
German government agrees to ban fracking indefinitely - ck2
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fracking-idUSKCN0Z71YY
======
slapshot
For 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...](http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=de&product=oil&graph=production)
[2]
[https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPWY2&f=M)
[3]
[http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil...](http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production)

~~~
ck2
If they are a huge importer that means this move is even more dramatic because
it says they won't do stupid things just to try to save a few dollars.

But also, aren't they huge on solar even though they get a fraction of the sun
that the USA does?

~~~
travisp
> But also, aren't they huge on solar even though they get a fraction of the
> sun that the USA does?

They've put a ton of money into solar and wind, but these are extremely
variable and there are days of the year that solar and wind produce
practically 0% of Germany's energy, and usage keeps growing.

~~~
cygx
_these are extremely variable and there are days of the year that solar and
wind produce practically 0% of Germany 's energy_

Note that it tends to be more windy when it's less sunny, so the monthly
variability of solar and wind energy production combined yields a factor of
less than two. You're right than on a daily basis, there likely will be
issues, but I don't know the statistics off-hand (besides the news stories
that electricity tariffs can go negative on sunny days).

~~~
travisp
This was 2014, so it may be different in 2015, but is a reasonable benchmark:

[https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-
file...](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-
englisch/data-nivc-/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-
germany-2014.pdf)

You can see that during 2014 the minimal combined solar and wind production
for a day was just 0.022 TWh (just 4% of maximum combined wind and solar).
While generally it was around 0.2TWh, the risk of dropping to almost no
production means that Germany still can't really rely on wind and solar and
still has to significantly rely on coal and gas (especially gas, since it is
most flexible).

------
exabrial
So 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.

~~~
frakr
I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that
show that it is safe to inject millions upon millions of gallons of toxic
waste water deep underground. They say that it's safe over a timeline of
hundreds of years, but we don't even have computer models that can predict the
weather above ground for next week.

~~~
piotrjurkiewicz
I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that
show that the Earth will become warmer and warmer. They even say that it's
caused by human activity and it can be stopped if we avoid burning fuels, but
we don't even have computer models that can predict the weather above ground
for next week. So how can they predict exact temperature for next few hundreds
years?

~~~
nisa
I get your point but you are wrong. Climate change is based on a lot of
historical data and measurements and theoretical models from various sources.

Fracking depends on the geology and certain assumptions about what's going on
while fracking and that everything is going according to a plan. Might be
harmless in certain regions might be a problem in others. There is little data
on fracking as it's recent technology - results on earthquakes are just in and
don't look particular harmless.

------
rm_-rf_slash
This 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.

~~~
DasIch
It's not at all surprising. Germany has for decades now been very
environmentally conscious. This is why Germany is doing the Energiewende and
have had plans to shut down nuclear reactors since long before Fukushima.

Given fracking in the US as an example, it's no surprise at all that you'd
find broad support for heavy regulation or a ban of fracking.

What's surprising about this is that it took so long.

~~~
Fiahil
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nuclear reactors have nothing to do with climate
change. Reading GP then your reply seems ambiguous about the "environmentally
conscious".

~~~
patall
He does not mention climate change at all. Germanys antinuclear movement is
against nuclear reactors because it is still unclear what happens to the
waste. Remind you that were are speaking of a country that is populated quite
evenly, there is no space where you could leave it for ever with noone
affected. Same for fracking: somebody will live in the area where fracking
occurs. But big money does not care about these people. Therefore Germans are
against it altogether.

~~~
chris_va
Waste disposal is almost entirely political. That Germany is shutting down the
objectively cleanest reliable source of energy is tragic.

All of the nuclear waste Germany generates would fit in a single football
stadium. Technically you'd pick something below the water table and
geographically stable, like say, a salt mine.

Burning coal produces more nuclear waste, it just dumps it all into the
atmosphere.

~~~
quakeguy
The nightmare looks like this:

[https://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/wastes-g...](https://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/wastes-
gorleben-salt-mine.gif)

"Just dump it in a salt mine" and leave it there for a million years doesn't
work. It can't work, be realistic.

~~~
Reason077
Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue. But compared to burning fossil
fuels for energy, it's by far the lesser of two evils.

Most of the more dangerous fission products will have decayed sufficiently to
be "safe" after hundreds, or thousands of years. Nowhere near a million!

Anything that lasts longer than that emits so little radioactivity that it's
pretty much background noise.

There are plenty of _naturally_ occurring sources of radiation that are strong
enough to be dangerous - like Radon in Cornwall, UK. Even if a future
civilisation accidentally digs up one of our waste sites in a few thousand
years time, it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some
natural radioactive source.

~~~
nisa
> it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural
> radioactive source.

Really? That would be mostly oxidized uranium - white not really harmless it's
something different than highly toxic plutonium - besides that you have
extremly toxic decay products that e.g. pose a problem for the chernobyl area.

Besides that there are more than enough isotopes used in nuclear energy that
have a half-life of millions of years.

If you look at the history of Europe in the past 2000 years it's not exactly
been peaceful - also something to consider - especially as we have the
knowledge to use nuclear reactors to weaponize this waste.

~~~
Reason077
Nuclear waste shouldn't contain plutonium. That stuff is expensive, so there's
an economic incentive, as well as environmental, to reprocess waste and
recover any remaining fuel.

Chernobyl (and Fukushima) are entirely different (and much worse) because you
do have the nuclear fuel itself being exposed to the environment. But waste
fission products in a modern reactor are far less dangerous compared to the
fuel that goes in, especially once they have been properly reprocessed and
then stored for while.

Isotopes with half lives in the millions of years, as opposed to years or
decades, really aren't all that dangerous in terms of radioactivity. Longer
half life generally means less radiation.

------
iLoch
I 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.

~~~
contravariant
It'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.

~~~
opendomain
No, 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
Effectively 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.

------
ndesaulniers
Indefinite until regime change. Never say never.

~~~
bildung
Considering 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.

------
pinaceae
That is NOT what the German media is reporting:

[http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fracking-was-
steht...](http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fracking-was-steht-im-
kompromiss-der-grossen-koalition-a-1099146.html)

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
Reuters 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
Actually, "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
Why 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.

------
grb423
Alex 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.

~~~
droopyEyelids
What if that energy has a 10% chance to destroy humanity's reserves of fresh
water?

~~~
khattam
Yeah, one of the main issues is clean drinking water. A third of the world is
facing consequences of lack of clean drinking water. Energy from fossil fuels
can be used to purify water. This is one of the main arguments for fossil
fuels in the book.

------
xivzgrev
They've banned WHAT??

Oh FRACKing...never mind.

------
Grue3
Seems like German government wants to ban every energy source except for coal.

~~~
oevi
You 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
I 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
They 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

