Recommended Posts

(edited)

3 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Oh, so the grid operator, who should damn well know what is happening, just indiscriminately shuts down critical infrastructure, but it's the NG company that's at fault for signing up for a program to help in the the event of a disaster? 

How "government can do no wrong" of you and, likely, a "green" op-ed writer as well. Probably a Rachel Notley commissioned basher of the Alberta Oilsands. I guarantee you've done on here, with zero knowledge of the subject other than what Hanoi Jane has made a fool of herself trying to do. 

You're just another California silicon bubble headed leftist sycophant. 

Do you expect Jason Kenney to be successful in 'building the pipe'? Dude seems to have sold out Alberta's future to corporate lobbies instead of just facilitating innovation the next few decades. 

Edited by surrept33
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 7:49 AM, surrept33 said:

Capitalism is all about (collective) creative destruction and creation, but that doesn't mean that simultaneous new efficiencies and sources of economic activity can't be found, they are everywhere these days, it depends on how people focus their attention (and play the game of life). 

For example, replacing radiators with radiant heat, the substitution of coal plants with other forms of primary energy generation, or the juxtaposition of incandescent bulbs with diodes were huge wins in being less wasteful (people in general got free lunch), however, there are always winners and losers when there are changes in any status of any quo, and people (especially in the first world) have an irrational fear of loss when a better problem framing is how much win (a infinite dimensional Copernican Revolution) can be created. I think the greatest gift of humanity is our ability to adapt, but we should also heed precautionary tales of maladaptation. 

A secondary question is how do we measure wastefulness or some efficiency and incentivize reductions in "cheating" (I'll describe this as generally, behavior that is not conducive to well being). This is especially true, for example, of many public companies who classically have been incentivized to focus strictly on the short term, for example the current quarterly result, without focusing on the ambient needs of different stakeholders (whether it be their employees, the environment, or future generations).

How does one measure this? Is it an arbitrary numéraire, capacity, power, energy, addition of resilience or adaptability if things go south? These all come with assumptions that people squabble about. Personally, I think it is prudent to design for prevention (risk of ruin) but also maximize risk taking by cross fertilization (where by pollination of competitive cross collaboration is emphasized, the tighter the feedback loop the better). This is especially when the costs of being wrong aren't much and the benefits are extremely high.

Paradoxically, I suspect there will be both substitution of various uses of petrochemical-derived products where there is high fungibility (really a substitution of some processed organic chemicals, for example, many polymers) and a bidding up for (petro)chemical expertise (human capital) as our system of commerce selects out certain pathologies, especially accounting for externalities that became "debt" for future (and sometimes present) generations. This substitution won't be universal, but given what appears to be true for example, with the bioaccumulation of microplastics and endocrine disruption, perhaps it is all in our best interests when there are easy substitutes, for example, in the consumer packaging industry. 

Think about a generalized "immune system" (a equilibrium model, borrowed from statistical physics), which is approximately our laissez-fairish system of capitalism mixed with rational regulations when market failures happen, but can also describe the ecosystem of either economic activity or for example, various natural ecological cycles that are easy to destabilize given their low tolerance to top of the food chain (in practice, human) activity. The collective us (humanity) seems to on average get better at learning from our previous mistakes, but rarely does anything move in a straight line, it's really a zigzag.

... "as our system of commerce selects out certain pathologies..."   Are you sure you didn't write speeches for Hitler in a former life?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wombat said:

... "as our system of commerce selects out certain pathologies..."   Are you sure you didn't write speeches for Hitler in a former life?

high temperature perplexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 4:14 AM, Ecocharger said:

It seems that the scientific communities in other nations outside U.S., Canada, Europe are not necessarily on board with the official funded-science view here. Asian countries seem to have a more pluralistic scientific consensus regarding the causes of global warming/cooling. I cited the work of a Russian scientist earlier in this thread. 

Here is a recent critique of the Western scientific consensus from a Finnish scientist, one who has thousands of citations for his published work in climate research.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

The approach outlined by this Finnish scientist is consistent with recent research from Japan,

https://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html

Here is the published article from the Japanese team,

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Isn't it strange they all come from cold countries and stand to benefit from global warming through reduced heating expenses? Here in Australia, my air-condtioner is now running for 6 months of the year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 4:06 PM, 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. 

You clearly missed my comment that the French oil company Total is producing PROTEIN from CO2 plus H2? If fed to all the pigs and chicken on the planet, not only would this reduce global warming directly, it would also reduce the amount of land being cleared for grain production. You might be shocked to know that land clearing is a far greater contributor to global warming than coal, oil, and gas combined. See the New Scientist, 3rd April 2021, p.13 and you will discover that the World Resources Institute says that if farm yields stay at current levels, most of the world's remaining forests would have to be cleared to meet estimated food needs in 2050. That is why they are pushing the EU to make use of GM crops. In other words, even if the world decarbonises by 2050, our grandchildren's children will probably still be stuffed unless COVID turns into something like the Bubonic Plague. I am not interested in eating insects while the Chinese eat Pork, how about you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Wombat said:

You clearly missed my comment that the French oil company Total is producing PROTEIN from CO2 plus H2? If fed to all the pigs and chicken on the planet, not only would this reduce global warming directly, it would also reduce the amount of land being cleared for grain production. You might be shocked to know that land clearing is a far greater contributor to global warming than coal, oil, and gas combined. See the New Scientist, 3rd April 2021, p.13 and you will discover that the World Resources Institute says that if farm yields stay at current levels, most of the world's remaining forests would have to be cleared to meet estimated food needs in 2050. That is why they are pushing the EU to make use of GM crops. In other words, even if the world decarbonises by 2050, our grandchildren's children will probably still be stuffed unless COVID turns into something like the Bubonic Plague. I am not interested in eating insects while the Chinese eat Pork, how about you?

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic.   Producing protein from CO2 +H2 (+ energy) is great, and if there is a more efficient way to do this than traditional farming, then that's great too. However, it does not sequester any carbon, because that protein is consumed and converted back into CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you are proposing to harvest the humans and animals and bury them in abandoned coal mines.

I have not researched land clearing, but I believe you. It's a big problem and it must be addressed. Perhaps high-tech farming schemes or alternative ways to produce food from energy+CO2 will help, but it does not sequester carbon.  I like pork. And beef.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 1:10 AM, 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.

Sounds expensive. Why would a gas pipeline operator go for an expensive gas generator and an even more expensive battery when Texas has the cheapest electricity due to it's high renewable output? Better to make the average Joe pay for grid scale batteries? It is different here in Australia, the iron ore mines in WA were traditionally powered by diesel generators but renewables plus batteries are much cheaper than that so BHP and Rio Tinto are onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Sounds expensive. Why would a gas pipeline operator go for an expensive gas generator and an even more expensive battery when Texas has the cheapest electricity due to it's high renewable output? Better to make the average Joe pay for grid scale batteries? It is different here in Australia, the iron ore mines in WA were traditionally powered by diesel generators but renewables plus batteries are much cheaper than that so BHP and Rio Tinto are onto it.

This massive thread is about the Texas blackout fiasco, which was attributed (in part and at the time of my post) to the grid's emergency load-shedding causing the electric pipeline pumps to fail, in turn starving the big gas-fed electrical generation plants. The question was then how to break this feedback in the most reliable way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 2:49 PM, 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.

Damnit Mr Ecoscourger, I thought it was them reliable coal stations that failed and dragged down the natural gas generation "backup" system...

ENERGY TRANSITIONS: How coal failed in the Texas deep freeze -- Thursday, March 18, 2021 -- www.eenews.net

Not to mention fact that Ercot didn't list the gas generators as essential...

Grid Operator Unwittingly Shut Down Natural Gas During Texas Freeze | OilPrice.com

Or the fact that even nuclear failed?

It was all coz of them naughty wind turbines? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 12:12 AM, Boat said:

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.

Correct about wind power, but the idea that a decrepit old man like Biden with Dementia who likes to pretend to suffocate young boys then stroke their back, could be the most popular President in American history? How does this pass the Sidney Powell test?

On 3/29/2021 at 12:12 AM, Boat said:

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.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1389309186702512132

How does this pass the Sidney Powell test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Sounds expensive. Why would a gas pipeline operator go for an expensive gas generator and an even more expensive battery when Texas has the cheapest electricity due to it's high renewable output? Better to make the average Joe pay for grid scale batteries? It is different here in Australia, the iron ore mines in WA were traditionally powered by diesel generators but renewables plus batteries are much cheaper than that so BHP and Rio Tinto are onto it.

Texas has the cheapest electricity due to it's high renewable output????

 
  Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington have cheaper power and you do not have to worry about blackouts when it gets cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2021 at 8:08 AM, turbguy said:

Hard to say if global warming was a contributing factor to the Texas weather event.  Time will tell if such "wild swings" increase.  I'm not denying that potential cause, however by the time it becomes obvious that things are dramatically changing, it may be too late to be able to regain past expectations.   A "catch-22".

The incompetence lies not with ERCOT.  Their management actually saved the grid.  It lies with the fractured energy supply system within Texas, set up in the name of a "energy market", by politics, paid for by the market participants.

If wind turbines accumulate ice, the current "solution" is to either shut them down, or recognize icing is coming, and shut them down beforehand.   While blade heating and coatings are possible, I don't believe they are extensively used (yet).  Most wind turbine weatherization programs apply to the lubricated systems (e.g. gearboxes, yaw motors).

  

Turbfella, climate scientists have known for years that global warming (particularly over the arctic), disrupts the jet stream and causes it to create large "bulges" that reach as far South as Florida and Texas. How many "polar vortexes" will it take Americans to accept the science?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2021 at 12:09 AM, NickW said:

Within Europe most interconnections are relatively short and the investment cost is offset by the overall reduction in capital costs to build conventional peaking plant. 

Stablising the grid can also be provided for through Hydro, pump storage and as we are now seeing increasing deployment of batteries. Europe is moving its Hydro fleet to being a peak supplier rather than  baseload. Typical example is Norway - on Windy days it imports from Denmark, Germany etc and on lower wind days exports Hydro. Its retrofitting many of its conventional Hydro plants with pump storage capacity which will further enhance this service.

Contrary to the point you make the relatively small amount of coal (inc Lignite) is used to provide baseload. There is some flexing of gas to meet demand variations but the vast bulk is meet by variations in Hydro output which Europe collectively has about 100GW plus can also access Hydro resources from Russia, Ukraine and Turkey. 

Look at the hourly electricity mix in this link

Wind Power Numbers | WindEurope

I see the old chestnut about wind being a net CO2 producer is alive and well. 

Nick "the Legend"! I will go along with the oilprice crew on that, always manage to put things in perspective, keep up the great work. Some of us have the brains to appreciate others  with a brain :)

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 2:43 AM, turbguy said:

Yes, things can go in many forked directions.  An delay, delay, delay...

While I suspect 15 billion may be a "start", I suspect that Texas has other funding pools that could be at risk.

And Americans wonder why America is broke? You are the litigation capital of the planet. Why would someone get a job when they can just litigate and become a multi-millionaire?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, surrept33 said:

high temperature perplexity

Mate, I have studied Bose-Einstein statistics and I agree, there is nothing cool about you at all! You are the exact opposite of cool, more like the structure of molten plastic, all mixed up and amorphous as opposed to the "super-conductor" that I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm not sure I follow your logic.   Producing protein from CO2 +H2 (+ energy) is great, and if there is a more efficient way to do this than traditional farming, then that's great too. However, it does not sequester any carbon, because that protein is consumed and converted back into CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you are proposing to harvest the humans and animals and bury them in abandoned coal mines.

I have not researched land clearing, but I believe you. It's a big problem and it must be addressed. Perhaps high-tech farming schemes or alternative ways to produce food from energy+CO2 will help, but it does not sequester carbon.  I like pork. And beef.

I am not sure I follow your logic. How does all that protein get converted into CO2 and end up in the atmosphere? How efficient is the human or animal digestive system? And you have obviously got the economic concept of "opportunity cost" confused with physical cost. Physics is not economics Dan. You cannot seem to grasp the physical consequence of recycling. If you use the same Carbon atom twice to fulfil a human need, you only require half as many. It ain't rocket science. But the maths of rocket science does come into things. Velocity is a distance covered per unit of time. Acceleration is a distance covered per the squared unit of time. And a change in acceleration is a distance covered per cubed unit of time. Likewise, that is all that matters regarding climate change. It is not how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere that matters, it is the RATE at which we do it. Why do you think that recycling a Carbon atom is the same as putting it straight into the atmosphere? Can u not see that preventing it's direct release and using it a second time prevents another carbon atom from being used? That cuts the emissions by 50%, but even more when you consider that animal/human shit is the equivalent of plastics in the discussion earlier?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Do you expect Jason Kenney to be successful in 'building the pipe'? Dude seems to have sold out Alberta's future to corporate lobbies instead of just facilitating innovation the next few decades. 

Which one?

KXL? TMX? Energy East? 

We've been investing in nuclear energy: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5677983

And rare earth minerals: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-government-announces-panel-aimed-at-spurring-mineral-investment

And geothermal energy: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-alberta-commits-to-expanding-geothermal-industry/

Like most things Canada related, let alone Alberta, you couldn't figure out a two car race if you were the lead car. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

I am not sure I follow your logic. How does all that protein get converted into CO2 and end up in the atmosphere? How efficient is the human or animal digestive system? And you have obviously got the economic concept of "opportunity cost" confused with physical cost. Physics is not economics Dan. You cannot seem to grasp the physical consequence of recycling. If you use the same Carbon atom twice to fulfil a human need, you only require half as many. It ain't rocket science. But the maths of rocket science does come into things. Velocity is a distance covered per unit of time. Acceleration is a distance covered per the squared unit of time. And a change in acceleration is a distance covered per cubed unit of time. Likewise, that is all that matters regarding climate change. It is not how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere that matters, it is the RATE at which we do it. Why do you think that recycling a Carbon atom is the same as putting it straight into the atmosphere? Can u not see that preventing it's direct release and using it a second time prevents another carbon atom from being used? That cuts the emissions by 50%, but even more when you consider that animal/human shit is the equivalent of plastics in the discussion earlier?

 

Carbon that is already in the biosphere cycles back and forth between CO2 and other biological forms, including protein. The ecosystem can keep this amount of carbon in approximate balance. The problem is that we are adding truly massive amounts to fossil carbon to the biosphere. The ecosystem cannot keep up with the influx, so the CO2 is building up in the atmosphere. The buildup is an observed fact. The introduction of the fossil carbon is an observed fact. To a fairly close approximation, the extra carbon in that CO2 matches the amount of introduced fossil carbon dug or pumped from the ground.  The exact details of the carbon budget within the biosphere, including farming, land clearing, and much else, are much murkier, but they do not change the fundamental observed fact that the amount of introduced fossil carbon closely matches the amount of CO2 buildup.

If you don't understand how protein gets converted to CO2, I suggest you read a basic biology textbook. Using an average first-world male as an example, the guy eats 56 grams of protein a day, but he does not get any heavier. The protein he eats is eventually consumed and emitted from his body, mostly as CO2, but some as other organics in urine and feces that then ultimately degrade into CO2

I do understand your economic point: use it twice and you need half as much. I don't care if you use it twice or use it a thousand times: if you pump it out of the ground and it enters the ecosystem, then it adds to the problem, unless you eventually remove it from the ecosystem. But yes, the more times you can use it, the less you need to dig or pump from the ground.

Methane is a different but related issue. When the ecosystem produces methane  ("bio-methane") and it enters the atmosphere, it absorbs much more solar heat per carbon atom than CO2, but it does eventually break down. Same for fossil methane. Human activity (agriculture) can cause the production of a lot of bio-methane, and yes, we do need to work on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

To a fairly close approximation, the extra carbon in that CO2 matches the amount of introduced fossil carbon dug or pumped from the ground

This is actually incorrect, unless you consider "close approximation" to mean within 50%. In fact this was the subject of some of the Climategate emails way back when. 

Let us not forget in our land centric hubris that 71% of this planet is covered by water and that water holds more than 50 times the CO2 that the atmosphere does over the whole planet, not just over land. From plants' perspective the earth was in CO2 deficit years ago. For photosynthesis to work there needs to be a minimum of 250 ppm CO2. This has been studied extensively by botanists for over 100 years. It's also why commercial greenhouses artificially increase CO2 by orders of magnitude (typically 3000 ppm). 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 hours ago, Wombat said:

Turbfella, climate scientists have known for years that global warming (particularly over the arctic), disrupts the jet stream and causes it to create large "bulges" that reach as far South as Florida and Texas. How many "polar vortexes" will it take Americans to accept the science?

 

It will take an infinite number, based on many opinions here.

Don/t hold your breath about some changing their mind.

Change is inevitable.  Even if more expensive...

Edited by turbguy
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2021 at 10:58 PM, Wombat said:

Isn't it strange they all come from cold countries and stand to benefit from global warming through reduced heating expenses? Here in Australia, my air-condtioner is now running for 6 months of the year!

Science is science...these folks are building a new scientific consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2021 at 7:46 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes the NG company is as much at fault for signing up for a program to shut down during an electricity shortage as the grid operator is for not vetting the list. Let's be clear, the only disaster that program was for was energy shortages. Surely those NG guys are intelligent enough to know that they deliver energy and if they shut down the problem will get worse? Apparently not.

HaHa, you guys can't even build a pipeline in your own country for it. No one wants it.

This proves the point we made earlier, that the failure of the green system pulled down the backup system of natural gas generation. It's all there in black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Science is science...these folks are building a new scientific consensus.

Nope, this is the best summary of the science...

The Carbon Cycle (nasa.gov)

I have a New Scientist from about 15 years ago and the main headline on the front cover is "Saved by the Sun"? The hope was that the Maunder Minimum would prevent climate change until we decarbonised our economies. Has not happened. The Earth continues to warm exponentially. Believe me, we have f****** up badly, and net zero by 2050 is no guarantee that the planet will be saved from a runaway greenhouse effect. Especially given what I said earlier about deforestation. The world should have gone nuclear 2 decades ago but the Greens would not allow it and still believe we can save the planet with renewables alone. Fact is, things are gonna start gettin really ugly in 20 years time no matter how quickly we act now.

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.