Shale gas site 'creates the least visual intrusion' compared with wind or solar farm for same energy, according to Government's former chief scientific advisor on energy
A wind farm requires 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site, according to analysis by the energy department’s recently-departed chief scientific advisor.
Prof David MacKay, who stood down from the Government role at the end of July, published analysis putting shale gas extraction “in perspective”, showing it was far less intrusive on the landscape than wind or solar energy.
His intervention was welcomed by fracking groups, who are battling to win public support amid claims from green groups and other critics that shale gas extraction will require the “industrialisation” of the countryside.
Hundreds of anti-fracking protesters on Thursday occupied a field near Blackpool neighbouring a proposed fracking site for energy firm Cuadrilla.
Prof MacKay said that a shale gas site uses less land and “creates the least visual intrusion”, compared with a wind farm or solar farm capable of producing the equivalent amount of energy over 25 years.
More
A wind farm requires 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site, according to analysis by the energy department’s recently-departed chief scientific advisor.
Prof David MacKay, who stood down from the Government role at the end of July, published analysis putting shale gas extraction “in perspective”, showing it was far less intrusive on the landscape than wind or solar energy.
His intervention was welcomed by fracking groups, who are battling to win public support amid claims from green groups and other critics that shale gas extraction will require the “industrialisation” of the countryside.
Hundreds of anti-fracking protesters on Thursday occupied a field near Blackpool neighbouring a proposed fracking site for energy firm Cuadrilla.
Prof MacKay said that a shale gas site uses less land and “creates the least visual intrusion”, compared with a wind farm or solar farm capable of producing the equivalent amount of energy over 25 years.
More
7 comments:
Over 25 years, but guess what the wind farm will produce energy as long as the turbines are there. Also, your water won't be polluted.
Well, this is about a stupid report! LOL! Wind and gas just might be in different locations; in fact, usually are. One has nothing to do with the other, and when it does, we just choose the more profitable.
Which rules out wind totally, as it is just plain not profitable yet.
I have no numbers on fracking. Anyone?
I like my drinking water to be non-flammable. I'll take the wind turbines.
Fracking has never been tied to flammable water. The methane in the water was there was before anyone ever fracked anything
Wind turbines only work a fraction of the time. Somerset County is rated the least favorable locale for wind because of its poor/marginal resource.
These large scale renewable energy plans all seem destined to fail. I think the future is in micro-level production. Build a new house, throw on solar panels and a wind turbine to hedge your bets when you experience poor weather. Wrap the costs into a mortgage and stack it with the renewable energy credits. You should be cash flow positive right away. These are small scale projects with little to no environmental impact beyond production, too.
For this to work, we need to be able to sell power back to the grid during the daytime at market rates while residential demand is low and commercial demand is high. When consumers get home, they draw back their power from the utility via traditional power generation, or perhaps eventually some really efficient battery banks that aren't economical on the small scale.
The renewable mandates established by Governor O'Malley need to be abolished. The government is doing everything it can including robbing the taxpayers and ratepayers, and it still does not work.
Thanks Governor O'Malley and James Mathias for destroying our economy.
Post a Comment