Environmentalists Also Hate U.S. LNG

U.S. fossil fuel exports spur growth, climate worries

Does anyone with the ability for rational thinking believe we can just drop all fossil fuels overnight and go for solar and wind? Seriously, what is wrong with these people? I thought LNG/gas is the gold middle ground, the transit fuel, so to speak, but obviously not to everyone.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

U.S. fossil fuel exports spur growth, climate worries

Does anyone with the ability for rational thinking believe we can just drop all fossil fuels overnight and go for solar and wind? Seriously, what is wrong with these people? I thought LNG/gas is the gold middle ground, the transit fuel, so to speak, but obviously not to everyone.

You missed the entire point of the article.

LNG is not bad.  Only LNG from Trump - led USA is bad.  Obama era LNG from USA was worrying but acceptable. 

But LNG from Trump era USA endangers the entire world !

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome on a global scale.  Really.  Why only single out USA LNG?  Qatar and Australia LNG must be good, but apparently only Trump turns American LNG into global climate change disaster.

 

@Marina Schwarz seriously, re-read the article.   

● Look how USA is singled out. 

● Look how Obama is given a relative pass.

● The real trouble only started when Trump became president of USA.

● USA LNG bad; Trump bad.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

U.S. fossil fuel exports spur growth, climate worries

Does anyone with the ability for rational thinking believe we can just drop all fossil fuels overnight and go for solar and wind? Seriously, what is wrong with these people? I thought LNG/gas is the gold middle ground, the transit fuel, so to speak, but obviously not to everyone.

I don't know any environmentalist that thinks we can drop fossil fuels over night, I hear a lot of people involved with the fossil fuel world saying that's what environmentalists think. The hope was with NG it was going to be the least bad fuel we could use as renewables and other tech matured. Unfortunately the gas industry has been badly ran on the environmental side, the amount of gas leaked is horrendous, then with fracking many other issues. Luckily renewables and such have developed far faster than just about anyone thought (including those that the fossil fuel world laughed at for being so unrealistic).

You would have to be a fool to invest in large projects for fossil fuels unless those profits could be made in a very very tight market. What most environmentalists are calling for is a large investment in renewables as this will be better for the environment and is fast becoming the economic choice. It won't be over night that the fossil fuel industry as it is today will come crashing down but we can expect it to start really showing by 2025ish.

The question "what is wrong with these people?" more comes to mind when you hear the rubbish coming from people such as Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih on EV's. His recent comments have been ludicrous to say the least, he is the one making serious miscalculations about EV's and the global energy security. Sometimes I think the fossil fuel world lives in a different reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DA? said:

The question "what is wrong with these people?" more comes to mind when you hear the rubbish coming from people such as Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih on EV's. His recent comments have been ludicrous to say the least, he is the one making serious miscalculations about EV's and the global energy security. Sometimes I think the fossil fuel world lives in a different reality

He has a professional obligation to say these things. If he said that oil demand will peak before 2025 investors would be scared.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

U.S. fossil fuel exports spur growth, climate worries

Does anyone with the ability for rational thinking believe we can just drop all fossil fuels overnight and go for solar and wind? Seriously, what is wrong with these people? I thought LNG/gas is the gold middle ground, the transit fuel, so to speak, but obviously not to everyone.

It won't happen overnight, but the transition will be over in a decade, at an accelerating pace. The problem with LNG is that it can't compete with the price of solar. I agree that environmentalists are usually crazy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You missed the entire point of the article.

LNG is not bad.  Only LNG from Trump - led USA is bad.  Obama era LNG from USA was worrying but acceptable. 

But LNG from Trump era USA endangers the entire world !

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome on a global scale.  Really.  Why only single out USA LNG?  Qatar and Australia LNG must be good, but apparently only Trump turns American LNG into global climate change disaster.

 

@Marina Schwarz seriously, re-read the article.   

● Look how USA is singled out. 

● Look how Obama is given a relative pass.

● The real trouble only started when Trump became president of USA.

● USA LNG bad; Trump bad.

Meh, politics and TDS (good one!)

@JunoTen, what do you mean LNG can't compete with solar on price?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

@JunoTen, what do you mean LNG can't compete with solar on price?

For electricity production solar has already become the cheaper option in many markets, give it another 6 years and then basically the NG market goes in a tail spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LNG is one of the great and standard firm among the oil sector,their orientation and agreement of dropping fossil fuels is not encouraging i must say,though the solar and wind energy of a thing is also a fast rate of supplying electricity but nevertheless FOSSIL option is still the best ok...#BELIEVE THAT#

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DA? said:

I don't know any environmentalist that thinks we can drop fossil fuels over night, I hear a lot of people involved with the fossil fuel world saying that's what environmentalists think. The hope was with NG it was going to be the least bad fuel we could use as renewables and other tech matured. Unfortunately the gas industry has been badly ran on the environmental side, the amount of gas leaked is horrendous, then with fracking many other issues. Luckily renewables and such have developed far faster than just about anyone thought (including those that the fossil fuel world laughed at for being so unrealistic).

You would have to be a fool to invest in large projects for fossil fuels unless those profits could be made in a very very tight market. What most environmentalists are calling for is a large investment in renewables as this will be better for the environment and is fast becoming the economic choice. It won't be over night that the fossil fuel industry as it is today will come crashing down but we can expect it to start really showing by 2025ish.

The question "what is wrong with these people?" more comes to mind when you hear the rubbish coming from people such as Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih on EV's. His recent comments have been ludicrous to say the least, he is the one making serious miscalculations about EV's and the global energy security. Sometimes I think the fossil fuel world lives in a different reality. 

 

it has enabled America to surpass the air quality of Europe at a much lower cost. Europe has greatly harmed itself by not adopting the natural gas revolution. The Third World is where logic will eventually win out. They desperately need natural gas to replace coal! They can use it for all purposes including transportation and the shift is already occurring.

I have little against wind and solar, but I do not think they are ready to compete with natural gas either piped or as LNG. They currently only provide a very small part of worldwide energy production. Natural gas is more abundant than oil and is less expensive. It is also much cleaner. Methanol can be made from it or it can be used directly with well established technology. 

image_thumb43.png?w=655&h=433

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Natural gas is the fastest growing clean energy bar none. It has replaced coal to a great extent in developing countries and has enabled America to surpass Europe by replacing a lot of coal use. Renewables have not proven that they can be competitive with natural gas or oil. Natural gas is used in many countries for transportation and is the premier heating fuel. It can replace shale oil as the low priced transportation fuel which is cleaner than diesel or gasoline. It is more abundant than oil and cheaper. It has a proven track record as a transportation fuel and can even be made into methanol. Any rational environmentalist should support natural gas use while developing their other technologies that can actually compete in the real world. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Yf0MWpo91vrlu-mmJtjB1ERukjJo5W41oi4RZVQBug/edit

image_thumb43.png?w=655&h=433

Edited by ronwagn
addition
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas is the fastest growing clean energy bar none. It has replaced coal to a great extent in developing countries and has enabled America to surpass Europe by replacing a lot of coal use. Renewables have not proven that they can be competitive with natural gas or oil. Natural gas is used in many countries for transportation and is the premier heating fuel. It can replace shale oil as the low priced transportation fuel which is cleaner than diesel or gasoline. It is more abundant than oil and cheaper. It has a proven track record as a transportation fuel and can even be made into methanol. Any rational environmentalist should support natural gas use while developing their other technologies that can actually compete in the real world. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Yf0MWpo91vrlu-mmJtjB1ERukjJo5W41oi4RZVQBug/edit

image_thumb43.png?w=655&h=433

It used to be a good idea but renewables and EV's have matured enough now to start taking over from fossil fuels. Investing in NG now just doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DA? said:

It used to be a good idea but renewables and EV's have matured enough now to start taking over from fossil fuels. Investing in NG now just doesn't make sense.

In light of all the facts you just rolled out in that statement it is difficult to mount an opposing view, but the words "einough now to start taking over" would seem to be what one would say when the percentage of renewables and EV's are @85.1% but I only see @9%.  Am I missing something?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 1:50 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

Meh, politics and TDS (good one!)

@JunoTen, what do you mean LNG can't compete with solar on price?

Solar is the cheapest form of energy. It will only get cheaper.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

In light of all the facts you just rolled out in that statement it is difficult to mount an opposing view, but the words "einough now to start taking over" would seem to be what one would say when the percentage of renewables and EV's are @85.1% but I only see @9%.  Am I missing something?

You're missing the trend. The trend is explosive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

In light of all the facts you just rolled out in that statement it is difficult to mount an opposing view, but the words "einough now to start taking over" would seem to be what one would say when the percentage of renewables and EV's are @85.1% but I only see @9%.  Am I missing something?

Not sure what numbers you are quoting. I think you maybe missing something or a few things. Any large project involved with fossil fuels will take about 10 years from the start of planning to being paid off (if prices are decent). The cost of installing renewables and other infrastructure is now getting below gas now but in another few years almost all markets will be on the renewable's favour, already about 50% of new installations for electricity are renewables. Those large fossil fuel projects will become stranded assets. These renewable projects can be done in smaller projects as required and a lot quicker. Why would you want to continue on the road of fossil fuels when they are becoming more expensive even when their external costs aren't taken in to account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DA? said:

Not sure what numbers you are quoting. I think you maybe missing something or a few things. Any large project involved with fossil fuels will take about 10 years from the start of planning to being paid off (if prices are decent). The cost of installing renewables and other infrastructure is now getting below gas now but in another few years almost all markets will be on the renewable's favour, already about 50% of new installations for electricity are renewables. Those large fossil fuel projects will become stranded assets. These renewable projects can be done in smaller projects as required and a lot quicker. Why would you want to continue on the road of fossil fuels when they are becoming more expensive even when their external costs aren't taken in to account?

50% of what new installations, where?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DA? said:

Not sure what numbers you are quoting. I think you maybe missing something or a few things. Any large project involved with fossil fuels will take about 10 years from the start of planning to being paid off (if prices are decent). The cost of installing renewables and other infrastructure is now getting below gas now but in another few years almost all markets will be on the renewable's favour, already about 50% of new installations for electricity are renewables. Those large fossil fuel projects will become stranded assets. These renewable projects can be done in smaller projects as required and a lot quicker. Why would you want to continue on the road of fossil fuels when they are becoming more expensive even when their external costs aren't taken in to account?

Just added up the pieces of the pie, in the chart shown.  The thing about trends is that they also have a tendency to reverse or go sideways, so I would only comment that we'll have to wait and see where we are in a few years.  It's okay to be positive and all, and let's hope we do indeed see it, but saying that it IS going to happen on such a scale and in such a period of time seems rather optimistic.  I'm okay with continuing down the road of fossil fuels, and the cost will go up and the cost will go down, and when the cost of going with renewables makes sense I am happy to go with that.  I'll just have to figure out how to trade renewables then.  :) 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2018 at 12:08 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

U.S. fossil fuel exports spur growth, climate worries

Does anyone with the ability for rational thinking believe we can just drop all fossil fuels overnight and go for solar and wind? Seriously, what is wrong with these people? I thought LNG/gas is the gold middle ground, the transit fuel, so to speak, but obviously not to everyone. 

 

On 12/31/2018 at 12:32 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

You missed the entire point of the article.

 LNG is not bad.  Only LNG from Trump - led USA is bad.  Obama era LNG from USA was worrying but acceptable. 

But LNG from Trump era USA endangers the entire world !

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome on a global scale.  Really.  Why only single out USA LNG?  Qatar and Australia LNG must be good, but apparently only Trump turns American LNG into global climate change disaster.

 

@Marina Schwarz seriously, re-read the article.   

● Look how USA is singled out. 

● Look how Obama is given a relative pass.

● The real trouble only started when Trump became president of USA.

● USA LNG bad; Trump bad.

I recently had some conversations with older, more experienced people on the subject of religion, culture, and the human tendency to experience anxiety.  I also sat in on several different Christian services to gain perspective after years in the secular world.  I noted that, regardless of my personal beliefs, I had to respect the peace of mind, social stability, and general happiness these people had achieved through religion.  Whatever logical faults religion may have, it works. 

From that, I noted that regardless of what "faith" one professes and which specific beliefs one holds, human beings have a psychological need for something greater, and that thing has always been religion.  Religion is not about advancing an ideology, despite often being commandeered for that purpose.  It's about handling the human condition in a way that minimizes anxiety, panic, and violence.  To put that in perspective, read about the insane homicide rates prehistoric tribes suffered.  At some point, modern institutions - of which religion is one - emerged to bring order to that chaos. 

A specific example: the Catholic practice of confession was created to ease the mind of the person confessing and allow them to move past whatever mistake they made.  Ever heard someone brag about their crimes or watched a movie where the villain monologues?  That's an expression of the very real human need to confess our "sins" and be brought back into communion with our fellow man.  We all have that need because we're human and humans are social creatures.  We ignore that need to our own peril.

Now consider modern US leftists - and much of the modern world, for that matter.  They saw blatant abuse of religion for political/financial ends - which is a real and very serious thing - and decided to abolish religion.  In doing so, they threw out the ancient practices and institutions humanity developed to keep ourselves sane and maintain functional societies.  They did not develop new institutions to replace the functions religion served, although modern psychiatry is making a ham-handed attempt that may be doing more harm than good.

In the absence of necessary institutions, belief in science and socialism filled the gap.  Talking to the average US leftist is interesting because they sing the praises of science and socialism, but know very little of those subjects.  What they have is belief.  Science is their god and socialism their religion - and these are expected to rescue them from the trials and tribulations of their mortal existence.  This was manageable while they had Pope Obama, their religion was ascendant, and science smiled upon them.  It wasn't perfect - they still lacked the traditions and practices humanity has relied upon for millennia, leaving them to marinate in their own anxiety - but the wheels hadn't come off completely. 

Now enter Trump, who for them is the emotional equivalent of the Antichrist.  For two years, they've watched as the antichrist sits upon their religion's throne, assaulting their god and destroying their hopes of building heaven on earth.  With nothing of substance to sooth them, this has been quite the traumatic experience. 

In other words, admitting there is anything good about Trump would destroy their faith and their religion.  With nothing else to lean on, that loss would cast them into an emotional hell.  They simply cannot. 

Snowflakes indeed. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, mthebold said:

... In the absence of necessary institutions, belief in science and socialism filled the gap.  Talking to the average US leftist is interesting because they sing the praises of science and socialism, but know very little of those subjects.  What they have is belief.  Science is their god and socialism their religion - and these are expected to rescue them from the trials and tribulations of their mortal existence.  This was manageable while they had Pope Obama, their religion was ascendant, and science smiled upon them.  It wasn't perfect - they still lacked the traditions and practices humanity has relied upon for millennia, leaving them to marinate in their own anxiety - but the wheels hadn't come off completely. 

Now enter Trump, who for them is the emotional equivalent of the Antichrist.  For two years, they've watched as the antichrist sits upon their religion's throne, assaulting their god and destroying their hopes of building heaven on earth.  With nothing of substance to sooth them, this has been quite the traumatic experience. 

In other words, admitting there is anything good about Trump would destroy their faith and their religion.  With nothing else to lean on, that loss would cast them into an emotional hell.  They simply cannot. 

^ well said.  Poetic logic.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

^ well said.  Poetic logic.

Thanks.  I attribute any success to the much-needed practice y'all have given me. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

In light of all the facts you just rolled out in that statement it is difficult to mount an opposing view, but the words "einough now to start taking over" would seem to be what one would say when the percentage of renewables and EV's are @85.1% but I only see @9%.  Am I missing something?

Hydro has been around for many decades, I would limit to the 2% if wind and solar. Drought also makes hydro not reliable as was recently found out in Argentina. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JunoTen said:

Solar is the cheapest form of energy. It will only get cheaper.

Could you perhaps supply some comparative figures, please? This is news to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mthebold said:

In other words, admitting there is anything good about Trump would destroy their faith and their religion.  With nothing else to lean on, that loss would cast them into an emotional hell.  They simply cannot

Does the opposite not also apply to Trump fans? 

Interesting how balanced you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hope that's explains:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write

More on father of "climate change" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

Why Big Oil Conquered the World on corbettreport is an entertaining material (red pill alert)

At one of the industry conferences keynote speaker introduced "CAVE men" concept - Citizens Against Virtually Everything. I guess this includes LNG.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

hope that's explains:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write

More on father of "climate change" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

Why Big Oil Conquered the World on corbettreport is an entertaining material (red pill alert)

At one of the industry conferences keynote speaker introduced "CAVE men" concept - Citizens Against Virtually Everything. I guess this includes LNG.

Those links are certainly intriguing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites