Biden Seeks $2 Trillion Clean Energy And Infrastructure Spending Boost

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/29/2020 at 12:22 PM, ronwagn said:

My point is always the same. What are the REAL cost benefits for the citizens, including all factors. Wikipedia might need some editing, maybe you can help them out. Wind, solar, tidal power, etc. still have a lot to prove IMHO. 

Ron, the battery in South Australia has been such a roaring success that the CONSERVATIVE govt that is now in power has just decided to increase it's capacity by 50%. It will most likely be QUADRUPLE original capacity by 2030, unless "community-scale" batteries take the lead, as they are in Western Australia.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:14 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

My guess is that it was due to safety upgrades after fukushima, deteriorating market sentiment and increased development costs

Their new EPR design reactors are absolute money pits: 

In mid-2004 the board of EdF decided in principle to build the first demonstration unit of an expected series of Areva EPRs. This decision was confirmed by the EdF board in May 2006, after public debate, when it approved construction of a new 1650 MWe class EPR unit at Flamanville, Normandy, alongside two existing 1300 MWe units. The decision was seen as "an essential step in renewing EDF's nuclear generation mix".

The overnight capital cost or construction cost was expected to be €3.3 billion in 2005 Euros (€4 billion in 2018 Euros), and power from it EUR 4.6 c/kWh. Series production costs were projected at about 20% less. EDF then submitted a construction licence application. The Flamanville 3 unit is to be 4500 MWt, 1750 MWe gross (at sea temperature 14.7°C) and 1630 MWe net.

....

At the end of 2008 the overnight cost estimate (without financing costs) was updated by 21% to €4 billion in 2008 Euros (€2434/kW), and electricity cost to be 5.4 cents/kWh. These costs were confirmed in mid 2009, when EdF had spent nearly €2 billion. In July 2010 EdF revised the overnight cost to about €5 billion and the grid connection to early 2014 – two years behind schedule. In July 2011 EdF again revised the completion time to 2016 due to re-evaluation of civil engineering works and to take into account interruptions during the first half of the year. The cost was then put at €6 billion. In December 2012 EdF raised the cost estimate to €8.5 billion including financing, and said that completion was still expected in 2016. As the reactor pressure vessel was installed in January 2014 Areva confirmed that first power was expected in 2016, four years behind the original schedule. In September 2015 the completion date was moved to late 2018, with the cost increasing to €10.5 billion. In July 2017 EdF said that 98% of the civil structure was completed and 60% of the electro-mechanical work, and that the reactor would be connected to the grid in May 2019. In July 2018 EDF announced that quality discrepancies had been found in welds in the secondary coolant system, and that this would delay commissioning by almost a year, and increase the project cost to €10.9 billion. In March 2020 a government decree put off full commissioning until April 2024. The cost estimate from EDF then was €12.3 billion, with start-up in 2023.

Typical. I guess that is how much each French-designed sub for the Royal Australian Navy is going to cost. I tried to convince my govt to go for the "off-the-shelf " Japanese sub but they wouldn't have a bar of it. We could have had 6 Japanese subs (diesel-electric), and perhaps 4 Virginia Class subs from USA, for about 1/6th the price we gonna pay to build locally.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:58 PM, ronwagn said:

Not for me unless they can make it work on a cost benefit basis while disposing of their radioactive waste and old plants safely, for thousands of years. All they are doing in the USA is running up energy costs for customers. 

Couple of things. If waste existed in large quantities, we wouldn't be able to store it on the sites of nuclear plants as we are currently. Secondly, the longer something is radioactive for, the safer it is generally speaking (disregarding any poisonous qualities associated with heavy metals). 

The costs for plant decommissioning are covered by a fund that grows throughout the plant's operating lifetime. There's laws that require plants to set aside money for decommission when they reach the end of their usefulness. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 7/28/2020 at 1:17 PM, ronwagn said:

None of your options would compare favorably to natural gas plants. Natural gas is the true green option while also being the least expensive, most abundant fuel. It has proven this by allowing America to make the most progress in reducing emissions of any large country in the world. Meanwhile China and India have increased coal use. 

Depends, if you see the historic natural gas prices, discounting the Peaks and Lows, like the US peaks in 2003-2008 and lows like the current ones, the natural gas price adjusted for inflation historically has been at around 3.5-4U$D/MMbtu, or 182-208 U$D/Ton, i truly believe that when the pandemic, crisis, problems, and other stuff ends and the Supermajors scale, capital, and expertise go to consolidate again most of the United States oil and gas industry then the Natural gas price will stay again in those 3.5-4U$D/mmbtu, what has been able to make natural gas the fuel of choice has been the increasing efficiencies of combined cycle turbines, thermal plants used to have efficiencies of 40% or less while CCGT get around 65-67%, it must be saiid tho, that every gain in efficiencies is a step that is harder and harder, you can't get pass the 75% mark without switching to hydrogen because hydrogen combustion product has a lower molecular weight and spins turbines better, while it also requires 30% less oxygen to produce the same energy during combustion, and you can't get hydrogen from natural gas without reducing the energy content of every ton of gas you extract in 35%, a CCGT on nat gas will be 30% more efficient, but the fuel will be 30% more expensive.

With a current natural gas turbine efficiency of 65% to generate 1GWe of power you need 96 Tons of Gas per GWh, or 844,000 Tons per year, which at a price of 182$/Ton is equal to 153,000,000 U$D for GWa, or 17.5U$D/MWh,

You would also use around 100 employees in average that will cost around 6.5 million U$D/Year

The cost of the entire turbine plant which is nowadays around 500U$D/KWe, and it has a lifespan of around 30 years or 17 million U$D/Year, combined the cost per year of the gas turbine with capital, employees, and fuel is around 176,000,000U$D per GWa, or 20 U$D/MWh.

Beating hydropower in price is just impossible, the Hoover dam sells electricity at like 8U$D/MWh, you could make the rampart dam in alaska today with a capacity anywhere between 6500 to 10000MWe for less than 7 billion U$D, and would last centuries, while the turbines last around 50 years. In washington and oregon dams sell power of less 10U$D/MWh.

Then you have nuclear, because the biggest cost for nuclear is generally the capital costs, there's not a very good bar to measure some reactors costed 1200U$D/KWe, while other 12000U$D/KWe, however if the US makes a nuclear program similar to the Russian, or the Chinese, or the Japanese or the Korean, then the cost would be 2000U$D/KWe, which is the cost for Tomari 3, Ohi 3&4, more than the OPR-1000 plants in korea, more than the Russian reactors, and more than the chinese cost of 1700U$D/KWe for the reactors they are building based on french designs, is also more than the Paluel nuclear powerplant in france that costed 1890U$D/KWe (adjusted for inflation of course), is also the average costs of the 3th and 4th, Westingouse ap1000 that were built in china. The Japanese maded many reactors in under 3.5 years since the mid 80s, so a pwr being made in 3 to 4 years in the usa wouldn't be science fiction.

You have 3 cost in nuclear, employees, fuel, and the entire plant

If the cost is 2000U$D/KWh you can make 1000MWe for around 2 billion U$D over a 20 years period it would ammount to 100,000,000U$D/GWa, or 11.4U$D/MWh

then there's the employees and the maintenance, generally a 1000MWe powerplant will have around 450 employees with higher than average salaries and that would be around 38,000,000U$D per year.

Then there's the fuel, that with newer technologies like the Silex process that is going to be used were i live can be made for 3000U$D/KG for U-235, while pyroprocessing would alloy 2000U$D/Kg of Pu-239 or U-233, but let's suppose a price of 5000U$D/KG, a 1000MWe reactor will use 1100KG of fissile material that would be around 6 million U$D

Combined over the first 20 year period would be around 144,000,000U$D/GWa, or 16.4 U$D/MWh, the catch is this, the payback in 20-to-30 years, but a modern reactors lasts anywhere between 60 to 80 years compared with the older ones that need replacements of parts after 40 years.

it would also help making synthetic fuels from natural gas, why selling natural gas at 180 U$D/Ton to electric companies when you can sell it to synthetic fuel refineries for 250U$D/ton

you can energetically make hydrogen for heating and cooking for 3-4U$D/MMbtu, competitive with natural gas, is hard, but possible.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/14/2020 at 2:55 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

All these fed "infrastructure" plans are jokes.  None of them address making MORE efficient infrastructure.  They all throw a $$$ sign at people and pretend this is "infrastructure.  And no, electrical grid is doing just fine.  Unless you bring a new tech to the party less susceptible to EMP, no engineer is interested other than these companies peddling this BS snake oil.  There is nothing "smart" about smart grid other than used as a slogan for ignorant stupid shits. 

If the fed wanted to dredge all the rivers/canals, improve the lock system, build hydro storage dams, so seasonality is less and more even hydropower is generated, then there would be something of VALUE in said infrastructure plan.  But there is not. 

If EVERY highway overpass was converted to a divergent Diamond instead of the moron overpasses we have today?  THAT would be an improvement in infrastructure.  Is that anywhere? No.  IF they created a MORE long lasting road bed material and decided to repave all the major highways with it, THAT would be an improvement.  Same goes for bridges so we do not have to TOUCH them for the next 1000 years, but that is not in the bills either. 

These "infrastructure" bills are all absurd pork barrel jokes.  Just so some assholes' 3rd cousin can rent out orange barrels to the DOT for 2 years while 2 weeks of work is being done while allowing the POLICE to charge double for speeding tickets in "construction" zones.

I never understood the concept of a "smart grid"' either. People seem to think that when you throw technology at something it's automatically better. The best case against this thinking is the public education system. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I never understood the concept of a "smart grid"' either. People seem to think that when you throw technology at something it's automatically better. The best case against this thinking is the public education system. 

1) Smart grid already exists 2) it is MORE susceptible to EMP and

3) Public "education" in the west needs to have its budget pruned by 50%; after all, that is what PRIVATE schools spend obtaining much superior results by over 30% in standardized testing. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

53 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) Smart grid already exists 2) it is MORE susceptible to EMP and

3) Public "education" in the west needs to have its budget pruned by 50%; after all, that is what PRIVATE schools spend obtaining much superior results by over 30% in standardized testing. 

Oh for sure. My private school is a major outperformer. The standards are strict there too. When kids in a public school get an A, it really means they'd get a B- where I went to. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Oh for sure. My private school is a major outperformer. The standards are strict there too. When kids in a public school get an A, it really means they'd get a B- where I went to. 

No it doesn't.  Material to learn is material to learn. How much is learned is a different question. What it means is that what is taught in 10th grade in private school is taught as 11th or 12th grade or simply never taught at all in public school and why Public school children do worse on standardized testing than private.  They simply have spent fewer hours being taught, or forced to learn.  Why on standarized testing, Singapore, S. Korea etc test highest.  Are children their any smarter?  No.  After all their testing scores are no different than private schools or home schooled kids in the west.  They spend more hours per day learning relevant material instead of "sex education" or lies about the environment or being kicked out of school for "earth day" or no discipline in class where a loudmouth utterly disrupts class everyday for 10 minutes every period and is never disciplined... 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

17 hours ago, Wombat said:

Typical. I guess that is how much each French-designed sub for the Royal Australian Navy is going to cost. I tried to convince my govt to go for the "off-the-shelf " Japanese sub but they wouldn't have a bar of it. We could have had 6 Japanese subs (diesel-electric), and perhaps 4 Virginia Class subs from USA, for about 1/6th the price we gonna pay to build locally.

Jobs plus bribes, unbeatable combination

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/29/2020 at 10:39 AM, KeyboardWarrior said:

That's a good idea. Come to think of it, there's probably a myriad of uses for waste heat. 

Think of all the waste heat in every ICE engine. The percentage is high. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/waste_heat_to_power_systems.pdf

My topic on waste heat to electricity. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xmCkxyOGUAsor4XO85ZxTMxhmuBSINwtInk5kCcRkwM/editity. 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/30/2020 at 4:44 AM, NickW said:

I'd say with France it was economy of scale - build dozens of similar reactors reduces costs and builds a skills base. 

Mind this isn't evident with the EPR new build.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/energy-environment/france-nuclear-energy-areva.html?_r=1

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

22 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

With a current natural gas turbine efficiency of 65% to generate 1GWe of power you need 96 Tons of Gas per GWh, or 844,000 Tons per year, which at a price of 182$/Ton is equal to 153,000,000 U$D for GWa, or 17.5U$D/MWh

Not the gas turbine efficiency, but the resultant efficiency of the gas turbine and the steam turbine in a CCGP. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:42 PM, ronwagn said:

I just got done refuting all of this and showing what energy really runs Australia. I am not a fan, I just hope that Aussies get a choice and are not forced into high prices when they have an abundance of natural gas. 

Ron, it is true that Australia has an abundance of natural gas. The problem is that it in the wrong place! Most of our gas is off the coast of Western Australia, and our major markets are Sydney and Melbourne, some 6000km (4500 miles) away. The govt is talking about building a pipeline from WA to the Cooper Basin in SA, the hub of our pipeline network. In the meantime, The Bass Strait is almost out of gas, so Melbourne will soon be importing LNG from the US. Sydney had similar plans, but they may allow fracking by Santos in Northern NSW before long. The NSW govt recently approved the project, but final approval in the Land and Environment court is still 8 weeks away, so we will see.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/29/2020 at 2:57 AM, ronwagn said:

Natural gas wouldn't have needed any subsidies and would have come out far cheaper. The Green movement caused all this with propaganda from the elites. Russia was behind the movement to stop fracking and promote renewables. Meanwhile they have no renewables worth mentioning aside from hydro. 

Ron, since you have shown a few graphs on the dominance of coal in some countries these last few days, I thought I would start a new discussion on coal. You can either read the article now at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/global-coal-power-falls-for-first-time-even-as-china-builds-more or respond in my new discussion and start a whole new debate if you like? I would prefer that if u would be so kind. You do great research, and I would love to see more graphs like the ones u give, however, I would like "before and after" graphs if u have them too

 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 7/28/2020 at 1:57 PM, ronwagn said:

Natural gas wouldn't have needed any subsidies and would have come out far cheaper. The Green movement caused all this with propaganda from the elites. Russia was behind the movement to stop fracking and promote renewables. Meanwhile they have no renewables worth mentioning aside from hydro. 

Since Hydropower is over 2/3rds of renewable energy production and no country has a 100% energy grid based on wind and solar, much less fully primary energy consumption, is quite hard to say "aside from Hydro", also Russia is not a very sunny place precisely, and because of all the taiga forests is not very windy, and the windy regions like the arctic circle are far away in permafrost soils where you can't build wind turbines economically.

In particular the Hydropower potential of russia is quite large, between 500GWa to 800GWa, depending to who you ask, the Lower Lena hydro project for example would have 20,000MWe, and produce over 150TWh a year,

Russia on the otherhand in the natural gas power generation, Russia hasn't made progress in CCGT powerplants, and with a price of 3.3 U$D/MMBtu is very hard for gas utilities in there to outcompete RusHydro and Rosatom, the issue of course is that it takes a long time to make dams and license reactors, altho they are building 4 reactors and have 47 in planning or proposal.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Wombat said:

Ron, since you have shown a few graphs on the dominance of coal in some countries these last few days, I thought I would start a new discussion on coal. You can either read the article now at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/global-coal-power-falls-for-first-time-even-as-china-builds-more or respond in my new discussion and start a whole new debate if you like? I would prefer that if u would be so kind. You do great research, and I would love to see more graphs like the ones u give, however, I would like "before and after" graphs if u have them too

 

A lot on my plate right now, please remind me if I forget. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

13 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

A lot on my plate right now, please remind me if I forget. 

if you ever asked how is possible still that many countries run on coal when natural gas electricity emmits no pollution and 3 times less CO2 and is 20% cheaper than on coal is rather easy

 

Coal is solid, you can leave it on the ground, transport it by dump trucks, open top box railcars, bulk carriers, put it on a silo, is not going to go anywhere, it conserves its shape

 methane is a gas, you need either pipelines that are constantly compressed between 30 to 70 bar, you need a cryogenic tanker truck railcar or ship to move it, and building pipelines in mountaineous countries is kinda hard

 

with few exceptions like Argentina Bolivia Egypt Algeria... coal is the fuel of the 3rd world

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

if you ever asked how is possible still that many countries run on coal when natural gas electricity emmits no pollution and 3 times less CO2 and is 20% cheaper than on coal is rather easy

 

Coal is solid, you can leave it on the ground, transport it by dump trucks, open top box railcars, bulk carriers, put it on a silo, is not going to go anywhere, it conserves its shape

 methane is a gas, you need either pipelines that are constantly compressed between 30 to 70 bar, you need a cryogenic tanker truck railcar or ship to move it, and building pipelines in mountaineous countries is kinda hard

 

with few exceptions like Argentina Bolivia Egypt Algeria... coal is the fuel of the 3rd world

 

 

I totally agree. I do believe that those countries with severe pollution problems related to coal and to oil will shift to electric and natural gas vehicles and that natural gas will be the choice for large vehicles and many small vehicles. I think that there are still more natural gas vehicles in the world than electric, and many of them are large trucks. China is becoming the leader in natural gas vehicles. 

Coal is very versatile and can be used in many ways to produce chemicals including methane though. It will always be a choice for energy and chemical production. Natural gas and oil are in the same position as feedstocks for some products also. 

Political pressure will influence China and India etc. to gradually move toward renewables and natural gas. Germany and Eastern Europe are still dependent on it to some degree. Our decreased coal use was mainly supported by natural gas but also renewables. 

I am not very concerned about CO2 emissions and firmly support natural gas use being maximized worldwide. Vast continuing new supplies of natural gas worldwide guarantee it's long term use. LNG has made it portable by ship, truck, and railway. It can be used much as propane although not as simply stored. LNG and CNG tanks have become lighter and more compact by making them of spun fiber materials. No comparison to the old steel tanks. Recent commentators have pointed out that ships use a tremendous amount of dirty, low grade diesel. That is gradually changing and my hope is that natural gas engines and tanks will replace it as new ships are built and old ships are retrofitted. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

 

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

On 8/2/2020 at 12:45 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Oh for sure. My private school is a major outperformer. The standards are strict there too. When kids in a public school get an A, it really means they'd get a B- where I went to. 

"Well there Johnny; you sure did tell those inbred knuckle draggin good for nuthins from POS 101 Pubic school; how tree stump they really are, now didn't you"?  ahem

Was the Doc able to put your arm back after you dislocated it pattin yurseff on the back???

Certainly there's a mountain range of evidence that students from private schools score higher on placement tests like ACT/SAT.  That is not in question.  What makes the difference is three fold:

1. Parents who PARENT an not punt too the schools (cuz sum Dumb@ss {HilLIARy} declared so)

2. Teachers who TEACH! {No indoctrination}

3. NO Teachers Unions  Period. Full Stop.

Here's your Cookie, attendance/participation trophy & a certificate that says you're a B- student in 'stricter' school, but an "A" student @POS 101 Pubic School...

Now grab me the remote and a beer before ya leave; it's time for Wapner...

 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 8/4/2020 at 12:50 PM, ronwagn said:

I totally agree. I do believe that those countries with severe pollution problems related to coal and to oil will shift to electric and natural gas vehicles and that natural gas will be the choice for large vehicles and many small vehicles. I think that there are still more natural gas vehicles in the world than electric, and many of them are large trucks. China is becoming the leader in natural gas vehicles. 

Coal is very versatile and can be used in many ways to produce chemicals including methane though. It will always be a choice for energy and chemical production. Natural gas and oil are in the same position as feedstocks for some products also. 

Political pressure will influence China and India etc. to gradually move toward renewables and natural gas. Germany and Eastern Europe are still dependent on it to some degree. Our decreased coal use was mainly supported by natural gas but also renewables. 

I am not very concerned about CO2 emissions and firmly support natural gas use being maximized worldwide. Vast continuing new supplies of natural gas worldwide guarantee it's long term use. LNG has made it portable by ship, truck, and railway. It can be used much as propane although not as simply stored. LNG and CNG tanks have become lighter and more compact by making them of spun fiber materials. No comparison to the old steel tanks. Recent commentators have pointed out that ships use a tremendous amount of dirty, low grade diesel. That is gradually changing and my hope is that natural gas engines and tanks will replace it as new ships are built and old ships are retrofitted. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

 

It will however be hard for countries like Indonesia, or South Africa to curtail coal, i mean is possible for many countries that currently use coal to start using natural gas either trough coalbed methane, or fracking shale formation

if i had to bet i would likely bet that coal will grow post-2020s maybe, but mainly on developed countries where the infrastructure for other fuel sources just isn't there.

Natural gas is most likely going to replace oil in the production of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, bunker whathever, synthetic fuel trough the GTL+ process yields cheaper higher quality fuel than from oil distilliation with rather few catalysts, i have experience since i live in argentina driving natural gas vehicles, they work, but they don't work as good as with gasoline, they are more likely to overheat, Oleofinic synthetic fuel would just be better.

However, Oil will reign petrochemicals supreme with the higher avaibility of crude light oil grades it just makes more sense using oil than natural gas, you have to convert Gas to synthetic light crude, and then, refine that light crude into different streams.

IF, i had to bet in something that will replace natural gas and isn't nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, it will definitely be plasma pyrolysis hydrogen either from cow dung or plastic waste, as the popularity of plastic increases along with the possibility of having depleted soil in the future converting plastic waste into hydrogen and pure carbon with sulfur and nitrogen as fertilizer would be a good idea, it would get rid of the constrains that could stunt the growth of plastic-everything. 

i do indeed believe in climate change, and that carbonic gas emissions from human activities are the source, i'm just not an apocalyptic crackhead that think the world will end in 15 years, a 5°C temperature increase would lead to higher extreme climates, longer droughts and heavier rains and floods, since warmer air retains more moisture and when it cools down it releases more water, that will be a solvable challenge trough afforestation, agroforesty, silvopasture, and stuff, with the exception of few regions like southern Europe, the brazilian plateau, southern africa, chile, and west australia most of the planet will benefit, places like southern continental asia will get a 70% Increase in annual rainfall,  the main issue that i would think off would be if that triggers the release of methane hydrates and instead of a 5°C increase there's a 15 or 20°C increase like in the permian which would make places like Canada into deserts ,

5°C increase? nice.
15°C increase? not nice.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 hours ago, Prometheus1354 said:

"Well there Johnny; you sure did tell those inbred knuckle draggin good for nuthins from POS 101 Pubic school; how tree stump they really are, now didn't you"?  ahem

Was the Doc able to put your arm back after you dislocated it pattin yurseff on the back???

Certainly there's a mountain range of evidence that students from private schools score higher on placement tests like ACT/SAT.  That is not in question.  What makes the difference is three fold:

1. Parents who PARENT an not punt too the schools (cuz sum Dumb@ss {HilLIARy} declared so)

2. Teachers who TEACH! {No indoctrination}

3. NO Teachers Unions  Period. Full Stop.

Here's your Cookie, attendance/participation trophy & a certificate that says you're a B- student in 'stricter' school, but an "A" student @POS 101 Pubic School...

Now grab me the remote and a beer before ya leave; it's time for Wapner...

 

Hey man, the fact that I know more than adults like you is testament enough for the effectiveness of private schooling.

Oh and by the way, I was an A student at that school too. I won't make any millions by underperforming.  

Edited August 6, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Prometheus1354 Understand that when you make little bitch comments like that, I'm going to troll you, since you've surrendered the chances of an informative, cordial discussion. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 hours ago, Prometheus1354 said:

"Well there Johnny; you sure did tell those inbred knuckle draggin good for nuthins from POS 101 Pubic school; how tree stump they really are, now didn't you"?  ahem

Was the Doc able to put your arm back after you dislocated it pattin yurseff on the back???

Certainly there's a mountain range of evidence that students from private schools score higher on placement tests like ACT/SAT.  That is not in question.  What makes the difference is three fold:

1. Parents who PARENT an not punt too the schools (cuz sum Dumb@ss {HilLIARy} declared so)

2. Teachers who TEACH! {No indoctrination}

3. NO Teachers Unions  Period. Full Stop.

Here's your Cookie, attendance/participation trophy & a certificate that says you're a B- student in 'stricter' school, but an "A" student @POS 101 Pubic School...

Now grab me the remote and a beer before ya leave; it's time for Wapner...

 

I attended public school from K-6, Christian private school 7-9, public high school 10 - 12, then university.

The level of education at the private -and much more expensive- school was garbage.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/1/2020 at 8:40 PM, Wombat said:

@Rob Kramer natural gas may be the cheap battery for now, not so in 12-18 months time. Tesla has already doubled life expectancy of their batteries, and now Panasonic is talking about increasing their energy density by 20%. That alone gets lithium batteries close to parity with gas at $3.20, but medium-term (say 5 years), Tesla will have paid off all their giga-factory setup costs (about $8 billion apiece), and in 10 years + time, there will be huge number of used EV batteries ready to be re-purposed for grid storage. The economics is simply unbeatable by any FF. I do agree, however, that Nuclear, Hydro, and Geothermal should also get more funding as mentioned by another commentator on first page of this blog.

Why do you think that new energy sources should get funding when we have a superabundance of energy already. That funding comes from taxpayers, not a magic box. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

It will however be hard for countries like Indonesia, or South Africa to curtail coal, i mean is possible for many countries that currently use coal to start using natural gas either trough coalbed methane, or fracking shale formation

if i had to bet i would likely bet that coal will grow post-2020s maybe, but mainly on developed countries where the infrastructure for other fuel sources just isn't there.

Natural gas is most likely going to replace oil in the production of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, bunker whathever, synthetic fuel trough the GTL+ process yields cheaper higher quality fuel than from oil distilliation with rather few catalysts, i have experience since i live in argentina driving natural gas vehicles, they work, but they don't work as good as with gasoline, they are more likely to overheat, Oleofinic synthetic fuel would just be better.

However, Oil will reign petrochemicals supreme with the higher avaibility of crude light oil grades it just makes more sense using oil than natural gas, you have to convert Gas to synthetic light crude, and then, refine that light crude into different streams.

IF, i had to bet in something that will replace natural gas and isn't nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, it will definitely be plasma pyrolysis hydrogen either from cow dung or plastic waste, as the popularity of plastic increases along with the possibility of having depleted soil in the future converting plastic waste into hydrogen and pure carbon with sulfur and nitrogen as fertilizer would be a good idea, it would get rid of the constrains that could stunt the growth of plastic-everything. 

i do indeed believe in climate change, and that carbonic gas emissions from human activities are the source, i'm just not an apocalyptic crackhead that think the world will end in 15 years, a 5°C temperature increase would lead to higher extreme climates, longer droughts and heavier rains and floods, since warmer air retains more moisture and when it cools down it releases more water, that will be a solvable challenge trough afforestation, agroforesty, silvopasture, and stuff, with the exception of few regions like southern Europe, the brazilian plateau, southern africa, chile, and west australia most of the planet will benefit, places like southern continental asia will get a 70% Increase in annual rainfall,  the main issue that i would think off would be if that triggers the release of methane hydrates and instead of a 5°C increase there's a 15 or 20°C increase like in the permian which would make places like Canada into deserts ,

5°C increase? nice.
15°C increase? not nice.

I think it is a really bad idea to try to replace natural gas with something else unless it will be cheaper and natural gas is available as LNG or CNG anywhere in the world with a road to the nearest pipeline or port. Mozambique is near South Africa and ports are near Indonesia there is no scarcity there. I do not believe in governments funding energy unless it is for all competing technologies. I really do not like the aesthetics of wind turbines or solar panels and do not believe the claims that they will become cheaper than natural gas anytime soon when considering needed electrical lines. Natural gas plants can be built very close to the point of use. 

Siberian permafrost should be primarily a Russian concern and they have no renewables at all aside from hydropower. Siberia will be a lot better off with a warmer climate anyway, as would Canada. Siberia is finding lots of fossils from animals that existed before mankind was able to burn any fossil fuels worth considering. My primary consideration is getting rid of coal pollution and natural gas does a great job at that. America has proven that point. Now we are exporting our coal.