GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Boat + 1,324]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Try and pay attention, and then you will not be confused.

The high prices of energy now world-wide are caused by government attempts to restrict the supply of energy from oil, coal, natural gas. That pushes prices up, especially when the American President shuts down oil pipelines. You do remember that, I hope? That happened recently, and restricts oil supplies. Biden & Co. are trying to deflect attention from their own policies which have driven up gasoline prices by raising an old canard about lack of competition. Nonsense. Oil retailing is a very competitive business, all the studies have shown this, and will show it again. This is just a political ploy to deflect responsibility.

That should be simple enough for you to understand.

You full of …….. hehe. You know OPEC controls oil prices and has for decades. Just until recently nat gas prices were very low. Adding all those export terminals made nat gas in the US a global commodity instead of a N America market. Now you paying the world price. If Biden cut exports to foreigners tomorrow the price of nat gas would drop so fast you dirty your drawers. This was your Republican plan all along. Now own it. 

[Wombat1 + 33]

54 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Try and pay attention, and then you will not be confused.

The high prices of energy now world-wide are caused by government attempts to restrict the supply of energy from oil, coal, natural gas. That pushes prices up, especially when the American President shuts down oil pipelines. You do remember that, I hope? That happened recently, and restricts oil supplies. Biden & Co. are trying to deflect attention from their own policies which have driven up gasoline prices by raising an old canard about lack of competition. Nonsense. Oil retailing is a very competitive business, all the studies have shown this, and will show it again. This is just a political ploy to deflect responsibility.

That should be simple enough for you to understand.

Still makes no sense. Global LNG production is at a record high and still growing rapidly. Hardly what I would call restricted. As for oil, it is being restricted by OPEC+, not Biden, yet is still very cheap at $70/barrel due to the excess inventories caused by covid. Even coal is still expanding slightly, despite all the demand destruction in Western countries due to the success of wind and solar. It is China that will run out of coal in 5-10 years, and face a severe energy crunch because they were too stingy to buy LNG from the USA and coal from Australia. They are supposedly "saving face", but I reckon they are just "cutting off their nose to save their face" and I don't mind at all. Will be glad to go to war with them and change their communist/fascist regime in the process. Hong Kong does not belong to Communist China and neither does Taiwan. If the f***ers want to find that out the hard way, then that is their problem, IMHO.

[Boat + 1,324]

I personally would save the US oil and gas for ourselves. Call it a rainy day energy stockpile. Or at minimum keep our energy in N America. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Wombat1 said:

But the price of oil is only $70/bbl? Less than half the price during the last spike. And America's federal govt hasn't raised taxes on "gas" for 40 years. I understand that some state govt's there have gas taxes but you are saying on one hand that prices are high everywhere in the USA whilst arguing on the other hand that you have a very competitive market? I don't follow what you are trying to say? Can you please make a coherent argument?

We have prices in line with the history of our inflation and that is even adding the various taxes. Our inflation is a huge factor. I was selling it for 29.9 cents per gallon about 1967. We are currently paying about $3.35. That is 54 years of inflation including taxes. 

[Wombat1 + 33]

17 minutes ago, Boat said:

I agree. In the case of Texas you would think as the last big bastion of FF they would make sure the supply of power was well managed. They blew it and here comes renewables and batteries to save the day. Same thing in Australia. They shipped their coal and nat gas to China and let Australians suffer. Here comes renewables and batteries to save the day. Face it. Republican managers and politicians are piss poor at power.

Actually, both the conservative govt and the leftie loonies here in Australia are pretty good when it comes to energy policy. They both agree that we should have a bet "each way". We have vast quantities of gas and coal, but we also have the best renewable resources on the planet. So we are taking advantage of both. We are about to become the world leader in cutting our own emissions, whilst maintaining our position as the world leader in helping Asia reduce their emissions via our LNG exports, and will soon be exporting blue and green H2 as well. American environmentalists often overlook the fact that our coal exports produce 60% less CO2 emissions than those of our neighbour to the north, Indonesia, who is the world's largest coal exporter and does not face the wrath of the American greenie.

[Wombat1 + 33]

24 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

We have prices in line with the history of our inflation and that is even adding the various taxes. Our inflation is a huge factor. I was selling it for 29.9 cents per gallon about 1967. We are currently paying about $3.35. That is 54 years of inflation including taxes. 

Hmmmm.... sounds dirt cheap to me but the Australian Peso is currently trading at just 72 US cents so I guess that is $4.65 Aussie/Gallon. Hey wait, that is still only $1.30 Aussie/litre!!!! And we paying $1.80 dammit. No wonder the USA has "oversize cars" and "oversize mc'donalds meals" and "oversize toilet paper" to wipe it's "oversize butts"? Don't worry, am half joking, just a lil bit jealous  

https://youtu.be/ub747pprmJ8

 

[Boat + 1,324]

19 minutes ago, Wombat1 said:

Actually, both the conservative govt and the leftie loonies here in Australia are pretty good when it comes to energy policy. They both agree that we should have a bet "each way". We have vast quantities of gas and coal, but we also have the best renewable resources on the planet. So we are taking advantage of both. We are about to become the world leader in cutting our own emissions, whilst maintaining our position as the world leader in helping Asia reduce their emissions via our LNG exports, and will soon be exporting blue and green H2 as well. American environmentalists often overlook the fact that our coal exports produce 60% less CO2 emissions than those of our neighbour to the north, Indonesia, who is the world's largest coal exporter and does not face the wrath of the American greenie.

It’s just an outsiders opinion but FF ruled Australia. Then the FF group got greedy and oversold their exports rather than take care of Aussie citizens. Thus the opening for the greenies. If FF would have remained plentiful and cheap renewables would not be growing now.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Boat

[Boat + 1,324]

The US FF boys are making the same mistake. By exporting oil and nat gas they will get a higher price. It’s that higher price that gives the electrical evolution it’s legs. The best way to save a market is to compete, not chase temporary profits. Greed kills in this instance.

[Wombat1 + 33]

4 minutes ago, Boat said:

It’s just an outsiders opinion but FF ruled Australia. Then the FF group got greedy and oversold their exports rather than take care of Aussie citizens. Thus the opening for the greenies. If FF would have remained plentiful and cheap renewables would not be growing now.

Nah, FF still our main exports, still pays the bills. Pays 70% of the corporate taxes and it's the banks that have had a feast and become greedy. Not a case of expensive FF here, they are still cheap compared to Asia or Europe but renewables are dirt cheap and we have a wonderful asset in the Snowy Hydro scheme that is equivalent to 100 large battery instillations. But yes, prices of FF are reaching world parity by design and USA will face the same phenomenon soon. 

[Wombat1 + 33]

14 minutes ago, Boat said:

It’s just an outsiders opinion but FF ruled Australia. Then the FF group got greedy and oversold their exports rather than take care of Aussie citizens. Thus the opening for the greenies. If FF would have remained plentiful and cheap renewables would not be growing now.

The FF industry is a case of "feast one minute, famine the next". It really makes no sense to talk about greed or profit because there can be a big profit one year, a big loss the next. Same for everything that Australia exports. We have "5 pillars" - iron ore, coal, lng, agricuture, and tourism. Only 3 out of 5 any good right now. Covid has been devastating. Not just wipe out the tourism industry, but retail in general due to the lockdowns.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 minutes ago, Wombat1 said:

Hmmmm.... sounds dirt cheap to me but the Australian Peso is currently trading at just 72 US cents so I guess that is $4.65 Aussie/Gallon. Hey wait, that is still only $1.30 Aussie/litre!!!! And we paying $1.80 dammit. No wonder the USA has "oversize cars" and "oversize mc'donalds meals" and "oversize toilet paper" to wipe it's "oversize butts"? Don't worry, am half joking, just a lil bit jealous  

https://youtu.be/ub747pprmJ8 

 

There is a lot of truth to that video. I have been fighting the battle of the bulge all my life. At 76 still am. I am very healthy overall, but would be a lot more able to hike etc. if I I would lose fifty pounds! I am doing intermittent fasting and fighting it now. 

[Wombat1 + 33]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

There is a lot of truth to that video. I have been fighting the battle of the bulge all my life. At 76 still am. I am very healthy overall, but would be a lot more able to hike etc. if I I would lose fifty pounds! I am doing intermittent fasting and fighting it now. 

Haha, don't worry, I know the feeling all too well. Am only 49 but suffering the "mid-life spread". When we are young, the Western diet is not a problem coz we burn off all those calories, but as we age and slow down, we find it hard to match the intake with the output

You know, not many people made it to 76 just a century ago Ron, I reckon you're doing great to be hiking at all! I don't know if you have a heated pool in your community or enjoy swimming, but that is the best way to burn calories if you can. I am quite a heavy smoker so am too unfit for that, but if I can quit, that is the plan!

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

That was a very rare occurence, the only one I know of on any scale, to my knowledge. It has to be seen in relation to the vast amounts of natural gas that the world has used throughout history. By comparison, your batteries are insignificant. 

Natural fires of natural gas have been burning for many years. Natural gas was discovered at natural leaks centuries ago. 

https://www.apga.org/apgamainsite/aboutus/facts/history-of-natural-gas#:~:text=Naturally occurring natural gas was,U.S. in Fredonia%2C New York. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/140716-door-to-hell-darvaza-crater-george-kourounis-expedition

Face it Ron, Natural Gas let CA down in a big way and we decided to invest in replacement technology that we can be a leader in.  Batteries are growing exponentially and will soon be a pillar of world electric production. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

I agree. In the case of Texas you would think as the last big bastion of FF they would make sure the supply of power was well managed. They blew it and here comes renewables and batteries to save the day. Same thing in Australia. They shipped their coal and nat gas to China and let Australians suffer. Here comes renewables and batteries to save the day. Face it. Republican managers and politicians are piss poor at power.

The only market intervention in this issue that matters is the government interference into energy markets, restricting supplies of oil, gasoline, natural gas. All of this is playing out a bizarre agenda of climate alarmism, attempting to influence world climate by reducing availability and usage of essential energy sources. Profoundly misconceived. Energy markets are very competitive, as all the studies have shown.

Texas was a case where renewable power failed and pulled down the natural gas generation, we went over that issue a few hundred times and you lost the argument.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Wombat1 said:

Still makes no sense. Global LNG production is at a record high and still growing rapidly. Hardly what I would call restricted. As for oil, it is being restricted by OPEC+, not Biden, yet is still very cheap at $70/barrel due to the excess inventories caused by covid. Even coal is still expanding slightly, despite all the demand destruction in Western countries due to the success of wind and solar. It is China that will run out of coal in 5-10 years, and face a severe energy crunch because they were too stingy to buy LNG from the USA and coal from Australia. They are supposedly "saving face", but I reckon they are just "cutting off their nose to save their face" and I don't mind at all. Will be glad to go to war with them and change their communist/fascist regime in the process. Hong Kong does not belong to Communist China and neither does Taiwan. If the f***ers want to find that out the hard way, then that is their problem, IMHO.

Oil is certainly being restricted by Biden & Co. they have declared war on oil pipelines, which imposes a major restriction on oil and gasoline availability. That is currently a huge debate in America. You are quoting oil price as if that somehow is the price of gasoline? There are intermediate stages before oil gets into the gasoline pump. It has to be transported by pipeline or rail or truck, processed and refined. 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,544]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There is a lot of truth to that video. I have been fighting the battle of the bulge all my life. At 76 still am. I am very healthy overall, but would be a lot more able to hike etc. if I I would lose fifty pounds! I am doing intermittent fasting and fighting it now. 

It's a two mile hike across the prairie daily to my mailbox, plus I have a Labrador retriever, while achieving 73 trips around old Sol.

A large dog is the BEST "exercise device" ever!

A horse is about the same, but if you ride a horse, you WILL get hurt.

Then, I have this KFC addiction...

Edited September 18, 2021 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

6 hours ago, Wombat1 said:

Yup. Very much so. 1/3 from China and 1/3 from Singapore. Like Europe, most of our refineries were closed down in the last decade due to insufficient scale and uncompetitiveness (read high labour costs).

Mr Wombat something is incredibly wrong with your response. What could be the issue here? Maybe what 25 million at the worst? 

My god man being dependant on foreign nations for energy?

[Wombat1 + 33]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil is certainly being restricted by Biden & Co. they have declared war on oil pipelines, which imposes a major restriction on oil and gasoline availability. That is currently a huge debate in America. You are quoting oil price as if that somehow is the price of gasoline? There are intermediate stages before oil gets into the gasoline pump. It has to be transported by pipeline or rail or truck, processed and refined. 

I agree that it is incredibly stupid of the Biden Admin to restrict oil pipelines, especially when they are so beneficial to both Canada and the USA in terms of national security, but that is the price you pay for denying climate change altogether. Both sides of politics are irrational on the issue IMHO. Of course, the majority of the pipelines will be built during the next Republican term in office, and the Greenies haven't saved a single tonne of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, but we have been living in "the age of irrationalism" for some time now. The Greenies think that they have prevented "dirty" Canadian oil from entering the system, but it just means the oil will come from Exxon's new discoveries in Guyana which release copious amounts of Methane, which is 75X worse than CO2. As I say, nobody seems to have any brains these days, neither those who want to reduce climate change or those that deny it's existence. It is impossible to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions without a lot more nuclear power and hydro-electricity, but the greenies oppose both?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Wombat1 said:

I agree that it is incredibly stupid of the Biden Admin to restrict oil pipelines, especially when they are so beneficial to both Canada and the USA in terms of national security, but that is the price you pay for denying climate change altogether. Both sides of politics are irrational on the issue IMHO. Of course, the majority of the pipelines will be built during the next Republican term in office, and the Greenies haven't saved a single tonne of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, but we have been living in "the age of irrationalism" for some time now. The Greenies think that they have prevented "dirty" Canadian oil from entering the system, but it just means the oil will come from Exxon's new discoveries in Guyana which release copious amounts of Methane, which is 75X worse than CO2. As I say, nobody seems to have any brains these days, neither those who want to reduce climate change or those that deny it's existence. It is impossible to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions without a lot more nuclear power and hydro-electricity, but the greenies oppose both?

Where in the US do you propose we build this new hydro electricity? What river hasn't been dammed? Here in the southwest we are shutting down hydro power for lack of water. 

The heavy lifter is going to be off shore wind. 

 

[Wombat1 + 33]

49 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Where in the US do you propose we build this new hydro electricity? What river hasn't been dammed? Here in the southwest we are shutting down hydro power for lack of water. 

The heavy lifter is going to be off shore wind. 

 

Well, for a start, Canada has offered repeatedly to supply their excess hydro to New York, but that dope Cuomo has refused whilst shutting down a nuclear reactor, Indian Point I think. As for California, you know that agriculture consumes 70 times as much water as direct human consumption? Sounds to me like you need to establish an all-powerful water commission just as Australia had to do in our last severe drought. Also build desal plants for the cities like we had to do. Water security will be the biggest issue for many regions as a result of climate change. Here in Australia, the constant bushfires, droughts, floods, severe cyclones and hail-storms are really starting to take their toll on our standard of living and we have to regularly use the army to assist. The same is occurring in the USA. As you have said yourself Jay, the USA does not have an enormous amount of space for renewables compared to the size of your population. Hence nuclear must be a large part of your energy mix going forward, as well as natural gas. Offshore wind may help at the margins, but I would suggest that it will not be the heavy lifter in the USA as it is in the UK. Doesn't make economic sense. Not compared to solar/batteries, backed up by natural gas. And you have the nuclear know-how but lack the political will to use it. That is crazy. The more nuclear you build, the lower the costs become? If I were POTUS, I would be aiming for 35-45% nuclear-based grid. Then you could have say 70% of all road transport turn electric and be looking at producing green H2 in the future. Your economy is far too large to be based exclusively on solar and wind in the near term. There are very few countries where it makes sense. Basically Australia, a few middle eastern countries, and a few African countries. Also, the UK with it's fantastic wind resources and the likes of Norway and Canada with Hydro. But as for India and China, forget it. Just not doable this century. Would require 65-70% nuclear, like France. 

[notsonice + 1,255]

44 minutes ago, Wombat1 said:

Well, for a start, Canada has offered repeatedly to supply their excess hydro to New York, but that dope Cuomo has refused whilst shutting down a nuclear reactor, Indian Point I think. As for California, you know that agriculture consumes 70 times as much water as direct human consumption? Sounds to me like you need to establish an all-powerful water commission just as Australia had to do in our last severe drought. Also build desal plants for the cities like we had to do. Water security will be the biggest issue for many regions as a result of climate change. Here in Australia, the constant bushfires, droughts, floods, severe cyclones and hail-storms are really starting to take their toll on our standard of living and we have to regularly use the army to assist. The same is occurring in the USA. As you have said yourself Jay, the USA does not have an enormous amount of space for renewables compared to the size of your population. Hence nuclear must be a large part of your energy mix going forward, as well as natural gas. Offshore wind may help at the margins, but I would suggest that it will not be the heavy lifter in the USA as it is in the UK. Doesn't make economic sense. Not compared to solar/batteries, backed up by natural gas. And you have the nuclear know-how but lack the political will to use it. That is crazy. The more nuclear you build, the lower the costs become? If I were POTUS, I would be aiming for 35-45% nuclear-based grid. Then you could have say 70% of all road transport turn electric and be looking at producing green H2 in the future. Your economy is far too large to be based exclusively on solar and wind in the near term. There are very few countries where it makes sense. Basically Australia, a few middle eastern countries, and a few African countries. Also, the UK with it's fantastic wind resources and the likes of Norway and Canada with Hydro. But as for India and China, forget it. Just not doable this century. Would require 65-70% nuclear, like France. 

Sounds to me like you need to establish to establish an all-powerful water commission???? Each state in the western US has a State water board/Water Engineer. Water is property and even if it falls on your neighbors property you can own it and your neighbor has no right to store or impound it. Water rights are for ever in the Western US. Try taking them away....good luck . You can buy the water rights of others...it is all a matter of money. Anyone thinking an all-powerful water commission is needed???? You are talking like a socialist

Edited September 18, 2021 by notsonice

[Wombat1 + 33]

13 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Mr Wombat something is incredibly wrong with your response. What could be the issue here? Maybe what 25 million at the worst? 

My god man being dependant on foreign nations for energy?

Yes Mr Wide Eyes, with just 25m people, we do not have the massive navy that the USA or China has, so cannot protect our oil supply in the advent of a conflict. Indeed, we would not even have sufficient fuel for our tiny navy or air force to even participate in said conflict. We don't even store enough diesel to keep our tanks mobile for 6 months, let alone the logistics to support them. Our crazy govt seems to think that China's vast submarine fleet can do no damage to shipping in the Indo-Pacific. And let me assure you Mr Wide Eyes, if China were to gain control of Australia's resources, the USA would not stand a chance at repelling them from your own shores. In 20 years time, when the USA runs out of shale oil, you can bet your bottom dollar that the likes of Exxon and Chevron will show renewed interest in the Australian oil & gas sector. As I keep saying, I might be a climate change warrior, but I am a realist and whilst Europe may well achieve net-zero by 2050, there is no possibility of the USA, China, or India getting anywhere close. The same for many large countries in Asia, Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria. So the Great Game will continue at least until the end of this century. That means a major conflict is inevitable. Better keep them nukes at the ready!

 

[Wombat1 + 33]

6 hours ago, notsonice said:

Sounds to me like you need to establish to establish an all-powerful water commission???? Each state in the western US has a State water board/Water Engineer. Water is property and even if it falls on your neighbors property you can own it and your neighbor has no right to store or impound it. Water rights are for ever in the Western US. Try taking them away....good luck . You can buy the water rights of others...it is all a matter of money. Anyone thinking an all-powerful water commission is needed???? You are talking like a socialist

Talking like a realist. The irrigators or the cities? Who should have water? Who has the numbers? I believe it is still one person/one vote in the USA? Am just saying that you may not have the choice of keeping your cosy water arrangements forever. Population growth + drought = conflict.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 hours ago, Wombat1 said:

Well, for a start, Canada has offered repeatedly to supply their excess hydro to New York, but that dope Cuomo has refused whilst shutting down a nuclear reactor, Indian Point I think. As for California, you know that agriculture consumes 70 times as much water as direct human consumption? Sounds to me like you need to establish an all-powerful water commission just as Australia had to do in our last severe drought. Also build desal plants for the cities like we had to do. Water security will be the biggest issue for many regions as a result of climate change. Here in Australia, the constant bushfires, droughts, floods, severe cyclones and hail-storms are really starting to take their toll on our standard of living and we have to regularly use the army to assist. The same is occurring in the USA. As you have said yourself Jay, the USA does not have an enormous amount of space for renewables compared to the size of your population. Hence nuclear must be a large part of your energy mix going forward, as well as natural gas. Offshore wind may help at the margins, but I would suggest that it will not be the heavy lifter in the USA as it is in the UK. Doesn't make economic sense. Not compared to solar/batteries, backed up by natural gas. And you have the nuclear know-how but lack the political will to use it. That is crazy. The more nuclear you build, the lower the costs become? If I were POTUS, I would be aiming for 35-45% nuclear-based grid. Then you could have say 70% of all road transport turn electric and be looking at producing green H2 in the future. Your economy is far too large to be based exclusively on solar and wind in the near term. There are very few countries where it makes sense. Basically Australia, a few middle eastern countries, and a few African countries. Also, the UK with it's fantastic wind resources and the likes of Norway and Canada with Hydro. But as for India and China, forget it. Just not doable this century. Would require 65-70% nuclear, like France. 

I don't know about NY refusing hydro from Canada but nuclear only has a history of increasing costs. The lack of immediate space I was referring to was just in regard to the state of California and excess for H2 production. We have tremendous off shore wind capacity on both coasts. The east coast is much shallower so it will lead the way. Here in CA we will have to apply our skills at building next generation floating turbines. Nothing marginal about off shore wind here. It will just take time.

Growing food is a rather important use of water. Here in CA it is a bitter battle over reducing water to the farmers and it is actually unrelated to hydroelectricity. The water that goes to the farms is diverted below the dams after the electricity has been produced. The devil is always in the details.

 

[Boat + 1,324]

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There is a lot of truth to that video. I have been fighting the battle of the bulge all my life. At 76 still am. I am very healthy overall, but would be a lot more able to hike etc. if I I would lose fifty pounds! I am doing intermittent fasting and fighting it now. 

I lost 35 by cutting carbs to 20 a day and eating one meal a day. I eat 1200-1400 calories in that meal. I count everything. Nutrition is important. So like 6 pecans, 6 strawberries, 8 small olives, 2 eggs, two tablespoons jalapeño, one med avocado, 18/cup onion bell pepper and tomato. Add a 8 oz steak and that’s it for the day.