Report this comment
  • "
    Andy Locks Heath wrote:
    freefinker wrote:
    Andy Locks Heath wrote:
    freefinker wrote:
    Andy Locks Heath wrote:
    downfader wrote:
    The Wickham Man wrote:
    What is quite amusing is that the technique is broadly the same as fracking, but this is seen as "nice" and "clean" so eco warriors don't raise so much as a squeak. No talk of earthquakes this time then.
    To a degree, yes. Although once the system is in place it wont produce any risks... the issues with fracking is not just the pollutants from the burning of the gas, but the fact the companies involved got a little carried away and dug too deep and fast causing small earthquakes.

    Hopefully they know enough now not to cause problems with either.
    I'm sorry but that is just plain uninformed nonsense. First these "pollutants" - would be the same "pollutants" that we all stand over inside our homes in our kitchens to prepare our food - so are you saying that cookers must be scrapped immediately? And how about central heating? Should we go back to coal fires, or bunker fuel oil? because our central heating runs on natural gas. And as for these "earthquakes" you don't appear to have understood that these "earthquakes" are about as potent as a bus driving past the end of your road. Do you understand what is meant by a logarithmic scale? Stop this uninformed regurgitation of amateur internet drivel and try understanding the actual maths before you post.
    I await your reply with relish and an armful of real science.
    .. er??

    So, CO2 is not a pollutant?

    I may be wrong but perhaps downfader is referring to the damage to global climate that the use of all fossil fuels is causing - i.e pollution.

    Not nearly so much the case with geothermal – but then the Southampton system runs mainly on gas. The CHP, however, does result in a much reduced CO2 output per energy produced.
    CO2 is no more a pollutant than water - but you are referring to the danger of the imbalance of atmospheric gases - an excess of anything outside our tolerance can kill us whether it is benign or otherwise.
    The sophistry at work here is that somehow there is a choice whether or not to use fossil fuels and still have a power supply. The reality is that there is not, and paradoxically we can only have a large renewable contribution if it is safeguarded with a large thermal capacity, so the choice is not between renewables or thermals but between thermal feedstocks. By the way, your reference to the "earthquakes" caused by fracking is innacurate repetition of a myth. The sadness is that even MPs reveal their own lack of understanding by repeating the innacurate assumptions from single issue pressure groups rather than their own scientists. So would you rather burn methane, oil, biomass or coal, because that is the selection group. Wind wave or sun are in another group entirely.
    Pollute – ‘to make an area or substance, usually air, water or earth, dirty or harmful to people, animals and plants, especially by adding harmful chemicals.’

    I think you will find that global warming (primary current cause being fossil fuel usage) is ‘harmful to people, animals and plants’, ergo CO2 is a pollutant.

    Your consistent rudeness of repost to others on this site over the last few months and your pedantic arguing on scientific triviality does not serve you well. Your often misplaced, but superior, attitude on many technical and scientific subjects would seem to me to mask the reality that you are just a Jack of all trades, and ….

    Two other points, (a) I didn’t mention earthquakes and (b) while well aware of the need for a ‘base-load’ capacity for power generation, I am also aware of the much greater imperative to wean our society off of its addiction to fossil fuels. Your continual avoidance in facing up to this latter issue through your persistent reductionist short-sightedness and arrogant refusal to see the bigger picture is symptomatic of the head in the sand attitude that has resulted in the unsustainable planetary usage of resources that is surely projecting society towards an Armageddon-style collapse.

    But, hey, don’t worry; I’ve won a triflingly small argument over the use of the word earthquake.
    I have never avoided "facing up" to the issue (whatever the "issue" actually is) as I have some connection with this industry it and the with the problem of guaranteeing supply and you clearly do not I'd say the arrogance is yours in refusing to hear any professional view that does conform to your prexisting prejudice. I have always provided accepted mathematical or statistical evidence to back up anything I have said. You just refuse what you do not like or want to hear and you have a totally unrealistic view of power supply. You won't wean anybody off anything unless you can offer something as safe, as reliable, as cheap and as convenient as an alternative. What do you have as an option - something that works some of the time but not all? Would you buy and run a car on that basis, let alone try and run vital expensive machines? There are unfortunately a lot of people who are well intentioned but very badly informed, and you are one of them - who are usually the ones who talk about the "planet's" problems based on googling the self selecting keywords that are bound to deliver the views you want to hear. It is quite clear that if the mass of evidence cannot be agreed on by the world's academic community (which is supposed to be impartial) then it is quite clear that it cannot be interpreted with any confidence by you, espcially as your altruistic desire to stop burning any fossil fuels will actually kill thousands of the most vulnerable in society - the weak the poor the very young, the very old...... and all you do is put up some unsunstantiated unresearched both with somevague notion of "sustainability" with no basis in fact. Sustainable for 2 billion maybe. The problem is there are now 6 billion on the planet, so how are you are going to have to kill 4 billion before you start saving anyone. Bit of a poor idea I'd say.
    .. oh, what a nerve you have to call me 'very badly informed'. Pot, kettle, black.

    I'm afraid your insinuation that 'the mass of evidence cannot be agreed on by the world's academic community' is just the usual industry bunkum and propaganda that is consistently spouted in an expensively stage managed effort to confuse the public over the issues of global warming, habitat destruction, soil exhaustion, ocean acidification etc. ad infinitum. The science on these issues is sound and virtually unanimous.

    You are an apologist for the ‘business as usual’ brigade, the very people who have brought this planet to the brink on so many issues through their blinkered desire to ignore the vast bulk of the evidence in pursuit of profit - and I would hazard a guess you are or were in their employ.

    And don’t you dare accuse me of having views ‘based on googling the self selecting keywords that are bound to deliver the views you want to hear’. I do take the trouble to actually read and understand IPPC reports and other relevant scientific papers – and I am well aware of the unanimity with which the various disciplines all reach the same basic conclusion. It is the industry propagandists like yourself that are selective, dismissive, blinkered, hypercritical and only ‘deliver the views you want to hear’.

    You really do have a nerve to belittle so many others of late, on so many stories, just because you think you are of superior intellect and nobody else’s view is worth a t0ss. Well here’s news for you Andy, us lesser mortals are quite capable of fully understanding the issues, researching the science, and coming to perfectly correct and rational positions that just don’t always happen to agree with your prejudices. And we are perfectly entitled to express these views without having belittlement and ridicule from the like of you."
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.


  • Enter the above word in the box below

Hot rocks could heat Hampshire homes

Daily Echo: Hot rocks could heat Hampshire homes Hot rocks could heat Hampshire homes

Hot rocks under Hampshire could hold enough energy to heat thousands of homes.

A new geological study has found that Britain has enough accessible underground heat to generate up to 20 per cent of its electricity and provide warmth for millions of central heating systems.

In some areas of the country, rock temperatures can reach as high as 200C (392F), which is enough to generate electricity.

However, in Hampshire the underground heat source does not reach such high temperatures – but could still be used to warm homes and businesses.

Southampton is the only city in Britain that already exploits geothermal energy on a large scale.

A borehole in the car park next to Toys R Us, near Western Esplanade, was drilled in the 1980s.

The system is now run by Southampton City Council and heats many homes and businesses across the city – including The Quays swimming pool, parts of WestQuay shopping centre and the city centre Asda store.

Other “hot spots” around the UK include Cheshire, Weardale, the Lake District, Dorset and Northern Ireland and a £32m geothermal heat and power station is planned for the Eden Project in Cornwall.

Generating geothermal power involves drilling holes until they hit the hot rocks.

Water is then pumped over them at high pressure to open up natural fractures.

The superheated water is pumped back up to the surface, where it can either be used to heat homes or run an electricity generator.

It is estimated that the geothermal industry could be worth £30billion worldwide by 2020, as countries try to find greener energy sources.

Local Businesses

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree