Europe’s Green Deal: Same Hysteria, Same Destruction

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

19 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

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

It's ironic because alfalfa is drought resistant because of its deep roots. We have around 200 acres of it, and though rainfall was scant for many years until 2019, we still had a good yield. Obviously you don't have the same moisture reserves underground in saudi arabia as you would in South Dakota. Oh well.

[Wombat + 1,028]

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

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. 

I disagree. I think Texas building wind farms for a good reason?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

It's ironic because alfalfa is drought resistant because of its deep roots. We have around 200 acres of it, and though rainfall was scant for many years until 2019, we still had a good yield. Obviously you don't have the same moisture reserves underground in saudi arabia as you would in South Dakota. Oh well.

Genetic engineering has done wonders for producing drought resistant corn. We can have a pretty dry year and still get at least 70% of a normal crop. My neighbor grows a little alfalfa and he has never had a bad crop. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Wombat said:

I disagree. I think Texas building wind farms for a good reason?

I like wind farms in the badlands of Texas. They seem to make economic sense there. There are few fantastic vistas to ruin in those areas and few people. I do not like seeing them in picturesque areas around the country or world though. I would like to see them far enough offshore in the Great Lakes so they were beyond the horizon, same with our ocean coasts.  There is plenty of wind there. They sure beat coal and seem much more successful than solar so far.

Solar is also unsightly, but cannot be seen as far away. I can't figure out why it isn't commonly used on large big box buildings and warehouses. I was hoping that the thin solar and paint solar would work out. Solar shingles also. We will see what kind of impact it can have. It is now mandated on new California homes supposedly, but I am not seeing it going on the roofs. There are hundreds of thousands on few half million dollar homes going up near where I am right now. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I like wind farms in the badlands of Texas. They seem to make economic sense there. There are few fantastic vistas to ruin in those areas and few people. I do not like seeing them in picturesque areas around the country or world though. I would like to see them far enough offshore in the Great Lakes so they were beyond the horizon, same with our ocean coasts.  There is plenty of wind there. They sure beat coal and seem much more successful than solar so far.

Solar is also unsightly, but cannot be seen as far away. I can't figure out why it isn't commonly used on large big box buildings and warehouses. I was hoping that the thin solar and paint solar would work out. Solar shingles also. We will see what kind of impact it can have. It is now mandated on new California homes supposedly, but I am not seeing it going on the roofs. There are hundreds of thousands on few half million dollar homes going up near where I am right now. 

Fair enough. I am not as anti-NG as you think. Doing wonders for Australian economy and helping reduce CO2 at same time, I just don't believe it always cheaper than solar or wind. Certainly not here. Domestic NG price went thru the roof when our LNG exports tripled. They call it "world parity pricing", and I suspect US will suffer same fate if u build as many LNG plants as planned. Also, I think there is a risk that China will not want all the extra supply the world is offering, in which case US LNG may be repeat of Shale oil disaster. Could take decades for investors to get their money back, if at all?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

8 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Solar shingles also.

Well, someone just posted on youtube the "NEW" version 3 Tesla roof.... $85k, 25 squares(average house), 17 DAYS to install, 12KW, 1 powerwall + pay for extra power wall.  So, +$90,000.   They also got the discount by owning two Teslas.  So much for the new and "improved" quick installation and cheaper cost. 

Can buy an aluminum roof good for at least two hundred years, 12KW panels, a Tesla 3 performance, and 2  power walls. 

You have to be super dense to get the solar shingles. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

30 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Genetic engineering has done wonders for producing drought resistant corn. We can have a pretty dry year and still get at least 70% of a normal crop. My neighbor grows a little alfalfa and he has never had a bad crop. 

Drought resistant corn: Easy: Higher CO2 % in the atmosphere.  Everything will be drought resistant. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Fair enough. I am not as anti-NG as you think. Doing wonders for Australian economy and helping reduce CO2 at same time, I just don't believe it always cheaper than solar or wind. Certainly not here. Domestic NG price went thru the roof when our LNG exports tripled. They call it "world parity pricing", and I suspect US will suffer same fate if u build as many LNG plants as planned. Also, I think there is a risk that China will not want all the extra supply the world is offering, in which case US LNG may be repeat of Shale oil disaster. Could take decades for investors to get their money back, if at all?

I am for the best solution to pollution ( and that rhymes). I just want to include all the pluses and minuses including the price. I never thought you were against natural gas, but many of the militants are. We are presently flaring natural gas as is OPEC so any use is a great thing IMHO.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

23 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I am for the best solution to pollution ( and that rhymes).

I think you could get elected with a slogan that good!  LOL!

[El Nikko + 2,145]

17 hours ago, NickW said:

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. 

Very funny you think that is some kind of strength. German economy relies on exports for ~50% of it's GDP bolstered by a weakened currency because of the Euro Crisis (not over). The US is putting them under immense pressure, the global economy has been on the edge of recession for 2 years at least (well before Coronavirus) and the Eurozone is in a giant mess only going to get worse after Brexit. Small tarrifs on German exports in going to cause them major issues in the future.

The problem with the global warming clowns is if they'd just been a bit more sensible we could have done this over the coming decades, but in a period of such uncertainty why on earth would anyone push for such a huge and extremely expensive change? 

Regarding debate, anyone who so much as offered a middle ground arguement or challenged the so called 'proven science' those people were shut out and some even lost their jobs. That's not scientific, no true scientist states a prediction or theory as absolute fact.

Time will tell

p.s there was a time I would spend a lot of time posting links, charts etc etc but it's a waste of time...I'm confident we'll all be laughing at you greenies in years to come because your claims will be proven to be rubbish.

p.p.s again I will ask why the rush, why the panic? Why not bridge a transition from fossil fuels to a balanced energy supply instead of trying to cripple the industry that has kept people warm and alive for decades.

Have a good one

 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

Multiple post...might as well use it up

The German economy has been on the ropes for at least 2 years...it's got nothing to do with Coroanvirus

Edited February 9, 2020 by El Nikko

[El Nikko + 2,145]

.

Edited February 9, 2020 by El Nikko

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, El Nikko said:

Very funny you think that is some kind of strength. German economy relies on exports for ~50% of it's GDP bolstered by a weakened currency because of the Euro Crisis (not over). The US is putting them under immense pressure, the global economy has been on the edge of recession for 2 years at least (well before Coronavirus) and the Eurozone is in a giant mess only going to get worse after Brexit. Small tarrifs on German exports in going to cause them major issues in the future.

The problem with the global warming clowns is if they'd just been a bit more sensible we could have done this over the coming decades, but in a period of such uncertainty why on earth would anyone push for such a huge and extremely expensive change? 

Regarding debate, anyone who so much as offered a middle ground arguement or challenged the so called 'proven science' those people were shut out and some even lost their jobs. That's not scientific, no true scientist states a prediction or theory as absolute fact.

Time will tell

p.s there was a time I would spend a lot of time posting links, charts etc etc but it's a waste of time...I'm confident we'll all be laughing at you greenies in years to come because your claims will be proven to be rubbish.

p.p.s again I will ask why the rush, why the panic? Why not bridge a transition from fossil fuels to a balanced energy supply instead of trying to cripple the industry that has kept people warm and alive for decades.

Have a good one

 

Outside of the walls of a lunatic asylum an economy with a balance of trade surplus is generally considered to be successful. While Germany's economic growth has been slow over the past year its growth rate has been reasonable for a large mature economy in the last decade. 

The Coronoavirus, if you read what I said was suggested as being the final push into a proper recession (where many countries are currently heading anyway). 

Can you cite some examples of people sacked from their jobs for taking a middle ground position? 

Edited February 9, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, El Nikko said:

Very funny you think that is some kind of strength. German economy relies on exports for ~50% of it's GDP bolstered by a weakened currency because of the Euro Crisis (not over). The US is putting them under immense pressure, the global economy has been on the edge of recession for 2 years at least (well before Coronavirus) and the Eurozone is in a giant mess only going to get worse after Brexit. Small tarrifs on German exports in going to cause them major issues in the future.

The problem with the global warming clowns is if they'd just been a bit more sensible we could have done this over the coming decades, but in a period of such uncertainty why on earth would anyone push for such a huge and extremely expensive change? 

Regarding debate, anyone who so much as offered a middle ground arguement or challenged the so called 'proven science' those people were shut out and some even lost their jobs. That's not scientific, no true scientist states a prediction or theory as absolute fact.

Time will tell

p.s there was a time I would spend a lot of time posting links, charts etc etc but it's a waste of time...I'm confident we'll all be laughing at you greenies in years to come because your claims will be proven to be rubbish.

p.p.s again I will ask why the rush, why the panic? Why not bridge a transition from fossil fuels to a balanced energy supply instead of trying to cripple the industry that has kept people warm and alive for decades.

Have a good one

 

According to this the 1st half of 2019 saw $120bn globally spent on renewables (excludes large Hydro) In 2017 it peaked at approx. $160bn. 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/07/11/global-renewables-investment-fell-in-the-first-half-of-this-year/

Against the size of the world economy which is about $82 trillion this is nothing.

So basically 0.15% of economic output is going into renewables some which will be replacing what would have been spent on conventional fossil fuel based generation anyway. 

Based on the above there is no panic and based on that expenditure the world will be using fossil fuels for a long time yet. 

I'd be interested to see how that expenditure compares with combined investments into oil, gas and coal. 

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I am for the best solution to pollution ( and that rhymes). I just want to include all the pluses and minuses including the price. I never thought you were against natural gas, but many of the militants are. We are presently flaring natural gas as is OPEC so any use is a great thing IMHO.

And Natural Gas is a really good half-way solution that can manage both base-load and peaking duties. It's unlikely that we'll get away from NG anytime soon unless surprise technologies module nuclear happen to take off. 

With the Saudis and their water problems. Because they can't afford plants that remove aquifer water, they have been experimenting with algal and halophyte bio-kerosene as a cash crop. Both of those allow for salt-water hydration, saving fresh water for human consumption and hopefully lowering airlines' carbon output.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 hours 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

I do not see the ‘low cost’ traditional oil running out in a decade. If the supposed over supply disappears and the price goes up to a reasonable level, you’ll see much more exploration, onshore and off, and more conventional oil will go to market.

Question: What is YOUR definition of “conventional oil”?

[Boat + 1,323]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I do not see the ‘low cost’ traditional oil running out in a decade. If the supposed over supply disappears and the price goes up to a reasonable level, you’ll see much more exploration, onshore and off, and more conventional oil will go to market.

Question: What is YOUR definition of “conventional oil”?

Who cares about conventional oil. That is so 1990. Biofuels run the same machines, nat gas liquids run the same machines, tar sands and LTO run the same machines. Restaurant grease can run the same machines. Nat gas with a different motor can run the same machines. 
If you want to be intellectually fair you look at the pool of products that supply transportation energy. And yes this includes coal.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Warming also increases the rate of solvation.

For solids heating increases the solubility; gas solubility decreases with temperature.

Mathematically:

Delta G = Delta H - T (Delta S)

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

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

13 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

For solids heating increases the solubility; gas solubility decreases with temperature.

Mathematically:

Delta G = Delta H - T (Delta S)

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

 

Cool. What's the ksp value for C02 at our new ocean temp? Also if this is the case then warming would cause a loss in capacity and in the rate of absorption. I'm still not very concerned though. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

8 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Cool. What's the ksp value for C02 at our new ocean temp? Also if this is the case then warming would cause a loss in capacity and in the rate of absorption. I'm still not very concerned though. 

Very, little change in equilibrium or kinetics (slightly lower capacity, slightly faster rate of change).

Just think of temperature in its true unit (Kelvin).  Half degree C of change near room temperature is 293.15K versus 293.55K (about 0.14% change).

However, with CO2 this becomes more complicated than an ideal gas due to its acidic properties and the bicarbonate buffering system (pKa and Ksp constants (eg.g carbonate rock) also change a bit with temperature).

[Wombat + 1,028]

8 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I do not see the ‘low cost’ traditional oil running out in a decade. If the supposed over supply disappears and the price goes up to a reasonable level, you’ll see much more exploration, onshore and off, and more conventional oil will go to market.

Question: What is YOUR definition of “conventional oil”?

My definition of conventional oil is "traditional" onshore + shallow-water offshore. Production peaked years ago. Now we rely heavily on fracking, tar sands and deep-water, all expensive.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

My definition of conventional oil is "traditional" onshore + shallow-water offshore. Production peaked years ago. Now we rely heavily on fracking, tar sands and deep-water, all expensive.

Indonesia is one country that is set to swing from net exporter to net importer in next 12 months and there is many others in the same boat. Vietnam, Malaysia, and then Australian reliance on foreign oil growing fast. So much depends on how quickly EV's gain ground.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

Indonesia is one country that is set to swing from net exporter to net importer in next 12 months and there is many others in the same boat. Vietnam, Malaysia, and then Australian reliance on foreign oil growing fast. So much depends on how quickly EV's gain ground.

Was just looking at Zero motorcycles. A nice piece of kit!

Suggested charging time - 80 minutes....not very nice.

Furthermore, where would you get it serviced or repaired if you did manage to take it on a reasonable ride? You’d need a specialized electrician, not a mechanic!

EV’s may be conceptually a good idea, but operationally, considering service after the sale, availability of parts and ability to go somewhere other than ‘around town’...they have a long way to go (pun intended).😂

[Wombat + 1,028]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

According to this the 1st half of 2019 saw $120bn globally spent on renewables (excludes large Hydro) In 2017 it peaked at approx. $160bn. 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/07/11/global-renewables-investment-fell-in-the-first-half-of-this-year/

Against the size of the world economy which is about $82 trillion this is nothing.

So basically 0.15% of economic output is going into renewables some which will be replacing what would have been spent on conventional fossil fuel based generation anyway. 

Based on the above there is no panic and based on that expenditure the world will be using fossil fuels for a long time yet. 

I'd be interested to see how that expenditure compares with combined investments into oil, gas and coal. 

Oil + Gas investment still approx. $500bn, coal investment collapsing.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, Boat said:

Who cares about conventional oil. That is so 1990. Biofuels run the same machines, nat gas liquids run the same machines, tar sands and LTO run the same machines. Restaurant grease can run the same machines. Nat gas with a different motor can run the same machines. 
If you want to be intellectually fair you look at the pool of products that supply transportation energy. And yes this includes coal.

This is a really crucial point. What we need is ENERGY to run machines. It can come from any fossil fuel or biologically produced fuel. There is no shortage and I cannot see any coming for a hundred years or beyond. Meanwhile let the other renewables do whatever they can economically. Just use the best available options. This requires the ability to think rationally and to examine all options rigorously and completely while maintaining an unbiased view. 

P.S. You do not need a different engine to use natural gas you just need different fuel injection and small modifications. You do need different fuel tanks which are superior to the old heavy steel ones. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by ronwagn
addition