Posted on 01/20/2020 8:26:35 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
France seems to be on the right path. Aren’t they mostly nuclear?
The issue is that demand for energy will increase “exponentially” in coming years. Mostly from China and India. So even with Fracking, there will be a diminishing supply of Nat Gas. The source I watched, claimed that we have around 40 years of Nat Gas. Coal is a different story.
Also, I agree with you about renewables — snake oil.
>>>Nuclear is the future.
Whatever “source” you watched is feeding you bullshit.
Fracking was not viable 20 years ago....not as it is used today.
Now, we are fracking at depths never seen before.....and that is where the BULLSHIT comes from.
You see, we have 50 years remaining, using current technology. But technology does not stand still. In fact, productivity of oil/gas has doubled in just the last 5 years while wind/solar have not doubled in 20 years.
There are more layers of shale gas/oil deeper down. We will be able to extract those soon....in other words, there is no limit to how much oil/gas we can obtain from the Earth.
So, beware the “experts” who also warned us about “peak oil” back in the 1970s. It is bullshit spread by those who want gov’t energy.
“ Israel found shale gas offshore and is now exporting gas/oil to Jordan.”
*
Yup, there’s a huge oil and gas field that covers the east Mediterranean from Egypt around the west coast of Greece up through the Adriatic Sea. It’s virtually untapped due to conflict over various territorial rights issues...
Then I better remove my panels right now before they do any more harm. Your point has some validity if you consider the batteries in my crawl space and other locations cost more than panels, and don't last nearly as long. But solar with storage and portability i.e. solar fuel is just a matter of time.
Earth’s second most common liquid is oil, after water.
Oil is not a “fossil fuel” - it is produced in the mantle and is not going to run out. Please note the moons and planets discovered with hydrocarbon atmospheres, hydrocarbons are common in the universe.
Oil was classified as an “organic substance” by the attendance at a world scientific meeting in1894 by Rockefeller, who wanted to insure that his new Standard Oil company could convince the world that his new resource could be continuously raised in value.
It still works today. Oil companies love environmental protests about “peak oil”, it raises the price.
Solar does not work on large scale. It is fine for your home.
But the cost of storage makes solar even more financially STUPID as a main electrical source.
I never call it “fossil” fuel. I always call it hydrocarbon energy.
There is a massive abundance under our feet, in our oceans, and all over the world.
Nearly every nation could be energy independent, if they wanted it. That is what frightens the communists so much...independence. That is why they are trying to destroy the oil/gas industry forever so all energy comes from gov’t.
Shale gas/oil is everywhere. They found it all across Europe and under almost every ocean. There is no limit to it and those who wish to claim “limits” are those who hate hydrocarbon energy.
There will inevitably be new sources like fusion. Also better catalysts for solar fuel, and although those will require massive farms, they are storable and portable.
Just quoting a professor who seems to know what he is talking about. It is thought and projected that “easily accessible Nat Gas” will tail off in 40 years.
You tube, Illinois EnergyProf.
This a good presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Bi2LpLoK8
This is the general link... lots of good stuff including nuclear (the failures and disasters of nuclear power), what is fracking, etc.
And dangerous. Imagine 1000 (just guessing) cell phone batteries sitting in your basement and one of them lighting off. Lithium fires burn hot.
Yes, demand can increase because the "easily accessible" keeps increasing faster.
That professor keeps talking about "easily accessible", which is always expanding. What we frack today was not "easily accessible" 20 years ago.
The supply is hundreds of years....even if we keep expanding our use.
The industry disagrees with your professor.
An interesting note and trend — the US and Europe's demand has leveled off because of technological improvements. Also, the graph shows that we are “energy independent.” Well as the prof says, North America is energy independent.
China is done. They have peaked and their growth will be basically flat.
India is up and coming, but already has a robust nuclear industry.
This demand will not outpace supply.....ever (unless gov’t gets in the way).
It all depends on which pipelines they use. BTW, Norway is not an EU member.
2017:
Russia (163.1 million tonnes) 28.83153615%
Norway (61.4 million tonnes) 10.85380944%
Iraq (44.0 million tonnes) 7.777974191%
Kazakhstan (39.7 million tonnes) 7.017853986%
Saudi Arabia (35.6 million tonnes) 6.293088209&
total imports: 565.7 million tonnes
demand will not outpace supply.....ever (unless gov’t gets in the way).
Perfectly put. That is, however, what Davos is for.
There is enough hydrocarbon energy to serve our needs for 200 years.
More like 55 years. https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0714/How-long-will-world-s-oil-reserves-last-53-years-says-BP
Renewables are not viable in any way. The wind/solar experiment proved they are FAILURES beyond any doubt.
Hey, I never said they were perfect. I said that if, hypothetically, scientists could find a way to make renewable energy cost-effective, it would be one more option on the table.
I support the free market. That means I do not believe the government has any business giving subsidies, tax breaks, or any other advantage to ANY private industry. If oil companies have depreciating assets that's their problem, not the US taxpayers'. Exxon-Mobil is a multi-billion dollar industry; they don't need any government hand-holding. Tax breaks, subsidies, whatever you want to call it, it's billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on reducing the deficit, which currently exceeds our GDP https://usdebtclock.org/
As Milton Friedman said, "Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player." When government tries to interfere in the economy by giving special tax breaks to some industries, it oversteps its role and gives capitalism a bad name by associating it with cronyism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.