• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Europe's energy suicide contrasts with US trend to oil and gas self sufficiency.


patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
See Europe left behind as shale shock drives America’s industrial resurgence - Telegraph

The author is one of the leading financial journalists in the UK on European economic issues.

US oil and gas growth is driven by fracking of shale oil and shale gas,allowing extraction from previously difficult rock formations.

Germany was spooked into abandoning nuclear power by the Japanese nuclear disaster,ignoring the latter's moderate loss of life and its earthquake prone siting.

The UK seems chronically unable to do big infrastructure projects in energy or anything else.

Quote:
-Citigroup thinks US output of crude and equivalents may top 15.6m b/d of crude oil and equivalents by 2020 [millions of barrels a day].
-US Energy Department expects 11.4m b/d next year
-"America will no longer need a drop of crude from the Islamic world."
-"Germany thinks it can power Europe's foremost industrial machine from offshore wind in the Baltic. "It is a religion,not a policy...very near blackouts."
-"France has shale but has imposed a drilling moratorium...
-"Britain has been sauntering towards a debacle for a decade.Eight coal plants are to close by 2015...Much of the UK's nuclear industry is on its last legs."
 


Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,189
Europe has oil and gas reserves as well, it just needs to rob them off the Russians.

A military adverture is required.

Operation Bar-Barrosso !!!
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
37,436
Europe has oil and gas reserves as well, it just needs to rob them off the Russians.

A military adverture is required.

Operation Bar-Barrosso !!!
No Pravda involement this time? Not even a bread and circus reference? Are you taking it easy for the bank holiday?
 

McDave

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
13,555
Any European country is within its right to be spooked by what happened in Japan. Any responsible state should keep worst case scenarios in mind. Including what would happen if prime agricultural land was to be contaminated by a nuclear disaster.

Maybe we should be using less energy and natural resources overall.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
Any European country is within its right to be spooked by what happened in Japan. Any responsible state should keep worst case scenarios in mind. Including what would happen if prime agricultural land was to be contaminated by a nuclear disaster.

Maybe we should be using less energy and natural resources overall.
No. There is no risk of tsunami in Germany, for example. Certainly none in Bavaria where many German nuclear power plants are.

The hysteria around nuclear energy is like a millennial cult. It has no scientific basis.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
The anti-nuclear movement is insane. However, fracking is still experimental, has proven health and environmental problems - and while it might be fine for the US, the EU is far more densely populated.
Fracking has been around for decades on a modest scale. Not one court case has claimed damages against it. Some cowboy drillers have caused problems,however.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,891
The author is one of the leading financial journalists in the UK on European economic issues.
I prefer to read the views of leading energy journalists on energy topics.



US oil and gas growth is driven by fracking of shale oil and shale gas,allowing extraction from previously difficult rock formations.
Fracking is a ponzi scheme. The depletion rates on these wells are off the scale. They have no long term future.



Germany was spooked into abandoning nuclear power by the Japanese nuclear disaster,ignoring the latter's moderate loss of life and its earthquake prone siting.
Germany had long since abandoned Nuclear Power. There were attempts by the loony right to reverse the policy, but the reality of what happened in Japan scuppered their idiotic notions.




Quote:
-Citigroup thinks US output of crude and equivalents may top 15.6m b/d of crude oil and equivalents by 2020 [millions of barrels a day].
-US Energy Department expects 11.4m b/d next year
-"America will no longer need a drop of crude from the Islamic world."
-"Germany thinks it can power Europe's foremost industrial machine from offshore wind in the Baltic. "It is a religion,not a policy...very near blackouts."
-"France has shale but has imposed a drilling moratorium...
-"Britain has been sauntering towards a debacle for a decade.Eight coal plants are to close by 2015...Much of the UK's nuclear industry is on its last legs."
Global oil output peaked in 2006.

Deal with it.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
I prefer to read the views of leading energy journalists on energy topics.


Fracking is a ponzi scheme. The depletion rates on these wells are off the scale. They have no long term future.


Germany had long since abandoned Nuclear Power. There were attempts by the loony right to reverse the policy, but the reality of what happened in Japan scuppered their idiotic notions.

Global oil output peaked in 2006.

Deal with it.
Lots of oil companies are investing heavily in fracked oil and gas. There is enough well production data by now to estimate decline rates of production. If they have underestimated the declines, you could seize the consulting opportunity to put them right!

America had remaining reserves in 1937 of 7 years oil production and it has been about 7 years ever since.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
Any European country is within its right to be spooked by what happened in Japan. Any responsible state should keep worst case scenarios in mind. Including what would happen if prime agricultural land was to be contaminated by a nuclear disaster.

Maybe we should be using less energy and natural resources overall.
The scenario of global warming without nuclear power is more scary than the risks of nuclear accidents. The experience of the US,UK,France and Germany gives confidence in nuclear power,offsetting the negatives of Chernobl and Japan's earthquake accident.
 

Dan_Murphy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
3,811
Fracking has been around for decades on a modest scale. Not one court case has claimed damages against it. Some cowboy drillers have caused problems,however.
Thats why fracking needs to be avoided if possible.

Holy Crap, the Water's on Fire! (part 1) - YouTube

You guys are probably quite right about the safety of Nuclear. However, its not unreasonable for people to think of the worst case scenario. Things will go wrong sometimes no matter how much you try to prevent problems.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
Thats why fracking needs to be avoided if possible.

Holy Crap, the Water's on Fire! (part 1) - YouTube

You guys are probably quite right about the safety of Nuclear. However, its not unreasonable for people to think of the worst case scenario. Things will go wrong sometimes no matter how much you try to prevent problems.
TV programmes are unlikely to come up with an undramatic theme on fracking when they can sensationalise unscientific allegations of polluted water and wronged families.
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557
No Pravda involement this time? Not even a bread and circus reference? Are you taking it easy for the bank holiday?
Can you really imagine Pat Kenny out drilling for gas?
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557
Thats why fracking needs to be avoided if possible.

Holy Crap, the Water's on Fire! (part 1) - YouTube

You guys are probably quite right about the safety of Nuclear. However, its not unreasonable for people to think of the worst case scenario. Things will go wrong sometimes no matter how much you try to prevent problems.
Gas from fracking is the cheap fosil fuel power source of the future and in addition it will actually keep the carbon warmy alarmists happy as well.

It never ceases to amaze me how all these people rant and rave about carbon footprints, yet at the same time opposing the two major carbon neutral power sources of our day nuclear and fracking.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
Thats why fracking needs to be avoided if possible.

Holy Crap, the Water's on Fire! (part 1) - YouTube

You guys are probably quite right about the safety of Nuclear. However, its not unreasonable for people to think of the worst case scenario. Things will go wrong sometimes no matter how much you try to prevent problems.
The worst case scenario is not at all frightening. In Japan not a single person - not one - has been harmed by the Fukushima accident in any way.

Contrast that with the worst case scenario of simply living near the sea - 25k-40k people dead in a single morning. Yet people continue to live next to the sea, and continue to worry about nuclear. Its not logical.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,891
Gas from fracking is the cheap fosil fuel power source of the future and in addition it will actually keep the carbon warmy alarmists happy as well.
Fracking is a ponzi scheme. It's bubble will burst shortly leaving a small number of people very welathy, and a lot of people wiped out (and that's before we get to the environmental damage the bust companies will leave behind them).




It never ceases to amaze me how all these people rant and rave about carbon footprints, yet at the same time opposing the two major carbon neutral power sources of our day nuclear and fracking.
LOLZ!

Nuclear is a major carbon emitter, and fracking is one of the worst carbon emitters.

Nice try though.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,414
Fracking is a ponzi scheme. It's bubble will burst shortly leaving a small number of people very welathy, and a lot of people wiped out (and that's before we get to the environmental damage the bust companies will leave behind them).






LOLZ!

Nuclear is a major carbon emitter, and fracking is one of the worst carbon emitters.

Nice try though.
green whackjob
 

kvran

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,145
Thats why fracking needs to be avoided if possible.

Holy Crap, the Water's on Fire! (part 1) - YouTube

You guys are probably quite right about the safety of Nuclear. However, its not unreasonable for people to think of the worst case scenario. Things will go wrong sometimes no matter how much you try to prevent problems.
You know in a lot of places in America that's a natural occurring phenomenon due to methane in the water table, hence why there are places called burning springs and such across America. There was a good discussion about it on CNN GPS with Fareed Zakiara and even the anti fracking group were distancing themselves from that video. That said it's still disputed whether fracking could cause similar issues, but in the Gasland clip, it occurred due to natural methane deposits in the area.
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557
Fracking is a ponzi scheme. It's bubble will burst shortly leaving a small number of people very welathy, and a lot of people wiped out (and that's before we get to the environmental damage the bust companies will leave behind them).






LOLZ!

Nuclear is a major carbon emitter, and fracking is one of the worst carbon emitters.

Nice try though.
I think the last point above is enough to question anything else you have said. The argument about Co2 and nuclear power is based on this rubbish:

Nuclear Power Education - Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power

There is world-wide concern over the prospect of Global Warming primarily caused by the emission of Carbon Dioxide gas (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. Although the processes of running a Nuclear Power plant generates no CO2, some CO2 emissions arise from the construction of the plant, the mining of the Uranium, the enrichment of the Uranium, its conversion into Nuclear Fuel, its final disposal and the final plant decommissioning.
Ironically the same could be said about the construction of wind farms, solar panels, or any of the other "green" energy sources. In fact I would wager that per kilowatt generated wind farms due to their inefficiency and the need for massed construction would be higher Co2 offenders than nuclear. The construction of all energy sources has a Co2 component so your argument holds no water.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top