France Passes Law To Ban All Oil, Gas Production By 2040 (cbsnews.com) 259
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: France's parliament has approved a law banning all exploration and production of oil and natural gas by 2040 within the country and its overseas territories. Under that law that passed a final vote on Tuesday, existing drilling permits will not be renewed and no new exploration licenses will be granted. The French government claims the ban is a world first. However, it is largely symbolic since oil and gas produced in France accounts for just 1 percent of domestic consumption. The rest is imported. French President Emmanuel Macron responded to the approval of the law on Twitter, saying in part: "Very proud that France has become the first country in the world today to ban any new oil exploration licenses with immediate effect and all oil extraction by 2040."
what form of government is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
making completely symbolic bans that will not provide alternative energy, nor curtail use of fossil fuels in any way....is there a name for government by marketing shitheads?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh but France has decided they will reduce nuclear power to providing ony 50% of electricity by 2025, from the current 75%. maybe they better start working on real steps toward that goal instead of symbolic B.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what form of government is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doubt it will happen
Indeed. They are already backpedaling [france24.com] after the marketing department had a talk with the engineers.
Re: what form of government is this? (Score:2)
Then again donâ(TM)t they depend on Australia and ZaÃre for their uranium?
Even if they shifted to Thorium they wound still be dependent on foreign nations. India apparently being an important source.
At this point there is probably more value in creating reactors that can use the waste from other reactors, if they want to reduce foreign dependencies?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point there is probably more value in creating reactors that can use the waste from other reactors, if they want to reduce foreign dependencies?
What a good idea! And the country that does the most fuel reprocessing for other nations is... France.
Re: (Score:2)
France has decided they will reduce nuclear power to providing ony 50% of electricity by 2025, from the current 75%.
That was Hollande's policy initiative. Fortunately he is now just a fading purple bruise in the French memory.
Re: (Score:2)
making completely symbolic bans that will not provide alternative energy
It's not up to the government to create market winners. It's up to them to ban the ones that should lose.
A great many discoveries have been made on the backs of necessity. Unfortunately the current industry doesn't care about climate change (yay capitalism) so other factors need to be brought into play.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be happy with some form of carbon-pricing bolted on to the market to make the emitters pay for some of the damage that they do.
Kind of like Obama's "Clean Power Plan", for example, but like everything else of any importance it's all on hold until we get rid of the obstructionists.
One of my biggest peeves with the "environmentalists" is that they've all but stopped talking about carbon pricing, because it would make nuclear power look good, and
Re: (Score:2)
Average is increasing but variance is also increasing, which leads to temporary colder moments. The name climate change was probably invented because of morons who dont know basic statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
making completely symbolic bans that will not provide alternative energy, nor curtail use of fossil fuels in any way....is there a name for government by marketing shitheads?
They're not banning use, they're banning production... Considering that France produces very little in the way of oil or gas this is like northern Canada banning sunscreen production or Dubai prohibiting the construction of Igloo's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we have another prediction for peak oil.
You know, when predictions are wrong you're supposed to think about revising your underlying mental model.
If we "run out of oil" by then, you can take this as a far-sighted committment to dealing with the problem before it's upon us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Statue of Liberty was a gift to the USA from France.
Amusing gift. After the creators had built two of them in Paris, the mayor told them that they weren't allowed any more.
The Eiffel Tower was a gift to France from the USA.
No. Just... no.
Poverty, greed, misery, injustice (Score:2)
Woohoo
Tartuferie (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very symbolic: french does not export much oil, and the law does not curb on oil importations.
A side note: France does not burn much oil because it uses a lot of nuclear power. However french cars still use fuel for the most of them.
Re:Tartuferie (Score:4, Funny)
So you're saying we need Mr. Fusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. We just need to get production started on the Ford Nucleon [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
France today imports 99% of it's gas and oil needs, this law will cause that number to rise to 100% in 23 years. Whoa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gas Production (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, gas produced by political windbags set to hold steady indefinitely.
wow brave. (Score:5, Funny)
Sum total effect of this (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it is largely symbolic since oil and gas produced in France accounts for just 1 percent of domestic consumption. The rest is imported.
The sum total effect of this is that France will go from importing 99% of it's oil and gas needs to 100%, big deal.
Oh SUCH a great loss! (Score:2)
Of the 98 oil producing nations on Earth, they're roughly #71. It equates out to about 0.02% of total, worldwide production.
Basically, any of the top 15 countries in the world could increase production 1% and totally negate any losses from France and its territories.
Wrong approach (Score:2)
Even with totally renewable transportation and energy, oil is still needed to manufacture many products such as plastics.
What they should really do is prohibit imports of oil from OTHER countries that are undemocratic or have lower environmental standards. That would actually make a difference for the environment, and at the same time help their security (most major oil producers are nasty/hostile dictatorships like Saudi, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela).
On a related note ... (Score:2)
On a related note, Canada has banned all production of Champagne starting in 2039.
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay - the best sparkling wines now come from the UK - climate change means the best place to grow it is moving north. The way things are going, by 2039, the best will probably be Scottish, or maybe Icelandic ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
By 2039, maybe they'll be growing grape cells in a vat and skipping the whole field part of the process.
Bullshit gesture, is bullshit. (Score:2)
"...it is largely symbolic since oil and gas produced in France accounts for just 1 percent of domestic consumption."
So, France has essentially made a promise to fulfill almost two decades from now that changes damn near nothing, and they're expecting praise?
This is like watching the United States hold a 3-day celebration after announcing a ban on asbestos in new home construction.
So, they're shutting off oil production in Gabon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, wait, I forgot, we're all supposed to pretend Gabon's independent.
Sure, French relations with Gabon are still managed out of the old colonial office rather than from the ministry of foreign affairs, and France's treasury backs their currency, and there are a bunch of French troops permanently stationed in the country, and (now deceased) Gabonese president Omar Bongo said "Gabon without France is like a car with no driver. France without Gabon is like a car with no fuel." But Gabon is an independent country, you bet.
Convenient (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Colloquial for a job. No one is entitled to a job in an industry that will soon be consigned to the toilet of history.
Same goes for all those former coalies in West Virginie. Trump might provide a temporary boost, but their jobs are dead as Marley in 5-10 years. They might as well get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government. The market. Whoever.
If something is too environmentally dirty to be allowed to survive, it should be killed off. If something doesn't pay (like coal -- natural gas is much easier to handle and maintain equipment), it should be allowed to die.
No support for obsolete, dirty industries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They will riot anyways and repeal it (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about, they said they'd stop producing oil and gas, they never said they'd stop using oil and gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the World Wars? One of their own tried to take over Europe.
From a military standpoint, the French have only 'recently' had issues with the Germans. Before that, they had their own empire, and liked to screw with Spain, Britain, etc. for fun.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not for long (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not for long (Score:4, Funny)
Hot Air Monsieur! HOT AIR!
Our politicians here in France have hot air in abundance!
Re:Not for long (Score:5, Interesting)
Only until they realize that there are many non-fuel related uses of oil such as plastics, pharmaceuticals, clothing/fabrics, asphalt etc.
Considering oil is a non-renewable source, it's better that we resolve such issues while we still have the luxury of having an abundant amount of oil. What you need to realize is that many things were developed to use oil because it was so abundant. We're making headway with plastics (see bioplastics) and that's really the biggest issue here.
Then there is the question about how to power their aircraft.
I've thought about this exact issue and my conclusion was that hydrogen fuel cells is the best alternative based on current technology. It would be more expensive but all you need is water and electricity to make what you need.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell (Score:3)
I've thought about this exact issue and my conclusion was that hydrogen fuel cells is the best alternative based on current technology.
The problem with this is that fuel cells generate electricity so you are now limiting yourself to a propeller aircraft which will be a lot slower than current jet technology. Even if you develop a hydrogen jet engine storing the fuel it needs is currently something we do not have the technology for since high pressure tanks are extremely heavy since they are metal and carbon fibre ones have far lower pressures.
It's certainly possible that there could be technological solutions to these problems before 2
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet...the Saturn V managed to store LH2 just fine. As did the Space Shuttle. And both of them flew....
Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell (Score:4, Informative)
...at a terrible cost of keeping it liquified, for a short period of time, and with a density of only 70 kg per cubic meter. At an energy density one fourth that of jet fuel. And without any concern for fuel price (tens of dollars per kilogram).
Neither of those vehicles you mention made it into orbit without non-hydrogen propulsion. S-V needed a lot of kerosene, and the STS effectively burned a lot of rubber to get into orbit. And the reason why hydrogen was even used was the impact of Isp in the rocket equation on the efficiency of upper stages, with Isp for a rocket being effectively the exhaust velocity, which is much higher if your fuel is hydrogen rich, and there's nothing richer in hydrogen than hydrogen. Jets, however, face a completely different problem since the exhaust velocity is immaterial; they're heating lots of air with comparatively little fuel, and here's where the 25% energy density of hydrogen bites you in the ass: even at massive Isps allowed for by pushing lots of mildly hot air around, the constant drag means that you need a lot of fuel for long-distance flights. Now multiply the tank volume by four. And, oh, add insulation for a 250 K temperature differential between the airplane skin and the tank...
Re: (Score:2)
The heaviest lifter in the US inventory (and the world too) at the moment is a pure H2/O2 cryogenic booster, the Delta 4 Heavy (28 tonnes to LEO). It doesn't get used a lot for various reasons, typically one flight a year for NROL missions.
H2/O2 has the best out-of-the-box Isp figure of all regular fuel combos but it suffers from low mass exhaust and at high atmospheric pressures close to the ground this results in reduced thrust due to back pressure. That's the reason the Shuttle, Ariane V, H-2 and other l
Re: (Score:3)
And yet...the Saturn V managed to store LH2 just fine. As did the Space Shuttle. And both of them flew....
Just fine is relative, as is "flew". The Saturn V had kerosene as the first stage propellant due to the low energy density of hydrogen. It produced the thrust necessary to get the damn heavy thing off the the ground, something LH2 was not capable of. LH2 only came into play at the second stage as it is far more efficient fuel to burn once moving.
While we're at it have you seen a crosssection of the LH2 storage tank? The thickness of insulation needed to keep the LH2 in liquid form at suitable pressures was
And yet...the Saturn V managed to store LH2 just f (Score:2)
You do realise that the first stage (the heavy lifter) used [gasp] kerosene[gasp] because there's far more energy in 'fossil fuels' than in hydrogen.
And the space shuttle REQUIRED two solid boosters to lift it and that huge tank of hydrogen (again because there's not much energy in hydrogen).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly possible that there could be technological solutions to these problems before 2040 but isn't the sensible thing to develop the technology first and THEN motivate the switch to it by passing laws.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair points, but history shows that regulating first has been shown to drive innovation in the desired direction.
Case in point Southern California. It hat an electric, mass transit public transport system. When these were privatised, General Motors Corporation bought in, and started to steadily reduce the service, like a frog in hot water. At the same time emotive advertising that implored people to write to their commissioner and demand more roads "for the children". A solid strategy to sell more motor ve
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible, just not practical.
The Soviets have built a Tu-154 version [wikipedia.org] that had one of its engines running on hydrogen. They have switched to natural gas later because hydrogen storage is complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since France gets electricity for free with no environmental impact (read:nuclear)
It's not exactly free, but there definitely are viable sources of surplus energy for, say, electrolytic hydrogen generation for synthetic fuel production, sources that constantly decrease in price. Just place a lot of solar panels in southern Europe and you're set. Especially if you place them in, say, the 2030s when the prices will be half again of what they're now.
"Considering oil is a non-renewable source" (Score:2)
"Considering oil is a non-renewable source" - You do know that millions of gallons of oil is currently being created in the ground right now as you type that. Oil creation is ALWAYS happening. It will continue to be created even after we stop using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering oil is a non-renewable source.
STOP RIGHT THERE. We can turn CO2 into gasoline [technologyreview.com]. Given that MANY applications (such as airplanes) simply aren't viable without the extreme energy density of fossil fuels relative to batteries [wikipedia.org], trying to eliminate all fossil fuel use seems like folly. Given that we can actually make gasoline and kerosene from CO2, why isn't there more effort put into that?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, for niche applications: why would we go to all the work of generating/storing/handling H2 when, given the choice w
Not really it is about OIL production not FUEL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit like China promising to cut back on CO2 emissions when they start to run out of coal to burn?
Re: (Score:2)
It is called methane, there is a lot of 'shit' you can do with methane, chemically alter it or even burn it and it takes nothing more than your shit to make. Every city, preserving their methane to make use of it, a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and when every city does it, to protect, preserve and enhance the living environment, they will probably have a surplus. No need for fossil fuels, they can make their own by consuming and then passing the fuels of life, more than enough, when you work to
Re: Not for long (Score:2)
Then again a lot of innovation has happened in just the last 10 years when it comes to alternative energy sources and source material for plastics. Hopefully this will help drive companies to look further into how to develop products that day by depend on oil.
The first countries that develop oil free technologies may actually have the competitive edge in the coming years. On the other hand countries trying to support ailing energy types, such as coal, may be playing catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they banned it much like Germany "banned" Nuclear power. They will just import it from other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, France has nuclear powered aircraft and ocean freighters? They've been keeping that a secret.
Re: (Score:3)
Hydrogen will work for aircraft.
Ocean freighters could be nuclear-powered. See also the Otto Hahn and NS Savannah.
Re: (Score:2)
Key word: "will," and that's just an unsupported supposition. France is stopping oil exploration now, and oil pumping by 2040. Where are France's current hydrogen powered aircraft, and where is their nuclear powered freighter design and construction occurring so they're operational and commercially feasible by 2040, and not just some government subsidized research project?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Electrolysis. Powered by ... nuclear reactors. Or even renewables.
I never said it was an energy SOURCE, just a good way to store energy.
How to store it? Engineering problem that's been solved in multiple ways. Read about hydrogen-powered aircraft before yipping and yapping sarcastically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a big bag on top of the aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
In a big bag on top of the aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?
36 people die and the technology becomes a boogeyman and shunned.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where does the hydrogen come from?"
The Hydrogen will be provided by the Hydrogen fairies who live in people's flower beds and consume rose petals and dandelion greens.
Re: (Score:2)
It even has aircraft on it!
Re: (Score:2)
yes, unlike the English carriers that do not have planes..
Re: (Score:2)
No, the French will be happily reprocessing nuclear fuel and laughing at the schmucks who are still reliant on fossil fools.
French reactors have a problem handing reprocessed nuclear fuel and require very specific mixes in order to operate properly. It's a well known design problem even with their current generations of reactors, which are why the current and future CANDU designs are being picked by more countries as a nuclear power solution. CANDU can use any fuel source, at any stage of it's life whether enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, plutonium, all byproduct waste from highly radioactive to low radioactive and v
Re: (Score:2)
Reprocessing nuclear fuel to power cars and make into plastics/roads/cloth?
Re: (Score:2)
I think France is putting the Cart before the horse. France needs to get its dependence from fossil fuel off the plate, before it stops its production and exportation.
With France leaving the production game, with demand still present it is opening itself to keep its dependence on producers such as the Middle East, Russia and America. Who at the moment aren't really nice nations to deal with. As an American I would like to think we are a good nation to trade with. But for the past year or so our relations
Re: (Score:2)
The encrypted bank payment for another ship load of LNG imports will always be accepted.
France has nuclear weapons to stop any invasion by Germany and the UK.
The metro is powered by nuclear power stations. Government workers will always get to work.
New subsidised electric 2CV and H vans for the rest of France.
Re: When the resource wars start (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: When the resource wars start (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plastic is made from hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. All of these are abundant elements. When you get them in the polymers found in crude oil, the energy cost of separating them out into ones that don't need much energy to turn into plastic is fairly low. When you start with plan oils and have to polymerise or crack them to get the right lengths, the energy costs can be higher.
Creating plastic is a problem of energy, not of raw materials. We don't use oil for them because it's the only option, we use i
Re: When the resource wars start (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can also say that if/when the consensus becomes "we *need* that fossil fuel, and fuck the climate" they can repeal this law and will have more resources left than others who burned everything as quickly as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they are going to stop using gas and oil, they will just stop producing it - big whoop.
Re: (Score:3)
A decision to keep using oil and gas, but just stop producing it would accomplish what, exactly? Do you imagine importing oil and gas somehow lowers greenhouse gasses?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I think wind and solar will be unreliable by 2040? Because they rely on the wind blowing and the sun shining.
Why do I think that wind and solar will be expensive by 2040? You assumed too much. I don't know what wind and solar will cost in 20 years, and neither do these policymakers. Given that it's more expensive than nuclear now then there's a good chance that with technological development in wind, solar, and nuclear, in the next 20 years that the swiftest horse is the best bet. Maybe wind and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah they've been drilling for oil since 1889 on the Champs de Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and are still no closer.
Re: (Score:2)