Fracking in Sheffield?

[Flexo]

There were around 50 similar plants operating in Britain by the end of 2015 so clearly they are economical.

 

Each 5MW plant consists of half a dozen farm tanks and some gubbins to pump scrubbed biomethane into the grid.

 

It's virtually carbon neutral.

 

Doesn't take land away from food production but instead helps improve farmland (the report goes into detail).

 

Low ambition 1000 mills supplying 20% UK households; high ambition 5000 mills supplying 97% UK households.

 

Each returns £1.5m/year into the local economy, £30m over the life of the plant.

 

Do have a read of the report.

 

With Brexit, EU farm subsidies are at risk.

 

It would be smart for government to show we are with the farmers by helping support the creation of this income stream for them. It would be very on message with the bold new freedoms and breaking away from EU agricultural policy.

 

It compares well with the costs of fracking...

drilling

+ pumping or trucking huge volumes of water

+ chemicals

+ pumping it all in

+ environmental and human harms that sometimes result from fracking

+ unknowns

and nowhere near carbon neutral.

[unbeliever]

Rubbish!

The energy cost from the collection and transport of the grass is going to be met by Diesel.

If the grass is being eaten by this technology the it can't be fed to animals.

 

What is the total cost per kWh produced?

[ez8004]

Grass for energy generation really?

 

Nuclear SMR will be the future for sure. It is far more economical for energy generation not to mention far better for our energy security compared to grass.

[Flexo]

Yes, some fuel is used for mowing and moving the grass. Imagine a big trailer full of grass - the amount of fuel needed is a trivial fraction of the total.

 

This compares very well with fracking which needs lots of truck movements, involves shifting huge volumes of water and chemicals plus drilling.

 

There have been concerns raised about biogas and bio-methane that if we get the incentives wrong too many farmers will stop growing food on their arable land and move to growing crops as fuel instead. Critics have for example pointed out that in 2014 almost a fifth of all maize grown in the country was for Anaerobic Digestion, and took up around 0.7% of England’s total arable land.

 

We think that they are right to be concerned – the UK’s farmland is precious and needs to be protected and improved for the sake of food production and the necessary environmental gains.

 

But we also think that if we put the right protections in place we can both fulfill the potential we have in this country for bio-methane, and keep growing the food we need. That is why Ecotricity is committed to never using energy crops and to making sure our feedstocks never contribute to a reduction in food crop production.

 

That means we focus foremost of growing grass on marginal or under-utilised grazing land and on arable farmland of reduced quality (i.e. often only capable of growing feed crops for livestock).

 

Firstly, the amount of marginal or under-utilised grassland is growing. For example, the area of grassland used for grazing cattle has almost halved since 1990 due to changes in farming methods and agricultural subsidies that have led to reduced beef and dairy herds. We are hopeful that as people opt to eat less meat to reduce their carbon footprints this will accelerate the availability of land.

 

Secondly, we can grow grass temporarily on arable farmland for two to four years as a break-crop in rotation with food crops. As we explained above, this can help to increase overall food production and quality by improving soil health and reducing disease.

 

What we need is a regulatory framework, which protects land which should be used for growing food for humans, but where appropriate allows us to maximise production on under-utilised farmland and improve its quality by growing feedstock for AD, like in our Green Gas Mills. In addition, the improvement in soil quality from the Green Gas Mills process will increase the amount of farmland that is suitable to grow crops for human consumption. As part of our recommendations for how Britain can fulfill our Green Gas potential, we set out some areas we think are important.

[unbeliever]

Absolute grade A nonsense.

No numbers at all.

The entire idea is as mad as a bag of ferrets.

 

Without numbers what makes you think you will even break even. It's very likely that collecting and transporting the grass will use more diesel energy than it produces in gas.

 

2 pages of writing and you've basically said nothing at all.

Edited March 25, 2017 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

It's very likely that collecting and transporting the grass will use more diesel energy than it produces in gas.

 

Absolute Grade A nonsense.

[unbeliever]

Absolute Grade A nonsense.

 

Then give me the numbers.

[Margarita Ma]

Not only does that advert for an American Injury Law Firm not answer the question, it relates to workplace injuries, and therefore has nothing to do with 'poisonous toxins' which your earlier comment alluded to.

 

Indeed, it actually states 'The researchers found that the most common fatality for energy workers was traffic accidents, followed by being struck by an object'.

 

These were work accidents that were associated with the industry. The Lawyers specialise in Workplace injuries. The point is if they are so careless about their employees welfare while onsite how much less are they going to care about people who will find it more difficult to prove that they are culpable when the toxins get into the water table.

This will be the same story we heard from Mining, Tobacco, Asbestos and other industries where toxins are present. Deny, Deny, Deny. Denial all the way.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2017 at 16:40 ----------

 

The energy released from burning waste is to all intents and purposes b****- all. Waste incineration merely gets the volumes down to manageable sizes.

 

If you are going to discuss this with UB I'd suggest sciencing up and learning about it - and I don't mean the whackjob list of sites there I mean proper science. You are aware that Gaslands and the associated outrage is entirely faked yes?

 

 

The waste incineration in Sheffield heated all of Parkhill flats and Hyde park Flats. as well as some local government offices surely that is a bigger benefit than size reduction alone. I am not sure where the heat is directed now but I am sure you can find out if you want to put some time into that instead of trying to tear off strips of flesh from people on here.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2017 at 18:00 ----------

 

So less than 1 MW per "digester".

I don't have a problem with disposing of waste in the productive way. You were talking about harvesting grass.

How much do they cost to build and run?

 

What's the total cost per kWh for your grass nonsense?

 

What is the total cost per KWH for Nuclear. inclusive of building the plant cost of fuel, disposal of spent fuel including transport, decommissioning of plant and security throughout the whole shebang. The price you pay at the meter is not the whole cost it is heavily subsidised by government, That means you and me through taxes. I this can be done for nuclear it can b e done for other energy production means too. But it would seem they would rather have the Chinese in charge of our energy production, or the French, or the Spanish, anyone but British companies. That way the profit goes out of the country when there is some and you can bet there is less tax paid on it too. I wonder how many Conservative MPs have their sticky little fingers in these hot pies.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Margarita Ma

[unbeliever]

These were work accidents that were associated with the industry. The Lawyers specialise in Workplace injuries. The point is if they are so careless about their employees welfare while onsite how much less are they going to care about people who will find it more difficult to prove that they are culpable when the toxins get into the water table.

This will be the same story we heard from Mining, Tobacco, Asbestos and other industries where toxins are present. Deny, Deny, Deny. Denial all the way.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2017 at 16:40 ----------

 

 

 

The waste incineration in Sheffield heated all of Parkhill flats and Hyde park Flats. as well as some local government offices surely that is a bigger benefit than size reduction alone. I am not sure where the heat is directed now but I am sure you can find out if you want to put some time into that instead of trying to tear off strips of flesh from people on here.

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2017 at 18:00 ----------

 

 

What is the total cost per KWH for Nuclear. inclusive of building the plant cost of fuel, disposal of spent fuel including transport, decommissioning of plant and security throughout the whole shebang. The price you pay at the meter is not the whole cost it is heavily subsidised by government, That means you and me through taxes. I this can be done for nuclear it can b e done for other energy production means too. But it would seem they would rather have the Chinese in charge of our energy production, or the French, or the Spanish, anyone but British companies. That way the profit goes out of the country when there is some and you can bet there is less tax paid on it too. I wonder how many Conservative MPs have their sticky little fingers in these hot pies.

 

 

List of people killed in wind farm accidents:

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

I expect this is different. Somehow?

 

Nuclear power costs about 10p per kWH all in.

I shall ignore the nationalist ranting.

[Robin-H]

These were work accidents that were associated with the industry. The Lawyers specialise in Workplace injuries. The point is if they are so careless about their employees welfare while onsite how much less are they going to care about people who will find it more difficult to prove that they are culpable when the toxins get into the water table.

This will be the same story we heard from Mining, Tobacco, Asbestos and other industries where toxins are present. Deny, Deny, Deny. Denial all the way.

 

I asked how many people were killed by fracking in response to your comment that implied that the elderly would be killed by poisonous toxins and therefore would not benefit from reduced heating bills.

 

I'm not sure how pointing out that there are a high number of workplace accidents in the oil and gas extraction industry in the U.S relates to that?