Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[WayneMechEng + 89]

4 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

I am far more optimistic on the degree of Renewables penetration as solar in the desert is pretty much unbeatable.

The National Energy Board of Canada (old name but still searchable), has published a nice study on economics of solar all across Canada.  In southern Alberta, one old solar farm has become obsolete and too expensive to maintain.  It will be dismantled.  However, a massive new solar project is being built near Medicine Hat with new technology.  Alberta has lots of sun but also snow and dust storms.  Alberta has solar and many wind turbines (along the windy Crowsnest Pass corridor following Highway 3 from BC to Lethbridge.  These wind turbines were installed long before RE was popular.  They extend into Saskatchewan.  If it makes sense, it will be done.

[0R0 + 6,251]

3 minutes ago, WayneMechEng said:

I believe the UN is a corrupt globalist supporting agency.  I also once had a US security clearance for a project and learned how self serving scientists can be to maintain their government funding.

Please direct me an alternative source for the worlds population history.

Their last data update is 2010 or so IIRC. You need to collect the data yourself or find a demographer that publishes the data he collects. The Authors of Empty Planet give some of the up to date data in their charts, and show how the UN forecasting methodology is flawed. There is one U tube video of theirs that includes graphics from the book.You can start from there. 

I use population pyramid which uses the UN database with the caveat that the last 10 years of data are out of date and are projections rather than data for most countries. 

Aside from UN demographics ignoring changing trends in birth rates, the only known country to pad their birth numbers is China, which has 1-2 mil/yr fewer babies than they claim. 

It isn't me who is the Environmental engineer, but @Douglas Buckland I am an MSc Chem E. 

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:38 PM, ronwagn said:

So, you don't think that there will be need for more electricity and wires to transport the equivalent energy used by gasoline and diesel through electrical wires?!

Ron,

Let's assume most charging happens in the middle of the night while most people are sleeping.  There is plenty of transmission capacity in the wee hours when most people are asleep.   I assume you have heard of time of use electricity pricing?  Rates are lower during these low use periods because there is excess capacity in the system.

In short, no extra transmission capacity will be needed.  Also keep in mind that EVs require one third the energy of an ICE vehicle, so only one third of the energy contained in the gasoline and diesel used by ICE vehicles will be needed.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/27/2020 at 6:27 PM, markslawson said:

Its not free power - additional unit costs can approach zero but its not the same thing. Those wind turbines depreciate in value. As has been discussed on other threads the expected life is something like 10-20 years depending - and the depreciation cost is everything in these plants. Free fuel is a comparatively small advantage. And when the wind doesn't blow, do you simply switch of the Electrolyzers? You  may find that is very difficult, so the shortfall has to be supplied by conventional power. Please make some effort to check statements before you make them. 

Mark,

If the price of something is zero, generally the term used in English is that it is "free".

The curtailed power from wind turbines just goes to ground and is "wasted", kind of like flaring or venting natural gas.

If one puts a plant to produce hydrogen next to big wind farms, an agreement could be reached with the wind power operator to procure "curtailed wind power" at very low cost, perhaps 0.5 cents per kWhr, maybe less.  Currently for wind power producers any "curtailed" wind power gets zero.  If the hydrogen plant was run by the wind power operator the cost would be zero.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/29/2020 at 8:09 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Here is REAL evidence:

NASA et al: Beginning of CO2 warming hoopla.... Said rate of T increase highest in tropics at mid altitudes.... was proven wrong via basic weather balloons, should have STOPPED the insanity in its tracks immediately, but... politics

Greenland, Antartica ice cores, CO2 lags Temperature rise, proves CO2 forcing as wrong

History of Little ice age(not man made), Midevil warming period(not man made) which both happened world wide yet NOT ONE model can predict the past ... yet claim they can predict the future......

Found out Cloud formation formation caused by sunspots/solarwind/cosmic rays which regulate temperature of earth.  How/Why/When sun does its thing... no one knows.  

NASA When predicting temperature of planets, atmospheric density/depth everyone uses Black body radiation.  Works for Exo-planets, Titan, Venus, yet we are led to believe it does not work for earth....🤣.....  Yea...

Number of stations being used for earth temperature calibration keeps dropping and "model data" keeps being inserted for saying how warm the planet is.  Now almost to 50% "model" temperatures. 

Sea buoy data was arbitrarily increased(whole data set) even after calibration of buoy's were all checked/validated for some still unfathomable reason.  Yet NO ONE on the AGW side says one word about this abject obvious FRAUD.

Homogenization between real stations and "estimated" has now reached astronomically absurd distances of 2000km even though the old stations which were thrown out of data sets are STILL reporting!!!  Guess their already insane homogenization of 1000km used since the late 1990's wasn't large enough for them...  Spread that land warming out over those oceans... oh yea... gee, I wonder why it is warming up north... hrmmm

City data is kept, even though everyone knows Heat Island effect utterly destroys any credibility from said stations.  Pristine stations purposefully setup in the 90s is shunted aside, or mixed with city data to hide it.

Final nail in the AGW coffin?  Daily HIGH temperatures in ALL data sets AROUND THE WORLD, have all been dropping since 1990, yet daily LOW Temps have dramatically increased creating a warming trend in the data, yet 50% of all manmade CO2 has been injected into atmosphere since then....  Maybe... just maybe because nearly everyone has Heating, cars, electricity, paved roads, and Air conditioning now and they are keeping the utterly biased city data....  What a thought.  Applied logic, how quaint. 

I don't know about you, but from applied logic perspective from an engineer I can only presume someone has to be a drooling idiot, ignorant, gullible, lazy or a fanatic to believe CO2 is forcing the climate. 

Nonsense.

For urban heat island part of your story see,

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

Engineers know little about climate science, geophysicists in general agree that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will lead to warmer temperatures.  The thermal inertia of the oceans, as well as tidal effects on oceanic flows will lead to fluctuations in the rate that excess heat is taken up and released by oceans.

Some of this is covered in

https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Geoenergy-Discovery-Depletion-Geophysical/dp/1119434297

You may be able to borrow it from a University library.

http://ursus.maine.edu/search~S1?/acoyne/acoyne/1%2C90%2C211%2CB/frameset&FF=acoyne+dennis&1%2C1%2C/indexsort=-

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/29/2020 at 9:48 PM, Coffeeguyzz said:

Ohio just released their latest quarterly production numbers yesterday from their horizontal wells (~2,500).

Oil is up to 74,000 bbld (17% increase yoy), natgas hit ~7 1/2 Bcfd (3% increase yoy).

The productivity seems to be markedly improving with about 10 wella averaging over 1 Billion cubic foot per month output (that is Northeast Pennsylvania level productivity). About 40 wells produced over 2 Bcf and another 130 produced over 1 Bcf for the quarter. Dramatic per well uplift over an expanding area of southeast Ohio.

 

The ~half dozen oil wells that averaged over 1,000 bbld for the quarter are clear outliers in the overall context.

However, the fact that Eclipse/Montage and Encino are the operators doing this, might indicate many years possibility at this modest level of oil production.

 

Combining Ohio's annual 2.7 Trillion cubic feet production with Pennsylvania's ~7 Tcf and West Virginia's 2.4 Tcf gives over 12 Trillion cubic feet of yearly natty from this region.

For folks not struck by the implications of 12 Trillion cubic feet per year output, this could be a good learning moment to compare recent discoveries and all the ballyhoo associated with recent finds of 30/50/80 Tcf total  resource

Large, certainly, but a mere few years' Appalachian Basin output.

 

Regarding this entire natgas/solar/wind discussion ... several years of frustrating back and forth on Dennis' site have led me to conclude that the Ra/Zephyr acolytes are as much theologically driven as moved by facts, provable data, some familiarity with economics as well as operational characteristics of the hardware involved.

This long suffering realization has prompted me to forgo becoming ensnarled in these types of discussions.

 

For those open minded as to the high probability of rapid, global buildout of gas fired electricity production, becoming acquinted with the modularization approach to LNG plant buildout,  ultra efficient marine transport, FSRUs of various sizes and cost to enable rapid, cheap, near ubiquitous delivery of fuel ... and, on the juice generating side, the adoption of various sizes of power plants from the massive 1,500 Mw+ CCGPs down to refurbished 50/125 mw turbines (check out the laser cladding and 3D printing rejuvenation processes) should provide chrystal clear affirmation of where  and how future electricity  will be produced.

 

Heck, even micro plants are popping up in off the path locales  with series of 5 Mw turbines providing both power and heat.

Central American countries and the hinterlands of Brazil, far flung islands in Indonesia and the PI are amongst the promising, near term markets.

Lookin' like we are in this Age of Gas, folks.

Sorry, Greta.

Coffeeguyzz,

Nobody will continue drilling for natural gas at $1.79/MCF.  Most of these shale gas companies are burning cash at alarming rates.  LNG in the US will also fail as there is an oversupply of Natural Gas Worldwide and at current price levels LNG is also a money losing proposition.

When output slows down and natural gas prices rise to a level where natural gas can be produced profitably, then many of the natural gas fired power plants will become stranded assets as they will not compete well with wind and solar as prices continue to fall over time.

You would have to talk the Mr Smith and Walras about how this works.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 3/1/2020 at 2:39 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I note you refuted not one single thing I said.

No, scientists do not think it is due to human activity.  They say, they do not know.  Because anyone who is not an idiot knows the SUN/CLOUDS are in charge of our climate.

  CO2 increasing just increases the partial pressure of the atmosphere and the simple fact CO2 millions years ago was many times as high as it is today, and the temps were same as today, but hey, that is geology so you can ignore it right? Yet abundant life developed just fine.  

As for your "scientists": According to the "models" warming should be several times higher than what is seen currently.  So much for "science".... oh wait...

SCIENCE is SHOWING how you got your results, not HIDING the sausage making.

So, why are so called "scientists" you claim to follow and admire, not publishing their model manipulations?  Because it is not SCIENCE.  They are the modern equivalent of the Paleontology fraudsters in our time.  Only show their buddies who are "in the club"... Science?  Nope, just publish articles with no cross examination by anyone and everyone. 

SHOW YOUR WORK is how SCIENCE works. 

 

Try some geophysics.  A hint, what do astrophysicists know about the evolution of Sol?  Its output was far lower hundreds of millions of years ago.  As to temperatures and carbon dioxide levels millions of years ago on the surface of the Earth, these are not known very well.

The climate models have done quite well see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/update-day-2020/

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

[D Coyne + 305]

On 3/1/2020 at 7:08 PM, 0R0 said:

As @footeab@yahoo.com would doubtless respond, the database is pretty much irrelevant to measurements of reality as it does not leave any original data, all of it is recalculated so as to show the curve plotted above. Without the recalculation, using like for like raw data with no "harmonization" or "corrections" there is no trend in the 20th century. Fitting the ACTUAL data does not result in global warming models predicting significant warming. 

This is only evidence of scientific fraud and misconduct. 

Again nonsense.  The raw data is available see

http://berkeleyearth.org/about-data-set/

So all of the scientists are frauds, there are several different organizations that analyze the data.   All get very similar results.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 3/1/2020 at 11:06 PM, 0R0 said:

Since I actually did look at the data, I know that the dots are not like for like.

If you actually wanted to know what was going on in climate change you would look at pristine locations where temperatures have been consistently measured for a centrury without the locations changing character. Meaning that they are not locations that had been under a particulate cloud till the 1960s or 70s when clean air regulations brought down the cloud cover they had been under for a century. You would also take out hot spots - city locations that had warmed up or cooled down because their urban hot spot environment had changed. 

I don't know the database from which those dots were taken, so don't know them to be actual observations or the standard database's heavily doctored ones. They don't actually tell you what the data status is upfront.

Take a look at following paper

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

In the discussion we have:

We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the
period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2 sigma error) in
the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence
interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most
a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95%
confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr
since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

On 3/2/2020 at 3:12 AM, 0R0 said:

That is using a calculated observation database. Those are not raw numbers, and not like for like. The only reason the carbon model matches the data is because the data is forced from the model. Go look back at discussions of global warming here. Go to the NOAA database and choose the raw data set to chart for whatever geographies you like. Unfortunately they don't let you group things (at least not last time I was looking).

"scientists" is a misnomer in the field of climatology because they are paid to lie and must publish their work under review of peers that are similarly paid to lie, since their funding came from NOAA and associated government sources that Al Gore forced into supporting only research that shows global warming and damage from it. 

Yes clearly all climate scientists are not telling the truth.  

I hope you realize how absurd that statement is.  Hmm, Al Gore left US government in 2000, his power is wide spread, no doubt as he controls scientists throughout the World.  That is quite believable/ sarc off.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 3/2/2020 at 4:46 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

“Most of the climate change deniers are conspiracy theory believers, the others are just paid by the fossil fuel lobby.”

Or, like myself, a degreed engineer with a Masters degree in Environmental Policy & Management, who hates conspiracy theories and is not associated with any fossil fuel lobby, we simply disagree with you on climate change and would like to see some irrefutable data which supports your theory ( it is still a theory at this point) before throwing trillions of dollars at something we do not even understand!

Doug,

No theory is irrefutable.  Generally we look at the match between theory and observation and choose the best theory we have.

Consider that fossil fuel is likely to be limited and we will need to find substitutes in any case,  It is likely, based on the global carbon cycle that about 20% of carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere for 10,000 years or more, the rest gets reabsorbed by the biosphere, there are a number of feedbacks that may gradually make the problem worse such as melting permafrost as the Earth warms which leads to more carbon emissions a it occurs.

The more this is studied by climate scientists, the more they are convinced that the problem is real and actually worse than at first believed.  

Also keep in mind it will take time to transition to alternatives to fossil fuel, and many of those alternatives (including simply better built buildings meeting Passivhaus standards and other energy efficiency measures) are likely to be cheaper than fossil fuel as peak output is reached for oil in 2025, coal in 2030, and natural gas in 2035.

[D Coyne + 305]

18 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Here is more data fraud: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/01/warming-marble-bar/

When this happens time after time after time, I frankly give up on trying to validate everything I read as I only have one life to live and it is quite obvious that those who have an agenda are more than willing to blatantly lie cheat and steal their way into power for ~whatever axe they are grinding(usually they hate themselves and humanity seeing humanity as a plague on the earth)

"fix" enough stations and viola, present/future can be anything you want. 

For some accurate analysis try

http://www.realclimate.org/

or

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/

[D Coyne + 305]

12 hours ago, WayneMechEng said:

I believe the UN is a corrupt globalist supporting agency.  I also once had a US security clearance for a project and learned how self serving scientists can be to maintain their government funding.

Please direct me an alternative source for the worlds population history.

You're looking for something from non-scientists, I assume, as they are all liars. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Yes clearly all climate scientists are not telling the truth.  

I hope you realize how absurd that statement is.  Hmm, Al Gore left US government in 2000, his power is wide spread, no doubt as he controls scientists throughout the World.  That is quite believable/ sarc off.

He set the people in place and they can't be taken out. He set the culture and set the practices for allocating Federal research funds.Once the editorial functions were taken over by his group, peer review became a dogma enforcement. 

I am not saying ALL climate scientists, but those that want to be published and obtain Federal research funds. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by 0R0

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

39 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

For some accurate analysis try

http://www.realclimate.org/

or

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/

🤣

Where do they get their "data" from again?   Oh right... so if the source data is screwed.... Does it matter if someone is honest with manipulated data the source is pushing as "RAW" when in fact it is not?  No.  

Why what I published MATTERS.  You can't argue when the foundation you are standing on and having a discussion on keeps ... MOVING

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

 

 

3 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Ron,

Let's assume most charging happens in the middle of the night while most people are sleeping.  There is plenty of transmission capacity in the wee hours when most people are asleep.   I assume you have heard of time of use electricity pricing?  Rates are lower during these low use periods because there is excess capacity in the system.

In short, no extra transmission capacity will be needed.  Also keep in mind that EVs require one third the energy of an ICE vehicle, so only one third of the energy contained in the gasoline and diesel used by ICE vehicles will be needed.

Resultant efficiency of EVs is lower than an ICE. Start with powerplant efficiency, then account for all losses through transmission, loss through charging, loss through discharge, electric motor efficiency, and so on. 

Don't tell me that we justify it through making use of excess power, because if everybody switched to an EV then so called surplus power would be wholly insufficient to power the mass of EVs. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[surrept33 + 609]

2 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Coffeeguyzz,

Nobody will continue drilling for natural gas at $1.79/MCF.  Most of these shale gas companies are burning cash at alarming rates.  LNG in the US will also fail as there is an oversupply of Natural Gas Worldwide and at current price levels LNG is also a money losing proposition.

When output slows down and natural gas prices rise to a level where natural gas can be produced profitably, then many of the natural gas fired power plants will become stranded assets as they will not compete well with wind and solar as prices continue to fall over time.

You would have to talk the Mr Smith and Walras about how this works.

 

It feels like it's inevitable that NG will cannibalize oil at an accelerated rate (just like it's cannibalized coal, and nuclear) given more sources of relatively cheap NG are coming online. I guess how this will establish a equilibrium between supply/demand will depend on how NG/LNG infrastructure costs come down.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Ron,

Let's assume most charging happens in the middle of the night while most people are sleeping.  There is plenty of transmission capacity in the wee hours when most people are asleep.   I assume you have heard of time of use electricity pricing?  Rates are lower during these low use periods because there is excess capacity in the system.

In short, no extra transmission capacity will be needed.  Also keep in mind that EVs require one third the energy of an ICE vehicle, so only one third of the energy contained in the gasoline and diesel used by ICE vehicles will be needed.

Good, but how much more energy will be used IF electric vehicles ever really replaced a substantial percentage of ICE fuel use. The electricity would have to be provided by fossil fuel, or nuclear. Preferably natural gas IMHO. You are assuming energy storage from renewables will actually occur in a timely fashion are you not? What would that cost be? 

Here is an article expressing some of my concerns to the overall issues. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/02/26/stop_the_money_anti-energy_project_will_strap_the_poor_for_cash_485268.html

I would like to hear some opinions and see some references to any prospective studies of this issue. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[surrept33 + 609]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

🤣

Where do they get their "data" from again?   Oh right... so if the source data is screwed.... Does it matter if someone is honest with manipulated data the source is pushing as "RAW" when in fact it is not?  No.  

Why what I published MATTERS.  You can't argue when the foundation you are standing on and having a discussion on keeps ... MOVING

I thought groups like Berkeley Earth used a very large set of data sources (not just say, NOAA data), and came up with their own methodologies to debias the raw data.

I have a copy of Richard Muller (the guy who cofounded Berkeley Earth)'s physics books (Physics for Future Presidents, it has good explanations of "practical" real world physics using napkin math, highly recommend). In the book, he was indeed very skeptical of temperature records and such back when he wrote it (late 2000s). If he changes his mind, it's of relatively high proof to me, since at the stage of his career, he's not particularly financially tied to any funding sources with whatever political agenda - I dunno if that's a systematic sociological problem or not. Not to say that the methods may not have some faults nor couldn't be iterated upon for continuous improvement of data quality and incorporation of new metadata, obviously they are.

He talks about it a bit here:

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by surrept33

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 3/1/2020 at 11:21 PM, WayneMechEng said:

An example: The Federal Carbon tax to be imposed on natural gas in the prairie provinces makes no sense, climate wise or economically.  We have cold winters and need heat.  We burn natural gas, which Ottawa is taxing, "so the higher price will cause us to seek alternatives".  What then, use electric heat?  How is electricity generated in Alberta - mostly using natural gas with some hydro, wind, and solar. Paying the tax will make it impossible to afford changing all of our furnaces to electric, with new electric panels.  $7000 bucks maybe?  And the efficiency losses burning natural gas to make electricity, then distribute it to homes at a higher cost per kW?  We would use more natural gas than we do now.  What about reliability?  If we lose electric power, we can still heat with natural gas.  A redundant source.  And if we turn down thermostats, there will be health costs.  Our Premier is looking into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for electric power (each about 1/10 output of a big nuke plant).  Better for carbon but will people embrace nukes after Fukushima and Chernobyl?

So when will we be able to afford changing all our furnaces to electric and having electricity only generated by nuclear, wind, hydro, and solar?  Especially when the province has had to cut budgets due to economic hard times.  It isn't going to happen!  Voters have been brainwashed so they will vote for politicians who preach climate change.

I live in Alberta, nobody is saying to switch to electric heat. 

The carbon taxes essentially only hit large sources, and the price you pay for energy is more dictate by the market price of the product, not the tiny tax on it.

Notice gasoline is actually much cheaper now than during the boom?

Edited March 3, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Dennis

 

Sure kicked off a firestorm with your comments today, huh?

As you may recall, I do not pore over the financials of the upstream boys, while fully acknowledging the importance of 'making ends meet'. 

 

To that end, I have been closely following the recent slew of quarterly data emerging from several operators - especially the Appalachian Basin boys - and was pretty surprised at what they are achieving.

 

While EQT/Toby Rice have a stated goal of viable operations at $2/HH, companies such as Range, Cabot, and - in select areas - Southwestern have ALREADY brought product online at or below the $2/mmbtu price point.

The D&C figure of ~$615/lateral foot is now being accomplished on various pads and an overall figure of ~$700/lateral may become commonplace by this time next year.

Setting aside the minutiae of these matters, these operators (and, realistically, the terrain - roster wise - looks to change dramatically over the next 12/24 months), are on track to produce the lowest cost of non associated natgas on the planet.

Furthermore, as the cost of gas  liquefaction is greatly dependent upon the input fuel, the ongoing drop in natgas pricing lowers operational costs at LNG plants significantly.

 

As an aside, Dennis, congrats to you frugal Yankees for having the lowest January wholesale electricity cost (26 bucks/Mwh, $14 as of this posting) since the ISO was established in your region.

The fact that natgas produces ~50% of your juice and there were no shortages this winter ($2.87/mmbtu cost) were the the main reasons.

Your area offers an outstanding example of the 'Real World' stuff in this power generation arena due to the ease and transparency of the data your New England ISO provides online 24/7 ... (iso-ne.com).

Outstanding group of professionals.

[WayneMechEng + 89]

On 2/22/2020 at 5:18 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Wiping out entire forest habitats is all part of our ‘inevitable’ transition to a wind powered future. Across Germany, millions of acres of forest have been clear-felled and great swathes cut through others, to allow some 30,000 of these things to be speared across Deutschland.

Those facts are scary.  Looks like the knee jerk reaction to the current species of corona virus.  CO2 would have been absorbed by the trees and much needed oxygen produced.  Maybe the CO2 difference is small but where else do we generate oxygen? Isn't the loss of rainforest still a big concern? Do enviromentalists just follow the latest fads or whatever George Soros money dictates?  Too bad politicans are so weak they only pander to voters.  Maybe Germany and Scotland have environmental impact studies for the projects. I wonder how they justified their actions?

At least in  Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as the US mid-west, no trees had to be destroyed.  On my local journey's I notice a subtantial down time for wind turbines, either for lack of wind or maintainence.  Still they must be putting out enough power to justify their existence.

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Good, but how much more energy will be used IF electric vehicles ever really replaced a substantial percentage of ICE fuel use. The electricity would have to be provided by fossil fuel, or nuclear. Preferably natural gas IMHO. You are assuming energy storage from renewables will actually occur in a timely fashion are you not? What would that cost be? 

Here is an article expressing some of my concerns to the overall issues. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/02/26/stop_the_money_anti-energy_project_will_strap_the_poor_for_cash_485268.html

I would like to hear some opinions and see some references to any prospective studies of this issue. 

The environmental movement has moved from genuine concern about the future to a genocidal psychopathy. They have become detached from any check by reason or reality. They have become EVIL. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, 0R0 said:

The environmental movement has moved from genuine concern about the future to a genocidal psychopathy. They have become detached from any check by reason or reality. They have become EVIL. 

I have kept a close eye on the Sierra Club and other such organizations all my life. I actually joined a few for short periods of time. Each time I was appalled by their overall mission since you could just see the statist positions they took, and where it was leading. 

The Sierra Club took millions of dollars from the natural gas industry to get support for the clean fuel. The leader was replaced and the Club went on to totally oppose fracking and natural gas. All of the organizations ended up going head over heels for the global warming and Climate Change Hoax. I truly believe that natural gas is the best and cheapest answer to reducing real pollution and CO2. 

Then we have the Peta people and the ones that burn down housing tracts that they do not approve of, spikes in trees, sitting in trees, pouring milk over their breasts, blowing up gas pipelines, etc. Maybe we should do the same for wind turbines and solar. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/2/2020 at 3:47 AM, 0R0 said:

To make it clear

From this point on, the number of people increasing is in older age groups. The number of young people is falling.

Old people consume a much lesser portion of their incomes, their carbon footprint is much smaller. 

I am not so sure there is a big difference. Old folks often travel more than they did before retirement. I am sure our vehicles burn a lot more fuel than we do. We like to keep our homes climate controlled just as well as ever and we are home more. I would like to see some hard data. We sure spend a lot of money, especially helping our adult kids.