France Passes Law To Ban All Oil, Gas Production By 2040 (cbsnews.com)

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."

Comments

When the resource wars start

[Q-Hack!]

France will be the first against the wall.

Re:When the resource wars start

[b0s0z0ku]

No, the French will be happily reprocessing nuclear fuel and laughing at the schmucks who are still reliant on fossil fools.

Re:When the resource wars start

[AHuxley]

The digital Maginot network will save France.
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

[dbialac]

Wait until they find out what plastic is made from.

Re: When the resource wars start

[b0s0z0ku]

Perfect excuse to reduce unnecessary use of plastic drastically.

Re: When the resource wars start

[RightwingNutjob]

Make it all out of steel!

Re:When the resource wars start

[msauve]

"the French will be happily reprocessing nuclear fuel and laughing at the schmucks who are still reliant on fossil fools."

Wait, France has nuclear powered aircraft and ocean freighters? They've been keeping that a secret.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, cuz your citroen runs on reprocessed nuclear fuel.

schmuck.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to run the new iTimber_64, an Intel processor made for the French market that uses cellulose instead of silicone as a semiconductor. The first model will clock in at 300mhz and only weigh six pounds.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably runs on cheese so you can look smug in front of the Americans who you hate so much.

CAPTCHA: odious

Re:When the resource wars start

[rrohbeck]

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:When the resource wars start

[b0s0z0ku]

Hydrogen will work for aircraft.

Ocean freighters could be nuclear-powered. See also the Otto Hahn and NS Savannah.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

You ABJECT MORON.
 
There is someone still out there chanting the "hydrogen economy" from the Bush administration.
 
Where does the hydrogen come from?
 
And how do you store and transport the hydrogen, a very small molecule that is very reactive?
 
Idiots have taken over here. Even reddit is better than this cesspool.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, France has nuclear powered aircraft and ocean freighters?

France does have nuclear powered submarines. If so motivated, the same nuclear marine reactors for freight. In fact I wish this would happen. The shipping industry is perhaps one of the most polluting users of oil on the planet. The downside of course is nuclear proliferation concerns, can't imagine why the North Korean Navy might want to seize one of these. This is why we can't have nice things. :(

Re:When the resource wars start

[b0s0z0ku]

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: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until YOU find out what bioplastics are made from

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

If Japan were to have a law like this it would also mean nothing. Japan has no oil resources. Yet another meaningless law.

Re: When the resource wars start

[PoopJuggler]

You're wasting your breath. These old fools are stuck in the past. Anything modern is just tomfoolery.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

the point is it ISN'T a fucking good way to store energy. Its highly reactive nature makes it a highly dangerous way to store and transport energy and is a minor accident away from catastrophe.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

AHAHAHAHA!

You don't even know! Hydrogen is more economically produced by refining it form natural gas! And because people don't like throwing money in the toilet, they're going to choose to refine it from natural gas (of which the earth has enough to last the next several thousand years or so) as opposed to using electrolysis.

Hydrogen is a terrible way to store energy. It is the least dense gas known to man. It causes corrosion and weakens most metals that it is stored in. It is flammable and explosive. And, ironically, it is most certainly not renewable - there is a finite amount of water on the earth, and any leaked hydrogen will achieve escape velocity and leave the earth forever.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Please send your resume to all the companies currently producing and storing hydrogen. They clearly are in need of your advice and are in grave danger.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does the hydrogen come from?

nuclear + water

nd how do you store and transport the hydrogen

same way that it is now, The space shuttle's ssme are hydrogen powered and did ok

Idiots have taken over here

Agreed, but hydrogen powered transportation is a thing. Back in the 80's or 90's Boeing (or maybe Douglas) demonstrated a modified MD-90 using a ultrahighbipass unducted fan engine running on hydrogen.So it's definitely possible. The fuel tank was nearly as large as the fuselage and looked like another fuselage stuck on top of the plane. It was an engineer's wet dream and oh so cool.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Chips aren't made from silicone. You're thinking of something else.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

France even has a nuclear aircraft carrier.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Hognoxious]

And how do you store and transport the hydrogen

In a big bag on top of the aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: When the resource wars start

[Hognoxious]

It even has aircraft on it!

Re: When the resource wars start

[luvirini]

yes, unlike the English carriers that do not have planes..

Re:When the resource wars start

[Mashiki]

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 various types of MOX fuels.

On top of that nearly all of the uranium that France uses in it's nuclear program comes directly from Canada, and the various reprocessing facilities we have here. One of the reasons S.Korea went with CANDU designs was to directly get away from the problem of "long hauling" radioactive material.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

...any leaked hydrogen will achieve escape velocity and leave the earth forever.

AHAHAHAHA! You don't even know!

Re:When the resource wars start

[wisnoskij]

Reprocessing nuclear fuel to power cars and make into plastics/roads/cloth?

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the French plan to make plastics, wax, paint, lubricants and other petrochemicals form nuclear fuel?

Star Trek isn't real. We don't have universal replicators.

Re:When the resource wars start

[msauve]

"Hydrogen will work for aircraft."

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: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until [something blindingly obvious]

+5 Insightful my ass

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you store and transport the hydrogen, a very small molecule that is very reactive?

You answered your own question. It's very reactive, react it with something that's bigger, thus easier to store, but is rather unstable and readily decomposes. That way you decompose it at the moment you need it and don't have to store it. There's thousands of chemicals that are fairly easy to make that you can do this with, they just don't have long shelf lives. As you said, hydrogen is quite reactive.

Re:When the resource wars start

[vtcodger]

"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: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Spend a week without plastic, fool. That means no electricity (the wire insulation is made out of it), no battery powered electronics (electronics), no vehicles (tires, dashboard, seats, etc.), no contact lenses or glasses with plastic in them, nothing that comes in a plastic container, and frankly, nothing that relies on plastic for transportation. Welcome to 1840.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

More like country with no Oil bans trying to find oil.

France can ban killing wild kangaroos and wild Giraffes for all I care.

Re:When the resource wars start

[vivian]

You could probably make a nice impermeable bag from canvas, if you impregnated it with a mix of aluminium and iron oxides to protect it from UV and used nitrocellulose to bind it to the canvas.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Bing Tsher E]

France doesn't produce any oil. This is the sort of virtue posturing one could expect from a nation who just elected their own version of Donald Trump, just of the opposite polarity.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Bing Tsher E]

It runs on whatever chemicals the French have a great surplus of as a result of not producing or consuming any soap.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Bing Tsher E]

300 millihertz? That's kinda fast. Better slow it down a bit and be safe.

Re:When the resource wars start

[jellomizer]

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 with other countries have sucked.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Bing Tsher E]

We would just have to stay in the older parts of our house, where the wires are silk wound with cloth insulation, and routed with knob and tube wiring

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, your power company doesn't use silk wound with cloth insulation on their wiring, so you'll need to cut the power anyway. And your belongings were moved into the house by way of a car or truck, so they'd have to go as well.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Plants. Plastic is made from plants.

Granted, traditionally we've let those plants rot for a few million years, but plastics can also be made perfectly well from fresh plant feedstock. One example is PLA.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama wasn't polarizing at all ... noooo

Re: When the resource wars start

[PoopJuggler]

I guess you're the fool since you failed to comprehend the mention of BIOplastics.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Laughing till the next invasion? ;)

Re: When the resource wars start

[TheRaven64]

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 it because it's the cheapest (especially when most of your energy comes from oil).

Re:When the resource wars start

[Talderas]

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:When the resource wars start

[Socguy]

Correct. Using H2 as a battery is terribly inefficient and dangerous. Pumped hydo is currently the most efficient, however, simply using BATTERIES is a far superior mechanism to store energy.

Re:When the resource wars start

[doom]

The "nuclear proliferation" concern doesn't really seem to be a problem with nuclear energy-- there aren't any examples of countries pursuing nuclear power as a blind for weapons development, and preventing them from using nuclear power doesn't stop them from developing weapons if they really want to.

If you're envisioning that a nefarious player could hi-jack a nuclear freighter and use the material for bombs, that's not really an issue because the fuel suitable for power is only like 5% enriched, vs the 95% or so you need for bomb grade material. Starting from ore wouldn't be that much harder.

(On the other hand, you could hi-jack a nuclear freighter and use it as a power plant-- I half-way expect that's what we're going to end up doing with the US Nuclear Navy... we've got a fleet of reliable, transportable electric power plants that can steam into any harbor and begin supplying power...)

Re: When the resource wars start

[mspohr]

... and leak water
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Re:When the resource wars start

[david_thornley]

Naval nuclear reactors are expensive. The USN dropped nuclear propulsion for surface combatants a long time ago. Cargo ships live by being economical, and nuclear-powered cargo ships aren't going to compete with other power systems.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the shitbird typing on a plastic keyboard.

Re:When the resource wars start

[Eunuchswear]

Hydrogen will work for aircraft.

Nah, methane and ammonia. Hydrogen is too difficult to store.

Re: When the resource wars start

[Anonymous Coward]

Think that was the joke, sparky.

what form of government is this?

[iggymanz]

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:what form of government is this?

[b0s0z0ku]

France is basically the world leader in nuclear power plant design and power production -- no worries there. Not all carbon-free energy has to be wind/solar.

Re: what form of government is this?

[b0s0z0ku]

Bzzzzzt! Bzzzzzt! Trump troll spotted, 12 o'clock, dead ahead! Awoooogah! Awooooogah!

Re:what form of government is this?

[iggymanz]

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:what form of government is this?

[b0s0z0ku]

Doubt it will happen -- they know which power source makes them independent from foreign control. Nuclear for life!

Re:what form of government is this?

[ShanghaiBill]

Doubt it will happen

Indeed. They are already backpedaling after the marketing department had a talk with the engineers.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that France passed a law a few years ago, after the Fukushima accident in Japan, calling for a major reduction in the use of nuclear power. Of course, they're already backpedaling on that one and this latest decision will be no different.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is: 'MERICA!

Re: what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like an iSheep. Gotta love how apple's instance on unicode gives them away

Re:what form of government is this?

[AmiMoJo]

It's just one small part of the larger effort, which includes banning sales of most fossil fuel cars and reducing other sources of pollution.

It's better than doing nothing, but haters gotta hate I guess.

Re: what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

France is also one of the world leaders in wind turbine technology.

Re: what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's called democracy.

Re: what form of government is this?

[Midnight Thunder]

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:what form of government is this?

[Applehu Akbar]

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:what form of government is this?

[thegarbz]

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:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's called "liberal".

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

France is not a symbol of CO2 emission achievement, they are a leader. Germany is the symbol. France has half C02 emissions per capita and per Kwh electrical generated as Germany.

You can look no further than their wise choice to use nuclear. No only are they kicking Germany's ass wrt CO2 emissions, they are also paying a lot less for their electricity.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory this wouldn't just be a symbolic ban if people actually trusted their government(s), it would help inform people making decisions about infrastructure, investment, related technologies about how things will be in the future. It's a lot better to do that far in advance, allowing for a gradual managed change than do it at short notice. Sadly, if the French government is anything like the British then you might as well ignore what they say about anything more than a week in advance.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No, the politicians said this a while back, but they have since said they will not dial back nuclear that much because they can't achieve emissions goals without it. That was following a very clear statement from the French Academy of Science the nuclear power was a necessary element to carbon goal achievement.

Re:what form of government is this?

[mjwx]

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:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another fruity climate changer. Oh noes its hot, oh noes its cold. We don't know which way its going to go, so lets go with its "changing" - lordy lordy.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "progressivism".

Re: what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

âoeFranceâ. They âoeFrancedâ it.

Re:what form of government is this?

[lucasnate1]

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:what form of government is this?

[Bing Tsher E]

The Statue of Liberty was a gift to the USA from France.

The Eiffel Tower was a gift to France from the USA.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Rick Perry's claims that there is an imaginary urgent need for coal in the US to prevent a imaginary national crisis?

An elected government doing something forward thinking seems like a pretty good idea.

Re: what form of government is this?

[TheRaven64]

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:what form of government is this?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:what form of government is this?

[gillbates]

Just FYI, 2040 is when the oil companies estimate the world will run out of oil. So, yes, this really is a symbolic ban, because by that time, the only oil extracted will be so expensive that it will be used only for plastics and other materials manufacturing, not as a fuel.

Re:what form of government is this?

[doom]

It's up to them to ban the ones that should lose.

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 you can't have that. They've picked their winners, and they want subsidies for them, and won't hear about anything else.

Re:what form of government is this?

[doom]

2040 is when the oil companies estimate the world will run out of oil.

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:what form of government is this?

[youngone]

The Eiffel Tower was a gift to France from the USA.

I have had a look through the Wikipedia article about the Eiffel Tower, and can see no mention of this at all.
I don't think it was.

Re:what form of government is this?

[dcw3]

The Eiffel Tower was a gift to France from the USA.

Go back to school and ask them for a refund.

Re:what form of government is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Marxist symbology. Style over substance.

Re:what form of government is this?

[KingBenny]

yea its called western democracy ... or simply "government" :)
you took the words out of my mouth there ... passing laws that effect 30 years after your legislation is over and you're probably half dead must feel really good standing on that stage making $10.000 speeches written for the people in the suits paid for with the same money you use to retire early while you vote a law quickly the rest of the country has to work 10 years longer ...
it must be nearing elections somewhere i suppose
why, o why do people no longer have confidence in government and police? ... i never knew they had that ... did they ? maybe foolsgold diggers

Re:what form of government is this?

[iggymanz]

false, there is shale oil sufficient for over a century. your 1970's propaganda rehash won't pan out. we won't even talk about how much coal there is, global empires rise and fall on that timescale

Re:what form of government is this?

[iggymanz]

no, it is NOT part of that and has no effect on that. it is meaningless stupid symbolism over substance

Poverty, greed, misery, injustice

[geekymachoman]

... and more! also.. to be banned, by 2120!

Woohoo ... we're so proud of being so progressive!1

Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Crashmarik]

There's nothing like knowing your livelihood can be sacrificed to the whims of a mob.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[b0s0z0ku]

People working in industries that pollute the planet and endanger public health aren't automagically entitled to "jerbs." Bet you'd have said the same about workers who produced DDT pesticides and lead paint.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

So thoughtful to kill roughly 20 million people with the ban on ddt. Terrible that the oil industry has brought 4 billion people out of poverty, reducing population grow more significantly than any other human activity in recorded history.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[b0s0z0ku]

Largely a myth about the 20 million people -- bugs were developing DDT resistance, and DDT is not banned in countries that actually need it. Glad the US stepped up and banned it, though. Humanity without a clean ecosystem and healthy plants/animals is nothing.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[RightwingNutjob]

What is a "jerb" and why would anyone want one. Sounds like a parasite if some kind.

Re: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that wonderful oil industry that poisoned people for decades with lead in gasoline, burying scientific studies that revealed the danger from that, fought tooth and nail against any regulation in the name of safety, fomented wars and conflicts in foreign lands all in the name of greed, and has resulted in a bunch of overzealous theocrats fighting wars that have sucked us into conflicts that have gotten thousands of our own killed all to make a few corrupt oligarchs a bit richer.

But fuck, I'm sure you feel great since you have power steering, cruise control, and heated seats in your Cadillac.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[b0s0z0ku]

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: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah I feel great you left wing turd. You are out of power and I am loving it.

Re: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, so blame all this on the 'oil industry'...nobody actually USING the oil had anything to do with it right? If only the oil industry didn't exist we'd live in a happy Utopia...free from o about 5 billion people at least I'm sure, riding on horseback without any of todays goods & services, not to mention all the plastics produced...it's real easy to blame 'big bad oil industry'...look in the mirror THAT'S the real culprit...not so easy when you have to blame yourself...go ahead give up all modern amenities, almost all of which derive from use of oil & other carbon products in one fashion or another...

Re: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my, somebody's happy with the results of gerrymandering and voter suppression, that couldn't even get your figure head a popular vote win (despite his insistence that there were so many illegal voters, strange how he's never proved it), and left him lying about his own inauguration?

Yes, yes, you're doing such wonderful things with your power, you can't even manage to pass your precious "tax cuts" without rookie mistakes.

Total failure with ACA reform. Total uselessness on that wall. Pathetic performance after disasters. Pissing off people with a nothing-gesture. A whining turd in the Oval office who didn't even like his own Supreme Court appointment. Good job.

Oh, and don't forget losing in Alabama because of such a toxic candidate that nonetheless embodied everything the modern right-wing stands for...

Re: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Bing Tsher E]

The ACA is dead without the IRS penalizing people for not buying a 'health care plan' (which isn't something you buy, it's something you do). Nobody will be penalized, the whole thing will die because nobody is throwing their money away on 'plans' they don't need.

Particularly younger people will benefit from the recent changes. Healthy 20 year olds won't be paying for hip replacement surgery for 84 year olds with six month life expectancy.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[RightwingNutjob]

Ah. And who does the consigning? The philosopher-kings?

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[b0s0z0ku]

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: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Bing Tsher E]

The Toxic candidate in Alabama nearly won.

Most Republicans thought he was repugnant, but weren't going to elect a Democrat to spite reality.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[RightwingNutjob]

That's a pretty wide range there. Everything from letting buggy-whips go the way of the buggy to people who think they know best deciding who and what is allowed to survive. Best to pin yourself down to a position lest you be accused of not having an intellectual grounding. Here you are cheering on the demise of fossil fuels in one post, then saying natural gas is a superior technology (which I happen to agree with, but see no reason to have government pick it as the winner), but all in a story about France banning natural gas extraction right along with everything else.

Re:Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whoever."
Yes, I'm going to obey the dictats of "Whoever". sounds like a sure fire winning strategy

Re: Makes me happy i'm not a French Citizen

[david_thornley]

And lots of people will be dead. The only way to have affordable insurance plans cover pre-existing conditions is to make the insured pool larger. That's one reason health care is cheaper in places that have universal care, and which often have better outcomes than we do.

Also, you don't need a health plan until you do. At that time, you tend to need it, and you then have a pre-existing condition, so without the ACA you can't get one.

They will riot anyways and repeal it

[Anonymous Coward]

The French don't fuck around, if anyone doesn't like this they will be in the streets soon with fire and pitchforks. If anything France is like the Iowa caucus of the world, it may not matter much but whether or not something will fly shows up there first.

Re:They will riot anyways and repeal it

[b0s0z0ku]

The French don't need it -- they're the world leaders in nuclear energy production. If their industries and cars can be cut over to electric power in 25-30 years, they'll be fine. In fact, better off than being hostage to the rest of the world for oil and gas.

Re:They will riot anyways and repeal it

[Anonymous Coward]

The first meltdown will have those cheese-eating surrender monkeys scrambling to build coal fired plants and pleading with the US for LNG.

Re:They will riot anyways and repeal it

[b0s0z0ku]

LOL! They actually have a good safety record because their plants aren't based on 50 year old American or Soviet tech. I'll bet that we'll see another meltdown in the US sooner -- the US is too ignorant to replace its 40-50 year old nuclear plants with newer, safer nukes.

Re:They will riot anyways and repeal it

[Anonymous Coward]

I am still trying to understand how France was ever allowed to become one of the veto wielding countries in the UN security council. They have had to rely on the US kicking the Germans out of the country twice. China is also questionable since they were not a global power back when they were seated on the council. However, they have evolved and justified their seat on the council. What the fuck have the French done to be considered a world power?

Re:They will riot anyways and repeal it

[kenh]

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:They will riot anyways and repeal it

[DivineKnight]

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: They will riot anyways and repeal it

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking retarded ?

The French have the most successful military the world has ever known. They fought and won your war of independence for you. The US came into WW1 right at the end, when Germany and its allies had fought to exhaustion, so it didn't "save" anybody. It also sat back and watched for years in WW2 until Japan and Germany declared war on it and dragged it kicking and screaming into the conflict. It then played as part of a team effort, while making damn sure its allies repaid every cent they owed it. So again, it didn't "save" anybody, except as one part of a team. Shit, it hardly lost any soldiers to even speak of.

Educate yourself you idiot.

Re: They will riot anyways and repeal it

[Anonymous Coward]

France still had a large empire at the end of WW2, so it made sense for it to be on the security council as there would be a fair chance any conflict would be adjacent to or near French territory.

Re: They will riot anyways and repeal it

[kaatochacha]

Um, Marshall Plan....

Won't last...

[Amigori]

Will this law last until 2040? Probably not.

You know, the European Union went into effect in 1993, 24y ago. I'm sure NOTHING has changed in France since that happened... /sarcasm.

In order to compete...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the Netherlands has passed into law a ban on all elephant and rhino hunting within its EU borders, effective immediately.

Tartuferie

[manu0601]

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

[mentil]

So you're saying we need Mr. Fusion?

Re:Tartuferie

[kenh]

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:Tartuferie

[thinkwaitfast]

What does France's energy breakdown by use look like? The US only burns oil for transportation and not much else.

Re:Tartuferie

[GrumpySteen]

Nah. We just need to get production started on the Ford Nucleon.

Re:Tartuferie

[doom]

"Mr. Fusion" isn't necessary-- there are multiple things that would work-- but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

It's easy to be cynical about Fusion these days, but we could still get there. Try listening to Bussard on the subject (from back in 2006)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Tartuferie

[manu0601]

Energy use or oil use? Since most energy produced in France is from nuclear, that makes a huge difference.

Re:Tartuferie

[manu0601]

What does France's energy breakdown by use look like? The US only burns oil for transportation and not much else.

From Wikipedia

• Inudustry:19%
• Transports: 33.1%
• Households: 30.2%
• Service businesses: 14.7%
• Farming: 3%

Re:Tartuferie

[Reziac]

Headline should read:

"France Takes Vow of Poverty, returns to era of horse and buggy"

Gas Production

[mentil]

In other news, gas produced by political windbags set to hold steady indefinitely.

Re:Gas Production

[doom]

But it pales in significance to the energy "renewables" enthusisasts put into writing gosh-wow headlines.

In soviet france

[RightwingNutjob]

petrochemicals from Russia buy YOU!

Why 2040?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not 2025? 2020? Why not sooner? Why wait over 20 fucking years?

Not for long

[Roger W Moore]

Only until they realize that there are many non-fuel related uses of oil such as plastics, pharmaceuticals, clothing/fabrics, asphalt etc. Then there is the question about how to power their aircraft.

Re:Not for long

[phayes]

Hot Air Monsieur! HOT AIR!

Our politicians here in France have hot air in abundance!

Re:Not for long

[Gravis Zero]

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:Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, France is letting in former ISIS fighters as well as many other Islamofascists.

So there is no telling what they will do.

They will do what sand nígger dune coons always do: violence, oppression of women, and appeal to the libtards to accept their backwards religious 16th-century way of life in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity". No one who resists will stand a chance in the liberal media, they will be demagogued to death and branded with a scarlet 'R'.

Funny how Islam is the "religion of peace" yet of the ~ 150 armed conflicts in the world, the vast majority involve Muslims on one side or both sides. Yup, just keep denying that reality, just like with black violence, kissing their asses and denying what you can plainly see will one day result in world peace and total acceptance all around. Sure. You believe that, right??

Of course we believe that. Because that's the establishment party line. If we don't believe the establishment party line, we will become instant social outcasts, because that's what the opposition always does when facts are on their side, amirite?

Re:Not for long

[gravewax]

considering oil is currently a critically used and required resource how about it is fucking better to solve such reliance problems BEFORE banning its production. Not that this matters anyway as this is really just marketing as the timeline combined with the miniscule amount France produces means this will not have any impact on anything.

Re:Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

The plan is to drive down the price of bitcoin to less than nothing, double-purchase them all, invent a new algorithm to convert bitcoins back into energy, and use that energy to synthesize everything from atmospheric gases.

Re: Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they give until 2040 -- to give replacements before the ban

Re: Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the fat fact that France is not an oil producer.
I can ban myself from manufacturing tomato juice 100% does not stop me from buying it.
France is full of shit, and full of imported retardo sand monkey terrorists.

Re: Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

France is full of shit, and full of imported retardo sand monkey terrorists.

You're fifty years behind. Charles de Gaulle sent the US forces home in 1966.

Re:Not for long

[rtb61]

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 process it all, none wasted to pollute the environment. Methane and various catalysts and energy and a bunch of molecular engineering and you are done, simple logic. I know you fossil fuelers your butt holes are twitching at the thought of the loss of most of your wealth and all of your power, suck it up mate and good riddance to the many toxic cultures that supply fossil fuels, shut down to nothing primitives again, that we don't have to interact with or tolerate.

Re: Not for long

[Midnight Thunder]

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:Not for long

[DarthVain]

Well they banned it much like Germany "banned" Nuclear power. They will just import it from other countries.

Re:Not for long

[Bing Tsher E]

So if we literally start hoarding our shit and collecting our farts, your energy utopia will become possible.

I know you fossil fuelers your butt holes are twitching at the thought of the loss of most of your wealth and all of your power, suck it up mate and good riddance to the many toxic cultures that supply fossil fuels, shut down to nothing primitives again, that we don't have to interact with or tolerate.

Wow, that last 'sentence' is a doozy.

Re:Not for long

[LynnwoodRooster]

Considering oil is a non-renewable source.

STOP RIGHT THERE. We can turn CO2 into gasoline. Given that MANY applications (such as airplanes) simply aren't viable without the extreme energy density of fossil fuels relative to batteries, 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:Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

Only until they realize that there are many non-fuel related uses of oil such as plastics, pharmaceuticals, clothing/fabrics, asphalt etc. Then there is the question about how to power their aircraft.

Fertilizer. Most of the world's agricultural output is propped up with synthetic fertilizers created as a byproduct of oil production. Going back to mining bird poop as fertilizer isn't going to work for a few billion people.

Re:Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Or, put in another way, considering how important it is for plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc, it's best to stop burning it to move cars around, since we need it to make pharmaceuticals and clothing...

Re:Not for long

[Socguy]

By 2040 manned aircraft may be a relic of history. Considering the rate of solar/battery improvement Unmanned drones may work fine with electricity. More likely, man made synthetic fuels will be available by then which will cover most of your list.

Re:Not for long

[Socguy]

Hydrogen always looks like it's going to fill a need, then improvements in other areas (hello batteries) keep surpassing it. Hydrogen is saddled with inefficiencies that pure electrics just don't have. The energy lost through the generation, transportation, handling and storage of H2 is substantial. The technical challenges of handling the stuff are a nightmare on the large scale.

Finally, for niche applications: why would we go to all the work of generating/storing/handling H2 when, given the choice we could just use the energy to begin to synthesize hydrocarbon fuel from atmospheric carbon (hello biofuels) and use existing technology to utilize the stuff?

Re: Not for long

[wyHunter]

I'm sorry we didn't let the Germans keep France.

Re:Not for long

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'll be taking the train from japan to Australia then, yes?

Re:Not for long

[mspohr]

I believe there is a company in the UK which sets up methane producing digesters for communities. They offer this as an alternative to fracking.
http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/

Re: Not for long

[gravewax]

I didn't miss it at all, in fact I explicitly pointed it out.

Re:Not for long

[Eunuchswear]

If you turn CO2 into gasoline it's not a fossil fuel.

United States

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we had something like a French congress in the US. That would never fly over here because all parties are bought by big oil.

Re:United States

[kenh]

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: United States

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like shipping all the oil you use across the ocean may even increase co2 emissions, crazy!

Re:United States

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa whoa... don't use your brain. Just clap, like and obey like a proper slave.

Oil and Gas Production

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess **all** plastic products will be made in Germany then.

(I don't think France had thought this out so much cuz they hate Germany. And I'm Germany so I know how much France hates us).

Re:Oil and Gas Production

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need to produce the oil and gas to use it. basically it is a nothing gesture anyway as france already import most of it.

Re:Oil and Gas Production

[kenh]

It's not like they are going to stop using gas and oil, they will just stop producing it - big whoop.

Also banning child soldiers and conflict diamonds

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they don't make those in France, either. I guess it is good to see that Trump hasn't cornered the market on stupid political tricks.

Let's be somewhat realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Dinosaur juice will only last so long. Stop being a bunch of stupid fuckheads and try to find a solution.

Re:Let's be somewhat realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, unlike what is commonly believed very little if any oil comes from dead dinosaurs. Unless someone rounded up all the dinosaurs and created a mass grave for millions of them piled one on top of the other. Most oil comes from plant matter from millions of years ago. Think of a forest today. There isn't a several foot thick layer of dead rotting animal carcasses layering the ground, however there are several feet of dead rotting vegetation that make up the topsoil layer. The forests and bogs of today will be the oil reserves of the future.

Re:Let's be somewhat realistic

[EvilAlphonso]

If I'm not mistaken... the oil production was literally a once-off event that happened before bacteria started processing the dead matter. Once that once-off stockpile is gone, it's not coming back.

wow brave.

[gravewax]

That is the equivalent of Australia banning Polar Bear hunting or the US banning all Koala skin exports, very brave move

Re:wow brave.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the ban. It's about virtue signalling.

Re:wow brave.

[lorinc]

Well, France has a lot of overseas territories which might or might not contain oil. There are even known deposits in the Mozambique channel where France have very large territorial waters.

In fact, the move is more signalling that France will not exploit those resources in the future than stopping current exploitation.

Re:wow brave.

[gravewax]

when nothing is on the line for them it signals nothing but grandstanding. If they wanted to make a commitment that showed something then they should have said they are going to ban all fossil fuel imports to the country by 2040.

Re:wow brave.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have no significant prospects in this space, they produce less than 1% of the fossil fuels they consume. If those areas had significant wealth to be exploiuted you can be damn sure they would not be doing this.

Sum total effect of this

[kenh]

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.

Re:Sum total effect of this

[aod7br7932]

That's what the Libyan job was for.

Re:Sum total effect of this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more ridiculous than that, because oil production has declined from over 60000 barrels/day in the 1990s to an even smaller 16000 barrels/day now, versus over 1.7 million barrels/day of consumption. In another 23 years it would be surprising if there was any production at all.

Basically they've announced their intention to something by 2040 that they probably won't have to bother doing because it will already be done.

Re:Sum total effect of this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

When you don't have much of a choice, make it a principled choice.

Not really it is about OIL production not FUEL

[aepervius]

France has a few oil well, but they are producing next to nothing. So they can happily state they will produce no more *OIL*, while happily importing crude and refining it to FUEL (or Plastic whatever). As said, it is symbolic.

Re:Not really it is about OIL production not FUEL

[vtcodger]

A bit like China promising to cut back on CO2 emissions when they start to run out of coal to burn?

I'll be more impressed when

[magzteel]

I'll be more impressed when they ban all use of oil and gas for any purpose.

Fortunately this dumb stunt will not affect the French Air Force too much, as over half their aircraft are unfit to fly anyway: https://www.express.co.uk/news...

The other half are being protected from the elements by white flags.

Mod parent DOWN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Russian Gazprom trolls a-lurkin'!

Coal

[Anonymous Coward]

JUDAS TRUMP, famous American traitor and pervert wants us to burn coal like there is no tomorrow. And burning coal has the potential to eliminate all tomorrows for humans. How could America sink so low as to have this Judas as a president?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Virtue signalling bullshit

[blindseer]

Any publicly stated government goal that is more than one election out is bullshit. JFK did make the claim of going to the moon "by the end of this decade" and people believed him because there was a good chance he'd still be in office 8 years later. These knuckleheads are making a promise that is 20 years out. I'm going to take a leap here and suspect that these policymakers are like ours in the USA and are predominately... shall we say, "senior citizens". Not only are these people unlikely to still be in office to enforce this policy but I suspect that half of them will be dead.

I laugh at politicians making claims of having a plan for 10 years out, much less 20. Tell me your plan for next year. They won't tell me their plan for next year because that's something that they might actually be held against. Instead they talk of a plan to reduce the debt in 10 years and stop the seas from rising in 100.

You know something, France? You've done a great job in reducing carbon output with all those nuclear reactors, how about you build some more? That's going to do more for reducing your carbon output than anything else.

Also, banning something without a plan to offer a replacement is just asking for problems. We've seen these coal bans blow up in faces all over the world. It turns out that trying to replace a reliable and cheap energy source with unreliable and expensive wind and solar doesn't work all that well. What makes you think that this oil ban will go over any better? If you want to see oil go away then offer something better and it will go away on it's own. The stone age didn't end for lack of rocks.

Re:Virtue signalling bullshit

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why do you think that wind and solar will be "unreliable and expensive" by 2040? That's 23 years from now. Judging from the progress of solar and wind technology since 1994, which was 23 years ago, until today, there's no reason to assume that these won't be the preferred energy sources by then, at least for electricity generation.

Re: Virtue signalling bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the sun and wind conditions were as unconstant in 1994 as they are now. Mainly the sun only shines during daytime and wind is irregular at best.

Re: Virtue signalling bullshit

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That makes very little sense. As the penetration of these sources will increase, the sum of the periods in which their output won't cover our basic electrical needs will necessarily decrease. Along with that, the opportunity to store the surpluses (which will constitute an ever-increasing proportion of the generated electricity), either virtually using hydro dam regulation or physically using batteries or electrolyzers, will increase to the point that even with the round-trip inefficiencies, it will be still be economical to cover the remaining intervals of insufficient generation with the accumulated stored energy. It doesn't matter if storage doubles your costs if your input is at two euro cents per kWh. It's still cheaper than the alternatives at that point.

Re:Virtue signalling bullshit

[blindseer]

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 solar will win, but right now nuclear is ahead. So build some nuclear now, and see which one is ahead in 20 years.

Most importantly is that unless we see a replacement for oil in the next 20 years this ban on oil will not stand. I suppose they might be stubborn and hold the oil ban as the lights go out, planes are grounded, and people generally freeze and starve to death. If there is a replacement we'll likely see a transition in full swing in 20 years. It's not likely that oil can be replaced that quickly. It took a century for steam to completely replace sail in commercial shipping.

Re: Virtue signalling bullshit

[doom]

The central trouble is that wind and solar are relatively diffuse energy sources, so there isn't a lot of margin to spend on tricks like storage devices or superconducting networks or what not. This is not to say that it can't be done, but it's all going to take some finese. I wish them well-- sincerely, we need all the clean power we can get-- but what I expect is that the "renewables" enthusiasts will continue to be quietly accepting of burning natural gas in "peakers" to fill in the gaps.

FTF

[Anonymous Coward]

They provide nothing the world doesn't have, without the attitude.

Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Roger W Moore]

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 2040 but isn't the sensible thing to develop the technology first and THEN motivate the switch to it by passing laws. Picking some arbitrary timescale and enshrining it in law is just daft when meeting the deadline depends on something over which you have no control.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[CrimsonAvenger]

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

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

[Gravis Zero]

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:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[K. S. Kyosuke]

...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:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[thegarbz]

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

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 wider than most fuel tanks are round. You can overcome a whole lot of hurdles when you have lots of space for your storage tank.

Car makers have been playing with hydrogen fuel for a while no. So far no one has come up with a method of doing it without bonding the hydrogen to some other material. Hydrogen storage is not a solved problem.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[jblues]

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 vehicles.

Los Angeles became one of the smoggiest cities in the world. The government set vehicle emission regulations, to be met by a set date. As these were met they became steadily more stringent. (Of course at one point the test was fudged rather than actual innovation, but that's another story)

Re: Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why, of course, the only hydrogen powered aircraft flying now, the boeing phantom eye, uses A pair of 4 cylinder Ford engines and flies at about 80 knots indicated. Physics is a birch and she doesn't care about your propaganda.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[dunkelfalke]

It is possible, just not practical.
The Soviets have built a Tu-154 version that had one of its engines running on hydrogen. They have switched to natural gas later because hydrogen storage is complicated.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[edtice1559]

There is an easy solution to this problem. You simply combine the hydrogen with a long carbon chain. Then you can get whatever physical properties you want and substitute it for existing fossil fuel applications. Since France gets electricity for free with no environmental impact (read:nuclear), it doesn't even matter if the process is efficient.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Bing Tsher E]

Los Angeles smog is due to geographic peculiarities.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[LynnwoodRooster]

The Saturn V did have 13 successful launches - and one that blew up. The Space Shuttle had 135 flights, only 133 were successful without deaths. I dunno, but I think modern jet airplanes manage a little better than 2-8% of all flights failing... Were these accidents caused by the use of LH2? The Saturn V may have been - but the others were worsened by the fact they were strapped to a huge tank of LH2 and LO2...

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of them had fricking huge boosters that were jettisoned after takeoff. Try doing that on every commercial flight, Sparky. Ain't going to happen.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have mentioned DC-X. That flew just fine on just LH2/LOX.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Roger W Moore]

Yes with an enormous budget and an entire ground control room staffed with engineers to monitor everything to stop things exploding. Even with this two of 833 Space shuttle launches ended in disaster although only one is attributable to a rocket failure. However even one failure in 833 launches would mean huge numbers of plane crashes every single day. Liquid hydrogen fuelled rockets are not in anyway a viable alternative to the modern jet engine.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[Roger W Moore]

Sorry - that should be 135 shuttle missions - I used the number of crew instead of the number of missions. This makes the statistics even worse at about a 1% failure rate. Would you get on a plane if it had a 1% chance of blowing up due to engine failure?

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[nojayuk]

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 lifters have used it as a core stage fuel/oxidiser combo with strap-on solids to get it into a near-vacuum regime where its excellent Isp can earn its living. Even the venerable Saturn V's second and subsequent stages were H2/O2 for that reason. A number of other modern launchers use H2/O2 second and final stages, such as the GSLV MkIII.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

And because of its extensive use of LH2, it costs about $400M to launch, about two to five times as much as the second next most powerful vehicle (depending on which one currently holds the crown, since it seems that the Falcon 9, the Ariane 5, and the Proton M+ are racing in a pack when it comes to maximum LEO payload). And regarding jetliners, even if hydrogen tankage had exactly the same price tag and overall lack of technical issues as jet fuel tankage of comparable size, there would still be issues with fuel price and volume. (Since we're talking about airplanes, the use of hydrogen in rockets is really irrelevant here.)

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[nojayuk]

the Falcon 9, the Ariane 5, and the Proton M+ are racing in a pack when it comes to maximum LEO payload

Ariane V ES can, and has put about 20 tonnes into LEO orbit to supply the ISS with ESA's ATV missions. Falcon 9 missions to the ISS run to about 10-12 tonnes docked at the ISS, the Full-Thrust launches have been crippled by the recoverable features added as deadweight to the booster and thus have not yet reached the 20-tonne-to-LEO target expected. I've got no numbers on Proton M series launcher performance with actual LEO payloads. The Wikipedia article on the Proton claims 23 tonnes to LEO maxed out but nothing delivered to the ISS orbit to give a fair comparison, and no details of any actual heavy-lift missions to LEO at all.

Hydrogen as a storeable fuel on Earth is pretty pointless, its use as a fuel in launchers is well-proven but usually with caveats and workarounds but there are reasons it was used in the past and will continue to be used in the future. Several space engineering operations are developing new H2/O2 motors such as ESA's Vinci, a restartable replacement for the existing H2/O2 upper-stage HM7B motor used on Ariane V.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Ariane V ES can, and has put about 20 tonnes into LEO orbit to supply the ISS with ESA's ATV missions. Falcon 9 missions to the ISS run to about 10-12 tonnes docked at the ISS, the Full-Thrust launches have been crippled by the recoverable features added as deadweight to the booster and thus have not yet reached the 20-tonne-to-LEO target expected.

The "recoverable features" are optional and therefore don't "cripple" F9's expendable payload capability in any way. Just don't install them and you're fine. And by this reasoning, the Delta IV Heavy also hasn't gotten anywhere near the advertised 28 tonne payload either.

I've got no numbers on Proton M series launcher performance with actual LEO payloads. The Wikipedia article on the Proton claims 23 tonnes to LEO maxed out but nothing delivered to the ISS orbit to give a fair comparison, and no details of any actual heavy-lift missions to LEO at all.

Seriously? You *do* realize that the Zarya and Zvezda modules of the ISS were lauched by Protons, and the Nauka module will be, too? These don't exist to you?

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[nojayuk]

The "recoverable features" are optional and therefore don't "cripple" F9's expendable payload capability in any way. Just don't install them and you're fine. And by this reasoning, the Delta IV Heavy also hasn't gotten anywhere near the advertised 28 tonne payload either.

Several of the NROL payloads for the D4 Heavy have been in the 23-24 tonne range (mostly in-orbit manoeuvering fuel at a guess). I don't know the what heaviest SpaceX payload into LEO has been. The Full Thrust launches, the most powerful version of the F9 flying today have been much smaller than 20 tonnes into orbit in part because there are few 20-tonne launches required these days (we've got very good at putting smaller bits together in orbit) and in part because of the landing legs, guidance fins and required fuel and oxidiser reserve for recovery that have always been flown on F9 FT launches up till now.

Thanks for the info about the Protons, I don't track them much and there's no convenient info a.k.a. specific Wiki articles about Proton launches, or at least I couldn't find any.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Several of the NROL payloads for the D4 Heavy have been in the 23-24 tonne range

Which ones? I'm only aware of the fact that recent KH-11s are supposed to be in the 19 tonne range. The HST, which is rather similar to them in dimensions and optical capability (modulo focus), only weighs about 11 tonnes. It seems strange that the KH-11s would weight twice as much despite being roughly the same size.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[nojayuk]

Manoeuvering fuel is essential for spy satellites for them to change their orbits. Once the fuel is exhausted or close to it the satellite's orbit is predictable and can't be altered to deal with new observing tasks so NROL spy birds, radio and radar monitoring satellites and such fly with as much fuel on board as the launcher can safely handle and get the payload into its desired primary orbit.

The Hubble is just going around in circles so it didn't need ten tonnes of fuel and oxidiser on board to change its orbit during its lifespan. Not so for a spy bird.

Re:Need hydrogen jet, not fuel cell

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I know that spy sats need manoeuvering propellant. But even that doesn't push the mass by extra ten tonnes in upgrades. The old versions of KH-11 apparently had several tonnes of propellant in already fairly large tanks. Exactly how do you squeeze +150% extra into the same bus?

Enough with the political grand standing

[Anonymous Coward]

RIGHT. So France has almost 0 oil exploration so banning it is purely symbolic. Get back to me when they ban all use of carbon fuels...I trust that won't happen until long after these political wonks are out of power & I'll likely be dead anyway.

Re: In other news:

[Anonymous Coward]

Crocodiles exist in the USA:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile

They grow potatoes in Siberia: http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Fall2004/Siberia/tabid/1298/Default.aspx

Siberian wine? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37493164

Oh SUCH a great loss!

[Chas]

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.

2019 : France discovers massive oil field

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancels Ban.

Re:2019 : France discovers massive oil field

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Nah they've been drilling for oil since 1889 on the Champs de Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and are still no closer.

Wrong approach

[bluegutang]

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).

Re:Wrong approach

[aslagle]

It's staggering to me how many people don't realize just how much comes out of oil. We do to oil what the native Americans used to do with the Buffalo.

We take the oil and put it in a big pipe, heat the crap out of it, and then pull out different things based on how high up in the pipe it condenses (a crude simplification, but close enough for government work).

• At the top is the gasses such as LPG and butanes. Sulfur too, from H2S. Heavy Naphtha.
• Then a ton of products, some of which get reblended into Gasoline: jet fuel, kerosine, diesel oil, fuel oil, stuff like butanes and pentanes.
• Lower down, we get the heavy fuel oils, waxes, lubricating oils (don't underestimate the need for that stuff).
• And finally, at the bottom, Asphalt.

Most of that stuff we'll need, even if every car today was electrically powered.

On a related note ...

[gordguide]

On a related note, Canada has banned all production of Champagne starting in 2039.

Re:On a related note ...

[coofercat]

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:On a related note ...

[Baron_Yam]

By 2039, maybe they'll be growing grape cells in a vat and skipping the whole field part of the process.

Re:On a related note ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ;-)

Why bother with the UK? Canada (especially Ontario and BC) make some very good wines. The Niagara region (Southern Ontario) is at the same latitude as France after all.

Bullshit gesture, is bullshit.

[geekmux]

"...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.

Re:Bullshit gesture, is bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The kneejerk America bashing gets so tiresome. Asbestos was originally banned in the US in 1989. Your joke is 28 years out of date. Get some new material.

Re:Bullshit gesture, is bullshit.

[geekmux]

The kneejerk America bashing gets so tiresome. Asbestos was originally banned in the US in 1989. Your joke is 28 years out of date. Get some new material.

No shit it was banned long ago. Clearly you failed to get the fucking joke that a 3-day celebration is about as relevant as France's 1-percent-impact announcement.

cui bono

[aod7br7932]

Please check the voter's and Macron's movements on the future commodities markets

So, they're shutting off oil production in Gabon?

[SEE]

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.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the sort of meaningless, bound-to-be-repealed law that France (and California) would pass. It's law now, so it's gonna happen! sure...

Possibly Jumping the Gun Here a Bit

[Ferretman]

But hey, they can always change their mind later I reckon.

Ferret

"Considering oil is a non-renewable source"

[arfonrg]

"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:"Considering oil is a non-renewable source"

[mspohr]

I know that there is a lot of oil in the ground. I thought it was made millions of years ago after the carboniferous period where plants and animals were buried under pressure deep in the earth.
So... what is your source for oil being formed today? The carboniferous period is long gone and it takes eons to bury stuff to get the required temperature and pressure.

Re:"Considering oil is a non-renewable source"

[Eunuchswear]

He's an abiotic oil loon.

And yet...the Saturn V managed to store LH2 just f

[arfonrg]

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).

powering aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there is the question about how to power their aircraft.

Here's one experiment that was done a few decades ago:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

Leeham News (which does consulting in the aircraft / airline industry) did a series of articles on electric / hybrid aircraft a little while ago:

* https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/21/bjorns-corner-electric-aircraft-part-13/

err....wait....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why they didn't pass a law about burning oil or fuel?

Total has oil wells and a lot of exploration holes and platforms around the world.

easy-peasy

[Anonymous Coward]

easy enough to ban stuff you don't do....good political capital though.. :-)

their priorities are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The muslim invaders are a much bigger existential threat to France than global warming

Re: You are mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Go learn some actualy Geology and stop talking out of your ass. It stinks. We can smell it asstalker.

France once again leading from Behind

[Anonymous Coward]

with thier useless gestures and posturing. When are we going too move UN headquarters to France where it belongs?!! Once again, more politics and less News for Nerds on /. George Soros shills.

Convenient

[lfp98]

France touts an end to its insignificant oil production. Meanwhile, Norway gloats about its aggressive renewable energy subsidies and emissions mandates, which are only made possible by the revenues from all the oil it produces for export.

Exploring oil

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this will also do nothing to French oilfield service companies **cough** Schlumberger **cough**.

I've also passed a law!

[Anonymous Coward]

...that everyone gives me all the money and supermodels I want by 2040.

Bolder Goals

[wolfheart111]

I have a feeling that Musk has somthing to do with all this. Setting lofty goals that are tough to reach... its inspirational and motivating. Were having a glimpse of the future. (reusable rockets, fucking self driving cars,).... born in 69 here and I tell ya... fucking amazing. We choose to go to the moon... not because its easy.... but because HARD.

What Alternative?

[dcw3]

So, when they can no longer use KY, what lube will they switch to?

Wow

[Zorton]

What an amazing idea! Let's just ban an entire industry that literately is the foundation to modern society and rely totally on imports to cover our needs. I'm sure with all the bunny rabbits dancing and the sunflowers singing the chorus all will work out just fine.

Idiots.

Re: When the resource wars start... I agree...Now,

[Anonymous Coward]

...who gets to decide which uses are "unnecessary"?