Jason Ford
News Editor
Later this month IMechE hosts UK Shale Gas 2016, a forum in which engineers can convene to understand the contribution they can make to burgeoning and often controversial energy source.
Just yesterday, for example, the Nottingham Post reported on how protesters had convened in the city to make their feelings heard on the subject, worried as they are about the potential for fracking to cause earthquakes and an increase in GHG emissions, plus the detrimental effects it could have on tourism, air quality, drinking water, and house prices.
Others fear that fracking will diminish regional democracy, with Friends of the Earth making public details of a letter it has seen suggesting that the shale industry is brought “within the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning (NSIP) regime for commercial scale projects.”
In a statement, Friends of the Earth campaigner Tony Bosworth said: “Any move to take decision-making on fracking away from local councils and railroad it through would be another serious attack on democracy, and a sure sign that the government has lost the argument.”
By way of an aside, the reasons for which will soon become apparent, Engineering UK today published its annual State of Engineering report, which comes with a warning that Britain needs to be producing 69,000 more engineers per year to meet industry demand.
Responding to the report, Peter Finegold, head of education and skills at IMechE said: “Without the development of these skills, the UK will be unable to complete the vital infrastructure projects in the transport and energy sectors the country so desperately needs.”
And what could be more urgent than to ensure a safe, stable supply of energy whilst conforming to emissions standards and keeping the lights on? By IMechE’s estimates alone, the closure of coal and nuclear plants in Britain will create electricity supply gap of up to 55 per cent by 2025.
Its one of a myriad of challenges facing us nationally, and it is engineers that will be tasked with providing the practical solutions.
Any young, technically minded person who is undecided on their career might want to consider if they are up to the challenge, taking into consideration how they can – for example – be part of ambitious plans to develop full-scale tidal lagoons in UK and abroad. News on that front came today from SIMEC whose owners – the Gupta family – have today committed an eight-figure investment in the development of tidal lagoon power plant in the UK and India.
The move is said to be part of SIMEC’s strategy to create multi-billion pound renewable energy capacity worldwide and apply innovative technologies to provide low-cost power for energy-intensive industries, particularly steel.
If this nationally and globally relevant investment isn’t interesting enough then perhaps consider a solution being offered to the fracking industry from US company Fairmont Brine Processing.
In May 2015 the company was a recipient of a $25,000 prize in recognition of their process to safely dispose of water used in the fracking process.
They and three other companies shared a total prize fund of $100,000 at the 4th Annual Shale Gas Innovation Contest, which acknowledged gains made in improving operational efficiencies while minimising environmental risk and impact of fracking.
As Fairmount explain in the accompanying video, the company’s evaporation and crystallisation process “fully treats wastewater, extracting reusable by-products; and can formulate fracture stimulation fluids specifically to an operating company’s completion design.”
Its now up to the technically minded talent of tomorrow to decide what energy landscape they want to see, and to consider whether they are up to the challenge of building it.
IMechE’s UK Shale Gas: The Engineers’ Summit 2016 takes place on Feb 23, 2016.
Maybe more engineers needed to concentrate on getting current level of emissions under control? There are still 50,000 extra deaths per year in UK due to the out of control air quality. Who will fix the air quality and relieve asthma suffers pain? Let alone prevent new, experimental, un-controlled fossil fuels contributing to the pollution. Put clean air and water back on the agenda.
Unfortunately, common sense and future well-being of the UK get lost in the luddite- group thought of the “save the planet” believers. In simple terms, they will oppose any new development and have a well-oiled publicity machine behind them.
The real issue is that if we do not develop shale the UK will be broke and industry free in a generation. At least if this scenario develops we will be zero-emitters of CO2 and there will be churches full of people praying for wind. A better option would be to re-open the coal mines, but that is a hope too far!
It is good to see the I.Mech.E. taking the unpopular route and recognising that the apocalypse will not be global warming but social disaster as people compete to buy unreliable and scarce electricity; while diesel generators proliferate among the wealthy, as in the third-world.
There is a major technical divide between FRACKING and more environmentally sensitive extraction processes to access shale oil & gas reserves. Fracking has the subtle approach of grilling a steak with a Guy Fawkes bonfire. It is not quite the same approach to have a medium rare T bone prepared at the Ritz.
Absolutely no mention of NORMs (normally occurring radioactive materials) that are found in ‘frack’ water. And it is the NORMs that cannot be treated and is allowed to escape into the atmosphere. In the case of Cuadrilla’s ‘frack’ water from Preese Hall, discharged into the Manchester Ship Canal by United Utilities (UU). I believe, it was the ‘frack’ water, that turned UU’s Davyhulme water treatment plant sour. Because of the chemical cocktail and NORM, found within ‘frack’ water.
And is it any wonder, the young do not want to be engineers. When they can see that engineering is part of the problem, not the solution?
You seem to have missed the last part of the article. You obviously have no science background so why bother posting in an engineering publication?
Also, are wind turbines and lagoons made by luddite tree huggers, or by engineers? I think you will find its the latter.
If Fracking or other technologies are used they must comply with stringent environmental regulations and be subsidised to assist with that if need be initially. Engineers and scientists have solved many apparently intractable problems over the last two hundred years, the biggest obstacle is politics and inflexible groups who often seem to forget that they are supposed to be making the world a better place.
As far as I can make out, no serious study of fracking has demonstrated that it is worse than conventional drilling for oil and gas. Most of the stories against it are based on a movie called “Gas land” that was full of errors and, for instance, said that fracking was causing water to burn because of entrained methane when, in fact, it had been burning for years due to decaying vegetation in the water table not far underground.
As fracking taps into very deep geological layers it is much less likely to cause gas leakage and has no chance of causing water contamination.
Ludlow: As for radiation in fracking water, is it at a level – more than 100 mSv for instance – that could possibly cause any harm? Have you ever thought about the millions of people who have been cured of cancer by doses of radiation that, if experienced by the whole body, would kill you in minutes? Do you have any evidence that they later died of radiation induced cancer?
Professional engineers pledge commitment to sustainable development, which this is not – another non-renewable energy source. Telling benefits of non-renewable over renewable energy sources is moot if you consider this.
Often our own self importance seems to get in the way of considered and respectful discussion and unfortunately investors are committed primarily to making money.
So, discuss if we should be injecting high pressure chemicals under the ground we drink from, but know that when the fossil fuel is depleted, it will only have been a delay to renewable energy.
The rush to shale gas is a knee-jerk reaction to the following facts:
At the end of 2014 it was estimated that proven UK oil reserves were 374 million tonnes and gas reserves were 206 billion cubic metres.
During 2014 the UK produced, consumed, about 37.4 million tonnes of oil and 38.5 billion cubic metres of gas.
(UK oil reserves and estimated ultimate recovery 2015, UK Government website).
Hence, we had only about 5 years of gas and 10 years of oil at the end of 2014.
So, rush to shale gas, we shall relatively soon be having a similar discussion (squabble).
Robert Stuart makes some good points about this debate, and they do need full consideration.
However, the reserves argument, both oil and gas, has been used for many years and has always shown a few years at current usage rates, the reserve always increase as usage occurs, (because further exploration becomes economic). Professor Odell predicted many years ago that the natural gas reserves were massively underestimated and so far his predictions seem correct.
All energy economics have been shredded by subsidy and carbon penalties to save us from an imaginary carbon dioxide apocalypse. We all need a reliable, low-cost energy supply as a basis for international competitiveness: the CCA will destroy our competitiveness and is already rapidly getting rid of heavy industry from the UK.