The Shale Gas Revolution

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...e-changer.html

This is all over the media, with the Financial Times reporting that there is 200 years-worth of shale gas in China.

The announcement really is a game changer. The Agenda 21 pushers are now going to find it increasingly hard to run with "sustainability" and, with climate change running out of steam, we can see them struggling to create another scare which will have anything like the impact.

This also has important knock-on effects for Europe, as it will in due course relieve competitive pressure for supplies from Russia and its partners. Prices are undoubtedly going to ease, and it is going to be harder still to argue that renewables are ever going to be cost-effective.

And although it is early days yet, as the gas supplies become more plentiful, we will see wind become less and less attractive. Politically, it is no longer sustainable. The reality has to catch up soon, although one can see the vested interests attempting a rearguard action.

Within the decade though, my guess is that we will be looking back to this time as the point when the current suite of scares started to fall apart. I suppose we could say they are dead scares walking.

There are similar deposits around the world, the main areas being the United States, Canada and China that have so far been discovered. Each, with hundreds of years of reserves. In the United Kingdom it must also be remembered that we have over 300 years worth of coal deposits left along with Arabia and other oil producing areas still retaining vast reserves (many remain undiscovered, oil and gas wells at the moment are in themselves only part extracted because cost-benefit analysis only allows for a portion of each well to be used).

We know that the wheels have fallen off the global warming scam, but one of the few remaining arguments those on that defeated side always spouted was 'well we need to develop sustainable energy anyway as oil and gas are going to run out in the next 50 years' - well, no they're not and even if they did we'd do perfectly fine with shale, uranium and coal.

Don't believe everything you read in your school science textbook.

Thoughts on the energy revolution?

[Chippiewill]

oil and gas are going to run out in the next 50 years' - well, no they're not and even if they did we'd do perfectly fine with shale, uranium and coal.

The argument was always that the deposits we had at the time would run out in fifty years due to increasing demand. The argument didn't hold because it didn't take into account discovery of new fossil fuels. We do need to find sustainable resources but not for quite a while. It would still be nice to use Hydrogen fuel cell cars soon however, and super-fast charging electric cars would be cheaper to run in the long run (Since power stations burn fuel more efficiently) and a cold-fusion reactor would be pretty nice so we don't have massive coal stations plastered all over the shop, it's nicer for air content as well.

But yes, human caused climate change was a joke, and so is the argument that we'll be out of fuel soon (Although it is getting more expensive due to the scaremongering..).

[LoveToStack]

A constantly growing population and economy requires a constantly growing supply of finite resources to produce cheap energy. Fair dues if they found a big deposit. I sincerely hope they keep finding big deposits in my lifetime so that I can sustain my hedonistic lifestyle but, that said, finite resources will run out eventually. Hence the name. Whether it be in 50 years or 500: they will run out and by that time a sustainable option will be required. I just hope I'm dead by that time.

[Ajthedragon]

I think it's more about meeting the needs of energy consumption rather than how much we have in reserves. If they can't extract enough, the price will increase! Thus we must look for alternative ways of meeting our energy demands, and that's where the sustainable energy comes in.