Regulation

Campaigners seek legal challenge to Cuadrilla’s fracking permit

royal-courts-of-justice

Friends of the Earth is taking legal action against the Environment Agency over the way it granted Cuadrilla a permit to frack in Lancashire.

The campaign organisation announced this morning it has lodged an application with the High Court to seek a judicial review of the environmental permit to frack at the Preston New Road site near Blackpool.

It said the Environment Agency (EA) had failed to take the best course of action to protect the environment from the risks of fracking.

Friends of the Earth said the EA had a duty to ensure that the best available techniques were used by the fracking industry. But the organisation said the EA had failed to conduct a best available technique assessment when considering Cuadrilla’s application.

The case being brought by Friends of the Earth is that Cuadrilla should have been required to use a better technique for dealing with waste fluids – known as flowback – generated by fracking.

According to Friends of the Earth, the more ‘flowback fluid’ that Cuadrilla can reuse, the less waste would need to be trucked offsite. There could be more waste and more trucks on Lancashire’s road because the EA failed to ensure the best available techniques were used, it said.

pnr 180426 Ros Wills 1 slider

Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site. Photo: Ros Wills

The environmental permit is just one of the requirements needed before fracking can start. Under the Infrastructure Act, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, has to give the final consent.

Friends of the Earth has asked him to delay his decision on consent while the challenge is being considered by the courts.

Cuadrilla recently finished drilling the UK’s first horizontal shale gas well and is currently working on the second. It has said it plans to begin fracking in July.

10 days ago, the Energy Minister, Claire Perry, responding to a parliamentary question, said the government had not received an application from Cuadrilla for hydraulic consent.

Friends of the Earth campaigner, Helen Rimmer, said:

“All along, the government stated that gold standard regulation will make everything ok, but we believe our challenge shows the opposite. Where fracking has happened elsewhere, we’ve seen instances of damage to the environment. We were told the UK’s regulation would suffice, but already it’s looking more like fool’s gold, than gold standard.

“Greg Clark should not grant fracking consent while significant questions are being raised about basic regulation in the High Court.”

A spokesperson for Cuadrilla said:

“We can confirm we have been granted all necessary Environment Agency permits required for us to hydraulically fracture at our site at Preston New Road, Lancashire.

“We are moving ahead to apply to the Secretary of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for the final consent to fracture the first shale horizontal well,  which we completed in early April.

“The Secretary of State will make his decision based on all the information presented to him but we note that the Infrastructure Act clearly states that if the operator has the necessary permits in place this “is sufficient for the Secretary of State to be satisfied”.

“We do have those permits and therefore consider it inappropriate for Friends of the Earth to suggest that there is any reason for the Secretary of State, on these grounds, not to grant consent.”

A spokesperson for the pro-shale group, Lancashire for Shale, said:

“This is just the latest in a long line of stunts designed to delay progress on the basis of yet another spurious claim, and an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money considering that the Environment Agency, a public body, may now have to incur significant legal expenses to defend this action.

“Lancashire’s economy has already benefited to the tune of almost £9m in supply chain spending since Cuadrilla relocated to Preston and operations began. People and businesses will be rightly furious to learn that Friends of the Earth is trying to deny them further jobs and contracting opportunities with this eleventh-hour legal manoeuvre.

“If it were seriously concerned that the regulator had not followed due process when determining Cuadrilla’s environmental permits, it would have launched this challenge when those permits were first granted in 2015. The fact it has waited until now is a clear sign that it is just gaming the legal system.”

gv inquiry

The issue of flowback volumes was raised at the recent inquiry into fracking at Cuadrilla’s second proposed site in Lancashire at Roseacre Wood.

Local engineer, Mike Hill, questioned evidence from Cuadrilla about how it would reduce flowback volumes and, therefore, traffic from the site.

The company’s technical director, Mr Lappin, had said in his evidence to the inquiry that Cuadrilla proposed to shut-in the well to allow the formation to absorb flowback fluid and reduce volumes coming to the surface. He also said the company had considered on-site treatment of flowback fluid but at the time of the original application there was no permitted technique.

Mr Hill said the EA must look at best available techniques for all fracking waste, including the fluid left in the formation, as well as flowback. He said:

“Recycling of flowback is a complex process and one that has proven difficult to master by fracking operators.”

He said potential toxicity levels rose significantly and the efficiency of fracking fell with recycling. He said:

“It would be prudent to plan for traffic levels that include for tankering off all flowback. The traffic levels need to be realistic and include for unplanned weekend and night movements.” 

127 replies »

  1. The same Cuadrilla that said that their experts stated flooding wouldn’t be an issue at PNR. It would appear that Cuadrilla’s experts either don’t know what they are talking about or the industry simply pays them to give an overly simplistic analysis during the planning and permitting process just to secure consent. They then proceed to keep on widening the goalposts in terms of planning conditions and permits. The industry has been criticised by planning authorities for this and the EA’s weaknesses were exposed during the Lincolnshire inquiry. Thank goodness the public and NGOs continue to scrutinise this industry and hold them to account.

    • “The issue of flowback volumes was raised at the recent inquiry into fracking at Cuadrilla’s second proposed site in Lancashire at Roseacre Wood.

      Local engineer, Mike Hill, questioned evidence from Cuadrilla about how it would reduce flowback volumes and, therefore, traffic from the site.

      The company’s technical director, Mr Lappin, had said in his evidence to the inquiry that Cuadrilla proposed to shut-in the well to allow the formation to absorb flowback fluid and reduce volumes coming to the surface. He also said the company had considered on-site treatment of flowback fluid but at the time of the original application there was no permitted technique.

      Mr Hill said the EA must look at best available techniques for all fracking waste, including the fluid left in the formation, as well as flowback. He said:

      “Recycling of flowback is a complex process and one that has proven difficult to master by fracking operators.”

      He said potential toxicity levels rose significantly and the efficiency of fracking fell with recycling. He said:

      “It would be prudent to plan for traffic levels that include for tankering off all flowback. The traffic levels need to be realistic and include for unplanned weekend and night movements.”

      Lets read between the lines here shall we? what is really being said here? What is really being approached here by the back door in that time dishonoured way, is flowback recycling and reinjection and storage on site, for which we could perhaps could expect fracking waste ponds to be proposed?

      The clue for this approach can be seen in this comment:

      “He also said the company had considered on-site treatment of flowback fluid but at the time of the original application there was no permitted technique”

      This is an attempt to move the goalposts again isnt it? The permitted techniques and prohibition of flowback reinjection, which is known to produce earthquakes and or waste fluid ponds are being broached here with the complaint that such methods are forbidden.

      judging from the EA recent rubberstamp jobs, there is a distinct danger of some very fundamental goalposts being not only moved, but disposed of all together, or perhaps the term should be “reinjected”?

      Slippery slopes guys!

      • Regarding storage of flow-back fluid and possible waste fluid ponds. Could that be the reason Cuadrilla have an option, in their lease with Farmer Wensley, to take more land?

  2. Really do wish there was an in depth investigation carried out into the source of funding that FoE exists from as it sure ain’t UK antis donations!
    Making a mockery of the UK court system. How many failed JRs do these guys need to get in order to get the picture?

  3. Same applies to the source of funding for the Fracking lobbyists GottaBKidding. The Global Warming Policy foundation – outstanding climate change deniers who have direct inroads to parliament – have brazenly promoted fracking and repeatedly turned down Freedom of Information requests to disclose their sources of funding. Who is financing you by the way?

  4. “Blusters Last Stand”!!

    We know how it ends.

    Fracked.

    Maybe PhilipP, GBK is “funded” by some of the $16 billion paid out by Shell in dividends? “Alternatively”, he might be waiting for something similar from Mr. Musk, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the rescue. We know how it ends.

    • … maybe Martin, profits are all that matter eh? The world and all who care for its future can go to hell meanwhile. Is Musk only to be judged by share prices? Seems so by people like you. But he has blazed a trail and most of the major auto manufacturers are now following suit. And to be fair he has already had, and will have (going forward), an impact on reducing pollution and the noxious impacts of fossil fuel energy.

      • Agree with you Philip P electric cars will be the norm. I work in Norway a lot and have seen over the years how many are on the roads, taking out diesel and petrol from the energy mix. Fantastic news.

        Now to power all those millions of cars in the future we need electricity, yes… So a greater demand for electricity yes…

        What produces the lions share of electricity? Gas…

        There is a greater demand for gas more than ever now…

        Let’s take responsibility for the energy we use…

        http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/22/major-blow-to-energiewende-as-top-german-economist-shows-plan-can-never-work/#sthash.nT4asL4s.dpbs

        • ‘What produces the lions share of electricity? Gas…’ – currently yes due to our not maximizing the renewables we can employ right now due to ‘other plans’ by the governance.

          I would love to see the headline ‘Renewables maxed out and doing all they can. Now let’s top up with a bit of NS gas for the next 1000 years’.

          ‘Let’s take responsibility for the energy we use…’ – yes let’s….
          https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/
          https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/

        • What you need to grasp Kisheny is that the more electrical storage around, whether it be in the form of eVehicles or behind-the-meter storage the more the the baseload requirements from the major power sources actually goes down. I know, that sounds wrong, but what happens, for the next several years, is that most storage will accumulate energy from the off peak periods of supply (cheaper) and distribute at peak periods, so the roller coaster of energy demand gets flattened and therefore the the big baseload generators – which simply cannot ramp power output up on demand – can scale down their overall output, which is so far calibrated for peak demands. Some areas are already experimenting with free eV transport because the economy is getting changed radically in this way and what to do with surpluses, especially when your getting high outputs from wind and solar, becomes a problem otherwise.

          No Tricks Zone is a bit of a joke. I had a glance but I wouldn’t trust their conclusions. K, you’ve already shown misunderstanding of the German energy scene and there’s the failure to mention the fact that so many benefit by home solar and other solutions that the remaining high energy prices must be factored against that. Most people still support the energiewende initiative there and had their government not brought forward the closure of some of their nuclear generators – thereby having to prolong the winding down of the coal fired plants – they would still be a world leader in the progress towards sustainable low carbon energy.

  5. “Making a mockery of the UK court system” umm, bit like INOES suing the Scottish government for loss of potential income because they did a moritorium of fracking? Funny how INOES can claim “human rights violation” for loss of profit, but residents around frack sites can’t claim human rights violations for having toxic industry imposed on them.
    Under the same logic the entire British population can sue the UK government for loss of income due to the imposition of austerity.

    Several things are guaranteed with the fracking industry, and fossil fuel exploration generally –
    arrogance, indifference, hyper-optimism, over-simplifiication and obsfucation. And a bottomless pit of other people’s money to keep on using the courts. The much maligned socialism does exist in the UK, it’s called the fossil fuel industry, receiving £1000 per person per year in subsidies worldwide. The irony is that in effect it’s peoples’ taxes alongside quantative easing that allows the fossil fuel industry to get away with continually using the legal system.

    Drill or Drop reported yesterday Cuadrilla wants to treat the rainwater runoff with “electro-coagulation” that may change the chemistry of the water – so, admitting the rainwater can become contaminated, and what is produced after treatment may no longer be pure H2O. And the EA think this is safe to put back into the watercourse.
    Of course, “electromagnetic” infers yet more energy use, thereby rendering any potential product even more costly to extract than it was before.
    Has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis on how much energy has already been used to get to where Cuadrilla is now? Looks to me it’s going to be non-profitable even if it manages to get to extraction, which geology tells us it won’t.

    So if FoE or any other protectors manage to afford to use the same legal system that the toxic industry does, that’s good news, and only a small step towards a level playing field.

    • INEOS are completely within their right to sue my government. The SNP bent over for the Green Party (whom they need to keep greased up in order to continue their wet dream of independence) and ignored scientific experts who said fracking could be carried out safely. They used a poll that was carried out by the antis as their apparent reason for refusal.
      The SNP like you lot are hypocrites, wee Sturgeon doesn’t listen to ‘the people’ when it comes to taking easy Chinese money for excruciatingly expensive wind farms!
      INEOS are simply highlighting that the SNP are a pathetic political party that are killing the country.

      • Your government? hilarious. Does Trump know this?

        ‘INEOS are simply highlighting that the SNP are a pathetic political party that are killing the country.’ if you don’t like it, mosey on back home. Bye bye.

      • Correct GBK

        Freedom of information showed Nicola and Jim from Ineos had private meetings. Yes you can understand this, Grangemouth being 5% of Scotland’s GDP and employing thousands of workers directly but I’m pretty sure shale gas (the feed stock ethane) would undoubtedly come up.

        Completely right that the green party have the SNP over a barrel.

        The story behind the story, Ineos is having trouble with a pipeline in America which facilitated It’s flow of gas to port which then has Jim’s Dragon ships sail it to Grangemouth. I believe here in lies the conundrum. Grangemouth needs the ethane to produce and without it problems.

        My opinion is Jim is just going through the motions in the courts. The green party will dig It’s heels in and win. Lot’s of jumping up and down and Nicola smiling through gritted teeth. So what next, Ineos will now lay It’s cards on the table and say it has no choice, and to continue production will relocate South of the Border to Hull.

        Hull right next door to the gas fields Ineos has with Igas at which point will be producing. North East Teesside becoming a freeport etc etc…

        Thousands of jobs lost in Scotland also sending a message to the World. Closed for Business… indyref2? Nope…

        Nicola will probably keep her fingers crossed that all those ex workers buy high volume alcohol so those extra tax revenues go to Holyrood. If they were still in work they could have been paying you more income tax than those people South of the Border!

        Being in the oil, gas and renewables industry myself I can’t understand the anti poll carried out. Aberdeen the oil and gas Capital of Europe and employing so many oil and gas people who’s skills will transfer to this industry and feed off industries. Do they see it as a threat to North Sea production or were the way the question was framed put people off? Either way I see it will not be favourable for them..

        • I can see why you guys want to reduce this to a political mud slinging contest. Try and tackle it on the science and you’ll be on the losing end.

      • Talking of Chinese money. AJ Lucas and Cuadrilla seem to be more than happy to be constantly bailed out by Kerogen, who are Chinese.

  6. Well, PhilipP, profits are what keeps companies going! Without profits, no company, no employment, no taxes to fund public services.

    Ideas are great, but when you start taking money from investors a strange thing happens-they want a return! I think you have Tesla and FOE mixed up! One is a company, the other a charity. Oh, hang on a minute, one is more than a charity so it can do campaigning, but then seems to think it can conduct it’s promotion in a way other companies can not. I think the popular term is “cake and eat it”.

    • No matter how companies make their profits – I get that … the beginning and end of your philosophy. GBK will be pleased to have at least one idol worshiper. You think companies don’t campaign (via lobbying, PR and marketing exercises)? How quaint. How many billions do you think the Koch’s and the Mercers and the Exxon’s of this world have spent on keeping the whole FF juggernaut going, and suppressing awareness of the climate change impacts?

      • One worshiper???

        I think you’ll find everyone in the U.K uses fossil fuels in their daily life…

        Maybe even you Philip P or did you put a wooden toothbrush in your mouth this Morning???

            • Another misconception Kisheny. You may have joined the cult but categorically ‘WE’ do not stand with GBK; 85% of us say no thanks…

            • I think they’re desperate to shield GBK from answering my simple question. And Kisheny seems to be blind to the fact that these arguments are about what we should be using 20 years from now … will we get a choice, or simply be dragged down this path of further FF dependency (because of current infrastructure investments), with a whole lot more environmental and climate issues caused by that mindset.

            • No Thanks?

              Is that what your saying to all us oil and gas workers.

              We’ll use your products everyday of our lives but really we don’t want it?

            • Kisheny, is this only about YOU?

              You are afraid of losing your job; I understand this, have got some of those T Shirts, but threw them in the bin and made changes; don’t be afraid.

              Like all big industries, they consume without thought for the future and eventually implode taking all who trusted the ‘ship’s captain; with them; the fall out affects huge sways of people and areas. But eventually over time, those who can move on, those who cannot – sadly thrash around like dying fish until they are still. Those who can help try; some don’t want to be helped and by choice suffer demise; it’s sad, but a fact of life.

              Look at your options now, jump before the many, otherwise the competition will be fierce. There will be a need for oil and gas workers for a short while yet; at this rate of change longer than there should be……

              Remember you are not a slave, you can choose where you work – the only barriers are yourself and money. Choice is always with us but sometimes you have to give something up to get something else.

              Good luck for the future.

    • Sorry Martin, you don’t need profit to run a company, you need revenue that covers all your outgoings which of course may include employees. Profit is that greedy portion that investors bay for year after year so they can sit on their arses [unless you are Greg or yyy) and watch others work…….

      • So when you pick up your pension Sher, how does that work?

        Investment and return…

        People are such hypocrites on here…

        • Don’t have a private pension Kish. You?

          State pension is an entirely different and bungling system; look forward, if the depleted NHS does not kill me first, to never getting that way, way, way in the future…..

          • ‘People are such hypocrites on here…’ you gotta know what you are talking about before you make that slight or as they say “right back in yeh face”.

          • Yes I pay into a pension

            You must be paying into a workplace pension scheme though…

            The vast majority of posters I am sure are paying into a pension

            I thought you were already retired…

            • ‘Hypocrites because they all enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels…’
              not hypocrites Kisheny. We have lived with fossil fuels for many generations. It is no one’s fault that at that time they did not realise the consequences. The trouble is, it has and is still taking too long to offer alternatives that are out there due to this ‘money’ thing that everyone has bought into.

              People are beginning to see the alternatives, 85% recently want to choose the cleaner option. Gas will not go away, but should be the minimum source of energy; stretch it out – but you know that.

              Constantly going down the ‘we need more gas’ route will only result in death and destruction. Your comments will contribute to that path.

              The climate is changing, acceleration and imbalance is fueled by dead dinosaurs.

              Change in climate means problems with growing food, land loss, and the result will be mass migration of all species, conflict and war.

              Keep it up; the machines may yet have their way and you will ultimately be that human battery.

              Your name has already been recorded for posterity.

  7. Oh dear, we have the Commie brigade out today!

    How does a company grow without profit? Borrow, yes. How do you pay back the borrowing? UGH?

    A lesson in the Green “economy”. Good luck Scotland!

    Antis don’t campaign, PhilipP? Really? How many £ billions spent per year by the Climate Change industry?

    Interesting comments about the SNP Kisheny. It will get very interesting if compensation/damages are paid. The economy in Scotland is not that strong, it is a long term weakness of the SNP and money wasted will be noted, and referenced.

  8. Who has denied climate change, PhilipP?

    You are really not very good at this, are you?

    Time after time you get into deep water and panic, reaching for the life jacket you left on the beach-it’s known as drowning.

    Perhaps you could let Sherwulfe know if you have enough revenue to run your business and pay back borrowing it means you have made a profit? Alternatively, he could tell Hammond he has found another solution to clear the National Debt.

    My parents were members of a co-op, Sherwulfe. They expected a dividend payment to reflect their investment, in addition to cheaper prices. I wonder how that was possible?

    • Don’t bother bringing Sher into this, he can’t sort out his own future never mind the planet’s…

      • ‘Don’t bother bringing Sher into this, he can’t sort out his own future never mind the planet’s…’

        Another misconception, good grief, you’ll never make a Dr Watson.

        My future is secure thanks but clearly it does not fit into your little schema.

        It appears your future is not so secure, hence the frantic posting to keep your job; bless.

        • I have a foot in both industries Renewables and Gas, fine either way

          Sher you don’t give anything with regard to your position just posting BS

          Your future is only secure because the Government is making the decisions and not you chewing on strange mushrooms

  9. Actually Kisheny, I quite like Sherwulfe’s comments. He has a pretty individual lifestyle, and good for him, if that’s the way he wishes to live. My parents lived off grid (to a lesser extent) and were happy to do so. Now they have passed away their property has been bought by a young family who are doing something similar, but with a more up to date twist.

    The big difference is my parents wanted to live like that, but recognised it was a lifestyle the majority of the population would not be comfortable with and never attempted to convince anyone that was the way things should be. It reminds me of Sherwulfe’s usage of the 85% support alternative energy. Well, only surprised it is not 100%-but to most that doesn’t mean going to an electric car, it also includes those who drive a Hybrid, to drive to the airport and fly off on holiday.
    Goodness, I remember the days when nuclear was an alternative energy source!

    • Dear oh dear these anti antis are so rattled they are descending into Daily Shale gutter politics, that most debased of fabricated illusions, and now launching into pathetic personality attack diversion tactics.

      That is safe emotive hooks and barbs strategy, it’s far too dangerous to address anything real or rational to do with the subject of the post, which, by the way, just in case you hadn’t noticed, is:

      “Campaigners seek legal challenge to Cuadrilla’s fracking permit”

      Which, you may be surprised to know, I thoroughly support the legal challenge to Cuadrillas fracking permit.
      But I doubt if any of you will notice, far too easy to rail and rant over personal and political fixations?

      Sad really.

      Well it looks like the Harthill TMP inquiry has collapsed under its own HGV weight?
      I am sure you will all claim it was all a secret plan and fully intended right from the start?
      Funny that?

    • ….and happily those days are gone, another energy source found wanting.

      Pleased the young family are taking on the challenge, they are the future after all.

      I commend you, Martin, doing a small part, like driving your hybrid, making small choices away from plastic, oil and gas. The problem is when you then support another dirty fuel like shale; it wipes out all the good choices you have made and more besides.

      Yes 85% renewables only 18% support fracking; it’s there in digital black and white; now let’s work with it and get the clean energy maxed out, let’s top the balance and have gas as a small % of our energy generation and renewables the rest so we can stretch the NS gas over a 1000 years and even keep Kish in a job..

      Needs of the many [85%] outweigh the needs of the few [18%].

      • 18% Support Fracking

        32% Oppose Fracking

        50% Neither Oppose nor Support Fracking

        These are the figures Sher. We might be pro active for our own cause but the majority of people don’t know or don’t care about the shale gas industry. They are just happy to put their heat on or charge their phone etc etc…

        Everybody would love the U.K to run off big windmills, surprised It’s not 100%, Be honest Sher it just isn’t a viable option financially or in the real physical World…

        You’ve started a new cult “Renewables wizards”

        The type of cult who think they can make it windy so that they can put the kettle on

        Even you elude to needing gas through gritted teeth

        Stop staying stretch it out… It’s a gas not a rubber band, how do you stretch out usage; tell everyone with an odd numbered house they can use their central heating Monday, Wednesday, Friday and from Midday Sunday!

        You are a fantasist Sher, plain and simple…

        • No gritted teeth, my posts have been very clear on gas and the politics that goes with it. I am aware of the sheep following the master to the slaughter, the wulfe has moved on.

          So for the avoidance of doubt:

          Insulating ALL homes will drastically reduce the need for energy to heat homes.

          Solar with house batteries/electric car switch storage will serve needs for domestic electrical equipment and lights.

          Generation to the grid using mainly wind can then be utilized for peak and industrial use.

          A small amount of gas can be used as the population learns to conserve power; that’s what stretching means – but you knew that.

          Give up Kish; you’re not getting anywhere.

          The only writing on the wall are the names of the cult that serves to poison humanity; enjoy your five minutes of fame.

          • O.K Sher you keep saying the same things and so do I, we’ve had this conversation before

            People have a finite amount of money and so does the Government

            Everyone is responsible to insulate their home it is an absolute basic like Windows and doors. Everyone posting comments here will have done this…

            Solar panels, grey water harvesting ASHP and ev charging point should be written in law for all new houses. They, the Government and house builders don’t because of cost. It all comes down to money

            It will come in decades to come when prices come down it will happen but this Country can’t financially support this and keep the Country going. It would go broke. Look at Germany, complete mess trying to transition too fast

            Gas will always be part of the energy mix and continuing to import more and more expensive gas from Countries with an axe to grind against us is foolish

            Even when you try and insult me you make reference to a gas process… How do you think bricks are made?

            http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Brick.html

            Have a nice Weekend Sher…

            • So we have;
              ‘People have a finite amount of money and so does the Government’ it’s not the amount you have, it’s how you use it Kish.

              ‘Everyone is responsible to insulate their home it is an absolute basic like Windows and doors. Everyone posting comments here will have done this… – you keep saying everyone but you don’t know; windows and doors are not insulation.

              ‘Gas will always be part of the energy mix and continuing to import more and more expensive gas from Countries with an axe to grind against us is foolish’ – tell that to the Cons and their new master plan!

              So what is preferable –
              lend £40,000+ to an 18 year old to get a degree to get a job they could have got without a degree before education was taken over by business?
              or
              lend £40,000 to each household to insulate and install clean energy systems [configuration dependent on location and needs]?

              Long term effect, taxpayer gets their money back, fossil fuel energy burn minimum, householder gets cheaper energy, less demand on grid and need for gas [price of worthless degree comes down as no one succored into buying it so with savings can study by choice with money saved]; win win situation.

              I wonder how we managed without plastic toothbrushes and industrial bricks?

              It’s Friday tomorrow 🙂

              Have a lovely day 🙂

          • Sher you can’t go that far off topic

            £40K for students etc

            How many £40K would it take for the millions of homes. That is exactly the problem it would be 85% of 25 million homes currently running on GCH. Quick calculation it would be:

            £85,000,000,000

            The funny thing is now you would have to up the electricity demand. How many windmills?

            You would still need a lot of Gas back up

            How long would it take to drain your house battery if it went even a couple of days of low or no wind???

            Oh no we’ve just spent £85 Billion on the Countries houses…

            Now what???

            • Yes but as this is a loan the money returns to the taxpayer, unlike many student loans which will never be paid back. Also don’t forget to discount the subsidies and tax breaks saved from payments by the taxpayer to both renewable and fossil fuel industries; reduction in bills overall for everyone especially those in that fictitious fuel poverty aka poverty….less energy costs, less again for the taxpayer to pay out on cold weather payments, universal tax credit allowance for fuel; more savings for the taxpayers……big investment, many small payers, money comes back to the treasury and more besides…..what’s not to like?

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.