If you click on the link provided by @bitflip youād have seen this in the first paragraph.
The goal of this study was to conduct a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) for large onshore wind turbines in the US, including all phases of the turbineās life cycle separately (materials acquisition, manufacturing, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and end of life)
I took the time to read your comment and think about what you said before I replied. Please read my reply and think what I mean by ācradle to graveā or alternatively what ālife cycleā means. It covers everything you say and more.
True, but it didnāt end all that well for Mr. Burns did it!
No idea.
That was a cartoon from 20 odd years ago
Slightly off topic but related is what hasnāt been discussed is the obvious nature of the turbines requiring it to be windy for efficiency. Iām not a 100% but today only around 3% of the UK energy needs has come from wind power due to low winds and other days itās been considerably higher. Gas still has a big role to play in energy production over the short and medium term. The obvious solution over the long term is renewables backed up by nuclear, but nuclear has a reputation to be just as bad. Hopefully in the long term fusion technology can replace nuclear. Thereās now no doubt that the not in my backyard mentality and ESG group think ideas is going to bite anyone in Europe in the ass. While ESG is morally right this is when ideology meets practically. Unfortunately Europe doesnāt have the technology or the infrastructure to meet a net 0 target anytime soon.
Yes, you are right the present problems are down to high gas prices. If you want to discuss ESG please use ESG investing.
The only solution to any of this is to frack .
we need our own gas, gas we can sell to ourself and not at world market prices
Trying reading some of the sources @bitflip posted. Itās more than a little strange people being interested in a full life cycle analysis of anything potentially green, but never applying the same thing to anything else.
Some have also suggested that UK shale gas production would reduce the cost of energy for UK consumers. However, this is based on the false assumption that UK shale gas would be sold significantly below the international market price for natural gas. A study published in March 2020 by Warwick Business School pointed out: āIt is widely recognised that the open and liberal nature of the UKās gas market means that the market price ā the National Balancing Point (NBP) ā is unlikely to be influenced by shale gas development.ā
Not these pesky experts again ?
Experts 
the same ones that when I was at school said we had 10 years or north sea gas left ā¦ its all doom n gloom
35 years later
We are in a different world to 2020 so Iām not sure the assumptions made there would necessarily apply especially if a future U.K. government took a U.K. 1st view on shale gas view.
I love this (surprisingly common) pattern of online discourse:
but did [subject matter experts] who wrote this paper consider [first order concern] that I, someone unfamiliar with the subject, immediately considered?
And by āloveā I mean āutterly despiseā.
Given the timeframes involved itās very unlikely these are the same people.
In any case, when journalists made that sort āonly X yearsā comment they forgot a few words. The way the oil industry works is that it talks about proven reserves and in particular commercially viable reserves. There are two main factors that some into play when talking about commercially viable reserves: the cost of extraction and the market price of the oil/gas. As oil reserves deplete often stimulation techniques are used to extract more gas/oil but it is only done if the market price is good enough. This is significant: if the market price is good enough. So the life of oil fields gets reappraised over the years and who does this?
It is the relevant experts who do it, based on the state of the reservoir, advances in technology and changes in oil price, not the journalists or politicians.
Comments like
fail to see this. And they donāt get the irony, they are asking for government intervention, subsidies, increased taxes, handouts and so on and so forth.
Wait, we donāt just suck oil and gas out with a straw and use the fuel there and then?
You have to stop sucking before you get a mouth full of oil, otherwise, itās straight into your fuel tank and youāre good.
howeverā¦
The Times is reporting that Hornsea 2 has decided it is currently unable to take up its CfD contract at Ā£73/MWh
ā if you dont have a Times sub and want to read the article
https://archive.ph/4jseK#selection-1061.55-1061.182
It is obvious that we need to invade Sweden, right now.
How much are the carbon emissions of legacy fossil fuels priced in at the moment?
Iām slightly sympathetic to the marginal preferred costs of gas (good graph here) - actually no screw it, weāre facing an existential crisis that threatens the future of the planet, of civilisation, of countless species, the future well being of children yet to be born etc etc etcā¦ The UK government should be doing a Manhattan/Apollo level project and pushing for solar panels on every single new residential/commercial building and filling our seas with turbines PLUS looking for next valley to flood for hydro storage etc etc
Polite contract negotiations arenāt going to save the world. Itās like fiddling whilst Rome burns.
