Germany Finally Says the F-Word: ‘Fracking’
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has produced a string of surprising changes in Germany over the past seven months: substantially higher defense spending, delivery of lethal weapons to a combat zone, new realism on the limits of trade-based diplomacy.
But the surest evidence that Europe’s largest economy is veering into “signs and wonders” territory is that politicians are uttering with increasing frequency that dirtiest F-word of all—“fracking.”
Germany’s energy crisis is a crisis of choice, or rather a crisis of two choices, the second following directly from the first. The choice most German politicians seem to want to talk about is the second of the two, the choice to source so much of the country’s energy imports and especially natural gas from a single, unsympathetic vendor, Russia.
A solution to this problem is achievable without an excess of policy imagination or political skill. If importing gas from Russia no longer is an option, the gas will be imported from somewhere else. Pledges to accelerate construction of terminals to accept liquefied natural gas from the U.S. and Middle East have lent Economy and Climate Minister Robert Habeck of the Green Party an image of vigorous activity in pursuit of Germany’s voracious energy needs.
But Germany is as dependent as it is on foreign fuel only because of the first decision Berlin made: not to tap the country’s substantial domestic gas reserves, which by some estimates could satisfy much of Germany’s gas demands for the next two decades.
The manifestation of this choice was hostility to the hydraulic fracture, or fracking, technology that could tap Germany’s shale-bound gas reserves. Berlin in 2017 all but banned, on dubious safety grounds, the fracking techniques that could reach most of Germany’s gas.
Now some politicians are asking whether the country can afford to leave that gas in the ground. A split has opened within the unwieldy governing coalition of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Two of the coalition’s three parties are staunchly anti-fracking—Mr. Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD) and Mr. Habeck’s Greens. The third, the free-market Free Democrat Party (FDP), is for it.
The FDP “supports the significant expansion of domestic gas production,” the party’s energy guru in Parliament, Michael Kruse, told a newspaper in June. Another party leader, Torsten Herbst, challenged the objections: “As scientific studies show, under modern safety standards fracking doesn’t cause any relevant environmental damage.”
Some opposition politicians are picking up the theme. Bavaria’s conservative state premier, Markus Söder, in late July posed the obvious question: “Wouldn’t it be appropriate for Germany to think about whether it wants to use its own gas capacity?”
That interview came with a broader, not-so-subtle point about energy trade-offs. Mr. Söder is cool on fracking in his own state of Bavaria, but keen on fracking in the northern state of Lower Saxony. Lower Saxony also happens to be the site of one of the three remaining nuclear reactors Berlin may keep running into next year, and the state is a hotbed of antinuclear resistance. Mr. Habeck currently plans to shut Lower Saxony’s reactor on schedule in December while keeping the other two plants (one of which is in Bavaria) running.
Mr. Söder’s fracking message is that the energy has to come from somewhere. One can extract it from shale or from the atom—Mr. Söder is enthusiastic about the atom—but not extracting Germany’s fuel resources is no longer an option. Message received, apparently. As of this week, even the left-leaning Spiegel news magazine found itself wondering why exactly fracking remains such a taboo ahead of state elections in Lower Saxony.
Don’t hold your breath for this debate to lead to German fracking any time soon. Opinion polling over the summer found only 27% of respondents supported fracking, compared with 81% support for more wind and 61% support for burning more coal as solutions to Germany’s looming energy crisis.
Yet don’t entirely abandon hope. The real surprise of that poll was that “only” 56% of respondents opposed fracking outright, with the remaining 17% undecided. This after voters have been bombarded for years with antifracking messages, and with fracking supporters launching the latest debate from a standing start. That the opposition isn’t near-universal suggests that the harsh realities Russia’s war has imposed on Europe may be opening the door to more skeptical thinking about German energy policy.
Germany is deciding if it wants to play a more active role in a range of foreign, security and economic policy debates around the world. Up to now, the idea that Germany is resource-poor seemed to underlie many foreign-policy discussions, and it encouraged Berlin to take supine positions. But this perceived resource poverty is more a form of learned helplessness than a geological reality. Whether Germany can wake up to this fact will shape what direction Mr. Scholz’s “turning point” ends up taking.
**************************************************
Out of control solar farm development is a threat to British food security
London, 11 October - Net Zero Watch today welcomed media reports that the Secretary of State for the Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), The Rt Hon Ranil Jayawardena MP, is minded to tighten planning advice to discourage the development of large scale solar photovoltaic power stations on farmland.
Net Zero Watch has warned of this misuse of farmland and its threat to food security in two papers by our energy editor, Dr John Constable.
The most recent of which was published in March this year: The Case for Reform of Solar Energy Planning Guidance.
The loss of agricultural land is on a highly significant scale with 30,000 acres or more currently facing proposals for solar photovoltaic, and much more in the early stages of development, putting further pressure on land use.
The UK currently has approximately 14.8 million acres of arable land, the lowest level since 1945. In the decade 2009–2019, the arable area fell by about 740,000 acres, and the area of land lost to agriculture currently stands at about 99,000 acres per year. The area facing solar development is a highly significant increment to an already undesirable trend. The UK is approximately 61% self-sufficient in food production, and 75% self-sufficient in indigenous food types.
However, this relatively reassuring picture is put into doubt by the decline in agricultural area under cultivation and by population growth, which adds approximately 400,000 people to feed each year. On these assumptions, within twenty years the UK will be feeding a population that is considerably larger, but from an arable landbase that has shrunk by 13%. This would imply an import dependency of about 50% or more.
Against this background Mr Jaywardena’s move to restrain development is obviously wise. We must hope that the government is not deflected by protests from vested interests in the solar industry and their followers in parliament.
NZW’s energy director, Dr Constable, said:
"Farmland is already a solar converter making food, which is much more valuable than third-rate and very expensive electrons from solar photovoltaic cells. The fact that some green campaigners would rather have low grade electricity than high quality British farm produce shows how bizarrely irrational environmentalism has become."
Contact
Dr John Constable.
Energy Director, Net Zero Watch
e: john.constable.1837@gmail.com
*************************************************
Big range problems with an electric truck
Our Ford F-150 Lighting Towing Test Raises Concerns
We didn’t miss the chance to tow with the new Ford F-150 Lightning. We needed to see how pulling loads affected the range for ourselves. Now we have a first-hand experience with how the 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning is both good and bad for towing.
The 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning towing capacity depends on which model you have. The standard range model can pull up to 7,700 lbs and carry a payload of up to 2,235 lbs. With the extended-range model, you can tow up to 10,000 lbs and carry a payload of up to 2,000 lbs.
We have an extended-range Lariat model, with a 320-mile range on a full charge, and used a 5,000 lb camper for our test. We started with 240 miles of charge and entered the trailer’s specs.
After creating a trailer profile for the 25-foot camper, the range was chopped down to 140 miles. Due to Columbus Day traffic and the Asheville area being crowded due to leafers, we decided to only take the camper out for 30 miles.
On back roads at lower speeds of 35 to 40 mph, the Lightning did great. It held a steady charge, even while going up steep inclines, and handled curves extremely well. If you go slow the entire way, you might have enough juice.
However, on I-26 at speeds between 50 to 65 mpg, the Lightning struggled. The range was instantly updated due to rising heat and the trailer’s weight. The range started dropping at a rapid pace. We used 89 miles of range during our 30-mile route.
So, an even heavier trailer could destroy the range at a faster rate. If you plan to tow with the Ford F-150 Lightning, have charging stations mapped out, or try to keep your trip under 100 miles.
It’s like the Ford F-150 Lightning has a good start for towing. The tech definitely makes things easier, and it feels confident. However, the range seems to struggle, making us concerned about towing heavier loads.
*****************************************************
An electrical tank!
One wonders about range limitations
“An army marches on its stomach,” Napoleon is often quoted as saying.
The actual sentence was “an Army, like a serpent, goes upon its belly,” and it was spoken by Frederick the Great, but let’s not get caught up in details. The point is, if you want to win the battle, logistics are at least as important as tactics.
And had Frederick not died in 1786, when horse-mounted cavalry ruled the battlefield, he might have rethought that phrase. Petroleum products — gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel, lubricants — are what fuel the modern military.
Or they did until the advent of the latest main battle tank from General Dynamics Land Systems, anyway, which announced last week that it would be exhibiting its new “AbramsX technology demonstrator” during the Army’s Annual Meeting & Exposition in Washington, D.C., this week.
The tank’s “hybrid power pack” will also consume half the fuel that current versions do and run more quietly; it “even allows for some silent mobility,” according to the company.
There’s only so silent a multi-ton vehicle is ever going to be when it’s on the move, of course, but things are relative on the battlefield.
This may be making a virtue of necessity, as the U.S. military — like every branch of an out-of-control federal government run by un-elected bureaucrats and increasingly left-leaning idealogues — has climate-change-related goals it must meet.
“The AbramsX’s hybrid power pack supports the U.S. Army’s climate and electrification strategies,” the company announced.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, obviously — so long as the platform’s lethality isn’t negatively impacted by the changes. The company’s release didn’t go into specifics about that; in its defense, it’s probably too early in the tank’s development even to know for sure. You never really know how a weapon is going to serve you until it’s been fired in anger.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment