Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I'll know Europe is serious about "renewable energy" when the French Riviera is covered in wind turbines, Zurich is 1000m underwater behind giant dams along with the rest of Switzerland and Austria; until then it is nothing but politics.

 

Not much point really as wind resources in that part of france quite poor.  https://globalwindatlas.info/

Below is a map of wind farm distribution in France. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The only reason it is not are moron politicians and ignorant Joe public.  How much does it cost to drill 20k down?  Not much.  Dump the stuff down in a mud mix and move on.   But it is not because everyone is waiting for a fast breeder reaction which takes the majority of that nuclear waste and turns it into power and creates much shorter length waste which certainly can be dumped down a shaft which will never see the light of day before the junk burns itself out. 

When I worked in oil I proposed to fill rejected drill string with our expensive stockpile of NORM's from drilling Ops and drop them into some recently decommissioned offshore wells. 

That neither went down well with the regulator or the Company despite the fact the NORMs had come from those wells in the first place. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 hours ago, Wolfgang Horn said:

Obviously you are not from Europe. You are just joking.

@nothing but politics - wrong. We are working every day to get CO2 down and quality of life up. That's it. Cowboys work never ends.

 

You're not a cowboy. Nobody who pushes a bull up a chute thinks that Europe's renewable project is manly. From somebody who does in fact push bulls up chutes. 

[Wolfgang Horn + 7]

4 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

France has a per-capita CO2 footprint approaching that of some African countries. 

They also have (if I recall correctly) the cheapest power in Europe.

It's all because of nuclear energy.  Oh, to go back to the days where nuclear paranoia didn't rule the day.

LOL @nuclear paranoia. Nuclear is out. Too expensive. Everybody knows the price. And: Nuclear is unbearable. As you know best, the monitoring time is to be counted in XXX generations. And now, within the 1st generation we had Tschernobyl. Within the 2nd generation we hat Fukushima. And now the Wuhan virus, which has definitly impacts on security. No. Nuclear is out & the big business is the scrapping of the 400+ reactors within the next 20 years - that's the job.

[Joseph Hall 0]

Good luck...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The only reason it is not are moron politicians and ignorant Joe public.  How much does it cost to drill 20k down?  Not much.  Dump the stuff down in a mud mix and move on.   But it is not because everyone is waiting for a fast breeder reaction which takes the majority of that nuclear waste and turns it into power and creates much shorter length waste which certainly can be dumped down a shaft which will never see the light of day before the junk burns itself out. 

So, if you are correct, get it done politically through education. Good luck. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,130]

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So, if you are correct, get it done politically through education. Good luck. 

The problem is no one is ALLOWED to work on the fast breeder reactors as a civilian.  Cannot get your hands on the materials.  Chicken or the Egg problem.  Maybe China, India, or Russia will get it to work.  Chemistry problems to work out.  Theoretically it should be Europe who would be working on them but... they have been scare mongered by movies just as has been done here in the USA

Yup, needs work and a lot of luck.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

When I worked in oil I proposed to fill rejected drill string with our expensive stockpile of NORM's from drilling Ops and drop them into some recently decommissioned offshore wells. 

That neither went down well with the regulator or the Company despite the fact the NORMs had come from those wells in the first place. 

What are NORM'S?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 2/22/2020 at 12:33 PM, George8944 said:

The answer is simple.  They are optimizing on a zero carbon footprint and not the lowest cost of production.  Stop calling natual gas a "clean energy source."   It is a CLEANER energy source than coal, but not a clean energy source in real terms. It does generate greenhouse gases.  Once this is understood,  fog starts to lift on their thought and decision process.

Natural gas will not be accepted by environmentalist unless Hydrogen Fuel Cells take off and natual gas is used used as a hydrogen source.

Well, for ‘poor’ African nations, natural gas would give a much bigger ‘bang for the buck’ (re energy density) than the green options, they would not need to worry about intermittent supply, the infrastructure is well known and cheaper to maintain and the ‘technology’ is mature.

Do you honestly think the Africans without electricity give a damn about greenhouse gas emissions or the dubious climate change debate?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, Wolfgang Horn said:

LOL @nuclear paranoia. Nuclear is out. Too expensive. Everybody knows the price. And: Nuclear is unbearable. As you know best, the monitoring time is to be counted in XXX generations. And now, within the 1st generation we had Tschernobyl. Within the 2nd generation we hat Fukushima. And now the Wuhan virus, which has definitly impacts on security. No. Nuclear is out & the big business is the scrapping of the 400+ reactors within the next 20 years - that's the job.

Nuclear has difficulty only because of people like you. The upfront investment and time to build is much lower in countries that let this industry thrive (I'm thinking of France, you had best read about that). A decommissioning fund is set aside during the reactor's operating life (demanded by law). Gen IV is what we're shooting for now, and these new reactors make all of the silly old arguments look childish. 

Are you going to talk about waste now? Are you going to ask if I would be okay with a reactor or waste in my back yard? The answer is yes to both. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

27 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

What are NORM'S?

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

There is a restaurant chain in California named Norm's. I used to eat there. I was afraid I might have been poisoned. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, Wolfgang Horn said:

LOL @nuclear paranoia. Nuclear is out. Too expensive. Everybody knows the price. And: Nuclear is unbearable. As you know best, the monitoring time is to be counted in XXX generations. And now, within the 1st generation we had Tschernobyl. Within the 2nd generation we hat Fukushima. And now the Wuhan virus, which has definitly impacts on security. No. Nuclear is out & the big business is the scrapping of the 400+ reactors within the next 20 years - that's the job.

I don't see the French decommissioning any so there is no point in anyone else taking down theirs unless they are at the end of their service life. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 hours ago, 0R0 said:

I don't see the French decommissioning any so there is no point in anyone else taking down theirs unless they are at the end of their service life. 

America has allowed many plants to "extend their intended lifespan." They have done this by allowing them to substantially raise the rates they charge, thereby screwing their customers. One was decommissioned at San Onofre, on the shore of California, and it is still there although shut down a decade ago. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by ronwagn

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/22/2020 at 5:37 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

An upbeat success story about Natural Gas.

For some reason, the media complains lately that Natural Gas is a reliable, cheap and abundant competitor to wind and solar - which are unreliable, expensive, and require backup systems for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Seems to me that Natural Gas being reliable, cheap and abundant is a GOOD thing, not something to complain about.

Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

... Meanwhile, the United States continues to reduce its carbon emissions into the atmosphere at a faster pace than virtually every other country in the world. This is because natural gas is not just cheap. It is one of the cleanest ways to produce scalable and dependable electric power for a nation of 320 million people. We don't need brownouts in America as we saw in California, and natural gas is an excellent way to make sure the lights don't go out.

It would be hard to find anything NOT to like about this great American success story: energy independence, reliable and inexhaustible supply, low prices, reduced power of the Middle East, Russia, and other OPEC nations, and cleaner air than at any time in at least a century.

Yet liberal environmentalists are grousing about this good news. A recent Bloomberg news story exclaims in its headline: "Cheap Gas Imperils Climate Fight by Undercutting Wind and Solar Power."

"Gas is such a bargain that it's being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future," the story tells us, "and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities, and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier." Ravina Advani, head of renewable energy at BNP Paribus, complained: "The fact that there's an abundance of it makes the move to complete decarbonization much harder … Gas is a tough competitor. It's reliable, and it's cheap."

And that is bad news, why, exactly? It's like saying a cure for the coronavirus is bad for hospitals and doctors.

Maybe it is high time we admit we have found for now the great energy source of the next few decades and celebrate that America is endowed with a vital resource that is abundant and affordable — just like our best-in-the-world farmland. The Left talks about eradicating "poverty," but "energy poverty" is a primary source of deprivation around the world. Now, there is an obvious solution: Natural gas could easily be the primary source of power production for the world as a whole, slashing costs for the poor everywhere on the planet from sub-Saharan Africa to Bangladesh. Instead, politicians and government bureaucrats around the world are trying to force-feed the world expensive, unreliable, and unscalable wind and solar power. The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing "green energy" projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly "green" alternative. Why?  ...

 

... It's time to get smart about energy and climate change and throw asunder taxpayer subsidies doled out to all forms of energy production. Let the market, not politicians and environmental groups, choose the safest and most reliable and affordable energy source. Everyone is making a big bet on battery-operated cars and trucks. But who is to say that trucks and buses fueled with natural gas won't be the wave of the future? No one knows what makes the most sense and where the future will lead us. Nuclear power has great promise. But for now, the markets are shouting out for natural gas on a grander scale.

Fifteen years ago, no one would have thought we would have a superabundance of this wonder-fuel today. But we do. No one is more surprised than politicians. Why do we let them keep betting the farm on the wrong horse?

I disagree. I believe "gas is crushing gas", just as "oil is crushing oil"! Over-production will take 2-3 years to work off, then due to lack of investment, under-production will put a rocket under prices. Buckle up!

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/24/2020 at 10:15 AM, Enthalpic said:

I still think Vanadium flow/tank batteries have a chance.

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

 

Don't forget Aussies working on molten silica, nearly reached required temp. If it comes off, will be game-changer.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/25/2020 at 9:33 AM, markslawson said:

While I don't disagree I don't think there is any real chance of individual families having their own container sized batteries (especially not if they live in an apartment). As you point out the cost would be horrendous, and think of the immense cost in emissions and the environment in getting the raw materials required.. as for battery technology its advancing at a slow rate.. there is no indication of a big breakthrough.. but anyway.. time to move on.. 

Households only use 25% of electricity.  Rest is industry. Sun shines every day and only need 10 days storage. Add in a bit more hydro and Bob's ur uncle!

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

30 minutes ago, Wombat said:

I disagree. I believe "gas is crushing gas", just as "oil is crushing oil"! Over-production will take 2-3 years to work off, then due to lack of investment, under-production will put a rocket under prices. Buckle up!

You've hit it, pal. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

I disagree. I believe "gas is crushing gas", just as "oil is crushing oil"! Over-production will take 2-3 years to work off, then due to lack of investment, under-production will put a rocket under prices. Buckle up!

A very valid scenario. I just wish that there was a way to accurately quantify the apparent oil over-supply.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

Households only use 25% of electricity.  Rest is industry. Sun shines every day and only need 10 days storage. Add in a bit more hydro and Bob's ur uncle!

“Sun shines every day...”

I suppose that theoretically you are correct, but that does not necessarily mean that it actually reaches the surfaces of all the land masses on the planet in enough intensity and duration to make it a reliable energy supply in all locations.

[markslawson + 1,042]

6 hours ago, Wombat said:

Households only use 25% of electricity.  Rest is industry. Sun shines every day and only need 10 days storage. Add in a bit more hydro and Bob's ur uncle!

Wombat - none of that makes any sense. Where did the 10 days storage figure come from? The original point was about each household having a container sized battery. I agreed that might be a solution, but it was a prohibitively expensive one that caused lots of pollution. So maybe you want to make your comments more relevant to the debate..  

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

Sun shines every day

Not in the UK it doesn't, we cant even remember what colour it is

[surrept33 + 609]

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Well, for ‘poor’ African nations, natural gas would give a much bigger ‘bang for the buck’ (re energy density) than the green options, they would not need to worry about intermittent supply, the infrastructure is well known and cheaper to maintain and the ‘technology’ is mature.

Do you honestly think the Africans without electricity give a damn about greenhouse gas emissions or the dubious climate change debate?

 

In many of these countries, especially if you ignored issues related to emissions, coal would be the answer because of the capital expense involved with building up (the currently missing) natural gas infrastructure in those countries, whether it is on the supply or demand side. 

This is why renewables + storage might have a leg up on natural gas in large parts of the developing world, particularly since they would benefit from the learning curves and technology development (in the more developed world) that might drive costs further with scale.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by surrept33

[dgowin + 43]

Sorry I've been out of this for the last 24 hours.

To those of you quoting the Hydrogen Embrittlement issues. These technical challenges have been resolved! NIST and DOE have publically available databases of materials that are impervious to hydrogen. The below is a Carbon Fiber Tank the DOE developed in 2001. Yes 19 years ago.

[dgowin + 43]

The following are real hydrogen storage tanks available for sale by several major manufacturers.

Edited February 27, 2020 by dgowin