The new energy minister calls shale “the holy grail” of energy policy. He’s probably right. It’s a mythical object that no-one’s found, and over time just has increasing comedy-value.
The new energy minister calls shale “the holy grail” of energy policy. He’s probably right. It’s a mythical object that no-one’s found, and over time just has increasing comedy-value
Today, new energy minister Matthew Hancock has lined up behind the rest of the men in the coalition government to don his cheerleader outfit and start thumping the tub for fracking.
Astonishingly large swathes of the British countryside are now laid open to the drillers’ rigs, as the government’s new map today shows. It’s an obsession that’s starting to seem more than slightly unhinged.
What’s worst about this bizarre fixation with trying to force through the least popular energy source since nuclear power is that if the government were genuinely concerned about the problems fracking purports to solve, there are many other things it should do first.
Mr Hancock claims that “shale gas can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the amount of coal that we burn”.
First, the jury is still out about whether shale gas is lower carbon than coal – as Carbon Brief set out. Second, even if it was lower carbon, drilling shale gas won’t just magically replace coal. That’s like saying if I make some toast, you will automatically stop eating cornflakes. The decision about coal or gas is down to prices and regulations.
If the government wanted gas power stations to run more than coal, it would increase the carbon price. The chancellor froze it at this Budget. Or it could use regulation – but it explicitly gave a loop-hole to old coal power stations so they can avoid the new Emissions Performance Standards. And just this month it’s introduced a new subsidy worth a billion pounds to a 2 Gigawatt big coal plant, which could see old coal run for another 15 years. So it doesn’t really seem to want to do anything about coal at all.
Mr Hancock also claims “that shale gas has the opportunity to increase our energy security”.
Well, yes, if we fracked half the country, then we might make a small dent in what we import. But again, if the government were serious about energy security, then why on earth is its strategy for energy efficiency so pitifully weak?
Last week, health and poverty groups lined up to slam the government’s new proposals for tackling fuel poverty – the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in Europe and some of the highest levels of fuel poverty. We’re wasting vast quantities of energy through leaky roof and walls every year. DECC projects that from now to 2030 the UK’s gas use will not fall at all.
And if energy security is such a problem, why is the UK among thecountries coming out against ambitious EU-wide energy efficiency targets for 2030? It makes much more sense, and is much cheaper, to cut demand rather than try to maximise supply.
Mr Hancock calls shale gas “the holy grail” of energy policy. Here he’s probably right. It’s a mythical object that no-one’s found, and over time just has increasing comedy-value. Far better to focus on what works.
The first focus of UK energy policy needs to be an aggressive focus on energy efficiency. Then decarbonising electricity, through a rapid expansion of renewables. Gas is a transition fuel through the 2020s. But shale gas is not needed to do that. Among Labour supporters, only 19 per cent want fracking, with 44 per cent opposed.
There’s no sense, or parliamentary seats, in ripping up the beautiful British countryside pursuing a futile dream.
Simon Bullock is a senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth
30 Responses to “Fracking for shale gas: Hancock’s half-truths”
Leon Wolfeson
And?
billbradbury
Simon Bullock-Friend of the Earth! –Well he would say that wouldn’t he? Probably one who said burning wood reduces carbon emissions. Now that canard has been rumbled. We are sitting on a pile of coal and we import the lot.!! Coal fired stations could run clean as there is the technology. Tidal barrage would destroy some rare frog. Wind farms now also being rumbled as a waste of money as they don’t work with no wind. And Nuclear!! now I have really upset the Friends. As I type probably power coming from such. Luddites, Levelers, and NIMBY’s. However did we get a rail system when we had perfectly good canals?
Look on the bright side. Just think of all the free travelling communities that will be set up throughout the country.
Leon Wolfeson
Euro what? No, the problem is that the RO elevator on prices means we don’t see the benefit of lower input prices, and it’s got special tax breaks, and the insurance costs have been offloaded onto the taxpayer, and…
Gas has no generalised pricing like oil (Brent Crude). There are real criticisms to be made, but that’s not one of them.
Norfolk29
Poor people (on benefits) are not paying FIT as most of them are on special rates. Anyone in social accommodation can have solar panels fitted free of charge in return for the FIT payments going to the people who funded the panels. I know people in social housing with solar panels and perfectly glad to have them, supplied by the Housing Trust that built the houses. The FIT is paid by the Big 6 Energy Companies out of their revenues and cost everyone a tiny amount on their tariff.
When I had my Green Deal Assessment to apply for the RHI the engineer was in the middle of an assessment for a Housing Association estate of over 100 houses, all with Air Source Heat Pumps and all funded by the RHI. This is another form of mutually provided benefits that are available to all if they wish to take advantage of it.
Norfolk29
I was born in a council house and left school without any qualifications so don’t come the poor mouth with me. All life is a struggle and all of us make of it what we can. I worked for 47 years from 17 until 64 and paid NI all the way.