Local authorities will have 16 weeks to make a decision on shale gas exploration applications before the Communities Secretary steps in to take the decision on their behalf
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has announced that new planning processes will fast-track applications to explore for shale gas — but secretary of state Amber Rudd and energy minister Greg Clark insist that the new rules will still allow any concerns that local communities have about fracking will be taken into consideration.
The new rules reflect concerns that slow and confused decision making by councils holds up shale applications for too long, creating uncertainty locally and preventing the establishment of a UK shale gas industry, which the government believes is important for keeping gas prices low and ensuring security of supply. “There is huge potential right across the country for safe and sustainable use of shale gas, to provide a clean long term energy source and create British jobs and growth,” Rudd said.
The new rules gives local authorities 16 weeks to make a decision on shale gas planning applications. If they don’t meet this deadline, the Communities Secretary can ‘call ‘in’ the application and make a decision unilaterally. This would be done on a case-by-case basis. Councils that repeatedly fail to hit the 16-week deadline could have all shale applications referred to the Communities Secretary, again on a case-by-case basis, while appeals against shale applications could again be referred to the secretary of state.
“Oversight by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency of shale developments makes our commitment to safety and the environment crystal clear. We now need, above all else, a system that delivers timely planning decisions and works effectively for local people and developers. People’s safety and the environment will remain paramount and communities will always be involved in planning applications but no one benefits from uncertainty caused by delays in planning decisions,” Rudd commented. “By fast tracking any appropriate applications today’s changes will tackle potential hold ups in the system.”
The changes were greeted with approval by industry bodies. “Today’s announcement is a clear demonstration from government that it intends to hit the ground running and get a UK shale gas industry moving,” said EEF director of policy Paul Raynes. “It has been obvious for quite some time that the regulatory quagmire that industry had to wade through was acting as a wholly unnecessary brake on development in the sector. Desperately needed reform was frustrating slow during the last parliament, but the new government has grasped the nettle and shown it is serious about the issue.”
For the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, head of energy and Environment Jennifer Baxter said that “a vital part of ensuring a joined up approach to creating our 21st century energy infrastructure is ensuring local planning committees have the tools and information to make decisions for their communities.”
“The government must create an environment whereby local authorities are equipped to deal with decision making on large energy infrastructure and engineering projects,” Baxter added. “Hydraulic fracking is not a ‘silver bullet’, but developing projects in the UK could play a part in securing the country’s future energy demands, this is combined with the opportunities for local communities to create a multi-generational industry that promotes engineering skills and regional economic growth.”
These are not new rules, these are exisiting rules that are being asked to be adhered to.
The story is that these generic planning rules are to be enforced on complicated applications that can take more time to process properly taking into account technical, enviromental and local public opinion factors.
“A plume of orange-yellow water gushed into Cement Creek and the Animas River after EPA workers accidentally breached a debris wall holding back the acid mine drainage at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, on Aug. 5, 2015”
This event occurred last week, many decades after mine closure. The original owners and shareholders who profited from the mine operation are presumably long gone and the cost of the clean up now falls on others, presumably the tax payers.
Although such an acid mine drainage event would not occur with a fracking operation it is a timely reminder that extraction of underground resources can result in unforeseen pollution problems and begs the question who pays for the clean up in the event of pollution from closed fracking wells many years from now.
At least with an onshore wind turbine there is nothing remaining when it has reached the end of its operational life other than a harmless concrete foundation beneath the ground.
“At least with an onshore wind turbine there is nothing remaining when it has reached the end of its operational life other than a harmless concrete foundation beneath the ground.”
Do we just forget the turbine blades then; the factories, equipment, chemicals, materials etc which can never be recycled?
Sure they can editor, after all almost anything is possible. But integrated structures are notoriously difficult to dispose of.
So lets take a wind turbine blade, made up of wood, carbon fibre, glass fibre, metal, and enourmous amounts of epoxy to bind it all together.
A)I guess you could try and grind it up (metallic parts aside) and turn them into brick stock, but the energy used up would far outweigh what these things produce anyway.
B)We can’t exactly incenerate them, as they are too large and carbon fibre won’t go up in smoke till you get to 3500°C. Besides, those epoxies emit some nasty smoke particles.
C)Or we could helicopter them to an active volcano and let the earth recycle them for us. My favourite, but I can’t see the windfam owners going for this personally.
D)We dig hundreds of great big holes and bury them. A surefire winner.
We are economically fortunate at the present that energy prices appear to be stable and low. This allows a bit more time to debate fracking than we might have had. However, our long term energy situation is a cause for concern in two respects:
1. Security of supply: we are now predominantly dependent upon imported fuels and even (to a lesser extent) electricity. Both LNG and piped gas involve security of supply risks and LNG storage will require considerable protection against our enemies.
2. Energy Mix: As coal and nuclear stations reach the end of their planned lives, we will become increasingly dependent upon gas. This puts us at the mercy of world prices and we all know how volatile these can be.
Fracking and extending the lives of our existing coal fired and nuclear power stations give the best control of our energy future and costs until (if ever) a proper long term replacement investment strategy is developed. The wasted, massive investments over recent years in wind and solar energy for the UK are surely now accepted as dead-ducks; however, our media will not accept that as they build up the hype for the Paris taxation party in December. Germany seems to have grasped this ahead of us.