GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Rob Plant + 2,627]

5 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

They are all dirtbag, bottom feeding POS…They will go down in history as the dumbest people ever……

get off the fence and tell us how you really feel 😅😅😅

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

19 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

 

I disagree. Reading the data correctly is required for a correct interpretation. It is impossible to correctly interpret the data if you read it wrong. 

Yes there is new build coal in the 3rd world but the number is decreasing dramatically from what it was a few years ago as financing dries up, renewables decrease in cost and both domestic and international pressure grows to stop construction. Coal is becoming the expensive choice. In India for example the private sector won't touch a new coal plant because they consider them to be uneconomic. All the new ones are being underwritten by the government.

It was just announced that Japan and South Korea will no longer develop third world coal plants. That just leaves the Chinese.

Ecochud doesn't have a clue what he is promoting. The new tech near zero emission coal plants are IGCC. They are fantastically expensive. Their are about 6 experimental plants around the world and China has one. (Ecocrap claims China has a bunch and that they represent the bulk of the new plants being  built but there is only the one and none are under construction. Such outright lying deserves nothing but disrespect.)  So no, not a step in the right direction. 

This is from a paper released last year on IGCC:

"Nonetheless, the capital cost of IGCC plants is still too high for this technology to become competitive in the near term against other power generation technologies (Figure 11). Contrary to several predictions, the development of the IGCC technology in the last 40 years did not achieve the expected cost reduction. Instead, recent IGCC projects have invariably experienced substantial cost over-runs. It is evident that the IGCC technology remains distant from the mature, large-scale application stage"

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342335534_Prospect_of_near-zero-emission_IGCC_power_plants_to_decarbonize_coal-fired_power_generation_in_China_Implications_from_the_GreenGen_project 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[RichieRich216 + 454]

I could not print how I really feel, all the dirtbag supporters of the Administration Agenda will live to regret it, Fortunately I can afford to move anywhere I desire after 45 years of starting, running, buying and selling businesses! So on a personal level everyone that can’t is fucked! I just hate to see the destruction of America! Generation’s have gotten more stupid in the last 45 years and they believe what they’re 24 hour, seven days a week online media tells them, most are to stupid to research facts…..

[RichieRich216 + 454]

People today are sheep, and sheep get slaughtered! Or the saying that a exposed nail gets hammered! By the time these dumb asses realize the truth, they and their future are truly fucked!

[specinho + 440]

)

On 5/24/2021 at 1:38 AM, -trance said:

"Eliminating outliers" from the data is a controversial topic.  Obviously, some readings have to discarded; but discard too many and you are "massaging the data."

it might be essential to keep original set of data, especially those that you have three repeated readings to confirm the average, disregard how weird or off the common mark/trend. The off centric point could lead you to a possibly new phenomenon unbeknown to you nor those before you. Throwing it or those out would cause you to miss out may be something essential.......

for example, common blood pressure for a middle age generally reaching +/- 130 - 80 and higher. An assistant nurse had to take a pressure two to three times disbelieving her eyes to get 110 - 60 on a middle age........ She settled with 118- 67 to normalize it..........

A little known fact: a very fit athlete could have a blood pressure measurement steady at 110 - 60 from young till middle age, and may be till old, shall well maintained. Without asking the reason, but choosing to normalized it instead, the doctors and nurses miss out a vital piece of information not available in the text book, or no?

On 5/24/2021 at 1:59 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

it might be a result of digitization ....  but I might be wrong.

What happened was, one government somewhere on Earth digitized meters for water and electricity. What one receives is a forecasted water and electrical usages, from afar, based on the average usage rate over the area, or something like that.... The amounts tripled, quadrupled from what one used to pay.

Therefore, ground temperature change is rarely detected because most of the stations are located somewhere cooling where GPS can not find and the average of digitized forecasted cooling places will get not much change, no? And those satellites from the outer space  forecast based on previous averages too??

The best part is, when everyone is sitting in air-con rooms, offices and etc day and night, temperature change outside is usually neutralized and not felt, or no?  And we are hearing from these experts from their comfort air-con squares about how temperature outside is changing, right??

 

On 5/24/2021 at 10:04 AM, turbguy said:

Ahh... now "near zero" emission tech.

50% is close to zero compared to 100%

by 50%, you might mean efficiency??

it was posted somewhere that the best performing coal system is reaching 76% efficiency somewhere in the US..... Wondering if these places could teach others how to do it??

The efficiency of many coal burning systems might be affected by the way coal is burned, or no?   Wondering if the surface area exposed (

Chunk, pellet, powder......)

and additional oxygen supply could enhanced the efficiency??

[JoMack + 547]

On 5/23/2021 at 8:12 PM, notsonice said:

you posted the garbage and now you are trying to spin it?  Putin is overpaying you

 

Your garbage

From Baker Hughes:

Baker Hughes’ latest U.S. rig count shows a one-unit drop in oil rigs (to 180) and a one-unit decline in natural gas rigs (to 71). The number of miscellaneous rigs held steady at three units.

 

Against the year-ago figure of 886, the U.S. rig count is down by 632 drilling units, Baker Hughes continued. It pointed out that oil rigs are down 553, gas rigs are down 82 and miscellaneous rigs are up three.

Baker Hughes added the U.S. offshore rig count remained unchanged at 15 this week – down from 25 a year ago.

 

Here's Hughes rig count with price spread.   Now, -- okay, look closely,  now see:  here is the graph on the difference from 2019 to May 21, "2021".  Perhaps you can actually see this with or without your blind ignorance.  And, insults only show how uninformed you are so you resort to name calling.  Poor you.

[Boat + 1,315]

2 hours ago, JoMack said:

Here's Hughes rig count with price spread.   Now, -- okay, look closely,  now see:  here is the graph on the difference from 2019 to May 21, "2021".  Perhaps you can actually see this with or without your blind ignorance.  And, insults only show how uninformed you are so you resort to name calling.  Poor you.

This Joe Mack character is the one claiming oil production was dropping. Now he posts a chart showing the drilling rig count obviously growing. This punk is a special unit.

[notsonice + 1,073]

5 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

I could not print how I really feel, all the dirtbag supporters of the Administration Agenda will live to regret it, Fortunately I can afford to move anywhere I desire after 45 years of starting, running, buying and selling businesses! So on a personal level everyone that can’t is fucked! I just hate to see the destruction of America! Generation’s have gotten more stupid in the last 45 years and they believe what they’re 24 hour, seven days a week online media tells them, most are to stupid to research facts…..

Fortunately I can afford to move anywhere I desire? Great deport yourself, we will not miss you, enough whiny losers crying about the last election.

There are lots of dirtbag places on earth that will welcome you. Enjoy living under a rock.

[notsonice + 1,073]

5 hours ago, JoMack said:

Here's Hughes rig count with price spread.   Now, -- okay, look closely,  now see:  here is the graph on the difference from 2019 to May 21, "2021".  Perhaps you can actually see this with or without your blind ignorance.  And, insults only show how uninformed you are so you resort to name calling.  Poor you.

Great that you show under Trump Oil crashed with him crying for cheap oil and gas. Your first post was concerning how the oil rig count was crashing, now you post it rising. 

[turbguy + 1,401]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:12 PM, Ecocharger said:

It requires disposal in some form, but it is not sent into the atmosphere where it is breathed into our lungs and bodies.

That means that it is not a toxic emission. 

Do you ever happen to drink water "into your body"?

If not, there are PLENTY of others (including me) that do.

Edited May 25, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,401]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

)

it might be essential to keep original set of data, especially those that you have three repeated readings to confirm the average, disregard how weird or off the common mark/trend. The off centric point could lead you to a possibly new phenomenon unbeknown to you nor those before you. Throwing it or those out would cause you to miss out may be something essential.......

for example, common blood pressure for a middle age generally reaching +/- 130 - 80 and higher. An assistant nurse had to take a pressure two to three times disbelieving her eyes to get 110 - 60 on a middle age........ She settled with 118- 67 to normalize it..........

A little known fact: a very fit athlete could have a blood pressure measurement steady at 110 - 60 from young till middle age, and may be till old, shall well maintained. Without asking the reason, but choosing to normalized it instead, the doctors and nurses miss out a vital piece of information not available in the text book, or no?

 

it might be a result of digitization ....  but I might be wrong.

What happened was, one government somewhere on Earth digitized meters for water and electricity. What one receives is a forecasted water and electrical usages, from afar, based on the average usage rate over the area, or something like that.... The amounts tripled, quadrupled from what one used to pay.

Therefore, ground temperature change is rarely detected because most of the stations are located somewhere cooling where GPS can not find and the average of digitized forecasted cooling places will get not much change, no? And those satellites from the outer space  forecast based on previous averages too??

The best part is, when everyone is sitting in air-con rooms, offices and etc day and night, temperature change outside is usually neutralized and not felt, or no?  And we are hearing from these experts from their comfort air-con squares about how temperature outside is changing, right??

 

by 50%, you might mean efficiency??

it was posted somewhere that the best performing coal system is reaching 76% efficiency somewhere in the US..... Wondering if these places could teach others how to do it??

 

The efficiency of many coal burning systems might be affected by the way coal is burned, or no?   Wondering if the surface area exposed (

Chunk, pellet, powder......)

and additional oxygen supply could enhanced the efficiency??

76% coal fired thermal efficiency?

76% ANYTHING FIRED heat engine efficiency?

Do you realize the fluid temperatures required to obtain that?

Impossible!

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

On 5/24/2021 at 4:59 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Except that your report is a couple years old. We have newer data now and fossil fuels have continued to decrease in importance and are now only 61% of world electricity production. Coal accounted for all of the drop decreasing from 37% to 34%. The bigger news is that the report you posted agrees with the graph I posted.

The big news is that you have continued to dodge the debate...toxic emissions from coal are down near zero. That must really hurt your debating points. Sorry, but the truth is more important than personal preferences.

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

On 5/24/2021 at 5:01 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Absolute stupidity. Toxins leached into the ground water are also out of our control. Even if something remains in our control we still have to expend money to safely deal with it. The definition of emissions exists. Only a complete moron would think he gets to redefine it.

Emissions from burning coal

Several principal emissions result from coal combustion:

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
• Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
• Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the primary greenhouse gas produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
• Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals
• Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

In the past, fly ash was released into the air through the smokestack, but laws now require that most emissions of fly ash be captured by pollution control devices. In the United States, fly ash and bottom ash are generally stored near power plants or placed in landfills. Pollution leaching from coal ash storage and landfills into groundwater and several large impoundments of coal ash that ruptured are environmental concerns.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php

You are way behind the discussion again, Jay. The new coal technology has dealt with those emissions. And yes, "emissions" refers to atmospheric emissions in the debate among scientists. Not waste products. You are confusing "emissions" with "waste products". Wake up, man.

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I disagree. Reading the data correctly is required for a correct interpretation. It is impossible to correctly interpret the data if you read it wrong. 

Yes there is new build coal in the 3rd world but the number is decreasing dramatically from what it was a few years ago as financing dries up, renewables decrease in cost and both domestic and international pressure grows to stop construction. Coal is becoming the expensive choice. In India for example the private sector won't touch a new coal plant because they consider them to be uneconomic. All the new ones are being underwritten by the government.

It was just announced that Japan and South Korea will no longer develop third world coal plants. That just leaves the Chinese.

Ecochud doesn't have a clue what he is promoting. The new tech near zero emission coal plants are IGCC. They are fantastically expensive. Their are about 6 experimental plants around the world and China has one. (Ecocrap claims China has a bunch and that they represent the bulk of the new plants being  built but there is only the one and none are under construction. Such outright lying deserves nothing but disrespect.)  So no, not a step in the right direction. 

This is from a paper released last year on IGCC:

"Nonetheless, the capital cost of IGCC plants is still too high for this technology to become competitive in the near term against other power generation technologies (Figure 11). Contrary to several predictions, the development of the IGCC technology in the last 40 years did not achieve the expected cost reduction. Instead, recent IGCC projects have invariably experienced substantial cost over-runs. It is evident that the IGCC technology remains distant from the mature, large-scale application stage"

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342335534_Prospect_of_near-zero-emission_IGCC_power_plants_to_decarbonize_coal-fired_power_generation_in_China_Implications_from_the_GreenGen_project 

 

Jay, you are really slow here. I never promoted carbon-capture as a measure to reduce toxic emissions, you are dreaming in technicolor. 

CO2 is not a toxic emission. It is essential to human life, and I showed you that CO2 contributes to global greening, without it agricultural productivity would drastically decline and we would all starve. Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is asking for widespread famines and starvation, which could cost some billions of people their lives. 

Get with it, man. Read the posts.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

5 hours ago, turbguy said:

Do you ever happen to drink water "into your body"?

If not, there are PLENTY of others (including me) that do.

Again, you are confused about the distinction between "toxic emissions" and "waste products".

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

$30 billion offshore wind project launches in North Atlantic

First phase expected to come online by early 2025. The timing was planned to coincide with the UK’s decommissioning of its last coal-fired power plants 

As Rob was mentioning.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

On 5/26/2021 at 12:32 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

$30 billion offshore wind project launches in North Atlantic

First phase expected to come online by early 2025. The timing was planned to coincide with the UK’s decommissioning of its last coal-fired power plants 

As Rob was mentioning.

Europe will soon, or already, be experiencing the same problems which have plagued the people of California with respect to electricity...the poor people of California are saddled with the highest electricity bills, the green revolution is economically regressive and hurts the average-to-poor consumer.

https://calmatters.org/california-divide/debt/2021/03/california-high-electricity-prices/

"

California’s electricity prices are among the highest in the country, new research says, and those costs are falling disproportionately on a customer base that’s already struggling to pay their bills.

PG&E customers pay about 80% more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state’s three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45% more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

“California’s retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country,” said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. “And they’re increasing.”

 Between February and December of last year, Californians accumulated more than $650 million in late payments from their utility providers, according to an analysis by the CPUC. "

If you want to push the panic button, you should push it over this issue, the drastic burden on poor Americans of green electricity.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,627]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I disagree. Reading the data correctly is required for a correct interpretation. It is impossible to correctly interpret the data if you read it wrong. 

Yes there is new build coal in the 3rd world but the number is decreasing dramatically from what it was a few years ago as financing dries up, renewables decrease in cost and both domestic and international pressure grows to stop construction. Coal is becoming the expensive choice. In India for example the private sector won't touch a new coal plant because they consider them to be uneconomic. All the new ones are being underwritten by the government.

It was just announced that Japan and South Korea will no longer develop third world coal plants. That just leaves the Chinese.

Ecochud doesn't have a clue what he is promoting. The new tech near zero emission coal plants are IGCC. They are fantastically expensive. Their are about 6 experimental plants around the world and China has one. (Ecocrap claims China has a bunch and that they represent the bulk of the new plants being  built but there is only the one and none are under construction. Such outright lying deserves nothing but disrespect.)  So no, not a step in the right direction. 

This is from a paper released last year on IGCC:

"Nonetheless, the capital cost of IGCC plants is still too high for this technology to become competitive in the near term against other power generation technologies (Figure 11). Contrary to several predictions, the development of the IGCC technology in the last 40 years did not achieve the expected cost reduction. Instead, recent IGCC projects have invariably experienced substantial cost over-runs. It is evident that the IGCC technology remains distant from the mature, large-scale application stage"

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342335534_Prospect_of_near-zero-emission_IGCC_power_plants_to_decarbonize_coal-fired_power_generation_in_China_Implications_from_the_GreenGen_project 

 

Jay this is my point, data can be manipulated to make your point seem more valid and that's why you and Ecocharger disagree on most points and have resorted to name calling which demeans you both as both of you are credible and intelligent guys IMHO.

The IGCC is brand new tech and the CEO states that this will be far cheaper than CCGT plants when economies of scale come into play which will be circa 30 plants installed. You need to give it a chance!

Solar and wind have, and still are, hugely subsidized to be competitive against FF over the last 10-15 years and its taken that long for improvements in tech and economies of scale to mean they can now compete on a level playing field.

The real win for IGCC is not only is it zero emissions it is a guaranteed power source whenever it is needed unlike renewables. Yes you can have battery storage to allow for when the sun doesnt shine or the wind blow but that comes at a huge cost not just economically but also environmentally. No such issues with IGCC! Also you dont need to build IGCC plant next to a water source, so for arid countries its a real win and potentially the water it generates can fight against desertification, besides selling the Co2, Nitrogen and Argon to various industries.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Rob Plant

[JoMack + 547]

14 hours ago, notsonice said:

Great that you show under Trump Oil crashed with him crying for cheap oil and gas. Your first post was concerning how the oil rig count was crashing, now you post it rising. 

The fact that you are hell bent on denying  the ongoing impact of Biden policies and the financial sector pushing hard against oll, gas, nuclear and coal is really strange since you pretend to be either trading in the sector or related in some way to the energy industry or you wouldn't be on oilprce.  The only answer that makes sense is that you have solar panels on your house and batteries in your flashlight and believe you're an expert otherwise, you're in the Biden Administration.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Jay this is my point, data can be manipulated to make your point seem more valid and that's why you and Ecocharger disagree on most points and have resorted to name calling which demeans you both as both of you are credible and intelligent guys IMHO.

The IGCC is brand new tech and the CEO states that this will be far cheaper than CCGT plants when economies of scale come into play which will be circa 30 plants installed. You need to give it a chance!

Solar and wind have, and still are, hugely subsidized to be competitive against FF over the last 10-15 years and its taken that long for improvements in tech and economies of scale to mean they can now compete on a level playing field.

The real win for IGCC is not only is it zero emissions it is a guaranteed power source whenever it is needed unlike renewables. Yes you can have battery storage to allow for when the sun doesnt shine or the wind blow but that comes at a huge cost not just economically but also environmentally. No such issues with IGCC! Also you dont need to build IGCC plant next to a water source, so for arid countries its a real win and potentially the water it generates can fight against desertification, besides selling the Co2, Nitrogen and Argon to various industries.

A question for you Rob - are toxic emissions and toxic waste the same thing or different things?

IGCC still uses plenty of water. Using green hydrogen produces water. An even bigger win against desertification.

Green hydrogen also works when the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow. 

Batteries for daily storage are already cheaper than IGCC and prices are dropping precipitously. The environmental cost of batteries is a fraction of the cost of mining coal. Why do you think batteries have a high environmental cost?

Green hydrogen is the same cost as IGCC and is about to start its decreasing cost curve.

IGCC is dead in the water. 30 plants? There is one more plant about to be completed in Japan. Then there isn't a single IGCC plant planned after that in the entire world that I can find. Renewables may have taken years of financial support to become cost competitive but now that they are what is going to catch them? 

Finally, the primary market for CO2 is enhanced oil recovery. That market will be going away and I don't see much of any other demand for it. 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

China's coal surge explained - bitcoin

China’s escalating push to rein in cryptocurrency mining was triggered in part by concern that the practice has stoked a surge in illicit coal extraction, endangering lives and undermining Xi Jinping’s ambitious environmental goals. https://fortune.com/2021/05/26/china-crypto-crackdown-coal-mining-use-safety/

Edited May 26, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,401]

13 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you are confused about the distinction between "toxic emissions" and "waste products".

I am making no confused distinction.

Toxic emissions do not come in a specific "phase".

Whether a solid, liquid or gas is discharged as a result of operation, ALL phases are emissions.

If you believe otherwise, too bad.

Edited May 26, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

I am making no confused distinction.

Toxic emissions do not come in a specific "phase".

Whether a solid, liquid or gas is discharged as a result of operation, ALL phases are emissions.

If you believe otherwise, too bad.

No, "emissions" in this type of discussion invariably refer to atmospheric emissions. What you are doing is trying to expand the term to include "waste products", which are not the same concept at all, because they are what remains after the process is completed. "Waste" is not transmitted into the atmosphere to be breathed by neighbors. If "waste" is placed into a river to be distributed to other property owners, that is called "dumping", and is actionable.

Nuclear plants have nuclear waste left over after the process is complete, it must be dealt with without dumping it on other properties. But it doesn't evaporate into the atmosphere to be breathed by the general population. That would be an emission.

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

Here is the problem in a nutshell, demonstrated by the issues raised in California. Green electricity doesn't pay its way, it requires the general taxpayer to come forward if the American poor are to be  rescued from crippling electricity bills.

 

"PG&E customers pay about 80% more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state’s three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45% more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

“California’s retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country,” said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. “And they’re increasing.”

Edited May 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,401]

21 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, "emissions" in this type of discussion invariably refer to atmospheric emissions. What you are doing is trying to expand the term to include "waste products", which are not the same concept at all, because they are what remains after the process is completed. "Waste" is not transmitted into the atmosphere to be breathed by neighbors. If "waste" is placed into a river to be distributed to other property owners, that is called "dumping", and is actionable.

Nuclear plants have nuclear waste left over after the process is complete, it must be dealt with without dumping it on other properties. But it doesn't evaporate into the atmosphere to be breathed by the general population. That would be an emission.

Too bad.

BTW, Nuc plants have a stack.

Do you know why?