Energy policy: the European Approach vs the American Approach

[superpunch]

I hear Europeans complain that American energy policy is terrible. That we need to invest in green technologies. Let's look at results our energy policies.

Europe: Green technologies.

Let's look at Europe's natural gas independence:

Completely dependent. An energy independent Europe this century is a funny joke.

America: Fracking technologies.

We're discovering more and more untapped oil fields to frack, which also give off natural gas, every day. We already have discovered enough to last us the entire century.

We're a net oil exporter. Natural gas is just a by-product of oil fracking; while it's a valuable commodity to Europe that it has to rely on foreign powers for, it's essentially free to us.

The USA is completely energy independent right now.

Is it fair to say that Europe has been investing in pie-in-the-sky policies while the dumb, ignorant Americans have had realistic, real-world policies?

 

[hillelslovak87]

I would say it's not realistic to base so much of your economy on something that is finite, and being used at an ever increasing pace that is simply not sustainable in the long term.

 

[superpunch]

I would say it's not realistic to base so much of your economy on something that is finite, and being used at an ever increasing pace that is simply not sustainable in the long term.

We've already discovered enough oil and natural gas that we can frack in the mainland US to last us the entire century. And we're discovering more and more every day.

We've planned our energy policy out to over a century from now and that positive time horizon is only expanding for us every day. Europe doesn't even know who it's going to have to bend the knee for to get its energy next month.

Objectively, which policy is pie-in-the-sky and which is actually a long-term policy?

 

[hillelslovak87]

We've already discovered enough oil and natural gas that we can frack in the mainland US to last us the entire century. And we're discovering more and more every day.

We've planned our energy policy out to over a century from now and that positive time horizon is only expanding for us every day. Europe doesn't even know who it's going to have to bend the knee for to get its energy next month.

Objectively, which policy is pie-in-the-sky and which is actually a long-term policy?

We're fucking up our environment, and if our past views are any roadmap, we're going to simply systematically fail to future proof away from gas while our habitat becomes more and more inhospitable.

I would say both are short sighted ways of dealing with the issue, merely in degrees.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

I hear Europeans complain that American energy policy is terrible. That we need to invest in green technologies. Let's look at results our energy policies.

Europe: Green technologies.

Let's look at Europe's natural gas independence:

Completely dependent. An energy independent Europe this century is a funny joke.

America: Fracking technologies.

We're discovering more and more untapped oil fields to frack, which also give off natural gas, every day. We already have discovered enough to last us the entire century.

We're a net oil exporter. Natural gas is just a by-product of oil fracking; while it's a valuable commodity to Europe that it has to rely on foreign powers for, it's essentially free to us.

The USA is completely energy independent right now.

Is it fair to say that Europe has been investing in pie-in-the-sky policies while the dumb, ignorant Americans have had realistic, real-world policies?

Fuck me.

I was hoping for an interesting discussion on energy policy.

What a pile of shit this is.

Clearly Saudi energy policy beats everything.

 

[Orgasmo]

nuclear > hydro -> fossil Fuel (natural gas/coal/oil) -> solar -> wind -> geothermal

 

[Prutfis]

Fuck me.

I was hoping for an interesting discussion on energy policy.

What a pile of shit this is.

Clearly Saudi energy policy beats everything.

Very strange OP indeed. Europes use of natural gas is for like 1/4th of the energy consumption. (23% and falling while the % from renewables is increasing)
Europe is also getting more than 20% of total energy consumption from renewables (highest country at 76%). The US gets 8%.

For long term sustainability I would definently go with the European model.

I guess Americans prefer plundering their natural resources fracking, drilling and polluting like there is no tomorrow.

nuclear > hydro -> fossil Fuel (natural gas/coal/oil) -> solar -> wind -> geothermal

Not taking pollution or anything else into account? Nuclear can´t supply the entire world, not even close.. You should tell Iceland how bad Geothermal, solar and wind is. Currently 25% of their energy consumption is covered by Geothermal alone and a total of 76% covered by renewables.

Several countries in Europe have days with energy surplus production from wind alone.

 

[NoDak]

I hear Europeans complain

<45>

 

[no fat chicks]

This is a great thread if you are pro status quo and anti clean energy I guess.

 

[ElKarlo]

I would say it's not realistic to base so much of your economy on something that is finite, and being used at an ever increasing pace that is simply not sustainable in the long term.

Superficially that makes sense.
But the US was pulled out if the recession by fracking. Huge amounts of jobs were created, in fact most of the early job gains were basically all fracking or related jobs
It also let's the US be lessen dependency on the middle east and that mess it is.
While the EU is muddled in a very weak recovery and Germany is hitting a recession.
While the dependency upon Russian energy means they won't ever take serious means to stop Russian aggression.
Fracking will be. About and unlike SA the US has other things going on that can replace it when it runs out.
It's silly to not use what you have. Especially if that means a weaker economy and depending on questionable players.

 

[NoDak]

Superficially that makes sense. But the US was pulled out if the recession by fracking. Huge amounts of jobs were created, in fact most of the early job gains were basically all fracking or related jobs
It also let's the US be lessen dependency on the middle east and that mess it is.
While the EU is muddled in a very weak recovery and Germany is hitting a recession.
While the dependency upon Russian energy means they won't ever take serious means to stop Russian aggression.
Fracking will be. About and unlike SA the US has other things going on that can replace it when it runs out.
It's silly to not use what you have. Especially if that means a weaker economy and depending on questionable players.

The chart in the OP is kind of funky, this is current US crude oil production. It'll be up to 13 mbpd by Christmas; we'll likely see crude itself surpass America's domestically spawned industrial titans (aerospace and semiconductors) in terms of global exports value in the near future.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Fun fact: We have enough fuel to last for ages if we burn literally everything that is flammable on or in the surface of the planet. These jabroni ass Europeans and their pie-in-the-sky "renewable" nonsense. #FrackMyFrontYard

 

[ElKarlo]

The chart in the OP is kind of funky, this is current US crude oil production. It'll be up to 13 mbpd by Christmas; we'll likely see crude itself surpass America's domestically spawned industrial titans (aerospace and semiconductors) in terms of global exports value in the near future.

Sweet.
I saw a special on bloomberg about oil-producing countries that up and coming. Will link you later for fapping purposes. Was pretty awesome

 

[HeffDoesWant]

nuclear > hydro -> fossil Fuel (natural gas/coal/oil) -> solar -> wind -> geothermal

This is almost exactly opposite order to cost.

Also lumping coal, oil and gas together is just silly. They have different uses now and will diverge further.

 

[surrealworlds]

What is this shit? OP starts by talking about green energy and then declares victory because the U.S. has more domestic fossil fuel resources?

This thread makes zero sense unless your whole point was that the U.S. has more resources than other countries...in which case... no shit.

But if you want to have a discussion about sustainable longterm energy policies you should be talking nuclear, hydro, wind, or some other green tech. We are destroying our planet and if the ecosystem collapses it wont matter who has more gas in the ground.

 

[NoDak]

Sweet.
I saw a special on bloomberg about oil-producing countries that up and coming. Will link you later for fapping purposes. Was pretty awesome

You can see all of the shale producers having to stop drilling and going bankrupt during 15-16 as the Saudi's waged their pricing war on the industry lol. That's when the innovation went real balls-to-the-wall, break-even prices were cut in half and then BOOM! Big Dick Style. <Lmaoo>

 

[HeffDoesWant]

This is a great thread if you are pro status quo and anti clean energy I guess.

I think anti money, anti air, anti people, anti planet and pro oligarch.

 

[Prutfis]

This thread is not working out how the TS intended lol...

 

[NoDak]

This is a great thread if you are pro status quo and anti clean energy I guess.

The US becoming the dominant global energy producer and exporter definitely isn't status quo. In theory, it should call for a significant geopolitical shakeup although we've basically seen the complete opposite with (inexplicably) ever closer ties to the KSA under this Administration. I'm all for the utilization of natural resources to the country's economic and geopolitical advantage.

... with concurrent investment, development and implementation of a green tech transition as it becomes more technologically and logistically feasible to do on a macroscale. There's still a lot of challenges and shortcomings to overcome in terms of latitude, regional climate, intermittency, supply/demand mismatch, density and transmission.

 

[Rational Poster]

We've already discovered enough oil and natural gas that we can frack in the mainland US to last us the entire century. And we're discovering more and more every day.

We've planned our energy policy out to over a century from now and that positive time horizon is only expanding for us every day. Europe doesn't even know who it's going to have to bend the knee for to get its energy next month.

Objectively, which policy is pie-in-the-sky and which is actually a long-term policy?

Hate to break it to you, but eventually we're all going to die and a new generation of humans will take our place, and then they will die, and the cycle will continue.

100 years of fuel is not a good thing, it's a very bad thing. That's barely two generations.