Leaderboard

Subsidies for wind power last year: $158 Billion % of power by wind: 10.2% Per American: $451 (= $2210 subsidy per person for 50% wind power) Per Family of 4: $1800 {= $8823 subsidy per family of 4 for 50% wind power) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidies for fossil fuels: $10 - $50 Billion % of power by fossil fuels: 60.2% Per American: $28.5 to $143 (= $24 to $119 subsidy per person for 50% fossil fuel power) Per Family of 4: $115 to $571 (= $96 to $474 subsidy per person for 50% fossil fuel power) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, yeah, Fossil fuel companies paid $158 Billion in taxes, while wind lost money, subtracting tac receipts from profitable conglomerates.

Ammonia for transportation makes sense for ships....not much else expect for energy storage then power generation......IE you have the space for the cooling equipment required to keep ammonia liquid...and Ammonia has only half the Energy value of Gasoline....IE on a ship you have the room for storing twice the volume over bunker oil and on a ship you are out to sea....ammonia gassing off not so much a problem...Ammonia gassing off in a car accident.......um not so pretty expense??? well right now so much green energy is curtailed you can get intermittent energy at less than 1 cent per KWH...so creating ammonia with excess green energy makes sense the real value of green Ammonia today is for fertilizer manufacturing...a huge market the company that puts together small scale reasonable cost green fertilizer plant that a Ag coop can use will win the prize

Are you this ignorant? Large portions if not all of the Great plains were moving sand dunes 700 years ago and 2000yrs ago and roughly every ~700 years or ~300 year amplitude period going back as far as we can where older versions are only seen for LARGE desertification instances such as 4000yrs ago as well. The great plains of North America when the white man showed up in the 16th century were called the Great Desert, not the Great Plains. If one goes by the C14 etc dating methods, the Great Plains via basic patterns should be becoming a desert slowly again. How severe this interval will be? No one knows. Of course currently, rainfall has INCREASED over last few decades across Eastern USA, but Western USA has dried out or stayed the same, but has warmed up while Eastern USA has not warmed up much at all. All of western Nebraska are sand dunes which currently have some wheat/corn on them, but mostly cows. We know this from C14 buried by sand throughout the areas as it goes between sand--> Grass--> trees--> Grass--> Sand-->Grass etc Where were the CO2 flattuence fear mongers then? Surely both of those Long duration desertification periods were caused by CO2 ignorant so called "scientists". If CO2 heating were true, according to IPCC etc it should be showing up in Tropical Troposphere first with increased heating, but this area shows NEGATIVE ratio to ground level stations in terms of heating and has done so since roughly ~20 years ago. Shows how corrupt the ground based thermometer system is as so called "scientists" keep the ever expanding city island heat effect data inside their data sets. So much for "science". .

Don't think the sea-levels have risen even the slightest tenths of an inch in 35 years.????? in the past 35 years alone....4 inches...you do understand as the ice caps disappear the ocean levels rise...(thanks to the ignorant assholes who promote burning coal and unlimited oil use) are you just mentally challenged???? please read the chart below....or do you need help ...I find old Rednecks such as yourself tend not to understand simple charts https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

cost of everyting went up......Thanks to the energy crisis that was created by Putin Wind turbine projects are not the only thing that inflation hit Wind projects in the UK are at a record level and the UK's dependence on foriegn energy supplies is heading toward zero Looks like the Wind is doing its job A country that is going to have a future without Foreigners in charge of its energy destiny... Can you say F Russia and Opec........The UK can

Being a former engineer for a large power company and having earned a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, I had PV panels installed seven years ago, with my estimated payback of 15 years, . . the right thing for an eco-freak to do. Before they could be installed, we acquired a VW e-Golf electric car. The savings in gasoline alone took the solar system payback down to 3 1/2 years. So, we added a used Tesla Model S, P85, and that took the payback down to less than three years, which means we now get free power for household and transportation. But that is not all: We do not need to go to gas stations, we fuel up at home at night with cheap baseload power. During the daytime, the PV system turns our meter backwards powering the neighborhood with clean local power, which we trade for the stuff to be used that night. If we paid for transportation fuel, the VW would cost us 4 cents/mile to drive, and the Tesla would cost 5 cents/mile at California off-peak power prices. No oil changes are a real treat along with no leaks. And since it has an electric motor, it needs NO ENGINE MAINTENANCE at all. We do not go "gas up", or get tune-ups or emissions checks, have no transmission about which to worry, no complicated machined parts needing care. THAT is what will sell the EV, and the real problem is not powering them, (the power companies have been working on and praying for the EV for a generation), the problem will be dealing with an economy which has had a large portion taken out of it. Too much of our economy is dependent on the needs of the internal combustion engine, from mechanics to emissions checkers to the folk who make oil filters, and all the folk who support them. I see a rush to EVs, (go drive one, and see), and the implications of this advance as an impending wave of dislocation for this society for which we must plan now.

Why does any fool think the price of oil is based on supply/demand? Unbelievable Oil price is at least based upon 50% geopolitics if not 90%. If it was supply/demand, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and to some extent Libya would not be embargoed. If oil price was supply/demand, Canada would have long since built oil pipelines to Northern BC and Eastern Quebec. If oil price was supply based, there would have long since been at least an NG pipeline from Nigeria going to Europe and East/West out of said country as well. Same goes for Oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Iran to the Mediterranean. It is ABSURD that there is not several such pipelines today.. If Oil price was based on demand etc, Turkmenistan would have had a giant NG pipeline going west/east... EDIT: One more pipeline which SHOULD exist is from Iran/Qatar going East to Pakistan/India/SE Asia... but nope... Bolochistan which should be its own country is in the way and so is the Muslim/Hindu war over Pakistan/India... Those two countries should be swimming in dirt cheap NG right now... Next to free, yet.... nothing. Pretending they are going to go "solar" Price of oil/ng has next to NOTHING to do with demand, but rather geopolitics.

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.

You have gone too far into the cesspool but I let you go with political views thinking this time we won't go the same road as before. This wasn't an original topic of this thread anyway. So lets stop it right here. All political posts (reffering to Trump, Biden, Republicans, Democrats,...) will be deleted.

It's been awhile but I thought I'd move down the rabbit hole many of you are still digging on here. "America is the last large country that is still free." Ron Wagner, did you actually write this in a post on here? Seems you did. I feel so embarrassed for you and your utterly skewed view of the world around you and how you see things (American tunnel vision I'd call it). You are living in a country where you are almost becoming a theocracy, absolutely dominated by religion. In case you missed it, religion doesn't allow for much free thinking. The previous ruling on Roe v. Wade and the latest ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court are both actually quite chilling and frightening for women in your country. You have women who live in fear of driving to another state to receive needed medical care. DO NOT give me any BS about how the USA is more "free" than other large countries. It is true that you have some of the most lax gun laws in the world but that's a whole other topic really. I am still shaking my head in wonderment at that comment. In Canada and other countries I'm sure, it is true that we pay high taxes, no question. It is true that we are further to the left on pretty much every issue than I am comfortable with. But I vote as I want, work as I want, marry who I want and do as I please on a daily basis. How are we not a free country? Please explain.

your book???? ha ha ha 6 percent of methane used around the world by one industry alone.....how may other industries use that much?????? Iron/Steel????? not likely next...Oil refineries ...I doubt it Power Generation yes and the Green transition will go after that market One can say it all "adds" up--> but it really doesn't???? try to minimize methane used in Ammonia production all you want....... Excess Solar and Wind power that is now curtailed will be now turned into Ammonia A new major Green Ammonia project announce every week now...Enjoy eating crow and the price of Nat Gas....in the toilet today at the Henry Hub NATURAL GAS •11 mins 1.677 -0.012 -0.71% H2 View HydrogenPro to carry out FEED for 300MW Texan green ammonia project HydrogenPro is set to carry out a front-end engineering design (FEED) study for a 300MW green ammonia facility in Texas, US. . 1 week ago PR Newswire Infinium and Amogy Team Up to Spearhead Green Ammonia and eFuels Solutions PRNewswire/ -- Leading eFuels provider Infinium and Amogy Inc. ("Amogy"), a pioneer of carbon-free, energy-dense power solutions,... . 3 weeks ago gasworld INOX Air Products signs deal for large-scale green ammonia plant in India INOX Air Products (INOX AP) has announced that it has signed a major deal with the Government of Maharashtra (a state in western India) for... . 4 weeks ago PR Newswire KBR Green Ammonia Technology Selected by Lotte Chemical Corporation for H2biscus Project in Malaysia Share this article ... HOUSTON, Jan. 8, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- KBR (NYSE: KBR) announced today that its K-GreeN® technology has been selected by a... . 1 month ago Forbes Pioneering Green Ammonia To Secure The World’s Food Supply A new, green ammonia market is being developed under Yara, the leader in nitrogen fertilizers, and companies are eager to buy its... . Jun 28, 2023 Yahoo Finance Green Ammonia Market Size & Share to Surpass USD 8.1 billion by 2031, Exhibiting a CAGR of 76.3% | Exclusive ... Green ammonia has a reduced carbon footprint and can aid in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions because it is produced using renewable... . 4 days ago McKinsey & Company Reducing GHG emissions with green ammonia and fertilizer We estimate that green ammonia for fertilizer production could decarbonize 3 percent to 8 percent of emissions associated with a range of... . Dec 11, 2023

Uh, no gasoline is not explosive. Gasoline for it to "detonate" requires oxygen and compression and why it has a combustible rating and not an explosive rating. Ammonia--> does not require oxygen to detonate and why Gasoline combusts, but ammonia while it can combust it can also explode. A shock wave going off next to gasoline does NOT cause it to explode, in fact if no oxygen is present it acts just like water even if a giant bomb explodes inside a tank of gasoline. All fertilizers are NOT ammonia. They have ammonia in them but MORE importantly, they have shock stabilizers so when it is being TRANSPORTED and say the truck rolls over it does not EXPLODE. Why vast majority(95%+) of ammonia you see as fertilizer comes in pellet form, not a liquid. Ammonia IS explosive due to shock and why it is used to BLOW THINGS UP, gasoline--> is not. And yes, Flame temperature, energy density, and process efficiency are tied together(suggest taking a damned Chemistry class with basic thermodynamics class)🙄

People do not invest in stockmarket as in US... Yep they invest in apartments/real estate and that is the main reason the China economy is in a free fall right now....... The China Miracle is over until their Real Estate market gets fixed.....and right now it is in free fall...with no bottom in sight..... The real estate marked crash in China is not going to clean itself up in the next 2 years. CHina is growing at %5.2 percent.....highly questionable numbers out of the CCP reality Evergrande is the tip of the iceberg 2024-2025 China is in a deep recession Visual Capitalist China's Real Estate Crisis, Shown in Two Charts These charts show China's real estate boom in the 21st century and the subsequent slowdown since 2022, through both sales and new buildings. . 2 weeks ago

This is from an article in the UK's Telegraph. Regrettably, the article is behind a paywall but excerpts are below - its a warning to Americans not to bother with wind, particularly offshore wind. Yes, power prices are up because gas is expensive but wind is contributing to the problem big time. Much the same problem is occurring in Germany which has spent billions of euros on wind - onshore and offshore - and on solar only for the war in the Ukraine to expose their still substantial dependence on gas and ineffectiveness of renewables. Now there is talk of German industry moving to the US. Time for the many tireless advocates and apologists to acknowledge reality. Telegraph article: The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans. The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build (around £650m per GW) and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market. But that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to. As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices. The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per cent. It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity. In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.

Desperation oozing out of your pores... ICE vehicles increase efficiency in cold weather as they do not have to compress the air as much. Here are REAL EV tests over THOUSANDS of cars. https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss Average is ~70% range at freezing conditions, not 12% loss. If at freezing Teslas 3/Y lose 50%... , not 12% as stated. You have fools driving around in massive gloves/scarfs, thick boots etc as they refuse to turn on the HEAT, pretending that heated seats will make all the difference... Here is latest test in Finland: https://www.teslarati.com/upgraded-tesla-model-3-wins-winter-range-test/ They lose 50% range and unknown cabin conditions. So, it appears it plateaus's at least between freezing and -20C conditions for Tesla... you "only" lose 50%... and this is the Best out there... Audi Etron designed in Germany, where they have this thing called WINTER lost 20% in 0C conditions... not 12% as stated. Though might be artificially low to begin with so maybe they aren't lying to begin with? Not even talking cold temperatures yet, only 30F/0C... Would you like some MORE doses of HUMBLE PIE? Nissan Leaf loses 40% range in 30F/0C Ford MachE... loses 40% in a mere 30F conditions... Hyundai seem to give REAL world ranges for ~almost winter, not maximum blue weather spring day ranges, like the other fools. BRAVO HYUNDAI!!!! They aren't LYING TRASH!!! Oh wait, different study shows Hyundai simply show their % left as 10% high... In actual cold conditions: Electric cars have to warm their batteries all night long and interior of cab before you drive anywhere.... Not a mere 15 minutes... Even then you lose another 12% range just heating the cab. Now if Electric vehicles were actually DESIGNED correctly, they would add insulation around their batteries to reduce range loss, but I digress, that would make them more expensive and well they already have a price problem.

Reality:: Crop yields are highest world has ever seen ... Oh right, CO2 = plant fertilize, and uses less minerals/water per crop yield. Great Plains USA as little as 700 years ago had moving sand dunes across the ENTIRE great plains from Dakotas to Mexico and it was called the great American Desert, not the great plains. 2000 years ago, the sand dunes blocked the Platt river in Nebraska... Climate change my arse. This climate rocks in comparison.

Blimey youre dim! You post an article thats a year old for Gods sake. The ridiculous electricity costs were because of the ridiculous price of NG at the time HOW MANY MORE TIMES??? Our electricity prices have plummeted since it normalised. You even say so yourself which means it was all about the NG price and yet you keep harping on that it was because the UK has loads of renewables and that was the cause. You cant have it both ways EWO either the sky high prices were a direct correlation to the sky high NG costs or it was renewables like you keep saying. Why dont you go away, lie down, have a think about it for a while and then come back to us with what you come up with! I'm sure your reply will be illuminating for us all 😄

I live in a civilized place where the electricity is on 99.99% of the time. Blackouts just aren't a problem of any kind.

They are nowhere near as "clean" as a gas-fired CC Plant. Period! You gotta MINE the coal, PROCESS the coal, MOVE that cleaned product to a plant, Move it around from the pile to the plant, pulverize it in a mill, blow it into the firebox, then collect, deal with, and dispose of the 5-10% by weight that doesn't burn (aka, ash). The real measures should be how much water, operational waste, pollutants, and CO₂ (for those believers and non-believers) is generated per KWh. Who here has actually worked at a coal-fired plant?? Trust me, It is FILTHY!

That link in the quote is quite informative! Thanx! Since no new coal plants are being built (or even thought of) in the USA, I highly doubt we will ever have another utrasupercritical unit built. They are expensive to maintain, use a significant amount of superalloys, and will still suffer from shorter lifetimes of really expensive high-temp components (turbine rotors/blades, nozzles, piping, casings, valves, and the like). That said, ultrasupercritical units still provide more watts per gram of coal consumed than older coal designs, and will never be as efficient as a combined cycle unit operating "pedal to the metal". Also I note the "utilization factor" for coal units in China is 45%? Is that equivalent to capacity factor?? That;'s REALLY poor. Almost the same as well-positioned wind power. China appears to be overbuilding coal plants, similar to their real estate builds.

Capitalism collapses without continuous growth. If you cut the numbers of consumers in half industry would collapse. Even your "worthless people" play a roll because they consume goods. FYI you are a sociopath if you think of some people as "[worthless parasites.]"

Certainly your not that ignorant on consumption of oil and price per barrel? Too many factors besides gasoline that sets prices....... for one the economy of the world is slowing down, and people are in debt at a record pace not good !!!!! Demand is still extremely high. You might want to take a look at production charts for the last 20 years. You'll see steady upward trend 'cept covid years but has been on the march upward. So if you actually think demand destruction is good for a healthy economy, you probably don't understand oil economy!! Like it or not........oil will be here for our lifetime and ICE will still be going. Honda dealer in Central Illinois has Zero EV's or even Hybrids. Asked sales manager why and basically no demand here. You can buy Rivian vehicles for alot less than 3 years ago, but in 2 years will be out of business. Same as many major players in the electric automotive industry. The infrastructure is still way too slow to get moving. So you can LOL 🙂. but really shows your ignorance in basic economics.

yep will it break below 10 cents ever???? My bet is in 2 years when they make a commercial production panel with a peroskivite layer on top of a CD/TE layer

I must ask, "what level of electric reliability is satisfactory" The electric generation availability in wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, and natural gas units (in 2022), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), was as follows: Wind | 95.5% Solar | 99.5% Hydroelectric | 95.3% Nuclear | 92.7% Coal | 83.2% Natural gas | 92.1% | Actually, coal units are the LEAST available. That's why you need a bunch of 'em.

As the worldwide price of petroleum fuels increase, more consumers will carefully consider moving to EV's of all types. That's one way that the market "works". Just sayin'...

While I respect you were more imminently impacted by that event... Please give me your source. I gave you some of mine, and there's MUCH more below. I hope yours was not Alex Jones. ERCOT requested relief from environmental regulations on February 14, 2021, at 10:00 AM Central Time, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY! The EPA did not turn down ERCOT's request for relief from environmental regulations during the Texas February, 2021 power event. The authority to grant waivers from environmental regulations in the event of a power grid emergency lies with the Department of Energy (DOE). The Department of Energy has the authority to grant relief from environmental regulations during an energy emergency. This authority is granted under the Defense Production Act (DPA), enacted in 1950 to give the President authority to mobilize the domestic economy in support of national defense. The President delegates his DPA authority to the DOE. The DOE can issue orders to businesses and other entities to take actions that are necessary to address the emergency, even if those actions would otherwise violate environmental regulations. The DOE's authority to grant relief from environmental regulations is not unlimited. The DOE can only issue orders under the DPA if it determines that the emergency is "so grave that it requires the taking of immediate action." The DOE must also consider the environmental impacts of its orders and take steps to minimize those impacts to the extent practicable. On February 14, 2021, ERCOT requested an emergency order from the DOE to allow certain power plants to operate at maximum levels and exceed federal limits on emissions and wastewater release. The DOE granted ERCOT's request the same day. The EPA issued a statement on February 15, 2021, saying that it was "aware of the emergency order issued by DOE" and that it would "work with DOE to ensure that any waivers granted are consistent with the intent of the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws." The EPA does not have a veto over the DOE's authority to grant waivers from environmental regulations in the event of a power grid emergency. AND.. FROM ERCOT ITSELF... https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/02/15/ERCOT_202_c__DOE_2021-2-14a.pdf

Oh damm it. What's a fella to do? Ahh coal/NG?...Ya don't say

It will have the most powerful impact by far. https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12 The authors give a separate calculation for CO2 contribution, as follows. " Effect of Recently Increased Atmospheric CO2 It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019) [17]. The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date." So that is a grand contribution for CO2 since Industrial Revolution of .24K or about .09% (or .0009). Less than one-tenth of one percent. Almost nothing at all. And that is only the greenhouse effect. There are other impacts as well, the "shade" effect. In terms of greenhouse effect alone, H2O is the dominant factor, but also there are other atmospheric impacts of H2O which are driven by solar variables. CO2 plays zero role in the most important atmospheric impacts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334093488_Intensified_East_Asian_winter_monsoon_during_the_last_geomagnetic_reversal_transition The Japanese team commented, "“The Intergovernmental IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” Dr. Masayuki Hyodo of the University of Kobe. Hyodo added that “When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.” The low cloud cover is caused by increasing cosmic rays reaching earth due to changes in the earth’s magnetic field." A Finnish study reached similar conclusions. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf "In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature." This research is consistent with the studies correlating cosmic rays (ie. solar variables) with earth temperature change. So now the pathway is solar radiation impacting earth atmospheric H20 impacting earth temperature change. The other work above showing the overwhelming significance of atmospheric H2O as a driver of climate change can be related into a larger model of solar activity with the transfer mechanism now elucidated.

CO2 emissions data are of no importance to anyone. Worthless data, anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has no significant impact on climate.

This nonsense again? Really...I thought that you were beyond this garbage. Almost all of these so-called "subsidies" are not "explicit" but are simply inferred according to a wild and radical misjudgment of environmental costs. Completely worthless. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-imf-report-climate-crisis-oil-gas-coal

Right now China is ramping up coal and oil demand...they have no intention of phasing out fossil fuels, that is just an empty rhetorical gesture.

We have been fed limitless propaganda by the promoters of Green Revolution that everyone is just dying to purchase an EV...the reality is that EVs are piling up on the sales lots, no one really wants to buy an EV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IWGgcYy1bs Where are oil prices headed? Biden is destroying the production of oil and natural gas by the USA. He has not even refilled our petroleum reserves! I just got back from a 6,000 mile trip around the American West. We saw a small percentage of Teslas in California and one Porsche EV that my Democrat sister has. The other 14 states we traveled through have virtually no EVs.

I can understand your doubt of the accuracy of NASA data. I hope this helps... So Many Climate Data Sets, So Little Disagreement https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

The offshore wind energy narrative usually includes a statement about how that source of energy is becoming steadily cheaper. Well it isn't. This is an excerpt from an article in the UK's Sunday Telegraph A string of offshore wind projects meant to power Britain are in jeopardy after the global race to net zero sent costs soaring, casting doubt over the industry’s future as a cheap source of energy. A surge in supply chain costs has pushed up the price of wind turbines, while increases in global interest rates have raised refinancing costs substantially. It has made several projects unviable just a year after they won government subsidy contracts – leading to fears from industry insiders that Britain’s future is in jeopardy as the “Saudi Arabia of wind”. The article dealt with some of the details of the way the UK government encourages offshore wind but says that the winners of a government auction a year ago are now saying that the fixed price contracts they won are now no good and the price has to be increased substantially. (Note, my understanding of the system is that the UK grid pays for whatever power is generated at the agreed strike price, whether it can use the power or not - the contracts for difference mechanism used is just a means of fixing the price. Anyway, this should be a sweet deal and they still can't make it work.) What it comes down to is that the companies involved want more government assistance, not less. Then there are the problems at Siemens wind turbines division. A record sell-off in Siemens Energy shares has laid bare a major loss of confidence by investors in the group's ability to fix its struggling wind turbine division, leaving them fearful of what else to expect down the road. Siemens Energy's stock plunged by a third on Friday, knocking nearly 7 billion euros ($7.6 billion) off the group's market value, after it warned of deeper quality problems at Siemens Gamesa - just weeks after the group managed to acquire the remaining stake in the wind turbine unit. Siemens Gamesa bills itself as a leader in renewable energy, particularly offshore wind, but as can be seen from page 5 of this Siemens Energy profit announcement seems to have been losing money for some time, despite increases in revenue. (Note Siemens Gamesa is a part of Siemens Energy which is profitable overall). Offshore wind, it seems, is not a solution to anything but another huge problem building up which will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

PROOF! It's CHEAPER!!

The fact remains that the system collapsed due to a failure of the renewable wind/solar system in Texas. That failure was compounded by the state authorities cutting of the fossil fuel backup system from the electricity it needed to start up. The over-reliance on wind/solar started the whole mess.

Not only would a couple years of basic physics help you, but also a solid course of basic thermodynamics might help. The main determinant of a heat engine's thermal efficiency is the temperature difference between the heat source and the heat sink. In a coal-fired generating unit, using the Rankine cycle, that would be the final steam temperature leaving a modern steam generator (typically about 1050 degrees F), and the exhaust steam temperature from the turbine into the condenser (typically fixed at around 75 degree F). The higher the steam temperature from the source (the steam generator), the more useful work can be extracted as it is expanded to lower pressures. The metallurgy of the unit's construction places limits on the source temperature. Common alloys can only survive so much stress at elevated temperature and last a decent amount of years before failure. Even with these thermal parameters, expensive "tricks" must be added, such as steam reheating and multiple feedwater heaters. The thermal efficiency of a typical, condensing, coal-fired power unit is on the order of 35% (on a very good day). Newer, ultra-super critical coal units "might" have a 40% thermal efficiency, using advanced (read, $$$) alloys to operate at higher source temperatures. The highest power unit thermal efficiencies are currently achieved with modern combined-cycle units, where the heat source can be considered as the firing temperature of the high-pressure gasses exiting a combustion turbine's combustion chambers (the Brayton cycle), not unusual to be about 2500 degrees F! Advanced superalloys (including single-crystal metal components) and exotic cooling schemes and coatings permit a reasonable economic life of the hot parts. The exhaust gasses of the combustion turbine, after expanding to near-atmospheric pressure, are still VERY hot (say about 800 degrees F or more). The gasses containing this CONSIDERABLE waste heat is passed through a steam generator to boil and superheat water, which provide a heat source for a steam turbine, exhausting to a condenser, very similar to a coal-fired unit. Such modern units can achieve a little more than 60% thermal efficiencies. Brayton and Rankine thermodynamic cycles are COMBINED in such units, thus the name. The working fluids are air and water. There are other cycles and working fluids that can be exploited (some very interesting), but they are far and few between. The down side is that coal cannot be used as a fuel in a combustion turbine. It has been attempted. It works for a few hours. Then it doesn't, since impurities and ash "gums up the works". A liquid or gas must be used as a fuel. Even then, there are strict limits on the purity of those fuels. There are even strict limits on the purity of the inlet air! There are a few instances where a nuclear reactor is used as the heat source in a Brayton cycle, but that's not a fossil source. The only way of achieving better efficiencies from a coal-fired unit is to make use of the waste heat exiting a steam turbine, BEFORE IT IS CONDENSED BACK TO A LIQUID. This occurs in district heating plants (CHAP plants, Combined Heat And Power). While this heat produces no useful work, it provides heat for other processes. Processes such as district heating. In this case, the waste heat is used for something useful, but does no useful work.

and the money was used for a beach house and a new Ferrari along with family travel first class around the world.???? The king of Fraud......was all in on Fossil Fuels Kenneth Lay at Enron........ Enron Scandal: The Fall of a Wall Street Darling Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com › updates › enron-scan... The Enron scandal drew attention to accounting and corporate fraud as its shareholders lost $74 billion in the four years leading up to its bankruptcy, do you want to add up all the fraud, corruption (including OPEC) and wars fought for fossil fuels that has occurred over the years and take ownership of it???? what are we looking at ????? easily trillions of dollars...... How much do we pay for every year to fund our military in an effort to protect the Middle East and the flow of Oil ????? I take it half of all of our military exists solely to keep peace in the middle east.....Gulf wars come to mind.......what did the Bushes spend on those oil wars.......5 Trillion...plus??????? How much is spent protecting the sun and wind????..............not one red cent......as I have never heard of wars being fought for the sun or wind your tired bs is just that BS

You shouldn't believe everything the MSM portrays to you. At least in my region, we are still peaceful neighbours. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/asia-power-snapshot-china-united-states-southeast-asia China's claims in the South China Sea has its merits, and dates back historically before our region became independent from Western colonialism. This territory is claimed both by the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the PRC. https://en.mofa.gov.tw/theme.aspx?n=1462&s=40&sms=294#:~:text=The South China Sea Islands,the sea is beyond dispute. The militarisation of the South China Sea was pioneered by my country Malaysia, then followed by the Philippines and only much later by China. In spite of the overlapping claims, and because we have coexisted peacefully for thousands of years, we believe that issues can be resolved through compromise. What we resent is America trying to instigate and provoke conflict between us and China.

Global Oil Demand Hit A Record High In March | OilPrice.com Enjoy the oil boom notsonice !!! I am!!

The problem is not water. The problem is oxidation of the gasoline. Alcohol absorbs more water than gasoline does which holds more oxygen which increases the rate of oxidation and therefore increases the rate of deposition of gasoline oxides which plug your carb low speed passages ruining said carb.

On that one I must agree. I have an 8 Hp outboard for my yacht and always use Esso 99* which is alcohol free. Same with my 3.5Hp tender OB but I don't use that much as I have an electric outboard which works very well with a lithium battery (solar charged of course). I only use about 25-30 litres a year.

Would you agree that particularly in many southern states there is still an underlying level of racism and an uneven level of opportunity? I have lived in the south....the south east , the west and the midwest I have to tell you it is the same everywhere........on the surface everyone is nice and polite, underneath is sucks with comments like ..can we trust them if we hire them.......all based on skin color there is an uneven level of opportunity and an underlying level of racism against both blacks and hispanics.... Blacks and Hispanics are routinely denied opporturnities in both Jobs and Promotions just because of stereotyping of people of color

Does this come as a shock to anyone? Russia is accepting hard Chinese currency for goods and services just to exchange them for dollars quietly. China’s Belt and Road projects were funded by,a devalued national currency which they never expected to be paid but, declare a default, and the projects were built by the Chinese workforce using imported Chinese materials. Russa / Putin needs Chinese goods and services and China is getting cheap oil. The military build-up of China currently parallels the United States after entering WWII. They are churning out aircraft and ships on a huge scale, that said the war in Ukraine is demonstrating that these hard military acquisitions may not be a deciding factor in future conflicts. Best of luck Putin being subservient to China!