The largest source of primary energy, coal

[ENERC]

The energy of tomorrow; renewable energies, coal, nuclear? -

This is not what Bloomberg NEF thinks:
https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/
We can see on the curve that production in percentage coal + gas + oil has already dropped since 2010.
And it's also true if we add nuclear power. As a percentage always.

[sicetaitsimple]

It is a desire for energy independence, political therefore, which motivates the USA, not a real need for gas.
Clearly, they want to be able to piss off the world quietly without having their faucets cut in retaliation.
Amazing to see a Frenchman (I suppose) defending shale gas ...

Even more astonishing to see a budding collapsologist amazed at a desire to achieve a certain autonomy at all levels, individual, local, regional, national, European in the case of Europe.

[GuyGadebois]

We don't want coal, with good reason.
We don't want US gas for no reason, since it emits 2 to 3 times less CO2 than coal. Oh yes! there is a bogus reason; it's shale gas; but it still emits 2 to 3 times less CO2 than coal.

A bogus reason? This one is very good ... and really "realistic" ...
https://reporterre.net/L-exploitation-d ... Etats-Unis
http://traduis-toncv.com/grossesse-zone ... ce-elevee/
And in Colombia:
https://www.investigaction.net/fr/le-gr ... -colombie/

[eclectron]

Even more astonishing to see a budding collapsologist amazed at a desire to achieve a certain autonomy at all levels, individual, local, regional, national, European in the case of Europe.

Gas autonomy, thanks to shale gas?

In the case of France / Europe, densely populated, it is not even worth thinking about it. Do you want some in your vegetable patch?
Only those with a roro calculator in place of the brain and who are stashed away in their decision-making office, can have this absurd idea.

For the USA, already said, this multiplies their potential nuisance tenfold, at the cost of environmental degradation unprecedented at home.
Well, with them there are still virgin spaces to massacre, we will say that it concerns them but the motivations behind are not pretty pretty, It is not the bucolic desire for energy autonomy, while these resources are still widely available worldwide in conventional but no longer at home ...
It might be time for them to switch to other non-carbon sources, right? (if they want to be really autonomous)
Perhaps, Are there good lobbies, political connivance, in the land of free trade?

[realistic ecology]

@electron
"There is more than enough conventional gas to do without hash gas"
There are enough ... until when? When we have drunk the last drop of oil, breathed in the last breath of gas, there will be ... coal! Open your eyes before Kingcoal takes power and we are charred from this blindness.

"put shale gas in perspective against coal, only on the criterion of CO2"
Well yes, the criterion of CO2 and global warming. This is the No. 1 challenge of the century, the most important, planetary criterion, which takes precedence over any local considerations (fracking and others ...), the considerations of energy independence being also local considerations. What desert island do you live on that you haven't heard of global warming?

"Astonishing to see a French (I suppose) defend shale gas ... e
We are talking about a global threat, global warming, whether I am French or anyone who has nothing to do in this matter: global warming does not stop at the border.

Can we escape global warming? - http://ecologie-illusion.fr/peut-on-ech ... ns-CO2.htm

[eclectron]

@electron
Is there enough ... until when? When we have drunk the last drop of oil, breathed the last puff of gas, there will be ... coal! Open your eyes before Kingcoal takes power and we are charred because of this blindness.

It is not because the problem raised (coal) is right that the solution (shale gas) is right.
I do not deny that gas is less worse than coal in CO2, I am just saying that shale gas is an environmental aberration by its exploitation.
Especially if it is practiced in Europe, densely populated where its exploitation would be in practice impossible.
no need to ravage ecosystems and cities with real people in them.
And there is still a lot of conventional gas, no need to ravage ecosystems to satisfy the political ambitions of hegemony, more or less dubious of the USA.
Russia also has it and still uses its conventional gas.


Maybe we should consider other more sustainable and non-carbon energy solutions, right?

What desert island do you live on because you haven't heard of global warming?

I say your idea is a bad solution to a just problem.
I wonder why you absolutely defend this idea, since you are a priori not American and have nothing to gain from their extending their hegemony (to our detriment) and that as a European you have nothing to gain from the fact that the exploitation of local shale gas ravages our / my environment,… especially considering that worldwide there is no shortage of conventional gas.

I repeat myself but maybe we should consider other energy solutions more perennial et Non-carbonated ?
The solution would rather be there and not in shit gas, which is where it is.

Quote from your site:

CO2 emissions must be reduced. Yes, but by all means, using all our cartridges, all low carbon energies - renewable energies, but also nuclear energy.

This awareness has not yet taken place.

Don't worry, it's starting.

[Ahmed]

Is it good realistic to focus on the level of CO² alone? I know that this fits perfectly with the spirit of the times and consists of "fighting" (in reality promoting an economy on anti-CO² arrangements) with one hand and continuing as if nothing had happened with the other. By doing one thing and its opposite in this way, we optimize the movement of financial flows, which makes it possible to understand that this contradiction is only apparent ...

[GuyGadebois]

Is it good realistic to focus on the level of CO² alone? I know that this fits perfectly with the spirit of the times and consists of "fighting" (in reality promoting an economy on anti-CO² arrangements) with one hand and continuing as if nothing had happened with the other. By doing one thing and its opposite in this way, we optimize the movement of financial flows, which makes it possible to understand that this contradiction is only apparent ...

"The particularity of shale gas is at the level of extraction. At this stage, neither the energy expended to fracture the rock, nor the number of trucks mobilized has a notorious influence. On the other hand, details Robert Howarth , from Cornell University (United States), "just after hydraulic fracturing, there is a 'flowback': part of the injected water rises with the methane gas which then leaves the well at high flow, for several weeks, to get lost in the atmosphere. However, methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas ".

The real extent of these leaks is the subject of lively debate. According to Robert Howarth's measurements, an unconventional well would allow 4 to 8% of the extracted gas to escape! Knowing that it would be enough 3,2% methane leakage to ultimately exceed the balance of coal. But Trevor Stephenson, laboratories of Shell, do not fail to point out that "Howarth's study is largely biased ".

According to him, one should rely, among other work, on data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which estimates total losses at 1,2% including leaks along transport pipelines. Except that, retorts Robert Howarth, "the EPA estimated at least 2,5% before giving in to pressure from the industry." Simple uncertainty or sleight of hand?

Recent measurements carried out in the Colorado and Utah basins by the American Agency for the Study of the Atmosphere (NOAA) throw a new paving stone in the pond: 4 to 9% of the methane withdrawn would escape. "
(Science and Life)

[realistic ecology]

@Ahmed
Indeed in my first little message I insisted (only) on CO2, this is the subject of this discussion.
I agree with your analysis of the schizophrenia of human nature (if I understood you correctly), who would like to stop global warming, while continuing to consume as before in developed countries.
But here we enter into a discussion that goes beyond limits. Each line below deserves a development on its own:

- Energy is vital.
- Without sufficient energy, our interdependent societies, our civilizations, would collapse.
- But the majority of fossil fuels generate global warming.
- But renewable energies are powerless to replace fossil fuels.

- Nuclear energy would be partly a solution. But countries are afraid of it.

- Consuming less would be partly a solution; this would reduce the need for energy (and also for the quantity of other resources, including water and land). However, by making sure to reduce consumption first, then energy production - to avoid the collapse of civilizations.

- How to reduce consumption globally on the whole planet?
For the moment nobody can do it in joy and good humor. Especially not in emerging countries.
Because what consumers are asking? They want growth, more growth, they want to consume more.
And consumers are the voters.

Can we escape global warming? What can governments do? What can we ? -
http://ecologie-illusion.fr/peut-on-ech ... ns-CO2.htm

[Ahmed]

realistic ecology, you write:

I agree with your analysis of the schizophrenia of human nature (if I understood you correctly), who would like to stop global warming, while continuing to consume as before in developed countries.

I do not believe in the schizophrenia of human nature, since there is no "human nature", only manifestations of the human within various contexts ... From the point of view of the economism (which is the current context), this schizophrenia is perfectly consistent, as I pointed out.
Further, another important point:

- Without sufficient energy, our interdependent societies, our civilizations, would collapse.

It would be a good time to question the concept of "civilization" * and its validity: if we do not take into account the causes, how to avoid the consequences? The current dead ends are the result of erroneous orientations.

* Societies and civilizations are opposed, in the sense that all civilizations rest on an extractivism (which uses energy in proportion to its predatory capacity, from which it appears that the abundance of energy is, in itself, problematic ) at the service of a more or less extensive caste and to the detriment of other living forms.