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”
alan.sloman
I do think there’s a strong possibility of non-conventional gas reducing the price of gas overall, Leon, as there will be more gas available for the generators to choose from. This has certainly been the case in the US. Of course, it gives the UK a better security of supply as well, making us less reliable on disruptions to supply from overseas political events.
I don’t believe the UK taxpayer is at risk; those risks are taken by the fracking companies themselves. The taxpayer can only benefit as he will be gaining the tax revenues from the home-grown fracked gas being sold to the generators, even if at a more marginal rate – it’s all positive income to the treasury.
Leon Wolfeson
Er, gas doesn’t work like that. There’s no pool or pricing standard like oil has (brent crude), it’s all individual contracts. The US system is also structured *nothing* like ours, and does not have the idiotic RO system we have.
Bills have not gone down one bit even though gas pricing has tumbled.
And you’re not paying attention…the major risks have been assumed by the Government, and the taxpayer will pay for anything which goes wrong. Moreover, the tax rates are specially low for fracking. I’m not sure why you think lower rates are more revenue…it’s just another drain which fracking will cause, as it’ll lead to rapid wind-downs of North Sea extraction in it’s favour.
alan.sloman
It seems I have a bit to learn on how gas prices are established.
Thanks.
🙂
I still maintain that even at a reduced level of taxation the revenue is all extra to what we have now. We are not providing any subsidies, ROs and LECs for instance, so we can only benefit from the extra tax-take.
billbradbury
Interesting that most of the gas going into Grangemouth is from the Fracking in the USA. The switch from refining crude was one issue in that dispute a year ago. Fracking will happen eventually unless we do go fully Nuclear to which again the “usual suspects” object. At least it makes them feel important and give those with no fixed abode a chance to settle by some roadside in a like minded community.
Leon Wolfeson
Again, though, if it’s lower tax then they’ll shut down more expensive offshore production.