Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Under the proposal, Texas power customers would pay a fee to cover the costs of the plants. In exchange for making the investment, Berkshire is proposing to earn a 9.3% rate of return, which would need to approved by state regulators.

F*ck Berkshire and their 9.3%. Texas has the reserve cash flowing in without the need of "Good ol' Warren". At more than a 1000 new residents moving to Texas daily, the need for more power is going to be challenging. 

NG plants as a rule don't fail unless some idiots forget to fill the paperwork out. DUH!!!! I suggest a couple 5GW nuke plants would suffice for the incoming electrical needs and let the Texans figure out how to pay for them. Even a small surcharge on NG of say 10cent a foot going out of state wouldn't kill anyone and all the states that receive Texas NG isn't that much of a burden on Texans.

9% ROI on a no risk lnvestment? Buffet is as senile as Bidden. Ohh and non taxable income of course...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Refman said:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-hathaway-floats-8-3-191651224.html

More NG plants will not do any good if the NG supply fails though.

You mean, if the natural gas generators are reliant on wind or green generators for their own electricity...like recently in Texas.

Then everything goes down together.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You mean, if the natural gas generators are reliant on wind or green generators for their own electricity...like recently in Texas.

Then everything goes down together.

Nope just a small battery pack...you know that already...Just as windturbines need a battery system to buffer them so does a gen plant as a backup....You know its a size thing again...and a few millions and millions of dollars...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 9:01 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Here is the accounting: each atom of carbon extracted from the earth in a fossil fuel will become the carbon atom in one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere

Demonstrably false as your very next phrase proves! Lazy and stupid "climate scientists". Pretend that all crude and natural gas produced is burned. How much goes into plastics, medicines, clothes, asphalt, and the myriad other purposes to which these molecules are put? Meanwhile the obscene amount of CO2 in the oceans dwarfs whatever man can do for the next million years or so. 

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Demonstrably false as your very next phrase proves! Lazy and stupid "climate scientists". Pretend that all crude and natural gas produced is burned. How much goes into plastics, medicines, clothes, asphalt, and the myriad other purposes to which these molecules are put? Meanwhile the obscene amount of CO2 in the oceans dwarfs whatever man can do for the next million years or so. 

As you said, my very next sentence qualified the initial statement: a small percentage of the fossil carbon is not burned. All that is burned becomes atmospheric CO2. I did a bit if research: is looks like about 95% of all fossil carbon is burned. Of remaining 5%, most of the "myriad uses" result in products that eventually decompose or are disposed of by burning, thus releasing the carbon as CO2.  I am not a climate scientist, and I know of no climate study that fails to account for non-fuel uses of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Please note: I started this mess by saying that I will not debate climate change here. Someone raised the issue of carbon capture, and I am attempting to quantify the amount of carbon that needs to be captured to remain "carbon neutral" with respect to fossil carbon. Even if we pretend that all non-fuel uses of petroleum don't result in CO2 (false, but it bounds the problem) 100 million bbl  of oil per day results in 38.7 million tonnes of CO2 per day.  That's .95 * .136 tonne/bbl * 3  CO2 mass/C mass * 100 million bbl = 38.76 million tonne/day.  This does not account for fossil carbon from coal, oil, and cement.

My conclusion is: IF human-created CO2 is a problem, and IF we we want to solve the problem by carbon capture and storage, THEN we will need to capture and store an unrealistically large amount of CO2. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Nope just a small battery pack...you know that already...Just as windturbines need a battery system to buffer them so does a gen plant as a backup....You know its a size thing again...and a few millions and millions of dollars...

Does the battery function for anything when times are good? Or just sit and rust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

28 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

As you said, my very next sentence qualified the initial statement: a small percentage of the fossil carbon is not burned. All that is burned becomes atmospheric CO2. I did a bit if research: is looks like about 95% of all fossil carbon is burned. Of remaining 5%, most of the "myriad uses" result in products that eventually decompose or are disposed of by burning, thus releasing the carbon as CO2.  I am not a climate scientist, and I know of no climate study that fails to account for non-fuel uses of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Please note: I started this mess by saying that I will not debate climate change here. Someone raised the issue of carbon capture, and I am attempting to quantify the amount of carbon that needs to be captured to remain "carbon neutral" with respect to fossil carbon. Even if we pretend that all non-fuel uses of petroleum don't result in CO2 (false, but it bounds the problem) 100 million bbl  of oil per day results in 38.7 million tonnes of CO2 per day.  That's .95 * .136 tonne/bbl * 3  CO2 mass/C mass * 100 million bbl = 38.76 million tonne/day.  This does not account for fossil carbon from coal, oil, and cement.

My conclusion is: IF human-created CO2 is a problem, and IF we we want to solve the problem by carbon capture and storage, THEN we will need to capture and store an unrealistically large amount of CO2. 

On the other hand, if CO2 is a vital necessity to sustain human life on Planet Earth, which it is, then we should be concerned that our billions of people, and a growing human population, and our valued animal friends, all of whom rely on CO2 as essential inputs into their food supply, are not ignored by our governments. I need to eat regularly.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2021 at 2:01 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Here is the accounting: each atom of carbon extracted from the earth in a fossil fuel will become the carbon atom in one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere unless that atom becomes captured and sequestered. As of right now, the only large-scale deliberate sequestration is placing plastics into landfill.

In the case under discussion, some fossil-generated CO2 is being converted chemically into cattle feed. If the cows did not eat that feed they would be eating food that is converted from atmospheric CO2 by plants. To a first approximation, cattle produce as much CO2 as they consume.  If the fossil CO2 is simply released into the atmosphere, it will be converted by plants into feed, and the cattle will still consume it and then re-emit it.

(NOTE: on this forum I do not argue for or against the existence of human-caused climate change. This sub-thread was started by someone else). If you want a carbon-neutral economy that extracts carbon-containing fossil fuels from the earth, then you will need to capture and permanently and reliably store the same amount of carbon. Each ton of coal will result in 44/12= 3.67 tons of CO2. Each ton of methane will result in 2.45 tons of CO2. Each ton of crude oil will fall somewhere in between: about 3 tons) To balance 100 million barrels of oil each day, you will need to sequester more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 each day. You will need additional sequestration for coal, NG, and cement. You can subtract some for plastics if you can bury the damn stuff.  Of the 39 carbon capture projects started in the US, all but 7 have failed. The 7 survivors provide CO2 to the oil industry for enhanced recovery, and the retention of that CO2 underground is, to put it charitably, dubious.

I still do not see how this is relevant to the Texas power disaster, except that carbon capture is a false hope that permits Texans to believe that the oil industry has a future.

No offense Dan, but...

You Shit Me To Tears - Bing video

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

As you said, my very next sentence qualified the initial statement: a small percentage of the fossil carbon is not burned. All that is burned becomes atmospheric CO2. I did a bit if research: is looks like about 95% of all fossil carbon is burned. Of remaining 5%, most of the "myriad uses" result in products that eventually decompose or are disposed of by burning, thus releasing the carbon as CO2.  I am not a climate scientist, and I know of no climate study that fails to account for non-fuel uses of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Please note: I started this mess by saying that I will not debate climate change here. Someone raised the issue of carbon capture, and I am attempting to quantify the amount of carbon that needs to be captured to remain "carbon neutral" with respect to fossil carbon. Even if we pretend that all non-fuel uses of petroleum don't result in CO2 (false, but it bounds the problem) 100 million bbl  of oil per day results in 38.7 million tonnes of CO2 per day.  That's .95 * .136 tonne/bbl * 3  CO2 mass/C mass * 100 million bbl = 38.76 million tonne/day.  This does not account for fossil carbon from coal, oil, and cement.

My conclusion is: IF human-created CO2 is a problem, and IF we we want to solve the problem by carbon capture and storage, THEN we will need to capture and store an unrealistically large amount of CO2. 

I read an EIA report (not really report, more of an article) that said 13%. I'm not convinced the math is right because even though it is not burned, they treat it as if it was (BTU content). Since plastics are made with the lighter compounds like ethylene they have lower fuel value. I'm used to looking at refinery reports that measure by volume, which shows about 40% going to non combustion uses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Does the battery function for anything when times are good? Or just sit and rust.

That will depend on the type of battery. A battery that is designed for a only a relatively few cycles should only be use like a backup generator (which would also "sit and rust"). A battery that is designed for lots of cycles might be used to store electricity every day during cheap hours to then use during peak hours, thus saving money on the electric bill.

I don't have any experience with natural gas pipelines, but I would think that the cheapest option for reliable power would be an electric pump with a backup  generator running on natural gas, probably with a 4-hour battery to save on peak-hour electricity.  Depending on the pipeline company, it might make sense to use a larger central NG generator to run the entire pipeline: basically acting as their own electric company, just to avoid the (apparent) paperwork nightmare and peak power problems. That way,the pipeline company is completely decoupled, physically and administratively, from ERCOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I don't have any experience with natural gas pipelines, but I would think that the cheapest option for reliable power would be an electric pump with a backup  generator running on natural gas, probably with a 4-hour battery to save on peak-hour electricity.  Depending on the pipeline company, it might make sense to use a larger central NG generator to run the entire pipeline: basically acting as their own electric company, just to avoid the (apparent) paperwork nightmare and peak power problems. That way,the pipeline company is completely decoupled, physically and administratively, from ERCOT.

ERCOT didn't stop them, EPA did, by adding ridiculous burdens on the operator. Raise the bar high enough, make the regulatory capture difficult enough to overcome and you create your own disaster. While we look at this whole thing as a disaster, deep state a-holes are licking their chops. They hate that Texas is as independent as it is. They want Texas firmly under their thumb. No good crisis goes to waste, those bunglecrats will work overtime to make things worse not better. All part of the master plan. Make the largest energy consuming state in the nation kowtow to FERC, and new regulations written just for Texas. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

26 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I read an EIA report (not really report, more of an article) that said 13%. I'm not convinced the math is right because even though it is not burned, they treat it as if it was (BTU content). Since plastics are made with the lighter compounds like ethylene they have lower fuel value. I'm used to looking at refinery reports that measure by volume, which shows about 40% going to non combustion uses. 

Here is the EIA web page I used. Since I barely know what the terms mean, I pretty much assumed that HGLs (3%) plus "petrochemical feedstocks" (1%) will all end up as solid products, and everything else will eventually end up entering the atmosphere. This crude approximation does not account for any subtleties, but since a lot of the HGLs are burned, it probably overestimates the actual non-CO2-generating percentage. Asphalt is an interesting case: some percentage of its will stay out of the atmosphere for awhile. I sloppily assume here that this is balanced by my assumption that all of the HGLs will stay out of the atmosphere. I was looking for a rough estimate after 30 minutes of reading, not a more precise estimate after 3 months of research (that'll be half a million dollars, please) but based on this I'm sure that a 5% upper bound is actually too high. and we STILL have not accounted for the coal, NG, and cement.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil-inputs-and-outputs.php

Edited by Dan Clemmensen
add url
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

ERCOT didn't stop them, EPA did, by adding ridiculous burdens on the operator. Raise the bar high enough, make the regulatory capture difficult enough to overcome and you create your own disaster. While we look at this whole thing as a disaster, deep state a-holes are licking their chops. They hate that Texas is as independent as it is. They want Texas firmly under their thumb. No good crisis goes to waste, those bunglecrats will work overtime to make things worse not better. All part of the master plan. Make the largest energy consuming state in the nation kowtow to FERC, and new regulations written just for Texas. 

I meant physically and administratively independent of the ERCOT electrical grid. I did not mean to imply that ERCOT was the regulator. IF the pipeline company generates their own electricity and feeds it to the pipeline pumps via its own power lines running along its own rights-of-way, then the ERCOT grid operators cannot cut their power. The pipeline company would of course still need to winterize their own NG supply and their own generator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

That will depend on the type of battery. A battery that is designed for a only a relatively few cycles should only be use like a backup generator (which would also "sit and rust"). A battery that is designed for lots of cycles might be used to store electricity every day during cheap hours to then use during peak hours, thus saving money on the electric bill.

I don't have any experience with natural gas pipelines, but I would think that the cheapest option for reliable power would be an electric pump with a backup  generator running on natural gas, probably with a 4-hour battery to save on peak-hour electricity.  Depending on the pipeline company, it might make sense to use a larger central NG generator to run the entire pipeline: basically acting as their own electric company, just to avoid the (apparent) paperwork nightmare and peak power problems. That way,the pipeline company is completely decoupled, physically and administratively, from ERCOT.

I will give you this and pose a thought...I do believe in a sense you may have...read may have missed a natural inborn skill set in life. One can only imagine your success as a attorney, a well founded ability to grasp concepts and a tenacity to litigate those series of facts over and over and over again and again. A bit of a bulldog exists in you, once you bite in there is not letting go. Perhaps you have Irish or Norwegian genes...that would explain much...It should be know that would be considered a compliment..Salt of the earth type off thing

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

It looks like even the very modest percentage of EV vehicles as a percentage of total personal vehicles (ICE's are still about 99.something% of the current stock), are causing the limitations of essential battery inputs to push up EV prices. This has implications for storage batteries for Texas, if the folks in Texas are even thinking about that possibility.

Entirely predictable, and going forward, prohibitive for most people.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Goldman-Sachs-EV-Producers-Grapple-With-Rising-Battery-Costs.html

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Warren Buffet has put a stake in the ground for a capacity-based solution to Texas' blackouts. He will build reliable peakers, each with its own 7-day supply of locally-stored NG, If he gets a long-term guaranteed monthly payment, paid for as a fixed surcharge on electricity ratepayers:

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/25/warren-buffett-texas-power-plants/

I feel that is is not the best technical solution at the system level, and the current electricity providers agree: the say they can guarantee the same reliability at a lower price if someone (ERCOT, ratepayers, or anyone) will just pay them for it. In my opinion, Buffet's offer has two main advantages: It is a much simpler deal, ans it is very easy to understand: you pay Buffet, and he provides reliability. I hope this offer will focus the legislature and the regulators and cut through the usual crazy byzantine Texas politics to immediately pick a viable solution, probably based on paying a fixed price for reliable reserve capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2021 at 10:18 PM, Ward Smith said:

Demonstrably false as your very next phrase proves! Lazy and stupid "climate scientists". Pretend that all crude and natural gas produced is burned. How much goes into plastics, medicines, clothes, asphalt, and the myriad other purposes to which these molecules are put? Meanwhile the obscene amount of CO2 in the oceans dwarfs whatever man can do for the next million years or so. 

You could Google questions yourself if you were not "lazy and stupid."

The vast majority of oil is burnt - look it up for yourself to confirm.

 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

You could Google questions yourself if you were not "lazy and stupid."

The vast majority of oil is burnt - look it up for yourself to confirm.

 

It's 74%

Hmm... yea I don't think that declaring the remaining 26% to be air emissions is an honest thing to do. @Ward Smith is absolutely correct. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

It's 74%

Hmm... yea I don't think that declaring the remaining 26% to be air emissions is an honest thing to do. @Ward Smith is absolutely correct. 

I said "the vast majority" and as 74% is a large majority I am correct.  Thanks for confirming my comment that oil is NOT primarily a petrochemical feed stock - it is a fuel.

Barely profitable oil producers would NOT run on 26%

 

You are not lazy or stupid like ward.

 

 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then do the math on how much of the remaining 26% actually ends up oxidized to CO2.

Hint: a lot.

The cult is wrong about essentially everything.  Losers.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

It's 74%

Hmm... yea I don't think that declaring the remaining 26% to be air emissions is an honest thing to do. @Ward Smith is absolutely correct. 

Hey there, @KeyboardWarrior. Please educate me. I found a reference EIA web page and provided the URL plus my reasoning, and I think base on that that more than 95% of the carbon in crude oil ends up as CO2. If you have a better reference, please provide it. I was unable to find it. I repeat the reference here:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil-inputs-and-outputs.php

Edited by Dan Clemmensen
ping
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

You are not lazy or stupid like ward.

Ward is far from "stupid".  I appreciate his comments, and think some require a little more in-depth thought from those willing to try.  Some may be hard to swallow, and that's fine.  Others are very straighforward.

There is no need to resort to disparagements here. 

A wide variety of views is what the USA is all about, no?

Enjoy the debate.  I do!

Edited by turbguy
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

22 minutes ago, turbguy said:

 

There is no need to resort to disparagements here.

"Lazy and stupid" was a Ward quotation.

I do not author simplistic insults like that.

 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Turbguy I will accept an apology for framing Wards disgusting words as if they were my own if you promise to make every attempt not to repeat this mistake.

Putting the foolish words of Ward into my mouth will not be tolerated.

 

Edited by Symmetry
  • Downvote 1

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.