GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I guess you don't understand how batteries work. They provide continuous generation until they run out of fuel, just like every other power plant. We will be adding green hydrogen as the backup for the battery fuel. The Sun shines every day and the wind blows most days.

Capacity factor of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine: 54%

Capacity factor of Gas Turbine peaker plant: 12%

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a

Nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal are fine to keep in the mix but they aren't growing. Geothermal is a rounding error, hydroelectric is a half of solar + wind and nuclear will be overtaken in a couple years. Here are all of them, look at that wind and solar growth curve!

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vtvv&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.TSN-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A&freq=A&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0

 

That's capacity only. Now take that, and cut it by 1/3. Now you have actual generation ability. Capacity means nothing. 

Geothermal will become the next great renewable source because it can produce 24hrs/day unlike windmills and solar. 

Let's get government subsidies out of wind and solar and see where they line up. 

Batteries won't be able to keep up, Jay. Not with intermittent generation sources feeding them. 

It's not rocket science, you zealot.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

10 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

That's capacity only. Now take that, and cut it by 1/3. Now you have actual generation ability. Capacity means nothing. 

Geothermal will become the next great renewable source because it can produce 24hrs/day unlike windmills and solar. 

Let's get government subsidies out of wind and solar and see where they line up. 

Batteries won't be able to keep up, Jay. Not with intermittent generation sources feeding them. 

It's not rocket science, you zealot.

That chart is actual historical electrical output you twerp. Note the title that says 'Net generation'.

Correct, it isn't rocket science, it is economics you clod.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well 400K people bought this EV last year:

 

Wow that is truly the WORST looking vehicle I have ever seen. Were the 400K people paid to take it away?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

A very nice looking vehicle.

Ron have you gone blind mate?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

Wow that is truly the WORST looking vehicle I have ever seen. Were the 400K people paid to take it away?

They are all the rage in China. 

China’s Gen Z Females Love the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV

 April 11, 2021

The WuLing Hongguang Mini EV rose to fame around July 2020. It is manufactured by the joint venture of SAIC, GM and Wuling. This all-electric city car became an instant hit among all generations, especially young female consumers. Hongguang Mini EV sold more than 200,000 vehicles within the first 200 days, setting a global sales record for new energy vehicles.

As we just hinted at, what is especially interesting is this vehicle’s consumer base. 72% of Wuling Hongguang Mini EV owners are born in the 90s. And 60% of Wuling mini owners are females. They proudly call themselves the Wuling girls.

https://chinamktginsights.com/chinas-gen-z-females-love-the-wuling-hongguang-mini-ev/

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Green hydrogen won't become a player until 10 years from now. Like all renewables, costs reduce over time through research and scaling.

It will be way quicker in Europe especially the UK.

Major green hydrogen projects are set to be operational by 2025 latest and production then ramped up, this hydrogen will help to supplement NG in conventional gas pipes to homes and businesses with a 20% hydrogen mix.

Here is just one example which BP are going to build

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-plans-major-green-hydrogen-project-in-teesside.html

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They are all the rage in China. 

That explains it!

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So there are these things called batteries. Soon the US will be installing more battery capacity than natural gas.

Do you understand the quantity of batteries needed to support the needs? Currently USA consumed about 12TWh of electricity per day. Taking the non-hydro renewables to be 50% of the energy generation with capacity of 33% while 67% is fluctuating/non-generating time, we get the following figures:

Generation: 6TWh/day
Directly usable: 2TWh
Battery capacity needed: 4TWh

Currently, USA has only 2GWh of battery capacity (1.6GWh commercial and 0.4GWh private): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236#:~:text=Large-scale U.S. battery system,a 30% increase from 2018.

What you are suggesting is to increase the battery capacity by 2000 times and that is to meet 50% of the energy needs. Don't you think it is a bit far fetched?

Also, what is that 5.1GW battery capacity in the pie chart? I don't understand where that figure came from? What is the capacity of the battery mentioned? Generation is written as GWH, not GW.

5 hours ago, Boat said:

I may agree with you in areas where storms can take out renewables for several days. A long enough period of time to outlast installed battery storage. Far enough south where there is there is no ice you can’t stop batteries and solar. To the extent Mother Nature can stop wind depends on the area. Humans are dumb so mistakes will be made not adding enough and adding to much wind. Most idiots will argue ideology instead of using commonsense. Commonsense says watch tech that is changing rapidly. These dozens of battery plants going up around the world will produce storage and somebody will install them, government or not. Will they overbuild or under build these battery factories? Who cares. 

I have mentioned why battery is impractical to meet energy needs by giving you an estimate of the scale of battery needed. Moreover, the batteries need replacing every 1500 cycles or 4 years which makes them a very difficult source to use.

About increased capacity of wind/solar, you are missing the point that you can't simply install 300% of needed generation capacity of wind and expect it to produce 100% energy. This is because the wind is fluctuating. At times there will be heavy wind where all the wind farms will produce huge energy while at another time there will be no wind anywhere at all. The wind is not uniformly distributed and can't be averaged out by adding extra capacity.

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Batteries will be supplemented with green hydrogen and other technologies for longer term storage.

Green hydrogen does not work. This was suggested by Nixon after 1973 embargo. Nixon even placed solar panels on White House as a symbolic gesture to remove dependence on Arabs. One of the projects Nixon wanted to start was to replace oil with hydrogen. He wanted to build massive hydrogen generation capacity and long pipelines to transport hydrogen. However, the experiments carried out by the researchers showed that Hydrogen leaks out of containers pretty quickly causing heavy losses in a small time. Leaking hydrogen can also cause fire hazards. Containing hydrogen needed a special lining to the interior of the containers and pipelines which was very expensive and difficult to do on a large scale. Consequently this project was considered unfeasible and dropped.

 

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It will be way quicker in Europe especially the UK.

Major green hydrogen projects are set to be operational by 2025 latest and production then ramped up, this hydrogen will help to supplement NG in conventional gas pipes to homes and businesses with a 20% hydrogen mix.

Here is just one example which BP are going to build

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-plans-major-green-hydrogen-project-in-teesside.html

 

This type of plans were done in 1970s itself with USA president taking a strong personal interest to avert dependency on Arab oil. There have been many attempts and studies at producing hydrogen from hydrolysis using renewable electricity for storage. Green hydrogen was decisively proven to be unfeasible.

As a popular saying goes "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", repeating Green Hydrogen storage is a case of insanity, not innovation or technology advancement. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, kshithij Sharma said:

As a popular saying goes "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", repeating Green Hydrogen storage is a case of insanity, not innovation or technology advancement. 

The very fact you are using "innovation and technology advancement" by definition means you arent doing the same thing over and over again!

Do you think companies like BP are just doing it for a laugh or to look "green" or do you think they intend making money from it? You say these plans were done in the 1970's, dont you think there have been any innovation or technology advancements in the last 50 years?

Edited March 10, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

The Green revolutionaries, otherwise known as Biden & Co., have run up the white flag and abandoned the war against energy.

It is now official, the Biden group has embraced the oil industry as a comrade in arms.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Energy-Secretary-Calls-On-Oil-Industry-To-Pump-More.html

"U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has called on the oil industry to ramp up production in response to soaring fuel prices.

"We are on a war footing," Granholm said at the CERAWeek industry conference, as quoted by Bloomberg. "The DOE and the Biden Administration is ready to work with you. We need oil and gas production to rise."

Edited March 10, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That chart is actual historical electrical output you twerp. Note the title that says 'Net generation'.

Correct, it isn't rocket science, it is economics you clod.

 

 

Says the non-economist....

[Boat + 1,324]

2 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Do you understand the quantity of batteries needed to support the needs? Currently USA consumed about 12TWh of electricity per day. Taking the non-hydro renewables to be 50% of the energy generation with capacity of 33% while 67% is fluctuating/non-generating time, we get the following figures:

Generation: 6TWh/day
Directly usable: 2TWh
Battery capacity needed: 4TWh

Currently, USA has only 2GWh of battery capacity (1.6GWh commercial and 0.4GWh private): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236#:~:text=Large-scale U.S. battery system,a 30% increase from 2018.

What you are suggesting is to increase the battery capacity by 2000 times and that is to meet 50% of the energy needs. Don't you think it is a bit far fetched?

Also, what is that 5.1GW battery capacity in the pie chart? I don't understand where that figure came from? What is the capacity of the battery mentioned? Generation is written as GWH, not GW.

I have mentioned why battery is impractical to meet energy needs by giving you an estimate of the scale of battery needed. Moreover, the batteries need replacing every 1500 cycles or 4 years which makes them a very difficult source to use.

About increased capacity of wind/solar, you are missing the point that you can't simply install 300% of needed generation capacity of wind and expect it to produce 100% energy. This is because the wind is fluctuating. At times there will be heavy wind where all the wind farms will produce huge energy while at another time there will be no wind anywhere at all. The wind is not uniformly distributed and can't be averaged out by adding extra capacity.

Green hydrogen does not work. This was suggested by Nixon after 1973 embargo. Nixon even placed solar panels on White House as a symbolic gesture to remove dependence on Arabs. One of the projects Nixon wanted to start was to replace oil with hydrogen. He wanted to build massive hydrogen generation capacity and long pipelines to transport hydrogen. However, the experiments carried out by the researchers showed that Hydrogen leaks out of containers pretty quickly causing heavy losses in a small time. Leaking hydrogen can also cause fire hazards. Containing hydrogen needed a special lining to the interior of the containers and pipelines which was very expensive and difficult to do on a large scale. Consequently this project was considered unfeasible and dropped.

 

This type of plans were done in 1970s itself with USA president taking a strong personal interest to avert dependency on Arab oil. There have been many attempts and studies at producing hydrogen from hydrolysis using renewable electricity for storage. Green hydrogen was decisively proven to be unfeasible.

As a popular saying goes "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", repeating Green Hydrogen storage is a case of insanity, not innovation or technology advancement. 

No one mentioned getting rid of nat gas, hydro. Only coal, and coal when the power plant is worn out. No go recalculate. Mention the year of calculation and estimated number of batteries in place. You can’t just go plotting willie nillie. 

[Boat + 1,324]

I believe non fossile fuel energy in the states is at 30%? Was that part of your calculation? 

[Boat + 1,324]

19 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The Green revolutionaries, otherwise known as Biden & Co., have run up the white flag and abandoned the war against energy.

It is now official, the Biden group has embraced the oil industry as a comrade in arms.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Energy-Secretary-Calls-On-Oil-Industry-To-Pump-More.html

"U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has called on the oil industry to ramp up production in response to soaring fuel prices.

"We are on a war footing," Granholm said at the CERAWeek industry conference, as quoted by Bloomberg. "The DOE and the Biden Administration is ready to work with you. We need oil and gas production to rise."

We already export 8.2 mbpd minus Russian oil. 7.6 million barrels a day we refine and ship that the US doesn't need for consumption. I’m woke and know that. The Prez got the number right. 90% of oil drilled comes from private owned land. 10% from government land. Government land has over 900 drilling permits filed. Seems the private sector will be just fine for some time. It’s tough being woke around some no googling  Fox News parrots. Although Bloomberg and I think NBC was spouting nonsense about Russian oil being needed. The red deep state is bigger than you think. They even dressing in blue. 

[Boat + 1,324]

Biden could set the price of oil with Mexico and Canada at let’s say $65. Nat gas at $3. All exports after consumption could go at the world rate. That’s what a real president would do. Take care of it’s people and the companies. The idea of being energy independent doesn't mean much if we pay the same as a country that doesn't have energy. If there were 200 million like me we would be more concerned about fairness and we’ll being of our citizens. No Putin, no Trump, no Biden. Just a fair price for transporation.

When your energy independent you can make your own rules. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Boat

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

The very fact you are using "innovation and technology advancement" by definition means you arent doing the same thing over and over again!

Do you think companies like BP are just doing it for a laugh or to look "green" or do you think they intend making money from it? You say these plans were done in the 1970's, dont you think there have been any innovation or technology advancements in the last 50 years?

Unless you can give me some reasonable information of any meaningful technology advancements that prevent hydrogen from leaking from storage and pipelines, I would still call it as repetitive activity.

56 minutes ago, Boat said:

No one mentioned getting rid of nat gas, hydro. Only coal, and coal when the power plant is worn out. No go recalculate. Mention the year of calculation and estimated number of batteries in place. You can’t just go plotting willie nillie. 

Why would you get rid of coal? There is plenty of coal available whereas natural gas is depleting quickly. I am also not considering replacing hydro as it is an eternal free source of energy.

51 minutes ago, Boat said:

I believe non fossile fuel energy in the states is at 30%? Was that part of your calculation? 

Yes, I have considered all forms of energy in USA as seen below.

I am talking of replacing only those source of energy which are using low reserve fossil fuels that are likely to be depleted quickly. Natural gas reserves in USA will deplete in 15 years going by current production rate and reserve availability. So, I am mainly considering the replacement of natural gas. But I am not considering replacement of coal simply because there is plenty and it can last hundreds of years. This means replacing about 40% of energy. An additional 10% was the renewables which was added to make a total of 50% which was reflected in the calculations.

Edited March 10, 2022 by kshithij Sharma

[Boat + 1,324]

Once again more misinformation that can be fixed if you just google. For a couple of decades nat gas reserves were around 200 trillion cubic feet. Over the next 20 years nat gas reserves have more than doubled to 490. Don’t be bringing that crap in here. Know your data. 

[specinho + 470]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The Green revolutionaries, otherwise known as Biden & Co., have run up the white flag and abandoned the war against energy.

It is now official, the Biden group has embraced the oil industry as a comrade in arms.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Energy-Secretary-Calls-On-Oil-Industry-To-Pump-More.html

"U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has called on the oil industry to ramp up production in response to soaring fuel prices.

"We are on a war footing," Granholm said at the CERAWeek industry conference, as quoted by Bloomberg. "The DOE and the Biden Administration is ready to work with you. We need oil and gas production to rise."

📢   📢   📢 

party pooper ..... party pooper..... party pooper....

according to the latest cult info, what if an ICE car can recycle waste energy generated e.g.

a) converting carbon dioxide into methane. Methane recycled as fuel.......

CO2  + 4 H2   ------>   CH4   +   2 H2O (methanogenesis)

b) redirect waste heat generated to run engine.........

c) redirect waste vapour for cooling.........

 

Then, a car would have endless fuel and energy......... The existing fossil fuel, feared would be runned out soon, will be there sustainably, forever.................. and the price.......... would be steady......... forever........

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

13 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Unless you can give me some reasonable information of any meaningful technology advancements that prevent hydrogen from leaking from storage and pipelines, I would still call it as repetitive activity.

The UK is to have 20% hydrogen mixed into the NG pipelines for homes and factories for direct use from 2023/2024. These pipelines are all being upgraded where they need to to prevent any leakage. Are you saying that NG pipelines just leak NG everywhere? There is going to be a large demand for green hydrogen production as 20% is a very ambitious number to try to achieve. There will be no storage requirement as it will be used immediately for heating and cooking.

[Boat + 1,324]

You do know the US imported nat gas up until a couple of years ago. Now we export the crap out of it. Nat gas prices were so low for so long there was no need to explore for more. Texas and New Mexico just flared it/burned so much you could see it from space. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

21 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Unless you can give me some reasonable information of any meaningful technology advancements that prevent hydrogen from leaking from storage and pipelines, I would still call it as repetitive activity.

Why would you get rid of coal? There is plenty of coal available whereas natural gas is depleting quickly. I am also not considering replacing hydro as it is an eternal free source of energy.

Yes, I have considered all forms of energy in USA as seen below.

I am talking of replacing only those source of energy which are using low reserve fossil fuels that are likely to be depleted quickly. Natural gas reserves in USA will deplete in 15 years going by current production rate and reserve availability. So, I am mainly considering the replacement of natural gas. But I am not considering replacement of coal simply because there is plenty and it can last hundreds of years. This means replacing about 40% of energy. An additional 10% was the renewables which was added to make a total of 50% which was reflected in the calculations.

The US has way more than 15 years of natural gas (just as it has 100's of years of coal) the reason why this doesn't show up in proved reserves is the way they are calculated.  Basically the way the rules in the US work, unless there are already wells there on production, or capable of being perforated uphole (reserves behind pipe) then they don't count.  It's an extremely conservative formulation mainly set up to ensure that it provides a safe lending base for banks.  In reality, the amounts which are reasonably accessible by drilling more wells is MUCH greater - perhaps an order of magnitude greater.  However due to physical limits on how much gas the US economy can use, and how much it can export, those wells don't get drilled until the existing ones start to slow down production somewhat.  This means that there is functionally a 'forever' renewal of the reserves until the inventory of drillable targets goes down.  

This method of reserves estimation was conservative, but not bad with conventional oil and gas fields,  but its' not very useful at all with continuous plays like oil and gas shales.  This is because the productive area is VAST - in the US alone, the Marcellus gas play covers an area of 95,000 square miles (~ 250,000 square kilometers) an area about the size of the United Kingdom. And that is only one of several natural gas production areas, and not even the largest or most important (that's the Haynesville)   You simply aren't going to drill all those wells all at once 'just because'.  You want and drill them when there is an actual need for the gas.  These fields are so large they are still in the early stages of development.  

Edited March 10, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Boat + 1,324]

6 minutes ago, specinho said:

📢   📢   📢 

party pooper ..... party pooper..... party pooper....

 

according to the latest cult info, what if an ICE car can recycle waste energy generated e.g.

a) converting carbon dioxide into methane. Methane recycled as fuel.......

CO2  + 4 H2   ------>   CH4   +   2 H2O (methanogenesis)

b) redirect waste heat generated to run engine.........

c) redirect waste vapour for cooling.........

 

Then, a car would have endless fuel and energy......... The existing fossil fuel, feared would be runned out soon, will be there sustainably, forever.................. and the price.......... would be steady......... forever........

I been telling you boys for years that Obama and now Biden ain’t that green. They flared. Oil production boomed. What they got was the ok to legislate some tougher pollution emission regulations for coal. That pipeline and no new permits on fed land sounds flashy but won’t slow oil or gas. You just have to pay attention and follow the numbers instead of right wing rhetoric. Hell if Obama had not bailed big auto, you be driving a scooter from China. 

[specinho + 470]

On 3/10/2022 at 11:38 PM, Boat said:

Biden could set the price of oil with Mexico and Canada at let’s say $65. Nat gas at $3. All exports after consumption could go at the world rate. That’s what a real president would do. Take care of it’s people and the companies. The idea of being energy independent doesn't mean much if we pay the same as a country that doesn't have energy. If there were 200 million like me we would be more concerned about fairness and we’ll being of our citizens. No Putin, no Trump, no Biden. Just a fair price for transporation.

When your energy independent you can make your own rules. 

once upon a time............ there was  a story........ quoted here:

Once upon a time......... there was this comment..... describing the tentative budget saving government who ordered machine guns made in China. The guns somehow fired backward, instead of forward....... in the field.

 

Although it is a dry humour by those who were using them, it also depicts a rightful scenario on most or all occasions....... When one has not experienced what needs to be ordered, managed, restructured, solved etc, one likely unable to do it right compared to those using it, spend time to know or living with the problems etc.

 

Therefore, those who set oil price ought NOT be the president and team who do not know what is going on out there in the field, but those who are operating the oil fields.... Otherwise, one might get $10 per liter to encourage EV......... in the US.

Rightfully said.............. natural resources are assets for a country. Citizens ought to be able to enjoy at low prices compared to non producers.........That way, costs of living would be kept low and rate of urban poverty be overcome at ease.......

An former attempt to synchronize petrol prices with neighbouring countries in SEA by a very small country of not many know before, led to price increment 4 to 5 times in 2 years, is deemed silly. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by specinho

[Boat + 1,324]

4 minutes ago, specinho said:

once upon a time............ there was  a story........ quoted here:

Once upon a time......... there was this comment..... describing the tentative budget saving government who ordered machine guns made in China that fired backward, instead of forward.......

 

Although it is a dry humour by those who were using them, it also depicts a rightful scenario on most or all occasions....... When one has not experienced what needs to be ordered, managed, restructured, solved etc, one likely unable to do it right compared to those using it, spend time to know or living with the problems etc.

 

Therefore, those who set oil price ought NOT be the president and team who do not know what is going on out there in the field, but those who are operating the oil fields.... Otherwise, one might get $10 per liter to encourage EV......... in the US.

Rightfully said.............. natural resources are assets for a country. Citizens ought to be able to enjoy at low prices compared to non producers.........That way, costs of living would be kept low and rate of urban poverty be overcome at ease.......

An former attempt to synchronize petrol prices with neighbouring countries in SEA by a very small country of not many know before, led to price increment 4 to 5 times in 2 years, is deemed silly. 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is how American politics work. Big money, either companies or wealthy supports a political party or members of both parties. It is extremely expensive to run for office. To pass legislation to have a fair price for fuel would be impossible because they would not cut off the hand that feeds you. I’m just one of the few brave enough to question the honesty of our politics. My point is, for 40 years the US was dependent on foreign FF. Now we’re FF independent and we still pay like we’re dependent. The implied security from being FF independent ment no more gouging. It was all a lie. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Less than 1% of the vehicles market...no real change here, or going forward.

Who wants to drive this golf buggy?

Honestly, my wife would want it in a heartbeat if it had a little more power.  It's exactly the type of design she loves (she drives a 2012 kia sportage for perspective) She likes a car with a bit more pep off the line though, and recently speced out a Nissan Leaf (the new generation) with a 200 mile range she liked that was ~ $30,000.