JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, specinho said:

Not too sure how that works out but consider this:

1. www.pmel.noaa.gov> eoi > education > pressure

If you are at sea level, each square inch of your surface is subjected to a force of 14.6 pounds. The pressure increases about one atmosphere for every 10 meters of water depth.

2.

www.carbon=dioxide-properties.com> aboutco2

Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 atm.

( which is > 50 meters below sea water).

The question is .............. how do you get free flowing CO2 in the open sky to go down on its own that far to form a liquid?

If gas CO2 remains at 1 atmospheric pressure, we assume solubility happens only on the surface, yes?

This brings to another point........

Regardless how heavy CO2 is, upon released from the source, it will disperse on its own to less dense area in the air.  'Hot air rises' indicates that it will go up to higher altitude of the air instead of sticking on the surface of water or land, or everywhere under surrounding temperature, yes? Therefore, we could probably deduce that CO2 can only be found in minute amount right above sea level and dissolves mildly? How much change would this create is awaiting confirmation, yes?

 

Regarding greenhouse effect..................

It was probably an idea from winter agricultural farm....... How they kept the enclosed farm green throughout the winter. It was a warmth place to start with.

On environment........

Imagine dry air and humid air condition possibly found in any concrete high rises filled city.

Dry air can be cleared easily with wind.

Humid air would take some times to be cleared.

It might indicate that water vapour, with the highest capacity to retain heat among all waste gases released, traps heat.

On climate, it refers to a blanket of warmth formed when heat was retained within cloud and water vapour...

This blanket of cloud helps to regulate temperature within a certain or minute range in many places.

Places without cloud usually have extreme temperature and coldness.

image.png.53c0785e77a13c60a2084d6d11eb102b.png

Quoting this from a discussion board posted on an online course " Designing a climate neutral world, by DELFTx"

" It is speculated that since water vapour is considered important factor to us and farmers, it is conveniently taken out to accommodate CO2 as the major culprit and target of action. This act of cutting corner provided misleading argument, policy and mostly futile yet costly mediation.

There is probably a need to revise what is known to make effort ahead not in vain and more cost effective."

If gas CO2 remains at 1 atmospheric pressure, we assume solubility happens only on the surface, yes?

 

NO, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

think about how much CO2 you can put into water in a soda bottle..  pressure is greater than one atmo in the bottle and the amount of CO2 in solution is far greater than sea water....now think of at 100 atmos ....very deep water how much CO2 can be put into solution ......far greater amount than at 1 atmo

first the partial pressure that CO2 exerts at sea level is not 1 atmo......You can put more CO2 into water at a higher partial pressure (related to the 410 ppm) than existed in 1750 related to the 260 ppm....CO2 can dissplace the dissolved nitrogen and oxygen as the partial pressure of N2 decreases slightly as you increase the partial pressure of CO2.

Got it?????? if you do not go back to college and take some chemistry classes and surface chemistry classes and try to understand how gases interact with liquids

In addation amount of CO2 at sea level (at the surface) is not at saturation for CO2 meaning that CO2 keeps dissolving into sea water at the surface and at a rate of 1.6 times (415/260) today than it did 250 years ago. Soluble CO2 or CO2 dissolve in seawater then can speciate to Carbonic acid according to ..................... if you do not understand the following you are just babbling BS

 

In aqueous solution carbonic acid behaves as a dibasic acid. The Bjerrum plot shows typical equilibrium concentrations, in solution, in seawater, of carbon dioxide and the various species derived from it, as a function of pH.[4][5] The acidification of natural waters is caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is caused by the burning of increasing amounts of coal and hydrocarbons.[6][7]

Expected change refers to predicted effect of continued ocean acidification.[8] It has been estimated that the increase in dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH to decrease by about 0.1 from pre-industrial levels.

The stability constants database contains 136 entries with values for the overall protonation constants, β1 and β2, of the carbonate ion. In the following expressions [H+] represents the concentration, at equilibrium, of the chemical species H+, etc.

The value of log β1 decreases with increasing ionic strength, {\displaystyle {\ce {I}}}{\displaystyle {\ce {I}}}. At 25 °C:

{\displaystyle {\ce {CO3^{2-}{+ H+}<=> HCO3^-}}}{\displaystyle {\ce {CO3^{2-}{+ H+}<=> HCO3^-}}} : {\displaystyle \beta _{1}={\frac {[{\text{HCO}}_{3}^{-}]}{[{\text{H}}^{+}][{\text{CO}}_{3}^{2-}]}}}{\displaystyle \beta _{1}={\frac {[{\text{HCO}}_{3}^{-}]}{[{\text{H}}^{+}][{\text{CO}}_{3}^{2-}]}}}
{\displaystyle \log \beta _{1}=0.54I^{2}-0.96I+9.93}{\displaystyle \log \beta _{1}=0.54I^{2}-0.96I+9.93} (selected data from SC-database)

The value of log β2 also decreases with increasing ionic strength.

{\displaystyle {\ce {CO3^{2-}{+ 2H+}<=> H2CO3}}}{\displaystyle {\ce {CO3^{2-}{+ 2H+}<=> H2CO3}}} : {\displaystyle \beta _{2}={\frac {[{\text{H}}_{2}{\text{CO}}_{3}]}{[{\text{H}}^{+}]^{2}[{\text{CO}}_{3}^{2-}]}}}{\displaystyle \beta _{2}={\frac {[{\text{H}}_{2}{\text{CO}}_{3}]}{[{\text{H}}^{+}]^{2}[{\text{CO}}_{3}^{2-}]}}}
{\displaystyle \log \beta _{2}=-2.5I^{2}-0.043I+16.07}{\displaystyle \log \beta _{2}=-2.5I^{2}-0.043I+16.07}

At {\displaystyle {\ce {I}}}{\displaystyle {\ce {I}}}=0 and 25 °C the pK values of the stepwise dissociation constants are

pK1 = logβ2 - logβ1 = 6.77.
pK2 = logβ1 = 9.93.

When pH = pK the two chemical species in equilibrium with each other have the same concentration.

Note 1: There are apparently conflicting values in the literature for pKa. Pines et al. cite a value for "pKapp" of 6.35, consistent with the value 6.77, mentioned above.[9] They also give a value for "pKa" of 3.49 and state that

pKa = pKapp − log KD (eqn. 5)

where KD=[CO2]/[H2CO3]. (eqn. 3) The situation arises from the way that the dissociation constants are named and defined, which is clearly stated in the text of the Pines paper, but not in the abstract.

Note 2: The numbering of dissociation constants is the reverse of the numbering of the numbering of association constants, so pK2 (dissociation)= log β1 (association). The value of the stepwise constant for the equilibrium

{\displaystyle {\ce {HCO3- <=> CO3^{2-}{+ H+}}}}{\displaystyle {\ce {HCO3- <=> CO3^{2-}{+ H+}}}}

is given by

pK1(dissociation)1 = log β2 − log β1 (association)

Image result for co2 levels over time in the atmosphere

300px-Carbonate_system_of_seawater.svg.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/21/2022 at 9:35 PM, Polyphia said:

You will have to explain the point of your pulling out the quotation that you did--I can only guess.

It's not my site, but the person who sponsors it has answered your question multiple times (for example, in response to comment #478).

You might want to take the MOOC that the skepticalscience site is advertising called "Making Sense of Climate Science Denial." It could be helpful.

Here is the quote again, 

"Age control. All radiocarbon dates were recalibrated", the data were recalibrated using another system. That is the point.

And the other point was also simple. If CO2 levels are at extraordinarily high levels, why does temperature not continue to rise? A simple question. The answer is not in those links you give, they just do not consider the issue. The graphs indicate a cooling trend commencing at high levels of CO2, which contradicts the CO2 theory.

But the problem with the lags is still unanswered, I do not see an answer there in your links. There have been so many papers that have published the lag with temperature leading CO2, which is fatal to the CO2 hypothesis.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Volatility in oil prices has frightened investors. The volatility is related to government Green policies, which threatens economic growth. But apparently governments no longer care about economic growth or standards of living.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Oil-Has-Become-Too-Volatile-For-Traders.html

"...oil demand, right now, is stronger than many had expected, especially as some utilities in Europe switch from gas to oil due to prices.

This has proved too much not only for speculators but also for industry players in the oil market, according to the Reuters analysis. Open interest on the oil futures market has dropped by a fifth since Russia invaded Ukraine, with traders apparently getting tired of the price seesaw of tight supply and inflation fears.

What the future holds is—as always—impossible to say, but it is quite unlikely that the price situation will change anytime soon. This means that the negative effect this price volatility is having on businesses across industries will continue, fueling the abovementioned oil price seesaw.

Businesses will continue to need energy that is in tight supply, but high prices for this energy will continue threatening their growth prospects and the growth prospects of their respective economies. Governments, meanwhile, will continue pouring money and legislation into the energy transition, further discouraging the oil industry from doing something meaningful about supply."

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you ment to say was Putin ruined the reputation of nat gas and trade deals you could trust. It’s just better to drop deals with unreliable partners. If the Ukraine were to bomb Russian pipelines there would be much fewer deals to be had. Green energy is the replacement for trust misplaced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Boat said:

What you ment to say was Putin ruined the reputation of nat gas and trade deals you could trust. It’s just better to drop deals with unreliable partners. If the Ukraine were to bomb Russian pipelines there would be much fewer deals to be had. Green energy is the replacement for trust misplaced. 

Green energy cannot supply our needs. Unless we stop individual transportation.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Green energy cannot supply our needs. Unless we stop individual transportation.

Who cares. How much pollution we can eliminate is how we will be judged by future generations. The path is clear to the woke. Saving a few lives during the electric transformation is a plus. Every year the speed of growth of renewables increases. Kinda a sign wokeness is growing and will eventually win. You can be happy nobody can kill flaring, yet. Kinda weird Putin is killing his own market and speeding the change from fossil fuels. Will Mongolian coal feed Europe instead of nat gas? I heard their ramping up production. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Boat said:

Who cares. How much pollution we can eliminate is how we will be judged by future generations. The path is clear to the woke. Saving a few lives during the electric transformation is a plus. Every year the speed of growth of renewables increases. Kinda a sign wokeness is growing and will eventually win. You can be happy nobody can kill flaring, yet. Kinda weird Putin is killing his own market and speeding the change from fossil fuels. Will Mongolian coal feed Europe instead of nat gas? I heard their ramping up production. 

Coal is king again, thanks to Biden & Co. creating energy chaos.

It looks like oil prices will be forced up on  account of the oil market disconnect.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Saudi-Minister-Says-OPEC-Could-Cut-Production-At-Any-Time.html

"Citing “disconnect” in the oil futures market, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman dangled the threat of potential OPEC+ production cuts that could come at any time. 

In an interview with Bloomberg on Monday, the Saudi energy minister said that “extreme volatility” was “undermining the market’s essential function of efficient price discovery”, in turn rendering it impossible for physical users to manage the costs of hedging or navigate the inherent risk. 

“This vicious circle is amplified by the flow of unsubstantiated stories about demand destruction, recurring news about the return of large volumes of supply, and ambiguity and uncertainty about the potential impacts of price caps, embargoes, and sanctions,” the Prince told Bloomberg. 

Without sufficient liquidity, he said, there is a high level of disconnect, which means the “markets can’t reflect the realities of the physical fundamentals in a meaningful way…”. 

The Prince described the markets as being in a state of “schizophrenia” and creating a “yo-yo” market that has lent a false sense of security. 

“Spare capacity is severely limited and the risk of severe disruptions remains high,” he said. 

The energy minister insisted that OPEC+ is “stronger and more cohesive than ever”, but also indicated that the expanded cartel could cut output at any time “and in different forms”. 

The minister’s comments come as the cartel begins work on a new agreement for post-2022 and the nature of the interview suggests that OPEC+ plans to view any new agreements through the prism of the current market volatility, which the Saudis appear to view as having been hijacked and disconnected from true fundamentals. 

The energy minister’s warning comes shortly after reports that OPEC+ members produced 2.9 million bpd below their production target in July. "

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America has a lot of badlands for wind and solar. I don't even mind them in cornfields. They need to be kept out of our scenic areas and far enough offshore to be beyond the horizon.  One problem is that our corporate leaders want to get their solar and wind products from China or Europe in many cases.  Another is that it will take decades for them to come close to matching the ability of fossil fuels to power America. Our current legislation is charging taxpayers in advance of promises to save them money sometime in the future. Then they will claim that their energy is competitive, when it is not. The middle class will be paying for windmills, solar farms, batteries, and electric cars they will probably not be able to afford. 

Lithium prices paid to foreign countries will be good for them, mainly China but America is far behind in setting up environmentally safe mining. Lithium mining is very environmentally disastrous where it is done. Prices will be higher yet when it is done with best practices. Computer chips are also high in price and demand. There is no way that green energy will be competitive any time soon and voters will see what is happening to their budgets with inflation on top of all the government spending.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

As this poster has previously noted, using SPR reserves to attempt to fight high oil prices is a futile tactic, it simply moves barrels from one inventory into another inventory with no net increase in product. 

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Strategic-Petroleum-Reserve-Falls-To-35-Year-Low.html

"In addition to the lowest inventory levels in the SPR since 1985, last Wednesday, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that crude oil inventories (excluding the SPR) had fallen by 7.1 million barrels

For that week, U.S. crude oil inventories, excluding those in the SPR, were at only 425 million barrels, or 6% below the five year average. 

The largest sale from the SPR was announced on August 11, when the Department of Energy said that nine companies would buy 20 million barrels.

According to the Institute of Energy Research, the SPR is expected to shrink to a 40-year low by the end of October, with inventories then at 358 million barrels, compared to 621 million barrels a year ago. "

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

One problem is that our corporate leaders want to get their solar and wind products from China or Europe in many cases.  Another is that it will take decades for them to come close to matching the ability of fossil fuels to power America. Our current legislation is charging taxpayers in advance of promises to save them money sometime in the future. Then they will claim that their energy is competitive, when it is not. The middle class will be paying for windmills, solar farms, batteries, and electric cars they will probably not be able to afford. 

Ron in one breath you complain that wind and solar are sourced from China and Europe, and then in the next breath you moan about cost and competitiveness. Guess what, the reason USA is buying from China and Europe for wind and solar is because they are cheaper and superior products. You cant have it both ways unless the US invests into renewables to the same extent as Europe and China have done.

Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Remains-Cost-Competitive-amid-Fossil-Fuel-Crisis

 

Edited by Rob Plant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Oil markets are beginning to wake up (not woke up) to the fundamental realities.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Brent-Crude-Zooms-Towards-100-As-OPEC-Leans-Toward-New-Oil-Output-Cuts.html

"Crude oil prices rallied on Tuesday morning as OPEC+ leaked that it may cut oil production 'when and if Iranian production returns'.

New OPEC+ output cuts could promptly offset any incremental production from Iran.

Uncertainty about the Iran nuclear deal continues to keep markets on edge."

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ron in one breath you complain that wind and solar are sourced from China and Europe, and then in the next breath you moan about cost and competitiveness. Guess what, the reason USA is buying from China and Europe for wind and solar is because they are cheaper and superior products. You cant have it both ways unless the US invests into renewables to the same extent as Europe and China have done.

Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Remains-Cost-Competitive-amid-Fossil-Fuel-Crisis

 

America needs to produce its own products and mine its own minerals in environmentally safe ways. Not pretend that it is OK if we just buy them from China who does not care about the environment. Buying from allies is a second choice but where do you think they get their "rare" minerals from. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Oil markets show robust demand and razor thin inventory numbers. Bullish.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Prices-Rise-On-Major-Crude-Inventory-Draw.html

"The American Petroleum Institute (API) reported a large draw this week for crude oil of 5.632 million barrels, while analysts predicted a draw of 448,000 barrels.

 

In the week prior, the API reported a draw in crude oil inventories of 448,000 barrels after analysts had predicted a draw of 117,000 barrels.

WTI was trading up on Tuesday after Saudi Arabia suggested that the group could look at making production adjustments due to the disconnect between the physical and paper crude markets. WTI was trading up 3.72% on the day at 3:00 p.m. ET in the runup to the release at $93.72 per barrel—more than $7 per barrel up on the week. Brent crude was trading up 3.92% on the day at $100.30—a roughly $8 price hike on the week.

U.S. crude oil production data for the week ending August 12 fell 100,000 bpd to 12.1 million bpd, according to the latest weekly EIA data.  "

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

America needs to produce its own products and mine its own minerals in environmentally safe ways. Not pretend that it is OK if we just buy them from China who does not care about the environment. Buying from allies is a second choice but where do you think they get their "rare" minerals from. 

I agree on the REE, I think thats obvious.

However you were complaining of cost and competitiveness and then saying USA shouldnt be buying from the countries that are cheapest and most competitive. Like I said you cant have it both ways unless the US ramps up on its renewable in country manufacture which I dont see, maybe because I'm not in country so I stand to be corrected on that. You didnt mention REE at all in your original post. If the USA mines its own minerals then it will be even less competitive than it is today IMHO.

If done well renewables can be as cheap if not cheaper than FF without any subsidies in many locations. It also gives that country more energy security which may not be a concern in the US but in many countries particularly at present its a very big deal indeed.

Edited by Rob Plant
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I agree on the REE, I think thats obvious.

However you were complaining of cost and competitiveness and then saying USA shouldnt be buying from the countries that are cheapest and most competitive. Like I said you cant have it both ways unless the US ramps up on its renewable in country manufacture which I dont see, maybe because I'm not in country so I stand to be corrected on that. You didnt mention REE at all in your original post. If the USA mines its own minerals then it will be even less competitive than it is today IMHO.

If done well renewables can be as cheap if not cheaper than FF without any subsidies in many locations. It also gives that country more energy security which may not be a concern in the US but in many countries particularly at present its a very big deal indeed.

If you declare war on 85% of your energy supply, energy prices will rise dramatically and standards of living will be massively reduced. 

There is no way to dance around that eventuality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 10:13 PM, Ron Wagner said:

America has a lot of badlands for wind and solar. I don't even mind them in cornfields. They need to be kept out of our scenic areas and far enough offshore to be beyond the horizon.  One problem is that our corporate leaders want to get their solar and wind products from China or Europe in many cases.  Another is that it will take decades for them to come close to matching the ability of fossil fuels to power America. Our current legislation is charging taxpayers in advance of promises to save them money sometime in the future. Then they will claim that their energy is competitive, when it is not. The middle class will be paying for windmills, solar farms, batteries, and electric cars they will probably not be able to afford. 

Lithium prices paid to foreign countries will be good for them, mainly China but America is far behind in setting up environmentally safe mining. Lithium mining is very environmentally disastrous where it is done. Prices will be higher yet when it is done with best practices. Computer chips are also high in price and demand. There is no way that green energy will be competitive any time soon and voters will see what is happening to their budgets with inflation on top of all the government spending.

Wind and solar for many states can be far enough south to avoid the cost of weatherization. The first goal should be a robust system to take care of summer AC and the onslaught of electric cars. We have at least 15 years for that to happen. Then with improved tech and experience Northern states will become financially viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

If you declare war on 85% of your energy supply, energy prices will rise dramatically and standards of living will be massively reduced. 

There is no way to dance around that eventuality.

For the same money it takes more workers to do renewables. Thanks to the efficiency of the frackers/drillers and the cost of shipping. FF prices are volatile in the extreme. Even an idiot like Putin can affect world prices. Renewables seem to avoid volatility, a trait important to business and investing. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So anybody done a study on the nat gas consumption of creating electricity vrs refining with nat gas. Oil Demand will start dropping soon if not already. Say per 5 million electric cars, how much nat gas demand from refining is saved vrs demand needed for electricity generated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

If you declare war on 85% of your energy supply, energy prices will rise dramatically and standards of living will be massively reduced. 

There is no way to dance around that eventuality.

Totally agree Eco

I'm for all types of energy as long as its economical.

I dont think any subsidies should be given to any energy sector whether its FF, nuclear, renewable or whatever.

There is no need to be on one side or the other as the world needs ALL of them. Renewables in the UK are keeping 100's of thousands in jobs that previously were in the oil and gas business as many skill sets  are transferrable, I'm all for that!

I also think the current situation in Ukraine is a tradegy not only for the Ukrainian and Russian people but potentially globally due to the misguided energy policies of so many countries.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2022 at 7:10 PM, Ecocharger said:

... Calling wind turbines “fans” that harm the environment and cause “visual pollution” without providing much energy,

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said the government will end the subsidies and stop issuing permits for new wind projects.

Israel is also set to pull the plug on the country’s wind industry, its environmental protection minister arguing that wind provides a “negligible contribution” to the country’s power system “compared to the potential for harm to nature, which is high.”

Because neither mexico nor israel have wind... Especially when both have great solar even in the winter.  Both countries could live on a battery of no more than 2 days where only in extreme weather events would supplementary power have to be added.  A 2 day battery is doable.  VERY expensive, yes, but doable.  Even using lead acid.  Vast majority of their power is required during the day as well. 

Who knew... LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION... it is almost as if Geography is king regarding Wind/Solar just as it is for geothermal, lithium reserves, coal reserves, oil reserves, iron reserves etc etc etc.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 11:56 AM, Ron Wagner said:

America needs to produce its own products and mine its own minerals in environmentally safe ways. Not pretend that it is OK if we just buy them from China who does not care about the environment. Buying from allies is a second choice but where do you think they get their "rare" minerals from. 

America mines most of its own REE, but due to MORONIC environmental laws labeling them the same as URANIUM and nuclear materials, we ship them to china to be processed... I kid you not.  In fact, the USA in several REE's produce enough to supply the entire world, but the USA processes NONE of them even though it was the worlds leader in processing them before 1980.  After that moronic environmental bill relabeling them nuclear materials was based back in 1980, the industry had to move overseas to survive. 

Can always count on government to Fuck things up.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, Boat said:

For the same money it takes more workers to do renewables. Thanks to the efficiency of the frackers/drillers and the cost of shipping. FF prices are volatile in the extreme. Even an idiot like Putin can affect world prices. Renewables seem to avoid volatility, a trait important to business and investing. 

Lithium prices are out of control and will get worse going forward. The electric future will not be an individual vehicle but mass transport. Fossil fuel cars will continue to be the affordable option, so governments will have to ban fossil fuel vehicles by fiat to get rid of them. 

However, that doomsday future will never come... the climate science of Green Dreams is too feeble to support the transition.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Boat said:

For the same money it takes more workers to do renewables. Thanks to the efficiency of the frackers/drillers and the cost of shipping. FF prices are volatile in the extreme. Even an idiot like Putin can affect world prices. Renewables seem to avoid volatility, a trait important to business and investing. 

Only commodity exchange prices are volatile. People who are interested in the actual FFs got themselves long-term contracts, which are significantly less volatile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 8/23/2022 at 2:54 AM, Rob Plant said:

Ron in one breath you complain that wind and solar are sourced from China and Europe, and then in the next breath you moan about cost and competitiveness. Guess what, the reason USA is buying from China and Europe for wind and solar is because they are cheaper and superior products. You cant have it both ways unless the US invests into renewables to the same extent as Europe and China have done.

Renewable Power Remains Cost-Competitive amid Fossil Fuel Crisis

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Remains-Cost-Competitive-amid-Fossil-Fuel-Crisis

 

Well no, as Europe has given GARGANTUAN subsidies to the wind industry(as they should as they have no oil/gas/solar), same with China and its solar panel assembly while the USA has allowed these MASSIVELY subsidized products ENTRY into our country without massive tariffs. 

The problem, once again, is government policy.. or in the case of the USA, LACK of policy tied with bottom basement cost of NG which no one else has. 

You might notice, USA has the highest efficiency solar panels on the planet... just not mass production.  Also, wind sighting in USA was paused due to bird death strikes for decades and why I initially lost my job in said industry going on 2 decades ago now and I had to move on.  This is still a gargantuan problem in the USA.  Apparently either Europeans have no protected big birds already and therefore no bird deaths or do not care as they have to worry more about keeping the lights on.  In the USA we do not have the problem with the later but do have a big problem with the former with large birds everywhere it is windy other than a few select desert locations. 

Yes, one more reason West Texas and West Oklahoma have seen explosive growth in wind turbines in USA(40GW currently and climbing quickly with an average capacity factor of 44% and going up with all newer birds hitting an average of +50%)... NO BIRDS as it is effect a desert.  Likewise California's early wind turbine parks also did not have bird problems as they were in desert location.  Maybe no one gives a damn about sea birds in Europe so when they get smashed and fall in the water no one ever knows as most of Europe's early adopters of wind turbines are right next to water or in the water.  Just an FYI, Germany with a capacity of ~60GW(onshore+offshore), has CF of 38% in its OFFSHORE birds all under 5 years of age.  https://energynumbers.info/germanys-offshore-wind-capacity-factors

In otherwords, TX/OK with 40GW get roughly same power as Germany with 60GW of sunk cost

Who knew, LOCATION matters.  Government policy MATTERS.

You can SAY you wish to go wind/solar, does not make it a viable option just because you SAY it is so.  Pesky things like birds, tariffs, corruption allowing an effective dictatorial slave nation state to be able to import into your country tariff free.... MATTERS. 

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.