GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I'll agree that it is close enough. But a lot has happened since January. I was looking at some of the manufacturer sites that say some plants have been recently completed which the map says are under construction. And planned quantities don't all line up with recent government plans, e.g. South Africa just released a plan significantly decreasing the number of planned coal units.

The map also shows the PTOLEMAIDA 5 plant in Greece as under construction but it has been cancelled.

"What if's" do not count, sorry.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Of all the plants under construction in the world only 2 are the new coal tech tech you have been crowing about. Both are IGCC in Japan. There are no PFBC plants under construction that I can find. As a reminder, the following is from the new coal tech list that Rob found for you and you posted:

• Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) enable higher thermal efficiencies still – up to 50% in the future.

Worldwide you say. What a load of crap.

Not a single coal plant under construction in all of the Americas or Australia. Only 4 in Africa, 7 in all of Europe including Turkey and Russia. It is only SE Asia that is still gung ho on coal.

So your claim that new tech for burning coal is being employed in a massive leap forward worldwide is unequivocally refuted!

Again, you are leaping to wild conclusions, Jay. Those cancelled plants may come back as new tech.

The new plants in China are all low-to-zero toxic emissions. 

In case you have forgotten, and apparently you have forgotten, this discussion is about reduced toxic emissions.

You seem to have a chronic tendency to change the subject when you lose, like in this discussion.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

18 hours ago, turbguy said:

Steam technologies will not reach 50% thermal efficiencies without major improvements in metallurgy (unless you want a base load plant that operates 1000 hrs between major overhauls).

And, those improvements will require a LOT of expensive alloyings, with FE being a tramp element in the mix.

With UCC tech, what do you do with the real estate that does not burn?  Dump it where?

Every one of the techs you mention costs both $ and reduces final net plant power. 

Say that delivered coal costs $3 per million BTU's.  After all the coal "preparation", flue gas "treatment", and waste disposal, it raises to $4-6 per million BTU.  Not only is coal dirty, it is not inexpensive anymore.

The discussion is about toxic EMISSIONS, a fact which you forget whenever you lose on these arguments, you are trying to change the discussion and topic again. That's okay, I recognize your defeat on this topic.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, coal is going up, not down as you claim.

Here is from an anti-coal and rabidly anti-CO2 site. Yes, coal is going up, facilitated by the new near-zero toxic emission technology.

TOTAL GLOBAL COAL PLANT CAPACITY BY GW

2,059

 

+0.64%

Net Change Since 2020

Capacity is up slightly from last year but capacity doesn't mean it is increasing production or increasing market share. Actual electricity proportion from coal is decreasing:

Those canceled coal plants are coming back as solar wind and storage.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you are leaping to wild conclusions, Jay. Those cancelled plants may come back as new tech.

The new plants in China are all low-to-zero toxic emissions. 

In case you have forgotten, and apparently you have forgotten, this discussion is about reduced toxic emissions.

You seem to have a chronic tendency to change the subject when you lose, like in this discussion.

 You make a claim that tremendous numbers of coal plants are being built around the world in numerous countries. I definitively show that you are talking out of your arse and you say  I'm the one leaping to wild conclusions because somewhere off in the future those plants might actually get built.  Priceless!

 

[notsonice + 1,068]

10 hours ago, JoMack said:

I realize that you missed the war between Saudi Arabia and Russia driving crude oil prices in the negative in 2020.  Oh, and that pandemic you might remember.  Therefore, the rig count in May of 2020 shows at least 400 rigs lower than the rigs running in 2019.  So, comparing May 2021 to the May 2020 rig count is skewed since demand was practically dead in 2020 and crude prices were low.

So, let's look at 2019 so you can actually see the rig count in a year "without much turmoil", and actually in 2019 had lower crude oil prices than 2019.  So, you may think I'm "smoking something" as you state, but you are not using anything relevant as a comparison on rig counts between 2020 and 2021.

The fact that the rig count is down 50% in 2021 from 2019  shows, in my opinion,  that factors that are weighing on investment in drilling in the U.S. which are clearly impacting the oil and gas industry exploration in the U.S.  The Biden Administration has a total focus on renewable energy and is inflicting onerous regulations on oil and gas development. That moratorium on permitting for drilling and leasing on federal lands is close to 90 days over the end of the moratorium.  The UN has injected itself into world financing and has admonished any of the biggest banks to halt financing of industries dealing in oil and gas, coal or nuclear.  The industry here in the US is now required to add environmental and social risk when applying for loans and lines of credit.  These are untenable risk factors which cannot be calculated.  

By the way, this particular commentary is not "old data", it is a comparison between a pro-energy Administration and the current Administration whose goal is to eliminate fossil fuels.  In 4 months, we are seeing the consequences of Biden and his team of fools, who killed Keystone, yet granted a waiver to Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.  When Colonial was hacked and the pipleline was closed down, the DOE Director Granholm tells the press that pipelines are the safest way to move crude, gas, jet fuel, diesel and propane, then she backtracked.  The Biden Aministration pushes its climate change through fear mongering and forced policies which will invariably lead to a country in decline.

 

 

 

U.S. Rig Count Data available from Baker Hughes.webarchive 1.79 MB · 1 download

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.

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The discussion is about toxic EMISSIONS, a fact which you forget whenever you lose on these arguments, you are trying to change the discussion and topic again. That's okay, I recognize your defeat on this topic.

If it's fly ash, and the unburned carbon content is really low, it can be sold as portland cement.

If it's bottom ash, I would not eat it.

You apparently don't consider solid waste as an "emission".

I do, and it is.

[turbguy + 1,401]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, coal is going up, not down as you claim.

Here is from an anti-coal and rabidly anti-CO2 site. Yes, coal is going up, facilitated by the new near-zero toxic emission technology.

TOTAL GLOBAL COAL PLANT CAPACITY BY GW

2,059

 

+0.64%

Net Change Since 2020

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

50% is close to zero compared to 100%

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Capacity is up slightly from last year but capacity doesn't mean it is increasing production or increasing market share. Actual electricity proportion from coal is decreasing:

Those canceled coal plants are coming back as solar wind and storage.

Coal is powering electricity creation in China in a big and getting bigger way,

Why? Because the new technology has driven toxic emissions down to near zero.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

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

50% is close to zero compared to 100%

And 98% is close to 100%.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

If it's fly ash, and the unburned carbon content is really low, it can be sold as portland cement.

If it's bottom ash, I would not eat it.

You apparently don't consider solid waste as an "emission".

I do, and it is.

It is not a "toxic emission", it is not sent up a smoke-stack into the atmosphere where you and I can breathe it.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Capacity is up slightly from last year but capacity doesn't mean it is increasing production or increasing market share. Actual electricity proportion from coal is decreasing:

Those canceled coal plants are coming back as solar wind and storage.

Your charts are way off, as usual, Jay.

Here is from the Brookings report,

"Over the 20th century, the energy system transformed from one in which fossil energy was used directly into one in which an important portion of fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. The proportion used in electricity generation varies by fuel. Because oil — an energy-dense liquid — is so fit-for-purpose in transport, little of it goes to electricity; in contrast, roughly 63% of coal produced worldwide is used to generate electricity. Methods of generating electricity that don’t rely on fossil fuels, like nuclear and hydroelectric generation, are also important parts of the system in many areas. However, fossil fuels are still the backbone of the electricity system, generating 64% of today’s global supply."

[turbguy + 1,401]

45 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It is not a "toxic emission", it is not sent up a smoke-stack into the atmosphere where you and I can breathe it.

It is true it does not "go up the stack".

It is dumped in waste ponds that then contaminate the water table instead. 

AND it is a toxic emission.

They SHOULD send it back to the mine...

AND, if you believe you can survive breathing the outlet stream of a coal fired plant's stack (even with added oxygen), good luck with that!

Reminds me of that old adage: "The solution to pollution is dilution".

Edited May 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

 However, fossil fuels are still the backbone of the electricity system, generating 64% of today’s global supply."

HaHa, you are clueless with data as usual. Your report is from 2019 and is citing the 2018 production numbers. According to the graph I posted fossil fuels were 64% of electricity production in 2018. Just add up the numbers for coal, gas, and oil that I have highlighted in the graph:

But I'm guessing you really just can't read and when you saw this "in contrast, roughly 63% of coal produced worldwide is used to generate electricity." you mistakenly thought it said that coal produced 63% of world electricity. It is going to be super funny if you respond by claiming that 63% of the world's electricity is generated from coal.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

40 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It is not a "toxic emission", it is not sent up a smoke-stack into the atmosphere where you and I can breathe it.

You don't even know what the word emission means do you? Here, let me help you out with basic English:

emission

 (ɪˈmɪʃən)

n

1. the act of emitting or sending forth

2. (General Physics) energy, in the form of heat, light, radio waves, etc, emitted from a source

3. a substance, fluid, etc, that is emitted; discharge

4. (General Physics) a measure of the number of electrons emitted by a cathode or electron gun: at 1000°C the emission is 3 mA. See also secondary emission, thermionic emission

5. (Physiology) physiol any bodily discharge, esp an involuntary release of semen during sleep

6. (Banking & Finance) an issue, as of currency

[turbguy + 1,401]

19 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The discussion is about toxic EMISSIONS, a fact which you forget whenever you lose on these arguments, you are trying to change the discussion and topic again. That's okay, I recognize your defeat on this topic.

Don't over look that it was you who brought up potential high thermal efficiency.

And bottom ash is a toxic emission, with no place to go. Period.

To make matters worse, it costs $ to handle and dispose of it.

As does the quick lime and effluent from a scrubber (although some plants tried to dry it and use it for wallboard manufacture).  Are you aware that one plant completely filled a huge mountain valley in West Virginia with the stuff?   Now a permanent waste dump, with a huge earthen dam that must be monitored "in perpetuity", or it will threaten the Ohio River with a disaster.

And the anhydrous ammonia for an SCR ain't cheap, nor is the handling system for THAT effluent .  And when the catalyst becomes poisoned due to an "oops", you are facing BIG $.  And now you got to get rid of THAT "stuff".

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

14 hours ago, turbguy said:

It is true it does not "go up the stack".

It is dumped in waste ponds that then contaminate the water table instead. 

AND it is a toxic emission.

They SHOULD send it back to the mine...

AND, if you believe you can survive breathing the outlet stream of a coal fired plant's stack (even with added oxygen), good luck with that!

Reminds me of that old adage: "The solution to pollution is dilution".

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. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHa, you are clueless with data as usual. Your report is from 2019 and is citing the 2018 production numbers. According to the graph I posted fossil fuels were 64% of electricity production in 2018. Just add up the numbers for coal, gas, and oil that I have highlighted in the graph:

But I'm guessing you really just can't read and when you saw this "in contrast, roughly 63% of coal produced worldwide is used to generate electricity." you mistakenly thought it said that coal produced 63% of world electricity. It is going to be super funny if you respond by claiming that 63% of the world's electricity is generated from coal.

So you agree with the report which I posted...fine. That is huge,

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You don't even know what the word emission means do you? Here, let me help you out with basic English:

emission

 (ɪˈmɪʃən)

n

1. the act of emitting or sending forth

2. (General Physics) energy, in the form of heat, light, radio waves, etc, emitted from a source

3. a substance, fluid, etc, that is emitted; discharge

4. (General Physics) a measure of the number of electrons emitted by a cathode or electron gun: at 1000°C the emission is 3 mA. See also secondary emission, thermionic emission

5. (Physiology) physiol any bodily discharge, esp an involuntary release of semen during sleep

6. (Banking & Finance) an issue, as of currency

Emissions into the air are a different animal, once it gets into the air, it is out of human control.

Hard for you to understand?

"Emissions" in this discussion always refers to atmospheric emissions.....wake up.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

The new electrification revolutionary trends are regressive in terms of income distribution....the poor are hurt the most.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Why-Californians-Have-Sky-High-Electricity-Bills.html

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

So you agree with the report which I posted...fine. That is huge,

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.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 5/24/2021 at 12:15 PM, Ecocharger said:

Emissions into the air are a different animal, once it gets into the air, it is out of human control.

Hard for you to understand?

"Emissions" in this discussion always refers to atmospheric emissions.....wake up.

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

Edited May 26, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Anyone one surprised!! Your talking about the Democrats who want to weaken America as Evident by the United States continues to be shoved around by Russia and China DAILY! 
 

Dem’s are weak and their brain dead Biden is a feable old man who wears Depends….

Nappy hair VP is getting a double salary, one as VP and the other as a Secret Service agent standing next to fuddy duddy old white guy…..

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

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

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

On 5/19/2021 at 4:35 PM, Rob Plant said:

Guys this isnt a points scoring competition on who can or cant read data. Sometimes its about the interpretation of the data.

@Jay McKinsey you have stated that coal is being replaced by renewables particularly solar and wind. This is most definitely true in developed countries. In the UK there wont be any coal fired power stations in 3-4 years and there are massive offshore wind farms being built as we speak. However in 3rd world or developing countries there are new build coal plants because it makes economic sense.

Can we not agree that the new tech coal plants that @Ecocharger is promoting are a big step in the right direction?? Also for me the zero emission gas plants that are being built now which utilise Co2 to power the turbine are possibly the most exciting development for fossil fuels in generations.

Renewables combined with this new tech will lead us to a cleaner electricity supply whilst keeping the greenies happy at the same time. It will also help keep national grids stable which is a hot topic in Texas right now.

Again I refer those who missed it the first time I posted below.

Couldn't find coal, I think that's a stretch to be fair at the moment. However I did find this for gas (that will please @ronwagn) and this looks like pretty exciting tech to me.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power

This says Coal will be low and eventually "near zero" emissions (whatever "near zero" means)

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx