GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[bloodman33 + 20]

It is time to take all oil company profits and use them for green solutions, and to help pay for fighting the forest fires in Canada!  No accountability.  If they don't like it put the senior management in jail.   The heck with the shareholders and bondholders.  

[bloodman33 + 20]

It is time to put the oil company climate deniers in jail too!

[bloodman33 + 20]

That said for now buy, VLO, CVI, TNK, SFL, and DHT!  Make me money so I can support AOC!

[TailingsPond + 505]

32 minutes ago, bloodman33 said:

It is time to put the oil company climate deniers in jail too!

The vast majority of "energy" companies do not deny climate change.

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/respecting-nature.html#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvUG93ZXJpbmdQcm9ncmVzc19FbnZpcm9ubWVudEZyYW1ld29yay8

What action is Shell taking to respect nature?

1. We have set a target to become a net-zero emissions business by 2050. Achieving the goals of the UN Paris Agreement is vital for protecting nature as the changing climate threatens biodiversity and ecosystems. In turn this can reduce nature’s ability to take carbon out of the atmosphere, making it harder to tackle climate change.
2. We have set ambitions and commitments as part of our Respecting Nature goal across four priority areas: biodiversity (land and marine), water, circular economy and waste and air quality. Find out more below.
3. We invest in nature based solutions (NBS) projects which protect, transform and restore land. As well as being a vital part of the solution to tackle climate change, protecting and restoring natural ecosystems can help to improve biodiversity, water quality, flood protection and boost livelihoods for people in local communities. We support the responsible use of high-quality nature-based carbon credits and have set a commitment to also demonstrate net positive impact for biodiversity in our NBS projects (see our Biodiversity page

 

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html

Since 2020, we have made the following updates to our aims:

• For aim 1 we now aim for a 50% reduction in our operational Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2030 (formerly 30-35%).
• For aim 2 we are now targeting a 10-15% reduction by 2025 (previously 20%) in the emissions associated with the carbon in our upstream oil and gas production and are aiming for 20-30% reduction by 2030 (previously 35-40%).
• For aim 3 we are aiming to reduce to net zero the average carbon intensity of sold energy products by 2050 or sooner (previously a reduction of 50%). For 2030 we are aiming for a 15-20% reduction in the lifecycle carbon intensity of these products (previously >15%). We also expanded aim 3 to include physically traded energy products.
• Our aim 5 is now aligned with our transition growth engines This means we expect to invest more than 40%, or $6-8 billion of our capital expenditure in transition growth engines by 2025 and around 50% by 2030 – or $7-9 billion.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

No chance of that fortunately

China relies on coal to generate electricity.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We are scheduled to just have one small coal plant still operating by 2026 that produces about 60MW. 

But China will need increased coal production to generate electricity.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, bloodman33 said:

It is time to put the oil company climate deniers in jail too!

You need to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness for purchasing a fossil fuel vehicle for your own use.

Disgraceful. Morally unjustifiable.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, bloodman33 said:

It is time to take all oil company profits and use them for green solutions, and to help pay for fighting the forest fires in Canada!  No accountability.  If they don't like it put the senior management in jail.   The heck with the shareholders and bondholders.  

And put all the CO2 bashers into jail for driving fossil fuel cars. 

They lack any self-respect.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

The vast majority of "energy" companies do not deny climate change.

https://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/respecting-nature.html#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvUG93ZXJpbmdQcm9ncmVzc19FbnZpcm9ubWVudEZyYW1ld29yay8

What action is Shell taking to respect nature?

1. We have set a target to become a net-zero emissions business by 2050. Achieving the goals of the UN Paris Agreement is vital for protecting nature as the changing climate threatens biodiversity and ecosystems. In turn this can reduce nature’s ability to take carbon out of the atmosphere, making it harder to tackle climate change.
2. We have set ambitions and commitments as part of our Respecting Nature goal across four priority areas: biodiversity (land and marine), water, circular economy and waste and air quality. Find out more below.
3. We invest in nature based solutions (NBS) projects which protect, transform and restore land. As well as being a vital part of the solution to tackle climate change, protecting and restoring natural ecosystems can help to improve biodiversity, water quality, flood protection and boost livelihoods for people in local communities. We support the responsible use of high-quality nature-based carbon credits and have set a commitment to also demonstrate net positive impact for biodiversity in our NBS projects (see our Biodiversity page

 

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html

Since 2020, we have made the following updates to our aims:

• For aim 1 we now aim for a 50% reduction in our operational Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2030 (formerly 30-35%).
• For aim 2 we are now targeting a 10-15% reduction by 2025 (previously 20%) in the emissions associated with the carbon in our upstream oil and gas production and are aiming for 20-30% reduction by 2030 (previously 35-40%).
• For aim 3 we are aiming to reduce to net zero the average carbon intensity of sold energy products by 2050 or sooner (previously a reduction of 50%). For 2030 we are aiming for a 15-20% reduction in the lifecycle carbon intensity of these products (previously >15%). We also expanded aim 3 to include physically traded energy products.
• Our aim 5 is now aligned with our transition growth engines This means we expect to invest more than 40%, or $6-8 billion of our capital expenditure in transition growth engines by 2025 and around 50% by 2030 – or $7-9 billion.

The science does not support the climate agitators. There is no reason to suggest that CO2 is responsible for climate change.

[bloodman33 + 20]

Ecocharger, you need to write me check or to jail for you!!!!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

But China will need increased coal production to generate electricity.

No they have wind and solar to increase electricity generation. But they have no need to increase electricity generation as their economy and population are collapsing.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger, you need to write me check or to jail for you!!!!

Get down on your knees and apologize for your fossil fuel vehicle.

Disgraceful.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

No they have wind and solar to increase electricity generation. But they have no need to increase electricity generation as their economy and population are collapsing.

China is rapidly increasing investment in new coal production, needed for electricity generation.

Due to EVs, Jay, your favorite hobby-horse.

[turbguy + 1,436]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

In the Texas problem it was the initial failure of wind/solar which required the fossil fuel backup systems to start up and ride to the rescue. That was impossible because of the failure of the wind/solar, and the backup fossil fuel system could not get started on a moment's notice. Even the backup system relied on wind/solar to get started, which did not happen, resulting in total system system failure.

You have some very strange logic.

How much solar power do you believe ERCOT expected and planned to be available at 1:15 AM?

How many "backup generators" were actually started due to the event?  NONE, because every available fossil resource WAS on line before then, until they started tripping.  And they couldn't restart, typically because they had no fuel.

Coal plants couldn't handle the frozen coal.

Then a South Texas unit (nuclear) tripped due to a frozen sensing line in a feedwater flow transmitter.  Bang! 1200 MW GONE!  Due to reactor poisoning issues, Nuc units do not restart for many hours (damn Xenon)!  EVEN WORSE, THAT UNIT REQUIRED GRID POWER AFTER TRIPPING, LOT'S OF IT!

Edited June 29, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 505]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

China is rapidly increasing investment in new coal production, needed for electricity generation.

Due to EVs, Jay, your favorite hobby-horse.

You can't simultaneously claim EV's won't get significant market penetration and claim they will need a lot of electricity.

So

 There will be lots of EVs and resulting grid strain.

Or

There will be few EVs and therefore no need to build more power generation.

Pick one.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,141]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

You have some very strange logic.

How much solar power do you believe ERCOT expected and planned to be available at 1:15 AM?

How many "backup generators" were actually started due to the event?  NONE, because every available fossil resource WAS on line before then, until they started tripping.  And they couldn't restart, typically because they had no fuel.

Coal plants couldn't handle the frozen coal.

Then a South Texas unit (nuclear) tripped due to a frozen sensing line in a feedwater flow transmitter.  Bang! 1200 MW GONE!  Due to reactor poisoning issues, Nuc units do not restart for many hours (damn Xenon)!  EVEN WORSE, THAT UNIT REQUIRED GRID POWER AFTER TRIPPING, LOT'S OF IT!

You have some very strange logic

How many times have we heard that wind/solar save the day and there is no need for fossil fuels anymore... After all you have nutjobs gaining power in ERCOT who say, we have 25GW nameplate capacity wind "power" and maximum required is around 60GW of and do not need additional $$$ to make sure grid actually functions in a "deep"(yea right) freeze condition.  After all, all ERCOT $$$ just got spent building gargantuan power lines to said 25GW of wind farms and they had no left over $$$ as now they were massively in debt paying off those mega expensive land lines.   Something had to give even though population of TX was booming and the need for even greater power generation was required. 

Well, NG increased its power production by 50% above normal...   Such a production was unsustainable and system crashed.  The 25GW of wind and the ~$10Billion in very expensive power lines and grid balancing required for said Wind were USELESS.

Until utilities of ANY nation or jurisdiction start requires the solar/wind boys to provide continuous power 24-7 or at minimum 50% of capacity to at least match minimum grid loads, we will continue to have rolling blackout events of those who have spent too much $$$ on wind/solar and find out... GASP!  They only work when wind blows and sun shines and NOT when YOU NEED Power!

[turbguy + 1,436]

36 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You have some very strange logic

How many times have we heard that wind/solar save the day and there is no need for fossil fuels anymore... After all you have nutjobs gaining power in ERCOT who say, we have 25GW nameplate capacity wind "power" and maximum required is around 60GW of and do not need additional $$$ to make sure grid actually functions in a "deep"(yea right) freeze condition.  After all, all ERCOT $$$ just got spent building gargantuan power lines to said 25GW of wind farms and they had no left over $$$ as now they were massively in debt paying off those mega expensive land lines.   Something had to give even though population of TX was booming and the need for even greater power generation was required. 

Well, NG increased its power production by 50% above normal...   Such a production was unsustainable and system crashed.  The 25GW of wind and the ~$10Billion in very expensive power lines and grid balancing required for said Wind were USELESS.

Until utilities of ANY nation or jurisdiction start requires the solar/wind boys to provide continuous power 24-7 or at minimum 50% of capacity to at least match minimum grid loads, we will continue to have rolling blackout events of those who have spent too much $$$ on wind/solar and find out... GASP!  They only work when wind blows and sun shines and NOT when YOU NEED Power!

You have some very strange logic.

I have NEVER inferred that wind and solar would "save the day".

There is not enough wind and solar installed in Texas to do that.

What I DO infer is that coal-fired generation will slowly "expire".

And as a side-benefit, what wind and solar is available, is CHEAPER!

Don't forget the fact that brownouts, and rolling blackouts were common in times of high demand BEFORE wind and solar had hardly ANY market penetration.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,141]

Just now, turbguy said:

You have some very strange logic.

 

What I DO infer is that coal-fired generation will slowly "expire".

And as a side-benefit, what wind and solar is available, is CHEAPER!

Keep lying via omission eh... smooth.  Unless cost of all the inertia balancing and backup power is factored in, you do not have the actual cost.  Without NG or pumped hydro storage, solar nor wind exist as viable.  Or you are dumping huge amounts of power and lying about reality. 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, turbguy said:

You have some very strange logic.

How much solar power do you believe ERCOT expected and planned to be available at 1:15 AM?

How many "backup generators" were actually started due to the event?  NONE, because every available fossil resource WAS on line before then, until they started tripping.  And they couldn't restart, typically because they had no fuel.

Coal plants couldn't handle the frozen coal.

Then a South Texas unit (nuclear) tripped due to a frozen sensing line in a feedwater flow transmitter.  Bang! 1200 MW GONE!  Due to reactor poisoning issues, Nuc units do not restart for many hours (damn Xenon)!  EVEN WORSE, THAT UNIT REQUIRED GRID POWER AFTER TRIPPING, LOT'S OF IT!

The fossil fuel backup units were deprived of electricity to get them started because the electrical authorities cut them off. 

Guess what happened next, the backup system failed. Then everything could not work.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, turbguy said:

You have some very strange logic.

I have NEVER inferred that wind and solar would "save the day".

There is not enough wind and solar installed in Texas to do that.

What I DO infer is that coal-fired generation will slowly "expire".

And as a side-benefit, what wind and solar is available, is CHEAPER!

Don't forget the fact that brownouts, and rolling blackouts were common in times of high demand BEFORE wind and solar had hardly ANY market penetration.

Not cheaper when the costs of energy storage are factored in. And total social costs funded by unwitting taxpayers.

Show us your data on costs.

Start here,

https://energymag.net/the-hidden-costs-of-wind-and-solar/

"...with optimistic estimates on the availability of solar power generation, the variability of the resource has cost us 135% more than the total life cycle cost of the solar plant!"

Edited June 29, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Just now, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger, you need to write me check or to jail for you!!!!

You need to apologize for verbally polluting this space. You need a sense of humor. And an intellectual bath.

However, your fellow climate agitators are good company for you.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 441]

On 6/28/2023 at 6:55 AM, turbguy said:

Not only would a couple years of basic physics help you, but also a solid course of basic thermodynamics might help.

The main determinant of a heat engine's thermal efficiency is the temperature difference between the heat source and the heat sink.  In a coal-fired generating unit, using the Rankine cycle, that would be the final steam temperature leaving a modern steam generator (typically about 1050 degrees F), and the exhaust steam temperature from the turbine into the condenser (typically fixed at around 75 degree F).   The higher the steam temperature from the source (the steam generator), the more useful work can be extracted as it is expanded to lower pressures.  The metallurgy of the unit's construction places limits on the source temperature.  Common alloys can only survive so much stress at elevated temperature and last a decent amount of years before failure.

Even with these thermal parameters, expensive "tricks" must be added, such as steam reheating and multiple feedwater heaters.

The thermal efficiency of a typical, condensing, coal-fired power unit is on the order of 35% (on a very good day).  Newer, ultra-super critical coal units "might" have a 40% thermal efficiency, using advanced (read, $$$) alloys to operate at higher source temperatures.

The highest power unit thermal efficiencies are currently achieved with modern combined-cycle units, where the heat source can be considered as the firing temperature of the high-pressure gasses exiting a combustion turbine's combustion chambers (the Brayton cycle), not unusual to be about 2500 degrees F!   Advanced superalloys (including single-crystal metal components) and exotic cooling schemes and coatings permit a reasonable economic life of the hot parts.  The exhaust gasses of the combustion turbine, after expanding to near-atmospheric pressure, are still VERY hot (say about 800 degrees F or more).  The gasses containing this CONSIDERABLE waste heat is passed through a steam generator to boil and superheat water, which provide a heat source for a steam turbine, exhausting to a condenser, very similar to a coal-fired unit.  Such modern units can achieve a little more than 60% thermal efficiencies.  Brayton and Rankine thermodynamic cycles are COMBINED in such units, thus the name.  The working fluids are air and water.

There are other cycles and working fluids that can be exploited (some very interesting), but they are far and few between. 

The down side is that coal cannot be used as a fuel in a combustion turbine.  It has been attempted.   It works for a few hours. Then it doesn't, since impurities and ash "gums up the works".   A liquid or gas must be used as a fuel.  Even then, there are strict limits on the purity of those fuels.  There are even strict limits on the purity of the inlet air!  There are a few instances where a nuclear reactor is used as the heat source in a Brayton cycle, but that's not a fossil source.

The only way of achieving better efficiencies from a coal-fired unit is to make use of the waste heat exiting a steam turbine, BEFORE IT IS CONDENSED BACK TO A LIQUID.  This occurs in district heating plants (CHAP plants, Combined Heat And Power).  While this heat produces no useful work, it provides heat for other processes.  Processes such as district heating.  In this case, the waste heat is used for something useful, but does no useful work.

 

 

 

Thank you for the info.

Posted an old image on double boiler coal power plant and recalling commenting on the design. Can't remember much but roughly:

1. Air inlet is missing.

- without continuous air supply or additional oxygen, the burning fire would be yellowish indicating incomplete combustion. Or lower efficiency. 

- by providing an additional air inlet ( not mixed with inlet for coal powder), efficiency could be increased.

2. Although powder gives large surface of contact, easy to be burnt, but it could have negative impact on sustainability of fire and power generated. Ash accummulated quickly. Fire covered up and died off easily now and then. 

- old method in remote village showed a design where a burner is made of mud red clay. There is a separating grill between ash and wood pieces or coal pieces.

- clay insulates heat from dissipating out into the environment, protects the fire from wind, safer than metal. 

- Ash dropped down, fire continues. Not gagging the fire with dropping coal powder or cummulated ash. 

- pieces of coal is likely required to maintain the fire for a long time without the need of continuous powder input.

- Fire starter used to be dried stalk from rice, wheat, weed, paper, fire seed etc. No electricity required. 

3. There is likely a thick metal container for heating water in the furnace. Once boiled, the steam would be used to turn turbine. Upon condensing, the water is likely turn hydro power or some sort. Two source of electricity generation in one old furnace. Will have to check this up to confirm shall neccessary. My memory on it is probably not complete.

Edited June 29, 2023 by specinho

[specinho + 441]

On 6/28/2023 at 9:25 AM, Ecocharger said:

The backup fossil fuel electrical generators needed electricity to get started, but wind/solar could not even manage to do that.

 

16 hours ago, turbguy said:

Backup generators for the like of high-risk facilities (such as Hospitals, Law Enforcement Centers, Communication installations) are typically diesel generators started promptly via plain old lead-acid batteries, to supply power to identified critical loads. 

Losing all power at these places is a really bad situation.

Losing power in a power house is even WORSE!

Large heavy-duty black-start generation (typically single-cycle combustion turbine generators) use the same, to start a diesel starting means, then spool-up the combustion turbine.  Smaller aero-derivative combustion turbines (think, jet engines with a load wheel) can use electric motors to spool-up.

Large fossil (and nuclear) plants depend upon the availability of grid power to start, then switch to their own auxiliary house power once they are generating.  While these stations also have rooms full of ranks of lead-acid cells and back-up diesel generators, those are only intended to support for safe shutdown.  For instance, rotating equipment still requires forced lubrication as it coasts down to zero speed. Large generators need hydrogen seal oil supply for an indefinite period even when rotation ceases. Heat flux along hot shafts can melt supporting bearings without some sustained oil flow even when stopped.

If a large plant losses grid power, it can no longer deliver it either.  It "might" be able to fall back on it's own auxiliary house power if the equipment can successfully react to the sudden loss of a large portion of load, but that is very rare.

The "Texas situation" was not a problem caused by lack of backup power, it was from the loss of large gas-fueled plants for a host of reasons.  Grid designers and grid operators deal with such scenarios to assure that grid power is available to re-start those plants, AS LONG AS THEY CAN RE-START!  If you ain't got fuel, you don't need power to restart!

Note that wind and solar generation is not a factor here, at all.

Read an article where solar panel and lead acid batteries are used to replace diesel generator in remote clinic. A thought crosses my mind: 

1. Would mechanical generator alone suffice to be used to power a house or a place?

Drafted an automatic self sustain design for reference:

The magnetic bar in the middle will oscillate left and right pushed by same pole magnet from both ends. Alternative current is generated.

Shall it is in a spinning position like a dynamo, a fascinating design to me since young, Direct current would be produce. 

 

2. Would solar panel double the existing output?

If yes, then would this simple  generator design replace bulky batteries at night?

 

3. Recalling the number of turns in a copper coil is directly correlated with the output of voltage.

Could this generator be designed as self sustain auto letric generator cum transformer? 

Just a thought. 

 

4. And the latest experiment posted. Static magnet produces electricity. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by specinho

[notsonice + 1,102]

the death of coal one solar panel at a time........

 

the highlight

China is expanding this sector rapidly and will more than double its capacity for wind and solar by the end of 2025.

This would see China increase the global wind turbine fleet by 50%, and increase the world's large-scale solar installations by 85% compared to current levels.

 

 

 

 

 

Climate change: China's green power surge offers hope on warming

 

18

Matt McGrath & Mark Poynting - BBC News Climate & Science

Wed, June 28, 2023 at 6:58 PM MDT·3 min read

 

 

 

Solar panels

Wind and solar power are booming in China and may help limit global carbon emissions far faster than expected, according to a new study.

Solar panel installations alone are growing at a pace that would increase global capacity by 85% by 2025.

The report says the country's green energy targets for 2030 look set to be exceeded five years ahead of schedule.

But coal plants are also increasing, partly as backup for all the new wind and solar farms, the authors say.

China is often seen as the key to the world's efforts to rein in the carbon emissions that are the root cause of climate change.

The country is the world's biggest user of coal, mainly for making electricity. The use of coal is responsible for around 69% of China's emissions of carbon dioxide.

 

China's greenhouse gas emissions are still rising

But this new study shows that China is fast building up capacity to generate power from wind and solar, which could have a significant impact on limiting the impacts of rising temperatures.

The research has been carried out by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), an independent research group whose work is often used by the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and governments.

The report looks at China's current installed green energy capacity, but also makes projections on what's been announced and in construction over the next two years.

It finds that right now China has more solar panels installed in large-scale projects than the rest of the world combined. On wind energy, the country has doubled its capacity since 2017.

But this appears to be only the start. According to GEM,

 

 

 

This current surge is the end-product of plans dating back over two decades.

In that time China has become the world's leading supplier of solar panels, driving down costs all across the supply chain. That has helped make solar and wind installations in China economically competitive.

Subsidies have played their part, as have regulations requiring each province to hit green energy targets.

While over half a trillion dollars was spent worldwide on wind and solar last year, China accounted for 55% of that.

 

China is expected to more than double its existing large-scale solar and wind capacity in the next few years

Back in 2020, President Xi Jinping said that China would install over 1,200 gigawatts of solar and wind power by 2030. This new report says this target will be surpassed five years ahead of schedule.

"We believe that the surge in building renewables certainly provides a basis for peaking [China's] carbon emissions earlier than 2030," said Martin Weil, one of the report's authors.

But while this could be significant news for limiting global warming, China's coal use remains a major challenge.

In 2022, China built approximately two new coal fired power stations every week - many of these were located on new solar and wind parks, often to provide back up power and to ensure continuity of energy supply.

"The big issue going forward is how will these coal plants actually be deployed," Mr Weil said.

"One hopes that they're deployed in a way that that puts the ratio of renewables to coal as high as possible."

Other key indicators will be the development of battery storage and the growth of hydrogen - both will be important in helping China transition successfully away from coal.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,141]

Yea, Xi's demands are for this capacity to be "installed"... mounted... not actually supplying power to the grid...

Yes, we know how China works. 

How do we know this is true?  Stated electrical capacity has gone up, yet production has not.  And yet, their housing construction has essentially come to a complete stop recently.  And yet, millions upon millions of new homes stand empty and no one is moving in to use said supposed power. 

Coal usage on the other hand has stayed the same ~ gone up slightly before this giant increase in installed "wind/solar capacity"...

Wind/solar cannot be used with coal unless one is just dumping the energy and since one is intermittent and the other is not... well guess what gets dumped or never connected to begin with?  Wind/Solar.  Only with NG or pumped hydro storage exist can this not be true. 

Supposedly China is working on pumped hydro storage with their vast hydro capacity.  So, if one wishes to say this will happen in the future.  Ok, but we need to see gargantuan new hydropower pump/generator houses being built on all their dams... and we aren't. 

Instead we read about idiotic canals to the coast being built in S. China for a region which already has access and also said region has no industry to begin with and is small.  At least giant dam projects pay you back.