G8 Seeks to Promote "Trillions" in Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy

[jpak]

http://www.energybulletin.net/14013.html

In a dramatic turn-around from last year's meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, G8 leaders have set their sights on expanding access to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Last year, G8 leaders focused on mitigating the impacts of climate change and canceling debt. This year the G8 will focus on promoting trillions of dollars of investment in fossil fuels which will exacerbate both climate change and developing country debt.

Energy Security is one of three core themes scheduled for discussion at the upcoming Saint-Petersburg Summit and it will presumably be the core issue on the table when G8 Energy Ministers meet on March 15th and 16th in Moscow. Rather than use the G8 process as a means to overcome the world's addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, a G8 draft Plan of Action on Global Energy Security reveals that the Saint-Petersburg Summit is shaping up as an opportunity to ensure that the addiction will be well fed in the decades to come.

Expanding access to oil and gas: The G8 draft Plan of Action argues that 17 trillion US dollars of investment will be needed over the next 25 years in order to create a “shock-proof system of global energy supply” and it outlines the G8's intention to work together to “create the environment for the effective mobilization of these huge sums.” The G8 is calling for a global effort to reshape regulatory regimes and remove “unjustified administrative barriers”. According to the draft Plan of Action, these legal and regulatory changes will help create the conditions for the private sector to: · find new reserves of oil and gas at a faster rate than the existing reserves are depleted; · increase oil and gas output by, among other things, more drilling on the continental shelf; · expand production capacity in oil-refining, petrochemical and gas processing industries; · develop new electric power facilities, with an emphasis on nuclear and hydro-power plants; and · introduce “clean coal” technology.

Any intention of significantly reducing the world's use of fossil fuels seems to be swept aside. The draft Plan of Action states that: “The proven hydrocarbon reserves and the existing investment potential are sufficient to meet, for a foreseeable future, the growing world demand for energy. We need to create jointly the proper environment to realize this potential.”

<more>

[jpak]

1. I wonder if Putin will allow protests at this horror show

It has ChimpCo's bloody fingerprints all over it.

[megatherium]

2. They still think they can drill our way out of our energy problem.

Stupid bastards. I've been enjoying, and occasionally joining in, the renewable/nuclear debates here, but it is clear to me, we have to choose a solution and implement it now, or we're well and truly fucked. I'm not sure what the solution should be but we have feasible options, even if not everyone here appreciates them. But the proffered solution cannot be something that might account for 5% of the world energy budget in 20 years. That would be disastrous. We need to be well on our way to shutting down at least half of present levels of fossil fuel consumption in that time frame -- to prevent global warming from being catastrophic by century's end.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. we're already fucked.

Even slapping up 1GW nuke/hydro plants at the rate of 1 a day, starting today, it would take ~40 years to meet our primary energy use. We could cut that with conservation, of course...

[phantom power]

4. At that rate, I get 11 years, to replace 400 exajoules/year.

Of course, that rate of 1/day is unachievable, and so your conclusion (that we're fucked) probably still stands.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. That's a LOT of windmills

We could still possibly make it with non-nuclear energy, but we're going to have to make a major commitment to building the new energy infrastructure for the next half-century -- be it nuclear or not.

It will be easier with nuclear, but I'm under no illusions that it will be a cakewalk. It will still be painfully difficult. And judging from the sluggish response over the past three years that "Peak Oil" has been publicized, I'm losing what optimism I once had.

--p!

[phantom power]

6. It's essentially a multi-trillion dollar problem, regardless.

If you build a thousand nuclear reactors, or build a million wind turbines, or any combination of the 2, the price tag has 12 zeros after it.