Leaderboard

From your article "All new car sales in the European Union car market dropped by 5.2% year-on-year" And this "Among the three largest BEV markets, Belgium (+23.8%) and France (+10.9%) enjoyed double-digit increases, while Germany faced a significant decrease of 28.9%, ACEA said. The EU saw a total of 332,999 new battery-electric cars registered during the first quarter of 2024, up by 3.8% compared to the same quarter last year. Despite the general market decline, hybrid-electric car registrations in the EU jumped by 12.6% in March 2024, with France and Italy driving the increase. The share of hybrid car sales rose to 29% of the new sales last month, up from 24.4% in March 2023.

I'm not so sure. I've observed many open pit surface coal mines that have been reasonably restored to greenfields. Then, mountain tops in West Virginia seem to be scrapped away, which is REALLY expensive to rehabilitate I don't know how you can "rehabilitate" an underground coal mine, since it wasn't "green" to start with. A real "non-green" issue with most coals is "where do you put the residuals" (ash)? Clean ash (such as fly ash) can be useful, and actually sold if the un-burned carbon content is really low. If it is "clean enough", it can be a reasonable substitute for Portland cement. Bottom ash (the "real estate" that falls or drips to the bottom of the firebox), not so much...but some use it for a substitute for more expensive grit blasting media. Wear your PPE when using it! After using it for a grit substitute, it's STILL THERE (plus whatever it strips off a substrate), just much finer.

Hubble's Law is a robust principle in cosmology. There's ongoing refinement in measuring the exact value of H₀ (Hubble's Constant). Different methods provide slightly different results, leading to a current range around 70 (km/s)/Mpc (kilometers per second per megaparsec). One megaparsec (Mpc) is equivalent to roughly 30,856,775,815,000 Astronomical Units (AU). Jupiter is about 5.2 AU distant from the Sun. So, Jupiter is 0.000000000000017 of a Mpc away from the sun. Thus, 0.000000000000017 x 70 Km/sec = 0.000000000012 Km/s. Over a year (which has about 32 billion seconds), Hubble's Law, using the current constant, = about 380 meters/year for Jupiter's "recession" from the Sun, based on a simplified application of Hubble's Law. Observation of Jupiter doesn't provide relevant information to challenge Hubble's Law, due to the vast difference in scale and the nature of the phenomena involved. These are REALLY small angle differences over time in triangulation, particularly with observation of an EXTENDED object, like a planet. For sure, astronomers/cosmologists are famous for "extrapolating on a point" (Hubble's Law is a good example). That's why I never go beyond two significant digits in any astronomical analysis. YMMV about this. Triangulation of Jupiter may be a valid method of challenging Hubble's Law, given enough years of observation and fully considering the orbital mechanics of our Solar System that could interfere with Hubble's Law recession. Earth-based measurements require taking atmospheric effects into consideration, which can EASILY overwhelm small angular measurements. We ain't have had space-based measurements long enough to make use of triangulation of local objects to challenge Hubble's Law. Even then, it's a real challenge to measure such small angular changes due to the orbital mechanics of the space-based platform. Cepheid variable stars represent a very valuable "standard candle" (I hate that term) for distance measurements. They are a remarkable example of how different astronomical tools work together to unveil the "secrets of the universe". "Science as a cult"? Yeah, I'm sure that's how past Popes dealt with it. "Religion as a cult" makes more sense to me. Again, YMMV. . .

Then, this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/us/florida-abortion-law-supreme-court.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.hE0.z-Co.1yVRJdDScaMH&smid=url-share Once again, women are being treated by the GOP not as people with innate rights, but as political pawns with little value other than as incubators! Without the ability to manage reproduction, women simply cannot have equal rights with men. This is what the GOP wants: "traditional" wives, women ousted from workplaces (except for the lowest paying jobs), shaming women for having sex out of wedlock - while admiring a man who has cheated on all three of his wives. Go figure...

SF6 "inside wind turbines"? Typically, dry air (or perhaps vacuum) breakers are used in MV switchgear, with SF6 used "more exclusively" in HV or EHV switchgear. Most land-based wind turbines use MV switchgear, although there can be exceptions with larger machines or challenging locations (such as offshore farms) . It depends on the sizing of conductors ($/ft) required in the "collection grid" from a wind farm. That said, some MV switchgear is indeed insulated with SF6. "Completely environmentally friendly"? Who here EVER said that electricity is COMPLETELY environmentally friendly? Even composting has environmental effects that can be considered "non-friendly". That said, SF6 is most definitely a problem if not handled properly. The EPA identified Sulfur Hexafluoride as a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 23,900 (+/-) times the effect of an equal mass of CO₂, and an atmospheric lifetime of 3200 (+/-) years. Very stable "stuff". Ouch! There are very strict policies and procedures used when servicing SF6 insulated switchgear, not only to minimize releases, but to protect personnel. It can degrade into some nasty stuff (such as HF acid if moisture is involved). And it's MV (and even HV) use will eventually be eliminated. https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-supplies-sf6-free-high-voltage-switchgear-english-wind-farm https://www.siemensgamesa.com/explore/journal/2022/11/sustainability-sf6-greenhouse-gas-climate-positive

Was it not just a few days ago I reminded you of your abject ignorance. Below congressional testimony... “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. Dr. Holtz-Eakin pauses and shakes his head before responding, “I can’t answer because it will depend on what China and India and the globe has done.” “Have you heard from anybody in the Biden administration say how much it will lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy pressed again. Dr. Holtz-Eakin takes another long pause, before answering simply, “No.” “Does anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures,” Senator Kennedy asks. When Dr. Holtz-Eakin doesn’t respond, so Kennedy answers himself, “No.” “No one can know for sure,” Dr. Holtz-Eakin finally answers. Kennedy moves on to another witness, asking, “If we spend $50 trillion or however much it takes to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050, how much will it lower world temperatures?” Dr. Robert Litterman, Chair of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, responded, “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world, we’re in this together. It’s one world, we can’t build a wall around the United States…” “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe cooperates, most Western democracies cooperate, but India and China don’t. How much will our $50 trillion lower world temperatures?” Senator Kennedy asked again. “We’re in this together, Senator, we have to get the world to work together,” Dr. Litterman responds. “I get that.” “Okay.” “How much will it lower world temperatures?” “If China and India do not help?” Dr. Litterman clarifies. “Yes.” “I don’t know.” https://www.johnlocke.org/the-50-trillion-carbon-neutral-plan-that-experts-admit-wont-work/

Take notes here..Marine layer. This phenomenon has caused many very large freeway catastrophes. Never let a crisis go to waste comes to mind.

Eco we've been over this mant times and debunked your post until we're blue in the face. Frankly I cant be bothered to go through it all again and clearly 45 years is utter madness and even the brain dead can see that.

Actually, Should be running NG turbines to electric drive. More efficient. Tech is FULLY developed for ships anyways, with a LITTLE development in a smaller turbine for a truck. If Nations were not MASSIVELY subsidizing shipping industry, NG would have been the fuel of choice 2 decades ago as it would be cheaper to run than bunker fuel. Would take up marginally more volume of the ship though. .

You did not bother to read your own source? Nothing here is related to the studies which I posted above. Your study does not apparently use any data on Chinese production and emissions related to Chinese use of coal, this appears to be simply a review of American production. There is nothing here which challenges the Norway study posted above. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2023/12/186487.pdf This only looks at LDVs (light duty vehicles), does not consider anything above small SUVs, while the medium and large SUV numbers are ignored. Ridiculous. Using a 2016 study as the basis? "This study is intended to provide a better understanding of the GHG emissions and costs associated with the vehicle and fuel combinations described in (Elgowainy et al. 2016). Note that in this context cost represents the cost to a consumer to purchase the vehicle and energy for the vehicle; it does not include maintenance, insurance, and other costs necessary in vehicle ownership." Here is the conclusion with respect to greenhouse gas emission reduction, read carefully, "Large GHG reductions for LDVs are challenging and require consideration of the entire life cycle, including vehicle manufacture, fuel production, and vehicle operation." Read before you spout more nonsense. Here are the conclusions from the Norway research, for which your cited work above is not even relevant. "Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Norway's EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. "

Generally, many supporters of the old order can't get their head around the new. This is true whether it was sail vs coal in ships, telegraph vs telegram etc. It is a particular problem where the old order is dominated by large companies whose whole history has been built on the old ways and many of the executives have spent many years in the industry and can't imagine their life without it. Renewables present two challenges to these industries a) their technology and business model needs to be upended and b) the decentralised model of renewables means that the possibility of a large business ever achieving a dominant position in the industry even if it can make a successful transition is very low. People like Mark Lawson love to highlight the current limitations of renewables, forgetting the compromises needed to make the old, centralised system work and the time it took to build it. The whole concept of Base Load is not the minimum 24/7 demand from customers that they like to claim. It is the minimum load to make nuclear, coal and combined cycle gas plants reliable and economic. Thus, we had "offpeak" power prices which are often below the cost of production, simply to keep the boilers warm. In many cases even that was not enough, so most of the pumped hydro schemes around the world were built to smooth the loads on nuclear and coal as Mr. Lawson should know. All Australia's existing pumped hydro schemes were built to support coal power. In the late 1990's German nuclear operators published ads saying that the German grid could not absorb more than 1.5% wind power. This year-to-date Germany has one of the most reliable grids in the world and has supplied over 29% of demand from wind and of course zero from nuclear. It does import about 1.5% of its electricity but it is building new wind and solar fast enough to overcome the deficit by next year. Coal, gas and nuclear output combined have fallen from 55.2% of electricity in 2019 to 36.2% this year so there is a slight mismatch. Further Scandinavian countries have excess renewable capacity so despite declining nuclear output in Sweden, Germany is favouring imports of clean power rather than imports of coal and gas to fuel its own power plants. As renewables in other countries are also increasing, Germany may choose to continue importing power for the next few years and thus reduce coal and gas consumption even faster than it would by its own efforts. Danish wind and Swedish/Norwegian hydro is much cheaper than American LNG or South African coal. As for the speed of transition, it took global nuclear power 45 years to go from supplying 40 TWh/y to 2,700 TWh, it took wind and solar 17 years. Further nuclear power has virtually stopped growing. Final 2023 figures are not available, but they are unlikely to exceed 2006 when 2,740 TWh was supplied by nuclear power. Wind and solar will be around 4,000 TWh (Electricity Data Explorer | Open Source Global Electricity Data | Ember (ember-climate.org). Many people claim that India and China are paying lip service to renewables but between them they are installing 60% of the world's wind and solar. In the last 15 months China has installed more wind and solar than the US has ever installed, and India is catching up to Germany. Between India and China, they are buying more than 50% of the world's electrified transport, particularly trains, trucks, busses and 2 and 3 wheelers which are much better value for decarbonisation than private cars, which are the Western face of transport electrification. Many opponents of renewables confuse primary energy demand with energy needs or energy services. Only about 15-20% of the energy in oil at the bottom of a well ends up delivering power at the wheel of a vehicle and about 25% of the energy in coal delivers lighting to customers. Even if solar is coupled with a battery, about 90% of the energy generated from the solar system and 85% of the output from windfarms ends up delivering useful energy. Further some of the energy delivered from fossil fuels is double counted. The energy used to refine and deliver liquid fuels is counted as useful work, 40% of global shipping is moving fossil fuels around, energy from gas cooking has to be offset by fume extraction systems and air conditioning in kitchens. The conventional wisdom is that primary energy demand is 3-4 times that of the energy services (heat, light, transport). In practice in a fully electrified economy energy demand per unit of GDP could be less than 25% of the peak use a decade ago. Finally, coal, gas and oil used to be very much cheaper than they are now, so energy efficiency makes financial sense. Consequently, we don't have to build twenty times as much wind and solar as we have now. There are estimates that a fully electrified world would have living standards close to what we have now in the West with half the electricity the world generates now.

These renewable power projects all have common problems. They are the same problems that fossil or nuclear generation face. 1. FINANCING. All of these projects require substantial funds to plan, permit, construct, start-up, and commission before paying off the mortgage. Nuclear is very good at financing, but the unanticipated cost overruns can be massive, multiple times the original budget. Fossil projects are somewhat better at staying close to budget. Renewable power ain't cheap at first, even though those capital cost can be higher in a $/Kw basis than fossil . When you consider that most renewable systems require zero fuel, practically zero water (sans hydro), produce zero operating wastes to dispose of, and require less "heads per MWh generated", the mortgage payoff occurs faster. 2. TRANSMISSION AND FUEL ACCESS Any new generating facility needs a connection to the market. The potential exception would be a facility built on (or near) a retired fossil facility, where the cost of connection is significantly reduced. Many renewable projects tend to be located remotely to any existing transmission, and typically require building NEW connections. Any new connections also requires planning, permitting, construction, start-up, commissioning, and capital. Even then, the connection of ANY new generating facility to existing transmission may be subject to congestion (limits on the existing transmission network). A new fossil facility requires a fuel supply. Mine-mouth coal plants may just require a mile or three of bulk conveyors, which are not to expensive else they require a rail spur, or barge unloading facilities, or both (some small units, on the order of 5-10 MW, can use over-the-road trucks, but that is rare). Natural Gas fired plants require at least a large pipeline (and potentially fuel compressors, but that is also rare). Wind and solar don't bother with such fueling "stuff". BTW, if you are ever involved with blow-downs on new gas pipelines, exercise EXTREME care, or stay well at a distance. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) attempts to take all of this into consideration. The LCOE of Renewable projects typically are either at par, or well below, fossil and nuclear. An exception would be sea-based wind facilities. Those are particularly capital intensive. Keep these issues in mind for any new fossil, nuclear, and renewable project.

"Solar is a joke outside of a desert" 12.2% of Germany's electricity last year vs 10.2% from gas. Even Denmark got 9.2% from solar vs 5.9% from gas. Didn't realise Germany and Denmark were deserts. Solar in the US over the last 12 months has exceeded hydro, and wind and solar combined have exceeded coal. Globally solar output is on track to exceed nuclear power output late this year or early next year, while wind and solar combined will surpass gas power generation sometime in 2027

I can see that adding additional petroleum supplies on the world market "should" impact "price" of those commodities, unless processing/transport costs are impediments, impacting a more local market. It seems natural gas might be somewhat of a "fit" for that situation. For overseas transport, It ain't very dense until someone liquefies it, adding additional costs and energy consumption to the delivered product. However, that world market is complicated by the absolute fact of a concerted effort by OPEC (and others) to exercise control over the market to "stabilize" price at a level closer to that desired by those actors. Petroleum does not strike me as a free market. With these actors, It seems like a type of price fixing. YMMV. Thus, large and CONCERTED market players work to keep price under their control, while the immediate impact of "drill, baby, drill", is that corner of the industry obtains an immediate financial benefit (more product to sell into a controlled market), with no regard to ANY externalities. You can chose whatever, or even if, externalities apply. I must ask, what is the thing of top value to you? If you respond with anything other than your personal health, you probably should reflect on a bigger picture. And those externalities, even if you ignore or refute them, have a measurable and deleterious affect on the health of us all. ...and add that energy is SOOOOOOO addicting! The withdrawal symptoms are something to behold. I call that HUMAN, not MAGA.

thanks for your graphics.... Ecochump, of course will ignore the facts and keep advocating for coal use as I believe he really could care less about clean air or the health of the planet and all life that exists on it. He is no different than one who smokes cigarettes and ignores the impacts The environmental footprint of a smokerA total carbon footprint of 5.1t CO2 equivalent emissions, which to offset, would require 132 tree seedlings planted and grown for 10 years. A water footprint of 1,355 m3, which is equivalent to almost 62 years' water supply for any three people's basic needs. Tobacco and the Environment - ASH Action on Smoking and Health - ASH https://ash.org.uk › Resources › All Resources About featured snippets• Feedback WHO raises alarm on tobacco industry environmental impact World Health Organization (WHO) https://www.who.int › News › item May 31, 2022 — The WHO report “Tobacco: Poisoning our planet” highlights that the industry's carbon footprint from production, processing and transporting ...

The scientific consensus is overwhelming: on any realistic like-for-like comparison a battery car will be cleaner than its petrol or diesel equivalent. Burning fossil fuels to make and drive electric cars will still cause emissions, but at a lower level than inefficient fossil fuel engines. Do electric cars really produce fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles? | Business | The Guardian I'd like to thank Footinmouth for confirming coal was the prevalent source of powergen in Poland. As the above graph shows its only Poland from a European perspective where the issue you claim Eco is actually a problem, but even then Polish EV's arent anywhere near as bad as FF. Your point is BS unless you can show me concrete evidence to the contrary and not your opinion. Fortunately Poland's renewables are growing fast as I posted a couple of days ago, so that situation will soon be rectified. Also Poland's population is less than 5% of Europe so not a great deal to worry about there! If you like people dying then keep advocating coal use. Enjoy the transition and clean air, it will save millions of lives!!

The sun doesn't shine in Poland?

Solar at least adheres to KISS assuming you get a VERY large inverter and only use a small fraction of its claimed Wattage throughput with proper cooling exceeding spec as all the inverter manufacturers are liars. As long as your remember that, solar can work--> where it is sunny. A good portion of the world is sunny. Still not a universal solution so will always be a bit side piece.

Utter garbage!

You are used to the way things work using old technology, continuously "tuned" to the market. I have more than enough experience to know that coal is just plain filthy! Have ever stood near a coking unit? I suggest you avoid that "opportunity". Have you ever strolled on the upper stories of an operating pressurized coal-fired furnace? HINT: don't use the elevator unless you have portable breathing apparatus. Do you even know what a sootblower does? Or, where it's "operating product" goes? With regards to "stability" of renewable power, we ain't seen nothin' yet. We haven't even begun to integrate AI into the market. Can renewable generation match and fully displace fossil-fired generation? Certainly, not at this time. It's gonna take decades. One close acquaintance was an early adopter of small wind generation on his ranch. After several years of that, he initially said that if he were to do it all over again, he would buy a diesel generator instead. He switched to solar generation (re-using some of the pre-existing interconnection and other equipment). Last month's electric bill for his ranch was NEGATIVE! And the wind generator tower is now a GREAT flagpole with a HUGE, well-lit American Flag. Remain astounded.

Even ten years ago, there were legitimate climatologists who had rational doubts about climate change, including whether it was caused almost entirely by human activity. However, in that period of time, the science got better and no one, I mean no one in the field believes that warming is not happening and it’s due to climate activity. The meta-study done that showed 97% of papers supported man-made global warming was done by someone who was a skeptic. He stopped being a skeptic after that. The same has happened in many fields. Evolution wasn’t widely accepted in biology until well after Darwin’s death. The expanding universe theory had several serious opponents right up until the early 1970s. The belief that ulcers were caused by stress lasted into this millennium. The evidence of all of these things is now crystal clear. There are no serious scientists who are published in the field that believe otherwise. Right now, if you don’t think human caused warming is a thing, you’re not just in the minority of people in the field, you’re all alone. You’re ignoring evidence. You’re calling into question studies that have been confirmed and re-confirmed. You’re ignoring models from 30 years ago that were actually optimistic. It turned out reality was worse. You’re raising arguments that have already been dealt with over and over and over again. In other words, you’re Fred Hoyle: Fred Hoyle was an expanding universe denier. By 1970 it was clear to anyone with a brain that the theory Hoyle dubbed “The Big Bang” was correct in every important detail. Despite this, Hoyle worked out a theory that made it look like the universe was expanding, but wasn’t. He presented his initial findings (pre-publication) to an audience in London. A young graduate student pointed out his calculations were flawed and his theory couldn’t possibly be right (that young graduate student was Stephen Hawking). Anyone who doesn’t believe the theory that the world is getting warmer and it’s our fault isn’t a “skeptic” or “outsider” or “maverick” or “free thinker”, they’re just denying the evidence. Man-made global warming is as certain as the spherical nature of the earth or the fact that cigarettes immensely increase your risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell something. Most likely oil or coal.

pedantic by necessity???? count me out Good Beer is a necessity Good Food (well I covered this under Beer) is a necessity A good roof over your head is a necessity Good air is a necessity Good water (well I covered this under Beer) is a necessity arguing about negative growth...........like a big hemorrhoid ...avoid avoid avoid

2022 doesn't sound very current. Accept that things are changing fast.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q4-2023-ev-sales J.D. Power now forecasts U.S. electric vehicle market share will hit 12.4% in 2024, up from 7.6% in 2023. While that represents a gain of 63%, the rate is down 0.8 percentage points from the firm's original prediction. Last year, EV sales grew at a 50% pace, hitting one million units for the first time.Mar 5, 2024 Merriam Webster: COLLAPSE : to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely : fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure

Ya Don't Say...

you forgot to post the headline....here, I will help you out Global EV Sales Expected to ....... Increase by 21% in 2024 so much for your decline

I do find that interesting commentary, it would appear that the German Green Party had done as much. Imagine dumping cash into a failed manufacturing facility...wind mails at that. I Leave It With You... Taxes blown in the wind? The Siemens Gamesa bailout Conclusion and Implications Overall, we come to a sobering conclusion: Siemens Gamesa should not have been bailed out, and certainly not on the specific terms of this rescue. Siemens Gamesa likely is not an economically viable firm. Even if it were, it is not a critical firm in the sense that a bankruptcy process would trigger significant negative macroeconomic or geostrategic externalities. And even if a bailout were justified (which it is not), it should not occur without a major contribution from Siemens and the other shareholders of Siemens Energy. The readiness with which the German government was willing to bail out Siemens Gamesa does not bode well for a possible future scenario in which one of Germany’s leading automobile manufacturers experiences a significant downturn or even financial difficulties because its electric vehicles are of lower quality or more expensive than those of its American or Chinese competitors. The subsidies in the Siemens Gamesa case are small change compared to what might be necessary to save the German automotive industry. ----------------------- https://www.ecgi.global/publications/blog/taxes-blown-in-the-wind-the-siemens-gamesa-bailout

did The gas company send you a check for taking their free gas??????? only a dope would be preaching gas is free...........

Strange. Something that is "~free" has a varying and positive monetary price per measure.

Personally I believe that if you dont pay the required 2% of GDP then you arent part of NATO. I know theres strength in numbers and my comment is quite naiive, but there has to be some retribution for those that dont pay their way. Germany, France, Italy and Spain with larger GDP's are the biggest culprits and the ones that bitch and moan the most and try to throw their weight around. There should be an automatic financial penalty equivalent to the amount they are down by otherwise they are thrown out.

No wonder you struggle with math! "If that isn't the definition of ~free I do not know what is." Let me help you I think you'll find the definition of free is $0 How are those tunnels coming along? I bet investors are falling over themselves to be involved 🤡

No European country is anti American! They may disagree on US foreign policy in their territory or elsewhere in the world, surely its their right to voice their opinion or are you advocating they arent allowed to have free speech?

guess you regressed to being a 5 year old...............enjoy kindergarten again LNG politics drove it all.........and the distrust of Russia Gas producers in the US lobbied hard for the bill in congress it was 5 years ago Now we need to support Ukraine ... no one in the US supported Russia 5 years ago except......the guy who called for help from Russia..... and no one today supports Russia except the traitor who says Russia can do whatever they want..... Solar and Wind is doing its part in Europe and the dependence on Russian gas today...... Poof and the result electricity production in the EU is no longer relying on Russian gas 2024 will end with little to no more gas out of Russia into the EU

it is not the definition of free it is the definition of an over supplied market or one that is experiencing demand destruction or both you pick price of coal in the US falling hard right now in the end it means the cost of electricity is cheap..... Cheap gas ...cheap electricity Cheap Coal.... cheap electricity Cheap Solar Panels....Cheap electricity Free sun.....Cheap electricity Free wind......Cheap electricity The Electric Age is now going to dominate the energy source everyone relies on for daily home transportation and industrial needs... and solar with battery storage is over 50 percent of new electrical demand/power supply and is slowly taking over Now which one is free???? the Sun or Gas producers giving away Nat gas for free forever and losing their shirts?? the sun will keep shining for free nat gas...........well you do know that lasts for a few moments once in a while Rome was not built overnight and the takeover of the energy markets by electrification will occur over the next 30 years

LOL read some of their older commentaries. In 2020 they predicted low oil supply. The same year oil prices went negative due to oversupply. https://www.gorozen.com/commentaries/1q2020 They also predicted a collapse in non-OPEC oil production. How did that go? https://www.gorozen.com/commentaries/2q2018

It's a biased blog using made up numbers. I know you love those made up numbers and pretending to do math. They admit themselves that they are biased and controversial and only want to exploit natural resources. https://www.gorozen.com/about "A fundamental research firm focused exclusively on contrarian natural resource investments with a team with over 49 years of combined resource experience." Try again.

If you are so smart you would know it is "you're." Very amusing! You don't think you have a right to comment on global politics? Of course you do. Meddling in affairs of other countries is the most American thing you can do! You didn't answer the questions. Did the lobbyists or the law win? William Barr is as corrupt as can be. He kissed Trumps ass and lied for him for years, then told the truth upon his resignation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barr "Barr testified that before resigning as attorney general, he had told president Trump that allegations of election fraud were "bullshit." At times during his testimony he could not control his laughter at the absurdity of some fraud allegations, such as the Italygate theory that satellites controlled from Italy had flipped votes from Trump to Biden, and that former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez had orchestrated an election fraud scheme, despite having died seven years earlier. Barr testified Trump never gave "an indication of interest in what the actual facts were," adding the president had "become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.""

Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016 Analysis reveals many big producers increased output of fossil fuels and related emissions in seven years after Paris climate deal Jonathan Watts Global environment editor Wed 3 Apr 2024 19.01 EDT Share A mere 57 oil, gas, coal and cement producers are directly linked to 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since the 2016 Paris climate agreement, a study has shown. This powerful cohort of state-controlled corporations and shareholder-owned multinationals are the leading drivers of the climate crisis, according to the Carbon Majors Database, which is compiled by world-renowned researchers. Although governments pledged in Paris to cut greenhouse gases, the analysis reveals that most mega-producers increased their output of fossil fuels and related emissions in the seven years after that climate agreement, compared with the seven years before. In the database of 122 of the world’s biggest historical climate polluters, the researchers found that 65% of state entities and 55% of private-sector companies had scaled up production. During this period, the biggest investor-owned contributor to emissions was ExxonMobil of the United States, which was linked to 3.6 gigatonnes of CO2 over seven years, or 1.4% of the global total. Close behind were Shell, BP, Chevron and TotalEnergies, each of which was associated with at least 1% of global emissions. The most striking trend, however, was the surging growth of emissions related to state and state-owned producers, particularly in the Asian coal sector. This expansion, which has continued since, runs contrary to a stark warning by the International Energy Agency that no new oil and gas fields can be opened if the world is to stay within safe limits of global heating. Climate scientists say global temperatures are rapidly approaching the lower Paris target of 1.5C above the pre-industrial era, with potentially dire consequences for people and the rest of nature. “It is morally reprehensible for companies to continue expanding exploration and production of carbon fuels in the face of knowledge now for decades that their products are harmful,” said Richard Heede, who established the Carbon Majors dataset in 2013. “Don’t blame consumers who have been forced to be reliant on oil and gas due to government capture by oil and gas companies.” The Carbon Majors research has helped to change the narrative about responsibility for the climate crisis by apportioning emissions to the entities that profit from taking fossil fuels out of the ground rather than the individuals that later burn and discharge them in the form of emissions. This ongoing study has been cited in climate lawsuits and was the basis for the Guardian’s 2019 series, The Polluters, which named and shamed the 20 companies behind a third of all carbon emissions. The database has now been updated and was relaunched on Thursday on a dedicated public access website, which is hosted by InfluenceMap. It includes a striking comparison between long-term emissions trends dating back to 1854, and more recent developments since the 2016 Paris deal. The historical record encompasses 122 entities linked to 72% of all the fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution, which amounts to 1,421 gigatonnes. In this long-term analysis, Chinese state coal production accounts for 14% of historic global C02, the biggest share by far in the database. This is more than double the proportion of the former Soviet Union, which is in second place, and more than three times higher than that of Saudi Aramco, which is in third. Then comes the big US companies – Chevron (3%) and ExxonMobil (2.8%), followed by Russian’s Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company. After that are two investor-owned European firms: BP and Shell (each with more than 2%) and then Coal India. The 21st century rise of Asia becomes apparent when the historical records are compared with data from 2016-2022. In this recent period, the China coal share leaps to more than a quarter of all CO2 emission, while Saudi Aramco goes up to nearly 5%. The top 10 in this modern era is dominated by Chinese and Russian state entities and filled out with those from India and Iran. Western capitalism does not appear until the 11th placed ExxonMobil with 1.4%, half of its historical average. The picture may change again in the future. The United States is by far the world’s biggest oil and gas producer even if operations are fragmented among many different companies rather than one state behemoth. President Biden has granted licences to multiple new exploration projects. Gulf states are also planning to step up their output. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell all have net zero emissions targets, though their definitions of that goal and methods to achieve it vary. Many of the companies on the list have made some investments in renewable energy. Daan Van Acker, program manager at InfluenceMap, said many of the entities in the Carbon Majors database were moving in the wrong direction for climate stability. “InfluenceMap’s new analysis shows that this group is not slowing down production, with most entities increasing production after the Paris agreement. This research provides a crucial link in holding these energy giants to account on the consequences of their activities.” Heede argues that fossil fuel producers have a moral obligation to pay for the damages they have caused and exacerbated through their delaying tactics. He cites the proposal made by Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, for oil and gas companies to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar to a loss and damage fund. He was also encouraged by actions to hold fossil fuel firms to account. As examples, he cited the billboards that sprang up in Houston, Texas, after a hurricane that declared: “We Know Who Is To Blame” beside the names of oil companies, or the campaign in Vermont to create a climate superfund paid for by polluters that would allay the rising costs from floods, storms and heatwaves. “This is a threat to civilisation as we know it,” he said. “If business as usual continues we won’t have a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. We must collect political, corporate and political will to avoid the worst threat that climate change poses. We can do this.” The Guardian approached Exxon, BP, Chevron, Total Energies, Coal India, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom for comment. A spokesperson for Shell said: “Shell is committed to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, a target we believe supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. We continue to make good progress on our climate targets, and by the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operations by 2030, compared with 2016.”

Lets simplify this shall we. Do you accept that if you burn any FF it causes air pollution? If you say yes then you agree with all the sane people on the planet. If you say no then you are unfortunately one of the mentally challenged on this planet. Lets see which one you are. Catalytic converters on vehicles have made a huge difference to air quality but this does not mean cars produce no pollution, there is no correlation of more cars equals less air pollution, just the opposite.

CO2 will also increase with more electrical energy.???? outright wrong as you always are No, the future is not electrical.?????only a Luddite would state stupid comments as you always do tackling methane emmissions and SFP are important and should be done now Peak carbon (CO2) emissions is here now and it is down hill for carbon as the Green Agenda heads uphill RFI World's carbon emissions could start to fall for first time in 2024 Global carbon emissions may have peaked in 2023 – the hottest year in history – as efforts to step up renewable energy and step back from... . Jan 1, 2024 WSJ China's Carbon Emissions Are Set to Decline Years Earlier Than Expected China's rollout of 300 gigawatts of new wind and solar power last year was for the first time enough to cover its new electricity demand. . 1 month ago The Guardian Global carbon emissions from electric power may peak this year, report says Global carbon emissions from electric power may peak this year, report says ... Carbon emissions from the global electricity sector may peak this... . Oct 4, 2023 Energy Post The link between global GDP growth and CO2 emissions is weakening rapidly. Will emissions peak well before 2030? Global CO2 emissions can peak well before 2030 · Rapid growth in clean energy investment. · A growing trend of electrification globally, in... . 1 month ago

He is one of many putting up a wall, we will see more of this as time moves along. Frankly things are getting almost as crazy as ORO once peppered this forum with conspiracy theory. Big money cannot get out of the Green Energy market fast enough.

Thank God for Senator Kennedy!

where smog comes from...... I will dumb it down for the clueless wonder who thinks smog is not a concern

EPA’s New Car Emission Standards Doom the Gasoline Car EPA’s New Car Emission Standards Doom the Gasoline Car | OilPrice.com

January 9, 2018 Air pollution linked to risk of premature death When you breathe in high levels of fine particles or ozone, your lungs can become irritated. Outdoor air pollution has been associated with asthma, heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. Studies have shown an association between long-term exposure to air pollution and premature death. Air pollution linked to risk of premature death The team used air pollution prediction models and artificial neural networks to estimate daily air pollution levels for more than 39,000 zip codes, even in unmonitored rural areas of the country. They then looked at pollution levels around the days of death for 22 million adults aged 65 and older based on death records from 2000 to 2012. The air pollution levels on the days of death (for 22 million deaths) were compared with pollution levels during other days (76 million control days). The researchers found that when air pollution from either fine particles or ozone increased intermittently, there was a substantial increase in deaths within a 2-day period. Each intermittent, incremental increase of either 10 micrograms of fine particles per cubic meter or 10 parts per billion of ozone was associated with a rise in deaths. The large dataset also enabled the research team to study effects by age, sex, race, age, and income level. Those most at risk of death associated with air pollution were over 85 years old, female, nonwhite, or economically disadvantaged. “This [is] the most comprehensive study of short-term exposure to pollution and mortality to date,” Dominici says. “We found that the mortality rate increases almost linearly as air pollution increases. Any level of air pollution, no matter how low, is harmful to human health.”

There are bad days of smog in the most populated areas of Southern California. Mostly in the areas where the smog backs up against the hills, or when the barometric pressure keeps it down in the valleys. It is far better than it was long ago. It is liveable in almost all areas. If it wasn't people would move out. They are moving out because of lack of law enforcement, overbearing political leadership, etc.

That is not the city you showed earlier.???? I did not post the other photos..... Tailings pond did.......... You seem agitated now you do not like looking at Reality You ask for a credible recent photo and you got it Now do you accept the fact that air pollution exists from ICE vehicles???? photo speaks volumes Air quality suffers everywhere because of the use of Fossil Fuels and Green Energy is so much less polluting than your beloved Coal Power Plants ....and EVs on the road.....please crawl under one.....no tailpipe Luddite

You asked us to take a look at the city. You need to identify where and when the photo is. Air quality changes drastically from one time to another, one year to another, one city from another.

https://www.momscleanairforce.org/ Smog in downtown Los Angeles. May 15, 2023. (KTLA)

clunkers are doomed same as coal........the pollution of the Public Space is not OK.....this battle against pollution started in the 1960's and the battle rages on to this day. Anyone thinking that no one cares about good clean healthy living is a Luddite. CLUNKERS ARE DOOMED