Have we got a viable energy policy?

[Vague_Boy]

Perhaps the Tories should have thought about this when they shut the pits down purely to settle political scores.

 

You mean the pits that were losing money?

 

 

Gas is not going to give us affordable energy,and possibly not continuous energy because our own stocks are dwindling rapidly and we are dependant on imports.

 

Coal and gas are finite resources. It's as simple as that.

 

Some people cling to the abiotic theory of oil deposit formation. Unfortunately, even if abiotic oil is a reality, the rate of replenishment is pretty much negligible.

 

 

"THE shale-gas revolution in America has been as sudden and startling as a supertanker performing a handbrake turn. A country that once fretted about its dependence on Middle Eastern fossil fuels is now on the verge of self-sufficiency in natural gas."

 

Oh dear, not that old snake oil again.

 

The original error, on which most of the others are based, is the belief that "fracking" - hydraulic fracturing of underground formations of shale rock to release the gas trapped within them - has fundamentally transformed the energy situation of the United States. Huge amounts are being invested in the newer shale plays such as the Eagle Ford formation in Texas and the Marcellus in Pennsylvania, but the numbers just don't add up.

 

Production of shale gas has soared in the United States (still the home to most shale plays) in the past 10 years, but it is only compensating for the decline in conventional gas production in the same period. Moreover, while the operators' calculations assume a 40-year productive lifetime for the average shale gas well, the real number is turning out to be around five to seven years.

 

That means that in the older shale plays they have to drill like crazy just to maintain current production - and since drilling is very expensive, they aren't making a profit. As Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson told a private meeting four months ago: "We're making no money. It's all in the red."

 

They are hoping to make a profit, of course, once the gas price recovers from the ridiculous level of $2 per million BTU (British Thermal Unit) that it fell to in 2009, when a great many people believed this really was a miracle. A price of $4 per million BTU would do it for most operators, and even the highest-cost ones would be making a profit at $7.

 

But it's clear that shale gas is no miracle that will provide ultra-cheap fossil fuel for the next 100 years.

 

In that case, the prediction that the United States will be the world's biggest oil producer by 2017 is nonsense. Even on an ultra-optimistic estimate of how much "unconventional oil" it can eventually get out of the shale formations, it will still be importing a large proportion of its oil in 2035.

 

At the peak of US oil production, in 1970, it produced 10.6 million barrels per day. It currently produces 9.6 million bpd, and consumes 21 million bpd. It is preposterous to argue that it can close that gap by coming up with 11 million more bpd of unconventional oil at an economically viable price.

LINK

 

Even if the optimistic forecasts for shale gas are correct, the U.S. will be keeping it all for themselves. Even if they didn't, there's no infrastructure setup for shipping it across the Atlantic.

 

As James Howard Kunstler wrote (in The Long Emergency)

 

The belief that “market economics” will automatically deliver a replacement for fossil fuels is a type of magical thinking like that of the cargo cults of the South Pacific.

[Anna B]

Basically, like it or not, there is no viable alternative to nuclear power until science comes up with a reliable alternative like cold fusion.

 

It's that or power cuts.

 

You chose.

[retep]

You mean the pits that were losing money?

 

 

 

 

Coal and gas are finite resources. It's as simple as that.

 

Some people cling to the abiotic theory of oil deposit formation. Unfortunately, even if abiotic oil is a reality, the rate of replenishment is pretty much negligible.

 

 

 

 

Oh dear, not that old snake oil again.

 

 

LINK

 

Even if the optimistic forecasts for shale gas are correct, the U.S. will be keeping it all for themselves. Even if they didn't, there's no infrastructure setup for shipping it across the Atlantic.

 

As James Howard Kunstler wrote (in The Long Emergency)

 

Why would they need to, we should be sat on enough of it.

[acman]

Agree VB, Shale Gas isn't the magic bullet, the days of 'cheap energy' are now over it seems, and that itself is going to stifle 'growth' as the politicians like to use that word.

All the fiscal gimmicks that are now going on is to buy time.

[RJRB]

I also believe that at some stage Nuclear power is the only foreseeable source of the bulk of our energy needs.

If you have read the article posted by alchresearch,once again all you can see is the procrastination in 1) design and building of the safest reactors and 2) plans for the disposal or safe storage of radioactive waste.

It's always easiest to put off difficult decisions but we can't do this indefinitely.

Perhaps cleaner coal stations will be built.

British mines losing money was a fact but only against cheaper imports from Poland.

There are still reserves available if we chose to exploit them as a direct fuel or conversion to gas.

We do have options but why is it all talk and no action.

It mentions in the article that it will be decades before we might have a place to safely dispose of the existing plutonium.the only reason it will be decades is because no decision will be made now.

[ricgem2002]

Doesn't being in the EU mean we can't do that?

depends if the gov have the balls to turn a blind eye (like other countries do)

[tinfoilhat]

depends if the gov have the balls to turn a blind eye (like other countries do)

 

They don't turn a blind eye to everything. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21594128

 

Back off Brussels !!!!