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
Yes yes, you’re a ladder puller. And you only paid NI etc…Why should this make me think better of you? Why are you so happy to raise power bills on the poor if you remember what it’s like?
No, you’re making excuses, no more. Rather than address the argument, you act all offended.
Leon Wolfeson
Poor people are paying for the FIT’s which rich people get for their panels, period. A *small* minority of poor are on special rates, many of which are hard to get – in fact, many poor people are on “special” rates in that they’ve been stuck with very expensive meters. Being on housing benefit gets you no special deal, either.
Also, increasingly, poor people are stuck in rented accommodation instead of social housing, and they not only need the landlord’s permission (which they have no incentive to give, in practice), but the house needs to be able to take the panels (many are in poor repair and can’t have them) and then they need to be able to pay for it (some subsides are available, but in many cases (i.e. over a shop) they are not eligible).
Your dismissal of FIT’s, at a time when many poorer people are struggling to earn enough to eat is plain *wrong*. “Benefits” for those with cash based on raising power bills are not “mutual”.
alan.sloman
Actually, Simon, energy efficiency does reduce bills, but the savings allow increased expenditure on other items – all of which take energy to manufacture, market and distribute. Saving energy, however it is done, only increase energy expenditure elsewhere.
If you are fuel poor, the chances are that saving energy would be a god-send as then you’ll have the money for food. However, the poor are being hit the most as they pay the highest prices for their energy as they could be on meters and their unit cost for low consumption is very high. They don’t have the money for expensive energy reduction measures.
Fracking could (and I emphasise *could*) reduce gas bills – and heating is the largest part of a home’s energy bill. Reductions in the price of gas will also bring about cheaper electricity from CGT power stations as well.
It’s worth a bash, I’d say, just for the fuel-poor’s sake.
Leon Wolfeson
Could? No, it cannot under the current system of RO’s…gas prices are already low, and it’s made zero difference to bills. “Cheaper” just means higher profits for the companies involved, period.
Having a “bash” at massive risk to the taxpayer is a bad idea.
Leon Wolfeson
Ah, magical “clean” coal, which does not exist. The new German power plants are going to be ~15% cleaner than the 1970’s plants – still pollution-belching monsters, that is.
Nuclear makes sense, new coal does not.