I am less sanguine than the author that fracking could make a meaning contribution for any near-term help. But I agree that it should not be rejected out-of-hand as a longer term contribution. The EU needs to objectively study all alternates to Russian supply of energy.
Shutting down nuclear plant where the investments have already been made seems stupid in the EU’s energy supply situation. And wood, while replaceable, takes many years to replace. Lignite coal is a readily available but very dirty environmental alternate to wood.
It seems logical that expanding access to LNG as quickly as possible would be a higher priority than wind and solar from a government standpoint. I think the Western world could find ways to assist.
My biggest take-away is that wind and solar are not going to replace Russian gas. Other alternates should receive higher priority than they’re getting. More common sense is needed and less politics.
Lomborg has never impressed me as an honest broker. This article didn’t change my mind. Lomborg claims shale gas could provide cheap energy. But some years ago, the US State Department made a big push to develop fracking in Europe for the exact reasons he brings up. The Supermajors explored in Poland, Romania as well as Denmark and a few other countries too. They analyzed their data and concluded it wasn’t close to profitable and walked away. Poland would love to be selling gas to Germany, and the Germans would love to be buying it from Poland instead of Russia, but it straight up isn’t economically feasible. So for now we can scratch fracking in the EU as a solution, at least until new technology is developed and we don’t know if or when that will be.
Next he suggests 4th gen nuclear. Optimistically, any significant utility use is at least 20 years out, at a minimum. Again, he suggests it will be cheap. It might be, but it might not be too. We don’t know. It is a big maybe and a long time in the future.
So if fracking and 4th gen nuclear aren’t solutions in any kind of reasonable time frame, what’s left? Renewables and not much else. His argument against renewables takes the form: Renewables do no provide much power currently, therefore they are not a solution. Well, why not? Unlike his proposed solutions of fracking and 4th gen nuclear, renewables are perhaps expensive-ish but can be built quickly and the costs are well-understood and predictable.
And they don’t have to replace all natural gas, just the amount they are buying from Putin. Part of that can be buying gas from elsewhere. To that end Germany just fast tracked two LNG terminals. LNG is expensive, but that just makes renewables more attractive.
Next, Lomborg either doesn’t understand how utility scale battery storage works or is misleading his readers. Neither is a good look for him. That’s why I don’t trust what he says. I heartily agree with your comment about common sense though.