GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[turbguy + 1,480]

On 5/29/2024 at 10:07 PM, Ecocharger said:

Yes, a success story for the fossil fuel pollution changes, unlike the potential disaster awaiting if we adopt the lithium and cobalt needed for the renewable future promoted by the under-informed group sitting in the White House.

Note that the "success story" is a direct result of federal intervention in fossil fuel use.

That same federal intervention goes on today, only now it's aim is to reduce the burning of coal and petroleum fuels.

Another success story.

Once you burn that stuff, it's GONE!

I predict that within a decade, economical recovery of battery materials will be common.  Big time!

You cannot recover coal and petroleum after it is gone.

Edited June 1 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,164]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Note that the "success story" is a direct result of federal intervention in fossil fuel use.

That same federal intervention goes on today, only now it's aim is to reduce the burning of coal and petroleum fuels.

Another success story.

Once you burn that stuff, it's GONE!

I predict that within a decade, economical recovery of battery materials will be common.  Big time!

You cannot recover coal and petroleum after it is gone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, EVERY nation should have a strategic reserves of ALL minerals and recycling of all minerals.  But, humanity being as it is, is short sighted and money grubbing.  Having a giant pile of minerals sitting around saving your arse isn't sexy topic of discussion.  Why, from the left we have the touchy feely of "environment damage" which is poppycock nonsense as having those minerals allows you as a nation to prioritize advances in materials etc to make life MORE environmentally friendly and from the right we have, government take over of private industry which is also poppycock nonsense as you cannot have said industry anyways without the permission of the government in today's society. 

We NEED more mining, and more importantly refining--> Everywhere. 

People forget, WWII, USA was able to DEMAND a new world order of how things work based on the simple fact, it had the refining capacity of the world, the lubricant of the world(oil), and the navy backed by gold.  If you do not want to live under Chinese rule very very very soon who has the refining capacity, the gold, and building the navy, while selling the world everything solar etc... you had better start edging in and demanding tariffs at minimum on countries which essentially have NO RULE OF LAW regarding basic human rights because soon you will be RULED by a nation with ZERO human rights. 

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

EV sales in Europe are cratering and stumbling into failure.

The Green Dream is unraveling in an abrupt time frame.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chinese-Battery-Makers-Slam-Brakes-on-German-Expansion-as-EV-Sales-Stall.html

"Chinese battery makers are scaling back expansion in Germany due to a drop in EV sales.

The decline in investment follows Germany's decision to end EV purchase subsidies.

Major German automakers are moving away from combustion engine vehicles due to the EU's 2035 ban on their production, but that ban itself is now coming under criticism."

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

Just now, turbguy said:

Note that the "success story" is a direct result of federal intervention in fossil fuel use.

That same federal intervention goes on today, only now it's aim is to reduce the burning of coal and petroleum fuels.

Another success story.

Once you burn that stuff, it's GONE!

I predict that within a decade, economical recovery of battery materials will be common.  Big time!

You cannot recover coal and petroleum after it is gone.

The straightforward economics of autos favor the fossil fuel variety, there is no study showing superiority for EVs in terms of consumer purchasing.

We are now seeing European consumers reject EVs, and this is just the beginning of Green Fatigue which will unwind the wasted investments in renewable transportation.

Edited June 1 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

14 hours ago, notsonice said:

Clueless as how the whole system works. Next week you'll see a build. And don't think politics doesn't factor in the equation?????

and yet you post nothing to ever back up any thing you post. Guess you do not like facts do you???????

You are the clueless one....all you do is babble BS

The China industrial recession is not going to disappear any time soon and at the same time China is full speed ahead with the Green Agenda for the main reason to reduce imports of oil and coal....

 

do you remember China banning Australian coal imports several years ago and at the same time trying to increase coal production.........It was a full stop plan dealing with energy security

Now  China is using solar, wind pumped storage batteries nuclear all in an effort to reduce coal consumption and wiping out coal imports same as their trying to reduce imported oil.......pretty clear 

CleanTechnica

China’s Oil & Gas Giant Sinopec Says Peak Oil Demand Already Happened In China

Given that 45% of every barrel of oil turns into gasoline, that means China has reached peak petroleum demand. China has an oil demand of...

.

Oct 11, 2023

 

and

In the latest outlook out today, Sinopec says that China’s coal consumption, which anchors the country’s energy security, will stop growing around 2025.

as to reduce oil and coal imports on a long term basis who do you think is going to jump in and replace their import demand.....??????

 

the US consumer?????????????  not happening

U.S. oil consumption by year to 2022 | Statista

newflash for you and your low IQ Oil loving friends....NO ONE

 

then to another poster you post............... If you was my neighbor..............

Big tough boy BS

you resort to  veiled threats on an internet chat................makes you look like a bigger fool than you already have proven yourself to be

 

 

 

 

 

Some joke. China is already scaling back on EVs for Europe, the writing is on the wall.

"With each day that goes by, there is more and more news indicating the EV market is saturated. First, it was manufacturers cutting back on EV investments, then a gradual shift back to hybrid vehicles - and now it's China pulling out of investments in Germany due to lack of demand."

 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chinese-Battery-Makers-Slam-Brakes-on-German-Expansion-as-EV-Sales-Stall.html

Edited June 1 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

9 hours ago, notsonice said:

China has over a TW of Coal generating capacity back in 2019????? 

Utilization factor today????

 

China is working at lowering the 30 percent minimum rule for utilization rate by having coal plants update to run in a peaker mode like Nat gas....China just made a major shift on coal utilization this past week to reduce wind and solar curtailment to less than 5 percent from the previous 10 percent allowed limit

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3264734/chinas-easing-solar-wind-installation-curbs-boost-renewable-energy-aid-sector-struggling-oversupply

China’s easing of solar, wind installation curbs to boost renewable energy, aid sector struggling with oversupply

 

The action plan released by the State Council, China’s cabinet, on Wednesday, aims to improve energy conservation and reduce carbon dioxide emissions for the next two years.

The action plan comes with a “curtailment” caveat for solar and wind power. These plants can operate at a utilisation rate of 90 per cent compared with 95 per cent previously, “if economics prevail”, according to the plan, meaning more renewable energy installations will be allowed but with a lower rate of utilisation.

More coal plant capacity does not mean more overall output... New coal plants are for solar wind backup. The government will now pay coal plants to be on standby............

Coal will take on the role of ‘peaker plants’

 

As low-carbon energy sources continue to grow, they’ll take priority spot in the electricity mix. Coal power will start to take on the role of ‘peaker plants’.

Most of the world is used to gas playing that role. But China has never embraced gas: it doesn’t want another geopolitical burden when it has coal resources at home. So, coal is the ‘flexible’ or ‘peaker’ fuel of choice.

Another nod towards this shifting role of coal is that the Chinese government now has a program mandating “flexibility retrofits” on coal plants so that they can ramp up and down more effectively. If coal was going to maintain its role as the bulk baseload of the energy system, it wouldn’t need to do this

 

Another joke, this is all projection and not reality, the fact remains that China is increasingly reliant on coal.

You can try and twist it any way you want with imaginary scenarios, but facts are facts.

Edited June 1 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 542]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If you do not want to live under Chinese rule very very very soon who has the refining capacity, the gold, and building the navy, while selling the world everything solar etc... you had better start edging in and demanding tariffs at minimum on countries which essentially have NO RULE OF LAW regarding basic human rights because soon you will be RULED by a nation with ZERO human rights. 

If you like the rule of law it is best not to vote for a criminal.

[TailingsPond + 542]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Another joke, this is all projection and not reality, the fact remains that China is increasingly reliant on coal.

You can try and twist it any way you want with imaginary scenarios, but facts are facts.

Why do you want to be like China?

Edited June 1 by TailingsPond

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,164]

15 hours ago, notsonice said:

China has over a TW of Coal generating capacity back in 2019????? 

Utilization factor today????

 

China is working at lowering the 30 percent minimum rule for utilization rate by having coal plants update to run in a peaker mode like Nat gas....China just made a major shift on coal utilization this past week to reduce wind and solar curtailment to less than 5 percent from the previous 10 percent allowed limit

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3264734/chinas-easing-solar-wind-installation-curbs-boost-renewable-energy-aid-sector-struggling-oversupply

China’s easing of solar, wind installation curbs to boost renewable energy, aid sector struggling with oversupply

 

The action plan released by the State Council, China’s cabinet, on Wednesday, aims to improve energy conservation and reduce carbon dioxide emissions for the next two years.

The action plan comes with a “curtailment” caveat for solar and wind power. These plants can operate at a utilisation rate of 90 per cent compared with 95 per cent previously, “if economics prevail”, according to the plan, meaning more renewable energy installations will be allowed but with a lower rate of utilisation.

More coal plant capacity does not mean more overall output... New coal plants are for solar wind backup. The government will now pay coal plants to be on standby............

Coal will take on the role of ‘peaker plants’

 

As low-carbon energy sources continue to grow, they’ll take priority spot in the electricity mix. Coal power will start to take on the role of ‘peaker plants’.

Most of the world is used to gas playing that role. But China has never embraced gas: it doesn’t want another geopolitical burden when it has coal resources at home. So, coal is the ‘flexible’ or ‘peaker’ fuel of choice.

Another nod towards this shifting role of coal is that the Chinese government now has a program mandating “flexibility retrofits” on coal plants so that they can ramp up and down more effectively. If coal was going to maintain its role as the bulk baseload of the energy system, it wouldn’t need to do this

 

Graph is going up up up, even though they are bringing on more modern coal plants(assuming they have any old ones left-->doubtful) yet the douches say it is going down....  95% use rate, sure... without NG, and their hydro is in SOUTHERN China a tidy 1000 miles away from the wind/solar farms in NORTHERN China where most of their coal is... Pull the other leg

Only reason it might go down is because their economy will decrease due to decreasing population and industry moving OUT of China

EDIT: REAL reason for GIANT Coal plants siting idle has NOTHING to do with solar/wind installations, but rather their Hydro with its ~400GW of installed capacity will have vast variance y-t-y.  Hydro capacity increased ~30%, but power output only increased ~11% in last 5 years or so(maybe just filling reservoirs due to Mekong/Yangtze River flow requirements etc)   Also, if electric cars really do become a thing: electrical demand will only keep growing, not decreasing like this moronic graph shows as China's wind capacity factor is a pathetic 25%. 

By nameplate value China almost has enough wind/solar for their ENTIRE grid... Yet generates only ~1/8th of their power.  To make that graph ANYWHERE near reality, China would have to install at minimum~ 20X the nameplate value of wind/solar they have already done so.  Assuming they can do their pumped hydro schemes as claimed. 

Edited June 1 by footeab@yahoo.com

[bloodman33 + 22]

Old Ruff Neck 'You are One of a Few on here that are fairly ignorant. If you was my neighbor..............'.

Old Ruff Neck if you were my neighbor I would introduce you to my son.  My wife and I are sort of weird.  His legal name is 357.  I am sure you and him would get along swell. 

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

The Greenies have really gone off the deep end this time, with a wild unsupported legal attack on the oil industry.

This "law" really encapsulates in one piece of rubbish all the usual canards about the oil industry and attempts to impose retributions on an industry whose existence is central and critical for the continued existence of  Vermont.

Could anything be more foolish?

The purpose appears to be a money grab to finance the idiotic climate change programs of government.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Vermont-Makes-Big-Oil-Pay-for-Climate-Change-Damage-in-Landmark-Law.html

"The bill, S.259, ‘An act relating to climate change cost recovery,’ became law without the signature of Vermont’s Republican Governor Philip B. Scott. 

The law stipulates that Vermont’s state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, assess the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2024. "

The governor himself is fearful of failure, and for good reason.

"In this attempt to make Big Oil pay in the polluter-pays model, Vermont could fail and hamper efforts by other states, and add costs for Vermonters and the state, Governor Scott said in a letter to Vermont State lawmakers. 

“Taking on “Big Oil” should not be taken lightly. And with just $600,000 appropriated by the Legislature to complete an analysis that will need to withstand intense legal scrutiny from a well-funded defense, we are not positioning ourselves for success,” Governor Scott said. 

“I’m deeply concerned about both short- and long-term costs and outcomes. Just look at our unsuccessful nationally-focused cases on GMOs, campaign finance and pharmaceutical marketing practices. I’m also fearful that if we fail in this legal challenge, it will set precedent and hamper other states’ ability to recover damages.”"

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

19 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Why do you want to be like China?

Certainly realities of the energy industry transcend nations and politics.

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

On 5/30/2024 at 5:07 AM, Rob Plant said:

There's no point in discussing this with you any further.

You have already back tracked from your statement that "coal is non-pollutive" to less pollutive, whilst you continue to change your comments to suit when proven wrong, your views on such topics become meaningless and irrelevant.

You talk of "truth" but deny pollution from coal, you deny air pollution from FF that causes millions of deaths globally every year. You gleefully trumpet call any perceived increase in coal production or usage when it is clearly horrendously pollutive and a genuine silent killer.

Well done!

Rob, read something and learn.

Lithium is a disaster waiting to happen, and the frenzied activists running deceived governments are going to be held accountable for unleashing this disaster on somnambulant populations.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-of-lithium/

"These side effects include: use of large quantities of water and related pollution; potential increase in carbon dioxide emissions; production of large quantities of mineral waste; increased respiratory problems; alteration of the hydrological cycle."

"Lithium, referred to as “white gold,” is essential to the fabrication of “green” technologies, and extracting it enacts as much devastation as harvesting fossil fuels."

 

"The Center for Interdisciplinary Environmental Justice’s analysis, however, shows that national emissions would reduce only by 6% with the electrification of cars, in part because these vehicles still rely on electricity generation, roughly 60% of which comes from gas, oil, and coal.

The [lithium] mine would directly release the equivalent of 152,713 tons of carbon dioxide each year, equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of a small city, according to the federally issued final environmental impact statement."

Edited June 3 by Ecocharger

[bloodman33 + 22]

The personal transportation age is coming to and end whether we like it or not. Do I mean nobody is going to have their own auto? No.  Cities will have to have trains going from city to city and within like Europe.  EV are not the solution for personal transportation.  They are a transitory step at best for home owners. The electric grid cannot handle it.  That said! 

Buy VLO(refinery) CEG(nuclear)  MTDR(Oil)  Rivn(EV),  SFL, TNK and STNG tankers, NEE and D utilities, ARM (AI) and make mo money! make mo money! make mo money! And, give to my queen AOC and lock Trump up and give him slippery soap that he will drop in the shower!.

God Bless George Soros he is my uncle!  I for one don't have to be paid by the oil industry to propagate lies on these boards.  I make my own money with nobodies help!  Most of you Num nuts (but not all) can't wrap your head around my contradictions.  You got moose brain worm and walk around in circles jibber jabbering about how wonderful big oil is and how it is not causing global warming.

Paid nonsense shills or just ignorant you are.  I am the truth according to Jesus Christ!

[TailingsPond + 542]

17 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

Lithium is a disaster waiting to happen, and the frenzies activists running deceived governments are going to be held accountable for unleashing this disaster on somnambulant populations.

I showed you the data from a lithium mine.  Tiny amounts of pollution compared to a coal mine.  You refuse to look at data.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/2022/2278

[TailingsPond + 542]

Let's compare:

Coal mine 41,737 tonnes of particulate matter released per year.

Li mine 19.7 tonnes of particulate matter released per year.

 

Edited June 2 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 542]

29 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

potential increase in carbon dioxide emissions

[]

The [lithium] mine would directly release the equivalent of 152,713 tons of carbon dioxide each year, equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of a small city, according to the federally issued final environmental impact statement."

 

Try to remember you think CO2 is a good thing, or at least not a problem.  You should, therefore, see lithium as no problem.

Pick a side.

Edited June 2 by TailingsPond

[Ron Wagner + 661]

On 5/31/2024 at 9:47 PM, turbguy said:

Note that the "success story" is a direct result of federal intervention in fossil fuel use.

That same federal intervention goes on today, only now it's aim is to reduce the burning of coal and petroleum fuels.

Another success story.

Once you burn that stuff, it's GONE!

I predict that within a decade, economical recovery of battery materials will be common.  Big time!

You cannot recover coal and petroleum after it is gone.

No but there is an abundance ready to be exploited. Especially natural gas. 

[Ron Wagner + 661]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The Greenies have really gone off the deep end this time, with a wild unsupported legal attack on the oil industry.

This "law" really encapsulates in one piece of rubbish all the usual canards about the oil industry and attempts to impose retributions on an industry whose existence is central and critical for the continued existence of  Vermont.

Could anything be more foolish?

The purpose appears to be a money grab to finance the idiotic climate change programs of government.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Vermont-Makes-Big-Oil-Pay-for-Climate-Change-Damage-in-Landmark-Law.html

"The bill, S.259, ‘An act relating to climate change cost recovery,’ became law without the signature of Vermont’s Republican Governor Philip B. Scott. 

The law stipulates that Vermont’s state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, assess the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2024. "

The governor himself is fearful of failure, and for good reason.

"In this attempt to make Big Oil pay in the polluter-pays model, Vermont could fail and hamper efforts by other states, and add costs for Vermonters and the state, Governor Scott said in a letter to Vermont State lawmakers. 

“Taking on “Big Oil” should not be taken lightly. And with just $600,000 appropriated by the Legislature to complete an analysis that will need to withstand intense legal scrutiny from a well-funded defense, we are not positioning ourselves for success,” Governor Scott said. 

“I’m deeply concerned about both short- and long-term costs and outcomes. Just look at our unsuccessful nationally-focused cases on GMOs, campaign finance and pharmaceutical marketing practices. I’m also fearful that if we fail in this legal challenge, it will set precedent and hamper other states’ ability to recover damages.”"

I hope the oil companies add 50% to the wholesale cost of gasoline going to Vermont. That should get the idiots to back off. If it gets tough just shut it all off. 

[TailingsPond + 542]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

I hope the oil companies add 50% to the wholesale cost of gasoline going to Vermont. That should get the idiots to back off. If it gets tough just shut it all off. 

You dislike free-market capitalism and want a corporation to manipulate markets for political reasons? LOL.

The democrats should just turn off your internet so you can't spread BS. The major internet hubs and software providers are in democrat states. Heck, they should just mute all of the traitorous cult led by a convicted felon. That should get them to back off...

 

Edited June 2 by TailingsPond

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,164]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

You dislike free-market capitalism and want a corporation to manipulate markets for political reasons? LOL.

The democrats should just turn off your internet so you can't spread BS. The major internet hubs and software providers are in democrat states. Heck, they should just mute all of the traitorous cult led by a convicted felon. That should get them to back off...

 

His statement is LITERALLY free-market capitalism genius.  A company removing themselves from a corrupt market. 

The major data centers are placed where the power is CHEAPEST and near hubs for fiber and water, which would be in ~RED/Purple states bud.  Top 5, N. Virginia by far the largest  3X that of 2nd place, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta and last down quite a ways is: Chicago. 

You would think Seattle would have a lot due to Microsoft/Amazon with cheap power, but being the middle of nowhere: Nope.  About 1/3 that of Chicago and 10X smaller than N. Virginia..  Silicon Valley while 6th on the list is ~5X smaller than N. Virginia... Hrmm what could be in N. Virginia... Lets see... FBI, CIA, DHD, DoD... our data isn't being mined in violation of the US constitution right?  😭

A political party cutting off access on  the other hand is definition of dictatorial control--> This is why we have the 2nd amendment for use on utterly corrupt judges and dictator scum

[TailingsPond + 542]

22 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

His statement is LITERALLY free-market capitalism genius.  A company removing themselves from a corrupt market. 

The major data centers are placed where the power is CHEAPEST and near hubs for fiber and water, which would be in ~RED/Purple states bud.  Top 5, N. Virginia by far the largest  3X that of 2nd place, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta and last down quite a ways is: Chicago.

[]

A political party cutting off access on  the other hand is definition of dictatorial control--> This is why we have the 2nd amendment for use on utterly corrupt judges and dictator scum

Too funny.

The data centres can be anywhere and everywhere, the brains who control them live tend to live in blue states.  Heck, facebook and twitter cut off Trump for a while. 

It doesn't have to be a political party cutting off access.  According to you the corporations have the right to deny service to a corrupt market.  "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."  So any CEO who dislikes trump and his supporters is free to cut off service?  Do you still like them apples?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

I showed you the data from a lithium mine.  Tiny amounts of pollution compared to a coal mine.  You refuse to look at data.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/2022/2278

Lithium is a disaster waiting to happen, and the frenzied activists running deceived governments are going to be held accountable for unleashing this disaster on somnambulant populations.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-of-lithium/

"These side effects include: use of large quantities of water and related pollution; potential increase in carbon dioxide emissions; production of large quantities of mineral waste; increased respiratory problems; alteration of the hydrological cycle."

"Lithium, referred to as “white gold,” is essential to the fabrication of “green” technologies, and extracting it enacts as much devastation as harvesting fossil fuels."

 

"The Center for Interdisciplinary Environmental Justice’s analysis, however, shows that national emissions would reduce only by 6% with the electrification of cars, in part because these vehicles still rely on electricity generation, roughly 60% of which comes from gas, oil, and coal.

The [lithium] mine would directly release the equivalent of 152,713 tons of carbon dioxide each year, equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of a small city, according to the federally issued final environmental impact statement."

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

Let's compare:

Coal mine 41,737 tonnes of particulate matter released per year.

Li mine 19.7 tonnes of particulate matter released per year.

 

Lithium is nasty in the extreme.

"These side effects include: use of large quantities of water and related pollution; potential increase in carbon dioxide emissions; production of large quantities of mineral waste; increased respiratory problems; alteration of the hydrological cycle."

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

Try to remember you think CO2 is a good thing, or at least not a problem.  You should, therefore, see lithium as no problem.

Pick a side.

Try to remember, this whole nonsense is being launched on the premise that CO2 is the greatest danger in the history of the world.

Therefore, if this dependence on lithium is real, the war against CO2 is being frustrated, and the average American is being deprived of personal automobile transportation for NO good reason.

Edited June 3 by Ecocharger