14 ms·
German government agrees to ban fracking indefinitely
- iLoch 10y agoI was shocked to learn water used in fracking is permanently "gone". Seems like an absolutely atrocious abuse of a resource we have a fundamental dependence on.
- m3rc 10y agoNot to mention the incredible amount of nearby water that is poisoned
- firlefans 10y agoCan you clarify what you mean? It gets subducted by plate tectonics and becomes steam when heated, presumably it's still there..
- rosser 10y agoOh, so we'll be able to access that water again over geological time? That changes everything.
- jerf 10y agoFresh water represents an energy issue, not a materials issue. There's no shortage of H2O molecules, it's the fact that isolating them requires energy that is the issue. If you use some fresh water to get a net gain of energy, you aren't really "spending" the water. The natural next response is to move the goal posts and start talking about carbon dioxide or something, but I suggest resisting that and actually thinking about the real issues for a moment. True as that may be, it's a separate issue. Contrast this with helium, which we really are running out of in a way that, if not necessarily "irrevocable", is certainly going to be much harder to get around if we use it all up.
- nickik 10y agoUsually prices increase and we dont use it all up because you can find cheaper alternatives. For the critical stuff you would still have some left. Interestingly, some renewable resources like whales are far easier to "finish" then the traditional onse. Or is their some specific thing about helium that im not seeing? We should really have some helium left for space flight.
- contravariant 10y agoIt's not gone it just becomes groundwater. Sure we won't see it back in any of our life times, but it's not as if we're going to run out any time soon. In that respect fusion would be far more permanent.
- DasIch 10y agoIsn't the very reason fracking is claimed to be safe, that the water is pumped significantly below groundwater level? If that's the case how does it turn into groundwater, is it rising upwards?
- opendomain 10y agoNo, I do not think this becomes 'groundwater' Fracking is below the water table and and water used will be effectively lost to the water cycle. If it does leak back up, it will be polluted.
- contravariant 10y agoEffectively lost mean different things on a human and a geological timescale. It could take millennia (or longer) for the water to slowly push through various kinds of bedrock, to finally get above ground again. By that time whatever contaminants were in it will have been filtered away. It's an incredibly slow process, but it's not as if we could somehow drain the oceans by fracking at full speed for several millennia.
- fleitz 10y agoUnless you separate it into hydrogen and let the hydrogen escape into the atmosphere, it's hardly 'gone'.
- jessriedel 10y agoFresh water isn't a closed system such that sullying water ruins it for next year. Limitations on fresh water come from the amount of rainfall, which is a conversion process being sourced from the essentially infinite ocean. If you waste some of this year's water, this year's crops might suffer but nothing permanent has happened.
- delazeur 10y agoThis isn't about polluting water, it's about injecting waste water into deep reservoirs from which it will not return to the surface in the meaningfully near future.
- jessriedel 10y agoI understood iLoch's comment to be about "losing" the water ('I was shocked to learn water used in fracking is permanently "gone"'), and I was explaining why one-time loss of water is unimportant, because the oceans are limitless and our fresh water supply is a rate that is sourced by the ocean. It doesn't matter if the water is polluted, injected deep underground, or fired into space. If you want, you can replace "sullying" with "burying".
- delazeur 10y agoI suggest you read up on North American hydrology. Fresh water is being depleted at a rate significantly greater than it is being replenished. It's also a stretch to call wastewater injection a "one-time loss of water" when we can expect to be doing it for 30-50 years.
- nickik 10y agoWhile that is true, thats a purly poitical problem. If their were a prober market solution that priced according to sound resource managment priniples it would not be a problem. The price of water woild still be very low and it would not impact standards of living in any siginificant way. Their are tons of easy ways to save water, pertocularly in farming but that will not happen. Its a classical tragety of the commens. They had to solve the same problem when tjey were moving west, frontier society had very soffisticated systems of water managment.
- clock_tower 10y agoI think we found what to do with the water from melting glaciers. /s (?) (I can't say if I should put a /s on the end or not. If the alternative is drowning Venice, is it a good idea to throw water out of the hydrosphere entirely? ... But if nothing else, look at the scale differences; there's no way that hydraulic fracturing uses as much water as snowpack melting generates...)
- slapshot 10y agoFor context, in 2013 Germany was producing around 50,000 barrels per day. [1] Germany is a huge net importer and a very minor producer. The US state of Wyoming produces more than 200,000 barrels per day. [2] The US as a whole produces more than 7,400,000 barrels per day. [3] [1] http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=de&product=oil&graph=production http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=de&product=oil... [2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPWY2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... [3] http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil...
- toomuchtodo 10y ago> The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) includes biofuels in consumption of petroleum products. In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6 Germany consumes 2.403 million barrels per day. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=de&product=oil&graph=consumption http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=de&product=oil... Germany has also created a 1 billion Euro subsidy program for electric cars: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/28/germany-subsidy-boost-electric-car-sales https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/28/germany-subsid... # Removed information about Germany EV mandate # It is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of will.
- Reason077 10y agoGermany does not yet have any electric car mandate - the 2030 thing was misreported. Norway, where more than 25% of new vehicles are already electric (and the electricity grid is 100% renewable) is likely to be the first country to achieve a ban on new combustion vehicles. Germany does have impressive carbon reduction goals, and will need to switch a large portion of their vehicle fleet to zero-emission in order to achieve them.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- grb423 10y agoAlex Epstien, who is widely despised, has written, in _The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels_ that to withhold cheap abundant energy, and the technology it enables, from the world's emerging populations is immoral and fundamentally anti-human. Supported by people who think this Earth would be a much better place if Man never set his filthy foot upon it.
- hasbroslasher 10y agoI don't see what good being pro-human would do in this scenario - either those in the (future) developing world drown as global sea levels rise and traditional agriculture flounders under new climatic conditions (and in greater numbers), or they're unable to do so due to a lack of resources that enable food transit etc. Where does this illusion that we can just infinitely increase the world's population through reliance on technology come from? It's clearly untrue today, much less 50 years in the future.
- tptacek 10y agoThis is such an obviously ahistorical sentiment it's hard to know where to start in rebutting it, but its discredited name might be a good place to start: Malthusianism.
- danbruc 10y agoPopulation growth on the order of what we had since about 1750 - 0.5 % per year or above - is unsustainable in relatively short time. That really is not worth discussing, it is a matter of fact. But as I understand the comment the point is more that by burning more fossile fuels we would trade a benefit now for more issues in the future. Sure, it would be nice to have more energy at our disposal right now, but we know that burning fossile fuels causes problems in the future. Doing it anyway and hoping that future generations will find a way to deal with the consequences of our actions seems to me shortsighted and reckless at the very least.
- nickik 10y ago
- SmokyBorbon 10y agoA triumph of ignorance and fear-mongering.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoThis is rather surprising, and also not. On one hand, it makes sense that a European (see: Rich and believes in climate change) country wouldn't want to frack under their own soil (I'm not against fracking but I am also happy it is banned here in New York) but fracking can certainly be done safely effectively if the right regulations are in place and enforced. The only reason we see so many bad cases of fracking effects like earthquakes and so on is because the states that allow fracking also don't bother to regulate it. So it's just a matter of extra cost and engineering, which can decrease that relative cost over time. Besides, if anyone can engineer themselves out of a problem, it's the Germans.
- fleitz 10y agoAnyone who has taken a German car in for maintenance also knows we're quite capable of engineering ourselves into a problem as well. That said, it's nice kit when it's well-maintained and regularly serviced.
- DasIch 10y agoIn Germany by law every car needs to inspected every two years by the TÜV. Cars are highly regulated in terms of what modifications you may perform on them and anything even slightly significant requires approval. If you want to sell a car at decent value or you're leasing it, you're practically required to also perform the inspections offered by manufacturers. When well-maintained and regularly serviced is the norm, it's inevitably going to influence your design.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoIs that why single engine airplanes are so complicated? \s
- Oletros 10y ago> In Germany by law every car needs to inspected every two years by the TÜV. Cars are highly regulated in terms of what modifications you may perform on them and anything even slightly significant requires approval. Is this a German thing or an EU thing? Because in Spain you have to pass the ITV every to years until the car has 10 years and then, every year. And almost any modification has to pass that inspection
- pinaceae 10y agoThat is NOT what the German media is reporting: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fracking-was-steht-im-kompromiss-der-grossen-koalition-a-1099146.html http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fracking-was-steht... It is a compromise, not a ban. Certain tests will be allowed, until those are concluded there will be a moratorium (halt) on full-scale commercial fracking. What's with the BS being reported about Germany lately? First the misreporting on the electric vehicles, now this.
- mtmail 10y agoReuters could have better described the moratorium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_(law)) vs a law and should have avoided the word 'indefinitely' in the headline. But I don't think the article grossly misinforms the reader: it lists the 5 years, it lists the compromise, it mentions the exceptions for the tests.
- tremon 10y agoActually, "indefinitely" is the correct word, it's just that its colloquial use is not its literal meaning. "Indefinitely" means "for an indefinite amount of time". It does not mean the same as "infinitely", even though many seem to think it does.
- mk89 10y agoWhy not to clarify it in the article? That's the usual trick a lot of newspapers use to catch someone's attention. Really poor journalism.
- ddebernardy 10y agoIt's not merely Germany. Newspapers and news agencies have become as reliable and unbiased as a news source as an average opinion blogger - on just about any topic.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 10y agoSo much misinformation around fracking; incredubly sad the people that want it banned dont understand impermeable layers, sand injection, and salt water disposal. You will always need crude oil, not for burning, but for the synthetics, plastics, and materials of the future in our electric cars. Fracking in the USA has allowed us to use our own ethically sourced resources, rather than fueling wars in the middle east.
- grillvogel 10y ago>always need crude oil, not for burning, but for the synthetics, plastics, and materials of the future in our electric cars. cheap crude oil just temporarily reduces the demand for renewable energy sources while accelerating the decline of the planet. fracking is just an attempt to delay the inevitable and make oil cheaper than it should be. bioplastics will eventually be able to do the things you mention.
- exabrial 10y agoWow. You literally just proved my point. And where can I buy so much as a christmas tree ornament made from bioplastic?
- grillvogel 10y agoso you are arguing that fracking must continue so that the people's right to buy cheap plastic garbage shall not be infringed? theres already enough oil now for the plastic crap to keep coming for a while, just not as cheaply as before. once the true cost of fossil fuel based plastics reach the consumer, there will be more incentive to pursue better options.
- brucefancher 10y agoOf course, by "true cost" you mean the artificial costs that you want government to impose to make fracking more expensive for no reason other than that it offends your sensibilities that consumers want to buy "plastic crap" that you disapprove of and heat their homes inexpensively. What a humanitarian you are.
- ndesaulniers 10y agoIndefinite until regime change. Never say never.
- bildung 10y agoConsidering the fact that right now both the left and the green party (both anti-fracking) make up the opposition, I doubt a regime change would change much.
- xivzgrev 10y agoThey've banned WHAT?? Oh FRACKing...never mind.
- Grue3 10y agoSeems like German government wants to ban every energy source except for coal.
- oevi 10y agoYou might want to read a bit about "Energiewende": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transition_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transition_in_Germany
- Grue3 10y agoI see no concrete dates set for the end of use of coal. The fact that nuclear power generation is specifically set to phase out in 2022 means that they'll still be using coal by then.
- Quanttek 10y agoThey are indirectly set. Look at the table in the Wikipedia article. There are clear goals for a reduction in CO2 emissions and to achieve that coal has to be phased out