JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

 

If you agree with the idea of robo taxi taking over most transportation there will be thousands of parking spaces that will not be needed. Distributed greenhouses with hydroponics in those spaces could take care of a lot of problems. Pollution to boot.  A changed urban landscape. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Boat said:

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.

"You are what you eat".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Wombat1 said:

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. 

6-7 years ago wind and solar were very small in Australia. I thought the story was Aussie citizens ran into power shortages and power bills jumped. The blame was exports for the shortages in the nat gas market. I’m I remembering this wrong?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

 

Agreed. The devil is in the details. I should have been more specific. In California, you have always had a plentiful supply of water until recently so I assume that your hydro is "one-way", and that you do not do much pumped hydro? What I am suggesting is that if your drought persists, you may need to consider releasing less water from the dams for irrigators and build more pumped hydro facilities? Perhaps build desal plants for the cities as an insurance policy as well? Am just letting you know that here in Brisbane, we are in something of a "perma-drought". We still get massive downpours every 5 years or so, but the droughts in between are getting much more savage. We spent $12 billion to "drought-proof" SE Queensland some 10 years ago (a desal plant on the gold coast and pipes to connect all the dams), but due to rapid pop'n growth and the deteriorating climate, it appears we may not have done enough. I hope that California does not experience the same problem, but when I see your bushfires and drought and soaring temperatures, I just get this gut feeling that you may soon be in the same boat as us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Boat said:

6-7 years ago wind and solar were very small in Australia. I thought the story was Aussie citizens ran into power shortages and power bills jumped. The blame was exports for the shortages in the nat gas market. I’m I remembering this wrong?

The main reason that power prices doubled in Australia was due to the massive up-grading of the grid. Each new sub-station cost $35 million and the total cost was $80 billion. To put that in perspective, inflation means it would cost $100 billion to do it now, and the USA is 15 times larger than Australia so it will cost you $1.5 trillion to prepare your grid for renewables and pop'n growth in the way that we have. As for nat gas shortages, the culprit was the oil price collapse of 2016. The LNG plants in Queensland had just been completed but Santos and Origin had to slash capex to the bone. My brother-in-law lost his job at Santos and no drilling occurred for 2 years. It was a near-death experience for both Santos and Origin. They were up to their eyeballs in debt due to the enormous cost of building the LNG plants, and suddenly the price of oil (which the LNG is linked to), collapsed to $26. They had to scramble. Both did massive capital raisings at a huge discount from which they still have not recovered, and as I said, couldn't afford the drilling required to meet both the overseas contracts plus domestic demand. Just as they were starting to recover, the Chinese gave us covid and the oil price actually went negative. Minus $37. Even now, with spot LNG prices through the roof, Australian LNG producers are missing out on the bonanza because 80% of our production is tied to the oil price which is only $70. We require at least $80 before our producers will even think about risking another round of investment in new plant. Same for the frackers in the USA. Gonna take time to reduce those debts and Qatar and the Russians, even the Iranians, have got a big head start on Australia and the USA. 

Getting back to power shortages, we did have a brief shortage a few years ago when the first large coal plant closed in Victoria and we had bugger all wind and solar, no batteries, and a record heat wave, but now we have the opposite problem. The wholesale price of electricity has collapsed and the coal plants are no longer profitable. They will all be gone by the end of the decade. That is how rapidly solar and wind are taking over, and we will have the nat gas, pumped hydro, and batteries to make it work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In unrelated news. 

Scientists unveil 'whitest paint ever'—and museums can't wait to get their hands on it

The material, which reflects 98% of light, will have significant use in cooling buildings and fighting climate change
 

So Obama and Energy Secretary Chue we’re laughed at suggesting painting roofs white to reflect the sun for cheaper bills. They may have the last laugh.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours 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. 

I started following nat gas around a decade ago. Seems to me when prices go below $3 the US will add drilling rigs and if prices drop lower drilling rigs start dropping. Above $3 you’ll see more drilling crews added. For oil the price seems to be around $40. The EIA has a great excel spreadsheet that goes back to like 2003 with wells, wells completed and DUCTs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 8:32 PM, 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.

 

On 9/17/2021 at 8:36 PM, Boat said:

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.

Fossil fuels will go out one way or another.  Might as well make a little extra money on the meantime.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Boat said:

In unrelated news. 

Scientists unveil 'whitest paint ever'—and museums can't wait to get their hands on it

The material, which reflects 98% of light, will have significant use in cooling buildings and fighting climate change
 

So Obama and Energy Secretary Chue we’re laughed at suggesting painting roofs white to reflect the sun for cheaper bills. They may have the last laugh.

What happens when it gets dirty?

  • Haha 2
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

 

Fossil fuels will go out one way or another.  Might as well make a little extra money on the meantime.  

Yea, the extra bonus is COVID works so well with pollution the money being made is unparalleled. Idaho is out of hospital beds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 9:47 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

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. 

Natural gas and oil built California. Now the idiots want to destroy it but they are just shutting down oil and gas and buying it from other states. What hypocrisy!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, turbguy said:

What happens when it gets dirty?

I actually think it is a great, but old, idea. Areas that need  lots of air conditioning should seriously consider white roofs. California once had a lot of gravel covered roofs of lighter colors. The gravel protected the roofing paper. They had a long lifespan but went out of vogue. I think the main problem is just fashion preferences. Personally I think white houses and roofs with various other colors of trim would be very nice in the southwest. Greece has whole cities with white colored cement homes, I think the roofs are usually red though. I am wondering if there would be a downside in glare with the new paint though. I hope that some new subdivisions, in the Southwest, try out this paint soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas and oil built California. Now the idiots want to destroy it but they are just shutting down oil and gas and buying it from other states. What hypocrisy!

Ah yes, the cry of the conservative, "it worked for the past". Oil and gas are antiquated technologies that are now limiting our future growth. We are moving forward with developing new technology for the future. 

The fundamental difference between conservative and liberal is that you spend all your time looking backwards while we are busy looking forwards. That's why we win.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives only work to preserve the good things of the past. We are only against wasteful spending. We should not spend taxpayers money when we already have energy that is clean and at a good price. Individuals can invest their own money in wind and solar companies. California will be suffering from the poor decisions and high taxes, as if the didn't have enough problems already. They can't even manage their own crime, housing shortages, and immigration problems! 

I have nothing against wind and solar, just wasting money when there is not a problem. Address the real needs first! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas and oil built California. Now the idiots want to destroy it but they are just shutting down oil and gas and buying it from other states. What hypocrisy!

You really can't be believed if you don't know how oil and gas built California and all of the United States. You lose all creditability! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

 

Fossil fuels will go out one way or another.  Might as well make a little extra money on the meantime.  

I agree with the first thought. I don't think that wind and solar will be taking over for a long time. One reason is that we are bankrupt already and hiding the fact with overspending and increasing the debt. Republicans may be able to stop the bleeding to some extent but we do have plenty of RINOS still. I am for progress, but not by spending money in wasteful ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

You really can't be believed if you don't know how oil and gas built California and all of the United States. You lose all creditability! 

Yet again with the call out to the past. Oil and gas built the United States after 1900 but that has no bearing on the future. 120 years ago you would be screaming "You really can't be believed if you don't know how coal and horses built the Untied States. You lose all credibility!"

Technology moves forward.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

47 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

We should not spend taxpayers money when we already have energy that is clean and at a good price.

While I certainly agree that nat gas is cleaner than coal or petroleum, it certainly is not cleaner than nuclear, or solar, or hydro.  Combusting anything, except hydrogen, is dirty.

That said, it's a great fuel for many uses.  And it atomizes so very well in combustion!

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, turbguy said:

While I certainly agree that nat gas is cleaner than coal or petroleum, it certainly is not cleaner than nuclear, or solar, or hydro.  Combusting anything, except hydrogen, is dirty.

That said, it's a great fuel more many uses.  And it atomizes so very well in combustion!

I never said it was cleaner than solar or hydro or wind. It is more cost effective for heating. I think it is still more cost effective for electricity generation. Coal is dying in America and Europe as is nuclear. Hydro is not always dependable due to droughts. My argument it is more cost efficient and clean enough. I heat my whole house with a small decorative natural gas stove. I live in central Illinois where it gets down to 20 degrees below zero at times. I just crack a window that it is right above it. I do not use my central heat which is also natural gas because it heats the bedrooms which get enough heat from the main living area and kitchen. Electric would cost far more even if a heat pump was effective here, which they are not. 

Wind and solar are still a very small percentage of our power supply. It will grow but there is no need to waste money and abandon natural gas plants. Even Illinois, a very blue state, will keep coal until 2045, and is financially supporting old nuclear plants because they support the politicians. We get our natural gas from Texas but leave ours untapped just as Europe does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yet again with the call out to the past. Oil and gas built the United States after 1900 but that has no bearing on the future. 120 years ago you would be screaming "You really can't be believed if you don't know how coal and horses built the Untied States. You lose all credibility!"

Technology moves forward.

I don't like coal but our very liberal Democrat Governor has just decided to keep our coal plants , in Illinois, open until 2045. He will also continue to support our aged nuclear power plants with subsidies. The rate payers and citizens will pay the price. We have a lot of wind but it is still a small factor and solar is rare in the Midwest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 7:52 PM, Boat said:

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. 

I think it has a lot more to do with Biden blocking natural gas pipelines and discouraging any natural or oil production. This is the difference between Trump and Biden, polar opposites on energy goals and tactics. Trump made us energy independent with his policies. Biden is causing rampant inflation and the Fed is behind it all. Biden wants a 3.5 trillion dollar "infrastructure" plan that is largely designed to benefit Democrats in their political goals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.