Recommended Posts

On 3/13/2021 at 1:35 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry, but Texas demonstrably does NOT have usable gas that can be delivered to the gas-fired generators. If Texas had the capacity to use that gas, the gas would have been processed and transported to Louisiana to be converted to LNG to sell to Europe at a tidy profit. If Texas could process and transport that gas to its own generators at a low enough price, the generators would out-compete wind and solar in Texas' electricity market.

No, Texas should not "support this unreliable resource" with idle gas-fired generators. Texas should support its electricity consumers by providing reliable gas-fired generators, and should support those generators by providing a reliable supply of processed NG. It failed to do either of these things.  Using today's technology, Texas needs that gas and those generators approximately once per decade to provide reliable electricity, whether or not some or all of them are sitting idle the rest of the time. You already pay for them to sit idle in the spring and fall when the demand goes down. The problem is that Texas' market structure does not have a way to pay for what Texas needs. The solution is to make appropriate changes to the market structure.

Consider an alternate reality in which no wind turbans (or solar) had ever been installed in Texas, but the ERCOT price market was in place. There is no reason to believe that during this weather event there would not have been the same catastrophic freeze-off, or that the gas-fired generators would have been winterized. The competitive price market would have exerted the same pressure to avoid "unnecessary" expenses like winterization and reserve capacity.

Yes Dan, as I was saying, a market failure. Glad you all starting to catch on!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look over the various posts that have been thoughtfully written, several key phrases jump out: winterize, market failure, variable energy source, energy-insecurity, free market system. 

There is no shortage of cheap natural gas in Texas. They're flaring millions of dollars worth each day. There are pipelines galore. The producers are mostly smart people with a can-do attitude. There are currently 250,000 active wells in Texas, with over 100,000 in the Permian. Of all that gas, only 0.06% of the annual production is (historically) affected by freeze-offs. It costs over $100,000/well to winterize. Multiply the wells in the Permian alone by that # and you come up with $10B. These wells undergo parabolic depletion: by the end of the 1st year of operation they are 50% done. The last 5 years brought breakeven prices. And then came the pandemic, the glut. Of the wells I have an interest in, fully one-half of the operators went bankrupt last year. Winterize them all, you say?

Immediately after the Great Recession, the United States shale basins provided the only bright light in the economy. Nobody was too worried then about global climate change, they were worried about feeding their families and how to avoid selling apples on the street corner. Rick Perry actually made a victory lap in California, talking up Texas, the oil and gas industry, emphasizing no state income taxes, a growing economy and an affordable life style. It worked: during the last decade the Texas population grew by 4M, almost a million of them Californians. They came from the midwest and the northeast and from California and, despite what Gov. Abbott told Tucker Carlson on Fox News, they brought their politics with them. In current era, Texas is turning blue. Blue means renewables . . . no matter the cost. Wind! 

The federal government incentivized wind like it was the gospel according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Governor Perry loved it. The wind farm operators certainly loved it. The Permian was going so well that no one worried too much about it. Freeze-off, Sneeze-off. 

The Texas grid is not exactly a free-market system. ERCOT is a state governmental planning agency with a highly regulated nexus to electricity generators. ERCOT answers to another state governmental agency: PUCT (Public Utility Commission of Texas). The commissioners are all appointed by the governor of the state. If you run ERCOT and you like your job it would be best to hew to the party line. During Mr. Perry's long tenure as governor, wind energy went from slightly above nothing to 10%, and under Governor Abbott it has gone to over 20%. While there is the age-old Texas Railroad Commission to oversee oil and gas, as far as I know there is no wind commission, but i guess if a commission initially set up to oversee the railroad could morph into an oil and gas overseer, surely somebody could handle wind. No? Well. there you have it: the grid is free-market on the working end, but bureaucratic on the rule-making end. That means dysfunction. Clearly, these stodgy old-boy meetings at the Petroleum Club have failed. 

To look for a fix, why not go to the very people who overloaded the grid: the newcomers. Because of all the hoopla described above, no small number of them came to Texas with an interest in energy. Lately that has included Elon Musk, Larry Ellison (the second-largest holder of Tesla shares) and a litany of other Silicon Valley feeder companies. Mr. Musk is building a battery. That will help store energy from variable sources, but it won't do the heavy lifting. As Dan Clemmensen has pointed out, California has had to resort to storage of natural gas for quite some time. Since stored nat. gas made it through the Texas storm very well, it would seem that a few scattered natural gas storage facilities would be the proper fix. It would avoid imposing an onerous burden on already-strapped oil/gas producers' parabolic wells for a rarely-needed event and would be a relatively cheap way to get through a storm. 

The world is watching, nervously because they're in the same boat named energy-insecurity. Like Coffeeguyzz mused, the situation in Texas is not likely to be a one-off. I try to imagine a world of 100% renewables and I see wind turbines and solar panels as far as the eye can see, dotted by a few nuclear power plants here and there. There is going to be a mad scramble for REE's. Trillions of tons of earth are going to be moved to get at it. Variable energy sources feeding into battery storage isn't going to take care of 10B people. Most countries won't resort to nuclear. Hydrogen is coming, but the cheapest, most reliable hydrogen is from methane. 

In my view, baseline NG will have to carry the load for a very long time.  

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

In my view, baseline NG will have to carry the load for a very long time.  

 

Yup. One of the factors in this event was increased demand, which is a function of population growth. 

Yup, Increased storage of dry nat gas can be highly beneficial.

Yup.  Fossil generation is going to be required for at least 2 decades.

And, yup, renewables will continue to penetrate in Texas,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yup. One of the factors in this event was increased demand, which is a function of population growth. 

Yup, Increased storage of dry nat gas can be highly beneficial.

Yup.  Fossil generation is going to be required for at least 2 decades.

And, yup, renewables will continue to penetrate in Texas,

And Nope, wind won't work.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

When I look over the various posts that have been thoughtfully written, several key phrases jump out: winterize, market failure, variable energy source, energy-insecurity, free market system. 

There is no shortage of cheap natural gas in Texas. They're flaring millions of dollars worth each day. There are pipelines galore. The producers are mostly smart people with a can-do attitude. There are currently 250,000 active wells in Texas, with over 100,000 in the Permian. Of all that gas, only 0.06% of the annual production is (historically) affected by freeze-offs. It costs over $100,000/well to winterize. Multiply the wells in the Permian alone by that # and you come up with $10B. These wells undergo parabolic depletion: by the end of the 1st year of operation they are 50% done. The last 5 years brought breakeven prices. And then came the pandemic, the glut. Of the wells I have an interest in, fully one-half of the operators went bankrupt last year. Winterize them all, you say?

 

Gerry, I'm not competent to decide how to winterize the NG system. Before last month, I had not even heard of the term "freeze-off". From what you are saying, it's just plain nonsensical to "winterize" individual wells. But Texas will be depending on the reliable availability of dry NG for its generators for at least two more decades by your own estimate.  At the system level, since you cannot winterize the wells, I think you must instead store about ten days worth of dry gas.  In those two decades, you are statistically likely to have about two major extreme winter weather events, or more if there is increasing instability in the polar vortex.

Since I have no practical knowledge of the subject, I'm a bit puzzled that Texas cannot draw on gas from the big LNG facilities in Louisiana. I'm aware that the big liquifiers cannot operate as re-gassifiers, but I would think they could at least send their not-yet-liquified inventory back to Texas when an extreme weather event is predicted. I also know that the big LNG terminals were originally intended for LNG import, not LNG export, before the shale revolution changed everything. Did they scrap the re-gassifiers, or were they just mothballed?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

NG storage in close proximity to each utility plant would do the job. 

The other option would be to require exacting winterization of all wells coming online in the last three months of each year. That would ID the wells likely to produce voluminous amounts of methane during the most vulnerable months. 

There's plenty of gas in Texas. Making sure there gas available to the utility plants is the thing. 

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://wvmetronews.com/2021/03/14/power-grid-needs-to-be-backed-up-by-reliable-energy-sources-wvu-energy-chief-tells-senators/

Power grid needs to be backed up by reliable energy sources, WVU Energy chief tells senators

It would Texas has struck a long overdue nerve. 

Talk on here,previously,of adding more stand-by generating capacity. Who staffs and maintains it while it stands idle most of the year? Also,all generating equipment contains large amounts of copper. The CEO of Trafigura predicted a ten million ton deficit in copper supply over the next decade. Does anyone have figures on the copper inventory in wind turbines per each MW capacity?  Being small,I suggest that the figure will be much higher than than the amount of copper per MW capacity in fossil-fired power stations. There is little scope for aluminium substitution in residential situations. Attempts at use of aluminium in USA housing resulted in many fires.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

NG storage in close proximity to each utility plant would do the job. 

The other option would be to require exacting winterization of all wells coming online in the last three months of each year. That would ID the wells likely to produce voluminous amounts of methane during the most vulnerable months. 

There's plenty of gas in Texas. Making sure there gas available to the utility plants is the thing. 

 

I assumed from your earlier post that winterizing each well would be a lot more expensive than adding storage. Each individual well would be treated as an unreliable source, but the system as a whole would be reliable without winterizing the NG to meet a once-a-decade freeze-off  threat.

Similarly, it may be cheaper to add additional reserve gas-fired generation instead of worrying about de-icing the wind turbines to meet the even more rare icing threat.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Richard D said:

Talk on here,previously,of adding more stand-by generating capacity. Who staffs and maintains it while it stands idle most of the year? Also,all generating equipment contains large amounts of copper. The CEO of Trafigura predicted a ten million ton deficit in copper supply over the next decade. Does anyone have figures on the copper inventory in wind turbines per each MW capacity?  Being small,I suggest that the figure will be much higher than than the amount of copper per MW capacity in fossil-fired power stations. There is little scope for aluminium substitution in residential situations. Attempts at use of aluminium in USA housing resulted in many fires.

Most of the gas-fired generation capacity is unused for much of the year already, because the capacity is almost never used at 100%. Blackouts ensue when demand reaches 100% of capacity. Most systems aim for 15% reserve capacity above the maximum credible demand. ERCOT aims for 5%.

Therefore "add more stand-by" is not a qualitative change from the existing situation. If you want a reliable system, you must be willing to pay for it. Some of that will be in the cost of copper and some will be in the salaries of the crews for the idle generators.

If the cost of copper goes up, the cost of generators (wind and gas-fired) will go up, and this may change the relative cost as you speculate. This will affect the decisions to build wind and gas-fired generators. If the market changes to acknowledge the value of dispatchable capacity (i.e., gas-fired generators), this is also affect those decisions. I think this second effect will be larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2021 at 10:35 AM, Ecocharger said:

And Nope, wind won't work.

Wind does work.

Depends on your definition of "work".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I assumed from your earlier post that winterizing each well would be a lot more expensive than adding storage. Each individual well would be treated as an unreliable source, but the system as a whole would be reliable without winterizing the NG to meet a once-a-decade freeze-off  threat.

Right, but since these wells are incredibly parabolic, just identifying monster wells that were brought on line as winter approached would be enough to do the job. In other words, once you get past the first year, the pressure head drops as the gas under pressure is either flared or captured and pipelined away. Those wells don't need to be winterized. But the new wells coming online say in November produce great amounts of gas. You wouldn't need to identify more than a few dozen monster wells for winterization--to tap for no-doubts-about-it natural gas in zero temperatures. 

But your idea of stored natural gas might be better. I don't know the numbers. I have only enjoyed a couple of monster wells. They were so large that, in the total design, a hundred-thousand to winterize one would be a pittance. 

Governor Abbott wants very much to become President Abbott, a post at which he has a good shot as he is very charismatic and well-intentioned and smart. His group will work something out (even without my help). 🙃

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 3/14/2021 at 11:53 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

 

 

In my view, baseline NG will have to carry the load for a very long time.  

 

This is the way I see it .  

There is a great deal of progress being made in Fusion Nuclear.   Much of it is closely held development out of the sight of the public and competitors. 

I know they say Fusion is always 10 to 15 years out.  I believe this has changed. We are getting close to commercialization.  

One firm Commonwealth Fusion, the MIT spin-off is very public about their accomplishments and will begin building their working prototype this year.  They are already building their superconducting magnets.  They will start building their development facilities and manufacturing  buildings on a former airforce base this Spring.  We will know in 5 years if what they developed can be commercialized. While it looks good on paper , nothing is guaranteed. If successful they could be manufacturing commercial reactors in the early 2030's.  

With their technology they would be able to commercially produce 12 to 15 Fusion reactors for the same cost of one Fission Reactor. The operation and maintenance cost savings are equally impressive. 

That's just one developer.  There is no way of telling what other skunkworks may produce with Takamac or other technologies.   

Some other company or technology may leapfrog Commonwealth energy .  That's how technology works .  

As for other renewables as in solar and wind. ?  They need real estate and accommodating weather.    That's fine out in West Texas but is a problem in and around high population centers like the east coast of U.S.  . Seems as though the solar incremental gains in efficiency are diminishing without some type of new technology break through.  I hear wind turbine and blade design technology will increase efficiency substantially in the coming years.  But then there is always that real estate and eyesore problem.  

The major demand for oil will continue to be transportation. Electric cars uptake will be the #1 determinant of oil demand.  

So if you are a Utility today what is your plan ? Five year plan ? Ten year plan ?   Twenty year plan ?  

Build out Solar and Wind ?

More Natural Gas power plants ?  

A mixture of both ?  

Hydrogen ?

At what cost ?  

What if Fusion commercialization is feasible.  Even if we know in five years, how does one plan and service the electric needs between now and commercialization and build out that starts in the 2030's ?

The Pelosi Administration is preparing the introduction of the Infrastructure Bill.  We can expect the Infrastructure Bill to look more like the Green New Deal than a plan to rebuild our highways, bridges, rail and airports.  She will push this thru while all are still in "Crisis Shock" . Same as a gun control bill that will follow.  Can't keep her prop (barbed wire and National Guard surround the Capital) forever.  

If it were up to me I would think it prudent to let natural gas and oil play out for a few years until we can get a bearing on the plausibility and direction of Fusion Nuclear.  

Better to do that then spend $ ten's of trillions to litter the landscape with solar and wind farms where a cost effective alternative may be in the offering.  

Edited by Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Wind does work.

Depends on your definition of "work".

Bill Clinton and his administration (read Al Gore) seemed adept at definitions.  Can someone give them a call?  :) 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Bill Clinton and his administration (read Al Gore) seemed adept at definitions.  Can someone give them a call?  :) 

Now you did it! We'll have to spend the next thirty posts explaining what "is" means. 🙄

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

Wind does work.

Depends on your definition of "work".

It didn't work too well. In fact, it was a disaster. That is not a working system.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southeast Wyoming's blizzard is over.  I never lost power, nat gas, internet, DirecTv, or land line.  But if you want to go anywhere, Wyoming's closed.

Clipboard01.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Southeast Wyoming's blizzard is over.  I never lost power, nat gas, internet, DirecTv, or land line.  But if you want to go anywhere, Wyoming's closed.

Clipboard01.jpg

Umm never mind 6000 feet is above the storm so to speak....lol. But then again there are no wind turbines in WY now is there..Turbines might make for great target practice however..hmm im not to sure where that came from..but it did.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Umm never mind 6000 feet is above the storm so to speak....lol. But then again there are no wind turbines in WY now is there..Turbines might make for great target practice however..hmm im not to sure where that came from..but it did.

It would appear that WY does have wind turbines:

Wyoming Confronts Its Wind-Powered Destiny

Not as many as other parts of the States, perhaps, but they do have them.  That's a good article on many of the details necessary for a good discussion.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

It would appear that WY does have wind turbines:

Wyoming Confronts Its Wind-Powered Destiny

Not as many as other parts of the States, perhaps, but they do have them.  That's a good article on many of the details necessary for a good discussion.

 

Yes I see that, good for them. Maybe they will pop up like mountain flowers who knows. 

I'm off to Florida,checking out the new boat all is good. 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Warnick, 

Yes, that article on Wyoming wind is a good one for discussion, but the details that have been omitted are every bit as important - if not more so - than the info presented in that sophisticated fluff piece sympathetic to the whirleys.

I refer you to the very last sentence in the article to shed light on the author's mind set.

 

That article quite relevantly touches upon the recent Texas experience, although the differences are informative as well.

 

The vast amount of that wind-driven electricity, Mr. Warnick, is destined for 'Green consumers' in other states, notably California.

Upthread, I have made reference to 'out of market' influences that greatly bolster the Wind industry.

States all around the country are mandating their utilities to purchase ever-increasing amounts of electricity from Renewable (sic) sources.

That is, forcing consumers, via their government regulated utilities - to enter into PPAs (Power Purchasing Agreements) for X amount of dollars/Megawatthour, for Y amount of years.

This is 100% socialistic (fascist?) practice when government backed companies are having customers funneled to them.

All the while, the $23/Megawatthour Tax Credits keep pouring in. (This is precisely why Warren Buffet is the nation's biggest wind producer, as well as a large owner of Transmission lines, along with buying up local utilities. This is classic vertical integration a la J. D. Rockefeller only using the extreme naivete of the American people by which he may further enrich his bottom line).

 

At the very least, the Cowboy State's politicians ought not to roll over and accept actions like Oakland's preventing upgrades at its port facilities so Wyoming cannot ship their coal to waiting customers in Asia.

 

While attention is regularly put upon those ebil hydrocarbon pipelines, barely one word is published on the bitter fights farmers have been waging to prevent ùnwanted overhead power lines to cross over their land.

Just tough shit for them when we gots a Planet To Save.

 

As that sophisticated propagandist who wrote that Wired article claims, the Planet is Doomed, Doomed, I'm tellin' ya, unless we continue to hurtle backwards into Medieval conditions while our global competitors continue to build 100s of massive  new coal plants ... and laugh at us all the way.

 

Maybe we deserve to go back to a subsistence existence as we - collectively - are losing any shred of self-protecting common sense.

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article that Mr. Warnick posted and equally important commentary that you added, Coffeeguyzz. As usual, you offered your commonsense, workaday knowledge to a complex problem. 

As prelude, I make my income from oil & gas. Years ago I sold transmission right-of-way to a large wind farm. I've regretted it since, mainly because it runs against my grain--it is one ugly son-of-a-buck. 

But to be the devil's advocate, let's just muse for a moment that all the wind greenies are right: the only way to save the planet is by subsidizing/incentivizing/handing out free money to the wind energy billionaires until every wind corridor in America is dotted with windmills. In the process, Wyoming, which is as the article states already producing 15X the energy it needs, becomes the "Electricity State," rather than the Cowboy State. Electric lines are stretched along the Union Pacific ROW all the way from the Laramie Gangplank to Sacramento--at the Gangplank there's room only for I-80, the railroad, and electric lines. So all throughout the wind corridor of the central portion of the United States are constructed additional power lines threading their way from the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to all points east and west. I mean, it's a maze coming out of a destroyed landscape, an awful distortion of some once-beautiful landscape.  

But what if they're right? What if this horrible disfigurement of America results in so much green energy that it powers the whole country? In the process, of course, it shuts down the shale basins, the source of America's voluminous natural gas, but what if this is a good thing, forcing countries to which America exports LNG to actually erect their own wind farms? What if in the areas that are more suitable, solar farms are erected instead? Say massive solar farms along with wind farms in the Sahara, or the Negev? The world might look funny from up above but what if all those greenhouse gases plummet and California cools off and the wildfires stop and the air turns clear and all the asthma goes away and people are happy and the omni-mood skyrockets because everyone had a part in saving the planet?

If you pour enough money into almost any endeavor, no matter how outrageous, it picks up enough momentum to change the world. So what if in ten years we're living in a world full of wind machines and solar farms, quadrupling the electricity we use now in the demand of EV's to be charged, the all-electric homes to be cooled and heated, and also workplaces? It's dystopian, sure, but in America, at least, we're importing what oil and gas we absolutely have to have in order to produce a few plastics and the weather hasn't changed because of all the wind farms. After all, the Sooners are dead already, the Boomers are going soon, and why don't we just assume that the greenies are right? On this forum, at least, they seem so damn confident! To me that's annoying, but to opportunists there's money blowing in from the southwest.

I mean, what if? That's what Mr. Biden and Mr. Buffett and Mr. Anschutz and Mr. Musk are banking on. It's a global experiment that has been so effectively inculcated into so many receptive minds that no one but old people with a selfish interest in oil & gas doubt it. It has become the Universal Idea, the Grand Plan, the Utopia. Disenfranchised oil & gas people are signing on by the hundreds. I don't personally think it will work, but even I have to ask the question. What if?

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

It would appear that WY does have wind turbines:

Wyoming Confronts Its Wind-Powered Destiny

Not as many as other parts of the States, perhaps, but they do have them.  That's a good article on many of the details necessary for a good discussion.

 

This 504 MW (nameplate) project is planned, about 8 miles south of my home.  Right by an existing transmission line.  There are two coal units in Craig, CO being retired, so the line will have the capacity. And the main line of the UPRR is right there, too.

https://www.railtiewind.com/

Needless to say, there's a lot of local objection to the project.

I would much rather have preferred to have a mailing address of Tie Siding, WY, than Laramie.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Great article that Mr. Warnick posted and equally important commentary that you added, Coffeeguyzz. As usual, you offered your commonsense, workaday knowledge to a complex problem. 

As prelude, I make my income from oil & gas. Years ago I sold transmission right-of-way to a large wind farm. I've regretted it since, mainly because it runs against my grain--it is one ugly son-of-a-buck. 

But to be the devil's advocate, let's just muse for a moment that all the wind greenies are right: the only way to save the planet is by subsidizing/incentivizing/handing out free money to the wind energy billionaires until every wind corridor in America is dotted with windmills. In the process, Wyoming, which is as the article states already producing 15X the energy it needs, becomes the "Electricity State," rather than the Cowboy State. Electric lines are stretched along the Union Pacific ROW all the way from the Laramie Gangplank to Sacramento--at the Gangplank there's room only for I-80, the railroad, and electric lines. So all throughout the wind corridor of the central portion of the United States are constructed additional power lines threading their way from the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to all points east and west. I mean, it's a maze coming out of a destroyed landscape, an awful distortion of some once-beautiful landscape.  

But what if they're right? What if this horrible disfigurement of America results in so much green energy that it powers the whole country? In the process, of course, it shuts down the shale basins, the source of America's voluminous natural gas, but what if this is a good thing, forcing countries to which America exports LNG to actually erect their own wind farms? What if in the areas that are more suitable, solar farms are erected instead? Say massive solar farms along with wind farms in the Sahara, or the Negev? The world might look funny from up above but what if all those greenhouse gases plummet and California cools off and the wildfires stop and the air turns clear and all the asthma goes away and people are happy and the omni-mood skyrockets because everyone had a part in saving the planet?

If you pour enough money into almost any endeavor, no matter how outrageous, it picks up enough momentum to change the world. So what if in ten years we're living in a world full of wind machines and solar farms, quadrupling the electricity we use now in the demand of EV's to be charged, the all-electric homes to be cooled and heated, and also workplaces? It's dystopian, sure, but in America, at least, we're importing what oil and gas we absolutely have to have in order to produce a few plastics and the weather hasn't changed because of all the wind farms. After all, the Sooners are dead already, the Boomers are going soon, and why don't we just assume that the greenies are right? On this forum, at least, they seem so damn confident! To me that's annoying, but to opportunists there's money blowing in from the southwest.

I mean, what if? That's what Mr. Biden and Mr. Buffett and Mr. Anschutz and Mr. Musk are banking on. It's a global experiment that has been so effectively inculcated into so many receptive minds that no one but old people with a selfish interest in oil & gas doubt it. It has become the Universal Idea, the Grand Plan, the Utopia. Disenfranchised oil & gas people are signing on by the hundreds. I don't personally think it will work, but even I have to ask the question. What if?

What if? That is a very interesting question. Mr Maddoux we only need to look back to where this all started. I only bring this up due to the fact last night I watched a old movie named Rain Man,a very old movie with Cruise and Hoffman.

One of the opening scenes was Wind farm disgusting to see, a pariah on the landscape...That was 1988, and yes that is how long this tech has been on the move. After 25 plus years where are we today, 4 trillion dollars spent perhaps far more, Texas faces a massive power outage,California is facing rolling Brown outs and this Green Energy Business CONSORTIUM has the public beginning to believe massive power outages are a needed way of life. The absurdity is mind numbing.

One has to ask themselves where would the US be today if we had chosen to invest 4 trillion into fission or fusion tech, in a by far different place that I can assure you.

The auto mfgs to have spent billions and billions attempting to create a EV that the public will accept. To date all those resources have been wasted, Toyota th re world leader in EV tech since 1992 has little intrest in the field. They know first hand it is unsustainable.

Telsa is merely a fad,speed bump that would not exist if not for carbon credits, and federal tax credits.

Biden once again has taken the US down the path to nowhere, a endless black hole for sums of money that would stagger the mind...

Now I ask you, what fool would invest into a bridge going nowhere after 30 yrs...

Odd I do not feel any better after that, yet it needs to be said. They say it is not civilized to put someone on the spot for there actions, I do believe it is time for that childish notion to fade into history.. Before this country fades into history.

 

 

 

Bridge to nowhere.jpg

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What if? That is a very interesting question. Mr Maddoux we only need to look back to where this all started. I only bring this up due to the fact last night I watched a old movie named Rain Man,a very old movie with Cruise and Hoffman.

One of the opening scenes was Wind farm disgusting to see, a pariah on the landscape...That was 1988, and yes that is how long this tech has been on the move. After 25 plus years where are we today, 4 trillion dollars spent perhaps far more, Texas faces a massive power outage,California is facing rolling Brown outs and this Green Energy Business CONSORTIUM has the public beginning to believe massive power outages are a needed way of life. The absurdity is mind numbing.

One has to ask themselves where would the US be today if we had chosen to invest 4 trillion into fission or fusion tech, in a by far different place that I can assure you.

The auto mfgs to have spent billions and billions attempting to create a EV that the public will accept. To date all those resources have been wasted, Toyota th re world leader in EV tech since 1992 has little intrest in the field. They know first hand it is unsustainable.

Telsa is merely a fad,speed bump that would not exist if not for carbon credits, and federal tax credits.

Biden once again has taken the US down the path to nowhere, a endless black hole for sums of money that would stagger the mind...

Now I ask you, what fool would invest into a bridge going nowhere after 30 yrs...

Odd I do not feel any better after that, yet it needs to be said. They say it is not civilized to put someone on the spot for there actions, I do believe it is time for that childish notion to fade into history.. Before this country fades into history.

Please quit emphasizing California's tiny rolling blackouts while ignoring the massive ones in Texas. Yes both occurred, Both were due to unprecedented exceptional weather events. Both could have been managed better. In hindsight, both could have been prevented with a fairly small amount of foresight and planning. But the causes were different, and the Texas blackout were much more severe by any measure, with more than 100 times as many customer-hours of blackout. The proximate cause of the Texas blackouts was freeze-off of the NG power supply (with a prior cause of over-agressive cowboy emphasis on free markets and minimized regulation). The proximate cause of the California blackouts was loss of two NG power plants (with a prior cause of over-aggressive greenie retirement of NG plants).

Mostly by sheer luck, California has an easy path to recovery, as we almost had enough power and we now know how to fix it. By contrast, Texas does not yet have a simple solution to their 100-times-worse problem.

California still several a really big problems, and I won't complain if you mention them or even if you blame our mismanagement of them on greenies or libtards. However,  rolling blackouts are either a complete non-problem or a minor problem. Our big problems are wildfire management, water management, and air pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.