Europe’s Green Deal: Same Hysteria, Same Destruction

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/7/2020 at 9:20 AM, ronwagn said:

I have also wondered about dimming due to volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, and etc. Plants might have sufficient light but it might be too cold. What do you think? Would the event, most likely, be too short?

Actually Ron, it was the dimming from both "car smog" and coal in the fifties and sixties that made scientists think we were in for global cooling at the time. It was a "negative feedback" event initially, until CO2 overwhelmed it (because CO2 stays in the air much longer than smog), and now we are experiencing "positive feedbacks" from melting tundra releasing methane etc.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

22 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Last try, I typing the URL and hope u can see it? After all, Bloomberg let me share to Facebook, u might be a subscriber and if not, u get 3 free articles per month any way?!? Dang it, didn't work! Still, if u haven't used ur 3 free articles yet, pls visit Bloomberg site, open menu, select "Green", and search for "Shell solar Australia", and after scrolling a bit, u should find it

This one?

Shell to Build First Big Solar Plant in Move to Power Production

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

Actually Ron, it was the dimming from both "car smog" and coal in the fifties and sixties that made scientists think we were in for global cooling at the time. It was a "negative feedback" event initially, until CO2 overwhelmed it (because CO2 stays in the air much longer than smog), and now we are experiencing "positive feedbacks" from melting tundra releasing methane etc.

The whole world has been emitting methane since biological life first began. I am sure it slowed during the ice ages however. I doubt the smog back then was much compared to what the world puts out now. Los Angeles was far worse at times. I remember the achy lungs as a kid, but only outdoors after exertion. It was actually pretty rare. We even had incinerators in the fifties until they were banned. Imagine incinerators in L.A. today. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This one?

Shell to Build First Big Solar Plant in Move to Power Production

(Bloomberg) -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc will build its first large-scale solar farm as part of its plan to expand into power generation.

 

 

 

Shell, which has set itself a goal to become the world’s top electricity producer by 2030, expects to complete the plant in Queensland, Australia, early next year. The facility will indirectly supply the company’s QGC liquefied natural gas export facility, reducing that project’s carbon footprint.

“Solar is one of the building blocks of Shell’s power strategy,” said Greg Joiner, Vice-President for Shell Energy in Australia. “We are increasingly incorporating renewable energy into customer offers, as we have done here for QGC.”

The Hague-based company last year announced a deal to buy ERM Power Ltd., the second-largest electricity retailer to commercial and industry customers in Australia. It also bought a 49% stake in Australian solar developer ESCO Pacific.

The 400,000-panel, 120-megawatt solar farm’s location at Wandoan, around 400 kilometers (250 miles) west of Brisbane, was selected “due to its natural advantages for solar generation,” as well as its close proximity to existing power infrastructure and the QCG facility, Shell said.

To contact the reporter on this story: James Thornhill in Sydney at jthornhill3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Ramsey Al-Rikabi at ralrikabi@bloomberg.net, Rob Verdonck

 

Sounds like a crazy idea to me, when you can use your own natural gas. RCW

 

 

 

 

•  

Edited February 8, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 2/4/2020 at 7:59 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

California takes huge amounts of water from the drainage basins in the Rocky Mountain states due to agreements made decades ago. In my opinion these agreements are no longer valid.

It goes to growing animal feed for Saudi Arabia who owns the land, and now, the water rights.  They banned growing alfalfa in their own country as it wastes too much water.  Smart guys; you can live without oil, but not without water.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia

Edited February 8, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

The whole world has been emitting methane since biological life first began. I am sure it slowed during the ice ages however. I doubt the smog back then was much compared to what the world puts out now. Los Angeles was far worse at times. I remember the achy lungs as a kid, but only outdoors after exertion. It was actually pretty rare. We even had incinerators in the fifties until they were banned. Imagine incinerators in L.A. today. 

People love to hate on California but without their strong environmental stance most of the US would be far more polluted today.  For example lawn mowers would run on 2 stroke; they banned that so all the manufactures who wanted to sell to Californians changed to 4-stroke.  Everyone benefits from cleaner air due to a California law and the market pressure they can exert.

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Yes, we are all grateful for Germany footing the bill for the optimization of renewables, as we are also grateful  to such luminaries as California. However, the consequent $0.40/kwh in both CA and Germany make them remarkably bad places to build a business that uses lots of grid energy. And they raise the cost of living. So much so that middle class people leave. 

That is not beneficial structurally for the economy. And demotes your competitiveness ranking with something that costs you money. It may have been a good thing for humanity at large, but not for Germany nor CA. 

I believe Germany has the biggest balance of trade surplus on the planet (or if not No.2). 

I believe much of the cost increase are taxes, the largest proportion of which are general taxes rather than taxes to support renewables. 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, El Nikko said:

But batteries aren't exactly green are they? Germany caused(1) a massive overload of neighbouring countries grids when they were over producing electricity from wind.

I've got no problem with a diverse energy source but you people are insane...it's just blah blah blah

Where are the grown ups? Wait...what's that? Yes they're hiding because the grown ups are sick of being attacked by mentally ill leftist activists(2)

Germany isn't in a great situation right now(3)...not sure you've noticed that?

1. Caused - the past hence this problem has now been largely resolved. 

2. That's the spirit! When all semblance of a rational debate on the pros and cons of renewables / other energy sources disappears resort to the old tried and tested approach of accusing the other party of being mad, leftists, commies, SJW's etc etc etc....😂

3. Germany has the biggest / or second biggest trade surplus on the planet. Renewables has not exactly hammered their economy. Europe is drifting into a general recession and probably kick started by Corona Virus. That's just economic cycles. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Algae exists. 

CO2 more readily dissolves in cool water. Warm it up and it outgases. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

Actually Ron, it was the dimming from both "car smog" and coal in the fifties and sixties that made scientists think we were in for global cooling at the time. It was a "negative feedback" event initially, until CO2 overwhelmed it (because CO2 stays in the air much longer than smog), and now we are experiencing "positive feedbacks" from melting tundra releasing methane etc.

Apparently people are now jumping on the ‘greenhouse gases from melting permafrost’ bandwagon. I guess cows belching and farting were not impressive enough.

I would have assumed any ‘dimming’ caused by coal and smog would have been relatively localized, but hey, let’s not put real data out there to support our bias!

I think I’ll sit back and watch New Yorkers freeze their butts off after prohibiting any further fossil fuel infrastructure.....hold on....they’ll just move to California and live on the streets.

[NickW + 2,714]

57 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Apparently people are now jumping on the ‘greenhouse gases from melting permafrost’ bandwagon. I guess cows belching and farting were not impressive enough.

I would have assumed any ‘dimming’ caused by coal and smog would have been relatively localized, but hey, let’s not put real data out there to support our bias!

I think I’ll sit back and watch New Yorkers freeze their butts off after prohibiting any further fossil fuel infrastructure.....hold on....they’ll just move to California and live on the streets.

Lets put some real facts to this.

Coal source particulate pollution along with acidic aerosols from the UK and Germany back in the 1960's to 1980's extended over the whole of Scandinavia and into Russia and the Arctic. 

This issue was generally resolved by better particulate capture (cyclone and electrostatic filters), flue gas desulphurisation, and of course the dash to gas which shut down the bulk of older less efficient coal fired plants. 

The dimming phenomena has reduced in the west but is prevalent in SE Asia and the Middle East. 

I distinctly recall the 'Bromine cloud' that seemed to envelop the entire coastline of Eastern Saudi Arabia when I was doing offshore work with Aramco.  One of the delights of burning semi refined crude and refineries 50 years behind western equivalents. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Perhaps, but the ‘dimming’ from the sources in the UK and Germany would have become exponentially weaker the farther from the source. At what point does it actually become insignificant?

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

In reading this thread, there are several peculiar references to California--both complimentary and pejorative. Notably absent is about the only thing in California that truly intrigues me: the impact of a major earthquake. 

I have always been amazed that the aqueducts providing water to a vast population living in southern California all cross the San Andreas Fault, sometimes crisscrossing it like errant needlepoint. This is true of both canals draining the Sierra Nevada snowpack/watershed as well as the Colorado River Project. 

This gets more interesting: there are dilapidated oilfields near much of the San Andreas. The Lost Hills field has 35,000 wells. Sour, at that. 

California has, for some reason, largely neglected the fact that earthquakes result in natural fracturing of the rock as tectonic plates slide under immense pressure, and that voluminous rock-borne gases are emitted when fracturing occurs. For example, the most reliable index of something bad in the making before the Loma Prieta earthquake of '89 was the dramatic spike of helium gas in a shallow well--this occurred 24 hours before the quake registered! Not surprisingly, the most common noxious gas emitted during earthquakes is hydrogen sulfide. The noble gases are in much less supply, but probably serve as the best markers. 

The point of all this rambling? It's well and good for California to be respectful of the environment and the part their large population plays in messing it up, but there are fault lines (San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward) that pretty well run through the entirety of the state, and there are plentiful supplies of hydrogen sulfide in proximity to most of it. And furthermore, an earthquake in the worst possible stretch (about 100 miles long) would destroy water supplies to twenty-million people. Perhaps most telling, though, at least to this thread, is that gases escaping from the crust would almost certainly ignite, causing multiple explosions and casting a cloud over the millions of solar panels that are going up in the desert. Now that would represent real dimming!

So should they cease and desist? Of course not. But in typical California-dreamin' mentality, the most populous state is living on something that, on a day-by-day basis, poses a far greater natural disaster and economic threat to the United States of America than the utilization of hydrocarbons conceivably could. I'm not rooting for such a disaster, and it may not occur for hundreds or even thousands of years, but statistically it will.

Why? Because California was made from sections of land that drifted in and collided, as beautifully outlined in John McPhee's Annals of the Former World. He even calls that chapter, "Assembling California." This unique assembly rendered the state prone to a form of "disassembly." None of this takes into account the vast array of noxious gases that regularly emit from forest fires. It dazes me how many natural disasters lie in wait for our most sanctimonious state. I wish them good fortune, but would caution against excessive hubris and lecturing the world.

[Wombat + 1,028]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The whole world has been emitting methane since biological life first began. I am sure it slowed during the ice ages however. I doubt the smog back then was much compared to what the world puts out now. Los Angeles was far worse at times. I remember the achy lungs as a kid, but only outdoors after exertion. It was actually pretty rare. We even had incinerators in the fifties until they were banned. Imagine incinerators in L.A. today. 

All true Ron, but I disagree that "the greenies caused global warming" coz they got rid of the smog! Haze from China now covers 2/3 of Pacific Ocean. Now Methane is on track to overtake CO2 within a decade as worlds worst greenhouse gas. Indeed, the greatest threat to the climate is if the oceans warm enough to release the Methane Clathrates, (please see Wikipedia).

[Wombat + 1,028]

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This one?

Shell to Build First Big Solar Plant in Move to Power Production

That's the one. First thing I learnt about during my business degree was the "company life cycle". Shell clearly does not want to be the next Kodak! I wouldn't mind betting that they are keeping a close eye on Australian H2 production from renewables as well (big solar/wind powered plant under construction in WA). If I were CEO of Exxon or Chevron, I would be taking it very seriously

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Perhaps, but the ‘dimming’ from the sources in the UK and Germany would have become exponentially weaker the farther from the source. At what point does it actually become insignificant?

Britain and Germany weren't the only countries burning large quantities of Coal in the 1960's to 1980's. However the Phenomena of acid rain and particulate haze were well studied in that region. 

So its reasonable to assume that similar conditions were found across various locations on the planet - USA. Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Japan. Korea, Middle East (mainly from oil burn), SE Australia, India. 

Coincidentally when I lived in Saudi Arabia although it was freakingly hot it was actually quite hard to get sun burned because of the amount of shyte in the atmosphere

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

That's the one. First thing I learnt about during my business degree was the "company life cycle". Shell clearly does not want to be the next Kodak! I wouldn't mind betting that they are keeping a close eye on Australian H2 production from renewables as well (big solar/wind powered plant under construction in WA). If I were CEO of Exxon or Chevron, I would be taking it very seriously

Good point. My wife did her Research Masters on using Algae as a source of oil and worked on a commercial project for two years. While viable for niche products not viable for fuel at that time. Most of the money came from the Oil industry. It was peanuts but gave them an insight into whether these technologies were likely to be runners in the  short / medium term.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

All true Ron, but I disagree that "the greenies caused global warming" coz they got rid of the smog! Haze from China now covers 2/3 of Pacific Ocean. Now Methane is on track to overtake CO2 within a decade as worlds worst greenhouse gas. Indeed, the greatest threat to the climate is if the oceans warm enough to release the Methane Clathrates, (please see Wikipedia).

My biggest recommendation is to use natural gas rather than coal as the world's cleanest affordable option. I have been promoting it for eight years. It is quite doable, but it has to be done by China, India, and all coal burning countries, not just America, Australia, Canada, and Europe, the ones that are already doing it. 

Natural gas replacing most diesel is the second priority. 

Renewables certainly will not do it alone unless some new technology comes along. 

Global Warming propaganda is what has kept us from using natural gas. Fighting against the best solution is not helpful in eliminating real pollution or CO2. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Good point. My wife did her Research Masters on using Algae as a source of oil and worked on a commercial project for two years. While viable for niche products not viable for fuel at that time. Most of the money came from the Oil industry. It was peanuts but gave them an insight into whether these technologies were likely to be runners in the  short / medium term.

Australia's CSIRO has developed way to turn plastic back into oil which looks promising, but also not viable whilst oil price so ridiculously low. I am betting that will change in about a decade as the low-cost conventional oil runs out. Hope so

[Wombat + 1,028]

38 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

My biggest recommendation is to use natural gas rather than coal as the world's cleanest affordable option. I have been promoting it for eight years. It is quite doable, but it has to be done by China, India, and all coal burning countries, not just America, Australia, Canada, and Europe, the ones that are already doing it. 

Natural gas replacing most diesel is the second priority. 

Renewables certainly will not do it alone unless some new technology comes along. 

Global Warming propaganda is what has kept us from using natural gas. Fighting against the best solution is not helpful in eliminating real pollution or CO2. 

NG is not even close to most affordable in China and India. Costs of freezing into LNG and re-gasification at other end very high. Also, I believe that NG is the most clean, affordable option for cold countries with their own resource (or piped), and that it should be conserved for that purpose for future generations. World has limited supply of Helium as well. Crazy that we still use it for kids balloons?!?

[Wombat + 1,028]

Just now, Wombat said:

NG is not even close to most affordable in China and India. Costs of freezing into LNG and re-gasification at other end very high. Also, I believe that NG is the most clean, affordable option for cold countries with their own resource (or piped), and that it should be conserved for that purpose for future generations. World has limited supply of Helium as well. Crazy that we still use it for kids balloons?!?

Sorry, I meant best for heating homes!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

People love to hate on California but without their strong environmental stance most of the US would be far more polluted today.  For example lawn mowers would run on 2 stroke; they banned that so all the manufactures who wanted to sell to Californians changed to 4-stroke.  Everyone benefits from cleaner air due to a California law and the market pressure they can exert.

California has led on a number of good regulations, but they are now leading on a number of bad regulations, laws, ideas, and culture. I am in California visiting right now. Their housing is a mess. In the far from Los Angeles Inland Empire a new house costs a minimum of about half a million dollars. My first house, half the distance from Los Angeles is now worth nearly that but cost me 23,000 when it was 50 years newer. I remember getting signatures for Proposition 13 hometax limitations. It was so well written they are still scheming to find a way around it. They make wording on propositions in very cunning ways to get want they wand or not get what they don't want. 

They recently passed a law so that the top two primary candidates get on the ballot rather than one necessarily being a Republican. 

Edited February 12, 2020 by ronwagn
error

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

15 hours ago, NickW said:

CO2 more readily dissolves in cool water. Warm it up and it outgases. 

Warming also increases the rate of solvation. 

Look.. I'm not arguing against the idea of climate change, I'm arguing against the idea of a climate apocalypse. I think it's possible that we may in fact run out of oil before we inflict a climate change apocalypse. Upon reaching that point, Earth will simply heal itself (if major damage was done to begin with) in the ways demonstrated so far. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 minutes ago, Wombat said:

NG is not even close to most affordable in China and India. Costs of freezing into LNG and re-gasification at other end very high. Also, I believe that NG is the most clean, affordable option for cold countries with their own resource (or piped), and that it should be conserved for that purpose for future generations. World has limited supply of Helium as well. Crazy that we still use it for kids balloons?!?

Natural gas is super abundant and needs to be used rather than flared. It needs to be used now to keep the price of energy down. China and India can get piped natural gas from Russia, The Stan countries of Central Asia, and find it in China, including biogas. Coal use is very bad for the health of their own people as well as the rest of the world. Coal to gas or gasoline technology is another option, though less desirable. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Australia's CSIRO has developed way to turn plastic back into oil which looks promising, but also not viable whilst oil price so ridiculously low. I am betting that will change in about a decade as the low-cost conventional oil runs out. Hope so

Natural gas would still be the best choice. It can be turned into gasoline and replace oil use in many products. It can run any ICE vehicle including ships, locomotives, and specially designed airplanes. High oil prices would eventually force more rapid adoption. 

Natural gas will also be the largest fuel used to produce electricity for all uses including electric vehicles. It is the cleanest and most economical fuel to use for heating in cold climates or to produce electricity for air conditioning in hot areas or seasons.