GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes I agree but its not just about cost at present, its about energy security as well. This is why I think they will do both, better to have options than nothing at all.

Having coal as a backup is one thing. Using it is another. What is important is what do they end up using 95% of the time?

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Having coal as a backup is one thing. Using it is another. What is important is what do they end up using 95% of the time.

Whatever is cheaper obviously but they are shitting themselves over energy security so they will ramp up everything until the world settles down a bit in a few years.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

Whatever is cheaper obviously but they are shitting themselves over energy security so they will ramp up everything until the world settles down a bit in a few years.

We are just at the beginning of a decades long transition, what does a few years matter? 

[Boat + 1,315]

8 hours ago, notsonice said:

It’s a little tough to visualize but the world line shows what looks like one percent per year growth for the last 10 years. I think that is an achievable sustainable pace. The big moon jumps in growth may be harder to attain and maintain. Wars, Mother Nature and politics will provide plenty of other distractions. 

[TailingsPond + 500]

45 minutes ago, Boat said:

It’s a little tough to visualize but the world line shows what looks like one percent per year growth for the last 10 years. I think that is an achievable sustainable pace. The big moon jumps in growth may be harder to attain and maintain. Wars, Mother Nature and politics will provide plenty of other distractions. 

That is one percentage point, not one percent.

Going from 1 percentage point to 2 percentage points is a 100% growth.

[specinho + 440]

On 3/13/2022 at 9:20 AM, Ron Wagner said:

You are correct. The trouble is that farmers are very stubborn and set in their ways. It works for them, but not for the environment. A lot of nitrogen, pesticides, roundup, etc. ends up in the groundwater, the soil, and then the ocean. It needs to be addressed. Right now we have much more pressing problems. 

could they possibly change the lay out of the farm? For example, plant row of fruit trees amidst vast field. Fruit can be harvested later to be consumed, sold or/and used as natural fertilizer. This disruption could modify many things e.g. microclimate, water shortage, low yield over same crop on the same place for years, etc

There used to be a suggestion ages ago in fresh water forum............ Not too sure if it has been applied. The suggestion was to use closed loop irrigation system i.e. water flushed out from the field being recycled to water the field.........

19 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Are you finally accepting his defeat? Haha 

Putin owns trump

could you kindly verify please if Trump was a popular tentative candidate for nobel peace prize here years ago owing to his blood connection and righteous mafia sense or that he is owned?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I know it is crazy but the news about what China is doing comes from the Chinese.  Your "western" articles have plenty of quotes from Chinese sources.

Here is a western source for you:

China to Stop Building Coal Plants For Base Power Generation

Feb. 27, 2022, 10:40 PM

 

• Coal power still the mainstay of China’s electricity system
• Coal-fired plants will play a supporting role in power supply

China will no longer build new coal-fired power plants as main sources of electricity generation as the country works to reduce its reliance on the dirty fuel.

The nation will “on principle” stop building coal-power projects as base-load generators, the National Energy Administration said in a letter last week. The construction of some plants will still be allowed if they’re needed to help adjust or support power derived from renewable sources, which are subject to intermittency problems, or to ensure supply security.

The move is in line with China’s five-year development plan released last year, which pledged to “control the ...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/china-to-stop-building-coal-plants-for-base-power-generation

 

One important thing to remember about China's existing stock of coal fired electric plants is that their utilization factors tend to be rather low - on average something like 55-60%.  This is in part because every local city/county, etc.  wanted to have 'their' plant but also in part because the grid and interconnect systems haven't been growing fast enough to ensure that a smaller number of plants could supply everyone with a higher utilization factor.

The end result of this, is that the amount of coal burned, and electricity generated by Chinese coal fired electric plants could easily rise by by around 33% (bringing them to a utilization factor of 75- 80%) without any new plants getting built.  

The Chinese edict of 'no new plants' has to be understood with this in mind - they want to start forcing local authorities and investors to get the grid better utilized instead of popping up a new plant every time there is a brownout.  That is an unglamorous, slow, and expensive effort, but one which has obvious benefits.  

This of course assumes that China can get the coal required to increase the utilization factor that much,  which is seriously in doubt. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,547]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We are just at the beginning of a decades long transition, what does a few years matter? 

I applaud you for a honest portrayal of Green Energy. Decades of time and resources of untold magnitude. The most startling aspect of this speculative adventure would be  no clearly defined path. Merely winging it as time and wealth are lavishly poured into a concept with no clear conclusion.

Yet at the same time there are countries that are already experiencing energy failures that jeopardize a entire continent sovernity.  Aligning with countries of dubious character, how much more of this maddnes can humanity withstand?

At the same moment in time there is another large country creating more coal fired energy than all the countries of the world combined...Interesting is it not, investing time and wealth of untold proportions into a energy infrastructure that has been deemed a failure, a infrastructure that is to be legislated  out of existence. Perhaps not does come to mind...or blatantly ignored.

The above, merely a opinion...perhaps a reflection of the current state of this world.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Boat + 1,315]

15 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I applaud you for a honest portrayal of Green Energy. Decades of time and resources of untold magnitude. The most startling aspect of this speculative adventure would be  no clearly defined path. Merely winging it as time and wealth are lavishly poured into a concept with no clear conclusion.

Yet at the same time there are countries that are already experiencing energy failures that jeopardize a entire continent sovernity.  Aligning with countries of dubious character, how much more of this maddnes can humanity withstand?

At the same moment in time there is another large country creating more coal fired energy than all the countries of the world combined...Interesting is it not, investing time and wealth of untold proportions into a energy infrastructure that has been deemed a failure, a infrastructure that is to be legislated  out of existence. Perhaps not does come to mind...or blatantly ignored.

The above, merely a opinion...perhaps a reflection of the current state of this world.

 

 

The only thing that makes this transition possible is untold magnitude of expense already suffered. At this time most energy failures are because FF prices are so volatile. You drop your glasses and oil goes up $5. We’re gonna get you laser surgery and cataract removal and boom, incremental improvement.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,547]

32 minutes ago, Boat said:

At this time most energy failures are because FF prices.

Ohh Boat calm down and reflect. The EU has survived for 100 yrs without such calamitous events. Until that is they decommissioned there conventional power generation infrastructure. 

Frankly those involved should be held accountable, never to be allowed any type of involvement in such matters of governance...Your Fired...does resonate.

Carbon displacement the end of humanity....may very well take on a whole new dimension. Perhaps who is privileged/annoited to use such power...

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Boat + 1,315]

40 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ohh Boat calm down and reflect. The EU has survived for 100 yrs without such calamitous events. Until that is they decommissioned there conventional power generation infrastructure. 

Frankly those involved should be held accountable, never to be allowed any type of involvement in such matters of governance...Your Fired...does resonate.

Carbon displacement the end of humanity....may very well take on a whole new dimension. Perhaps who is privileged/annoited to use such power...

 

So you missed WWI and WWII and the embargo of the 80’s. Seems to me around 2003 and beyond FF jumped because of war. Glad you have glasses. Maybe you can keep up now? Forget it. Living history seems beyond your skill level. Ask musk for an early chip. It’s never wise to live without hope. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

21 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ohh Boat calm down and reflect. The EU has survived for 100 yrs without such calamitous events. Until that is they decommissioned there conventional power generation infrastructure. 

Frankly those involved should be held accountable, never to be allowed any type of involvement in such matters of governance...Your Fired...does resonate.

 

Other than Germany shutting down their nuclear power plants what are you talking about? Germany added coal plants, UK ran out of coal and would have to be importing super expensive coal. Fortunately they both built out a lot of wind and some solar power otherwise the situation would be worse.  The past month wind & solar has produced 33% of UK electricity at a fraction of the price they are paying for LNG.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

This one is for @Eyes Wide Open

Tories plan big expansion of wind farms ‘to protect national security’

Boris Johnson is planning to unveil a radical new “energy strategy” within a fortnight to ensure the UK can meet its domestic needs from a mix of renewables and nuclear. The war in Ukraine has brought further huge rises in global fossil fuel prices and exposed countries’ dependence on overseas supplies.

 

Remarkably, the need for more on- and offshore windfarms – traditionally a highly controversial subject in the Conservative party – is now being talked about within government as a matter of security, rather than a way of fighting climate change.

Renewables such as wind and solar power are expected to be part of the new government strategy to free Britain from dependence on imported oil and gas and spare households and businesses from the effects of wild fluctuations on global energy markets.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, said last week on Twitter: “This is no longer about tackling climate change or reaching net-zero targets. Ensuring the UK’s clean energy independence is a matter of national security. Putin can set the price of gas, but he can’t directly control the price of renewables and nuclear we generate in the UK.”

Official figures show that meeting net-zero targets would lead to a drop in gas use of 65% by 2035 in the UK, and almost 100% by 2050.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/13/tories-plan-big-expansion-of-wind-farms-to-protect-national-security

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

This one is for @Eyes Wide Open

Tories plan big expansion of wind farms ‘to protect national security’

Boris Johnson is planning to unveil a radical new “energy strategy” within a fortnight to ensure the UK can meet its domestic needs from a mix of renewables and nuclear. The war in Ukraine has brought further huge rises in global fossil fuel prices and exposed countries’ dependence on overseas supplies.

 

Remarkably, the need for more on- and offshore windfarms – traditionally a highly controversial subject in the Conservative party – is now being talked about within government as a matter of security, rather than a way of fighting climate change.

Renewables such as wind and solar power are expected to be part of the new government strategy to free Britain from dependence on imported oil and gas and spare households and businesses from the effects of wild fluctuations on global energy markets.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, said last week on Twitter: “This is no longer about tackling climate change or reaching net-zero targets. Ensuring the UK’s clean energy independence is a matter of national security. Putin can set the price of gas, but he can’t directly control the price of renewables and nuclear we generate in the UK.”

Official figures show that meeting net-zero targets would lead to a drop in gas use of 65% by 2035 in the UK, and almost 100% by 2050.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/13/tories-plan-big-expansion-of-wind-farms-to-protect-national-security

Everyone has their priorities.  Meet the political need, and the policies follow suit.  If energy security is a national security issue (and at some point, it always is) then the UK doesn't have a lot of good options without wind being a part of the discussion. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,547]

50 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Other than Germany shutting down their nuclear power plants what are you talking about? Germany added coal plants, UK ran out of coal and would have to be importing super expensive coal. Fortunately they both built out a lot of wind and some solar power otherwise the situation would be worse.  The past month wind & solar has produced 33% of UK electricity at a fraction of the price they are paying for LNG.

Germany shut down 12 of 19 reactors, and 3 more since that time. A note to history, science and technology pleaded to not do as much. What force on this planet could persuade Politician's to act with such arrogance.

Germans asked to keep reactors in operation

15 October 2021

The letter - titled Dear Germany, please leave the nuclear power plants on the grid and published on 13 October in Welt - notes a recent draft government report that predicts that, based on the policies in place in August 2020, Germany will largely miss its target of a 65% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. "It is very difficult to imagine that the measures adopted since then will completely close this gap," it says.

Among the signatories of the letter are: physicist Wade Allison from the University of Oxford; energy analyst Malcolm Grimston of Imperial College London; climate researcher James Hansen of Columbia University; Rainer Klute, chairman of German pro-nuclear group Nuklearia; British environmentalists and writers Mark Lynas and George Monbiot; Rauli Partanen, founder of Finland's Think Atom; US documentary filmmaker Robert Stone; Geraldine Thomas, molecular biologist and director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, Imperial College London; and Myrto Tripathi, founder of France's Voix du Nucléaire.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Germans-asked-to-keep-reactors-in-operation

 

https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article234364140/Offener-Brief-Liebes-Deutschland-bitte-lass-die-Kernkraftwerke-am-Netz.html

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[notsonice + 1,096]

21 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Everyone has their priorities.  Meet the political need, and the policies follow suit.  If energy security is a national security issue (and at some point, it always is) then the UK doesn't have a lot of good options without wind being a part of the discussion. 

Meet the political need, and the policies follow suit.???? When I think of energy stability ( IE reliable power and where it comes from)  I never think of politicians. I look to my provider, who is a private company, and I voice my opinion to them first, politicians last. IE when the lights go out I call up the power company not my senator. Thank god I am in a state where the Power company has their shit together and works hard to make sure they power grid works 24/7.......Unless you are in Texas.... then I would call the senator at the beach in Mexico ....

[notsonice + 1,096]

19 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Germany shut down 12 of 19 reactors, and 3 more since that time. A note to history, science and technology pleaded to not do as much. What force on this planet could persuade Politician's to act with such arrogance.

Germans asked to keep reactors in operation

15 October 2021

The letter - titled Dear Germany, please leave the nuclear power plants on the grid and published on 13 October in Welt - notes a recent draft government report that predicts that, based on the policies in place in August 2020, Germany will largely miss its target of a 65% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. "It is very difficult to imagine that the measures adopted since then will completely close this gap," it says.

Among the signatories of the letter are: physicist Wade Allison from the University of Oxford; energy analyst Malcolm Grimston of Imperial College London; climate researcher James Hansen of Columbia University; Rainer Klute, chairman of German pro-nuclear group Nuklearia; British environmentalists and writers Mark Lynas and George Monbiot; Rauli Partanen, founder of Finland's Think Atom; US documentary filmmaker Robert Stone; Geraldine Thomas, molecular biologist and director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, Imperial College London; and Myrto Tripathi, founder of France's Voix du Nucléaire.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Germans-asked-to-keep-reactors-in-operation

 

https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article234364140/Offener-Brief-Liebes-Deutschland-bitte-lass-die-Kernkraftwerke-am-Netz.html

Germany really needs to do some soul searching...........in the short term Nuclear power plants or sucking up to Putin or Buying LNG  and helping the US obtain a trade balance..... I like number 3 .........it truly is MAGA

[notsonice + 1,096]

4 hours ago, Boat said:

It’s a little tough to visualize but the world line shows what looks like one percent per year growth for the last 10 years. I think that is an achievable sustainable pace. The big moon jumps in growth may be harder to attain and maintain. Wars, Mother Nature and politics will provide plenty of other distractions. 

the main point to take away from the graph......is the amount of increase is exponential not linear........renewables are picking steam...not slowing down ....2 percent a year is already happening in Europe and the US will soon follow along especially since offshore wind is now happening........

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,547]

14 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Germany really needs to do some soul searching...........in the short term Nuclear power plants or sucking up to Putin or Buying LNG  and helping the US obtain a trade balance..... I like number 3 .........it truly is MAGA

Your mortal soul is at risk Ponds...view the below with extreme caution. A triggering event..viewer discretion is advised. VIOLENT CONTENT.

https://youtu.be/O24rulfjA8U

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,547]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

One important thing to remember about China's existing stock of coal fired electric plants is that their utilization factors tend to be rather low - on average something like 55-60%. 

A very astute observation...55% utilization of a plant...and yet they build more at unprecedented levels. 

Your analysis? 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

39 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Meet the political need, and the policies follow suit.???? When I think of energy stability ( IE reliable power and where it comes from)  I never think of politicians. I look to my provider, who is a private company, and I voice my opinion to them first, politicians last. IE when the lights go out I call up the power company not my senator. Thank god I am in a state where the Power company has their shit together and works hard to make sure they power grid works 24/7.......Unless you are in Texas.... then I would call the senator at the beach in Mexico ....

Yes, politicians consider their political needs, then make policies accordingly.  Companies can only do what is legal, and what is permitted and what is legal and permitted is determined by political needs.  If you doubt me,  look at the German policy switch on nuclear power post invasion.  The supply of energy in all countries - even ones with free markets is heavily regulated.  

If your power company receives subsidies to construct a wind farm, do you think they will continue to blindly follow some other plan without considering the size of the subsidy first?  If the permits for a nuclear power plant are withdrawn, do you think your private power company will still break ground on the project? If clean air regulations increase the cost of running a coal fired electric plant by 30% do you think they just pay the difference without looking at alternative power supply sources?

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A very astute observation...55% utilization of a plant...and yet they build more at unprecedented levels. 

Your analysis? 

They aren't building a lot more.  The new ones which are under construction (or permitted) are high efficiency supercritical steam plants, with the intention of phasing out older low efficiency ones (all coal powered) The objectives are twofold:

economize on coal (China isn't some magic place with unlimited coal)

Increase electric power supply capacity (demand is continuing to grow)

Edited March 15, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

 What force on this planet could persuade Politician's to act with such arrogance.

 

 

The voters.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

49 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A very astute observation...55% utilization of a plant...and yet they build more at unprecedented levels. 

Your analysis? 

It isn't 55% utilization of a plant. It is 95% utilization of the most efficient plants and less than 30% utilization of inefficient plants. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It isn't 55% utilization of a plant. It is 95% utilization of the most efficient plants and less than 30% utilization of inefficient plants. 

I haven't seen that anywhere, and it would seem to make sense,  but I have also seen evidence (anecdotal but seemingly widespread) that a lot of plants are generally seeing low utilization because

• local political leaders 'make money' when the construct new plants (or at least they did, until Beijing changed how things got accounted)
• The construction of the grid has lagged demand, ending up in a situation where a lot of plants get low utilization because they are basically there 'just in case'

I would expect your 95% good plants,30% bad ones is the objective, until all the inefficient ones get weeded out, but I question how often that has been achieved in practice.