Energy policy: the European Approach vs the American Approach

[NoDak]

Shale NatGas Killing Coal.

 

[NoDak]

#FrackMyFrontYard

Quality.

 

[Rod1]

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

Objectively? you mean if we deny the existence of AGW?

 

[no fat chicks]

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.

Be like Norway along with ditching the saudies would be awesome strategies

 

[NoDak]

Be like Norway along with ditching the saudies would be awesome strategies

I run close to the edge of trolling in regards to US Shale but that is really how I feel about it and what I'm thinking. I'm not a Big Oil shill or climate denier or anti-greentech. The chart actually represents a triumph over Saudi Arabia if people were paying attention to what they attempted to do to US industry.

The revolution hasn't been on account of the Majors. Most of exploration innovators would be found towards the bottom of the Fortune 500, if at all. Petroleum (itself) is also not something to be demonized, we wouldn't have modern civilization without it. There are simply unfortunate byproducts that need to be dealt with, and they will be.

 

[7437]

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.



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.

Why cant nuclear be a major portion of energy generation?

 

[Prutfis]

Why cant nuclear be a major portion of energy generation?

On a world wide scale? There are just to many issues. It can be part of energy generation but it just isnt scaleable to world needs. Advancements in MSR is promising though.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

 

[7437]

On a world wide scale? There are just to many issues. It can be part of energy generation but it just isnt scaleable to world needs. Advancements in MSR is promising though.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Eh, I'm unconvinced. Does 15,000 sound like alot of power plants? Sure. Worldwide? No not really.

The fearmongering about meltdowns and nuclear weapons was especially amusing.

 

[Prutfis]

Eh, I'm unconvinced. Does 15,000 sound like alot of power plants? Sure. Worldwide? No not really.

The fearmongering about meltdowns and nuclear weapons was especially amusing.

Don´t trust the experts then? It´s pretty simple math. There is also the natural resource problems, waste management, finding 15k sites suitable for a plant etc.
If you have something to discredit the math/claims in the article I would love to see it.

 

[eternaldarkness]

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?

Yer fuck the planet. Frack away. God bless America.

 

[eternaldarkness]

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.

Well at least one part of the post is right.
We are all going to die...

 

[eternaldarkness]

We now have rivers that burn in Australia due to fracking. It's great stuff really. Anybody interested look up Condamine river on fire in Queensland.

 

[7437]

Don´t trust the experts then? It´s pretty simple math. There is also the natural resource problems, waste management, finding 15k sites suitable for a plant etc.
If you have something to discredit the math/claims in the article I would love to see it.

I would agree we probably shouldnt shut down every single non nuclear plant on earth.

His usage of the 15TW ( therefore 15000 plants) number even after pointing out it wasnt anyone's actual goal immediately shows me that he sint being honest though.

So why cant we get 1000 on the entire planet? He never mentions how many an alternative method would need. Ita not exactly a helpful number out of context.

I do know though, because I looked. In the USA we currently have 8,652 power plants.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=65&t=2

So misleading numbers. Not a great start.

Why, exactly, should we be afraid of meltdowns? He talks a out them being a catastrophe that can never be recovered from. I would point out 3 mile island is literally still running.

Misleading numbers and alarmism. I am FAR from impressed. Especially with the pushing towards solar at the end with literally no comparison.

 

[Prutfis]

I would agree we probably shouldnt shut down every single non nuclear plant on earth.

His usage of the 15TW ( therefore 15000 plants) number even after pointing out it wasnt anyone's actual goal immediately shows me that he sint being honest though.

It´s pretty simple numbers, I don´t see how he is being dishonest. You can look up world power consumption easily. He is talking about full nuclear coverage and what that would mean. Pointing out that it´s not what most people are calling for (experts at least) somehow makes him dishonest and invalidates his findings? It´s also the author of the article pointing that out, not the professor who did the study.

The numbers are actually higher now than they were in 2010 when he did the study. (almost 50%) making full nuclear coverage even harder.

So why cant we get 1000 on the entire planet? He never mentions how many an alternative method would need. Ita not exactly a helpful number out of context.

I do know though, because I looked. In the USA we currently have 8,652 power plants.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=65&t=2

So misleading numbers. Not a great start.

What numbers are misleading and how? What are the numbers he should have used?

He is talking about a world wide nuclear only solution. Not a partial nuclear solution. That´s what the article is about. Stick to the point. The US has something like 98 nuclear reactors providing around 20% of power consumption. Your 8k power plants are not really relevant here.

Why, exactly, should we be afraid of meltdowns? He talks a out them being a catastrophe that can never be recovered from. I would point out 3 mile island is literally still running.

Misleading numbers and alarmism. I am FAR from impressed. Especially with the pushing towards solar at the end with literally no comparison.

3mile Island wasn´t a full melt down.. Look at Chernobyl for that. I can´t seem to find where he says that meltdowns are catastrophes that can´t be recovered from, could you quote that part?

You really haven´t refuted a single one of his points. Especially the scaleabillity issues. I don´t really care how you feel. Provide some solid sources if you think that powering the world by nuclear alone is possible. It might be possible in the future with advancements in MSR, but currently it isn´t possible.

I think he does a good job at pointing out some things that pro nuclear folks (laymen) don´t know/overlook/ignore when they call nuclear the solution to energy needs/pollution of fossil fuels.

Either you read this article like Satan reads the bible or I am not understanding you correctly. You have reached some very odd conclusions.

 

[7437]

It´s pretty simple numbers, I don´t see how he is being dishonest. You can look up world power consumption easily. He is talking about full nuclear coverage and what that would mean. Pointing out that it´s not what most people are calling for (experts at least) somehow makes him dishonest and invalidates his findings? It´s also the author of the article pointing that out, not the professor who did the study.

The numbers are actually higher now than they were in 2010 when he did the study. (almost 50%) making full nuclear coverage even harder.



What numbers are misleading and how? What are the numbers he should have used?

He is talking about a world wide nuclear only solution. Not a partial nuclear solution. That´s what the article is about. Stick to the point. The US has something like 98 nuclear reactors providing around 20% of power consumption. Your 8k power plants are not really relevant here.



3mile Island wasn´t a full melt down.. Look at Chernobyl for that. I can´t seem to find where he says that meltdowns are catastrophes that can´t be recovered from, could you quote that part?

You really haven´t refuted a single one of his points. Especially the scaleabillity issues. I don´t really care how you feel. Provide some solid sources if you think that powering the world by nuclear alone is possible. It might be possible in the future with advancements in MSR, but currently it isn´t possible.

I think he does a good job at pointing out some things that pro nuclear folks (laymen) don´t know/overlook/ignore when they call nuclear the solution to energy needs/pollution of fossil fuels.

Either you read this article like Satan reads the bible or I am not understanding you correctly. You have reached some very odd conclusions.

I didnt say that nuclear should be the only source of power on earth. I asked why It cant be a major portion. I still see no reason it cant be a major portion.

If you are going to simply lie about what I said, then we are done here. Have fun arguing by yourself.

 

[Prutfis]

I didnt say that nuclear should be the only source of power on earth. I asked why It cant be a major portion. I still see no reason it cant be a major portion.

If you are going to simply lie about what I said, then we are done here. Have fun arguing by yourself.

Why the dodge? Where did I lie about what you said? Are you going to quote for me where the article said "He talks a out them being a catastrophe that can never be recovered from." Because I still can´t find it. Back up any of your points? No?

So what is a major portion? Major portion or full coverage, it´s the same issues and problems. Even 10% of the worlds combined power needs would be a major challenge if not impossible. Sorry but I thought you actually read and understood the article. My mistake.

 

[NoDak]

 

[NoDak]

I didnt say that nuclear should be the only source of power on earth. I asked why It cant be a major portion. I still see no reason it cant be a major portion.

@PolishHeadlock2 told me that Trump knows nuclear very well. The US could certainly get it up to around 35-40% of its electricity generation. The largest nuclear plant in the country is about 45 miles west of Phoenix and serves millions, it's great.

 

[NoDak]

 

[tonni]

We now have rivers that burn in Australia due to fracking. It's great stuff really. Anybody interested look up Condamine river on fire in Queensland.

Queensland burning is a punishment from God and you know it.