Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 26, 2019
Is China’s plan to use a nuclear bomb detonator to release shale gas
China is planning to apply the same technology used to detonate a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima during the second world war to access its massive shale gas reserves in Sichuan province. While success would mean a giant leap forward not only for the industry but also Beijing’s energy self-sufficiency ambitions, some observers are concerned about the potential risk of widespread drilling for the fuel in a region known for its devastating earthquakes.
Despite being home to the largest reserves of shale gas on the planet – about 31.6 trillion cubic metres according to 2015 figures from the US Energy Information Administration, or twice as much as the United States and Australia combined – China is the world’s biggest importer of natural gas, with about 40 per cent of its annual requirement coming from overseas.
In 2017, it produced just 6 billion cubic metres of shale gas, or about 6 per cent of its natural gas output for the whole year.
The problem is that 80 per cent of its deposits are located more than 3,500 metres (11,500 feet) below sea level, which is far beyond the range of hydraulic fracturing, the standard method for extraction.
But all that could be about to change, after a team of nuclear weapons scientists led by Professor Zhang Yongming from the State Key Laboratory of Controlled Shock Waves at Xian Jiaotong University in Shaanxi province, released details of a new “energy rod” that has the power to plumb depths never before thought possible.
Unlike hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is more commonly known, which uses highly pressurised jets of water to release gas deposits trapped in sedimentary rock, Zhang’s torpedo-shaped device uses a powerful electric current to generate concentrated, precisely controlled shock waves to achieve the same result.
He told the South China Morning Post that while the technology had yet to be applied outside the laboratory, the first field test was set to take place in Sichuan in March or April.
“We are about to see the result of a decade’s work,” he said.
Chen Jun, a professor at Southwest Petroleum University in Chengdu, Sichuan’s capital, is not involved with the programme but said he was eagerly awaiting the results of the trials.
“A technological breakthrough could trigger another shale gas revolution,” he said.
Shale gas is another name for methane (or natural gas) that is trapped in impermeable rock deep underground. Unlike conventional natural gas which is in permeable rocks, shale gas does not flow and so cannot be reached by simply drilling a well.
The widespread use of fracking in the United States began in 2007 and heralded a boom in energy production in the country. In the decade that followed its natural gas output rose 40 per cent, prices fell by more than two thirds and America went from importer to exporter.
One of the main reasons for the success of the so called shale gas revolution was the relative accessibility of the fuel. In many cases, including at several sites in Pennsylvania and New York state, the deposits were found just a few hundred metres below ground.
The deeper the shale beds, the higher the water pressure needed to frack the rock and release the gas. Reaching China’s reserves, at 3.5km (2.2 miles) underground, would require a water pressure of about 100 megapascals, or about the same as is found at the bottom of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean, the deepest point on Earth.
No pump, pipe or drill shaft wall material has the strength to withstand such a crush.
No surprise then that previous efforts to tap into China’s rich gas seams by state-owned energy giants like Sinopec and CNPC, often working in partnership with US firms, failed to deliver.
Zhang hopes his alternative, developed by a team that has worked on some of the world’s most advanced nuclear weapons systems, can change all that, but he also knows the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
“The technology was born in a dust-free laboratory,” he said. “Not many people believe it can be used in a mine.
Zhang and his team have dubbed their creation an “energy concentration rod” as it is able to control the release of explosive bolts of energy into an extremely short, precisely calculated period of time so as to maximise the fracturing effect of the shock waves.
It works by passing a strong electric current along a specially coated wire coil – encased by a metal shell – that is submerged in water. When the wire vaporises it produces a cloud of plasma – the extremely hot, electrically charged matter that makes up the sun – within which is a huge amount of energy just waiting to be released.
“The shock wave generated by the device can be as high as 200 megapascals at close range, which is expected to produce a fracture zone up to 50 metres in diameter,” Zhang said.
The method, known as exploding wire, enables scientists to control the energy, duration and even direction of the explosion. The same principle was used to detonate the atomic bomb code named “Little Boy” that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Despite that commonality, Zhang’s device does not create a nuclear blast, so is fundamentally different to what the United States was doing in the 1960s, when scientists there detonated a nuclear bomb underground to boost natural gas production. The former Soviet Union also used thermal nuclear weapons for mining and in dam construction.
Trade war: China’s natural gas tariff will kill off US projects, says Canadian firm
Also, unlike a traditional detonator, which fires just once, Zhang’s energy rod has been designed to withstand hundreds of massive blasts.
After each one, the rod is hoisted back up the shaft and a jet of water is injected under high pressure into the cavity to further open up the rock. The rod is then lowered back into position and is ready to fire again.
The device can “generate shock waves repeatedly … like a machine gun”, Zhang said, adding that because the wire was encased and submerged the rod did not generate sparks, so reducing the safety risk.
While the scientist has concerns about how well his creation will work in shale rock, it has already been used to release potentially hazardous gas deposits from coal beds and is now recommended by the government as a way to improve both safety and productivity in the mining industry.
Wang Chengwen, a professor at the China University of Petroleum in Qingdao, Shandong province, said that one of the advantages of the new technology was that it was potentially more environmentally friendly than other fracking methods.
The waste water generated by traditional shale gas production contained large amounts of toxic chemicals that could contaminate rivers and underground water sources, he said.
However, it was yet to be seen if the force generated by the rod would be enough to fracture rocks at such extreme depths, he said.
Wang said that as the technology was still in its infancy, extra measures would have to be taken to ensure the safety of workers at the drilling site, while mass production would also require the construction of a huge network of underground support facilities.
“Fracturing is just part of shale gas production,” he said.
Aside from the technical challenges, Chen Qun, a professor at the school of water resources and hydropower at Sichuan University in Chengdu, said that scientists and politicians would have to consider the potentially devastating environmental damage that the new technology could cause.
While large shale gas reserves have been identified at seven sites across China, half of them are in Sichuan, a region of southwest China that is notorious for its deadly earthquake and landslides.
A magnitude 8 quake there in May 2008 left 87,000 people dead, 370,000 injured and 5 million homeless.
Chen said that while the shock waves produced by Zhang’s device would be relatively localised, if the technology was applied at multiple sites it could change the underlying geophysics of the region and put man-made infrastructure, like buildings and dams, at risk.
One of the largest shale gas deposits to be found in recent years is located near the city of Yichang, which is home to the Three Gorges Dam that spans the Yangtze River and is the world’s largest power station in terms of installed capacity.
A study by Stanford University in 2017 linked thousands of small tremors in the southern US state of Arkansas to shale gas production, and warned they might be early indicators of much bigger quakes to come.
Shi Lei, an associate professor with the school of environment at Tsinghua University, said that while increased shale gas production would be good for China’s economy and its energy supply chain, a possible downside was that it would lead to lower fossil fuel prices and thus hamper the development of renewable energy sources.
Moreover, whatever technological breakthroughs it made on shale gas extraction, China still had some way to go if it wanted to challenge the global order, Shi said.
“The US is the world leader on energy … and China can’t change that.”
His comments will be music to the ears of US President Donald Trump who has demanded China buy more American shale gas as a way to reduce its massive trade surplus.
166 Comments on "Is China’s plan to use a nuclear bomb detonator to release shale gas"
print baby print on Sat, 26th Jan 2019 4:17 pm
Definitely we went insane. Really no more comments
makati1 on Sat, 26th Jan 2019 5:31 pm
Typical Sinophobic fearmongering headline. Nothing radioactive involved.
Interesting method. Anxious to see what happens. New tech, not American made.
The US will point the finger at China if it quakes, but ignore the thousands of quakes caused by fraking in the US. Hypocrites. Wait and see.
Anonymous on Sat, 26th Jan 2019 10:16 pm
Interesting article but a little hard to read.
The technology they are talking about is a conventional explosive, albeit a complex one, not a nuclear bomb. In some ways, this is perhaps similar to the beginning of fracking when nitroglycerine “torpedoes” were used to break rock apart.
Article doesn’t have any proof of results and I am always skeptical of these kinds of articles touting new technology without showing performance.
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 3:25 am
They should make a gigantic pile, of old tires.
Big as Mount Fuji.
Billions of old tires.
Then have a hydrogen fusion bomb at the
Very bottom of the pile. The biggest model.
When it goes off, billions and billions of old
radioactive tires would come raining down
out of the sky. Some as far away as Russia and
Krapistan.
It wouldn’t generate any electricity, but it would
be really kool to watch.
And it would dispose of the tires.
Also it could go into the Guinness book
of world records.
So the project will commence immediately.
Here we go again on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 4:09 am
Nothing new here….the Russian did way way back decades ago…..whatever it takes to keep BAU alive
Cloggie on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 4:30 am
Just goes to show we must surely be living in desperate times if we need to resort to theses measures to keep bau going on just a bit longer
print baby print on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 4:40 am
Go Speed Racer on hahahhahahhahhahahhahh excelent
Cloggie on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 4:49 am
Cloggie on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 4:30 am
Didn’t write that.
Davy on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 5:18 am
Anonymous on Sat, 26th Jan 2019 10:16 pm
Thanks Nony for your usual expert opinion. I am not a fan of fossil fuels but I do want to know the truth about them. There are so many wak jobs on this forum who are emotional about this situation as they drive to the ice cream parlor. Hypocrisy and stupidity
Cloggie on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 7:50 am
This could be the final breakthrough in renewable energy storage with hydrogen:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/nabh4-the-vice-admiral-has-a-message-for-dutch-parliament/
NaBH4 “hydrogen powder”, containing 75 times as much energy as your average conventional car battery, per kilo.
Bye-bye, e-vehicles with 400 kg batteries, based on relatively scarce lithium.
20 kg water + 10 kg hydrogen powder = 30 kg fuel will bring you 500 km. Just fill er up in your old-school retrofitted petrol-station in a couple of minutes with fuel that looks like yogurt.
The hydrogen economy just won.
I AM THE MOB on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 9:16 am
Real disposable incomes of Russians fell for fifth(!) straight year in a row, making the cumulative decline at over 11% from 2013 to 2018.
https://www.rbc.ru/economics/25/01/2019/5c4af2c39a7947badf2d4e74?from=main
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 9:24 am
Hi Clogster,
Might be time to invest into Sodium Borohydride factories. NaBH4
Or just put the hydrogen into welding cylinders, under compression.
Seems like hydrogen fuel cells are probably
a better “battery” thats why they used them in Apollo moon landing.
Also hydrogen doesn’t have to be generated by electrolysis. It can be generated more efficiently than that, using high levels of heat such as provided by nuclear reactor (or sofa fire).
“Print Baby Print” is nominated for
best screen name. Yup, inflation is
everywhere and the Big Mac is up to $4.99
it used to be $1.59 and big,
BUT NOW its smaller than a cupcake.
Ya the rich 1% will stick it to the poor 99%
by inflating the money supply, which screws
the working class but just makes stocks and
bonds, gold coins and real estate go up,
up, up for the rich.
I AM THE MOB on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 9:48 am
America has suffered decades of fruitless wars, to steal oil and other resources … wars that have been done badly.
Now the wars have come home.
Cloggie on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 10:13 am
Also hydrogen doesn’t have to be generated by electrolysis. It can be generated more efficiently than that, using high levels of heat such as provided by nuclear reactor (or sofa fire).
Nah, in a sofa-based energy system, converting chemical energy stored in sofa’s into hydrogen chemical energy wouldn’t make sense. Superfluous step.
It would be better to burn the sofa and convert the resulting heat directly into steam on the moment you need the energy. A sofa is a superb energy storage medium in itself, just like hydrogen powder.
Oh and renewable electricity can be converted into hydrogen VERY efficiently, currently at 80%, soon 90%:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eku0GuSKiIc
Cloggie on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 10:27 am
America has suffered decades of fruitless wars, to steal oil and other resources … wars that have been done badly.
Now the wars have come home.
Look at it from the bright side mobster, now you can save the cost for a decent Dutch euthanasia institution, that is 2500 euro, your mother doesn’t have to pay:
https://www.nvve.nl/actueel/nieuws/nvve-actie-over-vergoeding-levenseindekliniek
I AM THE MOB on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 10:47 am
Clogg
“A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.”
Sissyfuss on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 12:07 pm
Humanity believes that Growth is their god when in reality, they are sleeping with a demon.
print baby print on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 1:08 pm
Go Speed Racer Thank you on your nomination hahahhaha
Dredd on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 4:39 pm
Is “shale gas” a metaphor like heat (Patterns: Conservative Temperature & Potential Enthalpy – 3)?
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 27th Jan 2019 5:03 pm
Mr. print baby print,
Trixie and Pops say ‘hi’.
check out the ‘real’ rate of inflation.
Somewhere around 6% – 8% per year.
But the govermint says its 2% per year.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Hey Mr. Clogster, what gives with this
Chinese shaped charge article. So they are
saying they will use nuclear bomb style
electric ignition of high-energy explosives.
The same basic materials they make the
‘soccer ball’ which can set off a fission
bomb, instead they want a ker-bang in a
oil drilling hole.
BUT why would they say its reuseable? That is 100% krazy. It’s going to get jammed
in the bore, and even if it didn’t those
high-energy capacitors are gonna be shaken
all to shit.
This is like buying “reuseable firecrackers”
at the indian reservation, and if he
charges U a premium for the “reuseable” ones
that’s when U otta know its a ripoff.
I say just pile as much dynamite down there
as U can, its cheaper. Make 1 great big giant
dynamite stick exactly the diameter of the
bore hole. Put a regular fuse on there
like from Bugs Bunny Road Runner hour.
print baby print on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 1:32 am
I dont get it sorry, trixie and pops? The english give me a lot of headache these days
print baby print on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 1:36 am
And go speed I know the statistic is a whore like politics, it is enough to look around and you will get the picture, thanks on the link
deadly on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 6:03 am
The Chinese were drilling for natural gas 4000 years ago and using bamboo for piping to get it all there. They’re not going to quit and go home.
A Roberts torpedo was used to fracture Colonel Edwin Drake’s oil well in Pennsylvania way back in 1859.
People are just plain stupid and most of them deserve to die at this point in time.
One hundred thousand survivors will be enough.
See ya, humans, wouldn’t wanna be ya.
Just a bunch of stupid dumbasses, nothing else.
Uffda looey.
200 Noah’s Arks with 500 survivors on each one will be enough.
Just too many stupid people that need to be shuffled from their mortal coil.
It will be a blessing in disguise.
God is too busy to care about people.
They don’t matter anymore.
Antius on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 6:47 am
Exploding wires driven by electric fields. Quite ingenious.
This is unlikely to dramatically reduce the cost of gas, given that: (1) Deep drilling is still needed, which is expesive; (2) Such a device will have quite a limited lifetime due to spoiling from the expanding plasma.
What it does do is increase the quantity of natural gas available for exploitation, albeit at a cost.
Will respond on the hydrogen stuff separately. Work is eating more of my time than once it did.
Antius on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 6:58 am
“The same basic materials they make the ‘soccer ball’ which can set off a fission bomb, instead they want a ker-bang in a oil drilling hole.
BUT why would they say its reuseable? That is 100% krazy. It’s going to get jammed in the bore, and even if it didn’t those high-energy capacitors are gonna be shaken all to shit.”
If you look at the design of this rod, you will see that it consists of a transformer-rectifier (for generating HV DC); a storage capacitor, which stores incoming DC and generates pulsed power; Energy controller (probably some form solenoid driven ball-switch); and then an energy converter (the exploding wire bit).
The energy converter will require regular replacement due to fowling and shock damage and should probably be designed rather like a cartridge for a gun – something you can use once or maybe a few times and then discard. The remainder of the device should be reusable.
Not sure how flash capacitators with all of their thin and fragile surfaces will stand up to 200MPa pressure waves. But presumably, the chinks have that one figured out too. Or maybe the unit is cheap enough to replace after each firing? The transformer-rectifier is a more or less solid state device, which should be capable of standing up to a beating. Transition cables, much the same.
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 7:13 am
“Will respond on the hydrogen stuff separately. Work is eating more of my time than once it did.”
I was hoping you would.
Will keep an eye on this thread.
Anonymous on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 12:35 pm
95% of hydrogen is produced from methane because that is cheapest. Unless there is some rationale for one fuel versus the other (as for example there is in rockets or chemical use), I would just think you could use methane directly.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming
Perhaps in some sci fi future with “electricity too cheap to meter”, we can just make H2 from electrolysis. But that is definitely not the case now.
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 12:55 pm
Perhaps in some sci fi future with “electricity too cheap to meter”, we can just make H2 from electrolysis. But that is definitely not the case now.
You are plain wrong.
2025 cost hydrogen production from renewable electricity 0.5 cent/kWh with 80% efficiency.
Currently 0.8 cent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eku0GuSKiIc
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/hydrogen-from-electrolysis-now-cost-competitive/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/efficiency-water-electrolysis/
Anonymous on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 1:15 pm
Cloggie:
If that is the case, why isn’t electrolysis used to support the demands of the petrochemical industry? There is a huge READY merchant market for hydrogen on the US Gulf Coast. If you can make it cheaper for them, they will buy it from you. But it’s not happening. So why?
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 1:31 pm
“So why?”
Because it is an emerging technology.
http://www.itm-power.com/news-item/worlds-largest-hydrogen-electrolysis-in-shells-rhineland-refinery
“WORLD’S LARGEST HYDROGEN ELECTROLYSIS IN SHELL’S RHINELAND REFINERY”
So indeed, as you say the petrochemical industry WILL use it.
They are now at 10 MW.
100 MW is next:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/funding-for-100-mw-hydrogen-electrolyser-feasibility-study/
Historically they had electrolyser plants in Norway with a size of 167 MW, in the 20th century:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/largest-hydrogen-electrolyser-plant-in-the-world-135-167-mw/
It is all coming back:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/700-mw-renewable-hydrogen-plant-to-be-built-in-france/
700 MW electrolysis in France coming up.
Holland has officially decided to opt for a hydrogen economy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEePUwO0ZK0
Davy on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 1:46 pm
Lol, emerging technology. Clogged, you always have a weasel word to explain what is not reality yet. Obviously the economics are not yet sound or widespread applications would materializing quickly
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 1:57 pm
Lol, emerging technology. Clogged, you always have a weasel word to explain what is not reality yet. Obviously the economics are not yet sound or widespread applications would materializing quickly
It IS emerging quickly, well not in America, but in Europe.
https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/study%20electrolyser_0-Logos_0_0.pdf
State electrolysis in Europe, pdf p160
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:00 pm
Clogg
Former NASA scientist and climate advocate James Hansen said
“suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:09 pm
Dear reader, we Europeans are paying doomers like mobster and davy to keep broadcasting the message to Americans that renewable energy doesn’t work. In this way we in Europe get a head start in renewable technology and all the patents. History has shown that the political entity that masters a new source of energy first, automatically will become the next geopolitical top dog.
Sssshh.
Anonymous on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:18 pm
I appreciate the effort to bring content to the discussion, honest I do. Still, the three links were very weak, Clog. I don’t see a thoughtful examination of electrolysis versus natgas reforming costs. I guess, you might see that electrolysis is cheaper in Europe IF you can get electricity at same price as in the US (I doubt it, but at least worth analysis).
My point is that there’s not even enough info to have an argument. What is the merchant price for electricity and natgas (by region). What is the opex to run a facility (steam reforming versus electrolysis) and what are the capital costs? And what is the current merchant price for hydrogen (in a region with ready consumption).
Even then I’m sure we can find disagreement on inferences and even assumptions. But at least there is enough to get started. But fluffy articles in a blog along with some startup company hawking itself? That’s not analysis, not data, not math, not regressions.
Davy on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:20 pm
Not true clogged. I don’t like hooey talk and that is what you do with all your agendas. BTW, I am doing more than you in regards to renewables both technical and natural. Hydrogen applications are promising but don’t try to force feed me bogus unrealistic numbers.
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:46 pm
Clog. I don’t see a thoughtful examination of electrolysis versus natgas reforming costs.
We are not interested in that examination because Europe has decided that natgas needs to go by 2050. Climate change and depletion thingy.
I guess, you might see that electrolysis is cheaper in Europe IF you can get electricity at same price as in the US (I doubt it, but at least worth analysis).
http://profadvanwijk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Technical-Report-Hydrogen-the-key-to-the-energy-transition.pdf
“Leading financial services provider Bloomberg expects solar PV electricity prices to drop by around 66 per cent between now and 2040, meaning that a price of less than USD 0.01 per kWh is within reach.”
For onshore wind, prices of USD 0.02-0.03 are already being achieved in Texas and other areas of the American Mid-West
Wind and solar in suitable locations: too.cheap.to.meter.
But fluffy articles in a blog along with some startup company hawking itself? That’s not analysis, not data, not math, not regressions.
Still way better than writing unsubstantiated “it won’t work” posts on an obscure forum.
Where is your analysis, data, math, regressions? Well?
tic-toc-tic-toc
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:54 pm
Clogg
Solar and wind have been around over fifty years..Remember Jimmy Cater back in the early 70’s put solar panels on the white house? They have had fifty years and still no real substantial progress..Its science fiction and a false hope..
Solar and Wind produced less than two percent of total world energy in 2016 — IEA WEO 2017
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf
Study predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-world-economy-fossil-fuels.html
Clogg believes in the energy tooth fairy! Typical low IQ right wingers..
Hey clog when your renewable fantasy world goes up in smoke..Are you going to blame it on migrants?
LOL
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:55 pm
You want data? Here you have your data:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/the-emerging-dutch-hydrogen-economy/
Fresh post chockful with data and analysis around a blue-print for the Dutch hydrogen economy from hydrogen guru prof. Ad van Wijk.
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:56 pm
Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Solar and Wind produced less than two percent of total world energy in 2016 — IEA WEO 2017
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf
It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We’ve Only Got 10
https://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11
Warning of shortage of essential minerals for laptops, cell phones, electric cars, solar panels, wiring
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170320110042.htm
We Might Not Have Enough Materials for All the Solar Panels and Wind Turbines We Need
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/renewable-limits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/
Study predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-world-economy-fossil-fuels.html
At this rate, it’s going to take nearly 400 years to transform the energy system
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
Why sustainable power is unsustainable
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable/
Top scientists show why powering US using 100 percent renewable energy is a delusional fantasy
http://energyskeptic.com/2017/big-fight-21-top-scientists-show-why-jacobson-and-delucchis-renewable-scheme-is-a-delusional-fantasy/
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:58 pm
Remember Jimmy Cater back in the early 70’s put solar panels on the white house? They have had fifty years and still no real substantial progress..Its science fiction and a false hope..
No, it is because America can’t abandon the old success formula fossil fuel.
We in Europe are blessed to have no conventional fossil fuel worth mentioning, so we need to invent something else.
Sometimes it is good to not have a commodity.
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 2:58 pm
Clogg
Why don’t you open up the comment section to your ugly and cheap blog?
I know Nazis cant stand free speech!
Hey clogg I got some magic beans I would love to sell you!
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:00 pm
Clogg
What happened to Spains solar company? It went bankrupt..Even in Sunny Spain solar and wind can’t stand on its own two feet..Face it dude when the oil shortage hits..Your society is over..I would try to make a run for it now..Before its too late..
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:04 pm
Germany and Denmark are paying the highest energy prices in the world..twice what the US pays..And its causing their major factories to move offshore..And just wait till they get hit with the rolling blackouts caused by wind, like Australia did..
I love watching stupid people fail..LOL
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:12 pm
Germany and Denmark are paying the highest energy prices in the world..twice what the US pays.
That because of taxes to pay for social programs. Yet Denmark and Germany are FAR more competitive on world markets than the US. Germany is the largest exporter, the US the largest importer. That is wonderful for America… until the world stops the US reserve currency free lunch. Won’t be long and you will lose 35-40% GDP because of it. Think Slovenia.
On top of that Europeans need far less energy than Americans to make a million buck.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/energy-efficiency-country-ranking/
Don’t worry about high European electricity prices. We will get all the renewable energy industries.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/ten-of-the-biggest-and-the-best-wind-turbine-manufacturers/
Posting statement by Google losers for the 100th time isn’t going to bring you anywhere.lol
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:36 pm
Hey Clogg
Its not cause of taxes for social programs..And there is no evidence to support that..And if that was true the prices would have always been high..
Why don’t you go fart into a bag and you can create your own Dutch oven energy system..It has about the same chances of working as solar and wind..
LOL
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:38 pm
Germany’s Expensive Gamble on Renewable Energy
https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602
Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Cloggie on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:41 pm
Its not cause of taxes for social programs..And there is no evidence to support that.
You haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
German electricity price 29 cent.
Real production cost: 13 cent. The rest is tax, tariffs, VAT, etc:
https://jaspervis.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image2.jpg
jawagord on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:46 pm
Germany will be a hurtin’ puppy if they go through with this plan.
Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday.
Included in the recommendations was that the phase-out target be reviewed every three years. Also, the final deadline could be moved forward, if possible, by three years to 2035.
The initial targets are considerable, calling for a quarter of the country’s coal-burning plants with a capacity of 12.5 gigawatts to be shut down by 2022. That means about 24 plants will be shut within the first three years. By 2030, Germany should have about eight coal-burning plants remaining, producing 17 gigawatts of electricity, the commission said.
https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-coal-power-20190126-story.html
I AM THE MOB on Mon, 28th Jan 2019 3:54 pm
Clogg
That didnt prove shit..And its in german which you know I can’t speak..You are slippery as it gets..
Here is a chart showing the cost of energy in Europe. In English too
https://imgur.com/a/86UWIdN
Ouch solar and wind..Great for black outs and making your people poor..As china steals their jobs..
LOL