GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Polyphia + 67]

Yeah--you definitively debunked the CO2 theory in the same way that Trump definitively beat Biden in 2020 election.

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you are confused about the actual science, refer to P. 324 and following where we discussed this in a definitive way. The CO2 theory is now thoroughly debunked.

[Polyphia + 67]

26 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Indeed Turb, that funding comes from fossil fuels. Turb do you have any concept of how money US governing bodies receive from Fossil Fuel Taxation...LMAO take a WAG.

And direct and indirect subsidies (which include special tax breaks) go to the FF companies--the money goes around and around.

[turbguy + 1,391]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you are confused about the actual science, refer to P. 324 and following where we discussed this in a definitive way. The CO2 theory is now thoroughly debunked.

You are spouting the usual nonsense.

Like coking coal not being used for heating....I had to educate you on that point.

To be very clear, coal is not used to make steel.

Coals of certain qualities are used to make coke

Coke is used to make hot metal (pig iron).

THEN, you make the various grades types of steel out of pig iron, not far fetched from any other chemical "refining processes" (part of the "black art" of metallurgy).

It is fine (and appropriate) to have a debate concerning a link between increased CO₂ on the environment.

Just recall that:

In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suspected something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket.

In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide, and water vapor, in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations.

In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming.

In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics.

in 1956, Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.

...and then, THIS:

 

.

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,391]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Indeed Turb, that funding comes from fossil fuels. Turb do you have any concept of how money US governing bodies receive from Fossil Fuel Taxation...LMAO take a WAG.

I'd say somewhere between $100 Billion to $200 billion to the feds, or about 2% of federal revenue.

Here in Wyoming, I'd say it's about a Billion $ (+/-) in severance taxes and ad valurem for all minerals (including trona).

Are you suggesting a whiskey rebellion? 

Edited January 29, 2023 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

13 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Yeah--you definitively debunked the CO2 theory in the same way that Trump definitively beat Biden in 2020 election.

You are still clinging to the same discredited canards about CO2 which have long since been debunked....that shows how human focus can be distracted by political commitments. 

A sad story. But the public at large has already begun to see the truth behind the false hysteria which some have attempted to ride into political office.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

To be very clear, coal is not used to make steel.

Coals of certain qualities are used to make coke

Coke is used to make hot metal (pig iron).

THEN, you make the various grades types of steel out of pig iron, not far fetched from any other chemical "refining processes" (part of the "black art" of metallurgy).

It is fine (and appropriate) to have a debate concerning a link between increased CO₂ on the environment.

Just recall that:

In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suspected something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket.

In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide, and water vapor, in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations.

In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming.

In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics.

in 1956, Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.

...and then, THIS:

 

.

 

You really are confused, that 1941 orbital theory relates to solar variables, which is the primary determinant of earth temperature. Nothing to do with CO2.

If you correlate the CO2 levels with earth temperature, you will see that earth temperature DECLINES when CO2 levels are extremely high, and earth temperature INCREASES when CO2 levels are extremely low...that in itself is a sufficient refutation of the CO2 theory.

It is clear that both CO2 and earth temperature are being controlled by some other major variable, namely solar cycle variables. The climate models which include solar variables give the best explanatory power for climate results.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are still clinging to the same discredited canards about CO2 which have long since been debunked....that shows how human focus can be distracted by political commitments. 

A sad story. But the public at large has already begun to see the truth behind the false hysteria which some have attempted to ride into political office.

Whatever helps you to sleep at night.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Whatever helps you to sleep at night.

I sleep fine at night, I have no political commitments which distort my view of science. Unlike the liberal loonies who profit from public hysteria.

 

[specinho + 439]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:19 AM, turbguy said:

 

Coal will NEVER be "clean", although it is somewhat "cleaner" than decades ago.  IF you add Electrostatic precipitators/bag-houses, scrubbers, ammonia absorption catalysts, and deal with all the waste effluents those processes generate.

An experiment showed that merely water vapour did not encourage formation of cloud. Particles and waste from burning were essential.

The point here is cutting off fossil fuel completely could bring disaster e.g. no cloud, no rain, no water, low plant yield ( they need CO2 to make carbohydrate or food), low greenery etc... Old technologies and new can coexist.

On 1/27/2023 at 12:39 PM, turbguy said:

 

Because renewable energy is “green”, and “green” means “environmental”, and “environmental” means acknowledging climate change. Therefore, solar and wind are bad.

The greatest enemy of the conservative isn't the liberal. The greatest enemy of the conservative is the concept of being wrong. 

Conservatives discourage change, and this modern era changes, and changes very quickly.

And, change is accelerating.

There has been discussion that you might have missed: renewables are CLEAN energy; fossil fuel is GREEN energy. Here's why....

1. Clean= no unwanted waste e.g. CO2, water vapour, particles etc, produced during the process of producing energy. Renewables e.g. hydro, solar, wind and some small molecular or particular sizes fossil fuel fit here.

2. Green= contribute to greenery of plants or landscape. CO2 is required. Fossil fuel fits here.

 

Conservatives = being conservative in spending, in the speed of change, in preserving good tradition and ethics etc. They are not fear of being wrong but being reserve for some good old reasons..... 

There are differences between rapid change in need by a person with bad, unconducive habits and change in the pattern of energy consumption of a nation. Former can be done at ease, and must be done for desirable outcomes. The later, involves much complicated consideration and action e.g. availability of matured technologies, trial and error, costs and affordability, etc. 

They might look similar in the process. But time taken to meet the needs of a population, fulfilling all aspects mentioned, could be much longer.

Yes, hastening it and finding out what does and does not work could be it. But some environmental costs and damages might take a long time to be resumed/ restored or may be never would be. E.g. clearing land on mountain top for massive solar plant might provoke landslide, affect harvest of tea or forest, induce temperature change etc.

How does one reconstruct slided mountain tops? How long does it take to regrow trees removed for solar? And other impacts to rain, biodiversity, temperature that awaits reforestation of what's gone to be readjusted.

Therefore, if there have been foreseeable negative impacts, we ought to proceed conservatively.

 

Of course, we can include mitigation costs into projects. This is an allocation made for costs incurred for predictable unwanted impacts. Sometimes, they are doing it despite benefit/ profit is much lower than mitigation costs incurred..... 

There has been problem with modern thinking process and outcome desired. Universities have to design courses teaching students how to think, how to solve hypothetical problems that sometimes with standard answers proven useless or incorrect in real situation..... Something has gone wrong. It is having an domino effect over the whole system and the world..... Are we seeing it yet? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by specinho

[Polyphia + 67]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I sleep fine at night, I have no political commitments which distort my view of science. Unlike the liberal loonies who profit from public hysteria.

 

Psychological projection can be a very insidious thing.

[turbguy + 1,391]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

 

The point here is cutting off fossil fuel completely could bring disaster e.g. no cloud, no rain, no water, low plant yield ( they need CO2 to make carbohydrate or food), low greenery etc... Old technologies and new can coexist.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems to me that the earth was quite green, cloudy, rainy, and snowy thousands of years ago, well before any human fossil fuel consumption.  Need proof?  Where did all the glacial ice arise from?  Not from a dry, cloudless atmosphere. There must have been sufficient particulates and water vapor available "back then".

While increased CO₂ concentration is frequently cited as "good for the environment", I consider it cherry-picking.  I will not argue with the observed CO₂ fertilization effect.  And I would agree it is not insignificant. Photosynthesis does increase with additional CO₂.  However, it is also indisputable that when you grow food crops at elevated CO₂ levels in fields, it also becomes less nutritious.  "Yield" needs consideration for ultimate nutrition. You don't get much nutrition from lignin (at least, I avoid it).  At least increased vegetation provides a sink worthy of serious consideration.

The bottom line is that we reside in a highly complex and chaotic system.

3 hours ago, specinho said:

 

How does one reconstruct slided mountain tops?

 

You tell me, as coal production has literally tried to level out West Virginia.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by turbguy

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

On 1/27/2023 at 8:37 PM, notsonice said:

 

You are still babbling....... tell us again that coal is the only way to make steel

Enjoy the fact.

Coal production Peaked in 2014  8,164.9 Metric tonnes

 

2022 did not exceed 2014

 coal production has been flat ever since...

All new increases in demand for Energy in the world are being met by Renewables

 

2023....2024....2025 the transition to renewables is accelerating

Now once again please tell us that the only way to make Steel is with Coal.......Must suck to be you....wrong all the time

even a broken clock is smarter than you...at least it gets the time right twice a day

 

 

Enjoy the transition to renewables, I am

 

Coal isnt going away any time soon whether you like it or not as China ramps up its usage.

It will be post 2030 before we start to see a major decline in coal production as renewables start to make a big impact in China and India. Until then coal will be a cheap go to form of fuel for many power stations and steel production.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/energy/2022/12/18/coal-consumption-record-2022-energy-crisis-iea/10921266002/

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/India-Plans-To-Double-Domestic-Coking-Coal-Output-By-2030.html

Edited January 30, 2023 by Rob Plant

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

20 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Psychological projection can be a very insidious thing.

Yes, the Green goblins have psychological deficiencies.

COAL is getting strong and stronger.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/India-Set-To-Crank-Up-Coal-Power-To-Meet-Soaring-Demand.html

"The government of India, where coal still generates around 70% of electricity, plans to use an emergency law to have more coal-fired power generation this summer, expecting record demand, according to Reuters’ sources.

Indian coal power plants that have relied on imported coal have not run at full capacity recently because they cannot compete with those using cheaper domestic coal supply. Last year, coal prices globally surged to a record as the EU banned Russian coal imports in August, and the coal trade flows changed, while energy security has been a priority over climate pledges for many developing nations.

 

India’s government expects coal-fired power plants to use 8% more coal in the next financial year between March 2023 and March 2024, as demand is set to continue rising thanks to growing economic activity and unpredictable weather, according to Reuters."

Edited January 30, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Yes, we have seen this picture before, emphasizing the central role which fossil fuels play in the energy mix.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Texas-Oil-And-Gas-Industry-Braces-For-Severe-Winter-Weather.html

"The Railroad Commission of Texas has told oil and gas operators to be prepared for severe winter weather this week.

A Winter Storm Watch is in effect for the eastern Permian Basin on Tuesday and Wednesday, with the risk of freeze-offs of oil and gas equipment.

While Texas withstood Winter Storm Elliott, the huge storm exposed the vulnerability of the state’s energy system."

Edited January 30, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,062]

On 1/29/2023 at 8:26 AM, Ecocharger said:

You are still clinging to the same discredited canards about CO2 which have long since been debunked....that shows how human focus can be distracted by political commitments. 

A sad story. But the public at large has already begun to see the truth behind the false hysteria which some have attempted to ride into political office.

you are still babbling BS ....

Your post speaks volumes...

You are living in denial ...

I expect you to keep babbling BS as it is all you can do.......

Keep clinging to your falsehoods .....no one is buying them

 

[notsonice + 1,062]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, the Green goblins have psychological deficiencies.

COAL is getting strong and stronger.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/India-Set-To-Crank-Up-Coal-Power-To-Meet-Soaring-Demand.html

"The government of India, where coal still generates around 70% of electricity, plans to use an emergency law to have more coal-fired power generation this summer, expecting record demand, according to Reuters’ sources.

Indian coal power plants that have relied on imported coal have not run at full capacity recently because they cannot compete with those using cheaper domestic coal supply. Last year, coal prices globally surged to a record as the EU banned Russian coal imports in August, and the coal trade flows changed, while energy security has been a priority over climate pledges for many developing nations.

 

India’s government expects coal-fired power plants to use 8% more coal in the next financial year between March 2023 and March 2024, as demand is set to continue rising thanks to growing economic activity and unpredictable weather, according to Reuters."

 

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Coal isnt going away any time soon whether you like it or not as China ramps up its usage.

It will be post 2030 before we start to see a major decline in coal production as renewables start to make a big impact in China and India. Until then coal will be a cheap go to form of fuel for many power stations and steel production.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/energy/2022/12/18/coal-consumption-record-2022-energy-crisis-iea/10921266002/

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/India-Plans-To-Double-Domestic-Coking-Coal-Output-By-2030.html

Coal is not expanding .......

In the US consumption dropped another 8 percent in 2022

China is struggling with a major recession....Their property markets are getting creamed

No ramp up in usage in China (they are ramping up production and keeping imports out....Australia exports of coal to China have crattered)

Until China steps up and gets a real vaccine out for COVID......China economy will suck and so will coal demand

China is ramping up renewables at twice the rate than 3 years ago

Coal is not ever ramping up

2023   nowhere

2024 coal demand drops

2025 coal demand drops

and for ever coal demand drops

 

 

[notsonice + 1,062]

reality in China....energy demand is not going increase faster than renewable energy output growth...

the China Property Market is dragging down the China economy

Coal consumption in China will fall as renewables ramp up at twice the expansion rate of the 2010's

 

Please note annual decrease in steel output 2 years in a row

 

the highlights

China's steel mills have struggled with weak margins in recent months because of sluggish demand from a slowing economy and weak activity in the property sector.

Jefferies expects total crude steel output in 2023 to decrease by 2% year-on-year

 

UPDATE 2-China Dec steel output rises from prior month, annual output falls

 

 

 

 

January 16, 2023·1 min read

 

 

(Adds detail)

Jan 17 (Reuters) - China's December steel output rose 4.5% from the prior month, official data showed on Tuesday, as demand for the material used in construction increased following stepped-up government support for the property sector.

China, the world's largest steel maker, produced 77.89 million tonnes last month, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics, up from 74.54 million tonnes in November.

Production, however, was down 9.8 % from a year earlier.

Output for 2022 was 1.01 billion tonnes, down 2.1% from last year, the second annual decline.

China's steel mills have struggled with weak margins in recent months because of sluggish demand from a slowing economy and weak activity in the property sector.

 

December's average daily steel output in China was 2.51 million tonnes, according to Reuters calculations, a slight increase from November's daily output of 2.49 million tonnes, the lowest in a year.

Demand from the construction sector is expected to remain weak because of the depressed property market.

While the central government has announced measures to support cash-strapped property developers, they are focussed on keeping quality developers afloat, rather than aggressively boosting demand, said analysts at Jefferies in a recent note.

As a result, upstream building materials such as steel have a "way to go before finding the bottom", they said.

Jefferies expects total crude steel output in 2023 to decrease by 2% year-on-year because of profit-driven output cuts in a weak market and policy-induced cuts to contain carbon emissions. (Reporting by Dominique Patton and Andrew Hayley; Editing by Tom Hogue and Christian Schmollinger)

Edited January 30, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

31 minutes ago, notsonice said:

you are still babbling BS ....

Your post speaks volumes...

You are living in denial ...

I expect you to keep babbling BS as it is all you can do.......

Keep clinging to your falsehoods .....no one is buying them

 

You have still not responded to the challenge....if you can, which I doubt.

Why would earth temperature decline when CO2 levels are extremely high?

Think, man, think.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

58 minutes ago, notsonice said:

reality in China....energy demand is not going increase faster than renewable energy output growth...

the China Property Market is dragging down the China economy

Coal consumption in China will fall as renewables ramp up at twice the expansion rate of the 2010's

 

Ok timeout young man...Are dunce hats still allowed during timeouts?

Asking for a friend of course!

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/06/03/india_and_china_coal_production_surging_by_700m_tons_per_year_thats_greater_than_all_us_coal_output_835483.html

 

India and China Coal Production Surging By 700M Tons Per Year: That’s Greater Than All U.S. Coal Output

Edited January 30, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Polyphia + 67]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, the Green goblins have psychological deficiencies.

 

Not surprisingly, you missed the point again.

[Polyphia + 67]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You have still not responded to the challenge....if you can, which I doubt.

Why would earth temperature decline when CO2 levels are extremely high?

Think, man, think.

Many have "responded to the challenge." You just don't understand (or you refuse to accept) the counterarguments.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ok timeout young man...Are dunce hats still allowed during timeouts?

Asking for a friend of course!

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/06/03/india_and_china_coal_production_surging_by_700m_tons_per_year_thats_greater_than_all_us_coal_output_835483.html

 

India and China Coal Production Surging By 700M Tons Per Year: That’s Greater Than All U.S. Coal Output

Vietnam increased its coal usage 50% last year, and this year will be even higher. 

Anyone who does NOT want to be poor ... guess what?  They are using coal. 

Ah, nobrain doesn't believe when India posts it will massively increase coal consumption opening up many new GW's coal fired electric generators only when India says they are installing a few GW of solar which has zero backup... other than Coal and last I checked Modi and company are pushing the electrification of India MASSIVELY... 1.4B people and most of them still do not have power for lights let alone refrigerators, electric cars or air conditioning or heavy manufacturing... etc etc etc...  

How about nobrain turn off the internet and send said saved electricity to India, they will accept and we will be spared his stupidity.

[specinho + 439]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:03 AM, turbguy said:

Seems to me that the earth was quite green, cloudy, rainy, and snowy thousands of years ago, well before any human fossil fuel consumption.  Need proof?  Where did all the glacial ice arise from?  Not from a dry, cloudless atmosphere. There must have been sufficient particulates and water vapor available "back then".

While increased CO₂ concentration is frequently cited as "good for the environment", I consider it cherry-picking.  I will not argue with the observed CO₂ fertilization effect.  And I would agree it is not insignificant. Photosynthesis does increase with additional CO₂.  However, it is also indisputable that when you grow food crops at elevated CO₂ levels in fields, it also becomes less nutritious.  "Yield" needs consideration for ultimate nutrition. You don't get much nutrition from lignin (at least, I avoid it).  At least increased vegetation provides a sink worthy of serious consideration.

The bottom line is that we reside in a highly complex and chaotic system.

You tell me, as coal production has literally tried to level out West Virginia.

 

 

 

 

Not too sure how the earth evolved to be in abundant. The simplest read was.....

Once upon a time........... there was no life on earth........'-'

Then there were volcano eruptions, lightning, thunder, cyanobacteria and so forth.....'o'

Volcano eruptions encouraged formation of cloud, rain, thunder, lightning and accummulation of water etc.

Under conspicuous condition, lightning, thunder and such created simplest form of protein. Lives evolved from it.

Cyanobacteria, the latest nominated weapon against possible aliens on Mars, created oxygen. Other lives started to flourish.

Earthquakes in association with volcano eruptions created fossil fuel somewhere, somehow, later in time .....

Volcano eruptions might be the major contributor for your question raised, back then...'-'

 

2. In order to illustrate your second point, this is a simplified version of Photosynthesis:

CO2 + H2O ------} C6H12O6 + O2 

Structure of plants or fruit basically fixed by genes.

Nutritional value raised might have answer in mineral contents found in water and soil nutrients available to the plants ..... After all, major nutrients we are obtaining from plants and fruit might be vitamines, minerals and non digestible fibre ....

Amount of sunlight, water would affect sweetness of those.

Limited amount of water would affect transportation of waste onto aged leaves and branches about to be shed. The tanin that you meant might be a waste that can not be eliminated effectively due to lacking of water?

Water also contributes to the fragrant taste of vege and fruit.

For example, if carrot skin is decomposed around a celery, that celery would have a taste of carrot.

If waste water is used to water Romanian lettuce....... Now you might have guessed  the source of food intoxication made into news sometimes back in Europe and the odd taste in those.... 'n'

 

[notsonice + 1,062]

Lack of Demand for all fossil fuels is causing the markets in fossil fuels to crash.....

Enjoy the Renewables Boom.........

 

PS the switch to Coal???? you can bet the those coal fired plants that were put back in service in 2022 will go back out of service due to the glut in Nat Gas..... Seaborne Coal prices are getting hammered right now..........

 

Enjoy the latest news

Natural Gas Prices Crashing Amid Warmest January In 15 Years—Here’s How Bad Bear Market Could Get

Jonathan Ponciano

Forbes Staff

Follow

 

Jan 30, 2023,10:21am EST

Updated Jan 30, 2023, 04:01pm EST

 

Natural gas prices extended a months-long decline on Monday—falling to the lowest level in nearly two years as analysts expect the unseasonably warm winter could continue to depress the market for natural gas in the coming weeks, ultimately keeping prices below recent highs for at least another year.

 

As more power plants phased out coal use, natural gas prices skyrocketed during the pandemic—but now ... [+]

TIM GRAHAM/GETTY IMAGES

 

KEY FACTS

U.S. natural gas prices fell 5% to less than $2.70 Monday morning—pushing losses more than 72% below an August high of roughly $9.70 and at one point hitting what would be the lowest closing price since April 2021.

"The next U.S. gas bearish cycle is here," Goldman Sachs analysts led by Samantha Dart wrote in a weekend note to clients, noting an “exceptionally warm” January—with average temperatures at the highest level in 15 years—has helped dissipate winter-related risks to supply and push prices down by more than 50% over the past month alone.

Though the analysts acknowledge the selloff appears “overdone,” particularly with higher gas demand expected over the coming weeks, they still believe warmer weather forecasts or disappointing demand could push gas prices further down.

With supply expected to remain healthy, Goldman ultimately projects prices could fall below $2 and remain in a bear market through at least next summer, keeping prices below $3.85 and likely not going back above $4 until 2025.

KEY BACKGROUND

As more power plants phased out coal use, natural gas prices skyrocketed during the pandemic—more than quadrupling between April 2020 (when prices fell below $2 amid another unseasonably warm winter) and August 2022. However, the soaring demand has also helped bolster production to record levels, helping to fuel the sudden collapse in prices over recent months. Goldman notes one scenario that could push prices down further: If Europe, which has also faced a warmer-than-average winter, becomes so oversupplied with gas this year, it may be forced to lower prices so much that U.S. liquefied natural gas exports get canceled—similar to what happened when U.S. prices plummeted in 2020.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“Warmer-than-average temperatures across much of the country is suppressing heating demand, domestic production remains at record highs, and inventories are seasonably healthy,” explains analyst Tom Essaye, founder of the Sevens Report, of the recently collapsing market for natural gas.

Edited January 31, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

Lack of Demand for all fossil fuels is causing the markets in fossil fuels to crash.....

Enjoy the Renewables Boom.........

 

PS the switch to Coal???? you can bet the those coal fired plants that were put back in service in 2022 will go back out of service due to the glut in Nat Gas..... Seaborne Coal prices are getting hammered right now..........

 

Enjoy the latest news

Natural Gas Prices Crashing Amid Warmest January In 15 Years—Here’s How Bad Bear Market Could Get

Jonathan Ponciano

Forbes Staff

Follow

 

Jan 30, 2023,10:21am EST

Updated Jan 30, 2023, 04:01pm EST

 

Natural gas prices extended a months-long decline on Monday—falling to the lowest level in nearly two years as analysts expect the unseasonably warm winter could continue to depress the market for natural gas in the coming weeks, ultimately keeping prices below recent highs for at least another year.

 

As more power plants phased out coal use, natural gas prices skyrocketed during the pandemic—but now ... [+]

TIM GRAHAM/GETTY IMAGES

 

KEY FACTS

U.S. natural gas prices fell 5% to less than $2.70 Monday morning—pushing losses more than 72% below an August high of roughly $9.70 and at one point hitting what would be the lowest closing price since April 2021.

"The next U.S. gas bearish cycle is here," Goldman Sachs analysts led by Samantha Dart wrote in a weekend note to clients, noting an “exceptionally warm” January—with average temperatures at the highest level in 15 years—has helped dissipate winter-related risks to supply and push prices down by more than 50% over the past month alone.

Though the analysts acknowledge the selloff appears “overdone,” particularly with higher gas demand expected over the coming weeks, they still believe warmer weather forecasts or disappointing demand could push gas prices further down.

With supply expected to remain healthy, Goldman ultimately projects prices could fall below $2 and remain in a bear market through at least next summer, keeping prices below $3.85 and likely not going back above $4 until 2025.

KEY BACKGROUND

As more power plants phased out coal use, natural gas prices skyrocketed during the pandemic—more than quadrupling between April 2020 (when prices fell below $2 amid another unseasonably warm winter) and August 2022. However, the soaring demand has also helped bolster production to record levels, helping to fuel the sudden collapse in prices over recent months. Goldman notes one scenario that could push prices down further: If Europe, which has also faced a warmer-than-average winter, becomes so oversupplied with gas this year, it may be forced to lower prices so much that U.S. liquefied natural gas exports get canceled—similar to what happened when U.S. prices plummeted in 2020.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“Warmer-than-average temperatures across much of the country is suppressing heating demand, domestic production remains at record highs, and inventories are seasonably healthy,” explains analyst Tom Essaye, founder of the Sevens Report, of the recently collapsing market for natural gas.

Fears of an induced recession are still weighing on markets.