JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

16 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Yes, but uncertainties, and speculation are what a forum thrives on!  If everyone agreed about everything, and all news releases were simple to understand, factual and without controversy there would be nothing to talk about!

 

IMHO the fact that they India is even considering it seriously is an indicator of how seriously and quickly things are changing. 

They have to say nice things, but coal is hot right now and getting hotter.

Here is the IEA view of coal markets,

"Based on current trends, global coal demand is set to rise to 8025 Mt in 2022, the highest level ever seen, and to remain there through 2024, the IEA estimates.

This year’s global recovery dashed any hopes that coal-fired power generation may have peaked, the IEA said, expecting global coal power generation to rise by 9 percent this year to 10350 terawatt-hours (TWh)—a new all-time high.

Over the next two years, global coal demand could even see new record highs as emerging markets led by China and India will lead consumption growth which is set to outpace declines in developed economies, according to the IEA."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2022 at 3:49 AM, notsonice said:

since 2015, 326GW of proposed coal projects in India have seen cancellations, which means a 92% decrease in the pipeline. .....which means India’s pre-construction pipeline of 21GW risks getting scrapped.

 

It is impossible to have 300+ GW coal projects in the first place as the current total coal capacity (31-dec-2021) in India is 210GW. Why would India add 150% of its current capacity? Indian electricity generation is not increasing more than 5% a year for the last 10 years.

On 2/3/2022 at 12:03 AM, notsonice said:

Coal will become the go-to energy source now that natural gas prices are escalating world-wide???? You should put your money where your mouth is an buy a coal mine.......You will be richhhhhher than Elon Musk. Reality check , you are not paying attention the fact that coal is not the go to energy source...it is the source of last resort. By the way have you seen many coal powered locomotives running regular service these days....I hear they are all the rage in North Korea.

It is a fact that coal is a primary source of energy in places where it is most abundant fossil fuel. China, India etc have abundant coal and very limited oil and gas. Hence coal is used as primary energy source. USA started shale drilling which made natural gas production abundant and hence decided to scale down coal to avoid wastage of natural gas. If USA had not obtained that much natural gas, it would have continued increasing coal production. This has nothing to do with clean energy but simply sudden influx of cheap and easily obtainable gas.

If India starts importing LNG, then its electricity prices will double as imported LNG will be much more expensive than domestic coal. So, India will never substitute coal with gas. However, if India finds a massive 100+ TCF reserves of natural gas, then it will decrease coal consumption in favour of gas.

On 2/3/2022 at 12:11 AM, notsonice said:

But your idea of battery operated trains is outrageous. The battery charging time makes it absurd. ????? not my idea ...they are now in production. Enjoy the thought and the charging time......30  to 40 minutes the same as the time it takes to swap out a crew.

batteries need replacement every 4-5 years??? not Lithium iron which is what is being used in the locomotives....10000 charges, if you charge once a day gives you a  30 year life. And yes Trains do stop for crew changes just like that....I am 500 feet away from a main line crew change station.... at least a crew change every hour......You do realize even freight trains run on timetables ..

Very practical.....next time you post check into what you are babbling about first

Lithium batteries have cycle life of 2000 cycles which will last 5-6 years. Life will decrease as storage temperature increases. Trains don't stop for long times every 7-8hours. It only stops for long when there is loading activity. Else, the stops are short. Moreover, batteries make no sense when trains are already running on electric lines. For example, in India 72% railway lines are electrified and it is expected to reach 100% electrification by 2023-24. What purpose will batteries serve when entire railway tracks are electrified? It will be an utter waste of money and resources. If India can do it, the any other country can also electrify rail completely which makes having batteries on trains an absurd idea altogether. Think before you speak.

https://www.financialexpress.com/infrastructure/railways/indian-railways-green-target-check-out-the-progress-made-on-100-electrification-mission/2409268/

 

On 2/3/2022 at 12:18 AM, notsonice said:

You missed the press releases India is dumping coal and China is also working on it.  World wide coal production peaked in 2014 . 2021 is not the  peak year for production, it was at 7.9 billion. 2014 it was at 8.1 billion. Do you ever check your fake facts before babbling garbage?1024px-World_Coal_Consumption.svg.png

The coal production in India and China are already rising rapidly. In fact the coal production in China and India never dipped since 2014. The only exception has been Covid pandemic but that can't be considered as dumping of coal. China's coal has remained stable for last 7 years whereas Indian coal actually increased by 25% or about 150 million tonnes in last 7 years. The reason why global coal production declined is because of USA & Germany coal production. USA coal production fell by 45-50% or about 430 million tonnes since 2014, German coal production fell by 40% or about 80 million tonnes since 2014. The 200 million tonne reduction in coal production is because of this reduction in USA & Germany. This is only an exception rather than a norm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production

On 2/3/2022 at 12:28 AM, Eric Gagen said:

This graph by the way is a perfect example of what a 'real' peak in usage looks like for practically anything.  There is a long history of low level usage, then it becomes 'the thing' and usage goes up exponentially.  Forecasts are made that 'every person will be a 'coalminer/aircraft pilot/soybean farmer/telephone operator/bank clerk' or whatever.  Then the market gets saturated because the need for the thing in question is finally met.  It could stay at a relatively stable level following population growth, but in the vast majority of cases it then begins to drop, because something else has come along that works better (natural gas, jumbo jets with 2 crew, high efficiency farms, electric switchgear, ATM cards) and suddenly the last big thing is over with. 

Coal long ago passed the stage where it was 'the next big thing' roughly between 1830 and 1920, and from roughly 1950 - 2010 it was 'this big thing that nobody cares much about'  Now it's 'this big thing that is still around, but obviously going away' because there are so many good quality alternatives to it nowadays.  

Nope. Coal never passed saturation. Only USA and Germany coal production declined and this is primarily driven by the massive gas boom in USA in the same period. If USA had not seen the gas boom, the coal production would continue to rise. Coal is still the big thing in countries which lack oil and gas. It is simple logic that coal being a solid is much more difficult to extract than oil and gas.

On 2/3/2022 at 2:31 AM, notsonice said:

Report recommends no new coal plants for India as prospects for batteries improve

An expert committee in India is recommending that the country stop building new coal-fired power plants, after concluding that renewables can meet all future need for electricity.

Jharia Coal mine India ‘can’t escape’ coal phasedown, needs funding to drive just transition for 33 million workers. Image: TripodStories- AB, CC BY-SA 4.0

 

 
2 minute read Jan. 31, 2022

An expert committee in India is recommending that the country stop building new coal-fired power plants, after concluding that renewables can meet all future need for electricity.

“The committee, headed by former Central Electricity Authority (CEA) chair Gireesh Pradhan, found the addition of low-cost renewable energy capacity would handle the expected growth in electricity demand,” the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reports. “It also found the overall coal fleet was underutilised, averaging 55 per cent capacity utilisation,” though that capacity factor will improve as demand rises.

The report calls for India to replace retired coal capacity with 450 gigawatts (GW) of “variable renewables” capacity by 2030, writes IEEFA Energy Finance Analyst Kashish Shah, with peak power supplied through a combination of batteries and pumped storage, conventional gas and coal, and hydropower.

Many other jurisdictions have looked to gas-fired power plants, with their flexibility to ramp up and down quickly, to meet peak demand. But Shah says a lack of domestic supply has kept gas plants and India to a utilisation rate below 20 per cent.

And now, gas isn’t the only option to accommodate sudden changes in demand. “In terms of flexibility, battery storage is the most proven technology to provide fast ramp-up and ramp-down energy dispatch and fast frequency service,” he writes. “Batteries ramp up to full load in a minute and can also absorb excess power from the grid.”

With system costs falling fast over the last decade, Shah says solar+storage is cost-competitive with new coal plants and “burgeoning” in the United States and Australia. And recent market and regulatory changes could bring those trends to India, as well.

“ReNew Power, one of the biggest renewable energy developers in India, and Fluence Energy, a leading battery technology provider, have announced a joint venture to develop a 150-MWh storage facility in Karnataka,” he reports. “The cost of batteries could reduce further with local manufacture,” and government support is on the way to help build up localised battery value chains.

This story was published with permission from The Energy Mix.

It also found the overall coal fleet was underutilised, averaging 55 per cent capacity utilisation. This is the key information. Everything else is just supporting information. Obviously, when the capacity utilisation is just 55%, it does not make sense to build more plants. Coal plants can run at 90% capacity even after considering maintenance and downtimes. 55% is too low.

On 2/3/2022 at 3:28 AM, Eric Gagen said:

Their article is sourced - they may have a bias or objective in their reporting, but unless you believe what they are reporting is factually wrong, it doesn't really matter.  I did a quick google search, and Reuters, and the Indian NEP (sort of their version of the IEA) are both saying that a plan to stop construction of new coal fired plants is may be adopted.  It's real news regardless of the source.

Indian coal plants already have 210GW capacity and another 35GW is in pipeline, mostly to replace the ageing plants. Current Indian consumption including captive power generation is 1.6TWh and non-captive generation is 1.4TWh. If we do a simple math, we will find that the generation capacity of 210GW plants is 210*24*365/1000 = 1.8TWh. This is more than the total consumption including captive electricity. Now, India also has a good amount of generation from other sources like nuclear, hydro and renewables and actual capacity utilisation of coal plants is even less. Below is the actual electricity generation (including captive generation) by source:

image.thumb.png.b6ce0b263f1e0c900706653ce92dbbce.png 

The coal plants are generating only 1TWh energy which is only at 55% capacity. Including maintenance and downtimes, coal plants can generate at 90% capacity. This means India can generate upto 1.62TWh electricity just by coal plants meaning there is buffer to increase generation by 60% coal power without adding a single plant. Considering the average increase of 5% yoy in future, it will mean that no more coal plants will be needed till 2030 simply due to overcapacity.

The role played by non-hydro renewables is minimal - only 8.5% of non-captive electricity - from wind and solar. Even with increased renewables, this will only go upto 20% at best after which it will become difficult to stabilise the grid. So, the halt in coal power plant construction is mostly because of overcapacity and only partly due to renewables or "Green energy". The solar and wind energy even when stabilised at 15-20% of total electricity, it will only be enough to satisfy 2 years of 5% electricity consumption growth. This is why India still has ongoing 35GW of coal plant construction projects, mostly to replace old and inefficient plants. If the intention was phasing out coal plants, these plants would have been retired instead of replaced

On 2/3/2022 at 1:22 AM, ronwagn said:

LNG is very dense and can easily fuel locomotives. I have not seen any comparison to cost or utility. Overhead electric lines make sense too. Any of the above can do the job. The cost of the engines and the cost of the fuel and the cost of the overhead lines all need to be figured in. I doubt there are any good statistics. I don't smoke anything.😊

Not true. LNG is difficult to be used as fuel for locomotives. India tested using CNG powered engines for trains and realised that CNG engines don't provide enough torque for heavy loads. So, LNG can't really be used to power locomotives. However, CNG can power ships using modified turbofan engines. CNG cars are a reality, however. So, if there is real intent to use natural gas in transport, passenger vehicles is the first place to start.

India trials with CNG

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Railways-starts-first-train-that-chugs-on-CNG/articleshow/45892086.cms

https://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/indian-railways-advances-natural-gas-locomotives-0521

16 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Yes, but uncertainties, and speculation are what a forum thrives on!  If everyone agreed about everything, and all news releases were simple to understand, factual and without controversy there would be nothing to talk about!

 

IMHO the fact that they India is even considering it seriously is an indicator of how seriously and quickly things are changing. 

Rationalising overcapacity is definitely not an indicator of seriousness. Even the greatest critique of renewables would not recommend increasing coal power generation capacity which is already severely underutilised at 55%.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices have nowhere to go but up, as the global warming becomes global freezing. What happened to those panic-driven climate models?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/WTI-Crude-Surges-Above-92-On-Permian-Freeze.html

"The freezing weather in the United States, which had spread from the Midwest south to Texas, disrupted operations at some Permian oil wells, as icy roads have prevented some trucking operations crucial for oil production.

Due to the winter weather, a large producer in the Permian had to shut in 4,000 barrels per day (bpd) of its crude production, a source with knowledge of the situation told Bloomberg late on Thursday. The freezing storm has also affected some wells in the largest U.S. shale play."

That is literally a drop in the bucket - the Permian makes ~ 5 million bbls a day of oil - closing in 4,000 of that is less than 1 in a thousand, and the weather has already warmed back up.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

It is impossible to have 300+ GW coal projects in the first place as the current total coal capacity (31-dec-2021) in India is 210GW. Why would India add 150% of its current capacity? Indian electricity generation is not increasing more than 5% a year for the last 10 years.

It is a fact that coal is a primary source of energy in places where it is most abundant fossil fuel. China, India etc have abundant coal and very limited oil and gas. Hence coal is used as primary energy source. USA started shale drilling which made natural gas production abundant and hence decided to scale down coal to avoid wastage of natural gas. If USA had not obtained that much natural gas, it would have continued increasing coal production. This has nothing to do with clean energy but simply sudden influx of cheap and easily obtainable gas.

If India starts importing LNG, then its electricity prices will double as imported LNG will be much more expensive than domestic coal. So, India will never substitute coal with gas. However, if India finds a massive 100+ TCF reserves of natural gas, then it will decrease coal consumption in favour of gas.

Lithium batteries have cycle life of 2000 cycles which will last 5-6 years. Life will decrease as storage temperature increases. Trains don't stop for long times every 7-8hours. It only stops for long when there is loading activity. Else, the stops are short. Moreover, batteries make no sense when trains are already running on electric lines. For example, in India 72% railway lines are electrified and it is expected to reach 100% electrification by 2023-24. What purpose will batteries serve when entire railway tracks are electrified? It will be an utter waste of money and resources. If India can do it, the any other country can also electrify rail completely which makes having batteries on trains an absurd idea altogether. Think before you speak.

https://www.financialexpress.com/infrastructure/railways/indian-railways-green-target-check-out-the-progress-made-on-100-electrification-mission/2409268/

 

The coal production in India and China are already rising rapidly. In fact the coal production in China and India never dipped since 2014. The only exception has been Covid pandemic but that can't be considered as dumping of coal. China's coal has remained stable for last 7 years whereas Indian coal actually increased by 25% or about 150 million tonnes in last 7 years. The reason why global coal production declined is because of USA & Germany coal production. USA coal production fell by 45-50% or about 430 million tonnes since 2014, German coal production fell by 40% or about 80 million tonnes since 2014. The 200 million tonne reduction in coal production is because of this reduction in USA & Germany. This is only an exception rather than a norm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production

Nope. Coal never passed saturation. Only USA and Germany coal production declined and this is primarily driven by the massive gas boom in USA in the same period. If USA had not seen the gas boom, the coal production would continue to rise. Coal is still the big thing in countries which lack oil and gas. It is simple logic that coal being a solid is much more difficult to extract than oil and gas.

It also found the overall coal fleet was underutilised, averaging 55 per cent capacity utilisation. This is the key information. Everything else is just supporting information. Obviously, when the capacity utilisation is just 55%, it does not make sense to build more plants. Coal plants can run at 90% capacity even after considering maintenance and downtimes. 55% is too low.

Indian coal plants already have 210GW capacity and another 35GW is in pipeline, mostly to replace the ageing plants. Current Indian consumption including captive power generation is 1.6TWh and non-captive generation is 1.4TWh. If we do a simple math, we will find that the generation capacity of 210GW plants is 210*24*365/1000 = 1.8TWh. This is more than the total consumption including captive electricity. Now, India also has a good amount of generation from other sources like nuclear, hydro and renewables and actual capacity utilisation of coal plants is even less. Below is the actual electricity generation (including captive generation) by source:

image.thumb.png.b6ce0b263f1e0c900706653ce92dbbce.png 

The coal plants are generating only 1TWh energy which is only at 55% capacity. Including maintenance and downtimes, coal plants can generate at 90% capacity. This means India can generate upto 1.62TWh electricity just by coal plants meaning there is buffer to increase generation by 60% coal power without adding a single plant. Considering the average increase of 5% yoy in future, it will mean that no more coal plants will be needed till 2030 simply due to overcapacity.

The role played by non-hydro renewables is minimal - only 8.5% of non-captive electricity - from wind and solar. Even with increased renewables, this will only go upto 20% at best after which it will become difficult to stabilise the grid. So, the halt in coal power plant construction is mostly because of overcapacity and only partly due to renewables or "Green energy". The solar and wind energy even when stabilised at 15-20% of total electricity, it will only be enough to satisfy 2 years of 5% electricity consumption growth. This is why India still has ongoing 35GW of coal plant construction projects, mostly to replace old and inefficient plants. If the intention was phasing out coal plants, these plants would have been retired instead of replaced

Not true. LNG is difficult to be used as fuel for locomotives. India tested using CNG powered engines for trains and realised that CNG engines don't provide enough torque for heavy loads. So, LNG can't really be used to power locomotives. However, CNG can power ships using modified turbofan engines. CNG cars are a reality, however. So, if there is real intent to use natural gas in transport, passenger vehicles is the first place to start.

India trials with CNG

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Railways-starts-first-train-that-chugs-on-CNG/articleshow/45892086.cms

https://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/indian-railways-advances-natural-gas-locomotives-0521

Rationalising overcapacity is definitely not an indicator of seriousness. Even the greatest critique of renewables would not recommend increasing coal power generation capacity which is already severely underutilised at 55%.

I did notice the very low capacity utilization in Indian coal plants recently.  Do you know what's driving that?  Is it lack of demand? lack of coal to run the plants? Lack of grid capacity to distribute the power? Older plants getting idled, but still being carried as active and available to produce on the records?  It seems odd to me. I know capacity utilization of coal plants in China is low, but I also know why.  I don't have any similar insight for India.  

 

With respect to 'peak' or 'saturation' of coal, that again is what a global peak looks like - some places are still increasing, while other places are already decreasing, and you explained the details beautifully.  Eventually everyone else decreases too.  With regard to India,  my interpretation of the data is that India doesn't have the resource base to burn coal the way that China currently is.  It will probably increase it's usage in the coming use, but in a much more modest way, because the coal simply isn't there to be mined.  What are you thoughts on this?

Edited by Eric Gagen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Yeah. I just said that. 

Grain of salt, and all that. 

They're considering it, not doing it. 

That's the entire fallacy of the @notsonice argument. 

The key statistics to consider is coal consumption, not generation capacity. At times there can be a massive mismatch or overcapacity caused by conducive govt policy towards plant construction which will then need to be rationalised through cancellation of further projects. But coal consumption is always linked to actual usage and is the best indicator of coal power generation.

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you have trouble with the fine print of the IEA, read and learn,

 

"Based on current trends, global coal demand is set to rise to 8025 Mt in 2022, the highest level ever seen, and to remain there through 2024, the IEA estimates.

This year’s global recovery dashed any hopes that coal-fired power generation may have peaked, the IEA said, expecting global coal power generation to rise by 9 percent this year to 10350 terawatt-hours (TWh)—a new all-time high.

Over the next two years, global coal demand could even see new record highs as emerging markets led by China and India will lead consumption growth which is set to outpace declines in developed economies, according to the IEA."

 

Only USA and its ally Germany are responsible for cutting down global coal production/consumption. It has nothing to do with renewable energy but is because of the gas boom from shale wells in USA which is being used for substituting coal power in USA and also its allies in Europe through politically forced exports of US gas.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

22 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

I did notice the very low capacity utilization in Indian coal plants recently.  Do you know what's driving that?  Is it lack of demand? lack of coal to run the plants? Lack of grid capacity to distribute the power? Older plants getting idled, but still being carried as active and available to produce on the records?  It seems odd to me. I know capacity utilization of coal plants in China is low, but I also know why.  I don't have any similar insight for India.  

There were a few factors, mostly due to policy and politics that caused this overcapacity:

  • India overestimated its electricity growth expecting about 7-8% growth during 2010-2020 whereas the actual growth was only 5%
  • India gave a huge stimulus for construction activity mostly in power generation, cement production and road construction during the aftermath of 2008 financial crisis which resulted in a slew of power plant construction projects since 2008
  • Unexpected push towards renewables, mostly solar, which came as a result of lowering costs of solar cells after 2010 which had about 4% of total generation or about 1 year worth of consumption increase.
  • Covid19 decreased electricity consumption rather than usual 5% increase, thereby delaying estimates by 2 years

Overall, the difference of 2-3% annual electricity growth meant that over 10 between 2010-2020, there was a difference of 20-30% in estimated requirement and actual requirement of electricity generation. The stimulus/policy driven power plant construction meant that the power plants were sanctioned and construction completed regardless of actual demand deviating from estimates. Covid-19 and solar further increased the surplus to 35-45% 

Edited by kshithij Sharma
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

27 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The key statistics to consider is coal consumption, not generation capacity. At times there can be a massive mismatch or overcapacity caused by conducive govt policy towards plant construction which will then need to be rationalised through cancellation of further projects. But coal consumption is always linked to actual usage and is the best indicator of coal power generation.

Only USA and its ally Germany are responsible for cutting down global coal production/consumption. It has nothing to do with renewable energy but is because of the gas boom from shale wells in USA which is being used for substituting coal power in USA and also its allies in Europe through politically forced exports of US gas.

Read my edited comment about the coal business

As for 'politically forced exports of US gas' look at where Europe gets it's gas from - it doesn't buy much from the US.  Only about 5% of the natural gas that Europe uses comes from the US, and half of that goes to Turkey, and the UK which only count as European in a generous definition.  It's getting some extra right now due to it's crisis, but under normal circumstances the cumulative amount is very small. The earnings for the US amount to ~ 0.2% of US exports, and about 0.02% of the economy as a whole.  Those aren't the sorts of numbers that move politicians to 'force' anyone to do anything.  

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47136

main.svg

Note that Europe is ~ 2.5 BCF/day.  

Subtract Turkey (not an EU member, and may or may not be in Europe) and the UK (withdrawn from the EU) and you realize that Europe isn't a big market for US natural gas.  

Seen from the opposite perspective, the US is a tiny supplier of gas to Europe.  This is where Europe gets LNG from:

chart2_33.jpg

The US provides ~ 30% of european LNG imports (again still including the UK and Turkey which are about 1/2 of the total)

That sounds significant, but then look at where Europe get's its gas from in for ALL sources, not just LNG  : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339028291_Edouard_Lotz_Could_US_LNG_challenge_Russian_Gas_within_the_European_Union_in_the_long_term

Europe-natural-gas-supply-composition-20

US supplies are all part of the LNG section, and we can see from the very first chart I posted, that current US supplies to Europe are running at ~ 2.5 BCF a day (with a generous interpretation of what counts as Europe)

This places European reliance on the US for natural gas at 5% of total supply, or more like 3% if you only take Europe to be EU members.  That's not significant to Europe.

The 2.5 BCF a day earns the US exporters ~ $4 per 1,000 scf, which works out to about $4 billion a year - that's right now with current extremely high natural gas prices.  The rest of the value is taken up in shipping costs, liquifaction costs, etc.  The US exported about $2 trillion in goods and services in 2021 (a terrible year for obvious reasons) so natural gas makes up 0.2% of US exports. The total US economy was just over $20 trillion. It's not enough money to matter for the US. 

Edited by Eric Gagen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices have nowhere to go but up, as the global warming becomes global freezing. What happened to those panic-driven climate models?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/WTI-Crude-Surges-Above-92-On-Permian-Freeze.html

"The freezing weather in the United States, which had spread from the Midwest south to Texas, disrupted operations at some Permian oil wells, as icy roads have prevented some trucking operations crucial for oil production.

Due to the winter weather, a large producer in the Permian had to shut in 4,000 barrels per day (bpd) of its crude production, a source with knowledge of the situation told Bloomberg late on Thursday. The freezing storm has also affected some wells in the largest U.S. shale play."

Yeah, same as last year but not as severe cold. Last year i was stuck in it at 0-f .....so i can see a demand destruction in the near future. As I just got back home from there Sunday it was 65, Dallas Monday was 73. Then I get home and 10 inches of snow fell and going to be -3 tonite.

As for 4000 barrels, that is miniscule in the grand total of output.  My prediction is next week or shortly thereafter prices will drop back some.  I wouldn't invest at this high level. Artificial demand, there isn't any gas station lines or out of gas signs. Some folks getting rich, others (us users) are the losers. We end up paying for this inflated price in all goods and services. Middle class and lower class really are the losers. My 2 cents.

Edited by Old-Ruffneck
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

 

Lithium batteries have cycle life of 2000 cycles which will last 5-6 years. Life will decrease as storage temperature increases. Trains don't stop for long times every 7-8hours. It only stops for long when there is loading activity. Else, the stops are short. Moreover, batteries make no sense when trains are already running on electric lines. For example, in India 72% railway lines are electrified and it is expected to reach 100% electrification by 2023-24. What purpose will batteries serve when entire railway tracks are electrified? It will be an utter waste of money and resources. If India can do it, the any other country can also electrify rail completely which makes having batteries on trains an absurd idea altogether. Think before you speak.

https://www.financialexpress.com/infrastructure/railways/indian-railways-green-target-check-out-the-progress-made-on-100-electrification-mission/2409268/

 

 

Locomotives will be using LFP batteries that have cycle life exceeding 4000 cycles.

LFP chemistry is superior compared to NMC

https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/lfp-lithium-batteries-live-longer-than-nmc/#:~:text=The LFP battery chemistry has been around the longest.&text=As a default%2C both NMC,up to 7%2C000 cycle count.

Route electrification makes economic sense for very high density routes but in many countries such as the US route density isn't sufficient. Yard locomotives often sit overnight and are very suitable for charging. Battery road engines take huge advantage from being able to recapture energy from dynamic / regen braking which is currently just dumped to heat making for more efficient hybrid consists with current diesel engines.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

With respect to 'peak' or 'saturation' of coal, that again is what a global peak looks like - some places are still increasing, while other places are already decreasing, and you explained the details beautifully.  Eventually everyone else decreases too.  With regard to India,  my interpretation of the data is that India doesn't have the resource base to burn coal the way that China currently is.  It will probably increase it's usage in the coming use, but in a much more modest way, because the coal simply isn't there to be mined.  What are you thoughts on this?

The quality of fossil fuels in terms of ease of use roughly is in this order: Coal<<Gas<Petroleum. However, availability of these resources is roughly in this order: Petroleum<Gas<Coal. Current production quantity of the 3 fossil fuels are: Gas<<Coal<Petroleum.

Petroleum and gas tend to occur in conjunction with each other where as there is a massive gap between distribution of coal and other two fossil fuels. Also, in many cases, extraction of gas is associated with oil field development, either to generate power for oil extraction or to improve economy of oil field development by augmenting income through gas extraction.

India has abundant coal mines to the tune of 300 billion tonnes of which over 200 billion tonnes are within 300meters from the ground which make them easily extractable. Most (90%) of Indian coal is bituminous with 40% ash and moisture content (35-36% ash and 4-5% moisture) which is poor compared to international standards of 25% ash and moisture. China has 450 billion tonnes with lower ash & moisture content and about 25% being anthracite, effectively having twice the amount of coal in energy terms compared to India. Nevertheless, Indian coal production is just 750 Million tonnes only 20% compared to 3.75 billion tonnes in China and has a huge leeway in further growth. The main reason for lower consumption of coal in India is lower manufacturing. Chinese coal production is stabilising mainly because of replacement of inefficient power plants which generated at 32-33% efficiency with new plants generating at 39-40% efficiency, slower growth of manufacturing and increasing use of oil and gas, mostly to reduce trade surplus and conserve domestic resources. 

The current trend of lower coal consumption is simply driven by increased substitution by gas rather than fundamental change away from fossil fuels. Coal has not reached saturation by a big margin. Rather, it is the oil production peaking which caused a side effect in terms of drilling shale fields and increased gas production. If anything is peaking, it is actually oil, not coal. Unfortunately, oil supply is peaking while oil demand is still growing. The best way of measuring peak demand is to measure the combination of oil+gas+coal rather than take any of them individually. This is because there is a good degree of substitutability among the three. In worst case scenario of oil shortage, even coal can be liquefied to get diesel. Fossil fuel demand has never decreased since 2000 except for momentary blips during crisis. Though coal is the least preferred fossil fuel, coal is unlikely to reach saturation as being the most abundant fossil fuel, its demand will only rise in the long term as oil and gas resources deplete.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Remember when you claimed that US EV sales would begin to decline in January?

 

Failure is intiment, another delusional soul is being rejected.

Senate GOP suggests Biden Fed nominee Sarah Bloom Raskin used government ties to help financial tech firm

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/gop-senator-grills-biden-federal-reserve-nominee-sarah-bloom-raskin-.html

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Locomotives will be using LFP batteries that have cycle life exceeding 4000 cycles.

LFP chemistry is superior compared to NMC

https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/lfp-lithium-batteries-live-longer-than-nmc/#:~:text=The LFP battery chemistry has been around the longest.&text=As a default%2C both NMC,up to 7%2C000 cycle count.

Route electrification makes economic sense for very high density routes but in many countries such as the US route density isn't sufficient. Yard locomotives often sit overnight and are very suitable for charging. Road engines take huge advantage from being able to recapture all the energy from dynamic / regen braking which is currently just dumped to heat.

If we are speaking of installing batteries to increase sustainability, then we are not really talking economics but conservation. When govt is willing to spend billions on solar and wind energy, electrification of routes should not be a real problem, at least in the key routes of connectivity.

Now coming to batteries, the LFP batteries have longer lifecycle but definitely not 4000 cycles. It is more like 2000 cycles in practical scenarios. The test done in the article you quoted shows 2C rapid discharge in strict test conditions to show inflated efficiency whereas in most scenarios, one does not discharge batteries that quickly. So, self discharge and degradation becomes a serious issue and in practical situations and the life is reduced. LFP batteries have about 2000 cycles while good quality NMC batteries can have 1200-1500 cycles. However, LFP batteries is not preferred in locomotives because

  • LFP batteries have high self discharge rates which increases as they grow older.
  • LFP batteries lose lot of energy and sees rapid voltage drops in low temperatures.
  • LFP batteries have 25-30% lower energy density than NMC batteries which means more number of batteries for same capacity.
  • LFP batteries are difficult to recycle and hence causes wastage of scarce Lithium.

NMC batteries are also flawed in terms of rapid battery degradation. But it does not have problems in temperatures, density and recycling. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

If we are speaking of installing batteries to increase sustainability, then we are not really talking economics but conservation. When govt is willing to spend billions on solar and wind energy, electrification of routes should not be a real problem, at least in the key routes of connectivity.

Now coming to batteries, the LFP batteries have longer lifecycle but definitely not 4000 cycles. It is more like 2000 cycles in practical scenarios. The test done in the article you quoted shows 2C rapid discharge in strict test conditions to show inflated efficiency whereas in most scenarios, one does not discharge batteries that quickly. So, self discharge and degradation becomes a serious issue and in practical situations and the life is reduced. LFP batteries have about 2000 cycles while good quality NMC batteries can have 1200-1500 cycles. However, LFP batteries is not preferred in locomotives because

  • LFP batteries have high self discharge rates which increases as they grow older.
  • LFP batteries lose lot of energy and sees rapid voltage drops in low temperatures.
  • LFP batteries have 25-30% lower energy density than NMC batteries which means more number of batteries for same capacity.
  • LFP batteries are difficult to recycle and hence causes wastage of scarce Lithium.

NMC batteries are also flawed in terms of rapid battery degradation. But it does not have problems in temperatures, density and recycling. 

You will have to excuse Jay's enthusiasm, he gets carried away on a regular basis.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

You will have to excuse Jay's enthusiasm, he gets carried away on a regular basis.

It comes with age. Be kind show some respect for your elders! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

If we are speaking of installing batteries to increase sustainability, then we are not really talking economics but conservation. When govt is willing to spend billions on solar and wind energy, electrification of routes should not be a real problem, at least in the key routes of connectivity.

Now coming to batteries, the LFP batteries have longer lifecycle but definitely not 4000 cycles. It is more like 2000 cycles in practical scenarios. The test done in the article you quoted shows 2C rapid discharge in strict test conditions to show inflated efficiency whereas in most scenarios, one does not discharge batteries that quickly. So, self discharge and degradation becomes a serious issue and in practical situations and the life is reduced. LFP batteries have about 2000 cycles while good quality NMC batteries can have 1200-1500 cycles. However, LFP batteries is not preferred in locomotives because

  • LFP batteries have high self discharge rates which increases as they grow older.
  • LFP batteries lose lot of energy and sees rapid voltage drops in low temperatures.
  • LFP batteries have 25-30% lower energy density than NMC batteries which means more number of batteries for same capacity.
  • LFP batteries are difficult to recycle and hence causes wastage of scarce Lithium.

NMC batteries are also flawed in terms of rapid battery degradation. But it does not have problems in temperatures, density and recycling. 

In these applications the batteries are not stored with a charge for long periods. Self discharge is irrelevant.

LFP issues in low temperatures are being rapidly solved. Tesla's LFP battery just outperformed their NCA battery in a sub zero road test: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-s-new-lfp-battery-truly-shines-in-sub-zero-temperatures-looks-like-a-winner-178846.html

LFP energy density as to size and weight is not an issue in large industrial equipment. As to "more batteries" that becomes an issue of cost and 1KWh of LFP costs less than 1KWh of NCA/M.

LFP batteries are being recycled and lithium isn't actually that scarce.

You have it backwards on discharge rate and degradation. 2C discharge does not show inflated efficiency. Discharging batteries more slowly decreases degradation. Below chart shows the estimated number of cycles for our Lithium Iron Phosphate battery cells (LFP, LiFePO4) according to the discharge power and DOD figures. Level of power in C-Rate (1C rate means full discharge or charge in 1 hour, 2C is the same but in half an hour)undefined

https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/lithium-iron-phosphate-lifepo4/

As to road electrification, the ideas previously presented about catenary over limited sections of track to recharge the locos in motion sounds like a good plan for going fully electric. However right now the talk is about replacing the diesels with green hydrogen.

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

It is impossible to have 300+ GW coal projects in the first place as the current total coal capacity (31-dec-2021) in India is 210GW. Why would India add 150% of its current capacity? Indian electricity generation is not increasing more than 5% a year for the last 10 years.

It is a fact that coal is a primary source of energy in places where it is most abundant fossil fuel. China, India etc have abundant coal and very limited oil and gas. Hence coal is used as primary energy source. USA started shale drilling which made natural gas production abundant and hence decided to scale down coal to avoid wastage of natural gas. If USA had not obtained that much natural gas, it would have continued increasing coal production. This has nothing to do with clean energy but simply sudden influx of cheap and easily obtainable gas.

If India starts importing LNG, then its electricity prices will double as imported LNG will be much more expensive than domestic coal. So, India will never substitute coal with gas. However, if India finds a massive 100+ TCF reserves of natural gas, then it will decrease coal consumption in favour of gas.

Lithium batteries have cycle life of 2000 cycles which will last 5-6 years. Life will decrease as storage temperature increases. Trains don't stop for long times every 7-8hours. It only stops for long when there is loading activity. Else, the stops are short. Moreover, batteries make no sense when trains are already running on electric lines. For example, in India 72% railway lines are electrified and it is expected to reach 100% electrification by 2023-24. What purpose will batteries serve when entire railway tracks are electrified? It will be an utter waste of money and resources. If India can do it, the any other country can also electrify rail completely which makes having batteries on trains an absurd idea altogether. Think before you speak.

https://www.financialexpress.com/infrastructure/railways/indian-railways-green-target-check-out-the-progress-made-on-100-electrification-mission/2409268/

 

The coal production in India and China are already rising rapidly. In fact the coal production in China and India never dipped since 2014. The only exception has been Covid pandemic but that can't be considered as dumping of coal. China's coal has remained stable for last 7 years whereas Indian coal actually increased by 25% or about 150 million tonnes in last 7 years. The reason why global coal production declined is because of USA & Germany coal production. USA coal production fell by 45-50% or about 430 million tonnes since 2014, German coal production fell by 40% or about 80 million tonnes since 2014. The 200 million tonne reduction in coal production is because of this reduction in USA & Germany. This is only an exception rather than a norm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production

Nope. Coal never passed saturation. Only USA and Germany coal production declined and this is primarily driven by the massive gas boom in USA in the same period. If USA had not seen the gas boom, the coal production would continue to rise. Coal is still the big thing in countries which lack oil and gas. It is simple logic that coal being a solid is much more difficult to extract than oil and gas.

It also found the overall coal fleet was underutilised, averaging 55 per cent capacity utilisation. This is the key information. Everything else is just supporting information. Obviously, when the capacity utilisation is just 55%, it does not make sense to build more plants. Coal plants can run at 90% capacity even after considering maintenance and downtimes. 55% is too low.

Indian coal plants already have 210GW capacity and another 35GW is in pipeline, mostly to replace the ageing plants. Current Indian consumption including captive power generation is 1.6TWh and non-captive generation is 1.4TWh. If we do a simple math, we will find that the generation capacity of 210GW plants is 210*24*365/1000 = 1.8TWh. This is more than the total consumption including captive electricity. Now, India also has a good amount of generation from other sources like nuclear, hydro and renewables and actual capacity utilisation of coal plants is even less. Below is the actual electricity generation (including captive generation) by source:

image.thumb.png.b6ce0b263f1e0c900706653ce92dbbce.png 

The coal plants are generating only 1TWh energy which is only at 55% capacity. Including maintenance and downtimes, coal plants can generate at 90% capacity. This means India can generate upto 1.62TWh electricity just by coal plants meaning there is buffer to increase generation by 60% coal power without adding a single plant. Considering the average increase of 5% yoy in future, it will mean that no more coal plants will be needed till 2030 simply due to overcapacity.

The role played by non-hydro renewables is minimal - only 8.5% of non-captive electricity - from wind and solar. Even with increased renewables, this will only go upto 20% at best after which it will become difficult to stabilise the grid. So, the halt in coal power plant construction is mostly because of overcapacity and only partly due to renewables or "Green energy". The solar and wind energy even when stabilised at 15-20% of total electricity, it will only be enough to satisfy 2 years of 5% electricity consumption growth. This is why India still has ongoing 35GW of coal plant construction projects, mostly to replace old and inefficient plants. If the intention was phasing out coal plants, these plants would have been retired instead of replaced

Not true. LNG is difficult to be used as fuel for locomotives. India tested using CNG powered engines for trains and realised that CNG engines don't provide enough torque for heavy loads. So, LNG can't really be used to power locomotives. However, CNG can power ships using modified turbofan engines. CNG cars are a reality, however. So, if there is real intent to use natural gas in transport, passenger vehicles is the first place to start.

India trials with CNG

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Railways-starts-first-train-that-chugs-on-CNG/articleshow/45892086.cms

https://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/indian-railways-advances-natural-gas-locomotives-0521

Rationalising overcapacity is definitely not an indicator of seriousness. Even the greatest critique of renewables would not recommend increasing coal power generation capacity which is already severely underutilised at 55%.

I would add that LNG locomotives can be designed to add a little diesel whenever that might be needed. Some trucks use that design now. I dispute that LNG engines cannot do the job, but thanks for your references. LNG powered ships are usually designed as bifuel and are able to use diesel if desired. 

Thanks for your fine contribution to our forum, we hope to see more off your content! I am not an engineer and do not pretend to be one. I am just a self educated natural gas proponent that started nine years ago during the last supposed "energy crisis" in the West. Back then ethanol and cellulose was being considered for energy. A little later the news of the shale oil and gas came out to the knowledge of the general public. It had been rumored, for years, that the resources were available. 

I think that India should look offshore for its methane hydrates. There should be great finds available but the mining technology has not been developed yet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Read my edited comment about the coal business

As for 'politically forced exports of US gas' look at where Europe gets it's gas from - it doesn't buy much from the US.  Only about 5% of the natural gas that Europe uses comes from the US, and half of that goes to Turkey, and the UK which only count as European in a generous definition.  It's getting some extra right now due to it's crisis, but under normal circumstances the cumulative amount is very small. The earnings for the US amount to ~ 0.2% of US exports, and about 0.02% of the economy as a whole.  Those aren't the sorts of numbers that move politicians to 'force' anyone to do anything.  

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47136

main.svg

Note that Europe is ~ 2.5 BCF/day.  

Subtract Turkey (not an EU member, and may or may not be in Europe) and the UK (withdrawn from the EU) and you realize that Europe isn't a big market for US natural gas.  

Seen from the opposite perspective, the US is a tiny supplier of gas to Europe.  This is where Europe gets LNG from:

chart2_33.jpg

The US provides ~ 30% of european LNG imports (again still including the UK and Turkey which are about 1/2 of the total)

That sounds significant, but then look at where Europe get's its gas from in for ALL sources, not just LNG  : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339028291_Edouard_Lotz_Could_US_LNG_challenge_Russian_Gas_within_the_European_Union_in_the_long_term

Europe-natural-gas-supply-composition-20

US supplies are all part of the LNG section, and we can see from the very first chart I posted, that current US supplies to Europe are running at ~ 2.5 BCF a day (with a generous interpretation of what counts as Europe)

This places European reliance on the US for natural gas at 5% of total supply, or more like 3% if you only take Europe to be EU members.  That's not significant to Europe.

The 2.5 BCF a day earns the US exporters ~ $4 per 1,000 scf, which works out to about $4 billion a year - that's right now with current extremely high natural gas prices.  The rest of the value is taken up in shipping costs, liquifaction costs, etc.  The US exported about $2 trillion in goods and services in 2021 (a terrible year for obvious reasons) so natural gas makes up 0.2% of US exports. The total US economy was just over $20 trillion. It's not enough money to matter for the US. 

So, it seems that Europe needs to develop more pipelines to suppliers other than Russia. Countries which are reliable suppliers that will not use energy as a Sword of Damocles hanging over Europe. Let Russia compete fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So, it seems that Europe needs to develop more pipelines to suppliers other than Russia. Countries which are reliable suppliers that will not use energy as a Sword of Damocles hanging over Europe. Let Russia compete fairly.

The problem is that there isn't anywhere else with a sufficient source of gas to change matters appreciably.  Algeria and the rest of North Africa are close enough, but don't have enough gas to really counter Russia.  The North Sea, and Netherlands at one time did, but no longer have the capacity.  Iran and Iraq have the production capacity, and could pipeline gas through Turkey, but there are massive political problems from start to finish along that route, to say nothing of the financial and technical barriers - Most of the produced gas in Iraq and Iran is simply burned off because they don't even have gathering systems for it.  The only 'real' competition used to be coal, but that is getting shut down, so Europe needs to develop a serious alternative.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

The problem is that there isn't anywhere else with a sufficient source of gas to change matters appreciably.  Algeria and the rest of North Africa are close enough, but don't have enough gas to really counter Russia.  The North Sea, and Netherlands at one time did, but no longer have the capacity.  Iran and Iraq have the production capacity, and could pipeline gas through Turkey, but there are massive political problems from start to finish along that route, to say nothing of the financial and technical barriers - Most of the produced gas in Iraq and Iran is simply burned off because they don't even have gathering systems for it.  The only 'real' competition used to be coal, but that is getting shut down, so Europe needs to develop a serious alternative.  

Since LNG has become so highly priced it seems that Turkey should be offered help to set up the infrastructure it needs. There is also offshore natural gas off Israel and Egypt. Cyprus also.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/gas-finds-in-the-mediterranean-spark-partnership-between-rival-nations.html 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In these applications the batteries are not stored with a charge for long periods. Self discharge is irrelevant.

Not true. Self discharge does not mean discharge over months but discharge over hours and days. There have been many cases where people left their Tesla in airport with 30-40 miles of charge left only to find it discharged after 1 week's trip. After 1000-2000 cycles, the batteries will self discharge in a matter of 1 day or two which has great significance. The test condition in the article does not show this as it is a simple charge and discharge without any pause/hold.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

LFP issues in low temperatures are being rapidly solved. Tesla's LFP battery just outperformed their NCA battery in a sub zero road test: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-s-new-lfp-battery-truly-shines-in-sub-zero-temperatures-looks-like-a-winner-178846.html

LFP energy density as to size and weight is not an issue in large industrial equipment. As to "more batteries" that becomes an issue of cost and 1KWh of LFP costs less than 1KWh of NCA/M.

Even Tesla did not make any announcement about any advanced LFP designs. So, there is no real advancement. We can't be sure whether this test was reliable at all as many times the battery indicator suddenly drops from 15 to 0 implying that the meter is not accurate. Since Tesla has not announced any R&D on LFP battery advancement, I really don't see how you claim that! Also, LFP size if important in transport sector as it will increase space and loading. A train with 3 wagons of battery will now need 4 wagons battery for example.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

LFP batteries are being recycled and lithium isn't actually that scarce.

Nope, the recycling of LFP is too difficult that it is not done. It is possible but infeasible.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You have it backwards on discharge rate and degradation. 2C discharge does not show inflated efficiency. Discharging batteries more slowly decreases degradation. Below chart shows the estimated number of cycles for our Lithium Iron Phosphate battery cells (LFP, LiFePO4) according to the discharge power and DOD figures. Level of power in C-Rate (1C rate means full discharge or charge in 1 hour, 2C is the same but in half an hour)undefined

https://www.powertechsystems.eu/home/tech-corner/lithium-iron-phosphate-lifepo4/

I agree that faster discharges are bad for battery but when we are comparing 2 batteries, then the relative efficiency can be inflated using this method taking advantage of relative differences in self discharge. Also, the above chart does not appear to be practical. At 80% depth of discharge, it shows 9000 cycles! Assuming 1 cycle a day, this would mean 25 years of daily cycling. Most of the consumer cellphones undergo 80% depth of discharge as most people charge their batteries once it gets too low. But we don't see phone batteries lasting even 5 years and in most cases last just 3-4 years (1000-1200 cycles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

42 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Since LNG has become so highly priced it seems that Turkey should be offered help to set up the infrastructure it needs. There is also offshore natural gas off Israel and Egypt. Cyprus also.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/gas-finds-in-the-mediterranean-spark-partnership-between-rival-nations.html 

 

Turkey is also an LNG importer, so it’s no assistance to Europe.  Israel is a natural gas exporter, but its setting up long term contracts with Egypt, which has sufficient domestic demand to use all of its domestic production and all of Israel’s export capacity too.  Cyprus is not explored much yet, because it’s disputed at gunpoint between Turkey and Greece.
 

 LNG is always more expensive than pipeline gas due to the cost of liquefaction and transport.  It’s not insurmountable - Japan and South Korea get all their gas by this route.  Pipeline gas from Russia to Europe was historically very cheap because the Russians had no other places to sell to.  Now that they have pipelines to other places (China) and LNG export capacity of their own, the Russians won’t sign new deals with Europe on the same terms as the old ones.

Edited by Eric Gagen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I would add that LNG locomotives can be designed to add a little diesel whenever that might be needed. Some trucks use that design now. I dispute that LNG engines cannot do the job, but thanks for your references. LNG powered ships are usually designed as bifuel and are able to use diesel if desired. 

Thanks for your fine contribution to our forum, we hope to see more off your content! I am not an engineer and do not pretend to be one. I am just a self educated natural gas proponent that started nine years ago during the last supposed "energy crisis" in the West. Back then ethanol and cellulose was being considered for energy. A little later the news of the shale oil and gas came out to the knowledge of the general public. It had been rumored, for years, that the resources were available. 

I think that India should look offshore for its methane hydrates. There should be great finds available but the mining technology has not been developed yet. 

Ron ive posted a link below that explains a bit about engines and their source of power. Most importantly it is how a engine ignites and captures that power.

It's all about the fuel and how it burns/explodes , or how one can control/capture that energy release. 

Gas burn very fast, think along the lines of a jackrabbit. It's very unstable...Boom is very easy and extremely fast and very destructive.

Diesel burns very slowly, like a tortise,  very slow and stable. It goes Boom very slowly releasing pressure as it ignites...Ever wonder why deisles are so heavy..bomb shelters...lmao

What Is The Flashpoint Of Gasoline Vs. Diesel Fuel?

 

https://kendrickoil.com/what-is-the-flashpoint-of-gasoline-vs-diesel-fuel/

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-not-diesel-fuel-burn-in-gasoline-engine-and-vice-versa

 

 

 

 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Turkey is also an LNG importer, so it’s no assistance to Europe.  Israel is a natural gas exporter, but its setting up long term contracts with Egypt, which has sufficient domestic demand to use all of its domestic production and all of Israel’s export capacity too.  Cyprus is not explored much yet, because it’s disputed at gunpoint between Turkey and Greece.
 

 LNG is always more expensive than pipeline gas due to the cost of liquefaction and transport.  It’s not insurmountable - Japan and South Korea get all their gas by this route.  Pipeline gas from Russia to Europe was historically very cheap because the Russians had no other places to sell to.  Now that they have pipelines to other places (China) and LNG export capacity of their own, the Russians won’t sign new deals wotj Europe on the same terms as the old ones.

I am referring to pipelines for natural gas not LNG from the Mediterranean but LNG could be used while they are built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Not true. Self discharge does not mean discharge over months but discharge over hours and days. There have been many cases where people left their Tesla in airport with 30-40 miles of charge left only to find it discharged after 1 week's trip. After 1000-2000 cycles, the batteries will self discharge in a matter of 1 day or two which has great significance. The test condition in the article does not show this as it is a simple charge and discharge without any pause/hold.

Even Tesla did not make any announcement about any advanced LFP designs. So, there is no real advancement. We can't be sure whether this test was reliable at all as many times the battery indicator suddenly drops from 15 to 0 implying that the meter is not accurate. Since Tesla has not announced any R&D on LFP battery advancement, I really don't see how you claim that! Also, LFP size if important in transport sector as it will increase space and loading. A train with 3 wagons of battery will now need 4 wagons battery for example.

Nope, the recycling of LFP is too difficult that it is not done. It is possible but infeasible.

I agree that faster discharges are bad for battery but when we are comparing 2 batteries, then the relative efficiency can be inflated using this method taking advantage of relative differences in self discharge. Also, the above chart does not appear to be practical. At 80% depth of discharge, it shows 9000 cycles! Assuming 1 cycle a day, this would mean 25 years of daily cycling. Most of the consumer cellphones undergo 80% depth of discharge as most people charge their batteries once it gets too low. But we don't see phone batteries lasting even 5 years and in most cases last just 3-4 years (1000-1200 cycles).

You keep making claims with no evidence.

The batteries will not discharge in one day, that is a ridiculous claim, and locomotives will not be expected to sit even a day without being charged either through cable or regen braking. 

"Super B lithium iron phosphate batteries (LiFePO4) don’t require active maintenance to extend their service life. Also, the batteries show no memory effects and due to low self-discharge (<3% per month)... https://www.super-b.com/en/lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries/benefits-lithium-batteries

Phones don't use LFP nor do they have the advanced battery management technology used in vehicles. I have presented multiple reports showing the long life of LFP. The burden is now on you to show evidence that LFP degrades as fast as you claim. Your personal incredulity is insufficient.

LFP recycling is not technically more difficult, the issue is that the base components aren't very valuable. However this is being changed by law in China and soon elsewhere. So much so that the hottest new LFP battery the Blade Battery is designed to reduce the cost of recycling:

The Blade Battery emerged after China in 2018 began to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are recycled. The country now recycles more lithium-ion batteries than the rest of the world combined, using mostly pyro- and hydrometallurgical methods. https://www.science.org/content/article/millions-electric-cars-are-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries

 Large nations are beginning to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are properly recycled. New types of batteries, such as the Blade Battery, are designed for easy dismantling. https://dug.com/recycling-electric-batteries-is-tough-but-it-has-to-be-done/

So yes LFP is being recycled in large quantities, or will be when they finally start to die which is a long ways off.

 

 

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ron ive posted a link below that explains a bit about engines and their source of power. Most importantly it is how a engine ignites and captures that power.

It's all about the fuel and how it burns/explodes , or how one can control/capture that energy release. 

Gas burn very fast, think along the lines of a jackrabbit. It's very unstable...Boom is very easy and extremely fast and very destructive.

Diesel burns very slowly, like a tortise,  very slow and stable. It goes Boom very slowly releasing pressure as it ignites...Ever wonder why deisles are so heavy..bomb shelters...lmao

What Is The Flashpoint Of Gasoline Vs. Diesel Fuel?

 

https://kendrickoil.com/what-is-the-flashpoint-of-gasoline-vs-diesel-fuel/

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-not-diesel-fuel-burn-in-gasoline-engine-and-vice-versa

This is related to what I was referring to:

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_natural-gas.php  

[schematic]

[schematic]

[schematic]

 

 

 

 

 

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.