Interconnection queues across the US are loaded with gigawatts of solar, wind and storage

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 9/9/2020 at 9:01 AM, Ward Smith said:

It's virtually impossible for a new coal plant to get EPA approval. I'm not aware of a single new coal plant getting built since the Obama administration. I am aware of a previously approved coal plant in Nevada that had to switch to natural gas at the 11th hour because Obama wasn't kidding when he said "we'll kill coal" in that San Francisco interview. There's enough holdovers from Obama still in the deep state bowels of government to keep it that way. 

Natural gas is killing coal. "Politics" and "greenies" and even "EPA" have basically nothing to do with it, except to give various factions something to yell at each other about. At current and projected NG and coal prices, a new coal plant makes no sense. At worst, EPA regulations may affect the decision to close an old coal plant early, but even there, it's almost always just a talking point to deflect anger away from the plant operator who is really closing the plant because it's more expensive to run than the NG plants.

I'm a greenie and I like wind and solar, but even if no wind or solar existed, NG would still be killing coal this year, on cost alone. Not pollution, not global warming concerns, not renewables, just plain economics.

Interestingly, the rock-bottom price of NG is driven by associated gas from fracked oil wells. Yes, there is other massive NG production, but it's the "free" associated gas that caps the price. So, oil is killing coal.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oregon seems to like fire, so let's see how they like it when their WEED starts to go up in flames with the rest of the forest.  I'll admit that would be a waste, but the people have to make a decision: Do they want government services (Police, Fire, Electric, etc.) or do they want their weed cash crops?  It is my feeling that the only reason for the riots against the Federal Government was that they want the DEA out of their grow patches.

Actually Portland is a state of its own, all policies/laws/ political leadership is enacted or elected on Portland's vote. One city vote dominates the entire state.

Portland would be a glaring example for the existence of the electoral college..

This fire will illuminate state's government disregarded for forest mgmgt.. environmentalists will face quite a brunt of criticism...make no mistakes.

The irony here the fire is burning down hundreds of of the old liberal's home's..big parts of that area are multi million dollar spreads..

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Natural gas is killing coal. "Politics" and "greenies" and even "EPA" have basically nothing to do with it, except to give various factions something to yell at each other about. At current and projected NG and coal prices, a new coal plant makes no sense. At worst, EPA regulations may affect the decision to close an old coal plant early, but even there, it's almost always just a talking point to deflect anger away from the plant operator who is really closing the plant because it's more expensive to run than the NG plants.

I'm a greenie and I like wind and solar, but even if no wind or solar existed, NG would still be killing coal this year, on cost alone. Not pollution, not global warming concerns, not renewables, just plain economics.

Interestingly, the rock-bottom price of NG is driven by associated gas from fracked oil wells. Yes, there is other massive NG production, but it's the "free" associated gas that caps the price. So, oil is killing coal.

The bolded part is the key. If it weren't for that "free" gas from LTO, the price at Henry Hub would be double what it is. But wait, the fracking Industry is dying as we speak. What's going to happen to the free gas? My friend was involved in that plant that was planned for coal but had to switch to natural gas. Back in 08-09 the "free" gas had not materialized and since they were intelligent businessmen they were concerned about prices at present (then) and well into the future. It is easy to price coal, it is non volatile, not so with gas or oil. In fact their spreadsheets showed gas prices from $2.50 to $12.50 just on historical levels. In addition, a CCPP is designed to last decades so you need to budget decades into the future for your fuel supply. Cheap gas today by no means guarantees cheap gas tomorrow. Quite the opposite in fact. In the same way that the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices, low gas prices guarantee high gas prices to come, as these wells deplete and aren't replaced (due to low prices). When that time comes, the stinky brown stuff will be hitting the fast spinning blades big time. Better hope global warming kicks in before the old folks like you freeze in their homes because they can't afford gas or the electricity that was produced from gas. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The bolded part is the key. If it weren't for that "free" gas from LTO, the price at Henry Hub would be double what it is. But wait, the fracking Industry is dying as we speak. What's going to happen to the free gas? My friend was involved in that plant that was planned for coal but had to switch to natural gas. Back in 08-09 the "free" gas had not materialized and since they were intelligent businessmen they were concerned about prices at present (then) and well into the future. It is easy to price coal, it is non volatile, not so with gas or oil. In fact their spreadsheets showed gas prices from $2.50 to $12.50 just on historical levels. In addition, a CCPP is designed to last decades so you need to budget decades into the future for your fuel supply. Cheap gas today by no means guarantees cheap gas tomorrow. Quite the opposite in fact. In the same way that the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices, low gas prices guarantee high gas prices to come, as these wells deplete and aren't replaced (due to low prices). When that time comes, the stinky brown stuff will be hitting the fast spinning blades big time. Better hope global warming kicks in before the old folks like you freeze in their homes because they can't afford gas or the electricity that was produced from gas. 

It's true that LTO is the current NG price cap, and it's true that LTO production is subject to the whims of OPEC while coal is not. However, lots of things have changed for NG, and NG is not subject to OPEC or any equivalent. This means that (IMO) NG prices will never exceed $4.00/MMbtu again. So yes, some coal vs. NG decisions may have been "forced" to NG in the past, today's economic environment is very different. The US went from LNG importer to LNG exporter. While that was strongly affected by LTO gas, I don't think that was the only reason, was it? There are no rigs drilling in the Marcellus right now primarily due to competing LTO gas, but that can change very quickly.

In the mean time, anyone projecting decades into the future must consider the effects of wind, solar, and battery storage. The costs for all three are falling dramatically. A gas CCGT can be built today and will continue to have a useful life even it is eventually run only as a peaker. A coal plant is a lot less happy if it cannot run closer to full power.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

It's true that LTO is the current NG price cap, and it's true that LTO production is subject to the whims of OPEC while coal is not. However, lots of things have changed for NG, and NG is not subject to OPEC or any equivalent. This means that (IMO) NG prices will never exceed $4.00/MMbtu again. So yes, some coal vs. NG decisions may have been "forced" to NG in the past, today's economic environment is very different. The US went from LNG importer to LNG exporter. While that was strongly affected by LTO gas, I don't think that was the only reason, was it? There are no rigs drilling in the Marcellus right now primarily due to competing LTO gas, but that can change very quickly.

In the mean time, anyone projecting decades into the future must consider the effects of wind, solar, and battery storage. The costs for all three are falling dramatically. A gas CCGT can be built today and will continue to have a useful life even it is eventually run only as a peaker. A coal plant is a lot less happy if it cannot run closer to full power.

Two things to consider

Break-even isn't where you think it is

and past is prelude

[Boat + 1,323]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

I doubt that nuclear in Texas would disappear, just coal. My understanding is that California will need to import vast quantities of zero-emissions power from Texas so nuclear should be fine. Just read this article on Nuclear in China:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Set-To-Debut-Next-Gen-Nuclear-Power-Plant.html

The more nuclear they build, the less LNG they will need from Texas and everywhere else. I can see the global energy glut going from extreme to catastrophic. Coal is about to die rapidly IMHO. So far, everyone seems to think that coal will be replaced by renewables plus NG, but I see a renaissance in nuclear. Indeed, several countries seem to have chosen renewables plus nuclear as opposed to renewables plus NG. Each country to it's own of course, but I don't see where the demand is for all the LNG capacity being built around the planet.

There is now new nuclear tech that will be tried. If it is safe, price competitive and more distributive I think it will regain popularity. These new versions are just that and need to be proven.

[Boat + 1,323]

Speaking of new tech COVID-19 will change how we think of air contamination. New homes will have vastly different AC filter systems. Intake vents and exit will be designed to create safer air flows. This will blow Trump supporters brains but as usual commen sense will rein in the end. 
Just like homes should be forced to become energy efficient, homes should be forced to have clean air. We need a constitutional amendment. We don’t need a Trump.

[Boat + 1,323]

6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Have a Google

California Green Energy Failing 

At the same time the US west coast is burning. Instead of maintaining the forests and transmission lines state leadership has been focused and spending on Green Energy.

Enough has been destroyed in OREGON there will be a serious snap back to reality.

You can call the fires a failure or as us greenies have been saying, you ain’t seen nothing yet. For decades to come climate disruption is projected to get much worse. 
The constitution allows red necks to ignore reality. There really ought to be a law about that. 🤣

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Actually Portland is a state of its own, all policies/laws/ political leadership is enacted or elected on Portland's vote. One city vote dominates the entire state.

Portland would be a glaring example for the existence of the electoral college..

This fire will illuminate state's government disregarded for forest mgmgt.. environmentalists will face quite a brunt of criticism...make no mistakes.

The irony here the fire is burning down hundreds of of the old liberal's home's..big parts of that area are multi million dollar spreads..

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees. 

State of Oregon has nearly ZERO acres under control where the fires are burning .  This is a FEDERAL issue.  Same goes for the fires in California and Washington.  All federal lands.  While the states in question do have some lands under THEIR jurisdiction they are far superior lands near the coast where there is far more water.  Most of the lands under question 1) had vast fire suppression tactics used for last 70 years and then 2) a gigantic beetle infestation which has killed off nearly every tree not growing in a well watered river valley EAST of the Cascade Mountains Crest and even up to the Crest.  3) Forest service DID NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO CUT these beetle infested trees.  For instance I have gone hiking my entire life and everywhere we go hiking all the trees are dead and half of them have been burned off.  Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchee. So, from my perspective we have another ~5-->10 years of all these medium fires as old fire lines have been breaking up the beetle infestation, and then the fires will "disappear" for a couple decades.  You will note Idaho is not burning... why?  It completely burned itself off a decade ago with Millions of acres burned(all FEDERAL land).  They just let it burn other than a few select areas.  Now they are having an Elk explosion... Same goes for Eastern eastern Oregon...

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees.  Why?  "nature"

PS: All these federal lands should have been handed over to the states in question 100 years ago.  Then you could have blamed  them for THEIR abysmal policies....

PPS: @Boat Thanks for spewing your ignorance regarding western states situation.  So enlightening when in fact it is ignorant city slicker utopian dumb asses who are 100% directly responsible for these moronic fire fighting policies in Washington DC and NOT rednecks who want to selectively log as the SCIENCE tells us to do.  Note all Private land is selectively logged and Is NOT crown burning East of the Cascades... Why?  They selectively log and brush burn... << Shock >> doing that which is rational...

Edited September 12, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

25 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees. 

State of Oregon has nearly ZERO acres under control where the fires are burning .  This is a FEDERAL issue.  Same goes for the fires in California and Washington.  All federal lands.  While the states in question do have some lands under THEIR jurisdiction they are far superior lands near the coast where there is far more water.  Most of the lands under question 1) had vast fire suppression tactics used for last 70 years and then 2) a gigantic beetle infestation which has killed off nearly every tree not growing in a well watered river valley EAST of the Cascade Mountains Crest and even up to the Crest.  3) Forest service DID NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO CUT these beetle infested trees.  For instance I have gone hiking my entire life and everywhere we go hiking all the trees are dead and half of them have been burned off.  Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchee. So, from my perspective we have another ~5-->10 years of all these medium fires as old fire lines have been breaking up the beetle infestation, and then the fires will "disappear" for a couple decades.  You will note Idaho is not burning... why?  It completely burned itself off a decade ago with Millions of acres burned(all FEDERAL land).  They just let it burn other than a few select areas.  Now they are having an Elk explosion... Same goes for Eastern eastern Oregon...

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees.  Why?  "nature"

PS: All these federal lands should have been handed over to the states in question 100 years ago.  Then you could have blamed  them for THEIR abysmal policies....

PPS: @Boat Thanks for spewing your ignorance regarding western states situation.  So enlightening when in fact it is ignorant city slicker utopian dumb asses who are 100% directly responsible for these moronic fire fighting policies in Washington DC and NOT rednecks who want to selectively log as the SCIENCE tells us to do.  Note all Private land is selectively logged and Is NOT crown burning East of the Cascades... Why?  They selectively log and brush burn... << Shock >> doing that which is rational...

There is foundation to what you are pointing out..actually it is accurate on the surface.

Governors and local government can interced if they so choose. Oddly enough Evergreen Aviation once made its home in OREGON. Evergreen Aviation is also the mfg of the world's most effective forest fire machine. It is called the Super Tanker, a 747 fitted to fight forest fires. It has the ability to lay down in one pass a fire retardent feild 100yds wide by 3 miles long. It virtually ends forest fires in hours.

It is not allowed in OREGON, thee environmental powers here will not tolerate its use. As to logging the state has lost a major lawsuit in there efforts to curtail such activity.  Since that time it's been a hush hush topic trying to curtail the damage/exposure done to the environmental community.

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

32 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

There is foundation to what you are pointing out..actually it is accurate on the surface.

It is not allowed in OREGON, thee environmental powers here will not tolerate its use. As to logging the state has lost a major lawsuit in there efforts to curtail such activity.  Since that time it's been a hush hush topic trying to curtail the damage/exposure done to the environmental community.

Thank you for proving you know nothing about Oregon geography... 👍

That lawsuit was for BURNED trees on OREGON STATE land and normal harvest practice on STATE Forest land, not federal... of course now it is ~5 years after the fact and all those big 3-->5ft DBH 150ft--> 200ft tall trees are not allowed in the mills.  Here is a brief precise...

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/11/state-loses-1-billion-timber-lawsuit-to-rural-counties.html

This lawsuit also covered normal harvesting as well.  ALL STATE lands in SouthWEST Oregon and coast mountains.  All the Cascades are either private land, or federal land.  You know... Where the VAST MAJORITY of the DAMNED FIRES ARE and where the BEETLE INFESTATION is.  Asian boring beetle does not like it where it is WET and why western cascades/coast mountains do NOT have Asian boring Beetle problems...

As for the 747... 🤣  That orange stuff does zilch for a crown fire.  And giant planes like that are not allowed in the mountains other than VERY high up or straight down/up valley/ridge which means 1) they miss and 2) are very limited in effect as they are NOT maneuverable enough and 3) it does not put the fire out.  It retards the fire.  So you only drop if winds are low enough.  Why?  Forest Service has learned the hard way after tanker after tanker has crashed...

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees. 

State of Oregon has nearly ZERO acres under control where the fires are burning .  This is a FEDERAL issue.  Same goes for the fires in California and Washington.  All federal lands.  While the states in question do have some lands under THEIR jurisdiction they are far superior lands near the coast where there is far more water.  Most of the lands under question 1) had vast fire suppression tactics used for last 70 years and then 2) a gigantic beetle infestation which has killed off nearly every tree not growing in a well watered river valley EAST of the Cascade Mountains Crest and even up to the Crest.  3) Forest service DID NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO CUT these beetle infested trees.  For instance I have gone hiking my entire life and everywhere we go hiking all the trees are dead and half of them have been burned off.  Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchee. So, from my perspective we have another ~5-->10 years of all these medium fires as old fire lines have been breaking up the beetle infestation, and then the fires will "disappear" for a couple decades.  You will note Idaho is not burning... why?  It completely burned itself off a decade ago with Millions of acres burned(all FEDERAL land).  They just let it burn other than a few select areas.  Now they are having an Elk explosion... Same goes for Eastern eastern Oregon...

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees.  Why?  "nature"

PS: All these federal lands should have been handed over to the states in question 100 years ago.  Then you could have blamed  them for THEIR abysmal policies....

PPS: @Boat Thanks for spewing your ignorance regarding western states situation.  So enlightening when in fact it is ignorant city slicker utopian dumb asses who are 100% directly responsible for these moronic fire fighting policies in Washington DC and NOT rednecks who want to selectively log as the SCIENCE tells us to do.  Note all Private land is selectively logged and Is NOT crown burning East of the Cascades... Why?  They selectively log and brush burn... << Shock >> doing that which is rational...

Boat likes to share his ignorance daily. Meanwhile this is a good graphic that those in the East can't comprehend. 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Thank you for proving you know nothing about Oregon geography... 👍

That lawsuit was for BURNED trees on OREGON STATE land and normal harvest practice on STATE Forest land, not federal... of course now it is ~5 years after the fact and all those big 3-->5ft DBH 150ft--> 200ft tall trees are not allowed in the mills.  Here is a brief precise...

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/11/state-loses-1-billion-timber-lawsuit-to-rural-counties.html

This lawsuit also covered normal harvesting as well.  ALL STATE lands in SouthWEST Oregon and coast mountains.  All the Cascades are either private land, or federal land.  You know... Where the VAST MAJORITY of the DAMNED FIRES ARE and where the BEETLE INFESTATION is.  Asian boring beetle does not like it where it is WET and why western cascades/coast mountains do NOT have Asian boring Beetle problems...

As for the 747... 🤣  That orange stuff does zilch for a crown fire.  And giant planes like that are not allowed in the mountains other than VERY high up or straight down/up valley/ridge which means 1) they miss and 2) are very limited in effect as they are NOT maneuverable enough and 3) it does not put the fire out.  It retards the fire.  So you only drop if winds are low enough.  Why?  Forest Service has learned the hard way after tanker after tanker has crashed...

Ohh lol yes I am familiar with the pine beetle, are you familiar with the evergreens tanker? Google San Bernardino crown fire. 

Oregon and yes the US department of forestry both resist forest maintenance. 

Actually I'm on a outing right now...cut and pasting from a cell phone is something I have no desire to learn. 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Boat said:

You can call the fires a failure or as us greenies have been saying, you ain’t seen nothing yet. For decades to come climate disruption is projected to get much worse. 
The constitution allows red necks to ignore reality. There really ought to be a law about that. 🤣

I don't think your "rednecks" are anywhere near the disasters that are Cali and Oregon, or Washington.  Don't you really mean just anyone that questions your implementation, or your "facts" for that matter?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Boat said:

Speaking of new tech COVID-19 will change how we think of air contamination. New homes will have vastly different AC filter systems. Intake vents and exit will be designed to create safer air flows. This will blow Trump supporters brains but as usual commen sense will rein in the end. 
Just like homes should be forced to become energy efficient, homes should be forced to have clean air. We need a constitutional amendment. We don’t need a Trump.

So, now Covid is coming into our houses by the ventilation system?  Hmm, hadn't heard of that development.  Or maybe you need to clarify your thoughts a bit?  And by "vastly different", what exactly do you mean?  HEPA filters?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees. 

State of Oregon has nearly ZERO acres under control where the fires are burning .  This is a FEDERAL issue.  Same goes for the fires in California and Washington.  All federal lands.  While the states in question do have some lands under THEIR jurisdiction they are far superior lands near the coast where there is far more water.  Most of the lands under question 1) had vast fire suppression tactics used for last 70 years and then 2) a gigantic beetle infestation which has killed off nearly every tree not growing in a well watered river valley EAST of the Cascade Mountains Crest and even up to the Crest.  3) Forest service DID NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO CUT these beetle infested trees.  For instance I have gone hiking my entire life and everywhere we go hiking all the trees are dead and half of them have been burned off.  Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchee. So, from my perspective we have another ~5-->10 years of all these medium fires as old fire lines have been breaking up the beetle infestation, and then the fires will "disappear" for a couple decades.  You will note Idaho is not burning... why?  It completely burned itself off a decade ago with Millions of acres burned(all FEDERAL land).  They just let it burn other than a few select areas.  Now they are having an Elk explosion... Same goes for Eastern eastern Oregon...

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees.  Why?  "nature"

PS: All these federal lands should have been handed over to the states in question 100 years ago.  Then you could have blamed  them for THEIR abysmal policies....

PPS: @Boat Thanks for spewing your ignorance regarding western states situation.  So enlightening when in fact it is ignorant city slicker utopian dumb asses who are 100% directly responsible for these moronic fire fighting policies in Washington DC and NOT rednecks who want to selectively log as the SCIENCE tells us to do.  Note all Private land is selectively logged and Is NOT crown burning East of the Cascades... Why?  They selectively log and brush burn... << Shock >> doing that which is rational...

Great information @footeab@yahoo.com.  That's the first I have ever heard or read along those lines.  I'm surprised the Biden campaign has not picked up on it and blamed it on Trump.  It would be par for the course in this ping-pong match between the Feds and the States.

Your post will lead me to more reading/research on these new (for me) facts, and that is a good thing.  This would seem to be a great story for the media to report.  Why don't they?

Thanks for sharing.  Much appreciated.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

There is foundation to what you are pointing out..actually it is accurate on the surface.

Governors and local government can interced if they so choose. Oddly enough Evergreen Aviation once made its home in OREGON. Evergreen Aviation is also the mfg of the world's most effective forest fire machine. It is called the Super Tanker, a 747 fitted to fight forest fires. It has the ability to lay down in one pass a fire retardent feild 100yds wide by 3 miles long. It virtually ends forest fires in hours.

It is not allowed in OREGON, thee environmental powers here will not tolerate its use. As to logging the state has lost a major lawsuit in there efforts to curtail such activity.  Since that time it's been a hush hush topic trying to curtail the damage/exposure done to the environmental community.

 

 

Evergreen went out of business and liquidated in 2013.  They operated a 747 Supertanker (based on the 747-200 model) from 2009 until then.  It is not in service anymore.  Global Supertanker Services acquired a lot of Evergreen's assets, but this aircraft reportedly never fought a fire again after 2013.

The Sprayer and tank systems were put into the new Global Supertanker, developed by Global Supertanker Services (747-400 model).  It was certified by the FAA in 2016.  It was used on California fires starting in 2017.

Popular Mechanics did a good article, with video, back in 2016:

What It Feels Like to Fly a Firefighting 747

I have never heard of the effectiveness of this aircraft and its systems called into question, and as far as I know its capabilities are still effective in laying down fire retardant at low altitudes.  It can effectively fly at less that 1,000 feet elevation (~500-900 ft.).  Anyone can lease the aircraft (well, almost anyone), with crew, including state and federal governments.  It is probably not a good idea to say that it ends forest fires in hours.

Also, according to the Global Supertanker website, it IS being used on the current California fires.  They even have some dramatic videos of it in operation there on the website.  Here is one of them:

Here is a good article with a lot of good information about the aircraft's current operations from a news station in Colorado.  Colorado citizens wanted to know why the State was not using it there at this time.  They in fact did want to use it again themselves only to find that the Feds have contracted it for the foreseeable future for use over California.

DFPC explains why the Global SuperTanker is not being used to fight wildfires in Colorado

[Wombat + 1,028]

14 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Natural gas is killing coal. "Politics" and "greenies" and even "EPA" have basically nothing to do with it, except to give various factions something to yell at each other about. At current and projected NG and coal prices, a new coal plant makes no sense. At worst, EPA regulations may affect the decision to close an old coal plant early, but even there, it's almost always just a talking point to deflect anger away from the plant operator who is really closing the plant because it's more expensive to run than the NG plants.

I'm a greenie and I like wind and solar, but even if no wind or solar existed, NG would still be killing coal this year, on cost alone. Not pollution, not global warming concerns, not renewables, just plain economics.

Interestingly, the rock-bottom price of NG is driven by associated gas from fracked oil wells. Yes, there is other massive NG production, but it's the "free" associated gas that caps the price. So, oil is killing coal.

So much free gas that most is flared:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/BP-And-Shell-Take-A-Stand-Against-Gas-Flaring-In-Texas.html

This is what really upsets a "greenie" like me. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

7 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Google San Bernardino crown fire.

 

🤣  That is ironic... San Bernadino does not have trees, so can't have a crown fire... Has brush...  To hit trees in SB National Forest you have to be over 8000ft(only a couple peaks and Big Bear itself which is not burning).  Been there, hiked it.  Below this line is nothing but chaparral brush or outright desert. 

PS: Video linked by Dan shows exactly what I mean in how limiting the 747 is.  Can fly excellently in wide open spaces.  Mountains?  No.  Even smaller aircraft cannot truly be used in mountains, and why proscribed brush fires need to be started and control burned, but smaller aircraft can get in tighter spots. 

Here is a link to current fires: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=df8bcc10430f48878b01c96e907a1fc3#!

Note that all of them are either local grass/brush fires which local authorities have let get out of hand or the majority are in National Forest lands. 

Sorry, my link for all historical fires map, the link is not currently working.  Will look into it.  Hopefully I will be able to update this post for you guys.

EDIT TIME:   https://mappingsupport.com/p2/gissurfer.php?center=45.120895,-122.958984&zoom=6&basemap=USA_basemap&overlay=State_boundary,Red_flag_warning,ESRI_roads_and_labels&txtfile=https://mappingsupport.com/p2/special_maps/disaster/USA_wildland_fire.txt

Click on USA Basemep and under overlays: historical fires.  Note how Idaho is completely burned off along with Northern Washington?  Note Southern Washington is NOT burned other than around Mt. Adams which is a wilderness area?  Why?  Not federal lands.  Yakima Indian Reservation lands where they are not IDIOTS and have selectively logged 😍

Note Northern Eastern Cascades in Oregon?  Warm SPring Indian Reservation.  Not one burned acre?  Why, they selectively logged... 😍

Note the rest of Oregon... National forest lands down the cascades... burning.  Now the giant fires WEST of I-5 in Southern Oregon?  Those were the fires with the large trees and the lawsuit where OREGON MORONIC forestry department just let it burn.  True, it started(I believe) in SIskyou national forest(Federal), but still... Same goes for Northern CA... Though be careful lots of National Forest on that side of the OR-CA Border which is not true on the Oregon side. 

Ooops Edit #2: I believe the map link above shows everything that has burned in last 20 years, but do not quote me on that.  I base that on a noteable Yellowstone fire burn area is missing in Wyoming where entire park burned down, or nearly entire park.  So for sure less than 30 years...

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

46 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Note that all of them are either local grass/brush fires which local authorities have let get out of hand or the majority are in National Forest lands. 

What department in the Federal Government is responsible for the issues of which you speak?

You seem to make a pretty solid case for both your knowledge and the historical management of these forests.

As for the aircraft type that would be best utilized, it would absolutely depend on terrain and types of fires.  If I'm not mistaken, besides all the helicopters, there is a pretty large fleet of aircraft available (50+) and they are of many types and sizes, and their payload capabilities will of course also vary.  In any case, for huge fires spanning the size of some of the ones that are burning out there, any of the aircraft can only make sort of surgical strikes to delay the spread while the ground forces take action to get them under control and finally extinguished.  That along with Mother Nature being in a favorable mood, because if she ain't willing the fires will be stoked and a-raging!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

So much free gas that most is flared:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/BP-And-Shell-Take-A-Stand-Against-Gas-Flaring-In-Texas.html

This is what really upsets a "greenie" like me. 

You don't even have to be a "greenie" to be upset that gas is being wasted like that. 

Interestingly, they could drive small turbines and produce electricity. Oddly, it's easier to get permission from agencies to flare than it is to get approval to make power and sell it on the grid. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

What department in the Federal Government is responsible for the issues of which you speak?

You seem to make a pretty solid case for both your knowledge and the historical management of these forests.

As for the aircraft type that would be best utilized, it would absolutely depend on terrain and types of fires.  If I'm not mistaken, besides all the helicopters, there is a pretty large fleet of aircraft available (50+) and they are of many types and sizes, and their payload capabilities will of course also vary.  In any case, for huge fires spanning the size of some of the ones that are burning out there, any of the aircraft can only make sort of surgical strikes to delay the spread while the ground forces take action to get them under control and finally extinguished.  That along with Mother Nature being in a favorable mood, because if she ain't willing the fires will be stoked and a-raging!

I've posted extensively about this on a different site. The Forest Service under Clinton began the idiocy, which hasn't ended. Trump has given orders, which have been ignored or tied up in lawsuits for opening timber sales. Fundamentally it is all under DNR Department of Natural Resources. All the old timers are long gone, replaced by Birkenstock wearing hippies who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground and would be permanently lost if you dropped them one mile deep in the woods they supposedly govern. 

Furthermore, and this is the truly Criminal part, Clinton ordered the destruction of millions of miles of Forest Service roads. You can't send a man out with a polaski and expect him to do much. In the old days they'd drive into the fire area with D9 Caterpillars, cut a fire line and be home for dinner, problem solved. But now? No roads to get in, because "biodiversity" and "habitat protection" meant those D9's were used to mangle and destroy those roads. 

To show the utter lunacy which is the Forrest Gump Service, a friend of mine had spent three years getting permits to build a road into his patented gold claim. Part of the permit was an obligation to destroy said road when he shut down for winter every year. One year he'd only bulldozed a big berm at the entrance and the equipment broke down. Before it got fixed and he was able to finish, there was a lightning strike fire beyond his land and they came in on his road to put out the fire, then they fined him because there was a road there! You can't make this shite up. Dysfunctional doesn't begin to describe them. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Evergreen went out of business and liquidated in 2013.  They operated a 747 Supertanker (based on the 747-200 model) from 2009 until then.  It is not in service anymore.  Global Supertanker Services acquired a lot of Evergreen's assets, but this aircraft reportedly never fought a fire again after 2013.

The Sprayer and tank systems were put into the new Global Supertanker, developed by Global Supertanker Services (747-400 model).  It was certified by the FAA in 2016.  It was used on California fires starting in 2017.

Popular Mechanics did a good article, with video, back in 2016:

What It Feels Like to Fly a Firefighting 747

I have never heard of the effectiveness of this aircraft and its systems called into question, and as far as I know its capabilities are still effective in laying down fire retardant at low altitudes.  It can effectively fly at less that 1,000 feet elevation (~500-900 ft.).  Anyone can lease the aircraft (well, almost anyone), with crew, including state and federal governments.  It is probably not a good idea to say that it ends forest fires in hours.

Also, according to the Global Supertanker website, it IS being used on the current California fires.  They even have some dramatic videos of it in operation there on the website.  Here is one of them:

Here is a good article with a lot of good information about the aircraft's current operations from a news station in Colorado.  Colorado citizens wanted to know why the State was not using it there at this time.  They in fact did want to use it again themselves only to find that the Feds have contracted it for the foreseeable future for use over California.

DFPC explains why the Global SuperTanker is not being used to fight wildfires in Colorado

Yes I am quite familiar with Evergreen history and its at odds relationship with Oregon's/US environmental/government institutions. 

The saga is over 15 yrs in the making.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

32 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I've posted extensively about this on a different site. The Forest Service under Clinton began the idiocy, which hasn't ended.

Started much earlier. Massive fire suppression for many decades, so ANYONE was going to get bit in the ass with gargantuan fires.  Blaming anyone is frankly irresponsible if you asked me other than arrogantly trying to suppress all fire for decades.  Those responsible for said policies are all dead so... whistling in the dark here... 

Now add that fire is natural in these areas and we KNOW from science and historical fact that all these areas burned off regularly.  So, trying to 100% suppress that which naturally occurs is... how shall we put this... arrogance squared...

Now the FS response to just LET the fires rage out of control was beyond stupid for the last 2 decades. 

What we need are massive numbers of selective logging, controlled burns set right before the rainy season.  By the way this is how loggers used to do it.  Until the gargantuan fires in Oregon which wiped out million acres of prime giant old growth forest and the massive fires in Idaho.  After this happened in the 30's ALL fire was suppressed, so...

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

17 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Two things to consider

Break-even isn't where you think it is

and past is prelude

[chart removed]

That's an excellent article from 2016. Thanks. To summarize (crudely), coal-to-gas switchover is compelling below $2.50/MMBtu and remains (barely) advantageous up to a crossover at $4.00/MMBtu, subject to large local variations. Today's price is $2.26 and it's not been above $2.75 in over a year. I picked my uneducated prognostication that NG will never be above $4.00 again before we started this discussion. I intended it as an upper bound for long-term economic planning for a new replacement plant cost. (The chart used a different cost measure ($ per 1000 BCF) and I'm too lazy to convert, so I used the HH charts on the OilPrice main page.)