Recommended Posts

(edited)

4 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

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 me tolerated.

 

Hey, Lighten up! I did not even respond when @Eyes Wide Open hit me with the worst insult of all and said I should have been a lawyer! 😀

Edited by Dan Clemmensen
sp
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

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 me tolerated.

 

Ohh put a sock in IT...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To tell "jokes" like S.Powell was is inappropriate?

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 2:34 PM, Ecocharger said:

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

Elon Musk will do Texas thinking for them. I Australia he is already working with a network of power walls that will include electric cars and solar that potentially use the network for utility backup. It’s the future folks. It’s obvious Texas and Mexico need an electric network with ample vehicle, residential and utility electric storage. Nat gas just isn’t that reliable as proved by the storm. Your back up generation can’t freeze. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Boat said:

Elon Musk will do Texas thinking for them. I Australia he is already working with a network of power walls that will include electric cars and solar that potentially use the network for utility backup. It’s the future folks. It’s obvious Texas and Mexico need an electric network with ample vehicle, residential and utility electric storage. Nat gas just isn’t that reliable as proved by the storm. Your back up generation can’t freeze. 

You missed the boat, Boat. The problem in Texas was that the green electrical supply failed and dragged down the natural gas generation backup system with it. The NG system relied on the wind generated electricity to support its operations.

A prime example of how not to design an electrical power system. Too much overreliance on wind electricity is a vulnerable system.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Symmetry said:

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.

 

 

74% isn't enough for me to consider a "vast majority". That's why I said what I did. However, @Dan Clemmensen has asked me to look into this further, so I shall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

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

I can't educate you, I'll check out the link. Before I do, I'll say this.

My primary assumption is that the 26% remains as trapped solids or chemical feedstocks that are conserved. In my opinion, if 95% ends up as CO2, it would be difficult to explain the landfills and seas of plastic waste. Unless the math says otherwise. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

74% isn't enough for me to consider a "vast majority".

 

This is Oil Price - You could have said 26% is a vast majority!  Not kidding people here do that. Facts do not matter!  Laws do not matter! 

 

  • Like 1
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You missed the boat, Boat. The problem in Texas was that the green electrical supply failed and dragged down the natural gas generation backup system with it. The NG system relied on the wind generated electricity to support its operations.

A prime example of how not to design an electrical power system. Too much overreliance on wind electricity is a vulnerable system.

That is a potential root cause, but not proven, nor supported by facts, IMO.

While it is quite possible nat gas production was curtailed by ERCOT's load-shed order, the supply of generation from wind was stable before, and during, the crisis on that early morning.

A better potential root cause would be "nat gas producers/distributors did not apply, or even notify, local distribution companies that they were "critical infrastructure", and were thus included in distribution circuits subject to emergency blackout".

To much "overreliance" on assuming electrical distribution systems knowing their loads (customers) that support generation is a vulnerable system.

 

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You missed the boat, Boat. The problem in Texas was that the green electrical supply failed and dragged down the natural gas generation backup system with it. The NG system relied on the wind generated electricity to support its operations.

A prime example of how not to design an electrical power system. Too much overreliance on wind electricity is a vulnerable system.

You believe what you want. Just like the presidential vote count complaints, don’t thake that shyt to court. 🤣 

Nat gas has always been praised as the backup energy plan of choice because of its quick ramp up speed and cost of fuel. I don’t remember anyone praising nat gas because it won’t turn on and it’s tendency to freeze in Texas every 10 years. 
Remember we’re talking Republicans here. They cut costs to the bone. They go beyond the bone and factor in death as well. “If we lose a few Bill, can we drop those costs”  

Quick Republican math says ERCOT relied on wind for 13% of electrical generation in the winter and the State lost close to 50% of electrical generation. So it must be the Federal Dems pushing wind’s fault Texas can’t keep the lights on. 
 

I ran this through the Sidney Powell lawyers test. No reasonable thinking person would believe you. Time to go to court.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Boat said:

Nat gas has always been praised as the backup energy plan of choice because of its quick ramp up speed and cost of fuel. I don’t remember anyone praising nat gas because it won’t turn on and it’s tendency to freeze in Texas every 10 years. 
Remember we’re talking Republicans here. They cut costs to the bone. They go beyond the bone and factor in death as well. “If we lose a few Bill, can we drop those costs”  

You should probably go back to around page 50 of this thread and read the posts over and your answers to "gas freeze" will be there. But as a typical Libtard you'll quote what you think will fit your narrative and run your dummy. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Symmetry said:

"Lazy and stupid" was a Ward quotation.

I do not author simplistic insults like that.

 

I was calling climate scientists lazy and stupid because they are. Your simplistic insults are indeed simplistic, just like everything about you. In fact I'm at a loss to come up with a better pejorative to describe you and your sock puppets than Eejits. Perfectly fitting and apropos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I was calling climate scientists lazy and stupid because they are. Your simplistic insults are indeed simplistic, just like everything about you. In fact I'm at a loss to come up with a better pejorative to describe you and your sock puppets than Eejits. Perfectly fitting and apropos. 

I would rather we center these discussions around facts, not personal insults, memes, or other unproductive comments.

Your use of vocabulary certainly indicates your intelligence.  While responding to potential degradation probably provides vindication, it does little to actually advance the understanding of the causes for Texas' issue.

I will certainly agree that climate change is both controversial, and extremely complex (if not downright chaotic).  Those who have an established background in the matter are deserving of attention.  There appears to be a great level of agreement amongst those adroit and trained in "climate", that the earth's climate is changing by many measures. Potentially from human- driven activities, due to increasing human population, increasing energy demand per capita, and ever increasing economies.   

It is a personal matter to chose to place faith in those "scientists", but do recognize they are actually measuring and reporting data.  Either you believe them, or you can question the results.  Either is fine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I would rather we center these discussions around facts, not personal insults, memes, or other unproductive comments.

Your use of vocabulary certainly indicates your intelligence.  While responding to potential degradation probably provides vindication, it does little to actually advance the understanding of the causes for Texas' issue.

I will certainly agree that climate change is both controversial, and extremely complex (if not downright chaotic).  Those who have an established background in the matter are deserving of attention.  There appears to be a great level of agreement amongst those adroit and trained in "climate", that the earth's climate is changing by many measures. Potentially from human- driven activities, due to increasing human population, increasing energy demand per capita, and ever increasing economies.   

It is a personal matter to chose to place faith in those "scientists", but do recognize they are actually measuring and reporting data.  Either you believe them, or you can question the results.  Either is fine. 

 

Now I will take quite a bit of indifference with the concept of pure science or analytical reasoning. Frankly science has left the building to be replaced with personal opinions. Albeit sound opinions, but opinions...

Watching Faucci deny the efficacy of covid vaccine was extroidinary, do you by chance the head of NASA claiming climate change,only to be laughed at over a "minor" math calculation? Men of this caliber do not make such fundamental error's, unless of course they interject there own opinions.

As much as I am in total admiration for Stephen Hawkins he too interjected his opinion, and at the same time missed a fundamental of Christianity. 

There's no God; no one directs our fate, says Stephen Hawking in final book

One of Christianity's basic foundation's was and is.

The Gift of Freewill

Which does have credence in this thread,each one of us has the right to his or her's opinions. Lmao then there is the fundamental statement of Having faith...there are times I do believe that is a curse.

As to environmentalist being lazy,I personally believe Mr Ward is being kind. I ask you how science missed the tradgey of bunker oil pollution. Pollution that creates 4000 times more pollution than all the world's autos COMBINED.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=16 ships pollutes more than the combind world autos&ko=-1&ia=web

Have Faith if you can in science being free from political opinions.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Now I will take quite a bit of indifference with the concept of pure science or analytical reasoning. Frankly science has left the building to be replaced with personal opinions. Albeit sound opinions, but opinions...

Watching Faucci deny the efficacy of covid vaccine was extroidinary, do you by chance the head of NASA claiming climate change,only to be laughed at over a "minor" math calculation? Men of this caliber do not make such fundamental error's, unless of course they interject there own opinions.

As much as I am in total admiration for Stephen Hawkins he too interjected his opinion, and at the same time missed a fundamental of Christianity. 

There's no God; no one directs our fate, says Stephen Hawking in final book

One of Christianity's basic foundation's was and is.

The Gift of Freewill

Which does have credence in this thread,each one of us has the right to his or her's opinions. Lmao then there is the fundamental statement of Having faith...there are times I do believe that is a curse.

As to environmentalist being lazy,I personally believe Mr Ward is being kind. I ask you how science missed the tradgey of bunker oil pollution. Pollution that creates 4000 times more pollution than all the world's autos COMBINED.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=16 ships pollutes more than the combind world autos&ko=-1&ia=web

Have Faith if you can in science being free from political opinions.

I guess nobody else watched the documentary "Seaspiracy", then.  It is worth your time, and would give loads to this discussion.  Hint: it gives many of the ulterior reasons for greenies and NGOs, etc. going after their stated goals, while ignoring the obvious to a degree that is unforgivable.  Truly unforgivable.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Now I will take quite a bit of indifference with the concept of pure science or analytical reasoning. Frankly science has left the building to be replaced with personal opinions. Albeit sound opinions, but opinions...

Watching Faucci deny the efficacy of covid vaccine was extroidinary, do you by chance the head of NASA claiming climate change,only to be laughed at over a "minor" math calculation? Men of this caliber do not make such fundamental error's, unless of course they interject there own opinions.

As much as I am in total admiration for Stephen Hawkins he too interjected his opinion, and at the same time missed a fundamental of Christianity. 

There's no God; no one directs our fate, says Stephen Hawking in final book

One of Christianity's basic foundation's was and is.

The Gift of Freewill

Which does have credence in this thread,each one of us has the right to his or her's opinions. Lmao then there is the fundamental statement of Having faith...there are times I do believe that is a curse.

As to environmentalist being lazy,I personally believe Mr Ward is being kind. I ask you how science missed the tradgey of bunker oil pollution. Pollution that creates 4000 times more pollution than all the world's autos COMBINED.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=16 ships pollutes more than the combind world autos&ko=-1&ia=web

Have Faith if you can in science being free from political opinions.

Some points to reflect on here.

Have you ever noted that when there's a whole bunch of agreement over a matter, it begins to look like the truth, even though it may not be? 

Similar to being found guilty be a jury of peers.  Even if the truth is you are innocent, by definition, you are guilty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I guess nobody else watched the documentary "Seaspiracy", then.  It is worth your time, and would give loads to this discussion.  Hint: it gives many of the ulterior reasons for greenies and NGOs, etc. going after their stated goals, while ignoring the obvious to a degree that is unforgivable.  Truly unforgivable.

Yes ive watched the documentary,  lots of information that is a fact. Just more to processes in which I personally distaste. 

So many opinions and as these opinionions develop these problems only exhasburate themselves. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2021 at 4:01 AM, Ecocharger said:

Exposure to low levels of gasoline fumes has not been shown to cause cancer, however if the general public is in panic or paranoia, there may be a fear of cancer from many substances too numerous to mention.

Fear itself is something to be afraid of. Propagandists rely on fear to sell their message of panic. 

Certain families of aromatic hydrocarbons (among many other families of compounds) are very well studied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon#Human_health

"Clean burning" processes, for example, the substitution of certain types of biomass, coal or oil with natural gas result in a lot less PAH. There are of course many ways to reduce the detrimental effects. 

Compared to Europe, we have a lot less regulations with other (most likely cancer or other side effect causing) organic chemicals, except for the economic heft (and Clean Air Act provisions) of some states like California. 

Sometimes the science runs ahead of politics because of the distortion caused by the effect of special interest groups on public policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Some points to reflect on here.

Have you ever noted that when there's a whole bunch of agreement over a matter, it begins to look like the truth, even though it may not be? 

Similar to being found guilty be a jury of peers.  Even if the truth is you are innocent, by definition, you are guilty.

It may well qualify as pedantics, but at that risk I will say that, by definition you have been found guilty and, since we are human, those findings could very well be inaccurate; in your scenario you noted the truth is that you are innocent....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

I guess nobody else watched the documentary "Seaspiracy", then.  It is worth your time, and would give loads to this discussion.  Hint: it gives many of the ulterior reasons for greenies and NGOs, etc. going after their stated goals, while ignoring the obvious to a degree that is unforgivable.  Truly unforgivable.

Yes ive watched the documentary,  lots of information that is a fact. Just more to processes in which I personally distaste. 

So many opinions and as these opinionions develop these problems only exhasburate themselves. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

I guess nobody else watched the documentary "Seaspiracy", then.  It is worth your time, and would give loads to this discussion.  Hint: it gives many of the ulterior reasons for greenies and NGOs, etc. going after their stated goals, while ignoring the obvious to a degree that is unforgivable.  Truly unforgivable.

I thought it was great. But, haven't a lot of people advocated for less animal (or seafood) eating, or at least more sustainable processes? That (to me at least) is the main point of movements like a circular economy. It forces you to continuously evaluate the effect of who you do business with (in either a consumer to business or business to business role). These days, food security is far different from than it used to be. A large majority of Americans were once farmers (for example), but thanks to the fruits of evolving mechanization (but we can debate how efficiently to power it to reduce other side effects, no?), 1-3% of Americans (with seasonal help) can supply enough calories, and we can export a lot of calories. I worked/lived in Africa (and other places in the 3rd world) for about 5 years, and except for politically unstable countries or regions with violence (this is why I think violence or economic nationalism is rarely ever the answer), food security is no longer a problem. The Ethiopian famine of the 1980s, for example, wouldn't have happened today, though as usual, there is always moral dillemas: https://addisfortune.news/famine-terrible-hole-in-countrys-conscience/

re: microplastics, I think it's good to read a variety of informed opinions, for example by scientists who review the world wide amount of scientific literature: https://www.sapea.info/topics/microplastics/

 

Edited by surrept33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

This is the verdict of SAPEA's Evidence Review Report on micro- and nanoplastic pollution, published in January 2019. The report is written by a group of world-leading experts nominated by academies across Europe, and informs Scientific Opinion 6 from the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.

See the words Scientific Opinion there? You want less macro and micro plastics in the world you need to start buy back program and toss it in with the coal fired plants and the scrubbers will remove the harmful soot and make electricity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

This is the verdict of SAPEA's Evidence Review Report on micro- and nanoplastic pollution, published in January 2019. The report is written by a group of world-leading experts nominated by academies across Europe, and informs Scientific Opinion 6 from the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.

See the words Scientific Opinion there? You want less macro and micro plastics in the world you need to start buy back program and toss it in with the coal fired plants and the scrubbers will remove the harmful soot and make electricity. 

If the global consensus (right or wrong) is that carbon must be captured and stored to offset fossil carbon extracted in oil, coal, and NG, then you should cram that plastic back into the ground after you buy it back instead of burning it. That would be cheaper and much more reliable than trying to sequester CO2.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual on-topic important development: Buffet wants to save the day.

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

I think this post got lost in the flame war. Please comment.

On 3/27/2021 at 10:26 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

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

(edited)

10 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Actual on-topic important development: Buffet wants to save the day.

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

I think this post got lost in the flame war. Please comment.

 

7 day supply locally stored?  Is that practical?  Can those in the industry comment?  

That's a lot of nat gas, and a lot of up-front investment in stored fuel.  I guess you could "buy-low" during certain periods. Or store distillate...

Edited by turbguy

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.