GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Plans subject to change and reversal.....yes we have heard that.

Coal still isn't going up in the UK and the decision to keep the coal station open longer hasn't been made yet. However nuclear, renewables and EVs are going up.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,255]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

World wide coal output set to reach new all-time levels.....but there is no need to worry about the effects of CO2, that is simply an intellectual science malfunction. The new research is zeroing in on the real determinants of climate change, solar variables.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223

World wide coal output set to reach new all-time levels?????

you posted this already happened....and then you were not able to back up your BS......

 

[Ron Wagner + 706]

51 minutes ago, notsonice said:

World wide coal output set to reach new all-time levels?????

you posted this already happened....and then you were not able to back up your BS......

 

Do you have any figures on 2021? I see a possible trend downward but somewhat insignificant.

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Coal still isn't going up in the UK and the decision to keep the coal station open longer hasn't been made yet. However nuclear, renewables and EVs are going up.

Just the tip of the iceberg, it will soon become an avalanche of reconfiguration and reconsideration.

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

4 hours ago, notsonice said:

World wide coal output set to reach new all-time levels?????

you posted this already happened....and then you were not able to back up your BS......

 

No, you were given the data...you are really slow, man.

And as soon as you can learn to read, take a look at this, the new climate research is moving away from CO2 hysteria, the world wide panic over coal will soon be nothing but a bad dream.

Again, this study shows how the solar cycle ends in 2020, very similar to other studies on solar cycles. That means that we are beginning to pull out of the heat cycle and are entering a cooling phase. Cool, man!

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223

"The Sun provides the energy required to sustain life on Earth and drive our planet's atmospheric circulation. However, establishing a solid physical connection between solar and tropospheric variability has posed a considerable challenge. The canon of solar variability is derived from the 400 years of observations that demonstrates the waxing and waning number of sunspots over an 11(-ish) year period. Recent research has demonstrated the significance of the underlying 22 years magnetic polarity cycle in establishing the shorter sunspot cycle. Integral to the manifestation of the latter is the spatiotemporal overlapping and migration of oppositely polarized magnetic bands. We demonstrate the impact of “terminators”—the end of Hale magnetic cycles—on the Sun's radiative output and particulate shielding of our atmosphere through the rapid global reconfiguration of solar magnetism. Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back some six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate a correlation between the occurrence of terminators and the largest swings of Earth's oceanic indices: the transition from El Niño to La Niña states of the central Pacific. This empirical relationship is a potential source of increased predictive skill for the understanding of El Niño climate variations, a high-stakes societal imperative given that El Niño impacts lives, property, and economic activity around the globe. A forecast of the Sun's global behavior places the next solar cycle termination in mid-2020; should a major oceanic swing follow, then the challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work?"

Edited April 10, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Just the tip of the iceberg, it will soon become an avalanche of reconfiguration and reconsideration.

They just did their reconsideration and reconfiguration and the plan is to increase nuclear, renewables and EVs. No coal expansion.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

Environmentalists Are Crushing Europe’s Energy Independence Ambitions

Europe is not going to achieve a competitive energy transition with the current interventionist policies. Europe does not depend on Russian gas due to a coincidence, but because of a chain of mistaken policies: banning nuclear in Germany, prohibiting the development of domestic natural gas resources throughout the European Union, added to a massive and expensive renewable rollout without building a reliable backup. Solar and wind do not reduce dependency on Russian natural gas. They are necessary but volatile and intermittent. They need backup from nuclear, hydro, and natural gas for the security of the energy supply. Dependency on these backup sources rises in periods of low wind and little sun, just when prices are highest.

 

 

Batteries are not an option, either. It is impossible to build an industrial-size network of enormous batteries; the cost would be prohibitive and the dependency on China (for lithium, etc.) to build them would be even more of a problem. At current prices, a battery energy storage system of Europe’s size would cost more than $2.5 trillion, according to an MIT Technology Review paper, massively more expensive than any other alternative.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Environmentalists-Are-Crushing-Europes-Energy-Independence-Ambitions.html

[Boat + 1,323]

32 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Environmentalists Are Crushing Europe’s Energy Independence Ambitions

Europe is not going to achieve a competitive energy transition with the current interventionist policies. Europe does not depend on Russian gas due to a coincidence, but because of a chain of mistaken policies: banning nuclear in Germany, prohibiting the development of domestic natural gas resources throughout the European Union, added to a massive and expensive renewable rollout without building a reliable backup. Solar and wind do not reduce dependency on Russian natural gas. They are necessary but volatile and intermittent. They need backup from nuclear, hydro, and natural gas for the security of the energy supply. Dependency on these backup sources rises in periods of low wind and little sun, just when prices are highest.

 

 

Batteries are not an option, either. It is impossible to build an industrial-size network of enormous batteries; the cost would be prohibitive and the dependency on China (for lithium, etc.) to build them would be even more of a problem. At current prices, a battery energy storage system of Europe’s size would cost more than $2.5 trillion, according to an MIT Technology Review paper, massively more expensive than any other alternative.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Environmentalists-Are-Crushing-Europes-Energy-Independence-Ambitions.html

So Putin is now an environmentalist. Breaking news. Gerhard Schroeder lead the greenies in Germany to killing nuke and going Russian gas. He is one of the leading Fossile Fuel leaders in the world. Called a greenie. Lol sorry to thick glass eyes and Echo for not being on the FF leaders list. It wasn’t me. I voted for you.

Cost comparisons between FF and green seems very difficult at this time unless your thick eyes and Echo. Europe doesn't have 2.5 trillion. Only .6 trillion from Russia. Maybe a trillion if we sell everything in the world that is Russia.

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They just did their reconsideration and reconfiguration and the plan is to increase nuclear, renewables and EVs. No coal expansion.

Nonsense, European activists have banned the energy sources which are needed, 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Environmentalists-Are-Crushing-Europes-Energy-Independence-Ambitions.html

"Europe is racing to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but its politics may be holding the transition back.

Bans on nuclear energy and natural gas development are hindering Europe’s ability to become energy independent.

As the region grapples with soaring energy costs, it is becoming increasingly clear that what they are doing isn’t working, and a change in strategy may be in order."

Edited April 11, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

13 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Nonsense, European activists have banned the energy sources which are needed, 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Environmentalists-Are-Crushing-Europes-Energy-Independence-Ambitions.html

"Europe is racing to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but its politics may be holding the transition back.

Bans on nuclear energy and natural gas development are hindering Europe’s ability to become energy independent.

As the region grapples with soaring energy costs, it is becoming increasingly clear that what they are doing isn’t working, and a change in strategy may be in order."

Meanwhile in reality:

 The just released British Energy Security Strategy, no mention of coal:

The government’s British Energy Security Strategy sets out how Great Britain will accelerate the deployment of wind, new nuclear, solar and hydrogen, whilst supporting the production of domestic oil and gas in the nearer term – which could see 95% of electricity by 2030 being low carbon.

The strategy will see a significant acceleration of nuclear, with an ambition of up to 24GW by 2050 to come from this safe, clean, and reliable source of power. This would represent up to around 25% of our projected electricity demand. Subject to technology readiness from industry, Small Modular Reactors will form a key part of the nuclear project pipeline.

A new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial funding, and we will launch the £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean delivering up to 8 reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain.

Our ambitious plans also include:

• offshore wind: a new ambition of up to 50GW by 2030 – more than enough to power every home in the UK – of which we would like to see up to 5GW from floating offshore wind in deeper seas. This will be underpinned by new planning reforms to cut the approval times for new offshore wind farms from 4 years to 1 year and an overall streamlining which will radically reduce the time it takes for new projects to reach construction stages while improving the environment
• oil and gas: a licensing round for new North Sea oil and gas projects planned to launch in Autumn, with a new taskforce providing bespoke support to new developments – recognising the importance of these fuels to the transition and to our energy security, and that producing gas in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than imported from abroad
• onshore wind: we will be consulting on developing partnerships with a limited number of supportive communities who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure in return for guaranteed lower energy bills
• heat pump manufacturing: we will run a Heat Pump Investment Accelerator Competition in 2022 worth up to £30 million to make British heat pumps, which reduce demand for gas

We will also look to increase the UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity which could grow up to 5 times by 2035, consulting on the rules for solar projects, particularly on domestic and commercial rooftops.

We will aim to double our ambition to up to 10GW of low carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, with at least half coming from green hydrogen and utilising excess offshore wind power to bring down costs. This will not only provide cleaner energy for vital British industries to move away from expensive fossil fuels, but could also be used for cleaner power, transport and potentially heat.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-acceleration-of-homegrown-power-in-britains-plan-for-greater-energy-independence

Edited April 11, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

23 hours ago, Boat said:

So Putin is now an environmentalist. Breaking news. Gerhard Schroeder lead the greenies in Germany to killing nuke and going Russian gas. He is one of the leading Fossile Fuel leaders in the world. Called a greenie. Lol sorry to thick glass eyes and Echo for not being on the FF leaders list. It wasn’t me. I voted for you.

Cost comparisons between FF and green seems very difficult at this time unless your thick eyes and Echo. Europe doesn't have 2.5 trillion. Only .6 trillion from Russia. Maybe a trillion if we sell everything in the world that is Russia.

Gerhard Schroeder isn’t the head of an environmentalist group - he’s an executive at Gazprom.  It’s not hard to figure out why he’s got the priorities he does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder

Edited April 11, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Boat + 1,323]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:33 AM, Ecocharger said:

Just the tip of the iceberg, it will soon become an avalanche of reconfiguration and reconsideration.

When you tip a glass of ice and it slides into your nose you would call it an avalanche of reconfiguration and reconsideration. 

[Boat + 1,323]

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Gerhard Schroeder isn’t the head of an environmentalist group - he’s an executive at Gazprom.  It’s not hard to figure out why he’s got the priorities he does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder

The Germans form coalitions to get political majorities to govern. Gerhard was a leader for years of a coalition that had the Green Party in it. That coalition killed nuke and allowed coal to survive. Also dramatically nat gas imports. He’s a Putin boy. That’s corruption in Europe. 
Germany just made an about face in regional politics. They finally figured out that corruption from Putin was not worth siding with the guy that may have started WWIII. I have a feeling the idea of green will change in Germany once the rot has been rooted out. 

[Boat + 1,323]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Meanwhile in reality:

 The just released British Energy Security Strategy, no mention of coal:

The government’s British Energy Security Strategy sets out how Great Britain will accelerate the deployment of wind, new nuclear, solar and hydrogen, whilst supporting the production of domestic oil and gas in the nearer term – which could see 95% of electricity by 2030 being low carbon.

The strategy will see a significant acceleration of nuclear, with an ambition of up to 24GW by 2050 to come from this safe, clean, and reliable source of power. This would represent up to around 25% of our projected electricity demand. Subject to technology readiness from industry, Small Modular Reactors will form a key part of the nuclear project pipeline.

A new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial funding, and we will launch the £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean delivering up to 8 reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain.

Our ambitious plans also include:

• offshore wind: a new ambition of up to 50GW by 2030 – more than enough to power every home in the UK – of which we would like to see up to 5GW from floating offshore wind in deeper seas. This will be underpinned by new planning reforms to cut the approval times for new offshore wind farms from 4 years to 1 year and an overall streamlining which will radically reduce the time it takes for new projects to reach construction stages while improving the environment
• oil and gas: a licensing round for new North Sea oil and gas projects planned to launch in Autumn, with a new taskforce providing bespoke support to new developments – recognising the importance of these fuels to the transition and to our energy security, and that producing gas in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than imported from abroad
• onshore wind: we will be consulting on developing partnerships with a limited number of supportive communities who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure in return for guaranteed lower energy bills
• heat pump manufacturing: we will run a Heat Pump Investment Accelerator Competition in 2022 worth up to £30 million to make British heat pumps, which reduce demand for gas

We will also look to increase the UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity which could grow up to 5 times by 2035, consulting on the rules for solar projects, particularly on domestic and commercial rooftops.

We will aim to double our ambition to up to 10GW of low carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, with at least half coming from green hydrogen and utilising excess offshore wind power to bring down costs. This will not only provide cleaner energy for vital British industries to move away from expensive fossil fuels, but could also be used for cleaner power, transport and potentially heat.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-acceleration-of-homegrown-power-in-britains-plan-for-greater-energy-independence

I long wondered why this strategy wasn’t  implemented in the first place. Replace imports first, then coal, then nat gas. 
same with the US. The key idea is fewer mandates but support infrastructure to help the transition. We should end up with a more efficient cheaper grid. 

[Boat + 1,323]

Chem-Energy, a leader in the petroleum products industry, has selected Caldwell County as the location to invest more than $1 billion in the development of two innovative solar and battery power plant facilities. This announcement marks the largest economic development win (by capital investment) in the history of the Texas Innovation Corridor.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

I long wondered why this strategy wasn’t  implemented in the first place. Replace imports first, then coal, then nat gas. 
same with the US. The key idea is fewer mandates but support infrastructure to help the transition. We should end up with a more efficient cheaper grid. 

It sort of was - it's just that outside of Norway and the UK they ran out of time before it could be implemented. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Boat said:

I long wondered why this strategy wasn’t  implemented in the first place. Replace imports first, then coal, then nat gas. 
same with the US. The key idea is fewer mandates but support infrastructure to help the transition. We should end up with a more efficient cheaper grid. 

You wondered and the whole of the UK did too!

Too many anti nuclear idiots in the UK, successive governments have pissed about for over a decade with this. Hopefully this strategy will actually get implemented and not sidelined again.

[Boat + 1,323]

Nuclear can be derailed if not done correctly. In GA a like 12 billion nuke plant is now up to over 22 billion and counting. 10 years late. That’s hard to sell to citizens. Banks won’t finance either. So should government give who another opportunity? Guaranteed to be political poison. I say yes if the bean counters say a smaller modular, safer, no waste tech works. Get-er-done. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, Boat said:

Nuclear can be derailed if not done correctly. In GA a like 12 billion nuke plant is now up to over 22 billion and counting. 10 years late. That’s hard to sell to citizens. Banks won’t finance either. So should government give who another opportunity? Guaranteed to be political poison. I say yes if the bean counters say a smaller modular, safer, no waste tech works. Get-er-done. 

There are a number of companies globally working on small modular reactors, here are a few.

https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-releases/news-details/2022/Fluor-held-NuScale-Equity-Purchased-by-Japanese-Partner/default.aspx?utm_source=social&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=JBICdigital&utm_content=JA

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/small-scale-nuclear-power-for-commercial-ship-propulsion

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

You wondered and the whole of the UK did too!

Too many anti nuclear idiots in the UK, successive governments have pissed about for over a decade with this. Hopefully this strategy will actually get implemented and not sidelined again.

Oh the nuclear part will get sidelined about half way through. The cost is going to be eye watering compared to renewables, batteries and hydrogen.   SMRs are not cheaper than big nuclear.

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

57 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Oh the nuclear part will get sidelined about half way through. The cost is going to be eye watering compared to renewables, batteries and hydrogen.   SMRs are not cheaper than big nuclear.

Nonsense, Jay. Read this and learn.

The rapidly rising costs for renewables which I predicted here has now come to pass, renewables are being priced out of existence.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Wind-Power-Growth-Is-Slowing-In-The-US.html

"...so far in 2022, not only has the rate of growth decelerated for renewables, the sector has taken a serious hit from ongoing supply chain issues and market volatility which has been exacerbated by the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. Even before this year, however, the wind sector, in particular, was already showing signs of trouble. Instead of soaring to new heights in 2021, new wind power installations actually decreased last year as compared to 2022. The United States and China, the two countries responsible for the bulk of new wind power capacity, both saw decreases last year. In China, this may be due to the end of the country’s feed-in-tariff, while in the U.S. supply chains and pandemic complications have been cited as the root issue. 

Indeed, this week the annual wind energy conference WindEurope is taking place in Bilbao, Spain, and the tone has been more worried than celebratory. “The state of the supply chain is ultimately unhealthy right now,” Sheri Hickok, GE Renewable Energy chief executive for onshore wind, told a conference panel. “It is unhealthy because we have an inflationary market that is beyond what anybody anticipated even last year. Steel is going up three times.” According to reporting from Recharge, Nordex chief executive José Luis Blanco said that even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, “the economics in the wind industry had been destroyed due to price pressures from competitive tenders coupled with a low visibility of wind capacity pipelines due to failed government policies.” Blanco says that turbine-makers have been forced to sell their product at a loss as part of a “self-destructive loop.”

If these conditions continue, it will be impossible for Europe to reach its goal of tripling wind power capacity by 2030. What’s more, a new report from the Global Wind Energy Council says that the wind will need to pick up dramatically worldwide in order for the global community to meet the goals set by the Paris climate accord in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. “At current rates of installation,” read the report published Monday, “GWEC Market Intelligence forecasts that by 2030 we will have less than two-thirds of the wind energy capacity required for a 1.5°C and net-zero pathway, effectively condemning us to miss our climate goals.”

Edited April 12, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Nonsense, Jay. Read this and learn.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Wind-Power-Growth-Is-Slowing-In-The-US.html

And the article concludes with the acknowledgment that the problems are short term:

Things will be looking up for the wind industry – and the climate – soon enough, but the squeeze will likely get worse before it starts to get better.

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And the article concludes with the acknowledgment that the problems are short term:

Things will be looking up for the wind industry – and the climate – soon enough, but the squeeze will likely get worse before it starts to get better.

That is an empty hope, completely frustrated by the contents of the article, which shows rapidly rising costs. Renewables are being priced out of existence due to rapidly rising renewables costs, just as I predicted here.

"The United States and China, the two countries responsible for the bulk of new wind power capacity, both saw decreases last year. In China, this may be due to the end of the country’s feed-in-tariff, while in the U.S. supply chains and pandemic complications have been cited as the root issue. "

Edited April 12, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

That is an empty hope, completely frustrated by the contents of the article, which shows rapidly rising costs. Renewables are being priced out of existence due to rapidly rising renewables costs, just as I predicted here.

No, fossil fuels are being priced out of existence. 

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, fossil fuels are being priced out of existence. 

No, rising fossil fuel prices leave fossil fuel energy sources still more than competitive, as people need to keep driving their vehicles.

Have you stopped driving your ICE vehicle because of gas price hikes? No...

Edited April 12, 2022 by Ecocharger