realistic ecology wrote:@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?
realistic ecology wrote: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.
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max