurious and accepting when it comes to fracking. It is good to have hopes and to believe in something, but that needs to be tempered with a healthy scepticism, something which in this case appears to have abandoned them.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

72 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago

What an astonishingly absurd article that seems to argue against the theory of supply and demand whilst ignoring the transport and liquefaction fees associated with gas due to it’s low density. Domestic gas avoids a large part of these costs, so of course much cheaper than imported gas, see the US market.

This is reads like Govesque blob propaganda, doesn’t belong on the DS. What next blowing up coal fired power reduces electricity prices?

TheGreenAcres
3 years ago
Reply to  wokeman

I am always happy to hear contrary opinions, if you need a one dimensional safe space where your opinions are never challenged then this is not it.

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

The point is this opinion has been rammed down our throats ad nauseum for 20+ plus years. So much so that a method of producing energy has been banned! That side of the debate has been well aired shall we say, to the point where granny will freeze to death come winter. I don’t come to the DS for regime propaganda, I expect something more rational. There’s no sane reason to reject the sunshine in a bottle that hydrocarbons are, as some very intelligent comment below states.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  wokeman

Thanks, wokeman 😉

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago

It’s my new catch phrase 🤣

TheGreenAcres
3 years ago
Reply to  wokeman

This isn’t BBC Propaganda. The author is making his points and providing his reasons. Sorry, I disagree with him but I am happy to let him make his case. I will never hear the BBC propaganda because I have completely cut them out of my life.

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

Well done you unplugging from the mainstream, sadly most ppl haven’t.

RJBassett
RJBassett
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

Is anyone here disputing Hansard’s right to state his case?

All of the comments seem to be simply pointing out that his case isn’t supported by any data and doesn’t display a scintilla of economic understanding.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

Supply/demand/price is not an opinion, it is a readily observable and long understood automatic free market mechanism.

barrososBuboes
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

the issue is he gave no reason for his opinion

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  wokeman

Transport, liquefaction AND storage costs.

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Yes correct AND storage of course.

SimCS
3 years ago
Reply to  wokeman

For me, his 2 arguments against seem to be (1) price won’t be affected, and (2) it won’t create the jobs. This seemingly misses 2 important points, correspondingly (1) the law of supply and demand. If there’s a quantity of economically recoverable gas, then its supply will add to the total, bringing the regional price down (gas is regionally priced, not globally, and removing any international transport cost must surely make it cheaper). Moreover, as private companies are investing their own[*] money into the projects, it’s no loss to the public purse, and (2) fracking has never been about the politics of job creation. In fact, the energy industry has never been about this. Energy is a cost to industry and society, so production is designed to reduce that cost, i.e. be efficient. Throwing huge numbers of people at it doesn’t achieve that, or a shareholder ROI. It’s lowering the cost of energy to industry that creates jobs. Also, onshore drilling has to be cheaper and safer than offshore, so why favour the more expensive and dangerous offshore unless you have some skin in the game or are ideologically rather than objectively minded? This attempt to downplay a new energy… Read more »

Another Greg
Another Greg
3 years ago

Where is the evidence for fracking? Trump’s America went from being the largest net importer of petroleum products under O’Bama to briefly, the largest net exporter when the Donald let American Can Do rip.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  Another Greg

And that was fracking on private land. There is considerably more oil/gas under Federal land currently unavailable for fracking.

Alan M
Alan M
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Private land with mineral rights – it can be very lucrative for the landowner.

TheGreenAcres
3 years ago

Fracking can be done if the will is there. But there isn’t much for the reasons I will explain below. The problem we have is that the government can grant all of the licenses it wants, but due to ESG and other loony policies, companies who would be interested in drilling (for oil or gas) will find it increasingly difficult to raise the finance required. And who is going to invest knowing that in two years a Labour government would likely shut it down all over again? Much easier (and profitable) to get in on the green scam whilst the ponzi scheme that is the various renewables credits lasts, easier to get finance and you get to virtue signalling at the same time. Why bother having your HQ targeted by eco-nutters, your employees threatened when entering and leaving the site whilst useless plod fetch the eco-terrorists their coffee and run errands for them? Why would execs want to get cancelled by their woke alma-mater whilst those in on the renewables scam get lauded and feted? I could go on but you get the point. Until there is a complete change of mindset, extracting fossil fuels in this country will never… Read more »

michael welby
michael welby
3 years ago

Am I understanding this author correctly? Because fracking may not be a ‘magic bullet’ it shouldn’t be undertaken?

The problem is that the government ignored the evidence and caved in to leftie eco-freaks.It concealed its cowardice with green ideology and failed to frack years ago. We are in an ‘energy crisis’ because for years we’ve had low-calibre politicians of all hues making important decisions on the basis of how their electability might be affected

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
3 years ago
Reply to  michael welby

Quite right, there is no single magic bullet to solve our energy crisis, but fracking could well be part of the solution. David Hansard seems to misunderstand (along with the government, or at least Boris when he was still PM) the realities of electricity generation. Output from renewables is highly variable over relatively short periods of time so requires some form of mass storage (currently a pipe dream) or backup that can increase output relatively quickly i.e. in a few hours. Nuclear power produces a constant output 24/7 so can’t be used to back up unreliables. This is where Boris’s plan for a massive increase in both of these, thinking that they would be sufficient, fails. The only way to backup renewables is with gas, hydro (there isn’t anywhere near enough capacity in the UK and very little untapped potential) or imports, assuming that Europe has electricity to spare. Therefore natural gas will be needed for the foreseeable future to generate electricity, not to mention for heating and industrial processes. There might be large amounts left under the North Sea, but not infinite amounts, which means we should look for other sources of supply including fracking. It might take a… Read more »

DevonBlueBoy
DevonBlueBoy
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Dalby

Best to call renewables “Unreliables”

Nigel Sherratt
3 years ago

In answer to your ‘NIMBY’ question. I wrote this to JR-M ‘The north-east corner of the Jurassic Weald Basin Study Area is (more or less) under my house. I hope to hear very soon that fracking is taking place below me’.

No answer yet, I hope he is busy getting on with it. We shan’t know until we start. Wytch Farm field (oil admittedly) has been producing for 43 years from under Sandbanks. I’m sure we’d have heard if there were any problems there.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/go-for-fracking-or-the-lights-will-go-out/

This horror on the other hand threatens to poison me and my neighbours (those it doesn’t blow up) when its 650 MWh Lion battery (415 tons of TNT equivalent) goes up.

https://www.favershameye.co.uk/post/project-fortress-previously-known-as-cleve-hill

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/project-fortress/

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Sherratt

And the Mogg creature has given the house ahead for an experimental fusion reactor. We have had working fusion reactors for years – Hydrogen bombs.

John Dempster
John Dempster
3 years ago

The only short term solution I can think of is burning solid fuel. If you have a house with a chimney breast (solid fuel flue), then it might make sense to install a multi fuel stove or a simple open fire.

When I was growing up, our main heat source was an open fire with a back boiler in the dining room.  

SimCS
3 years ago
Reply to  John Dempster

I already have a log burning stove, and nature was very kind earlier this year, blowing over many already dead trees that I now have cut, split and stacked up ready (with much more still out there). My BEC (battery electric chainsaw) has been well used.

rms
rms
3 years ago

Frankly, for any issue in life it makes little sense to me to reject an idea because one or more of the issues related to the solution are that it’s not a “magic bullet”.

And, unless the gov’t is investing tax revenues into a fracking project, it’s “other people’s money” to explore, produce, and perhaps benefit from the project.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  rms

North Sea oil & gas was no ‘magic bullet’, but within a decade it made a huge difference to the UK.

And… the Government gets sovereign royalties on fracked gas and oil.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago

Hydrocarbons are (and always have been) the solution.

Shale is hydrocarbons.

Ergo, it is part of the solution.

Can it meet all our requirements single-handedly? No, of course not.

Does this mean it should be disregarded? No, of course not.

Strange article.

Lovely hydrocarbons are solar power in a bottle. Their discovery and use made an inhospitable planet hospitable.

Nuclear is of course the way forward. But until then – h y d r o c a r b o n s .

wokeman
wokeman
3 years ago

I’m loving the hydrocarbons in a bottle thing, I’m going to steal it!

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

Lumps of coal are solar batteries.

BurlingtonBertie
3 years ago

Someone has successfully built using the original patents, a Tesla generator. For proper, clean, reliable renewable electricity this has to be the way to go. Doing so would then free up oil, gas etc for applications where they are the only viable option.

SimCS
3 years ago

The answer is always in the middle. We need both nuclear *AND* hydrocarbons, as the grid needs both baseload *and* dispatchable generation.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  SimCS

Exactly correct. It’s just that nuclear takes a while to set up. So, in the meantime, let’s get the stuff under our own feet that’s not gone away (to paraphrase Maggie). And now, the stuff under our own feet is worth a lot more to us than it was in the seventies and eighties. That’s market forces for ya, something which Maggie understood.

allanplaskett
allanplaskett
3 years ago

‘Fracking is Not the Answer’
The former head of Cuadrilla was recently reported as saying much the same thing. But did he accept a bribe to say it? In these totally Gates corrupted times, that’s the first thought that occurs.

Duncan Swan
Duncan Swan
3 years ago

Very strange article – very light on facts and an unpleasant undertone of ad hominin running throughout. I’m happy to hear strongly argued alternative viewpoints, but this this didn’t make the grade.  

Paradigm B
Paradigm B
3 years ago

A strange article.
I appreciate few people want a fracking operation next door. The answer is for any works to be carefully sited and controlled. There are a lot of low impact boreholes and pipelines across the UK, and fracking can be the same. Certainly less impactful that wind turbines and solar farms.
Given Britains wealth of other hydrocarbons (remember the industrial revolution, anyone?) It is overwhelmingly likely that there are large, frackable reserves of gas and oil. They will provide lower prices, energy security, and high paying jobs. For evidence of this simply look at the UKs oil or ( historically) coal industries. Or the USA today.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  Paradigm B

The disruption from fracking is the period, maybe two months, whilst the well is being dug and the fracking process carried out. Once that is done, the site is landscaped and the well head is about the size of a Portakabin, which can be low profile hidden by the landscaping and causes no harm to birds, bars and insects. Compare with wind turbines, solar arrays.

Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks
3 years ago

More straw men arguments in this article than the Scarecrow World Cup finals. If I may paraphrase his case:

1 – Fracking in the future won’t reduce energy bills today.
2- We don’t know if fracking will be cost effective
3 – We don’t know if it will create many jobs.
4- You wouldn’t want a fracking site in your back yard

And he then tries to argue that those in favour of fracking should prove their case right now. Before a single pipe is in the ground.

So, my questions to him are:

“Why wouldn’t you want private enterprise to explore new energy sources, which could improve energy security, reduce costs, provide jobs and local income streams? And,

What risks are you taking by allowing research and exploration to take place?”

Fair play to the Daily Sceptic for running this piece, but it’s all a bit of a Johnny Nash – “There Are More Questions than Answers”

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Clarence Beeks

I was planning to write roughly the same thing: The main criticisms of fracking in this article is a tired old ad ignorantiam: We don’t yet know what future benefits – if any – fracking might bring (trivially, because we simply didn’t try it), hence, we shouldn’t try it. This combined with a little fear-mongering, the “would you want …” bit.

In the early 19th century, scientists and experts insisted that intransparent walls must be built alongside railways as people simple wouldn’t be able to stand the sight of something moving at the breakneck speed of about 25 km/h (15.5mph) without going mad and serious doubts were raised by the same people if passengers would at all be able to survive travel inside something moving that fast. Everything anti-fracking I’ve read so far always reminded me of this example.

I absolutely don’t claim any expertise on this topic. But the only way to find out if fracking will help with anything is to try to make it work. Hence, arguing against trying this based on our necessary ignorance about the future benefits is disingenious.

I8n8
I8n8
3 years ago

I’d rather have fracking next to me than the hundreds of bloody turbines I can see in every direction.
Perhaps the author should examine the impact on US gas prices, significantly reduced by fracking.
Plus the naivety of the short term authors view, is typical of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  I8n8

And one of his arguments against fracking is that it won’t provide as many jobs as people think.

Facepalm.

Sepulchrave
Sepulchrave
3 years ago

None of the logical arguments matter, the ecolunatics will prevent fracking in this country because there is not the political will to bring in the mounted police.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago

I share in all the other comments made and would add that I dispute the assertion that the “crisis” was brought to a head by the Russian invasion. I think it’s more accurate to say it was out reaction to the Russian invasion. It’s a bit like Covid and lockdowns.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

Well not in this Country. Only 5% of UK gas demand is Russian, so it is not gas or gas prices but 30 years of lunatic, incoherent energy policies: including but not limited to, closing coal fired power stations providing just over 50% of demand and most of the base load, replacing them with windmills that don’t; making the grid gas dependent because it needs to continually back up wind power; price caps; windfall taxes; banning fracking; reducing liquified gas storage (because we won’t need it); making further extraction of offshore oil & gas too expensive by regulation; discouraging investment in energy supply with Net Zero policy.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Exactly. Great post.

DavidJSimpson52
DavidJSimpson52
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

and not starting to replace our ageing nuclear reactors 20 years ago

JayBee
3 years ago

I think the author raises some valid points, like the, very biased, one here does too. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/01/1027822/fracking-boom-jobs-industry/ Greenacres nails it anyway. I am in favor of fracking where it makes sense, incl. where it poses little risk and is not intrusive, just as I am fine with offshore wind farms but totally opposed to onshore ones in most locations. Besides, there is no shortage of fossile fuels, not even of gas. There are current shortages in some countries, because these countries egged on a war and reacted to its outbreak with, deliberately in the case of LeftGreen nihilist ideologues, suicidal sanctions. Just the fact that the 2 direct parties to this war were willing to end it in April but one party wasn’t allowed by these countries to do so proves that and tells one all else one needs to know about this. So fracking is really just about (more) autarky (and money going to a different kind of well-connected and well-placed beneficiary, of course), not about price or supply. The latter are non-issues for countries with governments acting in the national interest and with a focus on successful diplomacy by capable diplomats. But they are for countries and their… Read more »

RTSC
RTSC
3 years ago

Fracking is about security of supply as well as cost-reduction and job-promotion.

If fracking doesn’t provide these things, how come American gas is half the price of ours; they don’t have to import LPG and they have created thousands of fracking-related jobs?

RTSC
RTSC
3 years ago

Personally, I’d rather have a fracking site near me than a bank of ugly great bird-killing windmills.

And fracking would be part of our energy mix ….. just as the Eco nutters insist that inefficient renewables must be part of it.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

Millions lived with coal mines literally under their houses, with iron & steel works and coke ovens literally next door.

How ever did they survive?

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Indeed. And fracking immediately fills the space it leaves after what it takes out of the ground. Coal mines leave huge voids.

Brett_McS
3 years ago

The economic illiteracy of the author is exposed by a number of statements, but a common fallacy he repeats is to criticize producers of services and goods because “they don’t create many jobs”.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  Brett_McS

Quite. Since jobs are a cost any production with few jobs = high productivity.

We must go Green because it will require more jobs to produce the same output as fossil fuels, thus increase costs and create low productivity.

Increased costs = makes us poorer. High productivity = High wages; low productivity = low wages.

But then, that’s basic economics and economics and Net Zero are strangers.

stewart
3 years ago

I have no idea if fracking is the solution, a solution or no solution at all.

But I know this. If the market for energy were a free market, then the market would decide for me.

As it turns out, the energy sector must be yet another sector that is for all intents and purposes captured and centrally planned.

Government shouldn’t be deciding what the right energy mix is. It should focus on calculating the externalities in order to put the appropriate tax on each form of energy and let the market decide.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  stewart

But we live in times when Government decides what is the right food for us to eat and how much. It is out of control.

Monro
3 years ago

‘Supporters of fracking need to reflect on the wider issues and reconsider their unreserved support.’ I just did that and my re-consideration considered the following 2022 summary of the pros and cons of fracking by the LSE: ‘“It is widely recognised that the open and liberal nature of the UK’s gas market means that the market price – the National Balancing Point (NBP) – is unlikely to be influenced by shale gas development.” ‘UK fracking might produce between 90 and 330 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas between 2020 and 2050. Using future demand figures from National Grid, they calculated that could represent between 17 and 22 per cent of projected cumulative UK consumption over that period.’ ‘…onshore production of unconventional oil and gas, at its peak, could create between 16,000 and 32,000 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) under a high activity scenario with production of 120 to 240 bcm of gas over 20 years from up to 360 wells.’ ‘UK production of shale gas could meet between 17 and 22 per cent of UK cumulative consumption between 2020 and 2050, stated that “should the UK wish to have a shale gas industry its role will be to mask… Read more »

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

What will relieve the electricity supply problem is start building coal fired power stations now to replace the useless windmills that replaced the coal powered stations we had which provided over 50% of demand and most of base load.

What will help bring gas prices down is by how much the amount of gas from fracking in the UK increases the supply in comparison to demand. That cannot be known and will not happen until substantial output is achieved but likely more gas going onto the market is better than less or none.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

‘There is no evidence that fracking would significantly reduce energy costs in the medium and long term.’ You do not understand how commodities markets work – a thing called market sentiment. They are underpinned by futures trading. The idiot in the White House just had to cancel the Keystone pipeline and gas and oil prices went up, but no supplies were interrupted. Traders however priced in the fact that future supplies would not increase or transport costs reduced as previously anticipated. Similarly, restart of exploration and fracking in the UK means traders will price in increases supplies in the future. It also reassures the market that fossil fuels are back in the agenda. As for whether these deposits in the UK are viable – nobody knows. Yes they do. Gas & Oil industry work on a 20 year investment cycle. They will look at future pricing, future estimated demand, future estimated supplies, future likely prices, current cost of extraction, investment needed and make their calculations. Since there was an interest in fracking it suggest extraction is economically viable. When I was a child, North Sea oil was not viable, but then oil prices increased, future prices were calculated to increases,… Read more »

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Hear bloody hear. Cheers, JXB!

jburns75
jburns75
3 years ago

Read this with an open mind, but there seems to be a lot of assertion going on here without any real substance.

Alan M
Alan M
3 years ago
  1. I spent 2 years in the USA hydraulic fracturing and agree that it is not the panacea that extreme enthusiasts claim. It will help with security of supply but there are downsides – notably the amount of water required although from my experience, the earth tremor argument is far less an issue than claimed. As with the writer, I can’t see how it will reduce bills because once the first fracture is complete, the flow from a well is high but drops of quite rapidly over 6-9 months so another well is needed with the attendant costs. With the thickness of shale in the UK, it may be possible to go back to the well and drill deeper for another fracture but that remains to be seen. In my opinion, it would be no more than a useful addition to the country’s gas supplies problems.
Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan M

Agreed.

No-one in their right mind would suggest it is a silver bullet.

But then everyone in their right mind knows silver bullets don’t exist.

And everyone in their right mind would be in favour of meeting our energy requirements through a mix of hydrocarbon sources. Eggs, baskets, etc.

For a fist full of roubles

I thought the argument about fracking in the UK was more about energy security than cost.
It was never a solution in itself, just part of a move to diversity of supply when faced with the obsession about green energy and its unreliability.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago

As usual I will comment before reading the thoughts of others.

It’s Carp. A wholly negative appraisal of a massive subject. Is the author BBC or ex BBC?

We need fracking, we need coal, nuclear particularly, oil and gas. Renewables should be abandoned immediately which would save taxpayers thousands.

A lamentable piece of writing worthy of a poorly educated 16 year old who has been indoctrinated in a crummy state school.

Somebody needs to get a grip.

Scunnered
3 years ago

Forgive me, perhaps I did a poor job of skim-reading this article but I can’t actually find where the author outlines why fracking isn’t a sound idea which is a bit ironic given that’s what he accuses fracking supporters of. The only clue is a subtle nod to nimbyism.

RJBassett
RJBassett
3 years ago

There is no evidence that fracking would significantly reduce energy costs in the medium and long term. “

What?

The US fracking revolution provides ample proof that fracking reduces energy costs and that proof has been available for more than a decade.

To say that this is profoundly ignorant would be to significantly understate the case.

Michael Staples
Michael Staples
3 years ago

I am unsure why increasing the supply of a commodity won’t reduce its price in the marketplace. It did so in the USA. Why is the UK exempt from the laws of supply and demand?
As to whether there is sufficient gas under our feet to make a difference, it might be sensible to actually try to extract it before retreating in fear at the alarmists’ exaggerated predictions.