How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, we have a tundra buyer sucking on government tits eh...  suckle suckle suckle...

Are you Jay's "economic" degree?  Inquiring minds wish to understand this genius "economics"

This is 1968 Soviet tech, way before the green energy craze. This failed because there is no demand for so much power in the "tundra", not because of bad fundamentals.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nothing to do with me. Economics tells us this tech is a failure. Andrei is still trying to figure out how the US produces diesel and kerosene without Russian oil that in his imagination we were massively importing.

You were massively importing it before the ban, when Russia was the 2nd largest source of your imported oil, ahead of Saudi Arabia. That just disappeared into nowhere? OK... The rest of your stats are very difficult for me to verify, because the API gravity is inverse to specific gravity, In general, I understand boiling points best, like they do it in general chemistry.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

You were massively importing it before the ban, when Russia was the 2nd largest source of your imported oil, ahead of Saudi Arabia. That just disappeared into nowhere? OK... The rest of your stats are very difficult for me to verify, because the API gravity is inverse to specific gravity, In general, I understand boiling points best, like they do it in general chemistry.

HaHaHa! How dumb can you be?

Here are our oil imports by country showing Canada, Mexico, Saudi and Russia. Russia is the red line crawling along the bottom of the graph:

Above data from EIA at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm

 

API is the metric used for oil. The data I gave you is from the EIA. What don't you understand? 

API gravity is one of the key characteristics of crude oil that, along with other characteristics such as sulfur content, is used by refiners when evaluating different crude streams for processing into petroleum products. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30852

Again, the table below is from the EIA at both https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/xls/api-history.xlsx and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_api_adc_mbblpd_m.htm:

 

 

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHaHa! How dumb can you be?

Here are our oil imports by country showing Canada, Mexico, Saudi and Russia. Russia is the red line crawling along the bottom of the graph:

Above data from EIA at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm

 

API is the metric used for oil. The data I gave you is from the EIA. What don't you understand? 

API gravity is one of the key characteristics of crude oil that, along with other characteristics such as sulfur content, is used by refiners when evaluating different crude streams for processing into petroleum products. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30852

Again, the table below is from the EIA at both https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/xls/api-history.xlsx and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_api_adc_mbblpd_m.htm:

 

 

 

I guess not everybody agrees with the EIA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/russia-captures-no-2-rank-among-foreign-oil-suppliers-to-u-s

Neither is tidal power an "economic failure"

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

48 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

This is 1968 Soviet tech, way before the green energy craze. This failed because there is no demand for so much power in the "tundra", not because of bad fundamentals.

Appropriate geographic locations are a critical part of the economic fundamentals. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Appropriate geographic locations are a critical part of the economic fundamentals. 

Not really. Cost per installed watt is fundamental. Geographic demand is variable, because you can add an HVDC trunk, taking the power a couple of thousand kilometers away.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

37 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I guess not everybody agrees with the EIA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/russia-captures-no-2-rank-among-foreign-oil-suppliers-to-u-s

Neither is tidal power an "economic failure"

First of all your article uses EIA data. Russia was our number 2 importer for a few months of total oil and refined products then they fell back to fourth place. The data has only been updated to the end of March when the ban was implemented.

U.S imports of Latam oil soar as refiners replace Russian barrels

Imports of fuel oil from Latin America averaged some 200,000 bpd in March and April, 49% higher than in the previous 12 months. Mexico's share of U.S. fuel oil imports climbed to about 27% in March and April, from 19% a year earlier, the data showed.

"The really interesting storyline has been Mexico's ability to capture market share from Russia," said energy strategist Clay Seigle. "The U.S. market for Russian fuel oil has been permanently destroyed."https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-imports-latam-oil-soar-refiners-replace-russian-barrels-2022-05-19/

Edited July 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

41 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Not really. Cost per installed watt is fundamental. Geographic demand is variable, because you can add an HVDC trunk, taking the power a couple of thousand kilometers away. This makes the geographic component somewhat variable.

No this tech is an economic failure and appropriate geography is a key part of the fundamental cost.

The failure is overwhelmingly evident as although you claim appropriate tech has existed for 55 years there are exactly two moderately sized facilities in the world. The UK gov't has repeatedly found the proposals for Britain to be uneconomical. 

Here is the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

 

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No this tech is an economic failure and appropriate geography is a key part of the fundamental cost.

The failure is overwhelmingly evident as although you claim appropriate tech has existed for 55 years there are exactly two moderately sized facilities in the world. The UK gov't has repeatedly found the proposals for Britain to be uneconomical. 

Here is the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

 

 

Not the same tech. No prefab submersible blocks, turbines have to be moved between high and low tides.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Not the same tech. No prefab submersible blocks, turbines have to be moved between high and low tides.

If no one has used it then it is uneconomical. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

43 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

First of all your article uses EIA data. Russia was our number 2 importer for a few months of total oil and refined products then they fell back to fourth place. The data has only been updated to the end of March when the ban was implemented.

U.S imports of Latam oil soar as refiners replace Russian barrels

Imports of fuel oil from Latin America averaged some 200,000 bpd in March and April, 49% higher than in the previous 12 months. Mexico's share of U.S. fuel oil imports climbed to about 27% in March and April, from 19% a year earlier, the data showed.

"The really interesting storyline has been Mexico's ability to capture market share from Russia," said energy strategist Clay Seigle. "The U.S. market for Russian fuel oil has been permanently destroyed."https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-imports-latam-oil-soar-refiners-replace-russian-barrels-2022-05-19/

So, they found a replacement in Mexico? This works. "Permanent market destruction" is bullshit, though.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If no one has used it then it is uneconomical. 

Again, look at the size of the production plant, will you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penzhin_Tidal_Power_Plant_Project

It is enough for a small country. Where do you suggest putting it to? They can use it for making hydrogen from water, if only "hydrogen economy" plans weren't a scam.

Your list shows that Koreans are busy building new plants. I think hydro and tidal be grid-parity renewable technologies that work up north, where solar is not an option.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

 

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Again, look at the size of the production plant, will you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penzhin_Tidal_Power_Plant_Project

It is enough for a small country. Where do you suggest putting it to? They can use it for making hydrogen from water, if only "hydrogen economy" plans weren't a scam.

Your list shows that Koreans are busy building new plants. I think hydro and tidal be grid-parity renewable technologies that work up north, where solar is not an option.

It is only suitable for that one obscure location. That is why geography is fundamental.

No the Koreans have no plants under construction. The two proposed plants both appear to have been cancelled ten years ago.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

40 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

So, they found a replacement in Mexico? This works. "Permanent market destruction" is bullshit, though.

It is as permanent as Russia occupying Ukraine. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is as permanent as Russia occupying Ukraine. 

That one is pretty permanent. Don't mix up markets and politics.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

30 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

It is only suitable for that one obscure location. That is why geography is fundamental.

No the Koreans have no plants under construction. The two proposed plants both appear to have been cancelled ten years ago.

 

There are other obscure locations like that, like the Bay of Fundy. It is salvageable. Look at the lengths of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

 

[Boat + 1,315]

2 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I guess not everybody agrees with the EIA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/russia-captures-no-2-rank-among-foreign-oil-suppliers-to-u-s

Neither is tidal power an "economic failure"

You haven’t a clue about oil. The US has been net oil independant for close to 3 years. We do have imports which are mainly to foreigner owned refineries but that is to make money. Russian oil to products to Brazil or Columbia, sure, to China, Japan and S Korea, sure. But it’s mainly Canada that imports close to 4 million barrels a day that the US dosent need. I will say it does create American jobs but in my opinion s not worth the pollution. Russian oil dosent account for much before and soon not any. Cool. 
 

Even your own chart shows the small amounts of oil from Mexico, Saudi and Russia. That’s around 1.5 of the world 100 daily consumption. Chump change we would say in Texas. All hat, no cattle. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Boat

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

47 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

There are other obscure locations like that, like the Bay of Fundy. It is salvageable. Look at the lengths of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

 

Yes I am an HVDC proponent and it will be key to making a renewable economy work. The Bay of Fundy is not even obscure and is one of the world's best potential tidal sources. But it has failed on economic grounds that it is too expensive. Those HVDC lines will be built but they will be carrying lower cost off shore wind because Fundy sits in the middle of an even better renewable resource region for off shore wind.

 

Here is an article on tidal dev in the Bay of Fundy. "wind on land costs less than ten cents per kilowatt hour, fixed offshore wind costs in the twenty to thirty cents range, and it’s estimated that in-stream tidal can cost as much as sixty-six cents per kilowatt hour" 

 

Cape Sharp deployed its latest turbine in Minas Basin in late July and connected it to the Nova Scotia grid on July 24. But two days later, OpenHydro Group, which partners in Cape Sharp Tidal with Nova Scotia’s Emera, announced it was insolvent, with its parent company deciding it would no longer invest in tidal energy. In August, Emera announced that it, too, would be unable to carry on with the project, which leaves a turbine sitting on the bottom of the Bay of Fundy and Nova Scotia regulators scratching their heads, waiting on a contingency plan. A spokesperson for Nova Scotia’s Department of Energy and Mines noted that the current state of limbo for this turbine “cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,” the department wrote in a statement. “We have the ability to issue orders, revoke licenses and issue fines.”

https://thewalrus.ca/tidal-power-is-the-next-big-green-wave/

Note the off shore wind around nova scotia

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes I am an HVDC proponent and it will be key to making a renewable economy work. The Bay of Fundy is not even obscure and is one of the world's best potential tidal sources. But it has failed on economic grounds that it is too expensive. Those HVDC lines will be built but they will be carrying lower cost off shore wind because Fundy sits in the middle of an even better renewable resource region for off shore wind.

 

Here is an article on tidal dev in the Bay of Fundy. "wind on land costs less than ten cents per kilowatt hour, fixed offshore wind costs in the twenty to thirty cents range, and it’s estimated that in-stream tidal can cost as much as sixty-six cents per kilowatt hour" 

 

Cape Sharp deployed its latest turbine in Minas Basin in late July and connected it to the Nova Scotia grid on July 24. But two days later, OpenHydro Group, which partners in Cape Sharp Tidal with Nova Scotia’s Emera, announced it was insolvent, with its parent company deciding it would no longer invest in tidal energy. In August, Emera announced that it, too, would be unable to carry on with the project, which leaves a turbine sitting on the bottom of the Bay of Fundy and Nova Scotia regulators scratching their heads, waiting on a contingency plan. A spokesperson for Nova Scotia’s Department of Energy and Mines noted that the current state of limbo for this turbine “cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,” the department wrote in a statement. “We have the ability to issue orders, revoke licenses and issue fines.”

https://thewalrus.ca/tidal-power-is-the-next-big-green-wave/

 

Wind power with no subsidies whatsoever? I don't understand. There is a lot more machinery for much less output. This "in-stream" tidal without a dam is also obviously BS.

The Bay of Fundy is as obscure as Kamchatka, I suppose. Some kinda of heck frozen over / "tundra". Obscure is perceptual.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Wind power with no subsidies whatsoever? I don't understand. There is a lot more machinery for much less output. This "in-stream" tidal without a dam is also obviously BS.

They have a dam in Fundy that produces a whopping 20MW (third largest tidal power in the world) and no one wants to build another, it would require huge subsidies. Off shore wind costs are plummeting as the industry scales and is leaving tidal energy behind at lightning speed.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

That one is pretty permanent. Don't mix up markets and politics.

Huh? You think we are going to drop the ban on Russian oil while they are still in Ukraine when we so easily replaced them with imports from our neighbor? Markets and politics mix all the time. There is no such thing as a market that is not mixed with politics.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Huh? You think we are going to drop the ban on Russian oil while they are still in Ukraine when we so easily replaced them with imports from our neighbor? Markets and politics mix all the time. There is no such thing as a market that is not mixed with politics.

You can legislate the exclusion of the Russian oil, but it is not the same as the "permanent market destruction" claimed by your article due to availability of a Mexican alternate. That was bullshit. The only market law is buy low, sell high. Incidentally, you will drop the ban eventually. Ukraine is not that dear to you. In fact, it only got any utility for as long as it provides for an irritation to Russia.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They have a dam in Fundy that produces a whopping 20MW (third largest tidal power in the world) and no one wants to build another, it would require huge subsidies. Off shore wind costs are plummeting as the industry scales and is leaving tidal energy behind at lightning speed.

The wind does not even start properly the first 100m or so. Those windmills are built completely wrong. The best place to put a wind turbine would be on top of a nuke's cooling tower, methinks. Very solid updraft.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

You can legislate the exclusion of the Russian oil, but it is not the same as the "permanent market destruction" claimed by your article due to availability of a Mexican alternate. That was bullshit. The only market law is buy low, sell high. Incidentally, you will drop the ban eventually. Ukraine is not that dear to you. In fact, it only got any utility for as long as it provides for an irritation to Russia.

Legislating a ban and then easily replacing what was banned is the definition of permanent market destruction. Russian imports were miniscule until they bumped up for a few months last year. They had already fallen back to miniscule amounts before the end of the year. You keep confusing market reality with a blip.  Then you have to consider that our demand for oil will soon start decreasing as EVs take over. We have no intention of letting up the pressure on Russia. 

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Legislating a ban and then easily replacing what was banned is the definition of permanent market destruction. Russian imports were miniscule until they bumped up for a few months last year. They had already fallen back to miniscule amounts before the end of the year. You keep confusing market reality with a blip.  Then you have to consider that our demand for oil will soon start decreasing as EVs take over. We have no intention of letting up the pressure on Russia. 

 

See if we care. The global demand for oil is not going anywhere, anytime soon. The US has never been that large of a trade partner for Russia. Tell me when you find an easy replacement for Russian titanium, palladium and uranium, though.

You have no intention on letting up pressure also on Iran. Or Venezuela. Or Cuba. Waiting for you to choke from trying to sanction everybody else and their mom.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine