Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.

[Boat + 1,315]

On 10/15/2021 at 9:34 AM, Michael Sanches said:

The sad part is governments and radicals cause so much pain.

I have no doubt that our energy needs will all be met by renewables by 2200. Likewise, most cars will be EV's. We should let the market get us from here to there; it is the most efficient. I look forward to that day (for my descendants.)

It is sad that we have all these people who think they are gods who demand this route or that route.

The so called rush to renewables comes in large part from the huge price swings from FF. Natural disasters and geopolitical conflicts swing demand and production levels. Business and trade do best in a stable environment. Next comes the cost of healthcare and quality of life issues as pollution takes its toll. Then there are legacy issues in millions of uncapped wells that keeps growing. Unfortunately gas blows up, pipelines rupture and tankers wreck. Let’s not forget all these very obvious problems that send engineers and investors looking for solutions. But hey, we’re getting there slow but sure because these FF problems can’t be solved. The speed of change is driven by cost and applying new tech. As responsible choices become more efficient you will see the speed of change dramatically increase.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 10/24/2021 at 12:08 AM, Boat said:

The so called rush to renewables comes in large part from the huge price swings from FF. Natural disasters and geopolitical conflicts swing demand and production levels. Business and trade do best in a stable environment. Next comes the cost of healthcare and quality of life issues as pollution takes its toll. Then there are legacy issues in millions of uncapped wells that keeps growing. Unfortunately gas blows up, pipelines rupture and tankers wreck. Let’s not forget all these very obvious problems that send engineers and investors looking for solutions. But hey, we’re getting there slow but sure because these FF problems can’t be solved. The speed of change is driven by cost and applying new tech. As responsible choices become more efficient you will see the speed of change dramatically increase.

As the price of fossil fuels continues to skyrocket, more production will eventually come online.

That's what happens when the price goes up.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

As the price of fossil fuels continues to skyrocket, more production will eventually come online.

That's what happens when the price goes up.

When the price goes up people also substitute with less expensive alternatives.

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

When the price goes up people also substitute with less expensive alternatives.

Quite. I wonder how  much permanent demand destruction arises from people shaken into action by rapidly rising prices. Time to insulate the loft, replace the lights with LED's, insulate the hot water tank etc. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 10/25/2021 at 3:11 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

When the price goes up people also substitute with less expensive alternatives.

Except the renewable alternatives are also getting more expensive. 

Solar is seeing input price inflation.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Major-Cost-Increase-Threatens-Solar-Power-In-2022.html

Edited October 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Michael Sanches + 187]

On 10/23/2021 at 11:08 PM, Boat said:

The so called rush to renewables comes in large part from the huge price swings from FF. Natural disasters and geopolitical conflicts swing demand and production levels. Business and trade do best in a stable environment. Next comes the cost of healthcare and quality of life issues as pollution takes its toll. Then there are legacy issues in millions of uncapped wells that keeps growing. Unfortunately gas blows up, pipelines rupture and tankers wreck. Let’s not forget all these very obvious problems that send engineers and investors looking for solutions. But hey, we’re getting there slow but sure because these FF problems can’t be solved. The speed of change is driven by cost and applying new tech. As responsible choices become more efficient you will see the speed of change dramatically increase.

I agree that there are hidden costs associated with FF's. The problem is that when we have government agencies to monitor FF producers, instead of something sensible, like putting money into escrow for decommissioning wells, these agencies end up subsidizing the FF producers. The more government agencies we have, the more we screw ourselves. Laws are only for the middle class and poor to obey. The government ignores the elites. No restaurant eating unless you are Governor Newsome (or insert the elite of your choice (either party)).

We are on the downside of the greatness of our country. The people only vote for those who will give them the most money.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

 

Quote

“Gas prices of course are based on a global oil market. That oil market is controlled by a cartel. That cartel is Opec,” said Jennifer Granholm, the US energy secretary. “So that cartel has more say about what is going on.”

Quote

Fact check: OPEC crude and NGL production was 34% of total supply in September 21, OPEC+ at 51% (IEA) OPEC reserves were at 70%, OPEC+ at 80% in 2020 (BP)

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Tomasz

[Boat + 1,315]

On 10/25/2021 at 12:23 AM, Ecocharger said:

As the price of fossil fuels continues to skyrocket, more production will eventually come online.

That's what happens when the price goes up.

The world is at the whim of the Saudi and Russia. But yea the frackers will have a short term heyday. For prices to stay up costs Russia/Saudi market share. It appears they are willing to do that. 

[Boat + 1,315]

2 hours ago, Wombat One said:

You are correct, but you need to know that it will cost $7 trillion to upgrade the electricity grid over the next decade and $3 trillion for EV charging stations and $10 trillion for batteries. The price of electricity needs to quadruple to make it all possible. PS: I didn't pluck those figures out of thin air, they are realistic estimates based on nearly a decade of my own research as well as that of the IEA etc. According to the IEA, full electrification will cost the globe $70 trillion, and that means about $20 trillion for the USA. Given that the USA spends half a trill on oil each year, the energy transition is not quite cost effective yet. Economies of scale should help though. Trying to transition to 100% renewables without extra nuclear and natural gas will triple the cost again.

 

Musk is making early strides in grid storage and electric cars by building better desired products. He can do that with or without government help. FF politics will not give out that 20 trillion but the fact FF is price unreliable and expensive will drive alternative demand for other products. Biden can’t seem to get 1.5 billion and parts of that money went to healthcare and infrastructure. There is little massive green spending in the forecast. It fake news hype. Track the numbers. This is just the US of course. I don’t follow global energy close. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

3 hours ago, Wombat One said:

You are correct, but you need to know that it will cost $7 trillion to upgrade the electricity grid over the next decade and $3 trillion for EV charging stations and $10 trillion for batteries. The price of electricity needs to quadruple to make it all possible. PS: I didn't pluck those figures out of thin air, they are realistic estimates based on nearly a decade of my own research as well as that of the IEA etc. According to the IEA, full electrification will cost the globe $70 trillion, and that means about $20 trillion for the USA. Given that the USA spends half a trill on oil each year, the energy transition is not quite cost effective yet. Economies of scale should help though. Trying to transition to 100% renewables without extra nuclear and natural gas will triple the cost again.

 

Finally a thought process that deals directly with the core issue's. More conversation of this nature needs to come to the forefront. 

The current approach to Green Energy solutions seems to be well founded in some kind of teenage waste land fantasies. 

I am quite sure if PT Barnum was still breathing his commentary would be...Not bad guys..not bad at all.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Boat + 1,315]

3 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Finally a thought process that deals directly with the core issue's. More conversation of this nature needs to come to the forefront. 

The current approach to Green Energy solutions seems to be well founded in some kind of teenage waste land fantasies. 

I am quite sure if PT Barnum was still breathing his commentary would be...Not bad guys..not bad at all.

So your core issue thought process for green energy is grounded in fantasies. It’s telling your so honest about your fantasies. Try porn, you need a fantasy upgrade.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

So your core issue thought process for green energy is grounded in fantasies. It’s telling your so honest about your fantasies. Try porn, you need a fantasy upgrade.

It is economically unarchivable. Every country in the world are in debt bubble and is heading to a stagnation, because of the deleveraging cycle.  With bigger debt, both in public, finance or manufacturing sectors around the world since 2008 and especially with covid19, any talk about innovation by subsidy or carbon credit is simply a political/stock propaganda or fantasy. We need wealth creation to pay back debt, not by make debt bigger which demands much more wealth to pay back. 

If you want really to go green, the best way is to grow more trees, which use solar to turn CO2 into O2 and make the sea less pollution, not by chopping trees or fields with panel or wind mills  and more mining which more chemical to the ocean. That is how the world have Oxygen.

Do you know where do we have fossil fuel in the first place? From Carbon capture and forming O2 using the solar energy. The best way is to reverse it, using free solar energy with  minimum maintenance and O2 is the by product. CO2 is my most favorite pollutions if comparing to the solid and liquid wastes the poor countries facing for the sake of green energy. 

Besides the non CO2 pollution from mining and less CO2 to O2 process, the feedback loop: more productions of "renewable" components:  to make clean energy, we need to make more batteries, solar panel, wind turbines, carbon capture.. -> more dirty energy --> more CO2 emission-->more productions of "renewable" components. This feedback loop in unsustainable itself , regardless of the debt level.

If CO2 emission is the standard of clean energy, then nuclear is the only clean energy that can be adapt to the current infrastructure. France now goes with nuclear energy. 

Read the history of the world and you can find how many times political wills messed up the economy. Generations looks back and think their predecessors are stupid but keep repeating it themselves. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

So your core issue thought process for green energy is grounded in fantasies. It’s telling your so honest about your fantasies. Try porn, you need a fantasy upgrade.

I sense we have a difference in opinions and porn is your first thought? Triggered seems to manifest itself in mysterious forms.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

On 9/14/2021 at 2:13 PM, ronwagn said:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Protests-Break-Out-in-Europe-As-Electricity-Prices-Soar.html Europe is having problems with energy supply due to depending on Russian natural gas, and coal of their own to meet much of their need. Russia is going to ask a hefty price to come up with the money to pay for their new pipeline Nordstream 2. 

Many people are wondering how to cope with inflation and energy prices in America. Taxes are also going up in America and the corporate taxes always filter down to the average consumer. The left has many ideas on spending money, that we cannot afford, on building charging stations for EV's that will be built in the future, and will be sold with $7,500 rebates for those who might want them. EV's will require more electricity from whatever source and more power lines to deliver it. It will be the Greatest Show on Earth and have a HUGE price tag. 

Geez Ron looks like you future shines bright as a predictive analyst...just saying..

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

On 11/2/2021 at 10:46 AM, Boat said:

So your core issue thought process for green energy is grounded in fantasies. It’s telling your so honest about your fantasies. Try porn, you need a fantasy upgrade.

As you can see a world torn apart..Green Energy Unicorns and fairy tales do not power countries..

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

On 11/2/2021 at 7:36 AM, Wombat One said:

You are correct, but you need to know that it will cost $7 trillion to upgrade the electricity grid over the next decade and $3 trillion for EV charging stations and $10 trillion for batteries. The price of electricity needs to quadruple to make it all possible. PS: I didn't pluck those figures out of thin air, they are realistic estimates based on nearly a decade of my own research as well as that of the IEA etc. According to the IEA, full electrification will cost the globe $70 trillion, and that means about $20 trillion for the USA. Given that the USA spends half a trill on oil each year, the energy transition is not quite cost effective yet. Economies of scale should help though. Trying to transition to 100% renewables without extra nuclear and natural gas will triple the cost again.

 

Odd things are turning out exactly as predicted! Well close... inflation snuck its ugly head in again..Lack of fossil fuels at that. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

On 11/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Finally a thought process that deals directly with the core issue's. More conversation of this nature needs to come to the forefront. 

The current approach to Green Energy solutions seems to be well founded in some kind of teenage waste land fantasies. 

I am quite sure if PT Barnum was still breathing his commentary would be...Not bad guys..not bad at all.

If full electrification of the world would only cost $70 Tn, we should do it right away. That's only 80% of annual global GDP. Let's spread that out over the next 28 years (we want to be carbon neutral in 2050), that would cost us a only 2.85% of GDP/year. Or slightly more than what the world pays towards the army on average. And note that this investment is mostly on jobs within our own countries. 

At the same time, we do not have to spend money on buying oil&gas. This is money leaving the country. Europe spends about $250 Bn on energy imports per year. That is equivalent to 1.4% of GDP. That import goes away: so we get energy independence and we reduce our bills.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

5 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

If full electrification of the world would only cost $70 Tn, we should do it right away. That's only 80% of annual global GDP. Let's spread that out over the next 28 years (we want to be carbon neutral in 2050), that would cost us a only 2.85% of GDP/year. Or slightly more than what the world pays towards the army on average. And note that this investment is mostly on jobs within our own countries. 

At the same time, we do not have to spend money on buying oil&gas. This is money leaving the country. Europe spends about $250 Bn on energy imports per year. That is equivalent to 1.4% of GDP. That import goes away: so we get energy independence and we reduce our bills.

You seem to miss a minor speed bump. In every corner of the world Green Energy has been implemented the results have been catastrophic. As we speak Europe itself may well be the beginning of WW3. 

And the band plays on.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:32 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

You seem to miss a minor speed bump. In every corner of the world Green Energy has been implemented the results have been catastrophic. As we speak Europe itself may well be the beginning of WW3. 

And the band plays on.

There is no direct relation between the Russian invasion and green energy. And no, it was not an Russian attack on Europe as they were going green.

For the record, I also don't buy that it is a war between Russia and the USA on who can have the European gas market.

[specinho + 440]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:38 PM, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

If full electrification of the world would only cost $70 Tn, we should do it right away. That's only 80% of annual global GDP. Let's spread that out over the next 28 years (we want to be carbon neutral in 2050), that would cost us a only 2.85% of GDP/year. Or slightly more than what the world pays towards the army on average. And note that this investment is mostly on jobs within our own countries. 

At the same time, we do not have to spend money on buying oil&gas. This is money leaving the country. Europe spends about $250 Bn on energy imports per year. That is equivalent to 1.4% of GDP. That import goes away: so we get energy independence and we reduce our bills.

not too sure if by "full electrification" you were trying to mean having electricity for the world without fossil fuel, nuclear, etc but mainly on solar and wind?

 

This ambitious aim could be problematic for a few reasons:

1. "cloud in a bottle demo", is an outstanding experiment shown by a seasoned professor in a class in backyard meteorology, HarvardX. It is deduced that for a cloud to form, mere water vapour might not be sufficient. Smoke particles, or mild pollutants, are required.

Therefore, too clean an air would affect cloud formation.

Cloud affects temperature variant and weather (no cloud, no shield i.e. big temperature variation between night and day; no rain; probably affecting changing of one season to another also)

 

2. massive solar plants might encourage formation of cyclone.

On the same discussion board, under another topic, this is brought out:

mini cyclone or swirl observed here:

 

when cold front wind from the river or sea nearby is meeting with hot surface of concrete or tarred road, a mini cyclone or a swirl would form. The mini cyclone dispersed after a few seconds when the temperature differences between the two contrasting surfaces even out...............

This brings out another possibility, massive black solar plants in vacant land might be detrimental to the climate by encouraging formation of cyclone? If yes, a buffer zone ought to be created?

 

 

3. wind energy

- as mentioned somewhere in this discussion board before, the modern design of wind blades, compared to the traditional double system of water and wind, might have

 

a) reduced efficiency due to the design (of blades and of system)

b) changing patterns of wind flow. The possible impact is yet to be observed e.g. weather, climate

c) affecting living things used to be active around that areas

d) etc

 

A combination of these few points shows that singular method of generating energy would always bring detrimental impact, foreseeable or unintended. A variety of all e.g. the  existing composition of coexistence of all methods might be a better solution........

 

Hydro - 30 to 90%

fossil fuel - ~ 30%

nuclear - ~ 5 to 10%

solar, wind, wave etc - 10 to 20%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by specinho

[Boat + 1,315]

Constant referrals to the price of renewables and their price. Have you seen the price of oil and nat gas the last 8 months? To rephrase, in comparison renewables are becoming even more competitive. Nat gas in its market glut would lose to most renewables for new generation. Solar is now the new leader. With these high prices for nat gas I suspect little expansion will be going on except LNG terminals. 
Oil with its big profits is still stuck in a tight range when it comes to completions. Don’t expect any extra oil for European exports. I’m guessing the high price of shipping and higher drilling costs because of supply chain issues. 
The US maintains its FF net independance as does N America. It’s good to produce your own. This is why despite the idiots here, Biden isnt worried to much about US petroleum. We have plenty. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

On 10/8/2022 at 6:46 PM, specinho said:

not too sure if by "full electrification" you were trying to mean having electricity for the world without fossil fuel, nuclear, etc but mainly on solar and wind?

 

This ambitious aim could be problematic for a few reasons:

1. "cloud in a bottle demo", is an outstanding experiment shown by a seasoned professor in a class in backyard meteorology, HarvardX. It is deduced that for a cloud to form, mere water vapour might not be sufficient. Smoke particles, or mild pollutants, are required.

Therefore, too clean an air would affect cloud formation.

Cloud affects temperature variant and weather (no cloud, no shield i.e. big temperature variation between night and day; no rain; probably affecting changing of one season to another also)

 

2. massive solar plants might encourage formation of cyclone.

On the same discussion board, under another topic, this is brought out:

mini cyclone or swirl observed here:

 

when cold front wind from the river or sea nearby is meeting with hot surface of concrete or tarred road, a mini cyclone or a swirl would form. The mini cyclone dispersed after a few seconds when the temperature differences between the two contrasting surfaces even out...............

This brings out another possibility, massive black solar plants in vacant land might be detrimental to the climate by encouraging formation of cyclone? If yes, a buffer zone ought to be created?

 

 

3. wind energy

- as mentioned somewhere in this discussion board before, the modern design of wind blades, compared to the traditional double system of water and wind, might have

 

a) reduced efficiency due to the design (of blades and of system)

b) changing patterns of wind flow. The possible impact is yet to be observed e.g. weather, climate

c) affecting living things used to be active around that areas

d) etc

 

A combination of these few points shows that singular method of generating energy would always bring detrimental impact, foreseeable or unintended. A variety of all e.g. the  existing composition of coexistence of all methods might be a better solution........

 

Hydro - 30 to 90%

fossil fuel - ~ 30%

nuclear - ~ 5 to 10%

solar, wind, wave etc - 10 to 20%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting comments. At the same time:

1. The only way we can continue with fossil fuel is with CCS. We need to become net zero (or probably negative emissions). Especially for countries that do not have existing O&G, this will be prohibitively expensive (import hydocarbons, followed by exporting CO2).

2. Hydro cannot provide much more than what it currently does. Most of the suitable hydro resources have been created already. So 30-40% hydro is just not possible. 

3. Nuclear as 5-10% of global energy consumption would mean we would run out of affordable uranium in about 50 years. That's less than the anticipated lifetime of a power plant. Will thoriium and/or fusion come to the rescue? So far, we have not been able to build either.

hence, whatever the problems there might be with wind/solar/tidal: it's all we have. Unless we accept a +6C future.

[specinho + 440]

9 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Interesting comments. At the same time:

1. The only way we can continue with fossil fuel is with CCS. We need to become net zero (or probably negative emissions). Especially for countries that do not have existing O&G, this will be prohibitively expensive (import hydocarbons, followed by exporting CO2).

2. Hydro cannot provide much more than what it currently does. Most of the suitable hydro resources have been created already. So 30-40% hydro is just not possible. 

3. Nuclear as 5-10% of global energy consumption would mean we would run out of affordable uranium in about 50 years. That's less than the anticipated lifetime of a power plant. Will thoriium and/or fusion come to the rescue? So far, we have not been able to build either.

hence, whatever the problems there might be with wind/solar/tidal: it's all we have. Unless we accept a +6C future.

good to be far sighted but there are a few things that might have been missed:

1. definition of net zero.

Mentioned before somewhere in the board. Often, could have been drowned by strings of happening comments. Briefly recap it, if you do not mind, for your reference and second consideration. First of all we need to define net zero, if it means:

a) a balance between production of CO2 and absorption. Or

b) no carbon dioxide to be emitted

If it the (a), a balance, then the solution could be easy and achievable.

It is commonly known that CO2 is absorbed by plants during the day, and be converted into food or carbohydrate. Besides reforestation that is happening (with marvelous results in Europe e.g. Germany - from 5 to 10% coverage to ~ 30% within a decade or so), rethinking the need to develop massively, quickly would be another. The later prevents more forest to be cut and gives way to development or agricultural activities.

If it is (b), no emission, the solution might be forceful and unlikely to be achievable.

For example, breathing activity of living things would produce CO2. Although it is novel, but the image below is........ inconvenient?

.

 

2. Costa Rica might have achieved > 90% of renewable by hydropower.

If rivers and water reservoirs are drying up, it might be not a bad idea to recreate the conditions. It could be starting with having water catchment areas which is usually forests, building up aquifer etc...

 

3. Nuclear. Not familiar but heard a minute amount of those could generate much energy for a very long time.

Since, we are into fusion, is there a possibility to recreate uranium from plumbum?

 

4. solar, wind, wave might not necessary be all we have as alternative.

Mentioned mechanical power that requires no dependency on uncontrollable nor predictable natural factors e.g. sun, wind or wave; requires little limited materials etc. Awaiting to be explored?

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Look it's really simple, the money being made trading on renewable is tremendous so all you greenies just keep up the bull shit, and I'll keep making money on this bull shit, the only green being a success is the green color of money that I keep pocketing.

I want you to push climate change, and green energy because we few are reaping the rewards of your stupidity.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/3/2022 at 8:32 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

You seem to miss a minor speed bump. In every corner of the world Green Energy has been implemented the results have been catastrophic. As we speak Europe itself may well be the beginning of WW3. 

And the band plays on.

In regard to renewables and the UK the role out of renewables has halved the UK's requirement for gas for electricity generation. 

Similar picture across Europe. I would concede that Europe should have invested much more in nuclear however renewables have at least offered a tangible reduction in the requirement to import Russia gas