IMO we'd have installed something like double the level of largescale wind by now that we currently have if the MOD had pulled their finger out on this issue.

Sorry, Brian, my reaction was to onshore sites and because of a local scheme personal - a characteristic of most wind farm developments.

UK is already going down the same route. The drill heads are already in place all that is required is the compressor heads for injection into the existing pipeline.

Produce hydrogen by all means but it needs to be combined with CO2 to make methane and then it would be really useful in standard gas cars using the existing gas pump infrastructure

Posted By: BrianwilsonAre we reaching a point where all large turbine arrays should incorporate hydrogen production .

As turbines produce electricity and one of the features of electricity is that it is easy to send it from one place to another, there is no need to co-locate turbines and hydrogen (or methane etc) production. It probably makes more sense to build large hydrogen generation stations near where the hydrogen is required. Even more so if you're compressing gas down a coal mine to buffer energy from turbines.

Posted By: Brianwilsonhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/18/shale-oil-gas-us-energy-self-sufficient" >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/18/shale-oil-gas-us-energy-self-sufficient

"In a development with enormous geopolitical implications, the country's (US's) dependence on oil imports from potentially volatile countries in the Middle East and elsewhere would disappear, BP said, although Britain and western Europe would still need Gulf supplies".

One beneficial geopolitical implication I can think of is that US will no longer need to keep the Middle East in a compliantly chaotic state; in particular it will no longer need to back all of Israel's idiocies. However Europe will still need to be doing all that, it seems.

I wonder in fact whether US is beginning to move to a 'troops home' position of withdrawal from its present role as World's Biggest Terrorist. Leaving the stage to China, India, Brazil etc - which will not just be same play, new actors (any more than the post-WW2 world order was just a replay of the previous European/colonial one).

So not just one (previously two) superpowers wanting it all their way by military, covert and Hollywood-image means,
but perhaps more of a field of multiple influences, alliances, friendships via development - that's certainly how BRICS have been playing it so far.

But Europe still dependant on old-style client-nations for its oil and essential supplies? Will Europe be able to change its mindset - which in many ways still lingers two-back, in pre-WW2 notions.

Highlights lands usage change too.

First thing to do is to reduce the amount needed, there is only one way to do this effectively and that is through price, getting global agreement though is another issue. This would probably be through substitution and behaviour change.
Then Third Generation technologies (only 5 years ago they some were saying 2G was not viable) such as alga growth and GM modification. Better land management (and ocean/large water bodies for that matter) allied to improvements in food production, storage and distribution would alleviate many of the current issues.
I have no real worries about it sorting itself out, the marketplace always does, the market place is the sum of all needs and wants.

Steamy T “I have no real worries about it sorting itself out, the marketplace always does, the market place is the sum of all needs and wants”
Nick-Unfortunately we appear to have a need to distort the market with misplaced subsidies resulting in expensive environmental consequences, particularly for the UK.

Ah, it's living in Cornwall that's the root of your idealism, the notion that perfection IS attainable.

Hard facts intervene, a la such headline statements as: "Global energy demand set to grow by 45% over next 20 years".

We have been insulated from the consequences of what is now being revealed as profligacy by the ease of comfortable lifestyles.

Given the emerging realities, still largely unknown (which is why some people continue to refuse to acknowledge them), how can anyone predict the future on the basis of history? You can extrapolate from the known, but basing a prediction on some event of which no one has any experience surely cannot be realistic, let alone wise, if future policies are predicated upon those assumptions, because policy is a commitment to a course of action, at the very least a statement of intent towards which resources are directed.

Headless chickens come to mind.

It's a prediction, and you know what I think about those.

Posted By: Joinerthe 'market place' has its weaknesses because it is (totally?) dependent on human nature, so can never be as dispassionate or objective as economists try to convince us is the case

It seems that that obvious point is quite suddenly coming to light. Why didn't we all spot it till now? Friedman/Reagan/Thatcher got us quite mesmerised. The Tory party became synonymous with neo-liberal free-market capitalism, and it's a shock to be now reminded, by a bunch of Tory new-thinkers, that this was never inherently the case, just a 25yr spasm.

Tories and Whigs (aka Libs/Labour) have swopped role as the champions of progressive socio-economic policy several times in their long history. Remember that 'Liberal' originally meant 'free-market', just like Thatcher, and 'Tory' meant (in Irish) 'outcasts because they speak their mind'.

It's incredible that, because no-one trusts themselves, let alone politicians, to make wise economic decisions, for 250yrs an intelligensia has instead put its faith in a mysterious automatic mechanism (deus ex machina) aka 'the market' to make those decisions for us. It's a simplistic delusion, that has incredibly survived unchallenged for twice as long as its similar counterpart, Marxism.

Ah, the 'Rational' shopper.
Does depend on the market. In a monopoly and an oligarchy (which is what we have in the energy market) the market place is virtually homogeneous and there is little scope for substitution. You can change suppliers, but you get the same product. The only thing that changes is price. Within the elastic limits of the kWh supplied, people are free to change virtually as often as they like (they can use more and less as well). Because we do not change much (finding it hard to think of a product that I substitute or change, only one I can think of is coffee when out, but then I am picking the view/atmosphere and not the coffee) and the big supplier know this, they have pushed the price up to the maximum they can get away with. That is normal supply and demand working in the marketplace. If one supplier charged double the market rate, they would soon loose customers, if one charged half the market rate, they would probably soon loose their business, regardless of how many customers they have.
Where irrationality comes in, and in the energy market place it is a niche market, is in 'investing' in alternative energy technology or suppliers. So PV, Wind, Biomass, at the domestic scale, is not sold on price, security of supply or ease of use. It is bought and sold on other grounds (the FIT/RHI notwithstanding as that is substituting one purchase for another i.e. FIT Payments against Bank Savings) such as ethics, moral or idealogical grounds (at the moment). Nothing wrong in that, people are free to spend as they seem fit.
It is not unusual for social scientists to try and fit their beloved pet theories to the marketplace, so far (thankfully) it has not been very successful, just look at the popular music market segment to see how trends change rapidly at the top end.
There is often talk of products that were popular, being taken off the market place only to be reintroduced later. There are a number of reasons for this, one is overall profitability. A classic example of this was with the BMW 5 and 7 series in the 1990's. Most people could not tell the cars apart from a quick glance and the BMW dealers where reporting that they had stocks of unsold 7 series. As the 7 was a more expensive car, the overall profitability (because of stock levels and incentive schemes) was declining. The 7 series was heavily discounted to clear stocks and was sold to 'special order' with a long waiting time. This encouraged the customer to buy the 5 series, which became 'scarce' and therefore desirable and more profitable. Nothing irrational there, cold and calculated I think.

So rational and irrational is really down to the marketplace, not the product, and the marketplace has no ethics or morals, the shopper does, but as the marketplace is the sum of human behaviour, delivered in the most effective manner, it is rational.