GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

On 6/24/2023 at 4:07 AM, Ecocharger said:

Here is where the Green nonsense leads, to economic disaster.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Sky-High-Energy-Prices-Propel-German-Corporate-Flight.html

" In May, the BDI announced a negative GDP growth of -0.3 percent for Germany in the first three months of the year. The federation expects Germany to see flatline growth this year, much lower than the global GDP growth estimate of 2.7 percent. And if companies begin exiting the country, it could rapidly become worse. 

With more and more companies discussing the idea of relocating from Germany to countries offering lower energy costs, the German government must rapidly respond to the challenge to prevent a recession, which it is already on the cusp of. "

This from your own link

"Germany is not the only country to be facing high energy prices, with many European states experiencing high oil and gas prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine early last year. Sanctions on Russian energy, as well as OPEC+ production cuts, have led to oil and gas shortages, driving the prices sky-high. "

As you can see Germany's "sky high" energy costs are down to FF prices NOT renewables.

[turbguy + 1,422]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You have just highlighted the problem with electricity energy, it is not available when needed.

Not "when needed"

When DESIRED.

If you want it when it's costly to obtain, then you pay the market price.

If you can afford $9/KWh, instead of $0.10/KWh, be my guest!

 

[bloodman33 + 20]

It is time the US take all profits of the oil companies.  If they don't drill the management goes to jail.  All profits go into renewable energy research and development.  Hold the oil companies accountable NOW!

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The crypto industry does not want to pay for dedicated domestic electricity to run 24 hours a day. If they did then it would be built. You sound like a communist demanding that the electric industry provide for them. 

Just showing you that wind/solar is unreliable.

Thanks for the demonstration.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Like these

https://www.gem.wiki/Air_pollution_from_coal-fired_power_plants

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-power-impacts

Check out the impacts of water pollution from coal ash in the second link.

Coal is never ever going to be anything other than pollutive, regardless of new "clean coal".

You cannot be serious, there is zero documentation in those articles of anything related to sources of pollution, they are just pretending that all coal generated energy is old technology and not the current clean burning technology.

That does not even scratch the surface of the issue.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

Not "when needed"

When DESIRED.

If you want it when it's costly to obtain, then you pay the market price.

If you can afford $9/KWh, instead of $0.10/KWh, be my guest!

 

The answer is a more rational system of energy production which does not rely excessively on wind/solar, then the costs are much cheaper.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

It is time the US take all profits of the oil companies.  If they don't drill the management goes to jail.  All profits go into renewable energy research and development.  Hold the oil companies accountable NOW!

It is time for you to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness for purchasing a fossil fuel automobile, the old polluting type.

For shame.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,422]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The answer is a more rational system of energy production which does not rely excessively on wind/solar, then the costs are much cheaper.

There is no "answer".

Use what energy you need, when you need it, and pay for it.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This from your own link

"Germany is not the only country to be facing high energy prices, with many European states experiencing high oil and gas prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine early last year. Sanctions on Russian energy, as well as OPEC+ production cuts, have led to oil and gas shortages, driving the prices sky-high. "

As you can see Germany's "sky high" energy costs are down to FF prices NOT renewables.

Germany's anti-fossil fuel campaign has contribute substantially to the energy crisis for its own people.

That crisis will become more sever as fossil fuel sources are suppressed in Germany going forward.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

There is no "answer".

Use what energy you need, when you need it, and pay for it.

That is a head-in-sand approach. The rational answer is to utilize the cheapest forms of energy, fossil fuels.

[turbguy + 1,422]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You cannot be serious, there is zero documentation in those articles of anything related to sources of pollution, they are just pretending that all coal generated energy is old technology and not the current clean burning technology.

Clean burning technology?

For COAL?

Please, tell me what that technology is. 

I'll be patient.

Then I will point out the waste products it produces.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

5 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Clean burning technology?

For COAL?

Please, tell me what that technology is. 

I'll be patient.

Then I will point out the waste products it produces.

 

U.S. Senate Bill 911 in April, 1987, defined clean coal technology as follows:

"The term clean coal technology means any technology...deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."

"The term clean coal technology means any technology... deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."

Edited June 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,422]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

That is a head-in-sand approach. The rational answer is to utilize the cheapest forms of energy, fossil fuels.

Prove that statement.  

Then I will poke MASSIVE holes in any "evidence" that shows otherwise.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

1 minute ago, turbguy said:

Prove that statement.  

Then I will poke MASSIVE holes in any "evidence" that shows otherwise.

You have signally failed to demonstrate anything in the past, check your last nonsense above, so why should I expect that you would do anything but fail again? Arrogance is no substitute for intelligence.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

, defined clean coal technology as follows:

"The term clean coal technology means any technology...deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."^[23]

"The term clean coal technology means any technology... deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."

It never became law. So it is meaningless. 

[turbguy + 1,422]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the definition in Wikipedia,

"The term clean coal technology means any technology... deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."

Oh, great!

What do you need to do to to achieve such reduction, besides:

Manufacture and supply catalysts, transport anhydrous ammonia and quicklime, then dispose of the waste products that result.

Use a significant portion of plant output (aka, "house power") to make it happen.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You have signally failed to demonstrate anything in the past, check your last nonsense above, so why should I expect that you would do anything but fail again? Arrogance is no substitute for intelligence.

Turb has demonstrated a load of industry knowledge. You are the one who is clueless.

[turbguy + 1,422]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You have signally failed to demonstrate anything in the past, check your last nonsense above, so why should I expect that you would do anything but fail again? Arrogance is no substitute for intelligence.

Prove THAT statement.

I have thermodynamics on my side (particularly entropy).

What do you have on yours?

Edited June 26, 2023 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Turb has demonstrated a load of industry knowledge. You are the one who is clueless.

He was just shown up above, the "clean coal" issue,  Jay, I guess you missed that.

Here is Turb's stuff,

"Clean burning technology?

For COAL?

Please, tell me what that technology is. 

I'll be patient."

Edited June 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, turbguy said:

Prove THAT statement.

I just proved it above, the "clean coal" nonsense you spouted.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

He was just shown up above, the "clean coal" issue,  Jay, I guess you missed that.

What you proved was that some senator who was paid by the FF industry introduced a bill that never became law. So absolutely meaningless.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Oh, great!

What do you need to do to to achieve such reduction, besides:

Manufacture and supply catalysts, transport anhydrous ammonia and quicklime, then dispose of the waste products that result.

Use a significant portion of plant output (aka, "house power") to make it happen.

 

Are you still clueless as to what the term "clean coal" technology is?

That is just basic stuff, old boy.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What you proved was that some senator who was paid by the FF industry introduced a bill that never became law. So absolutely meaningless.

No, that is the accepted definition of clean coal technology.

Introduced into the U.S. government.

"Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables", and former Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has said that "It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage", noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would likely not.

During the first 2012 United States presidential election debate expressed his support for clean coal, and claimed that current federal policies were hampering the coal industry.

During the Trump administration, an Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management was set up within the United States Department of Energy.."

Edited June 26, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is the accepted definition of clean coal technology.

Introduced into the U.S. government.

And coal just keeps going down in the US

[turbguy + 1,422]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Are you still clueless as to what the term "clean coal" technology is?

That is just basic stuff, old boy.

 

Anything process that produces a waste that must be disposed of, rather than USED, is NOT "clean",

It's just working around the legal requirements.

The legislators still have work to do.

What operational waste does wind, or solar, or hydro produce?

Edited June 26, 2023 by turbguy