The UK has among the best renewables resources in the world. Do we really need fracking?

Judging by yesterday's announcements, the government believes the hype about shale gas. Like a love-struck teenager it seems blind to any downsides and is lavishing its beloved with gifts such as tax breaks and streamlined regulation.

By Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth

Judging by yesterday’s announcements, the government believes the hype about shale gas. Like a love-struck teenager it seems blind to any downsides and is lavishing its beloved with gifts such as tax breaks and streamlined regulation.

But there are plenty of downsides which mean that shale gas is not the answer to our energy problems.

First and foremost, shale gas is more fossil fuel. We already have four times more fossil fuels globally than we can afford to burn if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, so drilling for more, however much there is under north west England and elsewhere, is not the answer.

Secondly, the cost. The government will soon consult on tax breaks for shale gas. If the UK outlook is as promising as the industry says, why does it need tax breaks?

Meanwhile, there’s little evidence that shale gas will cut energy prices, or help hard-pressed households afford their energy bills, despite George Osborne’s assertions.

Most experts think that costs will be much higher in the UK than in the US, prompting one leading analyst, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, to describe going for shale gas on the basis that it will lower energy bills as “wishful thinking”.

Thirdly, fracking is a novel and risky technology. The industry and its advocates will tell you that it is safe and there’s no evidence of problems. The government says regulation will be much tougher here than in the US.

However that’s what they said in Australia, but they have plenty of evidence of water contamination and air pollution from unconventional gas. The Australian experience shows that you can’t regulate the unconventional gas industry into safety. You can make it safer, but you can’t make it safe.

That view is shared by the United Nations Environment Program which said last year that fracking could lead to unavoidable environmental impacts, even if it was done properly.

Maybe we would have more faith in regulators like the Environment Agency (EA) if we hadn’t caught it asleep on the job last week.

It had decided that drilling company Cuadrilla didn’t need any environmental permits for its test drilling for shale oil in Sussex. But when Friends of the Earth challenged the EA, it changed its mind. Yesterday it announced a ‘streamlined’ regulatory process for shale gas. What assurances do we have that this will be robust?

The new estimates of gas under Northern England could well be the starting gun for a shale gas rush. But that could lead to big political fallout for the government. ConservativeHome recently wrote that fracking will have political consequences – bigger than windfarms, bigger than HS2 and bigger, even, than greenfield housing development”.

This fallout is likely to happen in the Home Counties as much as in Northern England.

Yesterday’s announcement focused on the Bowland Shale, but maybe the second most geologically promising area for shale gas in the UK is under the Weald in south east England running from Kent through Sussex and Surrey to Hampshire.

Cuadrilla’s proposals to drill for shale oil in Balcombe in Sussex show that local communities will fight fracking just as hard in the South.

Is Labour setting an alternative agenda on fracking? Sadly not. It supports decarbonising our power sector by 2030 but going for shale gas would put this at risk and threaten green jobs. Labour says six conditions need to be met before shale gas extraction should go ahead – but they don’t mention climate change.

Britain needs an energy revolution. But we need an energy revolution for the 21stcentury, based on energy efficiency and clean energy sources such as wind, solar and wave power.

The UK is fortunate to have among the best renewables resources in the world. The priority must be to exploit these resources, not send us down the high-carbon dead-end street of more fossil fuels.

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

4 Responses to “The UK has among the best renewables resources in the world. Do we really need fracking?”

  1. DaveAtherton20

    I have no desire to see my fuel bills go up due to the absurd cost of renewables, it seems no more than a tax on the poor from Yoghurt knitting lefties.

    As they found out in Spain when 4 green jobs were created, 9 real ones were lost.

  2. Steven Dobbs

    renewables keep the price of gas down, wind power for example, has an energyReturn/energyInvested ratio 18:1 at least for the Uk, fracking might not even be a net energy source!

    Some people complain about subsidy and imagine that is hurting the UK economy or increasing their bills.

    No, the subsidy has a national effect of significantly improving national balance of payments, and as for energy prices, by lightening pressure on gas demand, wind power reduces the cost of gas by supply and demand mechanism.

  3. DaveAtherton20

    “The costs of generating 1 Megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity is £65 for gas, £62 for coal, and £95 for nuclear. Onshore wind ranks in at £90 and offshore wind an eye watering £150.”

    With respect, what a load of rubbish when renewables cost 50%-100% more than fossil fuels.

  4. Steven Dobbs

    the capital cost of wind is comparable to nuclear, both have low fuel costs. With windpower there is no risky disposal concerns which your rubbish stats tend to ignore – and the life time costs of coal, gas, etc is all a bit speculative because fuel prices continue to rise, and our currency will continue to depreciate against emerging economy’s

    we need to get away from market centric thinking when considering strategic policy like energy: the strategic variable that should be of interest is the EnergyReturn/EnergyInvested ratio.

    Windpower is better than anything but coal, but coal is problematic for its contribution to greenhouse effect + respiratory illness.

    The high EnergyReturn/energyInvested ratio for wind means that if we think the price is too high, alls we need to do, is invest in production capacity and the price will fall- supply and demand will shift prices as we want them to, and with such a high return ratio, as we transition to wind power, we will be able to sustain our economy and possibly even expand it in the face of depleted resources.

Leave a Reply