End of an Era?

[Rob Kramer + 696]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Natural-Gas-Power-Generation-Hits-Record.html

Record Natural Gas Use.

With US and Canada LNG export capacity rising I'm sure this will be a trend over the next 5 years . But past that is as you say and I agree a fools errand. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

With US and Canada LNG export capacity rising I'm sure this will be a trend over the next 5 years . But past that is as you say and I agree a fools errand. 

I said past 30 years, since I think it will take closer to that for renewables to gain ascendancy if it does. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by ronwagn
error

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 8/25/2020 at 12:58 PM, Ward Smith said:

The parent site Had this to say about Exxon getting kicked out of the DJIA

Other sites like World Oil had longer more sanguine articles but other than environmentalist glee, what are the ramifications of a super major getting bounced from the Dow average where it has been for almost a century? 

One immediate effect will be the further erosion of its valuation, the vaunted dividend might well be history and future investments in peril. The conceit of the greens is that all of this "stuff" will magically disappear, replaced by pixie dust and fairy farts powering our society. By certain means, including but not limited to activists forcing investment funds (in which they were microscopic participants) to divest from fossil fuel, the ability of retail investors to pick up that slack is impossible. So you have trillion dollar funds trying to dump shares all at the same time, with no counter party able and willing to purchase those shares. A guaranteed recipe for devaluation, as we've observed.

Given that these greenies are all related, and working in concert to achieve their ends one would think we have an open and shut case of stock market manipulation, in plain sight. But the ability of the SEC to see the noses on their faces is already suspect, and this would require both intellect and imagination, two things sorely lacking there. After all, people pointed out to them that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme for decades and they were still, "shocked, shocked, that gambling was going on here". 

Going forward, even the "robot" funds that only invest in indexes will avoid Exxon now, since they no longer meet the criterion.  I'm curious if Exxon's management can dig their way out of this mess. Chevron has done an excellent job of genuflecting to the greens, kissing their respective posteriors and I'm guessing they've even paid tribute to BLM (not Bureau of Land Management). Because this is the new normal. 

The statistics show that non-bankrupt companies kicked out of the Dow index do better than the Dow for a long period after being kicked out.

The Dow is supposed to reflect the economy in the decade or two ahead. It is a statement by the Dow board that they don't see oil as the kind of driver it had been for the future decades as it had for the prior century. That is indeed the trend, however, it is not likely to proceed as the greenies expect, as their products are only cheap because NG and oil are cheap, and "green" energy is still behind in competitiveness to NG. Even LNG. The profitability of "green energy" is smaller, because of the huge upfront capital investment. Which is why alt energy pays 50% less to employees than fossil fuel jobs do. That should improve as actual costs (not just prices) fall in "green energy". But the measured economic evidence has yet to stack up in its favor in most places.

Someone recently argued that since low efficiency green energy projects in Germany that brought avg. green power into the 40% range, have also increased Germany's carbon footprint, as has denuclearizing.

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 8/25/2020 at 4:58 PM, Enthalpic said:

Only a nut job would think that you have a case against the figment of your imagination.

 

The conspiracy theories around here are nuts.... Clearly the Dems, greenies, CCP, BLM, are the same people.  Their highly sophisticated operation has now destabilized wall street!.

Good grief.

They are the same movement. The new left is an intellectual  movement started in the 1960s by the remaining core of the Marxist organizations in the US, which were part of the Soviet propaganda and espionage activities. This has been much expanded by the international socialist movement once China's CCP took over its leadership from the defunct Soviets.  CCP recruited through its militarized economic activity, many industrial and technology corporations and the media organizations corporations feed with ads, and international Marxist propaganda and intelligence operations within universities that  produce journalists.

The only reason you don't see the conspiracy is that you don't want to find yourself a dupe of someone's clunky psych-ops.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

4 hours ago, 0R0 said:

They are the same movement. The new left is an intellectual  movement started in the 1960s by the remaining core of the Marxist organizations in the US, which were part of the Soviet propaganda and espionage activities. This has been much expanded by the international socialist movement once China's CCP took over its leadership from the defunct Soviets.  CCP recruited through its militarized economic activity, many industrial and technology corporations and the media organizations corporations feed with ads, and international Marxist propaganda and intelligence operations within universities that  produce journalists.

The only reason you don't see the conspiracy is that you don't want to find yourself a dupe of someone's clunky psych-ops.

What you speak to has become a highly developed media messaging system. The depth of their entanglement into the US system almost defies imagination.

It is my opinion the Democratic party leadership are mere pawns of some type of global power structure. 

One only has to look to the beginning of the Democratic primary's, infighting and misdirection. A fight for direction and unity. That became to embarrassing, until Bloomberg stepped in and cleared the deck. There is the true party leadership. 

From that point on the media took the ball in a unified message which vilified Trump from every angle possible. Actually the vilification began with the blue wave...and Bloomberg financed that wave thru dark money. All the roads led to failure aside from the messenging portrayed by the press..

As of now Bloomberg has over 600 million invested into the Democratic party in two short yrs. Now I ask anyone how does one man dump that much capital into one party in such a short time and go untouched..How does that go under any radar.

One only has to look how deeply entrenched Bloomberg is envoled with China...it is amazing to see.

 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 8/25/2020 at 2:17 PM, SUZNV said:

The problem is that it doesn't need innovation R&D technologies,eco friendly , low barrier to entry (everyone can do it), no user fees or  no regulation, no stock and no lobby, no geopolitical politics and there  for no profits.

You're leaving out all the virtue signaling that gets taken away. How are people going to feel good about themselves without someone else to shit on?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 8/26/2020 at 11:38 PM, Rob Kramer said:

That's true but how slow or fast do you think the process is most info has oil use at current levels into 2030-2040. So that's like 1900-2030 peak (if youd like the earlier #) .... so to wind down another 50 years? 2080? Most shale and conventional will be used up by then anyways and at that point yes renewables will have come a long way and might actually be cost comparable more so with the cost of finding more oil getting pushed up. I see fossil fuels at least at 50% of total energy till 2050. 

I don't think your timeline is completely unreasonable, however, it all depends on how quickly H2 becomes established. If the rapid rise of wind and solar can be replicated by Hydrogen, then it is likely that fossil fuels will only be worth 30% of total energy by 2040. Maybe just 10% by 2050. I think there will always be a case for natural gas in home heating, but apart from that, H2 could probably replace jet fuel and maritime oil. I suspect that oil demand peaked last year. I expect it to get back up to last years level by end of next year, but do not see further growth after that, due to increased uptake of EV's.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

10 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

You're leaving out all the virtue signaling that gets taken away. How are people going to feel good about themselves without someone else to shit on?

As long as you can tolerant each other shit, then take turn to shit on each other, win win.

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by SUZNV

[Rob Kramer + 696]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

I don't think your timeline is completely unreasonable, however, it all depends on how quickly H2 becomes established. If the rapid rise of wind and solar can be replicated by Hydrogen, then it is likely that fossil fuels will only be worth 30% of total energy by 2040. Maybe just 10% by 2050. I think there will always be a case for natural gas in home heating, but apart from that, H2 could probably replace jet fuel and maritime oil. I suspect that oil demand peaked last year. I expect it to get back up to last years level by end of next year, but do not see further growth after that, due to increased uptake of EV's.

I dont see H2 rising like that.  Oil demand may have peaked or near peaked .but Gas demand rising. Ships need to go LNG before H2 . And without homes going to H2 (that to me sounds hella scary in the dangerous way) that's a massive portion of pipelines for nat gas from A-Z so that would keep alot of H2 away. I think your optimistic.  Look how long it took to implement coal , then oil , now renewables,  I mean each has taken YEARS to get the first few easiest % points. My opinion anyways. 

[JoMack + 547]

Reading the comments, I believe ethanol uses more energy to produce.  It is also mandated by the government for refineries to include into the mix of crude oil grades.  Isn't it another political decision to subsidize farmers?  Biomass.  I believe wood is shown to be the main component for use of biomass in creating energy, but how much energy does it take to produce it.  Can you capture the CO2 when using wood for energy use.    Solar and wind?   Can solar, and wind be used in place of gasoline in some way?  If large batteries are to be developed to replace gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel how large will the batteries be to move a 737 Max?  How long will it take to charge?  Will weather be a factor?  When do you see the infrastructure for charging stations across the U.S. for cars and trucks?  The biggest question, how will the batteries be charged? 

You have to look at California as a good example of mandating renewals and freezing price increases to PG&E for the electric grid as an example of "The Green New Deal" in motion.  Today, the state is having rolling blackouts.  30% of Caifornia's electricity comes from renewals mandated by state law.  As the state's agencies said "the current situation has thankfully not been worse since California still has some natural gas power plants in operation".   60% of California's electricity is reliable natural gas.  Unfortunately, California has been shutting down it's nuclear power and by 2025 it will have none.  The politicians, environmentalists and publicly traded companies in the energy sector are all pushing to force "The Green New Deal" across the country.  California produces 560,000 of bbls p/d of crude. It uses 1.1 million bbls p/d.   Under the Global Warming Solutions Act, California utilizes a credit-trading scheme so all transport fuels consumed met an average declining standard of carbon intensity.  So, the mix of fuels they use needs to comply with this complicated system which is now becoming unsustainable.  So, one of the largest producers of crude oil is now importing crude from Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Ecuador, Canada and Alaska to meet its fuel consumption.  You have to wonder what California would be like if it had a winter.  

So, it's great to hope we have no emissions by 2050?  But, you have to wonder what the consequences will be.  When an AOC is actually lauded as a great mind in politics, you have to wonder where we're headed.  I mean, 2 years ago she said we'd all be dead in 12 years due to climate change.  So, in 10 years we'll be gone.  So, it makes you think, how can she believe such nonsense but we have a presidential candidate who is putting her in charge of environmental matters.  So, perhaps she's right.  If we go as far left as the Unity Platform suggests (and demands), we may be gone in 10 years, but it won't be because of climate change.  I think California is a petrie dish for the AOC's rise to power and it's a movement will make us weak, both economically, militarily and we'll all suffer by the mandates they'll impose, which will make California look like it's doing super.

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Macquarie Capital and a handful of other development sponsors announced they have successfully closed financing for the C$1.5 billion ($1.2 billion U.S.) Cascade Power Project, a 900-MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating plant near Edson, Alberta.

The new facility (Figure 1), expected to meet more than 8% of the province’s average demand for power, will feature two single-shaft Siemens SCC6-8000H power trains (Figure 2), the developers said in announcing details of the project on August 28. The SCC6-8000H is designed to have a combined-cycle efficiency rating greater than 60%, along with high operational flexibility. Siemens also will provide maintenance support under a long-term service agreement.

https://www.powermag.com/construction-begins-on-new-gas-plant-in-alberta/

Finnish date is 2023. @ronwagn can you break down 900MW to kwh or however solar is sold. TIA

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

22 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

can you break down 900MW to kwh

Huh? 1000KW equals one MW. Buy that power for an hour and you've consumed 1000kwh of electricity. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

I dont see H2 rising like that.  Oil demand may have peaked or near peaked .but Gas demand rising. Ships need to go LNG before H2 . And without homes going to H2 (that to me sounds hella scary in the dangerous way) that's a massive portion of pipelines for nat gas from A-Z so that would keep alot of H2 away. I think your optimistic.  Look how long it took to implement coal , then oil , now renewables,  I mean each has taken YEARS to get the first few easiest % points. My opinion anyways. 

I can't see it going 100% H2. For starters pure H2 has a clear flame. However I can see H2 being blended into the gas supply. In the UK the regulator says the network can take up to 15% by volume H2 (which is about 3% in calorific value) without any modifications

[SUZNV + 1,197]

4 hours ago, JoMack said:

Reading the comments, I believe ethanol uses more energy to produce.  It is also mandated by the government for refineries to include into the mix of crude oil grades.  Isn't it another political decision to subsidize farmers?  Biomass.  I believe wood is shown to be the main component for use of biomass in creating energy, but how much energy does it take to produce it.  Can you capture the CO2 when using wood for energy use.    

My clarifications:

1 Most farmers in developed countries got subsidies to buy votes. 

2 For bio mass, it simplest form simply from organics matter. It can be very roughly perceived as convert sun light to store energy. I don't mean just wood.

Quote

 

Biomass energy is the use of organic material to generate energy. Biomass is just organic matter – think, stuff that’s made in nature – like wood pellets, grass clippings and even dung.

Crops, like sugarcane and corn, can also be used to create biofuels. And because plant matter can be regrown, it’s a renewable source of energy.

 

More cons and pros in https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-sources/bio-fuels.html

3 It can grow fast to cover the ground where we harvest, Even you chop down the wood for biomass and plant new one, the ground would still be cover with grasses or any shady plants.

4  I favor biomass against  lithium battery not against nuclear or oil or coal in efficiency. How many energy would be needed to make the batteries, set it up and dispose or recycle it and make new one and clean up the mess or pay social costs.  What I mean is using biomass to capture the CO2 damage from fuel and coal more than replace it because of the efficiencies, the rest of the energy sources are just the bonus. We can even have garbage as some form of biomass.

5 The purpose of CO2 capture is to reduce the global warming. Plants in the right places do just exactly to cool the earth down, which is our purpose to begin with. Much much less R&D or investment and straight to the point. I hate insects and not a tree huger.

Edited August 28, 2020 by SUZNV

[Rob Kramer + 696]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Huh? 1000KW equals one MW. Buy that power for an hour and you've consumed 1000kwh of electricity. 

So 900x1000= 900,000kw and a google of commercial systems says 250kw is 500k$ so 900,000÷250= 3,600x500,000$= 1.8B$USD ? 1.3 to CAD? 2.34B$

BUT ... does this mean per hour so its 24hr vs 6hr a day of energy.  The solar energy is free but storage is not . So to go 100% solar or nat gas for the entire province is going for 8% to 100. Some math to be added.

12.5x2.34= 29.25B$/6h (117B$/24h) vs 12.5x1.5=18.75B$/24h 

Now theres still cloudy days and storage and fuel costs ect. Is this why California is 4x national average?

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

I can't see it going 100% H2. For starters pure H2 has a clear flame. However I can see H2 being blended into the gas supply. In the UK the regulator says the network can take up to 15% by volume H2 (which is about 3% in calorific value) without any modifications

Why only 3%? Is it normally compressed under higher pressure than natgas?

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

4 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

 

Finnish date is 2023. @ronwagn can you break down 900MW to kwh or however solar is sold. TIA

kwh is a unit of energy - the proper SI unit is Joule. 1kwh = 3600000 Joules. Watt, kilowatt and megawatt are units of power, that means energy tranfer lasting a particular time. That's a completely different unit, your request is like saying "can you break time to velocity?" Energy is of course billed and sold in Joules (kwhs). 

Didn't you people go to school???

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

I dont see H2 rising like that.  Oil demand may have peaked or near peaked .but Gas demand rising. Ships need to go LNG before H2 . And without homes going to H2 (that to me sounds hella scary in the dangerous way) that's a massive portion of pipelines for nat gas from A-Z so that would keep alot of H2 away. I think your optimistic.  Look how long it took to implement coal , then oil , now renewables,  I mean each has taken YEARS to get the first few easiest % points. My opinion anyways. 

Agree that ships will go LNG before H2, and that household use of NG may stay about the same, but it looks like NG for electric power production will cease by 2050:  

https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

My clarifications:

1 Most farmers in developed countries got subsidies to buy votes. 

2 For bio mass, it simplest form simply from organics matter. It can be very roughly perceived as convert sun light to store energy. I don't mean just wood.

More cons and pros in https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-sources/bio-fuels.html

3 It can grow fast to cover the ground where we harvest, Even you chop down the wood for biomass and plant new one, the ground would still be cover with grasses or any shady plants.

4  I favor biomass against  lithium battery not against nuclear or oil or coal in efficiency. How many energy would be needed to make the batteries, set it up and dispose or recycle it and make new one and clean up the mess or pay social costs.  What I mean is using biomass to capture the CO2 damage from fuel and coal more than replace it because of the efficiencies, the rest of the energy sources are just the bonus. We can even have garbage as some form of biomass.

5 The purpose of CO2 capture is to reduce the global warming. Plants in the right places do just exactly to cool the earth down, which is our purpose to begin with. Much much less R&D or investment and straight to the point. I hate insects and not a tree huger.

I agree with all your points. I am a tree hugger, but think that they also make a great crop for energy and wood for construction etc. My 155 year old Burr Oaks cost me thousands to keep pruned. One limb just cost nearly $8,000 damage to my nearly new extra garage. Now I will have to spend $2,000 to trim limbs off of two of my trees. Each limb is as large as an average tree. The two trees closest to my house had to be removed after a huge limb glanced off my house. $5,000 cost there.

Trees near buildings need to be managed and well maintained. They are best treated as expendable except in wilderness areas but even then forest fires often require thinning of brush and excess small trees. Half of California's fire problems are due to mismanagement. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What you speak to has become a highly developed media messaging system. The depth of their entanglement into the US system almost defies imagination.

It is my opinion the Democratic party leadership are mere pawns of some type of global power structure. 

One only has to look to the beginning of the Democratic primary's, infighting and misdirection. A fight for direction and unity. That became to embarrassing, until Bloomberg stepped in and cleared the deck. There is the true party leadership. 

From that point on the media took the ball in a unified message which vilified Trump from every angle possible. Actually the vilification began with the blue wave...and Bloomberg financed that wave thru dark money. All the roads led to failure aside from the messenging portrayed by the press..

As of now Bloomberg has over 600 million invested into the Democratic party in two short yrs. Now I ask anyone how does one man dump that much capital into one party in such a short time and go untouched..How does that go under any radar.

One only has to look how deeply entrenched Bloomberg is envoled with China...it is amazing to see.

 

Please provide the source for your information. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Agree that ships will go LNG before H2, and that household use of NG may stay about the same, but it looks like NG for electric power production will cease by 2050:  

https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

Maybe in developed countries but not likely in many areas of the world IMHO. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Maybe in developed countries but not likely in many areas of the world IMHO. 

You are probably correct about that Ron, many EM's will continue to rely heavily on Coal and Nuclear, the 2 most expensive options.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

10 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

kwh is a unit of energy - the proper SI unit is Joule. 1kwh = 3600000 Joules. Watt, kilowatt and megawatt are units of power, that means energy tranfer lasting a particular time. That's a completely different unit, your request is like saying "can you break time to velocity?" Energy is of course billed and sold in Joules (kwhs). 

Didn't you people go to school???

You mock people about intelligence without adding to the equation.  If you want to be helpful prove that the math is wrong or correct.  Also if you noticed I asked for the conversion to how solar systems are sold and referenced in the math per hour. So I don't  know what your mocking. Hope you feel superior now.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I agree about nuclear being expensive but am surprised you think coal is expensive. There are many ways of using it through chemical processes also. It is inherently dirty though. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Please provide the source for your information. 

It's out there for all to see, merely Google Bloomberg financed the blue wave. Google Bloomberg spends 500 million on PRESIDENTAL bid. 

Google Bloomberg financial ties with China

One may notice Bloomberg does not have any issues with IP, or assets being nationalized by China.

On the coast right now enjoying the air, no computer's allowed. Fourtantley cell phones are not under quarantine..have you ever tried to cut and paste with a phone? 

Asking for a friend.

Oops a tidbit here..Bloomberg spent 90 days in his bid for nomination...The numbers are evolving...it is now 1 billion.

His message defeat Trump...

There are many ways around campaign contributions regulation ..just running your own is quite liberating..

Edited August 29, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open