THeBlueCashew

I was posting on Postmedia comments section and a few progtards were saying oil, gas, and coal are finite. Rare earth metals, water and all that frickin land wind and solar require to produce a lot less energy than fossils are not finite according to those dumbasses.

The Energy Information Administration reports that in 1977, the United States had just 32 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 207 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Between 1977 and 2010, the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil (2.6 times the 1977 reserve estimate) and 610 trillion cubic feet of gas (2.9 times the reserve estimate). And, large reserves remain. In fact, in recent years, the size of U.S. reserves has actually grown (by more than a third since 2011), primarily as a result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technologies that enable economical access to oil and gas deposits trapped in underground rock formations.



Even if no more fossil fuels were to be discovered or deemed extractable, our nations already possess far more reserves and recoverable resources worldwide than we can use. Humanity has burned just a small portion of our fossil fuels to date.

First coal, then oil and natural gas allowed rapid growth in industrial processes, agriculture, and transportation. The world today is unrecognizable from that of the early 19th century, before fossil fuels came into wide use. Human health and welfare have improved markedly, and the global population has increased from 1 billion in 1800 to almost 8 billion today. The fossil fuel energy system is the lifeblood of the modern economy. Fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution, pulled millions out of poverty, and shaped the modern world.

Quote from: HermanI was posting on Postmedia comments section and a few progtards were saying oil, gas, and coal are finite. Rare earth metals, water and all that frickin land wind and solar require to produce a lot less energy than fossils are not finite according to those dumbasses.

They are white.

Quote from: HermanI was posting on Postmedia comments section and a few progtards were saying oil, gas, and coal are finite. Rare earth metals, water and all that frickin land wind and solar require to produce a lot less energy than fossils are not finite according to those dumbasses.

It amazes me that there are people that think you can get something from nothing. Wind and solar require a lot of finite resources including land that we have less of than fossil fuels.



Fossil fuels are fantastic at their job; that is, producing energy. Earth's fossil fuel reserves were formed over millions of years as the organic material of ancient plants and microorganisms (not dinosaurs) were compressed and heated into dense deposits of carbon—basically reservoirs of condensed energy.  For this reason fossil fuels are incredibly "energy dense", meaning a little bit of a fossil fuel can produce a whole lot of energy. This energy dense quality is what led to Europe's adoption of coal over wood as a fuel source, and this sudden increase in available energy eventually led to the industrial revolution. Coal, oil, and natural gas seem to exist to be fuels.

God put us on this planet to eat meat and burn oil. FACT.

Quote from: Shen Li

Quote from: HermanI was posting on Postmedia comments section and a few progtards were saying oil, gas, and coal are finite. Rare earth metals, water and all that frickin land wind and solar require to produce a lot less energy than fossils are not finite according to those dumbasses.

They are white.

Can you say anything else.

Quote from: Shen LiThey are white.

Did you know that when you talk racist I get all hot and sweaty...



ac_wub

Quote from: Bricktop

Quote from: Shen LiThey are white.

Did you know that when you talk racist I get all hot and sweaty...



 ac_wub

It has the opposite affect on old Herman.

Quote from: HermanI was posting on Postmedia comments section and a few progtards were saying oil, gas, and coal are finite. Rare earth metals, water and all that frickin land wind and solar require to produce a lot less energy than fossils are not finite according to those dumbasses.

Wind and solar are hardly new technology. They will always a rounding error of the world's energy mix. I don't see electricty powering transportation. Fuel cell and hydrogen are possibilities. I should read more about them.

A far more sustainable and affordable future will have some wind and solar, some fossil fuels, and a LOT of nuclear power.

Quote from: BricktopA far more sustainable and affordable future will have some wind and solar, some fossil fuels, and a LOT of nuclear power.

Nuclear is an excellent source of energy. But, I don't see electricity powering the transportation sector. I think fossils will remain and hydrogen, fuel cells will be added.

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: BricktopA far more sustainable and affordable future will have some wind and solar, some fossil fuels, and a LOT of nuclear power.

Nuclear is an excellent source of energy. But, I don't see electricity powering the transportation sector. I think fossils will remain and hydrogen, fuel cells will be added.

I was going to trade in my car this year, but I didn't....in 2022 for sure..



I'm still reluctant to go full electric....hybrid perhaps.

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: BricktopA far more sustainable and affordable future will have some wind and solar, some fossil fuels, and a LOT of nuclear power.

Nuclear is an excellent source of energy. But, I don't see electricity powering the transportation sector. I think fossils will remain and hydrogen, fuel cells will be added.

I was going to trade in my car this year, but I didn't....in 2022 for sure..



I'm still reluctant to go full electric....hybrid perhaps.

You should be reluctant to buy an electric car. I believe something will come along in the near future and make them obsolete.  I read ten minutes ago that fuel cell drivetrain combines zero-emissions mobility with the fast refueling time that's needed for long-distance driving.



Moving forward, electric vehicles will have longer ranges thanks to advances in battery technology, but the refueling time won't be competitive with that of a hydrogen-powered model. It takes about three to five minutes to top up a hydrogen tank, and then you're set to go. That's three to five minutes, compared to four to twenty hours for electric vehicles.



Fuel cells can handle our cold climate better too.

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: BricktopA far more sustainable and affordable future will have some wind and solar, some fossil fuels, and a LOT of nuclear power.

Nuclear is an excellent source of energy. But, I don't see electricity powering the transportation sector. I think fossils will remain and hydrogen, fuel cells will be added.

I was going to trade in my car this year, but I didn't....in 2022 for sure..



I'm still reluctant to go full electric....hybrid perhaps.

You should be reluctant to buy an electric car. I believe something will come along in the near future and make them obsolete.  I read ten minutes ago that fuel cell drivetrain combines zero-emissions mobility with the fast refueling time that's needed for long-distance driving.



Moving forward, electric vehicles will have longer ranges thanks to advances in battery technology, but the refueling time won't be competitive with that of a hydrogen-powered model. It takes about three to five minutes to top up a hydrogen tank, and then you're set to go. That's three to five minutes, compared to four to twenty hours for electric vehicles.



Fuel cells can handle our cold climate better too.

True Dope has set limits on how many internal combustion engine vehicles can be sold in Canada. Either there will be a huge demand for second vehicles or we're going broke building infrastructure to handle an electric fleet.

Quote from: Shen Li

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: BricktopA far more sustainable and affordable future will have some wind and solar, some fossil fuels, and a LOT of nuclear power.

Nuclear is an excellent source of energy. But, I don't see electricity powering the transportation sector. I think fossils will remain and hydrogen, fuel cells will be added.

I was going to trade in my car this year, but I didn't....in 2022 for sure..



I'm still reluctant to go full electric....hybrid perhaps.

You should be reluctant to buy an electric car. I believe something will come along in the near future and make them obsolete.  I read ten minutes ago that fuel cell drivetrain combines zero-emissions mobility with the fast refueling time that's needed for long-distance driving.



Moving forward, electric vehicles will have longer ranges thanks to advances in battery technology, but the refueling time won't be competitive with that of a hydrogen-powered model. It takes about three to five minutes to top up a hydrogen tank, and then you're set to go. That's three to five minutes, compared to four to twenty hours for electric vehicles.



Fuel cells can handle our cold climate better too.

True Dope has set limits on how many internal combustion engine vehicles can be sold in Canada. Either there will be a huge demand for second vehicles or we're going broke building infrastructure to handle an electric fleet.

There's a third option: vote out the Liberals.

An electric truck in Saskatchewan in the winter. I don't think so.

Electric vehicles in the Australian desert?



Not going to happen. People will die.

Quote from: BricktopElectric vehicles in the Australian desert?



Not going to happen. People will die.

Electric vehicles are not meant for climate extremes and remote places.

The heat will deplete the battery. Vehicles will be running cooling systems and air conditioning and draining the battery even faster. They will drain in a few hours and there won't be any recharge stations out there if you run dry. Nor will anyone come along and fill your battery by the side of the road. Electric vehicles will only suit urban environments.

Quote from: BricktopThe heat will deplete the battery. Vehicles will be running cooling systems and air conditioning and draining the battery even faster. They will drain in a few hours and there won't be any recharge stations out there if you run dry. Nor will anyone come along and fill your battery by the side of the road. Electric vehicles will only suit urban environments.

AC and heat drain their batteries fast.

Quote from: BricktopThe heat will deplete the battery. Vehicles will be running cooling systems and air conditioning and draining the battery even faster. They will drain in a few hours and there won't be any recharge stations out there if you run dry. Nor will anyone come along and fill your battery by the side of the road. Electric vehicles will only suit urban environments.

Much like wind and solar themselves, electric cars are impractical. Besides that, they use a lot more finite resources than fossils.

"A halt in investment in oil and gas is misguided," OPEC Secretary-General Mohammad Barkindo said in a recorded presentation to the gathering on Wednesday. Almost $12 trillion in spending is needed between now and 2045 to ensure adequate crude and gas supplies, without which the world will see "long-term scars on energy security, affecting not only producers but also consumers."

Wind and solar are old technologies and will never be anything more than expensive virtue signalling.



The Future Of Power Generation



The current consensus on energy and climate is both unserious and incoherent. Burning fossil fuels is said to be responsible for global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. Although nuclear power is a carbon-free energy solution, much of the public seems to be more afraid of a reactor accident than extinction by the greenhouse effect.



Solar and energy conservation have been media darlings since the energy crisis of the 1970s. President Barack Obama spent $100 billion on "green energy" in just one stimulus package. Yet there is little to show for it. World energy use is projected to grow rapidly. Solar accounts for only one percent of energy production.



Although I can't agree with his conclusions, Director Jeff Gibbs did an outstanding job of skewering solar energy in 1921's Planet of the Humans. (Michael Moore is executive producer.) Ethanol, hydrogen-powered cars, solar cells, and other supposedly renewable solutions are exposed as frauds that are dependent on fossil fuel once you scratch the surface.



Brazil's forests are being converted to sugar cane and burned as part of the ethanol scam that Goldman Sachs promotes. The manufacturing process requires a great deal of electric power. There is an amusing scene in the film where a manager explains that Iowa is the perfect location for an ethanol plant because it is near coal deposits.



The closure of a coal-powered plant in Las Vegas is hailed as a victory for solar energy. But in fact, it was replaced with two natural gas-powered facilities.



"Some [solar] panels last only ten years," a solar panel salesman told Gibbs. "I don't know that it's the solution."



Solar cells are not made of sand but mined quartz and coal, which must be melted together in a high-temperature furnace. The furnace itself is likely coal-powered. Dust buildup can dramatically cut a panel's efficiency.



The fact that solar panels can produce electricity only when the sun shines means that a backup solution is required to produce energy at night and when it's cloudy. Energy professionals call this the "intermittency" problem. Unless you are willing to tolerate outages, solar energy will never allow you to turn a fossil fuel plant off.



Even a solar energy festival had to switch to the electric power grid as soon as rain started to fall, as Gibbs shows in another amusing sequence. Cycling power up and down only increases a generator's carbon footprint. So, what's the point of installing solar cells? Well, you can get a tax credit.



While it is often assumed that adding a megawatt of renewable power means that we will need a megawatt less of coal power, a peer-reviewed international comparison study by Richard York of the University of Oregon found that there was very little substitution of this type. For example, adding solar power to an electric grid reduces the need for fossil fuel by about one-tenth of the amount added.



No country emphasizes solar and renewables more than Germany. Yet only 1.5 percent of Germany's energy is from solar and only 3.1 percent from wind, according to Gibbs.



When politicians talk about "green jobs," what they mean is that solar and renewables are more labor-intensive than other energy sources. This is not an advantage! Lower energy prices are a far better way to generate jobs.



After Gibbs has exposed one eco-scam after another, the viewer begins to wonder if any environmental initiative is actually about improving the environment. Unlike Gibbs, I don't think that the alternative to the solar energy fraud is human extinction. So, I am going to talk about nuclear power.



Nuclear power produces 20 percent of U.S. electricity, even though politics has stalled the industry's growth since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.



The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union killed 51 people. Without a containment structure, all the radioactivity in the core was leaked out. Although the HBO Chernobyl drama is filled with scare talk about how it could all have been much worse, this represents a worst-case meltdown scenario.



The U.S Department of Energy recently awarded a $1.27 billion contract to X-energy to build the first of a next-generation reactor scheduled to begin operation in 2027.



X-energy's Xe-100 will be a small modular reactor powered by tristructural isotropic, or triso, particles. These particles are 0.5 mm in diameter. There are three layers of casing to protect the enriched uranium kernel from the high temperature of a reactor core. A layer of silicon carbide is sandwiched between two layers of pyrolytic carbon.



The elaborate system of rods and water cooling found in light-water reactors is dispensed with. Molten salt circulates in the core as a coolant. The use of salt allows a reactor to function at atmospheric pressure. An LWR is under 100 times atmospheric pressure. As there is no danger of a triso reactor melting down, a containment structure is not necessary.



Triso fuel is being manufactured at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and by BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, Virginia.



China is operating a 200 MWe demonstration triso reactor at Shidao Bay in Shangdong Province. This is a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR).



This is not the first time the Department of Energy has attempted to revive the U.S. nuclear industry by introducing an advanced reactor design. Westinghouse contracted to build two AP1000 pressurized-water reactors in Georgia in 2008. These reactors were subject to a series of delays and cost overruns. The 2011 Fukushima accident undercut support for the project. Work stalled in 2017 when Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy.



Both reactors are nonetheless scheduled to open in 2022. While these 1,100-MWe reactors implement economies of scale, the watchwords this time around are modularity and standardization.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/the_future_of_power_generation.html

Besides being a lot more sustainable, natural gas is a lot more able to get the job done in extreme weather.



How did Alberta survive wicked cold snap? Thanks for nothing, solar power



How close would a solar and wind-dependent power grid have come to giving us the electricity we needed during the three-week freeze in Alberta where the average temperature was -22 C from Dec. 15 to Jan. 9?



Alberta sleuth Ian Mackay, an oilfield information technology specialist in Lacombe, has the answer. Mackay scrapes data from the website of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), a not-for-profit organization that manages and works with industry to operate the provincial power grid.



Alberta needs a supply of about 10,500 MW (megawatts) on average, said Mackay. If they are running at maximum capacity, solar can provide 736 MW and wind 2,269 MW.



Sounds impressive, right? That's about 30 per cent of Alberta's electrical power needs. But during Alberta's recent biting cold days, solar ran at just 2.64 per cent of maximum capacity, the amount each panel would produce if it operated at full efficiency around the clock each day.

(https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/edmontonjournal/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/thumbnail_image001.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=564&type=webp)

As for wind, it ran at 29.5 per cent of maximum capacity.



If we had been reliant on far more solar and wind, how would we have done?



"You'd have to start with rolling blackouts or brownouts," Mackay said. "If we lost the bulk of our generation, there'd be a lot of people dying."



But, of course, good, old reliable fossil fuels came to the rescue. Alberta's gas generators, which have the capacity to produce 10,166 MW, operated at 71 per cent. Coal, which can now produce a maximum of 1,729 MW, operated at 87.5 per cent.



In total, during the three bitter weeks, gas provided 69.7 per cent of our power, coal 18.7 per cent, wind 6.4 per cent, biomass 2.7 per cent, hydro 1.6 per cent, dual fuel (coal-gas co-generation) 0.7 per cent, and solar just 0.1 per cent.



Thanks for nothing, solar power.



Mackay is a fan of solar power for some applications, just not when it comes to providing base load power, the kind needed to power a modern, prosperous consumer and industrial economy.



"I think solar is great for a lot of things," he said, mentioning its utility for camping and cabins. "I just don't think it's great for powering a province."



Mackay started to scrape power data about eight years ago to better understand how wind power impacted the power grid. Five years ago, he created a Twitter account, @ReliableAB , to publish the numbers every hour, with the tweets generated automatically.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/david-staples-how-did-alberta-survive-wicked-cold-snap-thanks-for-nothing-solar-power

https://twitter.com/ReliableAB/status/1481772306309468160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1481772306309468160%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fedmontonjournal.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2Fdavid-staples-how-did-alberta-survive-wicked-cold-snap-thanks-for-nothing-solar-power



Old school green activists like Canada's new Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault fantasize about a world powered by solar and wind energy.



But just how would that utopian green vision play out during the coldest days of the Canadian winter?



For example, how close would a solar and wind-dependent power grid have come to giving us the electricity we needed during the three-week freeze in Alberta where the average temperature was -22 C from Dec. 15 to Jan. 9?



Alberta sleuth Ian Mackay, an oilfield information technology specialist in Lacombe, has the answer. Mackay scrapes data from the website of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), a not-for-profit organization that manages and works with industry to operate the provincial power grid.



Alberta needs a supply of about 10,500 MW (megawatts) on average, said Mackay. If they are running at maximum capacity, solar can provide 736 MW and wind 2,269 MW.



Sounds impressive, right? That's about 30 per cent of Alberta's electrical power needs. But during Alberta's recent biting cold days, solar ran at just 2.64 per cent of maximum capacity, the amount each panel would produce if it operated at full efficiency around the clock each day.



As for wind, it ran at 29.5 per cent of maximum capacity.



If we had been reliant on far more solar and wind, how would we have done?



"You'd have to start with rolling blackouts or brownouts," Mackay said. "If we lost the bulk of our generation, there'd be a lot of people dying."



But, of course, good, old reliable fossil fuels came to the rescue. Alberta's gas generators, which have the capacity to produce 10,166 MW, operated at 71 per cent. Coal, which can now produce a maximum of 1,729 MW, operated at 87.5 per cent.



In total, during the three bitter weeks, gas provided 69.7 per cent of our power, coal 18.7 per cent, wind 6.4 per cent, biomass 2.7 per cent, hydro 1.6 per cent, dual fuel (coal-gas co-generation) 0.7 per cent, and solar just 0.1 per cent.



Thanks for nothing, solar power.



Mackay is a fan of solar power for some applications, just not when it comes to providing base load power, the kind needed to power a modern, prosperous consumer and industrial economy.



"I think solar is great for a lot of things," he said, mentioning its utility for camping and cabins. "I just don't think it's great for powering a province."



Mackay started to scrape power data about eight years ago to better understand how wind power impacted the power grid. Five years ago, he created a Twitter account, @ReliableAB , to publish the numbers every hour, with the tweets generated automatically.



Government seems more attuned to what people want to hear, rather than going on facts, Mackay said, so his goal is to present a constant flow of facts for people. "They can make up their own mind and conduct some critical thinking.



"Hopefully we will get more honesty from government that way. Everything seems so lop-sided to me. We constantly hear that Alberta has the greatest opportunity for solar generation because we have as much sun here as some places in Florida. But that's obviously not true when you look at generation charts over the course of the winter. It just doesn't happen."



Wind usually averages about 38 per cent of maximum capacity, while solar averages 15 to 18 per cent, Mackay said.



Coal and gas averages fluctuate as their plants are powered up and down to make up for the unreliability of the wind blowing and the sun shining.

Quote from: seoulbroAlthough I can't agree with his conclusions, Director Jeff Gibbs did an outstanding job of skewering solar energy in 1921's Planet of the Humans.

I saw that docco. (I think it was released in 2021. Michael wasn't alive in 1921. :001_tongue: ).



It absolutely smeared renewables.



My favourite part was the massive solar farm built near an American town. When asked how many homes it would provide energy for, the town functionary said with a straight face "Around 40. Maybe."



He also went to the unveiling of a new electric car that would change the world. When the obvious question about the source of its electricity would come from, the salesman's answer was "out of your normal power outlet, of course".



Electric cars are a dead end unless and until they can travel 1000km and can recharge in around 5 minutes...preferable less.



That does not appear likely.

The only thing we know for certain about wind and solar is that they will raise the price of electricity as more corporate welfare is given to them.

I always wonder why Australia hasn't embraced solar as its core energy source.



We have vast uninhabitable desert areas that could house millions of solar panels with no impact on the ecology. Ostensibly.



So, I ponder, why hasn't our governments embraced this massive source of energy that promises so many benefits. Millions of square kilometres of arid, useless terrain soaked in sunshine 95% of the year during daylight hours. Cloud is rarely seen in that vast wasteland.



But to the best of my knowledge, there is no solar facilities anywhere in that desolate landscape.

Quote from: BricktopI always wonder why Australia hasn't embraced solar as its core energy source.



We have vast uninhabitable desert areas that could house millions of solar panels with no impact on the ecology. Ostensibly.



So, I ponder, why hasn't our governments embraced this massive source of energy that promises so many benefits. Millions of square kilometres of arid, useless terrain soaked in sunshine 95% of the year during daylight hours. Cloud is rarely seen in that vast wasteland.



But to the best of my knowledge, there is no solar facilities anywhere in that desolate landscape.

Watch this Bricktop.

Quote from: Bricktop

Quote from: seoulbroAlthough I can't agree with his conclusions, Director Jeff Gibbs did an outstanding job of skewering solar energy in 1921's Planet of the Humans.

I saw that docco. (I think it was released in 2021. Michael wasn't alive in 1921. :001_tongue: ).



It absolutely smeared renewables.



My favourite part was the massive solar farm built near an American town. When asked how many homes it would provide energy for, the town functionary said with a straight face "Around 40. Maybe."



He also went to the unveiling of a new electric car that would change the world. When the obvious question about the source of its electricity would come from, the salesman's answer was "out of your normal power outlet, of course".



Electric cars are a dead end unless and until they can travel 1000km and can recharge in around 5 minutes...preferable less.



That does not appear likely.

Electric cars need PV built into the body/paint works before they make sense.

Quote from: seoulbroWind and solar are old technologies and will never be anything more than expensive virtue signalling.



The Future Of Power Generation



The current consensus on energy and climate is both unserious and incoherent. Burning fossil fuels is said to be responsible for global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. Although nuclear power is a carbon-free energy solution, much of the public seems to be more afraid of a reactor accident than extinction by the greenhouse effect.



Solar and energy conservation have been media darlings since the energy crisis of the 1970s. President Barack Obama spent $100 billion on "green energy" in just one stimulus package. Yet there is little to show for it. World energy use is projected to grow rapidly. Solar accounts for only one percent of energy production.



Although I can't agree with his conclusions, Director Jeff Gibbs did an outstanding job of skewering solar energy in 1921's Planet of the Humans. (Michael Moore is executive producer.) Ethanol, hydrogen-powered cars, solar cells, and other supposedly renewable solutions are exposed as frauds that are dependent on fossil fuel once you scratch the surface.



Brazil's forests are being converted to sugar cane and burned as part of the ethanol scam that Goldman Sachs promotes. The manufacturing process requires a great deal of electric power. There is an amusing scene in the film where a manager explains that Iowa is the perfect location for an ethanol plant because it is near coal deposits.



The closure of a coal-powered plant in Las Vegas is hailed as a victory for solar energy. But in fact, it was replaced with two natural gas-powered facilities.



"Some [solar] panels last only ten years," a solar panel salesman told Gibbs. "I don't know that it's the solution."



Solar cells are not made of sand but mined quartz and coal, which must be melted together in a high-temperature furnace. The furnace itself is likely coal-powered. Dust buildup can dramatically cut a panel's efficiency.



The fact that solar panels can produce electricity only when the sun shines means that a backup solution is required to produce energy at night and when it's cloudy. Energy professionals call this the "intermittency" problem. Unless you are willing to tolerate outages, solar energy will never allow you to turn a fossil fuel plant off.



Even a solar energy festival had to switch to the electric power grid as soon as rain started to fall, as Gibbs shows in another amusing sequence. Cycling power up and down only increases a generator's carbon footprint. So, what's the point of installing solar cells? Well, you can get a tax credit.



While it is often assumed that adding a megawatt of renewable power means that we will need a megawatt less of coal power, a peer-reviewed international comparison study by Richard York of the University of Oregon found that there was very little substitution of this type. For example, adding solar power to an electric grid reduces the need for fossil fuel by about one-tenth of the amount added.



No country emphasizes solar and renewables more than Germany. Yet only 1.5 percent of Germany's energy is from solar and only 3.1 percent from wind, according to Gibbs.



When politicians talk about "green jobs," what they mean is that solar and renewables are more labor-intensive than other energy sources. This is not an advantage! Lower energy prices are a far better way to generate jobs.



After Gibbs has exposed one eco-scam after another, the viewer begins to wonder if any environmental initiative is actually about improving the environment. Unlike Gibbs, I don't think that the alternative to the solar energy fraud is human extinction. So, I am going to talk about nuclear power.



Nuclear power produces 20 percent of U.S. electricity, even though politics has stalled the industry's growth since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.



The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union killed 51 people. Without a containment structure, all the radioactivity in the core was leaked out. Although the HBO Chernobyl drama is filled with scare talk about how it could all have been much worse, this represents a worst-case meltdown scenario.



The U.S Department of Energy recently awarded a $1.27 billion contract to X-energy to build the first of a next-generation reactor scheduled to begin operation in 2027.



X-energy's Xe-100 will be a small modular reactor powered by tristructural isotropic, or triso, particles. These particles are 0.5 mm in diameter. There are three layers of casing to protect the enriched uranium kernel from the high temperature of a reactor core. A layer of silicon carbide is sandwiched between two layers of pyrolytic carbon.



The elaborate system of rods and water cooling found in light-water reactors is dispensed with. Molten salt circulates in the core as a coolant. The use of salt allows a reactor to function at atmospheric pressure. An LWR is under 100 times atmospheric pressure. As there is no danger of a triso reactor melting down, a containment structure is not necessary.



Triso fuel is being manufactured at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and by BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, Virginia.



China is operating a 200 MWe demonstration triso reactor at Shidao Bay in Shangdong Province. This is a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR).



This is not the first time the Department of Energy has attempted to revive the U.S. nuclear industry by introducing an advanced reactor design. Westinghouse contracted to build two AP1000 pressurized-water reactors in Georgia in 2008. These reactors were subject to a series of delays and cost overruns. The 2011 Fukushima accident undercut support for the project. Work stalled in 2017 when Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy.



Both reactors are nonetheless scheduled to open in 2022. While these 1,100-MWe reactors implement economies of scale, the watchwords this time around are modularity and standardization.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/the_future_of_power_generation.html

I don't want to freeze in the dark while the elites who force subsidies for wind and solar have diesel generators for back up.

Quote from: ThielWatch this Bricktop.

Interesting. But not quite as relevant to Australia. The vast interior space is effectively dead land. The ecosystem, such as it is, is sparse and miniscule.



The fact that a solar farm will somehow generate heat won't be an issue.



The cynic in me, on the other hand, whispers in my ear that the main reason it is not considered feasible is that there will be no return on investment. The massive cost of installation and maintenance can never be recovered without a huge increase in price to the end consumer.



Despite the ample sunlight that is available during the day, it will cease at night. It is only therefore financially viable for 50% of the time.



This is the fatal flaw of solar farms.

In Canada, it doesn't seem to matter how much solar construction costs, the politicians will make us pay..



It doesn't matter how much more our bills will be either..



It doesn't even matter if it produces enough electricity to keep houses warm and the lights on.

Then stop voting for them.

Quote from: FashionistaIn Canada, it doesn't seem to matter how much solar construction solar costs, the politicians will make us pay..



It doesn't matter how much more our bills will be either..



It doesn't even matter if it produces enough electricity to keep houses warm and the lights on.

Quote from: BricktopThen stop voting for them.

Problem is that all parties are quite similar in that area. The propaganda has been so intense that it has created believers among voters across the political spectrum



I believe it happened what they stopped trying to sell it and started treating it as "established fact" as a starting point and moved further forward from there .. an often  successful  strategy to sell a scam



EG: Our "conservative", sigh,  leader is not significantly different from our liberal ones  in that area .. feeling he would lose votes if he didn't follow accepted  belief



Only IF the scam is busted will things improve

Quote from: BricktopThen stop voting for them.

What you are really saying is don't vote. All federal parties support that bullshit.

Funny thing about the rising gas-prices.



When you consider peoples purchasing power, gasoline costs over 10 euros per liter in Ukraine.





It costs 1,88 euros to us because we have more purchasing power than Ukrainians.

Quote from: OdinsonFunny thing about the rising gas-prices.



When you consider peoples purchasing power, gasoline costs over 10 euros per liter in Ukraine.





It costs 1,88 euros to us because we have more purchasing power than Ukrainians.

I'd imagine angering Moscow will not lower gasoline prices in Ukraine.

Nuclear and natural gas are concentrated energy sources, much cleaner and much closer to sustainable than either wind or solar.



EU classifies nuclear power and natural gas as 'green'



The European Union, self-styled global leaders on climate change, acknowledged Wednesday that United Nations' global greenhouse gas emission reduction targets cannot be achieved without what it now officially describes as "green" energy sources such as nuclear power and natural gas.



The EU's 27 member states are deeply divided about classifying nuclear power and natural gas as "green" — which would give an ethical green light to global investors putting money into those technologies, as opposed to unreliable wind and solar power.



That could be economically advantageous for Canada, given that we have safe, reliable nuclear technology and we are the world's fourth-largest producer and sixth-largest exporter of natural gas.



The EU commission is right and to understand why we need to look no further than Ontario's elimination of coal to produce 25% of the province's electricity by replacing it with nuclear power and natural gas.



Carried out from 2003-14, this was one of North America's most successful, effective and rapid reductions of greenhouse gases because nuclear power doesn't produce them and natural gas burns at half the carbon intensity of coal.



Neither wind nor solar power were capable of replacing coal because (a) unlike fossil fuels, they couldn't provide baseload power to the electricity grid on demand and (b) they didn't produce enough energy to replace coal.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-eu-classifies-nuclear-power-and-natural-gas-as-green

Conservative leadership candidates should, even before the contest takes a breath, announce that they will condemn, repudiate and promise to revoke the ludicrous and painful carbon tax, and make it clear that the Conservative party is not on side with any efforts to ruin the oil and gas industry by pursuing the folly and farce of net-zero.

Biden Energy Secretary Calls Solar Panels & Wind Turbines The "Greatest Peace Plan"



Oh boy.

Quote from: ccBiden Energy Secretary Calls Solar Panels & Wind Turbines The "Greatest Peace Plan"



Oh boy.

She is a stunned cunt.

Quote from: ccBiden Energy Secretary Calls Solar Panels & Wind Turbines The "Greatest Peace Plan"



Oh boy.

She must have meant piece as in a piece of the action for crony capitalists who donate to the Dems.

Biden Administration Kills Israel-To-Europe Gas Pipeline (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18232/israel-europe-gas-pipeline)



Biden's decision — reportedly coordinated with Turkey but reached without consulting Israel, Greece or Cyprus, the main countries involved in the project — undercuts three of the strongest American allies in the Mediterranean region.



EastMed's cancellation — variously described as a "disastrous decision," a "strategic mistake" and an act of "appeasement" of Erdoğan — represents a major geopolitical victory for the Turkish strongman.



The EastMed pipeline has been in the works for more than a decade. The Israel-Greece-Cyprus project — joined by Bulgaria, Hungary, North Macedonia, Romania and Serbia — has long been seen as a way to diversify natural gas supplies to Europe.



The Turkish government has always insisted that Israeli gas can only be sold to Europe through Turkey.



"The Americans do not want the pipeline because Ankara might 'get angry.'" — Theofrastos Andreopoulos, defense analyst, defensenet.gr.



----------------------------------------



YAWN .. Caves to tyrants while abandoning many allies yet again

WTF has that got to do with America??



And how can they stop a project outside their sovereign borders?







And people wonder why I revile that moronic country....

Quote from: ccBiden Administration Kills Israel-To-Europe Gas Pipeline (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18232/israel-europe-gas-pipeline)



Biden's decision — reportedly coordinated with Turkey but reached without consulting Israel, Greece or Cyprus, the main countries involved in the project — undercuts three of the strongest American allies in the Mediterranean region.



EastMed's cancellation — variously described as a "disastrous decision," a "strategic mistake" and an act of "appeasement" of Erdoğan — represents a major geopolitical victory for the Turkish strongman.



The EastMed pipeline has been in the works for more than a decade. The Israel-Greece-Cyprus project — joined by Bulgaria, Hungary, North Macedonia, Romania and Serbia — has long been seen as a way to diversify natural gas supplies to Europe.



The Turkish government has always insisted that Israeli gas can only be sold to Europe through Turkey.



"The Americans do not want the pipeline because Ankara might 'get angry.'" — Theofrastos Andreopoulos, defense analyst, defensenet.gr.



----------------------------------------



YAWN .. Caves to tyrants while abandoning many allies yet again

Iran can produce and sell oil though. Fuck Jim Crow Joe is the worst president the US has ever had.

Wind and solar aint ever going to cut it. Not investing in new oil and gas has raised the price of heat and hydro across the G20.



Stampede Of The Green Lemmings

https://climatechangedispatch.com/stampede-of-the-green-lemmings



Solar energy has a huge problem. Even on sunny days, almost nothing is generated to meet the demand peaks around breakfast time and dinner time – the solar energy union only works a six-hour day, goes on strike with little warning, and takes quite a few sickies.



So, for at least 18 hours of every day, electricity must come from somewhere else. Then around noon, millions of solar panels pour out far more electricity than is needed, causing electrical and financial chaos in the electrical grid.



Naturally, our green 'engineers' see wind power as filling the solar energy gaps. But wind power has a union too and they take lots of sickies when there is no wind over large areas of the continent.



And they down tools in storms, gales, or cyclones in case their whirling toys are damaged.



So the green planners claim that batteries can solve these intermittent problems of the green-energy twins.



They will need to be humungous batteries.



Batteries are just a crutch for a crippled generation system. And with fierce lithium battery fires reported regularly, who wants a humungous fire-prone battery over the back fence or in the basement?



A battery is not a generator of electricity – every battery (including Snowy 2.0) is a net consumer of electricity.



Batteries are very expensive, most lose capacity as they age, and every conversion between DC storage and AC transmission triggers energy losses.



To collect, back up, and redistribute green electricity will require a continent-spanning spider-web of transmission lines with all the costs and energy losses that the network entails.



Still nights and calm cloudy days are what really expose the problems of wind-solar-plus-batteries.



Suppose electricity consumers require 100 units of electricity every day. Well-designed coal, nuclear, or gas-fired power stations can do that, 24/7, day after day, whatever the weather.



But to ensure a wind or solar system against, say, seven days of calm or cloudy weather would require a battery capable of storing 700 units of electricity.



To recharge this huge battery while still supplying consumers will require much larger wind or solar generating capacity.



However, if several weeks of windy or sunny weather then occur, this big battery will sit idle, connected to a bloated expensive generation system that is capable of delivering far more power than is needed.



Germany once produced abundant reliable electricity from coal and nuclear power – the backbone for German industry. Then green ants started nibbling at this backbone, replacing it with wind-solar toys.



Now, Germany has expensive electricity – a grid in danger of collapse and must rely on imported gas from Russia, nuclear power from France, or hydro-power from Scandinavia.



The UK is also following similar foolish energy policies, even banning exploration of their own oil and gas resources.

The pandemic and now the Russian-Ukrainian war have shown us the madness of going any further with delusion of wind and solar.



No Energy Realism In Bidenland

As per my previous post, the situation in Ukraine should be a wake-up call to every sentient person to ditch the fantasies about wind and solar energy ASAP, and make sure that we have real energy that works.  The wind/solar delusion, combined with active suppression of fossil fuels and even of nuclear, are basically financing Vladimir Putin's war via increased oil and gas exports and higher prices.  Meanwhile, the brave Ukrainian armed forces are certainly not running on the wind and sun; nor are the Russians who are attacking them.



In 2021, after finally achieving energy independence under President Trump, the U.S. immediately gave that up as the Biden Administration brought fresh rounds of fossil fuel suppression. 



Sea level is rising at the rate of maybe 6 - 8 inches per century, as it has for the last 10,000 or so years since the last ice age.



Meanwhile, back over in Europe, perhaps being much closer to the advancing Russian tanks has a way of focusing the mind.  Germany, with its "Energiewende," has long fancied itself the vanguard of the movement to get rid of fossil fuels.  But after 12 years of this they have essentially no storage, battery or otherwise, to back up the wind and sun, and thus remain completely dependent on fossil fuels on calm nights and cloudy winter days.  Oh, and they have also banned fracking for natural gas in their own territory.  So it's natural gas from Russia or nothing, just as Russia decides to advance its military westward. 



The headline of the Bloomberg story today is "Germany may extend coal use to replace Russian gas."  But wait, you say — didn't Germany just elect a new government consisting of the Social Democrats and the Greens?  Surely, those people would not tolerate such a thing!  Think again:



Economy Minister Robert Habeck, the former co-leader of the Green party, said coal plants could run for longer and even said he wasn't "ideologically opposed" to extending the use of nuclear energy.  Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced on Sunday plans to build two new liquefied natural gas terminals to expand Germany's energy choices and reduce its reliance on Russia.  The government wants to reach a point where it can "pick and choose which countries we want to build energy partnerships with," Habeck said in an interview late on Sunday on ARD television. "Being able to choose also means, in case of doubt, that you can become independent from Russian gas, coal or oil."

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-2-28-no-energy-realism-in-bidenland

One hundred and ten buck a barrel oil, highest inflation in decades. sky high energy bills due to not exporting our own resource riches to our allies.



Let's end magical thinking on energy

Fossil fuels will continue to be crucial to our energy needs and now also to our national security interests and those of our allies

https://financialpost.com/opinion/mark-milke-lets-end-magical-thinking-on-energy

Now, tragically, energy security is a 100-point headline, given Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the folly of Europe's dependence on Russia for too much of its energy use — dependence that increased steadily over the past two decades as Europeans shut down nuclear and coal electrical generation plants and discouraged new oil and gas exploration on their continent.



The result of such policy follies is that Russian president — president for life — Vladimir Putin has dangerously increased his leverage over Europe, which is highly dependent on foreign natural gas and oil, much of it coming from tyrannies and autocracies.



For example, between 2005 and 2019, the EU imported over €838 billion in natural gas from foreign sources, or an average of nearly €56 billion per year. About one-third of that came from tyrannies and autocracies (mainly Russia, Algeria and Libya) — "not-free" countries in the terminology of Washington-based think tank, Freedom House — with the rest from "free" countries (liberal democracies) and "partly free" countries. By 2019, however, the proportion of Europe's imported natural gas from not-free countries had risen to 41 per cent — although that is likely an underestimate, as Germany does not release all its data on fossil fuel imports from Russia.



As for oil, the EU is even more dependent on autocracies and tyrannies for imports. Between 2005 and 2019, it imported €4.6 trillion in foreign oil, with 68 per cent or €3.1 trillion worth coming from countries not considered democratic or free. In 2019, the share was down only slightly, to 67 per cent. (These data are from the Canadian Energy Centre, where I co-authored several reports on the oil and natural gas exports of regressive regimes worldwide.) Russia accounts for 58 per cent of the natural gas and 42 per cent of the oil that the EU bought from tyrannies and autocracies between 2005 and 2019.



It is time for Canadians to end their magical thinking about energy. That includes dropping the fantasy that we can realistically reduce carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050. As University of Manitoba professor emeritus Vaclav Smil has long argued (he being the leading world expert in energy transitions) the physical capacities of oil, natural gas and coal cannot be replaced by the low-punch energy density of renewables. Responsible analysts, politicians, insurers and investors need to recognize that fossil fuels will continue to be crucial to our energy needs and now also to our national security interests and those of our allies, be they in Europe, the United States or Asia.



There is little reason why Germany or Japan, for example, should continue to rely so heavily on natural gas from not-free countries when liquified natural gas could be extracted from Alberta and Northern British Columbia but also from Atlantic Canada and Quebec, as all have the potential for significant extraction and exports.



Yes, this would require a sea change in attitude among Canadian politicians, but it would be a mature recognition of the actual world we live in, strategic interests included.



In the last century, Canadian families sent their sons to fight and to die in multiple wars to defend Europe and Asia from tyrannies. The least that responsible modern-day Canadians can do is tighten our links with allies. That includes looking at energy as part of a worldwide security pact with other democracies and making it as easy as possible for Canadian energy to get to them.

I hope this slaps some sense into Ottawa. Energy costs are exploding while our oil and gas stays in the ground and worse, we import oil from countries with leaders who make Putin look respectable by comparison.

QuoteWhat Canadian policymakers can learn from Europe's energy woes

It should be obvious: the world needs more, not less, of Canada's abundant and ethically produced energy



Proponents of such moves argued that "renewable" forms of energy such as wind and solar could easily make up the gap. Furthermore, Russia was willingly delivering meaningful amounts of natural gas into Europe, accounting for between 25 to 100 per cent of European countries' natural gas needs. Despite already being a critical and now irreplaceable energy provider, Russia had intended to further increase its supplies into Europe via its Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. What could go wrong?



Let's fast forward to late 2021 and the events of the present day. In the United Kingdom last winter, the wind stopped blowing by 90 per cent, the lowest wind production since 1961, which nullified much of its offshore wind energy capacity. Without adequate redundancies in place, coal plants were fired up and liquefied natural gas demand surged, resulting in the price of coal and natural gas rising by 175 per cent and 590 per cent, respectively, both making all-time or near all-time highs.



Canada, like Russia, is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We have the world's third-largest oil reserves and we'll have the ability to ship natural gas from our west coast to global markets in the next few years.



In April, the Canadian government will announce its spring budget and several items relating to the oil and gas sector are expected. Some of these items may follow the path that Europe has chosen, placing restrictions on the growth potential of our energy sector. In a world in which energy is becoming weaponized, and demand is set to grow for at least another decade, is this prudent?



Canadian oilsands producers, responsible for 0.1 per cent of global CO2 emissions, have already pledged to reach net-zero status by 2050, and operate under one of the most stringent environmental regimes of any oil-producing jurisdiction in the world.



For example, according to Joule Bergerson of the University of Calgary, if the rest of the world's oil production were held to Canadian standards for flaring, total greenhouse gas emissions from every barrel produced would drop by 23 per cent — the equivalent of taking 100 million cars off the road.



Canada, meanwhile, exports 99 per cent of its oil to a single customer. Diversification is a necessity, and even with recent cost overages on the taxpayer-owned Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project almost doubling to $21 billion, it is still of national imperative that the project proceed post haste.

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/eric-nuttall-what-canadian-policymakers-can-learn-from-europes-energy-woes

Saudi Arabia & UAE today rejected Biden's attempt to get them to ramp up production for him so he's running out of options. He should reinstate Keystone.

If that is the case, the US should reject Saudi's attempt to ramp up US military arms sales.

Quote from: BricktopIf that is the case, the US should reject Saudi's attempt to ramp up US military arms sales.

Or president Biden could reverse his decision to cancel Keystone XL..



Most of it is built and it would transport 840,000 additional barrels of oil a day to the USA..



That would more than make up for the loss of 600,000 Russian barrels of oil.

If your PM had any spine, he'd be kicking down Biden's door carrying an order book.

Quote from: BricktopIf your PM had any spine, he'd be kicking down Biden's door carrying an order book.

It's not a matter of Justine having no balls. He does not want Canadian oil and gas developed. He would prefer countries like Iran and Venezuela pick up the slack from whatever Russia doesn't produce.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: BricktopIf your PM had any spine, he'd be kicking down Biden's door carrying an order book.

It's not a matter of Justine having no balls. He does not want Canadian oil and gas developed. He would prefer countries like Iran and Venezuela pick up the slack from whatever Russia doesn't produce.

I believe foreign energy is exempt from his carbon tax.

Quote from: BricktopIf that is the case, the US should reject Saudi's attempt to ramp up US military arms sales.

The US should ramp up it's own domestic energy production. They were energy independent under Trump with low fuel, electricity and home heating costs. Biden put an end to that nightmare.

Australia is Japan's largest source of LNG. They get zero from Canada because the prog dickheads running this country won't approve an LNG export facility.



Why Japan's power sector depends so much on LNG

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/why-japans-power-sector-depends-so-much-lng-2022-03-10/



TOKYO (Reuters) -Resource-poor Japan depends overwhelmingly on fossil-fuel imports to meet its energy needs, complicating calls for the nation to boycott Russia's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.



Japan gets most of its primary energy needs from crude oil, more than 90% of which comes from the Middle East, based on government data. LNG comprises about 24% of the total energy mix.



But LNG takes up a bigger piece of the pie when it comes to electricity production, at 36%. That dependence has increased since 2011, when most of Japan's nuclear facilities were idled after the massive earthquake and tsunami that triggered meltdowns at a plant in Fukushima, northern Japan.



HOW DOES JAPAN USE LNG AND WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?



Until it was overtaken by China last year, Japan was the world's largest importer of LNG, accounting for about 22% of the total market, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The LNG supply is primarily used in electricity production, but it is also used for heating and cooking in most residential households.



Australia was the biggest single supplier of LNG at 36% of Japan's imports as of last year, followed by Malaysia with 14%. Russia accounts for 9%, the same as the United States.

If the Liberals hadn'et killed Energy East pipeline we could be sending 1.5 million barrels to the East Coast and a lot of that could reach Europe.



OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada is studying ways to increase pipeline utilization to boost crude exports to the United States, with the aim of helping European countries that phase out imports of Russian oil, the natural resources minister said on Thursday.



"We are looking at whether our pipeline network is fully utilized, such that we might be able to send incremental crude to the United States ... which would then essentially go to Europe to help with the challenges that Europe faces," Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said in a telephone interview.



Canadian oil companies exported a record amount of crude out of the U.S. Gulf Coast at the end of 2021, most of which went to big importers India, China and South Korea.

Alberta oil never looked better. Justine still can't admit it though.



Alberta's dirty oil is suddenly an elixir of freedom

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/nelson-albertas-dirty-oil-is-suddenly-an-elixir-of-freedom

Today, with a world panic-struck over rapidly rising energy costs and subsequent skyrocketing amounts of cash needed to fill any gas tank or supply any furnace, our once infamous product finds itself appreciated anew, leaving its previously lonely supporters somewhat agog at this development.



Nowhere was this rapid reputational turnaround more evident than in a recent business yarn, courtesy of Canada's national broadcaster, in which several energy company bigwigs were interviewed about difficulties in increasing production to thereby offset lost Russian supplies, ones now assuming Alberta's taboo mantle.



Not surprisingly to readers of this newspaper, they suggested current pipeline capacity constraints made such a task beyond even Hercules' grasp. But no, it wasn't the stating of the blatantly obvious that was so interesting: rather it was that none of the usual climate-change warriors were even quoted. And, yes, to repeat for those a little shell-shocked, this was indeed the CBC.



Actually, for the more cynical among us, this sudden change of heart was always on the cards. It just needed a catalyst to spur self-interest over social conscience.



Ah, and then there's our prime minister, still clinging to his tattered old script, even as the world looks enviously at our country's abundant natural resources during this worrying time of huge economic upheaval.



At a news conference in England, he was asked if Canada would use its petroleum reserves to lessen Europe's dependence on Russian oil.



"We need to move forward on decarbonizing our economies, but we need to do that in a way that supports people through that process and we're going to continue doing that," was his reply.



Later, some foreign journalists were left wondering why Canada's prime minister never actually answered the question.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says it will be another week or two before Canada will know with certainty how much extra oil it can produce and ship to help offset bans on the use of fossil fuels from Russia.



But he says longer-term conversations about Canada partnering with Europe on renewable energy are likely more realistic and more lucrative. :crazy:

Quote from: seoulbroNatural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says it will be another week or two before Canada will know with certainty how much extra oil it can produce and ship to help offset bans on the use of fossil fuels from Russia.



But he says longer-term conversations about Canada partnering with Europe on renewable energy are likely more realistic and more lucrative. :crazy:

Wind and solar are how Germany became dependent on Russia for energy.

Quote from: iron horse jockey

Quote from: seoulbroNatural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says it will be another week or two before Canada will know with certainty how much extra oil it can produce and ship to help offset bans on the use of fossil fuels from Russia.



But he says longer-term conversations about Canada partnering with Europe on renewable energy are likely more realistic and more lucrative. :crazy:

Wind and solar are how Germany became dependent on Russia for energy.

:smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:



Exactly.

Trudeau is an idiot and in denial.

Quote from: seoulbroTrudeau is an idiot and in denial.

I don't think he is in denial itself.



He is knowingly pursuing the objectives of himself and others globally fully aware of how costly and ineffective they are



He is following a global principle to finalize absolute control over many entire  Western populations  .. irrespective of costs or practicality

Quote from: cc

Quote from: seoulbroTrudeau is an idiot and in denial.

I don't think he is in denial itself.



He is knowingly pursuing the objectives of himself and others globally fully aware of how costly and ineffective they are



He is following a global principle to finalize absolute control over many entire  Western populations  .. irrespective of costs or practicality

cc, are you saying our pm knows wind and solar are not a solution, but he pursues it anyway?

He has to know. They are failing everywhere to get the job done



Take Merkel as the largest example, She tried and failed and learned that wind and solar were not close to doing the job and so had to sell her very soul in going to Russia for fossil fuels (which will really bite Germany for the future)



Examples exist everywhere. He has to know they cannot even come close to meeting  demand  .. and that's leaving out the killer blow intermittency factor



There has to be ulterior motive ... part of which is keeping the West poor & powerless

Quote from: ccHe has to know. They are failing everywhere to get the job done



Take Merkel, she tried and failed and learned that wind and solar were not close to doing the job and so had to sell her very soul in going to Russia for fossil fuels (which will really bite Germany for the future)



Examples exist everywhere. He has to know they cannot even come close to meeting  demand  .. and that's leaving out the killer blow intermittency factor



There has to be ulterior motive ... part of which is keeping the West poor & obedient

Of course Trudeau knows.

Quote from: ccHe has to know. They are failing everywhere to get the job done



Take Merkel as the largest example, She tried and failed and learned that wind and solar were not close to doing the job and so had to sell her very soul in going to Russia for fossil fuels (which will really bite Germany for the future)



Examples exist everywhere. He has to know they cannot even come close to meeting  demand  .. and that's leaving out the killer blow intermittency factor



There has to be ulterior motive ... part of which is keeping the West poor & powerless

Part, no ALL!!

Quote from: ccHe has to know. They are failing everywhere to get the job done



Take Merkel as the largest example, She tried and failed and learned that wind and solar were not close to doing the job and so had to sell her very soul in going to Russia for fossil fuels (which will really bite Germany for the future)



Examples exist everywhere. He has to know they cannot even come close to meeting  demand  .. and that's leaving out the killer blow intermittency factor



There has to be ulterior motive ... part of which is keeping the West poor & powerless

Fossils are abundant, cheap and reliable. Wind and solar sparse, expensive and unreliable. Fossils lift people out of poverty, and wind and solar move people into poverty.

There's something that has been discussed here and there but the impacts it'll have on the world will be huge, nuclear fusion



The advances have been gigantic in the last years and pretty soon they'll have the whole thing feasible.



And when that happens, just imagine how many power plants will become obsolete.



That and the push for green energy and electric cars. Russia makes most of their money with fossil fuels.



Anyway, there's so many things at stake and so many variables in this whole thing, it's absurd, almost impossible to know what's really going on



I still think all of these people are in this together. All these elites in government and the billionaires.

Quote from: RancidmilkoThere's something that has been discussed here and there but the impacts it'll have on the world will be huge, nuclear fusion



The advances have been gigantic in the last years and pretty soon they'll have the whole thing feasible.



And when that happens, just imagine how many power plants will become obsolete.



That and the push for green energy and electric cars. Russia makes most of their money with fossil fuels.



Anyway, there's so many things at stake and so many variables in this whole thing, it's absurd, almost impossible to know what's really going on



I still think all of these people are in this together. All these elites in government and the billionaires.

You are frickin right they are all in this together. I am all for nuclear advancements and technological advancements in coal, and natural gas. Hydro is good too. Wind and solar are frickin useless and we keep throwing good tax money after bad.

Quote from: Herman.........  I am all for nuclear advancements and technological advancements in coal, and natural gas. Hydro is good too. Wind and solar are frickin useless and we keep throwing good tax money after bad.

The only 2 that have no viable future, they invest in  :oeudC:

Quote from: cc

Quote from: Herman.........  I am all for nuclear advancements and technological advancements in coal, and natural gas. Hydro is good too. Wind and solar are frickin useless and we keep throwing good tax money after bad.

The only 2 that have no viable future, they invest in  :oeudC:

That's how it goes.

Quote from: cc

Quote from: Herman.........  I am all for nuclear advancements and technological advancements in coal, and natural gas. Hydro is good too. Wind and solar are frickin useless and we keep throwing good tax money after bad.

The only 2 that have no viable future, they invest in  :oeudC:

They know that too.

The pride in Canada is disappearing fast among workers as elites keep sticking it to us.





How to make people poor and energy-insecure

Never before have I been ashamed of being a Canadian

https://financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-how-to-make-people-poor-and-energy-insecure



Oil prices have risen to a staggering $US120 per barrel in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But that's not a record in real-dollar terms. Inflation-adjusted oil prices reached the same level in 2013, driving a supply response that temporarily lowered prices. World oil demand steadily increased, reaching a record 100 million barrels per day before the COVID collapse. Demand has since come roaring back and despite all the "net zero" rhetoric, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that world oil demand will continue to grow. The big question is: who will supply all that oil?



Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, will be major contributors and, despite U.S. and U.K. bravado in banning Russian imports, current and forecast world oil demand cannot be met without Russian oil. The disparate list of countries controlling world oil supply may soon include Iran if, as news reports suggest, President Biden is naïve enough to remove oil export sanctions in return for the Ayatollah's "pledge" to suspend uranium enrichment. That would leave world oil supply security in the hands of one country that subjugates women, another led by a murderous psychopath and a third developing a nuclear bomb with the avowed objective of annihilating Israel.



Meanwhile, with the world's third largest oil reserves, Canada is sacrificing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenues and new capital investment and tens of thousands of well-paying jobs on the net-zero altar by pursuing policies that make building new oil export pipelines virtually impossible. Even a proposed trans-national pipeline that would have delivered Canadian oil to eastern refineries was deliberately stymied by the Trudeau government. As a result, tankers carry Saudi Arabian and African oil that emits immensely more greenhouse gases than domestic oil up the ecologically fragile Gulf of St. Lawrence.



Speaking in London in July 2006 before departing for a Vladimir Putin hosted G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper called Canada "a new energy super-power."  Oil and gas industry capital investment rose sharply, doubling from $30 to $60 billion before the Harper government's defeat in 2015. By 2019, Trudeau's anti-oil and gas policies had seen the industry's capital spending collapse to less than half of 2006 levels.



Many Canadians may not know that history. But if there's one thing that does get their attention, it's the price at the pump. Anti-fossil fuel ideologues worshiping at the net-zero altar may be delighted by the recent run-up in gas prices. But not real-world working Canadians. On March 4th, gas prices in B.C. hit $2.00 /litre, taking the cost of filling up the family sedan to $140. Given the sprawling nature of Canadian cities, commuting to work takes at least one fill-up per week.  That amounts to more than $600.00/ month for a single car.



Along with gas prices, food and other necessities have also risen to record levels across the country. A recent Angus Reid survey found 53 per cent of Canadians were already unable to keep up with the rising cost of living.



The 11 cents/litre Federal Carbon Tax doesn't seem like much compared with current total pump prices. But it's just the beginning. The Trudeau government plans to progressively increase the carbon tax to 38 cents/litre by 2030. Adding the nine cent/litre B.C. Carbon Tax means drivers in that province will pay carbon taxes of 47 cents/litre.



The theory behind carbon taxes is that higher prices will reduce consumption. But that only applies if there's a viable alternative. For already cost-stressed real-world Canadians, driving a vehicle that's needed for business or for getting to work, a carbon tax on fuel is simply impoverishing.



At a time when the world's oil supply is being squeezed by war, the importance of unleashing Canada's enormous oil resources has never been clearer. During the prime minister's trip to Latvia, a reporter asked whether Canada could help make up the oil supply shortage. His answer illustrated the fanatical depth of our leader's worship at the net-zero altar: "We will be there to support, as the world moves beyond Russian oil and indeed, beyond fossil fuels, to have more renewables in our mix."



This incredible answer comes at a time when innocent Ukrainians and their beautiful country are being ravaged by a megalomanic who threatens the world with nuclear Armageddon. No doubt President Putin is grateful to Justin Trudeau for helping him control world oil markets by having hamstrung Canada's "energy superpower" potential. It was Putin's predecessor Lenin who coined the phrase "useful idiots."



Never before have I been ashamed of being a Canadian. I pray for new political leadership that will make me and millions of other dispirited Canadians proud of our country again.

Quote from: HermanThe pride in Canada is disappearing fast among workers as elites keep sticking it to us.





How to make people poor and energy-insecure

Never before have I been ashamed of being a Canadian

https://financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-how-to-make-people-poor-and-energy-insecure



Oil prices have risen to a staggering $US120 per barrel in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But that's not a record in real-dollar terms. Inflation-adjusted oil prices reached the same level in 2013, driving a supply response that temporarily lowered prices. World oil demand steadily increased, reaching a record 100 million barrels per day before the COVID collapse. Demand has since come roaring back and despite all the "net zero" rhetoric, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that world oil demand will continue to grow. The big question is: who will supply all that oil?



Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, will be major contributors and, despite U.S. and U.K. bravado in banning Russian imports, current and forecast world oil demand cannot be met without Russian oil. The disparate list of countries controlling world oil supply may soon include Iran if, as news reports suggest, President Biden is naïve enough to remove oil export sanctions in return for the Ayatollah's "pledge" to suspend uranium enrichment. That would leave world oil supply security in the hands of one country that subjugates women, another led by a murderous psychopath and a third developing a nuclear bomb with the avowed objective of annihilating Israel.



Meanwhile, with the world's third largest oil reserves, Canada is sacrificing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenues and new capital investment and tens of thousands of well-paying jobs on the net-zero altar by pursuing policies that make building new oil export pipelines virtually impossible. Even a proposed trans-national pipeline that would have delivered Canadian oil to eastern refineries was deliberately stymied by the Trudeau government. As a result, tankers carry Saudi Arabian and African oil that emits immensely more greenhouse gases than domestic oil up the ecologically fragile Gulf of St. Lawrence.



Speaking in London in July 2006 before departing for a Vladimir Putin hosted G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper called Canada "a new energy super-power."  Oil and gas industry capital investment rose sharply, doubling from $30 to $60 billion before the Harper government's defeat in 2015. By 2019, Trudeau's anti-oil and gas policies had seen the industry's capital spending collapse to less than half of 2006 levels.



Many Canadians may not know that history. But if there's one thing that does get their attention, it's the price at the pump. Anti-fossil fuel ideologues worshiping at the net-zero altar may be delighted by the recent run-up in gas prices. But not real-world working Canadians. On March 4th, gas prices in B.C. hit $2.00 /litre, taking the cost of filling up the family sedan to $140. Given the sprawling nature of Canadian cities, commuting to work takes at least one fill-up per week.  That amounts to more than $600.00/ month for a single car.



Along with gas prices, food and other necessities have also risen to record levels across the country. A recent Angus Reid survey found 53 per cent of Canadians were already unable to keep up with the rising cost of living.



The 11 cents/litre Federal Carbon Tax doesn't seem like much compared with current total pump prices. But it's just the beginning. The Trudeau government plans to progressively increase the carbon tax to 38 cents/litre by 2030. Adding the nine cent/litre B.C. Carbon Tax means drivers in that province will pay carbon taxes of 47 cents/litre.



The theory behind carbon taxes is that higher prices will reduce consumption. But that only applies if there's a viable alternative. For already cost-stressed real-world Canadians, driving a vehicle that's needed for business or for getting to work, a carbon tax on fuel is simply impoverishing.



At a time when the world's oil supply is being squeezed by war, the importance of unleashing Canada's enormous oil resources has never been clearer. During the prime minister's trip to Latvia, a reporter asked whether Canada could help make up the oil supply shortage. His answer illustrated the fanatical depth of our leader's worship at the net-zero altar: "We will be there to support, as the world moves beyond Russian oil and indeed, beyond fossil fuels, to have more renewables in our mix."



This incredible answer comes at a time when innocent Ukrainians and their beautiful country are being ravaged by a megalomanic who threatens the world with nuclear Armageddon. No doubt President Putin is grateful to Justin Trudeau for helping him control world oil markets by having hamstrung Canada's "energy superpower" potential. It was Putin's predecessor Lenin who coined the phrase "useful idiots."



Never before have I been ashamed of being a Canadian. I pray for new political leadership that will make me and millions of other dispirited Canadians proud of our country again.

It's hard to believe any country would do this to itself.

No fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

There are evil brains at work..



No people

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

No frickin hope for working class folks.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

No frickin hope for working class folks.

:sad:

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

No frickin hope for working class folks.

If I return twenty years after I leave Canada I expect Canada will be like Argentina.

Quote from: iron horse jockey

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

No frickin hope for working class folks.

If I return twenty years after I leave Canada I expect Canada will be like Argentina.

Good luck getting out...

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: iron horse jockey

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Dinky DazzaNo fuel, no fertiliser, no food....

No brains.

No frickin hope for working class folks.

If I return twenty years after I leave Canada I expect Canada will be like Argentina.

Good luck getting out...

What do you mean?

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: iron horse jockey

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: ThielNo brains.

No frickin hope for working class folks.

If I return twenty years after I leave Canada I expect Canada will be like Argentina.

Good luck getting out...

What do you mean?

They keep people in when stuff collapses... (see Ukraine at the moment)...



That point where authoritarians can't afford to have people flee.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: iron horse jockey

Quote from: HermanNo frickin hope for working class folks.

If I return twenty years after I leave Canada I expect Canada will be like Argentina.

Good luck getting out...

What do you mean?

They keep people in when stuff collapses... (see Ukraine at the moment)...



That point where authoritarians can't afford to have people flee.

I believe IHJ is retiring abroad in two years.

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: iron horse jockeyIf I return twenty years after I leave Canada I expect Canada will be like Argentina.

Good luck getting out...

What do you mean?

They keep people in when stuff collapses... (see Ukraine at the moment)...



That point where authoritarians can't afford to have people flee.

I believe IHJ is retiring abroad in two years.

I hope he gets out....

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Dinky DazzaGood luck getting out...

What do you mean?

They keep people in when stuff collapses... (see Ukraine at the moment)...



That point where authoritarians can't afford to have people flee.

I believe IHJ is retiring abroad in two years.

I hope he gets out....

You're silly Dinky.

:laugh:

Old Jock will get his money out. A lot of people in this country will be doing that in the future. A change of government can no longer stop the downward momentum. The question is will their Canadian money be worth anything.

On another forum I saw a repost of a popular, but totally false internet claim that passenger trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy..



I was in Holland recently and I know that it was fake news on social media.



Do the Netherlands' trains really run on 100% wind power?



his question generated a number of comments in the last Blowout so I thought I would take a quick look at it. I find that the electrified portion of the Dutch railway network (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or NS) runs on grid electricity that comes dominantly from fossil fuel generation (natural gas and coal). NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction. Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.



First some details on the Netherlands' electricity sector. As shown in the table below installed capacity is dominantly fossil fuel, with natural gas making up 61% of total installed capacity and coal 15%. Wind contributes 4,117MW, representing 13% of the capacity mix.

http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/



https://energyfairness.org/dutch-trains-really-running-completely-renewable-power/

Quote from: FashionistaOn another forum I saw a repost of a popular, but totally false internet claim that passenger trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy..



I was in Holland recently and I know that it was fake news on social media.



Do the Netherlands' trains really run on 100% wind power?



his question generated a number of comments in the last Blowout so I thought I would take a quick look at it. I find that the electrified portion of the Dutch railway network (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or NS) runs on grid electricity that comes dominantly from fossil fuel generation (natural gas and coal). NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction. Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.



First some details on the Netherlands' electricity sector. As shown in the table below installed capacity is dominantly fossil fuel, with natural gas making up 61% of total installed capacity and coal 15%. Wind contributes 4,117MW, representing 13% of the capacity mix.

http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/



https://energyfairness.org/dutch-trains-really-running-completely-renewable-power/

Was it VF? That stunned cunt asal?

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: FashionistaOn another forum I saw a repost of a popular, but totally false internet claim that passenger trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy..



I was in Holland recently and I know that it was fake news on social media.



Do the Netherlands' trains really run on 100% wind power?



his question generated a number of comments in the last Blowout so I thought I would take a quick look at it. I find that the electrified portion of the Dutch railway network (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or NS) runs on grid electricity that comes dominantly from fossil fuel generation (natural gas and coal). NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction. Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.



First some details on the Netherlands' electricity sector. As shown in the table below installed capacity is dominantly fossil fuel, with natural gas making up 61% of total installed capacity and coal 15%. Wind contributes 4,117MW, representing 13% of the capacity mix.

http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/



https://energyfairness.org/dutch-trains-really-running-completely-renewable-power/

Was it VF? That stunned cunt asal?

No, it was on BF......one of the CBT regulars..



They don't understand wind and solar are unreliable as real energy sources and less sustainable not to mention more polluting.

Figures. Prog are anti-science.

Something you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

Quote from: ThielSomething you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

I will click it but I know that it won't matter for decades or even centuries...





The suppression of tech is huge and they can't let the people disregard energy giants.



At best, it will be a new more experimental tech not for the people despite them getting a hold of it decades before.

Quote from: ThielSomething you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

To be honest, I doubt I will read it.

Fusion has always been an interest of mine.



"Theoretically", it is "the" answer ... I'll give it a go, Thiel

Quote from: ThielSomething you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

I will take a look.

Waterous Energy Fund says Alberta's oilsands are "the most economic (oil), it is reducing its carbon intensity the fastest, and it has the world's leading social and governance (standards)."



"There is growth in the future of the oilsands," Waterous said.



Waterous, who founded the fund in 2017, also believes the carbon intensity of the oilsands will continue to fall — and at a faster rate than U.S. shale oil, given Alberta's geology and the ability to capture carbon emissions and store them underground.



Finally, he said the amount of oil in the hands of free-market companies — not state-owned enterprises — will shrink in the coming decade, meaning the oilsands will gain greater importance as a stable source of supply.



These trends will propel Canadian oil production from four million barrels per day to about five million by 2030, he projected.

More Confirmation Of The Infeasibility Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Storage Electricity System

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/more-confirmation-of-the-infeasibility-of-a-fully-wind-solar-storage-electricity-system/



The background of this issue is that large numbers of green activists, up to and including the current President of the United States, make regular statements indicating that they believe that fossil fuels can be eliminated from the modern economy by simply building sufficient capacity of wind and solar electricity generation. Such statements rarely consider or mention the necessity of energy storage, or the feasibility or cost of same. And yet any serious consideration of the intermittency of wind and solar inevitably leads to the conclusion that without dispatchable backup (fossil fuel or nuclear) they require vast amounts of energy storage to cover the periods of intermittency. Understanding the amount of storage required, its physical characteristics, and its cost, is completely essential to answering the question of whether a fully wind/solar/storage system is feasible.



And yet our governments are currently marching ahead with religious zeal with plans for "net zero" electricity generation, based almost entirely on wind and sun, without any serious consideration of the amount of storage required or of the cost or feasibility of the project. Nor has there ever been a demonstration of a workable prototype system that could achieve net zero emissions with only wind, sun and storage, even for a small town or an island.



Previous posts at Manhattan Contrarian on this subject have reviewed detailed work by Roger Andrews and by Ken Gregory. In this post from November 2018, I reviewed work by Andrews dealing with actual wind and solar generation data from the two cases of California and Germany. Andrews concluded that due to seasonal patterns of wind and solar generation, either California or Germany would require approximately 30 full days of energy storage to back up a fully wind/solar generation system. Based on current costs of lithium-ion batteries, Andrews calculated that building sufficient wind and solar generation plus sufficient batteries would lead to a multiplication of the cost of electricity by approximately a factor of between 14 and 22. In this post from January 2022, I reviewed work by Gregory dealing with actual wind/solar generation for the case of the entire United States. Gregory considered how much storage would suffice as the sole back up where the U.S. had fully electrified all currently non-electrified sectors (e.g., transport, home heat, industry, agriculture), thus essentially tripling electricity demand from the current level. His conclusion was that the batteries alone would cost about $400 trillion — about 20 times the full GDP of the United States.



Clearly, if either Andrews or Gregory is anywhere near right, converting a modern economy to fully wind, solar and storage is not remotely feasible.



Into this mix now come Ruhnau and Qvist. The focus of R&Q is once again the amount of storage needed to back up a fully wind/solar generation system, once fossil fuels have been eliminated as a back up option. The R&Q study deals only with the case of Germany, and only with supplying its current level of electricity demand, rather than demand that may be tripled or more by economy-wide electrification of transport, heating, and so forth.



The bottom line is that the result of the R&Q study is approximately in line with the findings of Andrews and Gregory. Where Andrews and Gregory had calculated that about 30 days of storage would be required to back up a fully wind/solar system, R&Q come up with 24 days. However, to get to the 24 day result, R&Q require massive overbuilding of the wind/solar system, to the point where its nameplate "capacity" is about triple Germany's peak electricity demand, and five times average demand. The result is a system where vast amounts of surplus electricity on sunny/windy days must be discarded or "curtailed." However, R&Q say that their model is based on cost minimization, because building vast excess capacity and discarding electricity by the terawatt hour is actually cheaper than adding additional storage.

I learned that public finance of the fossil fuel sector claims about such subsidies are mostly a product of green activist data manipulation. But, billions are given to fossil fuel companies to eliminate and bury carbon emissions — that kind of subsidy is apparently acceptable.

Quote from: iron horse jockeyI learned that public finance of the fossil fuel sector claims about such subsidies are mostly a product of green activist data manipulation. ......................

"data manipulation" is what this whole climate & fuels thingy is all about.



Without it there would be little to no issue

Quote from: iron horse jockeyI learned that public finance of the fossil fuel sector claims about such subsidies are mostly a product of green activist data manipulation. But, billions are given to fossil fuel companies to eliminate and bury carbon emissions — that kind of subsidy is apparently acceptable.

Shen Li posted about that a long time ago..



The so called subsidies are the same write-offs any new venture is entitled to use.

https://twitter.com/WBrettWilson/status/1506679137934618628

Quote from: cchttps://twitter.com/WBrettWilson/status/1506679137934618628

I like old Wilson.

"This is missing the line above riggers > so I'll improvise



"THESE MEN PRODUCE THE  DIESEL FUEL FOR MY TRUCK"

https://twitter.com/WBrettWilson/status/1506679137934618628

Quote from: cc"This is missing the line above riggers > so I'll improvise

The upper one is a hell of a lot more environmentally friendly as well as being morally superior.

:thumbup:



https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/indonesia-tycoons-firm-to-spend-500-million-on-canada-lng-plan-amid-supply-crunch

An energy company backed by Indonesian tycoon Sukanto Tanoto plans to spend US$500 million this year on a long-planned liquefied natural gas project in Canada, the clearest signal yet that it may move ahead with an LNG export facility on the country's west coast.



Woodfibre LNG, backed by Tanoto's Pacific Energy Corp., has yet to formally announce an investment decision. But Woodfibre President Christine Kennedy gave the spending details to local government officials in Squamish, British Columbia, on Tuesday. The US$500 million figure is 31 per cent of the expected US$1.6 billion total cost of the project. A copy of Kennedy's presentation was obtained by Bloomberg.



Woodfibre's plan follows Shell Plc's decision to build the much-larger $40 billion LNG Canada project in Kitimat, British Columbia, which is 60 per cent complete and scheduled to start operating by the middle of the decade.



Woodfibre is licensed to export about 2.1 million metric tons a year of gas chilled to a liquid so it can be shipped to faraway destinations on special tankers. The decision to boost spending comes as European countries scramble to find alternatives to Russian gas and cut the continent's dependence on the energy-producing giant following Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

I recently started reading Rebel News. They have some information that other news sources will not cover, such as this.



Lithium prices continue to skyrocket as supply unable to meet demand

The West's efforts to create a low-carbon future through the introduction of electric vehicles will bear a heavy cost as demand soars for lithium carbonate, which is used in manufacturing EV batteries and other low-carbon energy resources like solar panels.



he price of lithium, a key component in the production of electric car batteries, has surged by nearly 500% since last year, with supply unable to meet the demand for the rare earth metal.



The West's efforts to create a low-carbon future through the introduction of electric vehicles will bear a heavy cost as demand soars for lithium carbonate, which is used in manufacturing EV batteries and other low-carbon energy resources like solar panels.



In addition to costing almost 500% year-over-year, the price has jumped 95% in 2022 alone, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a price reporting agency reported that battery-grade lithium-carbonate averages at $76,700 a ton in mid-March. At the same time last year, the rare earth traded at a mere $13,400 a ton.



Blaze News reports that Benchmark based its findings on reports from China, noting that the prices are not going to improve in the short term due to continued low inventory levels. China is a major producer of the rare earth and constitutes nearly 20% of the world's supply.



Amid the war in Ukraine, nickel, another metal that serves as a key component in EV batteries, has seen a massive price surge, with prices doubling in less than a day on March 8, CNBC reported. While prices have stabilized, nickel remains at an inflated cost.



Russia is the third-largest producer of nickel.

https://www.rebelnews.com/lithium_prices_continue_to_skyrocket_as_supply_unable_to_meet_demand

The U.S. oil and gas industry needs a "Marshall plan" to boost gas production, according to the chief executive of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, who recommended this approach to the White House, Axios reported this week.

I saw something interesting on Global News........LNG evaporates when it spills, so there is little to no danger from a spill.

Quote from: FashionistaI saw something interesting on Global News........LNG evaporates when it spills, so there is little to no danger from a spill.

Strange, that isn't on Greenpeace's website. :laugh3:

Another dirty little secret about wind turbines.

QuoteUnbridled Bird Slaughter: Wind Turbines Wiping Out Australia's Iconic Dancing Brolga



A 60m long wind turbine blade tip travelling at 350 kph makes short work of birds and bats – smashing Eagles to smithereens and slicing Brolgas to ribbons is all part of our 'inevitable' renewable energy transition.



The Australian Brolga (a member of crane family) is a majestic creature known for its intricate, paired dance moves and devoted pairing when raising chicks.



In south-west Victoria, there are around 500 remaining Brolgas, but their chances of survival are becoming slimmer by the day.



Carpeted with hundreds of wind turbines, and more being added daily, their breeding grounds have become the avian slaughter yards that anyone with half a brain could have foreseen.





Hamish Cumming, a local farmer and environmentalist, has been, without doubt, the Brolga's best and most effective defender. For his troubles, he's been smeared and ridiculed by lunatics from the hard green left over the last decade.



His campaign has been a lonely one, with most so-called 'environmental' groups staying quiet and Victoria's Environment Department doing everything in its power to destroy Hamish's reputation, bury the evidence and otherwise protect the wind industry.



Now, finally, Birdlife Australia has entered the fray, with an attack on the so-called 'standards' said to protect Brolga from the wind turbines that continue to destroy them.

https://stopthesethings.com/2022/03/25/unbridled-bird-slaughter-wind-turbines-wiping-out-australias-iconic-dancing-brolga/

Wait until they start mining fragile ecosystems to feed the electric car boondoggle.



To meet its clean energy goals, the US might go mining in the rainforest

https://www.theblaze.com/news/to-meet-its-clean-energy-goals-the-us-might-go-mining-in-the-rainforest



The United States is in a mad dash to usher in the era of green energy as it works to increase its lithium reserves and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.



However, in order to reach its clean energy goals, the U.S. is going to need far more lithium than it currently has in its possession, PBS reported.



However, in order for the U.S. to grow its mineral reserves so that it can produce green technology, it must participate in an extraction process that is wildly unclean and faces challenges from environmentalists, indigenous peoples interest groups, and burdensome government regulations.



There is also the issue that there is only one active lithium mine in the continental U.S. — despite lithium reserves being abundant across the globe. The lithium available in this Nevada mine reportedly isn't enough to meet the growing amount required to develop rechargeable lithium-ion batteries commonly found in electric vehicles.



In order to increase lithium production, the U.S. must either expand mining and processing operations in places like Chile — home to the world's largest known lithium reserves — which could involve the removal and destruction of parts of the Chilean rainforest — or expand its domestic production efforts, which would require open-pit mining or brine extraction to force the lithium-rich brine to the surface.



Either way, activist groups like the far-left Sierra Club have warned that increased lithium production efforts run the risk of harming lands sacred to indigenous peoples and endangering fragile ecosystems that are home to some of the world's rarest and most endangered species.



However, Glenn Miller, emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Nevada, suggested that increased lithium production efforts could, in the long run, be better for the environment by reducing global dependency on fossil fuel-burning cars.



He said, "A domestic source has tremendous value. Then we can do things that only China is doing with production."



The Biden administration has planned for 500,000 EV charging stations to be erected throughout the country as one of its infrastructure goals. This, and the administration's push for more American companies to produce and more American citizens to purchase EVs, will require a substantial amount of lithium.

Quote from: HermanWait until they start mining fragile ecosystems to feed the electric car boondoggle.



To meet its clean energy goals, the US might go mining in the rainforest

https://www.theblaze.com/news/to-meet-its-clean-energy-goals-the-us-might-go-mining-in-the-rainforest



The United States is in a mad dash to usher in the era of green energy as it works to increase its lithium reserves and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.



However, in order to reach its clean energy goals, the U.S. is going to need far more lithium than it currently has in its possession, PBS reported.



However, in order for the U.S. to grow its mineral reserves so that it can produce green technology, it must participate in an extraction process that is wildly unclean and faces challenges from environmentalists, indigenous peoples interest groups, and burdensome government regulations.



There is also the issue that there is only one active lithium mine in the continental U.S. — despite lithium reserves being abundant across the globe. The lithium available in this Nevada mine reportedly isn't enough to meet the growing amount required to develop rechargeable lithium-ion batteries commonly found in electric vehicles.



In order to increase lithium production, the U.S. must either expand mining and processing operations in places like Chile — home to the world's largest known lithium reserves — which could involve the removal and destruction of parts of the Chilean rainforest — or expand its domestic production efforts, which would require open-pit mining or brine extraction to force the lithium-rich brine to the surface.



Either way, activist groups like the far-left Sierra Club have warned that increased lithium production efforts run the risk of harming lands sacred to indigenous peoples and endangering fragile ecosystems that are home to some of the world's rarest and most endangered species.



However, Glenn Miller, emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Nevada, suggested that increased lithium production efforts could, in the long run, be better for the environment by reducing global dependency on fossil fuel-burning cars.



He said, "A domestic source has tremendous value. Then we can do things that only China is doing with production."



The Biden administration has planned for 500,000 EV charging stations to be erected throughout the country as one of its infrastructure goals. This, and the administration's push for more American companies to produce and more American citizens to purchase EVs, will require a substantial amount of lithium.

Rain forests are nature's carbon capture and sequestration.

Fun Lithium Facts



    Lithium is the lightest metal.

    Lithium has the lowest density of any metal. ...

    Lithium is a shiny, soft metal which reacts violently with water forming a strong corrosive base. ...

    Lithium burns with a bright red color. ...

    Lithium is used extensively in rechargeable batteries.

Quote from: cw_Fun Lithium Facts



    Lithium is the lightest metal.

    Lithium has the lowest density of any metal. ...

    Lithium is a shiny, soft metal which reacts violently with water forming a strong corrosive base. ...

    Lithium burns with a bright red color. ...

    Lithium is used extensively in rechargeable batteries.

:smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:

Reality folks. So called green technologies are more raw material intensive than fossil fuels.

Quote from: HermanReality folks. So called green technologies are more raw material intensive than fossil fuels.

What we can all agree on is that much more energy will be needed in the future. If anyone thinks we can mine enough rare earth metals and use only marginal sources like wind and solar is dreaming. We need all sources-fossils, hydro-electric, nuclear, geothermal and wind and solar.

The NDP likes to promote the lie that oil and gas receive unfair subsidies that no other industry does. Their voters are stupid and gobble up the bullshit.





https://westernstandardonline.com/2022/03/climate-science-group-says-subsidies-for-oil-and-gas-sector-simply-untrue/

The idea of oil and gas industry subsidies is a "repeated lie," said Michelle Stirling, communications manager at Friends of Science Society (FoS).



FoS is a non-profit organization that offers insights on climate science and related energy policies for the public and policymakers, according to its website.



Stirlings spoke to the Western Standard after NDP leader Jagmeet Singh called out the Trudeau government for handing out $14 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry annually.



Following the release of the federal government's Emissions Reduction Plan on Tuesday, Singh shared a petition in a tweet calling on Canadians to join him in pushing Trudeau to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2022 and move towards subsidizing renewable energy.



"These environmental groups claim these subsidies exist, but it's simply untrue," said Stirling and pointed to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) paper published in 2019.



"There are no subsidies for the oil and gas sector in Canada. It is just a repeated lie."







The idea of oil and gas industry subsidies is a "repeated lie," said Michelle Stirling, communications manager at Friends of Science Society (FoS).



FoS is a non-profit organization that offers insights on climate science and related energy policies for the public and policymakers, according to its website.





Stirlings spoke to the Western Standard after NDP leader Jagmeet Singh called out the Trudeau government for handing out $14 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry annually.



Following the release of the federal government's Emissions Reduction Plan on Tuesday, Singh shared a petition in a tweet calling on Canadians to join him in pushing Trudeau to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2022 and move towards subsidizing renewable energy.



"These environmental groups claim these subsidies exist, but it's simply untrue," said Stirling and pointed to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) paper published in 2019.





The IMP paper concludes governments around the world were subsidizing fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion USD annually.



"These groups continually refer to this report, but we have released a review of that report called Deception vs. Reality: The Misleading Debate About Energy 'Subsidies' that talks about the failed logic behind those IMF claims," said Stirling.



"There are no subsidies for the oil and gas sector in Canada. It is just a repeated lie."





Stirling also referenced the 2021, 2022 edition of the federal government's Energy Fact Book and the claim by the government that "Energy is not a major contributor to Canada's income, especially outside Alberta."



"While the energy sector GDP in Alberta in 2020 was the highest in Canada at $59.6 billion, it was significant in all provinces, including notably Ontario ($15.6 billion), Quebec ($12.0 billion), British Columbia ($11.8 billion) and Saskatchewan $10.5 billion)," said a summary of claims from the Energy Fact Book on the FoS website.



FoS extracted several claims from the fact book, but debunked many with cited facts, including the claim that "renewable energy accounts for a large share of Canada's primary energy production."



"Of Canada's primary energy consumption in 2019, crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids accounted for 71% of the total, uranium 16%, coal 5%, hydro 5%, and other renewables (biomass, wind and solar) 3%," said the summary.



"Excluding uranium, fossil fuels accounted for 76% of Canada's total primary energy supply in 2019, biofuels and waste 4%, and wind and solar 1%."



Stirling said environmental groups often call export and development loans given to oil and gas sector companies subsidies, "but they aren't," she said.



"They are loans that are paid back with interest. They also try to roll in some deferred cost issues within the tax act and classify that as a subsidy, but those deferred costs are included in the same structure for all other companies. They pay tax on any profits under this structure like all other corporations."



Stirling said the Emissions Reduction Plan "isn't really a plan."



"This 'plan' doesn't explain how these amazing reductions are going to be made and how we are going to rebuild equal infrastructure and income from other sources outside oil and gas," said Stirling.



"There are big ideas, big goals, and big targets that are legally binding, yet, there is no talk of the unicorns and magical thinking we'll need to make this happen. It's, in fact, a dangerous plan that is not grounded in reality."



Stirling also called attention to the federal government welcoming more than 400,000 immigrants into Canada in 2021.



"Every person brings a carbon footprint," said Stirling.



"The idea of meeting these emission targets and inviting nearly half a million new people into the country are two competing and contrary goals. It's just impossible."



Stirling also pointed to a 2019 interview between TVOntario reporter Steve Paikin and Chris Ragan, the inaugural director of McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy, where he also teaches core macroeconomic and microeconomic policy courses.

By now most folks know Justine's carbon tax goes up twenty five percent tomorrow. What they probably don't know is thay federal taxes on booze go up tomorrow too. But, don't worry, it won't affect MP's-they gave themselves a big fat raise and it coincides with the day they rob us.



https://tnc.news/2022/03/31/not-a-joke-on-april-1st-taxes-on-gasoline-and-alcohol-increase-mps-get-a-raise/



Canadians may think it is some sick April Fool's Day prank, but taxpayers can expect to pay more at the gas pumps and for alcohol on Friday, while politicians in Ottawa give themselves a hefty pay raise.



Even with fuel prices breaking records across the country, the Trudeau government's carbon tax will increase to approximately 11 cents per litre of gasoline, 13 cents per litre of diesel and 10 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.



According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), the carbon tax increase will cost families an additional $8.40 to fuel up a minivan.



Canadians can also expect to pay more for beer, wine and spirits when the "alcohol escalator tax" increases federal excise taxes on alcohol on Apr. 1.



Historically high inflation rates and crippling taxes have increased the cost of goods and services for consumers. But as Canadians look for ways to reduce spending, politicians in Ottawa won't have to worry about making ends meet.



On Apr. 1, MPs are giving themselves a raise – in addition to their six-figure salaries.



The CTF estimates the generous pay raise will result in an extra $7,400 for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and an additional $3,700 for every backbench MP.



Currently, Trudeau's base salary is $371,600, and each cabinet minister will be paid $274,000 annually. The numbers do not include all of the other additional benefits cabinet members and the prime minister receive.



CTF federal director Franco Terrazzano is calling on the Trudeau government to cancel the upcoming tax hikes.



"The joke is on taxpayers and it isn't funny as our members of Parliament pocket a pay raise while emptying our wallets with higher carbon and booze taxes," said Terrazzano.



"Canadians are struggling with higher prices on everything and the least our MPs could do is cancel the cruel April Fools' Day joke and end the tax hikes."

Wind, solar and hydrogen cannot compete with fossils, nuclear or hydroelectric.



Fossil Fuels v Renewable Energy



Solar power certainly has a future in sunnier climates. But even in India, for instance, the government have realised that they cannot run an electricity grid purely on intermittent power. Even their ambitious plans only project that a 11% of their energy will be coming from wind and solar by 2040.



And it is of course intermittency which is the overriding problem here. You can forget about batteries and other forms of storage, as these can typically only supply power for an hour or two. This is useless when the wind stops blowing for days and weeks on end.



Hydrogen is usually wheeled out as the answer to all of our problems, replacing gas needed to back up wind farms as well as heat our homes. However, even the Committee on Climate Change accept that most of the bulk of our hydrogen will have to be made by steam reforming natural gas.



This process is not only expensive, it also wastes a lot of the gas input. In other words, you need more gas to produce hydrogen than you would need if you just burnt the gas itself in the first place. Worse still, steam reforming emits carbon dioxide, so you need to bolt on a carbon capture system adding yet more cost.



All in all, hydrogen made this way would be double the cost of gas in energy terms. But, crucially, you would still need as much natural gas as you do now, and more. Far from replacing fossil fuels, hydrogen increases our reliance on them.



The alternative is green hydrogen, which is made by electrolysis. It is usually suggested that surplus wind power is used for this. However, the amounts of hydrogen which could be produced this way would be tiny, as well as extremely costly given the intermittency of the process.



The bottom line is that we will still need gas, and lots of it, to back up a renewable heavy grid. Indeed, the more renewable capacity we build, the more backup we need.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/03/31/fossil-fuels-v-renewable-energy/

I subscribe to Alez Epstein newsletter. The brother is brilliant. The planet would be unlivable without fossil fuels.



What if reducing and eliminating fossil fuels is the biggest THREAT to our planet?

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/you-are-here/what-if-reducing-and-eliminating-fossil-fuels-is-the-biggest-threat-to-our-planet



With climate change being a current topic of debate, many people believe fossil fuels are destroying the planet and ruining the climate. In reality, fossil fuels are why modern society has been able to develop to its current state. In this episode of "You Are Here," Elijah and Sydney, joined by Alex Epstein, discuss the necessity of fossil fuels in the future and their beneficial role.



Alex explains that when we approach energy, the environment, and our climate, we must look at the entire context and consider both the benefits of fossil fuels and the adverse side effects.



The benefits of fossil fuels, Alex explains, should be measured by the planet's livability without them. He says that the earth is not a naturally livable place. Instead, it's a deficient and dangerous place. Only when we use machines to help us be productive is the planet prosperous and abundant and safe to inhabit.



Many modern machines that help us be productive only work if you have low-cost, reliable energy and can scale that energy to reach billions of people in thousands of places. According to Alex, fossil fuels for the foreseeable future are the only way to get that energy where it needs to go.



"There's simply nothing that can come close," Alex said. "Nuclear comes closest, but interestingly, it's demonized and criminalized by the same people against fossil fuels."



Alex believes the discussion should not be about solutions, but rather a change in method of thinking to look at the best way to make the world livable.



People think climate change is the current largest threat to our planet. But Alex says the reduction and elimination of fossil fuels is the biggest threat to our planet because we rely on low-cost energy for the world to be livable.



Alex points to a current problem we are seeing as fertilizer and fuel prices go up. It causes the cost to produce food to become too expensive. Our eight billion people depend on low-cost food production to feed their families. When the agriculture industry cannot afford to grow food, people starve.



Watch the video to hear more from this interesting conversation. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Elon Musk is a little different than his fellow woke billionaires.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1510485792296210434

Over the next three decades, over $26 trillion will need to be invested to meet projected global oil and gas demand. Getting responsibly produced Canadian energy to world markets should be a priority.

True Dope approved the Bay du Nord project about 500 kilometers off the coast of Newfoundland. It will produce about 200,000 barrels per had and generate C$3.5 billion in government revenue and create thousands of jobs in Newfoundland.



It's the sensible decision, especially today. However, we all know if this was a pipeline from Alberta, it would never see the light of day. Newfoundland votes Liberal by the way.

Quote from: Shen LiTrue Dope approved the Bay du Nord project about 500 kilometers off the coast of Newfoundland. It will produce about 200,000 barrels per had and generate C$3.5 billion in government revenue and create thousands of jobs in Newfoundland.



It's the sensible decision, especially today. However, we all know if this was a pipeline from Alberta, it would never see the light of day. Newfoundland votes Liberal by the way.

I read that today too. Good news for Canada, and for Europe which is where that oil will go. It's a frickin slap in the face to Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Energy Policy: Germany and the U.K. — Two Bad Examples

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/energy-policy-germany-and-the-u-k-two-bad-examples/



under Merkel, "the indispensable European," Germany opted for the Energiewende, a policy that gave it soaring energy prices, a dangerous dependency on Russia, and didn't do much, if anything, for the climate.



In Britain, the Tories embarked on a headlong pursuit of reaching net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions without giving much thought about how this goal could be implemented without wrecking the economy. (To be fair, in doing so they were cheered on by most of the British political establishment.) And no, this effort was never going to do much for the climate, either. To combine recklessness, incompetence, and pointlessness in this fashion took quite some doing, but the Conservatives did it.



Germany is now having something of a rethink, although the country still (other than accepting an economic crisis) has no clear way of getting out from under Putin's thumb for now.



The Brits too have been looking again at where they stand and as, the Spectator's Ross Clark reports, the U.K.'s new Energy Security Strategy "puts energy security at the heart of the debate over energy and environmental policy, where it always should have been."

ON TV now - Joe Manchin came up to meet with Kenny to talk publicly about mutual help on energy, carbon capture etc. 



In fact he invited Canada to send a delegation to US to discuss how to work together for mutual benefit .. with the right people, like senate Energy Committee



Joe is so knowledgeable on energy - A great discussion!!



Might be replays on Alberta news,  Fash

Quote from: ccON TV now - Joe Manchin came up to meet with Kenny to talk publicly about mutual help on energy, carbon capture etc. 



In fact he invited Canada to send a delegation to US to discuss how to work together for mutual benefit .. with the right people, like senate Energy Committee



Joe is so knowledgeable on energy - A great discussion!!



Might be replays on Alberta news,  Fash

:smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:

Quote from: ccON TV now - Joe Manchin came up to meet with Kenny to talk publicly about mutual help on energy, carbon capture etc. 



In fact he invited Canada to send a delegation to US to discuss how to work together for mutual benefit .. with the right people, like senate Energy Committee



Joe is so knowledgeable on energy - A great discussion!!



Might be replays on Alberta news,  Fash

If the democRATs ran on a Joe Manchin platform, they'd win this year's elections.

Quote from: ccON TV now - Joe Manchin came up to meet with Kenny to talk publicly about mutual help on energy, carbon capture etc. 



In fact he invited Canada to send a delegation to US to discuss how to work together for mutual benefit .. with the right people, like senate Energy Committee



Joe is so knowledgeable on energy - A great discussion!!



Might be replays on Alberta news,  Fash

Unfortunately, no replacement for the Northern leg of KXL as long as a Dem is in the White House.

Life without oil and petroleum products.

**Facebook Video - won't load or even show a link?** -DjB
https://www.facebook.com/OilSandsAction/videos/5744412952251871/

Quote from: HermanLife without oil and petroleum products.

**Facebook Video - won't load or even show a link?** -DjB

Code Select Expand

https://www.facebook.com/OilSandsAction/videos/5744412952251871/

Most people are ignorant of the absolute necessity of petroeum in their modern lives.

Lithium prices have soared by close to 500% over the past year. Stocks at the London Metals Exchange have dropped to the lowest since records began in 1997. EV prices are rising. The energy transition may have well ended before it took off.

We're transitioning alright.

(https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/278032205_751616172912424_6217268248812058527_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xprJ0KCuW2EAX9FOPIA&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT9mR3UwrNkeByxYL0WGQrepth4ysrqb8UFzOiGGWBkfbQ&oe=62637C45)

Quote from: HermanWe're transitioning alright.

(https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/278032205_751616172912424_6217268248812058527_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xprJ0KCuW2EAX9FOPIA&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT9mR3UwrNkeByxYL0WGQrepth4ysrqb8UFzOiGGWBkfbQ&oe=62637C45)

Transitioning is on hold.

Quote from: HermanWe're transitioning alright.

(https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/278032205_751616172912424_6217268248812058527_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xprJ0KCuW2EAX9FOPIA&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT9mR3UwrNkeByxYL0WGQrepth4ysrqb8UFzOiGGWBkfbQ&oe=62637C45)

Question is, is that enough?

Reality check.



The top is a oil well, where 100% organic material is pumped out of the ground, taking up around 500 to 1000 square feet. Then flowlines safely carry the oil to refineries, as far as Chicago.



The bottom is just one of Teslas lithium supply mines where entire mountains are eliminated. Each mine usually consist of 35-40 797 cat haul trucks along with hundreds of other large equipment. Each 797 uses around half a million gallons of diesel a year. So with a inventory of just 35 the haul trucks alone are using 17.5 million gallons of fuel a year for just one lithium site.



So next time you are driving your electric car thinking you are saving the environment remember that it came at a cost of entire mountains, thousands of square miles of land and billions of gallons of oil and fuel. I get we need to save the planet but we are not there technologically yet and electric is not the answer.

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276195662_10224089248876923_8605290946345125168_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TIx0gb_MbVIAX_KB2Aw&tn=H_gvJnn-iRPz6D2l&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_VPeCVb5WpwHC5O1-yEEeKk6re7V3vEYKri8p1yrwzgQ&oe=62704B8A)

Quote from: HermanReality check.



The top is a oil well, where 100% organic material is pumped out of the ground, taking up around 500 to 1000 square feet. Then flowlines safely carry the oil to refineries, as far as Chicago.

 

The bottom is just one of Teslas lithium supply mines where entire mountains are eliminated. Each mine usually consist of 35-40 797 cat haul trucks along with hundreds of other large equipment. Each 797 uses around half a million gallons of diesel a year. So with a inventory of just 35 the haul trucks alone are using 17.5 million gallons of fuel a year for just one lithium site.



So next time you are driving your electric car thinking you are saving the environment remember that it came at a cost of entire mountains, thousands of square miles of land and billions of gallons of oil and fuel. I get we need to save the planet but we are not there technologically yet and electric is not the answer.

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276195662_10224089248876923_8605290946345125168_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TIx0gb_MbVIAX_KB2Aw&tn=H_gvJnn-iRPz6D2l&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_VPeCVb5WpwHC5O1-yEEeKk6re7V3vEYKri8p1yrwzgQ&oe=62704B8A)

Wind, solar and electric cars are a dozen environmental steps backwards.

Quote from: HermanReality check.



The top is a oil well, where 100% organic material is pumped out of the ground, taking up around 500 to 1000 square feet. Then flowlines safely carry the oil to refineries, as far as Chicago.

 

The bottom is just one of Teslas lithium supply mines where entire mountains are eliminated. Each mine usually consist of 35-40 797 cat haul trucks along with hundreds of other large equipment. Each 797 uses around half a million gallons of diesel a year. So with a inventory of just 35 the haul trucks alone are using 17.5 million gallons of fuel a year for just one lithium site.



So next time you are driving your electric car thinking you are saving the environment remember that it came at a cost of entire mountains, thousands of square miles of land and billions of gallons of oil and fuel. I get we need to save the planet but we are not there technologically yet and electric is not the answer.

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276195662_10224089248876923_8605290946345125168_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TIx0gb_MbVIAX_KB2Aw&tn=H_gvJnn-iRPz6D2l&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_VPeCVb5WpwHC5O1-yEEeKk6re7V3vEYKri8p1yrwzgQ&oe=62704B8A)

I used to work on the 797's and 793's.... the wear and tear costs are immense too.

Quote from: HermanReality check.



The top is a oil well, where 100% organic material is pumped out of the ground, taking up around 500 to 1000 square feet. Then flowlines safely carry the oil to refineries, as far as Chicago.

 

The bottom is just one of Teslas lithium supply mines where entire mountains are eliminated. Each mine usually consist of 35-40 797 cat haul trucks along with hundreds of other large equipment. Each 797 uses around half a million gallons of diesel a year. So with a inventory of just 35 the haul trucks alone are using 17.5 million gallons of fuel a year for just one lithium site.



So next time you are driving your electric car thinking you are saving the environment remember that it came at a cost of entire mountains, thousands of square miles of land and billions of gallons of oil and fuel. I get we need to save the planet but we are not there technologically yet and electric is not the answer.

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276195662_10224089248876923_8605290946345125168_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TIx0gb_MbVIAX_KB2Aw&tn=H_gvJnn-iRPz6D2l&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_VPeCVb5WpwHC5O1-yEEeKk6re7V3vEYKri8p1yrwzgQ&oe=62704B8A)

E-cars environmentally friendly-not.

Quote from: HermanReality check.



The top is a oil well, where 100% organic material is pumped out of the ground, taking up around 500 to 1000 square feet. Then flowlines safely carry the oil to refineries, as far as Chicago.

 

The bottom is just one of Teslas lithium supply mines where entire mountains are eliminated. Each mine usually consist of 35-40 797 cat haul trucks along with hundreds of other large equipment. Each 797 uses around half a million gallons of diesel a year. So with a inventory of just 35 the haul trucks alone are using 17.5 million gallons of fuel a year for just one lithium site.



So next time you are driving your electric car thinking you are saving the environment remember that it came at a cost of entire mountains, thousands of square miles of land and billions of gallons of oil and fuel. I get we need to save the planet but we are not there technologically yet and electric is not the answer.

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276195662_10224089248876923_8605290946345125168_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TIx0gb_MbVIAX_KB2Aw&tn=H_gvJnn-iRPz6D2l&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_VPeCVb5WpwHC5O1-yEEeKk6re7V3vEYKri8p1yrwzgQ&oe=62704B8A)

Sustainable ac_lmfao

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279256623_548454799972861_3601779288774926867_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=UTWGl0tniBUAX9y0ksu&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_PAMiskbljA2yYg5nQlYSQs-oCe7GCWiACgwWsoZDIQA&oe=62717298)

As the cost of nearly everything has shot up – few things more than fuelling a vehicle or heating a home – charging an electric vehicle has remained miraculously "free" in many public locations. If the juice for green cars can be free, then surely greening the gigantic infrastructure of power generation, transmission and distribution that provides it can't be all that difficult or expensive. Can it? Not so fast, says the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada. In this paper, the Coalition soberly evaluates the formidable barriers, false premises, wild assumptions and almost unimaginable costs of the federal government's new Clean Electricity Standard, a key component of the Trudeau Liberals' program to bring Canada to "Net Zero" carbon emissions within just 28 years.

https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/04/grand-delusion-the-liberal-governments-proposed-clean-electricity-standard/

It seemed momentum was on the side of Mark Carney who urged investors to divest of oil and gas stocks. They would become stranded assets in the near future. Warren Buffet believes wind, solar and ev's will be the stranded assets and he is not alone.



Which energy assets will be stranded?

Coal, oil and gas versus windmills, EVs and carbon sequestration



Oilprice.com covered the latest energy trends Monday with a report that U.S. investment giant Warren Buffett is "betting big on oil and gas stocks." One assumes that Buffett is not a follower of Mark Carney, former central banker and chief proponent of climate financial strategies based on the assumption that fossil fuels will become stranded assets and should be divested ASAP. Back in 2015, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney warned of a "potentially huge" risk that reserves of coal, oil and gas could become "literally unburnable."



According to oilprice.com, Buffett is moving in the other direction. After decades of plowing money into the banking industry, Buffett is now unloading bank and investment stocks and taking new multi-billion stakes in computing companies and energy stocks. He has dumped Wells Fargo and JPMorgan stock and picked up companies such as Occidental Petroleum and Chevron (although JPMorgan remains a big fossil fuel backer).



Buffet is not alone. In March, the Financial Times reported that global banks poured US$750 billion into fossil fuel finance. On the markets, the S&P/TSX Capped Energy index has doubled over the last year from 120 to 240 and rose another nine points to 250 on Tuesday — its highest point since 2014 — after Imperial Oil nearly tripled its quarterly profits and Brent futures hit US$106 a barrel. In the U.K., the Conservative government continues to talk of boosting North Sea oil and gas activity.



The fossil fuel explosion is clearly the product of a multitude of changing political and economic circumstances, from the pandemic to the Ukraine war to supply chain crises to inflation and other shifting economic circumstances. The global economic and political system is all messed up and in turmoil. In others words, situation normal. Alberta energy writer David Yager summed it up in a recent commentary: "Rendering fossil fuels obsolete was conceived in a different environment than the one we live in today. That was Mark Carney's world, and he was a star. But in our tumultuous new world, does Mark Carney's stranded asset definition still mean anything?"



That's the question. If Carney's world view of the energy market has been overtaken by geopolitical and economic forces, another question arises. If fossil fuels persist and continue to dominate the world energy market, other assets could end up stranded, particularly energy assets that are already non-viable and cannot survive today without massive injections of state funding.



In Windsor this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford grabbed headlines when they showed up for a Stellantis announcement that it was investing $3.6 billion to convert a Chrysler plant to EV production. It's all part of a $16-billion electric vehicle investment effort, much of it backed by billions in federal and provincial subsidies.



As a result, government-backed battery plants are popping up in Quebec and Ontario, an essential part of the electric vehicle production system since transporting manufactured batteries long distances is difficult. Will all this investment, which the private sector obviously considers too risky to take on, end up on the stranded asset pile as time and global economic and political shocks continue as usual to rock industry?



Will all the wind farms and solar panel projects now dotting the countryside of many nations continue to survive as electricity markets evolve? Will governments continue to fund massive expansions of their electricity grids and power distribution systems in an attempt to knock out fossil fuels, the same fossil fuels that are now in high demand, especially in developing nations?

https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-which-energy-assets-will-be-stranded

Alberta's highest court deems Impact Assessment Act to be unconstitutional  (https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-s-highest-court-deems-impact-assessment-act-to-be-unconstitutional-1.5896348)



(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.5527691.1627566837!/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/landscape_940/image.jpeg)


The Alberta Court of Appeal has determined that the federal government overstepped its mark with the Impact Assessment Act. The decision on the act, previously known as Bill C-69, was made with a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion.



Alberta had argued that the act was a "Trojan Horse" that intruded into provincial jurisdiction. Ontario, Saskatchewan, the Woodland Cree First Nation and Indian Resource Council along with oil and gas producers all supported the province's challenge.

Quote from: ccAlberta's highest court deems Impact Assessment Act to be unconstitutional (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sfi/safoyhgq/soiszfvy/p2/alberta-s-highest-court-deems-impact-assessment-act-to-be-unconstitutional-1.5896348)



(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.5527691.1627566837!/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/landscape_940/image.jpeg)



The Alberta Court of Appeal has determined that the federal government overstepped its mark with the Impact Assessment Act. The decision on the act, previously known as Bill C-69, was made with a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion.



Alberta had argued that the act was a "Trojan Horse" that intruded into provincial jurisdiction. Ontario, Saskatchewan, the Woodland Cree First Nation and Indian Resource Council along with oil and gas producers all supported the province's challenge.

That is very encouraging cc.

:smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:

Justine will appeal it and win. The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

Quote from: HermanThe Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

Quote from: cc

Quote from: HermanThe Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

A few people on FB were posting thumbs up when I reminded them this is far from over. Remember, the Alberta Supreme Court ruled Justine's carbon tax wasn't constitutional because it stepped on provincial toes. The federal court overruled it.

Quote from: HermanJustine will appeal it and win. The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

You might be right Herman.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: cc

Quote from: HermanThe Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

A few people on FB were posting thumbs up when I reminded them this is far from over. Remember, the Alberta Supreme Court ruled Justine's carbon tax wasn't constitutional because it stepped on provincial toes. The federal court overruled it.

It was a 4-1 majority decision. The carbon tax decison in Alberta was 3-2. This decison has a more solid provincial constitutional rights. Trudeau is going to try, but he may not get his way on Bill C-69.

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

Quote from: ccIt states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

No, but it seems he or she agreed with the opinion.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: cc

Quote from: HermanThe Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

A few people on FB were posting thumbs up when I reminded them this is far from over. Remember, the Alberta Supreme Court ruled Justine's carbon tax wasn't constitutional because it stepped on provincial toes. The federal court overruled it.

It's not a victory yet.

Right. This just got them into the final round with a c/w stacked deck

Quote from: ccRight. This just got them into the final round with a c/w stacked deck

As Herman said, it happened with the provincial carbon tax challenge.

Quote from: ccIt states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: ccIt states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Thanks

Quote from: cc

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: ccIt states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Thanks

I am not as pessimistic as say Herman. Bill C-69 is federal overreach.

I'm in the middle ... although wary that  the Ottawa deck in quite loaded and that loading can and may well be employed

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: cc

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: ccIt states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Thanks

Bill C-69 is federal overreach.

So, was the carbon tax because it affected how provinces can developn their economies.

(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280912242_1976896212498102_7299847813253912409_n.png?stp=dst-png_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=VVnS8OoAnqQAX8suVSN&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_111rm_upLEXOtly0c-ZVbhZTwA3ApEcbiieDNJ3oodg&oe=62821967)

Quote from: Herman(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280912242_1976896212498102_7299847813253912409_n.png?stp=dst-png_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=VVnS8OoAnqQAX8suVSN&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_111rm_upLEXOtly0c-ZVbhZTwA3ApEcbiieDNJ3oodg&oe=62821967)

Reality check for the myth that taxpayers subsidize oil and gasd producers.

Quote from: Herman(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280912242_1976896212498102_7299847813253912409_n.png?stp=dst-png_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=VVnS8OoAnqQAX8suVSN&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_111rm_upLEXOtly0c-ZVbhZTwA3ApEcbiieDNJ3oodg&oe=62821967)

And what did wind and solar contribute to government coffers say from 2015-2020? I assume it was a large negative figure.

Quote from: Thiel

Quote from: Herman(https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/280912242_1976896212498102_7299847813253912409_n.png?stp=dst-png_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=VVnS8OoAnqQAX8suVSN&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_111rm_upLEXOtly0c-ZVbhZTwA3ApEcbiieDNJ3oodg&oe=62821967)

And what did wind and solar contribute to government coffers say from 2015-2020? I assume it was a large negative figure.

That figure doesn't include gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, and lease sales.

The pre-COVID climate playbook and energy transition are in big trouble.  Not among climate crusaders. For them, the crisis continues. It is the ordinary people who have more pressing issues. War. Energy. Food. Inflation. Interest rates.  The cost and availability of energy has become more important than the source. 



But some still worry.  Like Mark Carney, the famous former governor of the Bank of Canada and possible future leader of the federal Liberal party.



Mark Carney's plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels

Carney is every sane person's worse nightmare

Quote from: ccCarney is every sane person's worse nightmare

He is Klaus Schwab's mini-me.

.

Quote from: Herman.

Damn that's phat! I lick it a lot.  :yahoo:

(https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/282239415_781143119959729_1626761145726214969_n.png?stp=dst-png_p843x403&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=cJtXHNeBMrwAX9aWmB_&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=00_AT8papym-DgG_6a-l5ytjoLNXNi1L3drFVR0DrGQgIEdiw&oe=628BE658)

(https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/284998868_3261725774060957_3683806126892129861_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=OLFJH7pizr4AX84vuqE&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=00_AT-eWQkZngOT6RxxUd0oa6rey258vUm9UFY1fc3hBknuhQ&oe=629D17FB)

Quote from: Herman(https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/284998868_3261725774060957_3683806126892129861_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=OLFJH7pizr4AX84vuqE&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=00_AT-eWQkZngOT6RxxUd0oa6rey258vUm9UFY1fc3hBknuhQ&oe=629D17FB)

But wind and solar are free because it comes from nothing, lol.

They won't be substititing wind and solar for Russian LNG.



On Wednesday, the countries of Egypt and Israel penned a deal with the European Union to increase liquid natural gas sales to EU member states that are hoping to reduce their dependency on petroleum-based fuel products from Russia.



The deal, which was finalized in a ritzy Egyptian hotel, will require Israel to send gas to Egypt for it to be liquified and then shipped to EU member states, according to European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, ABC News reported.

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/289018198_2004704493050607_5462500588812466366_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5BJAbb09G-0AX8c0lKx&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AT_vu_br-r-k1nCBp85difFHUUqWg7Fi7Me6x5Y7q0kotw&oe=62B24907)

Nuclear too is a lot more sustainable than wind and solar. Hell, harnessing hamster wheels is superior to frickin useless wind and solar.

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/286829779_5245553872158839_8807738461135672959_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SkfBLMdoBRkAX_ll9bb&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AT9DcG1e9y8nR8Q2POyZEoIHMe4h_hCzzueqIeCOuLoKxQ&oe=62B27C76)

The problem is, idealisic and dogmatic drones have been told renewables or we all die. No a single one of them understands the scale of solar and wind powerplants needed to replace fossil fuels. I've spent most of my professional career calculating electrical loads. When I try to explain it to my family, even they have a difficult time with it.

Quote from: LokmarThe problem is, idealisic and dogmatic drones have been told renewables or we all die. No a single one of them understands the scale of solar and wind powerplants needed to replace fossil fuels. I've spent most of my professional career calculating electrical loads. When I try to explain it to my family, even they have a difficult time with it.

On top of that, wind and solar aint even close to being renewable or sustainable.

"Germany said, 'We don't want nuclear power anymore,' which is the cleanest, and what did they have to go back to? Coal."

Quote from: Herman"Germany said, 'We don't want nuclear power anymore,' which is the cleanest, and what did they have to go back to? Coal."

While nuclear power is clean in itself, obtaining it and it's distribution is unclean. Even performing basic maintenance isn't fuelled by nuclear energy. Burning of fossil fuels is not the way forward. Sorry mate...you can argue until you're blue in the face...fact remains that fossil fuels are unsustainable and is destroying the planet.

Quote from: Bonkerfist

Quote from: Herman"Germany said, 'We don't want nuclear power anymore,' which is the cleanest, and what did they have to go back to? Coal."

While nuclear power is clean in itself, obtaining it and it's distribution is unclean. Even performing basic maintenance isn't fuelled by nuclear energy. Burning of fossil fuels is not the way forward. Sorry mate...you can argue until you're blue in the face...fact remains that fossil fuels are unsustainable and is destroying the planet.

Actually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."




Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

Countries that use the most petroleum products have the highest living standards and the best environmental records. Fact.

The Jim Crow Joe administration was warned that anti-fossil fuel policies would lead to higher energy costs, which would lead to price inflation throughout the global economy, we wouldn't be experiencing a national and global energy crisis today.



Let me be clear: today's energy crisis is very simple and it was completely preventable.



The price of energy, like all prices, is set by supply and demand.



For the last 15 years, the global anti-fossil-fuel movement, with major leadership by Barack Obama and Jim Crow Joe, has acted aggressively to restrict the supply of fossil fuel energy, which has prevented it from keeping up with growing demand for fossil fuel energy.³



When fossil fuel supply goes down and fossil fuel demand goes up, fossil fuel energy prices go up. And when energy prices go up, the price of everything goes up.



It's really that simple.

There is no physical reason the oil industry can't meet rising demand. The world has hundreds of years' worth of oil deposits. There is no technical reason the oil industry can't meet rising demand. It is more capable than ever thanks to amazing technologies like fracking.



If there is no physical or technical reason the oil industry can't meet rising demand, what is inhibiting it?



Decades of rising restrictions on oil production and transport from anti-oil politicians—including Biden's massive threats to punish oil production going forward.



Perhaps the greatest limiter of the supply of oil has been anti-oil politicians' constant threats to severely restrict or even ban oil production going forward. E.g., when Joe Biden promises "I guarantee you, we're going to end fossil fuel" and then becomes President, many oil investors run for the hills.⁵



Is it any wonder that, threatened with punishment, investment in oil and gas has declined dramatically? Under Obama and now Jim Crow Joe oil and gas exploration investments declined by 50%. Less investment = less supply = higher prices.⁶



Anti-oil politicians' restrictions on infrastructure, especially pipelines, have reduced the supply of oil by making it difficult or impossible to transport US oil to international markets. If not for these restrictions we'd be producing more oil, with lower prices for everyone.



If not for Jim Crow Joe, Justine and other anti-oil politicians around the world radically restricting the production/transport of oil, as well as threatening oil companies and investors, the global oil industry would have rapidly adjusted to rising demand—and prices would be far lower.



The basic solution to oil/gasoline prices is simple: we need a *long-term Congressional commitment* to liberate domestic oil production. Until Congress makes clear that the government will stop threatening and destroying oil production, companies will rightly underinvest in production.



More broadly, the basic global solution to the energy crisis is for the global community to reject the anti-fossil-fuel movement and reverse all global anti-fossil-fuel policies. This includes canceling the Paris Agreement—the policy that is driving the world to rapidly restrict the supply of desperately-needed fossil fuels.⁷



Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. That's why the rate of climate disaster deaths — deaths from extreme temperatures, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods — has decreased by 98% over the last century.⁹



What we've been told about fossil fuels is exactly backward. We are told that we should be afraid of continuing fossil fuel use because it will make the world unlivable. In fact, fossil fuel use has made the world a better and better place to live, including safer from climate, for the last two centuries—and can continue to do so going forward. What will make the world unlivable for more and more people, as we are seeing now, is the attempt to eliminate fossil fuels—which necessarily leads to energy crises and economic crises. The only way out of this crisis is for America—and the world—to embrace a Fossil Future.

Green/renewable energy is simply a scam. The big problem though is all the 40 somethings were raised on Capt. Planet and the Planeteers and as a result, they got that Gaia worship shoved so far up their asses, they cant reason. Its all emotion with them. Lithium batteries are far dirtier to produce than uranium ore. Solar is only 32% efficient and requires a whole host of toxic compounds to produce. We barely make 12% of our current power with wind and solar. For all the green energy push, its a joke!  Carbon Dioxide has NEVER been and will NEVER be a pollutant. The sun creating organic matter will ALWAYS be the greatest source of energy as evidenced by all the fossil fuels that created the greatest state of humanity the planet has ever known.

Quote from: LokmarGreen/renewable energy is simply a scam. The big problem though is all the 40 somethings were raised on Capt. Planet and the Planeteers and as a result, they got that Gaia worship shoved so far up their asses, they cant reason. Its all emotion with them. Lithium batteries are far dirtier to produce than uranium ore. Solar is only 32% efficient and requires a whole host of toxic compounds to produce. We barely make 12% of our current power with wind and solar. For all the green energy push, its a joke!  Carbon Dioxide has NEVER been and will NEVER be a pollutant. The sun creating organic matter will ALWAYS be the greatest source of energy as evidenced by all the fossil fuels that created the greatest state of humanity the planet has ever known.

It's a corrupt cron capitalism scam. Just a handful of billionaires and coroprations receiving huge tazpayers transfers and anti competition legislation. In the end, it doesn't slow climate change, and it is far more polluting per amount of energy produced. And on top of that it needs to be backed up by fossils. We keep throwing good money after bad on this antiquated technology.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: BonkerfistWhile nuclear power is clean in itself, obtaining it and it's distribution is unclean. Even performing basic maintenance isn't fuelled by nuclear energy. Burning of fossil fuels is not the way forward. Sorry mate...you can argue until you're blue in the face...fact remains that fossil fuels are unsustainable and is destroying the planet.

Actually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

What utter crap!

Quote from: Bonkerfist

Quote from: seoulbroActually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

What utter crap!



https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/8-reasons-why-we-need-to-phase-out-the-fossil-fuel-industry/

Quote from: Bonkerfist

Quote from: seoulbroActually, the exact opposite is true and there are many examples in this thread to back that up.



Nuclear is the most concentrated form of energy known to man. In other words, it requires the least of amount of resources including land to produce the the most kw/h. But, it can only ptoduce electricity which is inferior for transportation, We have hundreds, perhaps a thousand years worth of fossils vs. fifty years worth of rare earths metals for wind and solar that require massive amounts of land and mones with talings ponds everywhere. So, whixh one would destroy the planet and which one maintain growing global living standards?



In 2016, Alex Epstain testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about how the anti-fossil-fuel policies of the Obama-Biden administration would lead to higher energy prices, which would drive higher prices in every area of the global economy.¹



Alex explained that because fossil fuels provide low-cost, reliable, scalable energy that cannot be rapidly replaced by unreliable solar and wind, "...the President's anti-fossil fuel policies would harm billions of lives economically...." he explained that because "The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry" therefore "the cost of your food, the cost of your clothing, the cost of your shelter, the success of your business, your ability to take a vacation, the cost of all the different modern miracles, the cost of your healthcare...they are all tied to energy."

Sorry, you've been drinking the Kool Aid they have on the menu. Advances in petro technology have raised living standards and improved the environment. There is nothing that can come close to comparing to the thousands of uses for petroleum.

What utter crap!

So, Joe Biden wasn't warned his anti oil development problems?

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: BonkerfistWhat utter crap!

So, Joe Biden wasn't warned his anti oil development problems?

I don't follow Joe Biden. As far as I'm concerned, he is a puppet and was a means to end Trump's fuckery.

Fossil fuels are the main contributor to global emissions. That is undeniable...but it blows my mind at the complete stupidity of this entire thread. Fuck sakes!

Quote from: Bonkerfist

Quote from: FashionistaSo, Joe Biden wasn't warned his anti oil development problems?

I don't follow Joe Biden. As far as I'm concerned, he is a puppet and was a means to end Trump's fuckery.

Fossil fuels are the main contributor to global emissions. That is undeniable...but it blows my mind at the complete stupidity of this entire thread. Fuck sakes!

Actually, active volcanoes are the biggest contributor to global emissions. Long before the Pliocene, CO2 levels were extremely elevated during the age of the dinosaurs (which ended 65 million years ago), perhaps at some 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. Tremendous CO2 emissions, from incessant and extreme volcanism, heated Earth and allowed dinosaurs to roam a sultry Antarctic. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.



During the middle ages warming period, emissions as measured by ppm were higher than today. Crops grew in Greenland at one time.



The global climate has always been in flux and animals and humans have always adapated as we will now. Asking us, no forcing us to abandon the reason(fossil fuels) we have made great technological advances in medicine, and engineering that have allowed humans to thrive is insane. Besides, nobody seriously believes we will ever stop using petroleum products. We will continue to improve on them and reduce their environmental impact, but replacement of such a plentiful necessary commodity is not going to happen. Don't worry, humans have always adapted to a changing climate without lowering their living standards. We will do it again.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: BonkerfistI don't follow Joe Biden. As far as I'm concerned, he is a puppet and was a means to end Trump's fuckery.

Fossil fuels are the main contributor to global emissions. That is undeniable...but it blows my mind at the complete stupidity of this entire thread. Fuck sakes!

Actually, active volcanoes are the biggest contributor to global emissions. Long before the Pliocene, CO2 levels were extremely elevated during the age of the dinosaurs (which ended 65 million years ago), perhaps at some 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. Tremendous CO2 emissions, from incessant and extreme volcanism, heated Earth and allowed dinosaurs to roam a sultry Antarctic. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.



During the middle ages warming period, emissions as measured by ppm were higher than today. Crops grew in Greenland at one time.



The global climate has always been in flux and animals and humans have always adapated as we will now. Asking us, no forcing us to abandon the reason(fossil fuels) we have made great technological advances in medicine, and engineering that have allowed humans to thrive is insane. Besides, nobody seriously believes we will ever stop using petroleum products. We will continue to improve on them and reduce their environmental impact, but replacement of such a plentiful necessary commodity is not going to happen. Don't worry, humans have always adapted to a changing climate without lowering their living standards. We will do it again.

Mate...not tonight. But I will have a legit conversation when I'm sober. It really disappoints me that you condone the burning of fossil fuels. That's just ludicrous rationale and bizarre behaviour to tell you the truth. Stop quoting people mate and realise what we are doing to this planet.

Fair enough. It's Saturday morning here. I'd like to have a cost-benefit analysis extreme measures to lower emissions. Let me know when you are sober.

Quote from: seoulbroFair enough. It's Saturday morning here. I'd like to have a cost-benefit analysis extreme measures to lower emissions. Let me know when you are sober.

SoleBro...look at wind, solar and tidal energies as a long term solution. You're talking to a bright mind here at the wrong time. What is your time currently? I'm 22:53...

Wind, solar, and tidal turbines can't and won't do it.



...so it's not about proper resource management and never has been. It's about culling all the useless eaters and breeders so that the upper 1% can live in luxury for generations to come off the backs of a billion peoples but preferably half that.



Our leaders have been actively ushering in the Dark Ages 2.0 and they've been selling it under the guise of a chicken little sky is falling premise.



They know something so important and so critical that there's nary a word mentioned about anything to do with it.... just a trail of dead and nameless corpses.



It wouldn't even surprise me if covid, covid jabs, and supply chain failings are just a convenient way to bury as many biological hazards as possible before the herd realizes they're at the slaughterhouse.

Quote from: BonkerfistSoleBro...look at wind, solar and tidal energies as a long term solution.

Get back to me when they develop a jumbo jet that can fly on wind, solar and tidal energies.

Quote from: Oliver Clotheshoffe

Quote from: BonkerfistSoleBro...look at wind, solar and tidal energies as a long term solution.

Get back to me when they develop a jumbo jet that can fly on wind, solar and tidal energies.

Never mind that. Wind and solar can't even a small town without back up from natural gas. They are old technology that doesn't work, it's dirty as hell, and we don't have enough resources for it, so why? Because it makes a few people very rich.

Quote from: Oliver Clotheshoffe

Quote from: BonkerfistSoleBro...look at wind, solar and tidal energies as a long term solution.

Get back to me when they develop a jumbo jet that can fly on wind, solar and tidal energies.

See how it all adds up? We need long term solutions now or the planet will be truly fucked. It blows my mind how people can just sit around and talk about how sustainable fossil fuels are.

Maybe be invest in one of these Ollie and a nuclear fuel source?



(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNvf7eqCBlgg0ZDXOCno1pvegX_k18TBx1Cg&usqp=CAU)

Chicken Little level shit....

Quote from: BonkerfistSee how it all adds up? We need long term solutions now or the planet will be truly fucked. It blows my mind how people can just sit around and talk about how sustainable fossil fuels are.



Maybe be invest in one of these Ollie and a nuclear fuel source?

Indeed what we need to be doing is developing new power sources. We can't get away from fossil fuels until we have something better. Some kind of hydrogen fuel cell or something like what powers the Terminator.

Of all the fuel and energy sources we have, oil and natural gas are superior to everything except nuclear which only works for electricity, not powering engines. And that includes hydrogen fuel cells. They have a whole host of problems that will prohibit them from being anything more than a hobby just like wind and solar.

Quote from: Oliver Clotheshoffe

Quote from: BonkerfistSee how it all adds up? We need long term solutions now or the planet will be truly fucked. It blows my mind how people can just sit around and talk about how sustainable fossil fuels are.



Maybe be invest in one of these Ollie and a nuclear fuel source?

Indeed what we need to be doing is developing new power sources. We can't get away from fossil fuels until we have something better. Some kind of hydrogen fuel cell or something like what powers the Terminator.

We have many alternatives, but the oil barons have been buying out the patents for decades.

Quote from: ThielOf all the fuel and energy sources we have, oil and natural gas are superior to everything except nuclear which only works for electricity, not powering engines. And that includes hydrogen fuel cells. They have a whole host of problems that will prohibit them from being anything more than a hobby just like wind and solar.

Winner winner chicken dinner....  :smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:

No....no winner here. Humanity is a plague. And breeds too many halfwits.





https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nonrenewable-resources



Nonrenewable Resources

Nonrenewable energy resources include coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Once these resources are used up, they cannot be replaced, which is a major problem for humanity as we are currently dependent on them to supply most of our energy needs.

Quote from: BonkerfistNo....no winner here. Humanity is a plague. And breeds too many halfwits.





https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nonrenewable-resources



Nonrenewable Resources

Nonrenewable energy resources include coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Once these resources are used up, they cannot be replaced, which is a major problem for humanity as we are currently dependent on them to supply most of our energy needs.

For every person you consider to be a halfwit, there's a person who considers you or I a halfwit.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BonkerfistNo....no winner here. Humanity is a plague. And breeds too many halfwits.





https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nonrenewable-resources



Nonrenewable Resources

Nonrenewable energy resources include coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Once these resources are used up, they cannot be replaced, which is a major problem for humanity as we are currently dependent on them to supply most of our energy needs.

For every person you consider to be a halfwit, there's a person who considers you or I a halfwit.

Those people are just fuckers of wit...it comes with analogy.  :laugh3:

Quote from: BonkerfistNo....no winner here. Humanity is a plague. And breeds too many halfwits.





https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nonrenewable-resources



Nonrenewable Resources

Nonrenewable energy resources include coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Once these resources are used up, they cannot be replaced, which is a major problem for humanity as we are currently dependent on them to supply most of our energy needs.

Obviously, NatGeo is being disingenupus.



Land is not renewable. Diffuse sources of energy like wind, and solar use a lot of require a lot more of it than concentrated energy sources like natural gas, nuclear or hydro-electric. And that doesn't include the massive amounts of land required to dispose of batteries, old wind turbines.



Also, wind and solar require vast amounts of mined metals and minerals that are dwindling fast. China – which produces around 90% of the world's rare earth metals – claims that its mines might run dry in just 15-20 years. Likewise, if demand continues for indium, some say it will be gone in about 10 years; platinum in 15 years; and silver in 20 years. Looking farther into the future, other sources claim that things like aluminum might run dry in about 80 years.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140314-the-worlds-scarcest-material



On the other hand, Canada alone could suppy the entire world for one hundred years based on current economically viable recoverable barrels of oil. New technplogies would make the harder to get barrels affordable. And that doesn't include this country's vast resources of natural gas.



So the renewabe argument is totally dishonest. There is no such animal as renewable energy. It's just that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar are the LEAST sustainable of all energy sources. And they still require back up by natural gas. It makes no sense.

Trying to reduce C02 emissions is so expensive. The cost far outweighs any possible benefit.



Bjorn Lomborg is the president of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank and one of the world's leading experts on the impacts of climate change policy.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: BonkerfistNo....no winner here. Humanity is a plague. And breeds too many halfwits.





https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nonrenewable-resources



Nonrenewable Resources

Nonrenewable energy resources include coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Once these resources are used up, they cannot be replaced, which is a major problem for humanity as we are currently dependent on them to supply most of our energy needs.

Obviously, NatGeo is being disingenupus.



Land is not renewable. Diffuse sources of energy like wind, and solar use a lot of require a lot more of it than concentrated energy sources like natural gas, nuclear or hydro-electric. And that doesn't include the massive amounts of land required to dispose of batteries, old wind turbines.



Also, wind and solar require vast amounts of mined metals and minerals that are dwindling fast. China – which produces around 90% of the world's rare earth metals – claims that its mines might run dry in just 15-20 years. Likewise, if demand continues for indium, some say it will be gone in about 10 years; platinum in 15 years; and silver in 20 years. Looking farther into the future, other sources claim that things like aluminum might run dry in about 80 years.

SoleBro...let's have a conversation without all the bias links and opinions. The burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor towards global emissions as well as contributing to global warming. As a consequence, acid rain and pollution has killed off numerous flora and fauna on our planet. We're choking the life out of the planet.



You can refer to links that have fed you bullshit, but if we are to rationally communicate and debate on the subject...let's keep it real.

Bonkerfist, you might as well throw in the towel. The guy has studied the issue of climate alarmism as much as cc has islam. He know what he is talking about. And that Danish fruit Bjorn Lomborg is the climate google guy.



Let's face it, nobody really believes climate change is an existential threat. If they did they would not be flying armies of progs to swag places for useless CO2 burning pow wows. It's all about the middle class inn developed countries paying for the rich in developed and developing countries, End of. Enjoy your 4X4 before your new prog government makes it illegal for the working classes to own them.

EnviroMENTALism is like any other movement or group that fights for relevancy after its usefulness has passed. We've reduced particulate and NOX emissions from diesel by 95% or more since 1990. We've reduced NOX and other hydrocarbon emissions from gas engines by more than 90%. The job is DONE!!! The wild and baseless idea that CO2 is a pollutant only came about AFTER we solved the pollution problem! EnvironMENTALism has now become a scam as it fights for its own survival in the face of obsolescence.

Quote from: LokmarEnviroMENTALism is like any other movement or group that fights for relevancy after its usefulness has passed. We've reduced particulate and NOX emissions from diesel by 95% or more since 1990. We've reduced NOX and other hydrocarbon emissions from gas engines by more than 90%. The job is DONE!!! The wild and baseless idea that CO2 is a pollutant only came about AFTER we solved the pollution problem! EnvironMENTALism has now become a scam as it fights for its own survival in the face of obsolescence.

lokmar you're alive... :swoon:  We thought you were dead!!!  :swoon:



I am glad you have been resurrected!!!

Quote from: LokmarEnviroMENTALism is like any other movement or group that fights for relevancy after its usefulness has passed. We've reduced particulate and NOX emissions from diesel by 95% or more since 1990. We've reduced NOX and other hydrocarbon emissions from gas engines by more than 90%. The job is DONE!!! The wild and baseless idea that CO2 is a pollutant only came about AFTER we solved the pollution problem! EnvironMENTALism has now become a scam as it fights for its own survival in the face of obsolescence.

I beieve he's just feeling a little under the weather.

Quote from: Bonkerfist

Quote from: seoulbroObviously, NatGeo is being disingenupus.



Land is not renewable. Diffuse sources of energy like wind, and solar use a lot of require a lot more of it than concentrated energy sources like natural gas, nuclear or hydro-electric. And that doesn't include the massive amounts of land required to dispose of batteries, old wind turbines.



Also, wind and solar require vast amounts of mined metals and minerals that are dwindling fast. China – which produces around 90% of the world's rare earth metals – claims that its mines might run dry in just 15-20 years. Likewise, if demand continues for indium, some say it will be gone in about 10 years; platinum in 15 years; and silver in 20 years. Looking farther into the future, other sources claim that things like aluminum might run dry in about 80 years.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140314-the-worlds-scarcest-material



On the other hand, Canada alone could suppy the entire world for one hundred years based on current economically viable recoverable barrels of oil. New technplogies would make the harder to get barrels affordable. And that doesn't include this country's vast resources of natural gas.



So the renewabe argument is totally dishonest. There is no such animal as renewable energy. It's just that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar are the LEAST sustainable of all energy sources. And they still require back up by natural gas. It makes no sense.

SoleBro...let's have a conversation without all the bias links and opinions. The burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor towards global emissions as well as contributing to global warming. As a consequence, acid rain and pollution has killed off numerous flora and fauna on our planet. We're choking the life out of the planet.



You can refer to links that have fed you bullshit, but if we are to rationally communicate and debate on the subject...let's keep it real.

no it isn't... reducing the planets carbon sinking trees down to 15% coverage is the cause of carbon rising... HUMANS have done that clearing virgin habitat, the forests. Even if you stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow its toooooo late because the active volcanoes are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere with 85% less trees to soak it up.

Quote from: caskurno it isn't... reducing the planets carbon sinking trees down to 15% coverage is the cause of carbon rising... HUMANS have done that clearing virgin habitat, the forests. Even if you stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow its toooooo late because the active volcanoes are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere with 85% less trees to soak it up.

Even the most extreme proponents of alarmism like Gavin Schmidt,  head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has acknowledged that if no C02 was emitted, including what humans emit naturally, the climate could continue to warm for centuries if it ever stopped warming. The anti-fossils is all pain for no gain.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: caskurno it isn't... reducing the planets carbon sinking trees down to 15% coverage is the cause of carbon rising... HUMANS have done that clearing virgin habitat, the forests. Even if you stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow its toooooo late because the active volcanoes are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere with 85% less trees to soak it up.

Even the most extreme alarmist proponents of alarmism like Gavin Schmidt,  head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has acknowledged that if no C02 was emitted, including what humans emit naturally, the climate could continue to warm for centuries if it ever stopped warming. The anti-fossils is all pain for no gain.

They are all full of shit. Just laugh at them.

Quote from: caskur

Quote from: LokmarEnviroMENTALism is like any other movement or group that fights for relevancy after its usefulness has passed. We've reduced particulate and NOX emissions from diesel by 95% or more since 1990. We've reduced NOX and other hydrocarbon emissions from gas engines by more than 90%. The job is DONE!!! The wild and baseless idea that CO2 is a pollutant only came about AFTER we solved the pollution problem! EnvironMENTALism has now become a scam as it fights for its own survival in the face of obsolescence.

Thanks Cas!!!!  ac_drinks

Quote from: caskur

Quote from: seoulbroEven the most extreme alarmist proponents of alarmism like Gavin Schmidt,  head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has acknowledged that if no C02 was emitted, including what humans emit naturally, the climate could continue to warm for centuries if it ever stopped warming. The anti-fossils is all pain for no gain.

 They are all full of shit. Just laugh at them.

I would do that if it was not for the fact they are going to take away our way of life and our liberties.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: caskurThey are all full of shit. Just laugh at them.

I would do that if it was not for the fact they are going to take away our way of life and our liberties.

no they aren't... stop fearing. develop a brave heart.

Quote from: caskur

Quote from: seoulbroI would do that if it was not for the fact they are going to take away our way of life and our liberties.

 no they aren't... stop fearing. develop a brave heart.

Justin Trudeau alone has mandated that no new ICE vehicles be sold in Canada after January 1, 2035. That is one man dictating what consumers may buy. You never miss liberty until it has been taken away.



While we are on the subject of fossils, what is current price of a litre of petrol where you live? I paid $2.18.9 on Sunday.

It's showing 1.86.9 at Co-OP.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: caskurno it isn't... reducing the planets carbon sinking trees down to 15% coverage is the cause of carbon rising... HUMANS have done that clearing virgin habitat, the forests. Even if you stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow its toooooo late because the active volcanoes are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere with 85% less trees to soak it up.

Even the most extreme proponents of alarmism like Gavin Schmidt,  head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has acknowledged that if no C02 was emitted, including what humans emit naturally, the climate could continue to warm for centuries if it ever stopped warming. The anti-fossils is all pain for no gain.

You forget about land clearing to accommodate the plague we call humanity. More people means more loss of habit for fauna and flora that are perpetually going extinct as a consequence. But you just  go ahead and keep on burning that big fossil fuel engine to accommodate more shitters into this world. It's all academic really...

The global population keeps growing Bonkers, my friend. That aint going to change because green leaning voters in Australia want it to. And guess what, they want the improved living standards that fossils delivers. They aint interested n expensive, useless wind and solar that doesn't work in developed countries.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: caskurno they aren't... stop fearing. develop a brave heart.

Justin Trudeau alone has mandated that no new ICE vehicles be sold in Canada after January 1, 2035. That is one man dictating what consumers may buy. You never miss liberty until it has been taken away.



While we are on the subject of fossils, what is current price of a litre of petrol where you live? I paid $2.18.9 on Sunday.

You shouldn't worry about your PM... What is done by one government is undone by the next government...



We have a site called Fuel Watch where prices of fuel all over the state can be viewed daily as they change. Where I live sadly the prices are between $1.99 to $2.39 a litre... we get cheaper prices on Mondays and Tuesdays. Today is our record high.



It's price gouging... the Ukraine / Russian war gets the blame.

Quote from: caskur

Quote from: seoulbroJustin Trudeau alone has mandated that no new ICE vehicles be sold in Canada after January 1, 2035. That is one man dictating what consumers may buy. You never miss liberty until it has been taken away.



While we are on the subject of fossils, what is current price of a litre of petrol where you live? I paid $2.18.9 on Sunday.

You shouldn't worry about your PM... What is done by one government is undone by the next government...



We have a site called Fuel Watch where prices of fuel all over the state can be viewed daily as they change. Where I live sadly the prices are between $1.99 to $2.39 a litre... we get cheaper prices on Mondays and Tuesdays. Today is our record high.



It's price gouging... the Ukraine / Russian war gets the blame.

They're charging 2.43 per litre of diesel where I'm at.....



Glad I've got an aftermarket oversized 140 litre fuel tank on my ute.... filled it last week at 2.19 per litre....

Imported wind turbines in Australia just aint cutting it.



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/sa-agl-wind-farms-tesla-battery-fined-over-breaches/101190674

(https://i.imgur.com/TQJVd2V.jpg)

Quote from: kiebers(https://i.imgur.com/TQJVd2V.jpg)

I heard the small gasoline tax in the USA pays for road maintenance.

So, while Justin Trudeau deliberately creates inflation, oil and gas production will rise. Now is the time to end ESG investing pressure.



Despite political rhetoric, the world's going back to fossil fuels



Sensing now is not the time, the Trudeau government is delaying until next year a second carbon tax that will increase the cost of gasoline by an estimated five to 11 cents per litre by 2030.



Called the Clean Fuel Standard, the new regulations requiring producers to reduce the carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel fuel, originally scheduled to be implemented this year, have been pushed back until 2023.



Their impact on the cost of gasoline — and on the cost of everything that needs to be transported by using gasoline — is separate from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's carbon tax.



That will raise the price of gasoline by 38 cents per litre by 2030 in the four provinces where it applies — Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.



The parliamentary budget officer recently reported that when the full economic impact of Trudeau's carbon tax is considered, 60% of families end up worse off financially, contrary to Trudeau's claim that 80% will be better off because of rebates.



But while our government continues to attach new charges to fossil fuel energy in a bid to discourage its use, the world, including Canada, is adopting policies to increase the use of fossil fuels, meaning oil, natural gas and coal.



That's because of the energy shortages caused by Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine and supply chain disruptions as countries power up their economies after the economic damage caused by the pandemic.



The reason is that the "green" energy sources they were counting on to replace fossil fuels — mainly wind and solar — aren't up to the job because they are intermittent.



The backsliding is quietly going on almost everywhere.



At their meeting this week in Spain, members of the G-7 — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. — endorsed ramping up the production of liquid natural gas and oil to address the global energy shortage driving up prices for goods and services and fuelling inflation.



They claimed these increases will be temporary and consistent with the goal of the Paris climate accord to limit the global

temperature increase this century to 1.5ºC compared to pre-industrial levels.



But in the real world, they were driving a stake through the heart of meeting the emission cuts the Paris accord calls for, including Trudeau's targets for 2030 and 2050.



In a move that enrages some (although not all) environmental groups, the G-7 also endorsed the use of nuclear power to lower emissions.



In February, the European Commission, the executive branch of the 27-member nation European Union, classified natural gas as a green energy source until at least 2030, if total emissions remain under a prescribed level, while endorsing nuclear power as a green energy source until 2045.



France lobbied the EU to recognize nuclear power as "green" because it has a lot of it, while Germany did the same for natural gas.



Germany, the largest economy in Europe and the self-styled leader of European efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, foolishly shut down its nuclear plants, which emit no greenhouse gases and is now firing up mothballed, coal-fired plants to provide energy, even though coal burns at twice the carbon intensity of natural gas.



The move is necessary because of fears Putin might choke off supplies of natural gas and oil to Germany in particular and Europe in general, as winter approaches, because of their support of Ukraine in its defensive war against Russia.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-despite-political-rhetoric-the-worlds-going-back-to-fossil-fuels

If liberal governments really believe CO2 is pollution, why do they keep flooding their countries with terd wurlderz? After all, people in the terd wurld produce LESS CO2 than they will when you import them into a 1st world country.

Quote from: LokmarIf liberal governments really believe CO2 is pollution, why do they keep flooding their countries with terd wurlderz? After all, people in the terd wurld produce LESS CO2 than they will when you import them into a 1st world country.

For the same reason they give people bigger welfare checks as a reward for having kids... the same reason they give people tax breaks as a reward for having kids...



I have no idea what the reason actually is but it's a pretty damn stupid idea.

Britain imposing a moratorium on fracking was one of the worst decisions taken by any government in the past decade. By most estimates, Britain has considerable shale gas reserves. One trade body calculates that if only 10 per cent were tapped, it would make the UK "self-sufficient in natural gas for 50 years". In a monumentally short-sighted move, however, ministers effectively banned companies from exploiting it – too terrified of the green lobby to do something that was so obviously within the national interest....

(https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/291845573_458140942803329_10677873974892599_n.jpg)

Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms to save the climate. But what about when those technologies destroy the environment? In this provocative talk, Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment" and energy expert, Michael Shellenberger explains why solar and wind farms require so much land for mining and energy production, and an alternative path to saving both the climate and the natural environment. Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine Hero of the Environment and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. A lifelong environmentalist, Michael changed his mind about nuclear energy and has helped save enough nuclear reactors to prevent an increase in carbon emissions equivalent to adding more than 10 million cars to the road. He lives in Berkeley, California.

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke supports green energy, but that didn't stop him from attacking Gov. Greg Abbott over potential blackouts tied to the state's reliance on wind power.



With temperatures forecast to be well over 100 degrees in Texas on July 11, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) issued a conservation appeal to the public.



ERCOT, which is in charge of the Texas electrical grid, asked residents and businesses to voluntarily conserve electricity on July 11 between 2-8 p.m., when a reserve capacity shortage was predicted.



Wind turbines were projected to produce less than 10 percent of their capacity, according to the agency.



The decrease in wind production combined with extreme heat and record demand prompted the call for Texans to cut back on electricity use. The agency stated that no widespread outages were expected.



O'Rourke, who has vowed to fight climate change by working to remove all emissions from the oil and gas industry, wasted no time in blaming Abbott for the strain on the Texas electrical grid, which is unique in its independence from the rest of the United States.



Gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rouke supports the Texas Climate Jobs Project, which is akin to the Green New Deal. The project wants to transition oil and gas jobs into green energy jobs and eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.



Pursuing green energy would only make matters worse for the Texas grid, according to some.



David Blackmon, an independent energy analyst and consultant based in Mansfield, Texas, told The Epoch Times the national grids have their own problems with demand.



"I laugh when I hear that," he said, adding Texas' problem comes from relying on unreliable energy such as wind.



Democratic policies that have stifled oil and gas production would only exasperate Texas' grid problems, Blackmon said.



Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R) said in a text that a plan is afoot for the next legislative session to look at building more natural gas plants in Texas.



The Lone Star State produces the most natural gas in the United States and holds vast oil and gas reserves.



"Wind farms are a scam," Cain texted.



So how did Texas, with its energy might, get to the point of begging for its citizens to conserve energy?



Incentives for developing more wind power have increased, but the same can't be said of thermal-power generators that typically use natural gas.



Cain noted that federal production tax credits made wind farms too lucrative not to build.



Blackmon said the legislature wanted to add more gas-powered plants after Winter Storm Uri brought death and destruction to Texas in February of 2021. But that provision was stricken from the bill that ended up passing, he said.



"Gov. Abbott—I don't know what he's thinking," Blackmon said. "We're making the same mistake California did. Wind gives you nothing."

Quote from: kiebers(https://i.imgur.com/TQJVd2V.jpg)

They will raise electricity rates or charge you by the miles you drive is my guess Kiebs.

Quote from: weebles

Quote from: kiebers(https://i.imgur.com/TQJVd2V.jpg)

They will raise electricity rates or charge you by the miles you drive is my guess Kiebs.

Going electric means governments going broke. Massive subsidies and less revenue.

If I was younger I would buy an electric car. The subsidy on most models makes it tempting.

Quote from: VelvetIf I was younger I would buy an electric car. The subsidy on most models makes it tempting.

Everything about e-cars is subsidized, including the energy they use. Take away all of that and I wonder how many they would sell.

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: seoulbroEven the most extreme proponents of alarmism like Gavin Schmidt,  head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has acknowledged that if no C02 was emitted, including what humans emit naturally, the climate could continue to warm for centuries if it ever stopped warming. The anti-fossils is all pain for no gain.

You forget about land clearing to accommodate the plague we call humanity. More people means more loss of habit for fauna and flora that are perpetually going extinct as a consequence. But you just  go ahead and keep on burning that big fossil fuel engine to accommodate more shitters into this world. It's all academic really...

From what I've read, they say the emissions release from manufacturing 500km EV batteries is equivalent to driving an ICE for about 200,000+ kms approximately, to make things worst the there's still no way to recycle lithium batteries.

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: BreakfallYou forget about land clearing to accommodate the plague we call humanity. More people means more loss of habit for fauna and flora that are perpetually going extinct as a consequence. But you just  go ahead and keep on burning that big fossil fuel engine to accommodate more shitters into this world. It's all academic really...

From what I've read, they say the emissions release from manufacturing 500km EV batteries is equivalent to driving an ICE for about 200,000+ kms approximately, to make things worst the there's still no way to recycle lithium batteries.

Disposing of car batteries will turn the world into a toxic waste dump.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: ZetsuFrom what I've read, they say the emissions release from manufacturing 500km EV batteries is equivalent to driving an ICE for about 200,000+ kms approximately, to make things worst the there's still no way to recycle lithium batteries.

Disposing of car batteries will turn the world into a toxic waste dump.

I believe Tesla's chassis require more metal/material to reinforce and protect the batteries in case of a serious collision that can result in another un-extinguishable fireball.  ac_unsure

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: HermanDisposing of car batteries will turn the world into a toxic waste dump.

I believe Tesla's chassis require more metal/material to reinforce and protect the batteries in case of a serious collision that can result in another un-extinguishable fireball.  ac_unsure

One caught on fire in Saskatoon. It melted the pavement.

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: BreakfallYou forget about land clearing to accommodate the plague we call humanity. More people means more loss of habit for fauna and flora that are perpetually going extinct as a consequence. But you just  go ahead and keep on burning that big fossil fuel engine to accommodate more shitters into this world. It's all academic really...

From what I've read, they say the emissions release from manufacturing 500km EV batteries is equivalent to driving an ICE for about 200,000+ kms approximately, to make things worst the there's still no way to recycle lithium batteries.

The stat' are off. A solution takes time. It's the long-term benefits that will make the difference. All I hear is about you folk bashing on about the cost of manufacturing batteries in the interim,

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: ZetsuFrom what I've read, they say the emissions release from manufacturing 500km EV batteries is equivalent to driving an ICE for about 200,000+ kms approximately, to make things worst the there's still no way to recycle lithium batteries.

The stat' are off. A solution takes time. It's the long-term benefits that will make the difference. All I hear is about you folk bashing on about the cost of manufacturing batteries in the interim,

There is no solution or alternatives for fossil fuels unless you're okay with billions freezing, dying from heatstroke, and starving to death...



Nice that you have faith.... but we're not there yet.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallThe stat' are off. A solution takes time. It's the long-term benefits that will make the difference. All I hear is about you folk bashing on about the cost of manufacturing batteries in the interim,

There is no solution or alternatives for fossil fuels unless you're okay with billions freezing, dying from heatstroke, and starving to death...



Nice that you have faith.... but we're not there yet.

Why would you consider protecting billions when trillions are dying because of it?

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaThere is no solution or alternatives for fossil fuels unless you're okay with billions freezing, dying from heatstroke, and starving to death...



Nice that you have faith.... but we're not there yet.

Why would you consider protecting billions when trillions are dying because of it?

There are approximately 7-8 billion humans on the planet.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallWhy would you consider protecting billions when trillions are dying because of it?

There are approximately 7-8 billion humans on the planet.

I'm not talking about humans...

Think all fauna and flora...think even nanoscale...

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaThere are approximately 7-8 billion humans on the planet.

I'm not talking about humans...

I understood that you weren't.... I just wanted you to say where your loyalties are.



You'd let billions of humans die for your force fed grade school curriculum theories on ecology and evolution.



Very sad...

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: ZetsuFrom what I've read, they say the emissions release from manufacturing 500km EV batteries is equivalent to driving an ICE for about 200,000+ kms approximately, to make things worst the there's still no way to recycle lithium batteries.

The stat' are off. A solution takes time. It's the long-term benefits that will make the difference. All I hear is about you folk bashing on about the cost of manufacturing batteries in the interim,

You're not entirely wrong, as the Western world has accomplish insane feats through technology, but it's definitely not a perfect solution atm where it requires taking quite a lot money from tax payers, uncontrollable fire hazards, 30% heavier which will wear down the roads faster, the abundance of decaying EV batteries needed to be stored, black outs in the power grid, requires more powerplants which can't guarantee to be emission free nor is battery manufacturing pollution free, etc.  By the time we reached an emission-free transport system, the world will already be a lot worst, pollution, infrastructure damage and debt will be a serious issue.



Edit: I forgot to mention EVs perform very poorly and the batteries decay a lot faster is extreme temperature climates.

Enery expert Alex Epstein's letter to Senator Joe Manchin.



Dear Senator Manchin,



The American people owe you a great debt of gratitude for repeatedly stopping this Administration's attempts at anti-fossil fuel "climate legislation."



While you are being attacked for ruining our future, you have in fact saved it.



The "climate legislation" you have stopped would have



increased restrictions on fossil fuel supply—making today's price problems even worse.



increased favoritism for unreliable, China-dominated solar-and-wind electricity—raising prices and reducing reliability and security.



As an energy expert and a vocal critic of this Administration's anti-fossil-fuel "climate legislation," I am beyond grateful to you for saving our energy future.



But I am also gravely concerned by your comments that you might agree to "climate legislation" in some other form.



In a recent interview you said you would support the Administration's push for massive solar/wind subsidies if we could "do that without harming the economy" and provide "a solid energy path for 10 years."¹



Please permit me to explain why this is completely impossible.



Massive new solar/wind subsidies are incompatible with "a solid energy path" because they will inevitably worsen:



inflation



electricity reliability



recession



energy security



And do nothing to make low-carbon energy cost-competitive.



1. How massive new solar/wind subsidies will worsen price inflation

Senator Manchin, you have rightly expressed extreme concern about price inflation in our economy.



New solar/wind subsidies would inevitably increase electricity prices and therefore all prices.



In your comments about solar/wind subsidies and inflation you have expressed concerns about the hundreds of billions of dollars these subsidies will cost the government.



While that is a valid concern, the far worse consequence is their ruinous effect on electricity prices.



Rising electricity prices drive price inflation in two basic ways.



1. Increasing the prices Americans pay directly for electricity.

2. Increasing the prices of all goods produced using American electricity.



New solar/wind subsidies will inevitably increase electricity prices.



Every area of the world that has tried using significant amounts of solar and wind has had major problems with rising costs. Germans, to get 37% of their electricity from solar/wind, have doubled their prices—now 3X US prices. And their situation is getting worse fast.²



The reason that solar and wind drive higher electricity prices is simple: because solar and wind can go near-zero at any given time, they don't replace the costs of reliable power plants—they add to them. That means higher electricity prices—which means higher everything prices.



2. How massive new solar/wind subsidies will worsen electricity reliability

Senator Manchin, you have said, "The main thing that we need is...reliability. If not, you'll have what happened in Texas and what happens in California."⁵



More solar/wind subsidies will make Texas and California the norm.



America already has worsening electricity reliability.



Not only have we witnessed unprecedented problems in California and Texas, this summer blackout warnings are occurring all around the US.



FERC Commissioner Mark Christie puts it bluntly "We're heading for a reliability crisis."⁶



The root cause of the reliability crisis is simple: America is shutting down too many reliable power plants, often to try to cope with the large costs of installing so many unreliable solar panels and wind turbines and the massive new transmission lines they require.



Since at any given time solar and wind can go near zero, using them as replacements for reliable power plants doesn't work. For example, Texas' February 2021 disaster was caused by solar/wind disappearing and inadequate investment in reliable power plants and their weatherization.



Why is America shutting down too many reliable power plants? Two of the chief villains are the subsidies known as the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and wind Production Tax Credit (PTC)—the very subsidies that the Administration's "climate agenda" wants to expand and extend!⁸



The ITC and PTC pay utilities to shut down or slow down reliable gas, coal, and nuclear power plants whenever the sun shines or the wind blows. This defunds reliable plants, causing many to be shut down and threatening the grid's future.



Increasing these subsidies is insanity.



Do not fall for the portrayal of solar/wind subsidies as exciting "investments" that will "only" cost hundreds of billions of dollars. By making the electricity grid even more unreliable, they will cost trillions of dollars in reliability costs—driving price inflation that much more.



3. How massive new solar/wind subsidies will worsen recession

Senator Manchin, you have rightly expressed worries about anything that might make "pending recession" worse.



Massive new solar/wind subsidies will inevitably worsen any recession via high-cost, unreliable power.



The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry. The lower cost and more reliable energy is, the better our economy is. The higher cost and less reliable energy is, the worse our economy is.



At a time of increasing recession risk, it should be unthinkable to support policies that are guaranteed to make electricity—industry's leading source of energy—more expensive and less reliable.



Yet that's what this Administration's "climate agenda" insists on.



4. How new massive new solar/wind subsidies will worsen energy security

Senator Manchin, you have repeatedly and rightly expressed concerns about "the state of American energy security."



Increasing solar and wind subsidies will inevitably make the situation worse.



The mining and processing of solar/wind-related materials is dominated by China to a staggering degree. The US does little mining or processing of these materials, largely because of "green" restrictions. Our dependence on China for solar/wind dwarfs past mideast oil dependence.



Making our grid even more dependent on China-centered, unreliable solar and wind is a direct sacrifice to China—whose >80% fossil fueled industry (including mostly-coal-powered grid) will profit mightily while holding our security at their mercy.



Do not be fooled by claims that new support for domestic solar/wind production will solve the problem of dependence on China.



Because this support does nothing to reduce the "green" restrictions on mining and processing, it will just lead to even more expensive solar/wind.



Why any Administration promise to support fossil fuels is phony

Senator Manchin, the Administration has reportedly offered to approve various fossil fuel projects in exchange for you supporting massive solar/wind subsidies and other "climate agenda" items.



This is a ruse.



Any Biden Administration promise to approve fossil fuel projects is phony for 2 reasons:



The administration plans to offset any approvals with even more denials.



The approvals themselves can be reversed at any moment by the Administration's anti-fossil-fuel bureaucrats.



The Biden administration is still committed to its goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuel use in the next 7.5 years. This means any projects they approve must be offset by denying other crucial projects.



This is not the "solid energy path for 10 years" that you want.



Any promise the Administration makes to support projects is also meaningless because the "promise" would not involve an unchangeable law but rather stopping hostile bureaucrats. Other hostile bureaucrats can always come up with new "reasons" to oppose the same projects.



Senator Manchin, the agenda you are being asked to support would decrease electricity reliability, increase price inflation, worsen recession, weaken energy security, and wreck West Virginia.



It needs to be rejected in any and every form.



Senator Manchin, now that the Administration is not only trying to offer you phony support of fossil fuels to get you to support its "climate agenda," but also overriding the legislative process by declaring a "climate emergency," the American people need you more than ever.



The Administration's declaration of "climate emergency" is totally invalid because while there is "climate change," there is no "climate emergency." Fossil fuels actually make us far safer from climate. That's why climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.

The Administration's declaration of "climate emergency" is also totally invalid because its "emergency" policies of solar/wind subsidies will do nothing to make low-carbon energy cost-competitive—which is the only humane and practical way to lower global CO2 emissions.



Instead of cooperating with an anti-fossil-fuel administration on rescuing their ruinous "climate agenda," you can work with pro-energy-politicians on an energy freedom agenda that ensures plenty of fossil fuel energy and fosters cost-competitive low-carbon alternatives.



I have developed a 5-part energy freedom platform for America's future:



Liberate responsible energy development



Decriminalize nuclear energy



End preferences for unreliable electricity



Practice pro-human land management



Reduce emissions long-term through innovation



1. Liberate responsible energy development



Anti-development policies prevent every form of energy from reaching its potential—from natural gas to nuclear to solar. Liberating responsible development throughout America will create unprecedented energy abundance and progress.



2. Decriminalize nuclear energy



The overregulation of low-carbon nuclear verges on criminalization, making nuclear costs 10X higher than they need to be. Decriminalizing nuclear, including radical reform of the NRC and EPA, will make energy far cheaper, safer, and cleaner.



3. End preferences for unreliable electricity



Today's electric grids are being ruined by systemic preferences for unreliable electricity, which causes prices to rise and reliability to decline.



Eliminating them can help make America a leader in low-cost, reliable electricity.



4. Practice pro-human Federal lands management



A hostility toward all human impact is at the root of our numerous problems with Federal lands, including out-of-control wildfires and insufficient energy development.



Pro-human policies will make us safer and more prosperous.



5. Reduce emissions through liberating innovation, not punishing America



The only humane way to reduce emissions long-term is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. Trying to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels in the US is senseless self-destruction.



To summarize: the Biden "climate agenda," which always includes massive new solar/wind subsidies, is irredeemably destructive—guaranteed to increase inflation, decrease electricity reliability, worsen recession, and harm energy security.



We need energy freedom instead.

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: BreakfallThe stat' are off. A solution takes time. It's the long-term benefits that will make the difference. All I hear is about you folk bashing on about the cost of manufacturing batteries in the interim,

You're not entirely wrong, as the Western world has accomplish insane feats through technology, but it's definitely not a perfect solution atm where it requires taking quite a lot money from tax payers, uncontrollable fire hazards, 30% heavier which will wear down the roads faster, the abundance of decaying EV batteries needed to be stored, black outs in the power grid, requires more powerplants which can't guarantee to be emission free nor is battery manufacturing pollution free, etc.  By the time we reached an emission-free transport system, the world will already be a lot worst, pollution, infrastructure damage and debt will be a serious issue.



Edit: I forgot to mention EVs perform very poorly and the batteries decay a lot faster is extreme temperature climates.

I just like to see people embracing a step in the right direction. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Not for us...and not for the rest of the planet.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallI'm not talking about humans...

I understood that you weren't.... I just wanted you to say where your loyalties are.



You'd let billions of humans die for your force fed grade school curriculum theories on ecology and evolution.



Very sad...

I would see an extinction of the entire human race in one foul swoop, if that's what it would take for the rest of the world to thrive and flourish.

Now for an Earthly song by James Vincent McMorrow..

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaI understood that you weren't.... I just wanted you to say where your loyalties are.



You'd let billions of humans die for your force fed grade school curriculum theories on ecology and evolution.



Very sad...

I would see an extinction of the entire human race in one foul swoop, if that's what it would take for the rest of the world to thrive and flourish.

You can only make that choice for yourself.



So check out or hush up.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallI would see an extinction of the entire human race in one foul swoop, if that's what it would take for the rest of the world to thrive and flourish.

You can only make that choice for yourself.



So check out or hush up.

I would've positioned you into the more ecologically Conservative party myself. How wrong was me...er...I?

I may be more qualified than most of you...but I'm not arrogant about the fact.

"Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98 percent over the past century." Why is this fact never mentioned. I think we know why. Climate extremism hates facts.

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaYou can only make that choice for yourself.



So check out or hush up.

I would've positioned you into the more ecologically Conservative party myself. How wrong was me...er...I?

Well, I'm not cavalier about billions being killed for a discredited theory, so there is that.....

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallI would've positioned you into the more ecologically Conservative party myself. How wrong was me...er...I?

Well, I'm not cavalier about billions being killed for a discredited theory, so there is that.....

Cavalier? Christ man...Im talking about a species that is a plague. How real can I be?

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaWell, I'm not cavalier about billions being killed for a discredited theory, so there is that.....

Cavalier? Christ man...Im talking about a species that is a plague. How real can I be?

We're imperfect but on this planet for a purpose. We're not a plague. We're better than rodents and locusts.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallCavalier? Christ man...Im talking about a species that is a plague. How real can I be?

We're imperfect but on this planet for a purpose. We're not a plague. We're better than rodents and locusts.

And yet still plague status...



You should acknowledge climate change and stop clenching your arse lips so hard!

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaWe're imperfect but on this planet for a purpose. We're not a plague. We're better than rodents and locusts.

And yet still plague status...



You should acknowledge climate change and stop clenching your arse lips so hard!

I acknowledge changes in the environment but I've read a lot of historical accounts and journals/almanacs from my farming family going back to the 1850's.



Humans affect our environment in bad ways.... plastics in the ocean, nuclear leaks, pharma drugs leaching into the waterways, et cetera... but for large scale weather changes, we're just a flea on the earth's back. Anthropogenic climate change is a myth pushed by elitist armchair social engineers bent on returning the balance of power to their feudalistic selves. 



Our climate is dictated by the sun and other celestial bodies.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallAnd yet still plague status...



You should acknowledge climate change and stop clenching your arse lips so hard!

I acknowledge changes in the environment but I've read a lot of historical accounts and journals/almanacs from my farming family going back to the 1850's.



Humans affect our environment in bad ways.... plastics in the ocean, nuclear leaks, pharma drugs leaching into the waterways, et cetera... but for large scale weather changes, we're just a flea on the earth's back. Anthropogenic climate change is a myth pushed by elitist armchair social engineers bent on returning the balance of power to their feudalistic selves. 



Our climate is dictated by the sun and other celestial bodies.

I'm older than you and mostly more intelligent. You need to see the obvious..and you've got half your answers unspun..

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallCavalier? Christ man...Im talking about a species that is a plague. How real can I be?

We're imperfect but on this planet for a purpose. We're not a plague. We're better than rodents and locusts.

I think that I've had about enough of a being like you that hasn't touched on what I have reached in life itself!

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaI acknowledge changes in the environment but I've read a lot of historical accounts and journals/almanacs from my farming family going back to the 1850's.



Humans affect our environment in bad ways.... plastics in the ocean, nuclear leaks, pharma drugs leaching into the waterways, et cetera... but for large scale weather changes, we're just a flea on the earth's back. Anthropogenic climate change is a myth pushed by elitist armchair social engineers bent on returning the balance of power to their feudalistic selves. 



Our climate is dictated by the sun and other celestial bodies.

I'm older than you and mostly more intelligent. You need to see the obvious..and you've got half your answers unspun..

Older people than me tend to be more brainwashed and kept like mushrooms (fed shit and kept in the dark)...



Older people tend to make the mistake of thinking age means wisdom. It's far from the case however...

How is wind and solar working out for average Europeans. What a waste of money.

Quote from: iron horse jockeyHow is wind and solar working out for average Europeans. What a waste of money.

Yeah right!! I guess you never heard of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. How is fossil fuels (natural gas) working for the average Europeans?  High prices for natural gas is through the roof because of Gazprom.

Gazprom stops Latvia's gas in latest Russian cut to EU

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62359890



BASF Considers Selling Gas to Grid if Russia Halts Deliveries

    Chemicals firm is saving the fuel by cutting ammonia output

    European energy prices are surging on gas supply concerns

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-27/basf-said-to-eye-selling-gas-to-grid-if-russia-halts-deliveries


Climate change: 'Sand battery' could solve green energy's big problem

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520

After Finland joined Nato, Gazprom shut off the natural gas to Finland.  A lot of interest for the wind and solar with the Sand Battery providing storage.

Quote from: Green_Hornet

Quote from: iron horse jockeyHow is wind and solar working out for average Europeans. What a waste of money.

Yeah right!!  How is fossil fuels (natural gas) working for the average Europeans?  High prices for natural gas is through the roof because of Gazprom.

Gazprom stops Latvia's gas in latest Russian cut to EU

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62359890

Climate change: 'Sand battery' could solve green energy's big problem

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520

After Finland joined Nato, Gazprom shut off the natural gas to Finland

Yes, it is right troll. if they developed their own resources they wouldn't be in this mess. But, what has that got to do with you crawling out from under your rock.

90% of the world won't be able to make it just on wind and solar.  It just doesn't have enough sun shine or wind to be worth it.  Many of the places where those things do work still don't make sense because it is too far from end consumers or the upfront capital costs just isn't feasible.

For more information which this short video by Peter Zeihan.

Quote from: OerdinFor more information which this short video by Peter Zeihan.

Green_Hornet is a virgin.

Without humanity, the earth has no value.

Russia will be blamed, but phasing out nuclear power, wasting money on useless wind and solar plus fracking bans are the real culprits.



Germany's biggest cities prepare for looming energy crisis by shutting off warm water, limiting heat, and switching off lighting



Some of Germany's biggest cities are preparing for an energy crunch this winter by shutting off warm water, limiting heat, and switching off lighting.



The German city of Hanover is attempting to reduce its energy consumption by 15%.



Between Oct. 1 and March 31, Hanover's municipal buildings will not be allowed to be heated to a temperature over 68F. The city has banned the use of mobile air conditioning units and fan heaters.



The citizens of Hanover will be forced to take cold showers at city-run facilities. The German city will cut off hot water in public buildings, swimming pools, and gyms.



"The situation is unpredictable. Every kilowatt hour counts, and protecting critical infrastructure has to be a priority," said Hanover Mayor Belit Onay – who is part of the Green party.



Hanover isn't the only German city limiting energy use.



Last week, the German city of Munich announced that it would turn off spotlights on its town hall. The city also shut off warm water at its municipal offices. Fountains in Germany's third-largest city would be turned off at night.



Nuremberg closed three of its four public indoor swimming pools run by the city.



"Vonovia, the country's largest residential landlord, said it would be lowering the temperature of its tenants' gas central heating to 17C (62F) between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.," the Financial Times reported. "A housing association in the Saxon town of Dippoldiswalde, near the Czech border, went a step further this week, saying it was rationing the supply of hot water to tenants. From now on, they can only take hot showers between 4 a.m. - 8 a.m., 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. - 9 p.m."



The district of Lahn-Dill, near Frankfurt, turned off hot water in its 86 schools and 60 gyms until mid-September.



Last week, Berlin's senate voted to turn off the lighting of 200 monuments, buildings, and landmarks in the German capital of more than 3.5 million people to save electricity.



"In April, Berlin had announced measures to keep its outdoor swimming pools at two degrees below the weather-dependent standard temperature throughout the summer season," The Guardian reported.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/germany-cities-energy-crisis-russia-gas

Quote from: iron horse jockeyHow is wind and solar working out for average Europeans. What a waste of money.

Germany has been a complete joke.  They have installed enough solar and wind to supposedly power 250% of peek electrical demand (in theory) but it turns out Germany is neither very sunny more does it have a lot of wind.  So I stead green tech only produces 8% of their demand and they have to do a lot of lying and green washing to get it that high.  Wind and solar will not work with current tech for about 90% of the world's population.  Nuclear is the only real option with a few exceptions for local geographic exceptions.

Quote from: Oerdin

Quote from: iron horse jockeyHow is wind and solar working out for average Europeans. What a waste of money.

Germany has been a complete joke.  They have installed enough solar and wind to supposedly power 250% of peek electrical demand (in theory) but it turns out Germany is neither very sunny more does it have a lot of wind.  So I stead green tech only produces 8% of their demand and they have to do a lot of lying and green washing to get it that high.  Wind and solar will not work with current tech for about 90% of the world's population.  Nuclear is the only real option with a few exceptions for local geographic exceptions.

Natural gas is abundant and cheap too Oerdin.

I was referring to low carbon nonfossil fuel power sources.

Quote from: OerdinI was referring to low carbon nonfossil fuel power sources.

I thought natural gas was low carbon?



Someone here posted a link that showed natural gas had a lower carbon footprint and smaller land disturbance per kilowat hour than solar.

Relatively to coal or oil, yes, but you will notice the greenie wheelies were even against that.  At least until Russia turned off the taps on the EU and now they are crying.  You can bet the EU now wishes they had not banned franking and made it hard to get drilling permits.  If they had just Mai tanned the same output levels they had in 2000 they wouldn't need Russian imports but they were stupid and now they are paying.  Hell, most of those dumb asses refused to allow LNG port facilities to be made despite the US telling them about their strategic vulnerability for 20+ years.



The Germans even laughed at Trump when he said they were at serious risk to Russian blackmail over natural gas but it turns out Trump was right.

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: OerdinI was referring to low carbon nonfossil fuel power sources.

I thought natural gas was low carbon?



Someone here posted a link that showed natural gas had a lower carbon footprint and smaller land disturbance per kilowat hour than solar.

It was me and it's true. Over the entire lifecycyle of a power plant, natural gas has lower emissions than solar. Solar is a diffuse source of energy. It takes more resources including land to produce the same amount of power as concentrated sources of energy like natural gas, coal, and nuclear.

Quote from: OerdinRelatively to co or oil, yes, but you will notice the greenie wheelies were even against that.  At least until Russia turned off the taps on the EU and now they are crying.  You can bet the EU now wishes they had not banned franking and made it hard to get drilling permits.  If they had just Mai tanned the same output levels they had in 2000 they wouldn't need Russian imports but they were stupid and now they are paying.  Hell, most of those dumb asses refused to allow LNG port facilities to be made despite the US telling them about their strategic vulnerability for 20+ years.



The Germans even laughed at Trump when he said they were at serious risk to Russian blackmail over natural gas but it turns out Trump was right.

Trump was prophetic. Remember his warning about high gasoline prices if Biden won.

Indeed I do.

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallI'm older than you and mostly more intelligent. You need to see the obvious..and you've got half your answers unspun..

Older people than me tend to be more brainwashed and kept like mushrooms (fed shit and kept in the dark)...



Older people tend to make the mistake of thinking age means wisdom. It's far from the case however...

I only have 5 or so years on you surely?  :laugh3:

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Dinky DazzaOlder people than me tend to be more brainwashed and kept like mushrooms (fed shit and kept in the dark)...



Older people tend to make the mistake of thinking age means wisdom. It's far from the case however...

I only have 5 or so years on you surely?  :laugh3:

And you're 5 years closer to being totally feeble minded....  ac_biggrin

Quote from: Dinky Dazza

Quote from: BreakfallI only have 5 or so years on you surely?  :laugh3:

And you're 5 years closer to being totally feeble minded....  ac_biggrin

Cute...but you clearly know that I'm an artist and a surfer. It's all about the dream baby!  :howdy:

I follow Alex Epstein. The guy is one of the few people talking sense about energy.



The root of our global energy crisis is Green Energy Fascism—the idea that government should have total control over the energy industry (fascism) used for the "green" goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels and nuclear.



The solution is Energy Freedom—the idea that individuals should be free to produce and consume energy how they judge best, provided they follow laws protecting everyone from truly harmful emissions and dangerous practices.



There is no inevitability whatsoever to today's energy crisis.



In fact, if we replace Green Energy Fascism with Energy Freedom policies, America can lead the world in producing low-cost, reliable, plentiful, and cleaner energy—enriching ourselves and billions around the world.



The Opportunity



Human beings' knowledge of how to produce energy in a way that is low-cost, reliable, and plentiful has never been greater. And we can do it in ever-cleaner ways.



As the world's leading economy and energy producer, America can lead a global energy renaissance.



The Problem



Even though the world could be in an energy renaissance, it is instead in an energy crisis—with skyrocketing costs and declining reliability around the world.



Europe fears industrial collapse and citizens freezing this winter. Poorer regions fear literal starvation.¹



The Cause



The direct cause of our unnecessary energy crisis is simple: governments around the world have restricted the supply of energy through anti-fossil-fuel, anti-nuclear policies. When demand outstrips supply, energy prices rise—which causes all other prices to rise.



The Root Cause



The reason that governments have been able to get away with anti-fossil-fuel, anti-nuclear policies is that they have used the pretext of climate apocalypse to justify Green Energy Fascism—total government control over the energy industry to achieve "green" goals.



Today's energy policy is fascist.



Economically, "fascism" means: unlimited control of govt over private industry.



Our leaders exercise such control by using mandates, subsidies, prohibitions, and ESG rules to dictate the behavior of energy producers and energy consumers.



Using energy fascism to achieve "green" goals makes a terrible policy far worse.



"Green" = "minimal impact." Since all energy impacts nature, all energy can be opposed as not "green."



In practice, "green" energy means, disastrously: oppose everything but unreliable solar and wind.



The pretext of Green Energy Fascism is "climate emergency." But:



While humans impact climate, there is no emergency; in fact we're safer than ever from climate.



Trying to lower CO2 emissions by favoring unreliable solar/wind and punishing nuclear is wildly ineffective.



While "climate change"—humans impacting climate—is real, "climate emergency" is not. The world is slowly becoming warmer—at a cold point in geological history, when many more people die of cold than of heat. This doesn't at all justify rapidly restricting global fossil fuel use.²



Fossil fuels actually overall make us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.³

(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_2824,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc9e05ad6-d969-4d3c-b900-7e820fb7b709_1412x900.png)

The only practical way to lower CO2 emissions long-term is to make low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive.



Green Energy Fascism policies of dictating the energy industry in favor of unreliables against nuclear—the most proven low-carbon form of energy—are unjustifiable.



Green Energy Fascism not only ruins energy via dictatorial, anti-fossil-fuel/anti-nuclear control of industry, but also via "green" hostility to all development. Every aspect of energy is held back by "green" policies—including the massive mining and development solar and wind require.⁴



America and the world need an energy policy that ensures plenty of fossil fuel energy and fosters cost-competitive low-carbon alternatives like nuclear—making energy increasingly lower-cost, more reliable, more plentiful, cleaner, and lower-carbon.



That policy is Energy Freedom.



The Energy Freedom Solution



America can enrich itself and empower billions with policies that free human ingenuity to produce energy in as low-cost, reliable, plentiful, and clean way as possible—while protecting us against harmful emissions and dangerous practices.



The 5 steps to Energy Freedom are:



1. Liberate responsible development



2. End preferences for unreliable electricity



3. Reform air/water emissions standards to incorporate cost-benefit analysis



4. Reduce long-term CO2 emissions via liberating innovation



5. Decriminalize nuclear

1. Liberate responsible energy development



Anti-development policies prevent every form of energy from reaching its potential—from natural gas to nuclear to solar. Liberating responsible development throughout America will create unprecedented energy abundance and progress.



2. End preferences for unreliable electricity



Today's electric grids are being ruined by systemic preferences for unreliable electricity, which causes prices to rise and reliability to decline.



Eliminating them can help make America a leader in low-cost, reliable electricity.⁵



3. Reform air/water emissions standards based on proper cost-benefit analysis.



Today's Environmental Protection Agency does huge harm to prosperity and health via energy-crippling emissions standards that fail any reasonable cost-benefit analysis.



Such analysis will lead to more energy and better health.



4. Reduce CO2 emissions long-term through liberating innovation, not punishing America.



The only reasonable way to reduce CO2 emissions long-term is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. Punishing US emissions is senseless self-destruction.



5. Decriminalize nuclear energy



The overregulation of low-carbon nuclear verges on criminalization, making nuclear costs 10X higher than they need to be. Decriminalizing nuclear, including radical reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, will make energy far cheaper, safer, and cleaner.⁶



Despite the fact that Green Energy Fascism policies are causing a global crisis, our leaders just passed a bill that should be called the Green Energy Fascism Act because it increased government control over energy, further punished fossil fuels, and did nothing to liberate nuclear.⁷



This Fall, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates have the opportunity to do the right thing and win over voters by rejecting this Administration and Congress's green energy fascism, and embracing Energy Freedom.



Americans rightly want cheap energy and prosperity back.



If you are a candidate/official who wants to incorporate Energy Freedom policies in your platform, please feel free to reach out to me (alex at alexepstein dot com). I regularly help dozens of offices with messaging and policy, free of charge, and am always happy to help pro-freedom candidates from any party.

Europe, along with the UK, is scrambling to find supplies of natural gas — while costs to consumers are skyrocketing — to have sufficient reserves just to get through this winter. Wind and solar cannot do what natural gas does. And former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel's 's disastrous "Energiewende" (energy transition) pledge to phase out all nuclear power in Germany following the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011.



Merkel's decision made no sense given its green energy policies because (a) nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases and (b) the Fukushima meltdown occurred because of the combination of an earthquake and tsunami, irrelevant in Germany.



In Canada, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is an advocate of rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels to green energy as "an insurance policy against higher energy prices" — the opposite of what her government's policies are actually doing. She supports Canada providing Europe with liquid natural gas (LNG) to help make up for Putin curtailing its supply.



But that will take years to implement, if it ever happens, because Canada lacks the infrastructure to get its landlocked natural gas resources in Alberta and Saskatchewan to tidewater and from there to global markets.



All we can do is sell more of it to the U.S., at huge discounts, and leave it to the Americans to ship it to Europe in tankers.



What has happened in Europe is actually a warning to Canadians about the risks of pursuing green energy, while ignoring energy security. The question is, will our government heed it?

It's intentional....



....a great culling of the poor and weak.

The sad thing is for 20 years leftists and eventually even so called conservatives in Europe blocked all drilling claiming they had to cripple do.estic production to "go green" which really just meant importing and being dependent.

Quote from: OerdinThe sad thing is for 20 years leftists and eventually even so called conservatives in Europe blocked all drilling claiming they had to cripple do.estic production to "go green" which really just meant importing and being dependent.

Ya, Johnson and Merkel drank the Kool Aid.

I wonder how many of us late 40 somethings and beyond will be living in 5-10 years from now.



Those of us that didn't take the jab will be marginalised in new ways.... through taxes, through legislation, through regulations that are so STUPID that saying they're STUPID is STUPID to say out loud....



Billions will be slowly dying yet anybody that points out why will be legally attacked... or worse, lynched.



Head for the hills, kids....

Quote from: Dinky DazzaI wonder how many of us late 40 somethings and beyond will be living in 5-10 years from now.



Those of us that didn't take the jab will be marginalised in new ways.... through taxes, through legislation, through regulations that are so STUPID that saying they're STUPID is STUPID to say out loud....



Billions will be slowly dying yet anybody that points out why will be legally attacked... or worse, lynched.



Head for the hills, kids....

Wrong thread.

Why so?



Because your mangina barked?

Quote from: Dinky DazzaWhy so?



Because your mangina barked?

What?? Look what you wrote. On second thought, ask someone else to read what you wrote.

For a so called Libertarian, you don't liberty much....

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: Dinky DazzaWhy so?



Because your mangina barked?

What?? Look what you wrote. On second thought, ask someone else to read what you wrote.

It is not about fossil fuels being more sustainable than wind and solar.

I can't remember if I posted this before but it is directly on the thread topic and talks about why they don't work in most place.

Thanks Oerdin.....I'll watch it tonight after work.

I drove by the wind farm in Alberta not too long ago. I took a video to show to my family. We were on our way to the border of USA and Canada. The area was Waterton Lakes National Park. A must see, guys. Go to Waterton.

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryolaI drove by the wind farm in Alberta not too long ago. I took a video to show to my family. We were on our way to the border of USA and Canada. The area was Waterton Lakes National Park. A must see, guys. Go to Waterton.

South West Alberta, near Pincher Creek. I've done some wells there.

Californians may need to take measures to conserve energy, including by avoiding charging electric vehicles, to prevent strain to the state's power grid over the Labor Day weekend, officials said—a week after state regulators voted on a plan to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars.

Quote from: seoulbroCalifornians may need to take measures to conserve energy, including by avoiding charging electric vehicles, to prevent strain to the state's power grid over the Labor Day weekend, officials said—a week after state regulators voted on a plan to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars.

That's great. How about LPG? We need to be positive in this world. Pessimism won't help the planet at all. This coming from a businessman. Proven and semi-retired.

This whole thread has been a bit of a let-down actually. A few individuals thinking that they know it all. Week in and week out.

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: seoulbroCalifornians may need to take measures to conserve energy, including by avoiding charging electric vehicles, to prevent strain to the state's power grid over the Labor Day weekend, officials said—a week after state regulators voted on a plan to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars.

That's great. How about LPG? We need to be positive in this world. Pessimism won't help the planet at all. This coming from a businessman. Proven and semi-retired.

If California was building more natural gas power plants instead of decommissioning them, they wouldn't be facing  blackouts and droughts. Useless wind and solar require a lot of arable land and water.

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: BreakfallThat's great. How about LPG? We need to be positive in this world. Pessimism won't help the planet at all. This coming from a businessman. Proven and semi-retired.

If California was building more natural gas power plants instead of decommissioning them, they wouldn't be facing  blackouts and droughts. Useless wind and solar require a lot of arable land and water.

Arable? In what sense? How does that correlate with solar or wind at all?

Quote from: BreakfallThis whole thread has been a bit of a let-down actually. A few individuals thinking that they know it all. Week in and week out.

It is pretty obvious that replacing reliable concentrated sources of energy like oil and natural gas with diffuse antiquated sources of energy like wind and solar that gobble up resources we don't have enough of, including land is an expensive fantasy at best.

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: GuestIf California was building more natural gas power plants instead of decommissioning them, they wouldn't be facing  blackouts and droughts. Useless wind and solar require a lot of arable land and water.

Arable? In what sense? How does that correlate with solar or wind at all.

California is a major agricultural state. Wind and solar require massive amounts of land and water. Both of which are in short supply in the Golden state. Natural gas power plants, being concentrated require much less of both resources to produce much more energy. Wind and and solar compete with food production and cause food shortages.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: BreakfallThis whole thread has been a bit of a let-down actually. A few individuals thinking that they know it all. Week in and week out.

It is pretty obvious that replacing reliable concentrated sources of energy like oil and natural gas with diffuse antiquated sources of energy like wind and solar that gobble up resources we don't have enough of, including land is an expensive fantasy at best.

What a load of shit man! How did you even come to that conclusion...in the bigger scheme of things?

Do you you even consider long-term benifets seoulbro? Are you some financial guru that sees only immediate value in unsustainable energies?

I want change. I am sick and tired of seeing mouthpieces try and dupe the world that they know best. Oil is unstainable...it doesn't take the slightest of mind to realise that. Sustainable energies are the way forward and the practical solution for generations to come. Try and instil some positive energy into your mindset and make the difference the world needs. It's never too late!

Quote from: BreakfallDo you you even consider long-term benifets seoulbro? Are you some financial guru that sees only immediate value in unsustainable energies?

Seoul knows wind and solar are unsustainable and they offer no immediate or future benefit.

Quote from: BreakfallI want change. I am sick and tired of seeing mouthpieces try and dupe the world that they know best. Oil is unstainable...it doesn't take the slightest of mind to realise that. Sustainable energies are the way forward and the practical solution for generations to come. Try and instil some positive energy into your mindset and make the difference the world needs. It's never too late!

Page after page in this thread proves oil is far more sustainable than almost any other resource on the planet..



It has lifted billions people out of poverty and has thousands of applications..



What we seem to be doing in the West is deleiberate returning to primitive technologies and lower living standards by lying to the people that rare earth metal energy can replace petroleum technology.

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: BreakfallDo you you even consider long-term benifets seoulbro? Are you some financial guru that sees only immediate value in unsustainable energies?

Seoul knows wind and solar are unsustainable and they offer no immediate or future benefit.

Seoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

"Fossil fuels are a hell of a lot more sustainable than wind and solar?"



Wrong, wrong and wrong again!

What imbecilic rationale!

Canada holds 77 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves as of 2017, ranking 18th in the world and accounting for about 1% of the world's total natural gas reserves of 6,923 Tcf. Canada has proven reserves equivalent to 17.5 times its annual consumption.

Goddamn I love it when I can shit all over the naysayers!

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: FashionistaSeoul knows wind and solar are unsustainable and they offer no immediate or future benefit.

Seoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

You have seventeen pages to prove that the progtard narrative are superior to fossils, but you haven't. Do you know why you can't do that? Because wind and solar are less sustainable than fossils.

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: BreakfallArable? In what sense? How does that correlate with solar or wind at all.

California is a major agricultural state. Wind and solar require massive amounts of land and water. Both of which are in short supply in the Golden state. Natural gas power plants, being concentrated require much less of both resources to produce much more energy. Wind and and solar compete with food production and cause food shortages.

California doesn't have enough water needed for all that hydroelectricity. Only places like Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec & BC do...which could satisfy California's & the needs of large population like the US.



So whether the environmentalists in America it or not, they'd better build more dams or connectors to the States to make their electric only transportion system viable.

Quote from: Brent

Quote from: BreakfallSeoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

You have seventeen pages to prove that the progtard narrative are superior to fossils, but you haven't. Do you know why you can't do that? Because wind and solar are less sustainable than fossils.

I kind of understand Breakfall..



It's drilled into our minds that old technologies like turbines and solar panels have improved and don't finite resources......one page of this thread shows that's not true..



There are massive amounts of government money for people and corporations to spend on wind and solar..



So corporations say it's environmentally virtuous when they know it isn't.

3 irrefutable principles for thinking about fossil fuels, which no opponent has ever challenged:



1. Factor in fossil fuels' benefits



2. Factor in fossil fuels' "climate mastery benefits"



3. Factor in fossil fuels' negative and positive climate side-effects with precision



Irrefutable principle 1: Factor in fossil fuels' benefits



When we're evaluating what to do about any technology we must factor in not only its negative side-effects but also its benefits.



E.g., oil-powered equipment and natural gas fertilizer are crucial to feeding 8 billion people.



Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' benefits, not just their negative side-effects, most designated experts totally fail to do this.



E.g., "expert" Michael Mann 100% ignores fossil fuels' unique agricultural benefits in his book on fossil fuels and climate.



Irrefutable principle 2: Factor in fossil fuels' "climate mastery benefits"



One huge benefit we get from fossil fuels is the ability to master climate danger—e.g., fossil fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels' negative climate impacts.



Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits, our designated experts totally fail to do this.



E.g., the UN IPCC's multi-thousand page reports totally omit fossil fueled climate mastery! That's like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.



Irrefutable principle 3: Factor in fossil fuels' negative and positive climate side-effects with precision



With rising CO2 we must consider both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact.



Even though we obviously need to factor in both negative and positive impacts of rising CO2 with precision, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).

5 undeniable facts about fossil fuels' benefits



1. Human flourishing requires cost-effective energy



2. Far more energy is needed



3. Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective



4. Unreliable solar and wind are failing to replace fossil fuels



5. Fossil fuels give us an incredible climate mastery ability



Undeniable energy fact 1: Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing



Cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, versatile, scalable energy—is essential to human flourishing because gives us the ability to use machines to become productive and prosperous.



Thanks to today's unprecedented availability of cost-effective energy (mostly fossil fuel) the world has never been a better place for human life. Life expectancy and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to <10% today.



Undeniable energy fact 2: The world needs much more energy



Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood/dung for heating/cooking. Much more energy is needed.



The desperate lack of life-giving, cost-effective energy means that any replacement for fossil fuels must not only provide energy to the 2B who use significant amounts of energy today but to the 6B who use far less. Restricting fossil fuels without incredible alternatives is mass-murder.



Undeniable energy fact 3: Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective



Despite 100+ years of aggressive competition, fossil fuels provide 80%+ of the world's energy and they are still growing fast—especially in the countries most concerned with cost-effective energy. E.g., China.³



Fossil fuels are uniquely able to provide energy that's low-cost, reliable, and versatile on a scale of billions of people. This is due to fossil fuels' combo of remarkable attributes—fossil fuels are naturally stored, concentrated, and abundant energy—and generations of innovation by industry.



There is currently only one energy tech that can match (actually exceed) fossil fuels' combo of naturally stored, concentrated, abundant energy: nuclear. Nuclear may one day outcompete all uses of fossil fuels, but this will take radical policy reform and generations of innovation + work.



Recent price spikes in fossil fuels do not reflect some new lack of cost-effectiveness on the part of fossil fuels, but rather the devastating effects of "green energy" efforts to artificially restrict the supply of fossil fuels on the false promise that unreliable solar/wind can replace them.



Undeniable energy fact 4: Unreliable solar/wind are failing to replace fossil fuels



Despite claims that solar + wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide < 5% of world energy—only electricity, ⅕ of energy—and even that depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants.⁴



Solar and wind's basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near-0 at any time. Thus they don't replace reliable power, they parasite on it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar/wind without huge parasitism on reliable neighbors.⁵



The popular idea that we can use mostly or all solar/wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it's economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk's Megapacks would cost $400T, >4X global GDP.⁶



For solar/wind to rapidly replace fossil fuels would require magically, immediately fixing their intractable problems providing electricity, then providing the 4/5 of world energy that isn't electricity, then doing that for the world's far greater energy needs going forward.



Unfortunately, there are opportunistic anti-fossil-fuel activist academics who have been feeding the absurd fantasy of rapid global replacement of fossil fuels via unreliable solar and wind. These academics are squarely responsible for today's global crisis of insufficient fossil fuel supply.



All academic schemes to replace fossil fuels with mostly solar/wind share 3 absurd assumptions:



1) schemes never tried anywhere will cheaply work everywhere the 1st time



2) a crash program of unprecedented mining will be cheap



3) today's anti-development politics won't slow anything down



Bottom line: If we recognize the undeniable facts about energy, we must conclude that if 8 billion people are going to have the cost-effective energy they need to flourish, in the far greater quantities needed, fossil fuel use needs to increase. Rapidly restricting it is deadly, period.



The life-or-death benefits of fossil fuels to the ability of 8 billion people to flourish are true regardless of how severe the negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels are. Those who think fossil fuels' CO2 emissions are apocalyptic still should acknowledge that rapid fossil fuel elimination is apocalyptic.



Those of us who recognize the benefits of fossil fuels should be open to evidence of extremely negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels. But once we learn certain undeniable facts about fossil fuels' climate benefits and side-effects the idea of climate apocalypse is totally refuted.





Undeniable energy fact 5: Fossil fuel energy gives us an incredible climate mastery ability



Fossil fuels have helped drive down climate disaster deaths by 98% over the last century by powering the amazing machines that protect us against storms, extreme temperatures, and drought.

Quote from: Brent

Quote from: BreakfallSeoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

You have seventeen pages to prove that the progtard narrative are superior to fossils, but you haven't. Do you know why you can't do that? Because wind and solar are less sustainable than fossils.

Again? Who the hell are you!?

Another problem with EVs mentioned by an engineer is they need at least 10-20x more space/weight to carry the same amount of energy.

Quote from: ZetsuAnother problem with EVs mentioned by an engineer is they need at least 10-20x more space/weight to carry the same amount of energy.

How  big would semis have to be.

ac_wot

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: ZetsuAnother problem with EVs mentioned by an engineer is they need at least 10-20x more space/weight to carry the same amount of energy.

How  big would semis have to be.

 ac_wot

It looks like about half of it's volume is used to store the batteries, with just the batteries alone weighing 8000 lbs.  ac_unsure

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: FashionistaHow  big would semis have to be.

 ac_wot

It looks like about half of it's volume is used to store the batteries, with just the batteries alone weighing 8000 lbs.  ac_unsure

:shock:

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: FashionistaHow  big would semis have to be.

 ac_wot

It looks like about half of it's volume is used to store the batteries, with just the batteries alone weighing 8000 lbs.  ac_unsure

What are you driving now?

Quote from: Jed Clampett

Quote from: ZetsuIt looks like about half of it's volume is used to store the batteries, with just the batteries alone weighing 8000 lbs.  ac_unsure

What are you driving now?

A 2019 Mazda CX-5 diesel model, somehow I like it more than my old civic hybrid.  ac_cool

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: Jed ClampettWhat are you driving now?

A 2019 Mazda CX-5 diesel model, somehow I like it more than my old civic hybrid.  ac_cool

What a nice looking car Zetsu..



Did you happen to read the message I sent you?

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: ZetsuA 2019 Mazda CX-5 diesel model, somehow I like it more than my old civic hybrid.  ac_cool

What a nice looking car Zetsu..



Did you happen to read the message I sent you?

Thanks Fash  ac_cool , it's not a bad car in terms of driving experience, but the build quality isn't as good as my old civic, already 2 to 3 issues during the first 2 years of purchase, lol.



I remember you mentioned the forum will be closing to merge with SG, will definitely come by and register once I get the chance.  ac_cool

Quote from: Zetsu

Quote from: FashionistaWhat a nice looking car Zetsu..



Did you happen to read the message I sent you?

Thanks Fash  ac_cool , it's not a bad car in terms of driving experience, but the build quality isn't as good as my old civic, already 2 to 3 issues during the first 2 years of purchase, lol.



I remember you mentioned the forum will be closing to merge with SG, will definitely come by and register once I get the chance.  ac_cool

It'summer time Zetsu......it's your busy season.....take your time..



Blue Cashew will be here until October 16.

An electric vehicle ran out of juice on a road in West Virginia. Thankfully for the driver, there was an ironic group that came to the rescue – five coal miners.



An electric car ran out of battery charge on U.S. 48, and stopped right in front of the Mettiki Coal access road in Tucker County. Luckily for the stranded driver from out of town, workers from the fossil fuel mine were ready to help out.

Quote from: seoulbroAn electric vehicle ran out of juice on a road in West Virginia. Thankfully for the driver, there was an ironic group that came to the rescue – five coal miners.



An electric car ran out of battery charge on U.S. 48, and stopped right in front of the Mettiki Coal access road in Tucker County. Luckily for the stranded driver from out of town, workers from the fossil fuel mine were ready to help out.

That's why I wouldn't get an all electric vehicle.



Exactly what you pointed out.



What happens if they run out of a charge in the middle of nowhere?



What if it happens in the middle of a dangerous ghetto? That's a real concern in parts of the US.

Quote from: Just Joe

Quote from: seoulbroAn electric vehicle ran out of juice on a road in West Virginia. Thankfully for the driver, there was an ironic group that came to the rescue – five coal miners.



An electric car ran out of battery charge on U.S. 48, and stopped right in front of the Mettiki Coal access road in Tucker County. Luckily for the stranded driver from out of town, workers from the fossil fuel mine were ready to help out.

That's why I wouldn't get an all electric vehicle.



Exactly what you pointed out.



What happens if they run out of a charge in the middle of nowhere?



What if it happens in the middle of a dangerous ghetto? That's a real concern in parts of the US.

I don't know if electric cars are suited to our climate..



Having the heater and lights on in minus twenty would probably drain the battery fast.

Maybe this electric car domination will be like all the fuss over Y2K. When it finally came, it was a bellyfop, a dud, like a climax that never came.

Quote from: Fashionista

Quote from: Just JoeThat's why I wouldn't get an all electric vehicle.



Exactly what you pointed out.



What happens if they run out of a charge in the middle of nowhere?



What if it happens in the middle of a dangerous ghetto? That's a real concern in parts of the US.

I don't know if electric cars are suited to our climate..



Having the heater and lights on in minus twenty would probably drain the battery fast.

BINGOCISELY!

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryolaMaybe this electric car domination will be like all the fuss over Y2K. When it finally came, it was a bellyfop, a dud, like a climax that never came.

You are correct. We can't produce enough electricity now. What do you think 300 million e cars will do power grids.

Here's an example why an Electric Car might be incredibly unsafe if it ran out of power or its components were damaged in an attack & there's no combustion engine as a backup:






If a person is gonna go the eco route at very least it should have options and diverse fuel sources.



Even another like propane or natural gas?

Quote from: Just JoeHere's an example why an Electric Car might be incredibly unsafe if it ran out of power or its components were damaged in an attack & there's no combustion engine as a backup:

If a person is gonna go the eco route at very least it should have options and diverse fuel sources.



Even another like propane or natural gas?

Propane vehicles were a big fail.

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Just JoeHere's an example why an Electric Car might be incredibly unsafe if it ran out of power or its components were damaged in an attack & there's no combustion engine as a backup:

If a person is gonna go the eco route at very least it should have options and diverse fuel sources.



Even another like propane or natural gas?

Propane vehicles were a big fail.

No. Thats not the case for commercial vehicles.



Taxis used them a lot and some still might.



I remember seeing propane fillup stations near taxi stations and airports.



But the taxi propane/gas models were largely replaced by hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.

Quote from: Just Joe

Quote from: GuestPropane vehicles were a big fail.

No. Thats not the case for commercial vehicles.



Taxis used them a lot and some still might.



I remember seeing propane fillup stations near taxi stations and airports.



But the taxi propane/gas models were largely replaced by hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.

Propane vehicles are an explosion risk. Only an idiot would get in one.

A petro Canada station at the Vancouver airport has propane fillups:



https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/gas-station-locations/5111-grant-mcconachie-way-richmond



...so 'guest' you obviously dont know what youre talking about.



Make sure you know what youre talking about instead of making uninformed states, 'kay?

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Just JoeNo. Thats not the case for commercial vehicles.



Taxis used them a lot and some still might.



I remember seeing propane fillup stations near taxi stations and airports.



But the taxi propane/gas models were largely replaced by hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.

Propane vehicles are an explosion risk. Only an idiot would get in one.

Then why do they still have propane fillup stations such as the Vancouver International Airport?



Maybe youre ignorant, dont know youre talking about or plain dumb/uninformed but that is one of the busiest gas stations in Greater Vancouver.



Its where all the taxis go.

Quote from: Just JoeA petro Canada station at the Vancouver airport has propane fillups:



https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/gas-station-locations/5111-grant-mcconachie-way-richmond



...so 'guest' you obviously dont know what youre talking about.



Make sure you know what youre talking about instead of making uninformed states, 'kay?

The number of propane vehicles in use has declined since its high of nearly 200,000 in 2003.

https://cleancities.energy.gov/files/u/news_events/document/document_url/96/2015_strategic_planning_propane.pdf?c1c5f888fb



There is still the odd station in Winnipeg that sells propane. Most propane vehicles still in existence were built in the nineties.

Canada

QuoteBack in the early 1990s, about 220,000 propane-powered vehicles motored along Canadian roads. Now, it's fewer than 60,000. Back then, drivers could fill up at one of 5,000 propane stations across the country. They now find fewer than 2,500<e>

https://www.wheels.ca/news/why-has-demand-tanked-for-propane-cars

Quote from: seoulbro

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryolaMaybe this electric car domination will be like all the fuss over Y2K. When it finally came, it was a bellyfop, a dud, like a climax that never came.

You are correct. We can't produce enough electricity now. What do you think 300 million e cars will do power grids.

100% agreed. On top of that, today, I see Gavin Newsom on TV asking his Californians to turn down their AC and refrain from running big machinery etcetera. What about when everyone has electric cars? Where is all that power going to come from, eh?

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryola

Quote from: seoulbroYou are correct. We can't produce enough electricity now. What do you think 300 million e cars will do power grids.

100% agreed. On top of that, today, I see Gavin Newsom on TV asking his Californians to turn down their AC and refrain from running big machinery etcetera. What about when everyone has electric cars? Where is all that power going to come from, eh?

At the same time he announces no new internal combustion engine vehicle sales after 2035. Aint that ironic.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryola100% agreed. On top of that, today, I see Gavin Newsom on TV asking his Californians to turn down their AC and refrain from running big machinery etcetera. What about when everyone has electric cars? Where is all that power going to come from, eh?

At the same time he announces no new internal combustion engine vehicle sales after 2035. Aint that ironic.

It is madness. Who buys this bullshit?

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryola

Quote from: HermanAt the same time he announces no new internal combustion engine vehicle sales after 2035. Aint that ironic.

It is madness. Who buys this bullshit?

Not the average working stiffs in California. They are all moving to Florida and Texas.

America's grid is in decline and about to get far worse due to policies that 1) reward unreliable electricity, 2) prematurely shut down coal plants, 3) criminalize nuclear, and 4) force EV use.



America's grid is in decline and about to get far worse due to policies that 1) reward unreliable electricity, 2) prematurely shut down coal plants, 3) criminalize nuclear, and 4) force electric vehicle use.



Here's what's happening and how to fix it.



A reliable grid is a foundation of our quality of life. Our lives depend on ultra-reliable electricity for the refrigerators that preserve our food, the water treatment plants that keep our water drinkable, the air conditioning that keeps us cool, the factories that produce our goods, etc.



Ominously, our grid is in an increasingly fragile state. Not only have we recently had statewide blackouts in California (2020) and Texas (2021), this summer shortages are occurring all around the US.





Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Mark Christie puts it bluntly "We're heading for a reliability crisis."¹



The root cause of our grid's reliability problems is simple: America is shutting down too many reliable power plants—plants that can be controlled to produce electricity when needed in the exact quantity needed. And it is attempting to replace them with unreliable solar and wind.



Since at any given time solar and wind can go near zero, using them as replacements for reliable power plants doesn't work. For example, Texas's February 2021 disaster was caused by solar/wind disappearing and inadequate investment in reliable power plants and their weatherization

Nationally, as demand has increased over the last 10 years we have seen a decline in reliable capacity (gas, coal, oil, nuclear, hydro, battery storage) by 5%.



Governments need to recognize the reliability crisis and fight it. Instead, they are planning to make the problem far, far worse via policies that will shut down many more reliable power plants while increasing electricity demand.



Our reliability problems are scheduled to get far worse.



Looking at the publicly announced plans of utilities, which are largely determined by government policies, we are scheduled to see many more shutdowns of reliable power plants in favor of unreliable solar/wind.



This year grid operators planned on retiring about 15 GW of reliable capacity and replacing it with only about 12 GW of reliable generation—which has recently become 10 GW as two nuclear units have been delayed until 2023. Every decline in reliable capacity makes the grid worse.⁷



Will batteries make unreliable solar/wind reliable? No. Battery storage is expensive and can only provide a given "capacity" (e.g., 1 GW) for a few hours, and only then if fully charged. Planned batteries are nowhere near enough to compensate for solar and wind's unreliability.



The next 7.5 years are scheduled to be a bloodbath of reliable capacity retirements. There are 93 GW of announced coal plant retirements, plus up to 92 more GW are at risk retiring early due to new Environmental Protection Agency rules. That's almost ⅕ of our already-scarce reliable capacity shut down.⁹



If coal plants will be replaced by plenty of reliable natural gas plants, that would be one thing. But utilities are not planning nearly enough gas plants to offset the likely shutdown of reliable coal plants.

To solve the reliability crisis we must understand and reverse the four policies turning America's grid into a Third-World grid:





1) rewarding unreliable electricity



2) imposing ruinous Environmental Protection Agency rules on power plants



3) criminalizing nuclear



4) forcing electric vehicle use



Grid-destroying policy 1: Rewarding unreliable electricity





Governments need to stop rewarding unreliable electricity by a) pricing unreliable electricity with no cost penalty, b) subsidizing unreliable generators, and c) mandating significant percentages of unreliables.



Stop pricing unreliable electricity with no cost penalty





In every area of life we pay far more for a reliable service than for an unreliable one. But in electricity, unfair rules make utilities pay the same prices for unreliable solar/wind electricity as they do for reliables.



Grids need to recognize that unreliable electricity is fundamentally different and far less valuable (sometimes it's even a burden) than reliable electricity, and pay for unreliable electricity (or not) accordingly.



One way to stop vastly overpaying for unreliable electricity is: require all generators to meet certain reliability standards.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: @realAzhyaAryola100% agreed. On top of that, today, I see Gavin Newsom on TV asking his Californians to turn down their AC and refrain from running big machinery etcetera. What about when everyone has electric cars? Where is all that power going to come from, eh?

At the same time he announces no new internal combustion engine vehicle sales after 2035. Aint that ironic.

I dont think the carmakers will realistically meet that deadline in the infrastructure will be in place by that date.



Even if they get gradually phased out, therell stll be gas stations around by then.



At best theyll be 50% electric by 2035.



Sure they might be able to produce that many cars by that date, but will the fuelling stations and renewable power supply be there?



Theyll need a lotta fuckin new dam construction  courtesy of Northern Canada.

Aint a snowball's chance in hell Canada or the US will ever get even close to an all electric fleet. Hell, we will be dang lucky to keep the lights on in twelve years.

Wacky California.



https://twitter.com/ogwausa/status/1567346139590017024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1567346139590017024%7Ctwgr%5E3949746d1473678545a5b66187c6d74614ea1024%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Foil-gas-workers-association-tweet-power-california



"Get somebody to bring you 5 gallons of wind turbine," the Oil & Gas Workers Association quipped back to  KABC-TV.

Aint that the truth.

This is so damn true.

Quote from: Oerdin

The petrochemical industry has given us better lives.

Quote from: OerdinThis is so damn true.

Yep

https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/videos/418476423763233/?t=5

As energy demand rises head in the sand left wing ideologues are eacserbating the problem by wasting more taxpayer money on unreliable and unutainable wind and solar.



US Power Grid Needs Trillions in Upgrades to Accommodate Renewable Energy Demands



In August, California announced the end of fossil fuel-powered car sales by 2035, prompting green energy advocates to celebrate.



However, flex alerts followed the announcement just days later, asking Golden State residents to avoid charging their electric vehicles during peak hours. Lack of compliance with the measure meant widespread blackouts due to the additional strain on the electrical grid.



The ironic turn of events underscores a massive problem facing renewable energy as demands for green technologies continue taxing the antiquated U.S. power grid.



Even using nuclear energy as a crutch, the cost of upgrades needed amounts to $4 trillion, according to a WoodMac estimate. Without nuclear power, that price tag bumps up another half a trillion dollars.



Another tally suggests the cost of electrical grid upgrades could be as high as $7 trillion.



In May, the administration of President Joe Biden announced a $2.5 billion investment to modernize and upgrade the nation's electrical system as part of the Building a Better Grid Initiative.



The spending package totals $20 billion but represents just a fraction of what's needed to achieve Biden's green energy goals.



"The electric grid is not currently designed to accommodate large amounts of renewable energy," Alan Duncan told The Epoch Times. Duncan is the founder of Solar Panels Network USA, and is well acquainted with power grid challenges.



One factor is the way the grid is structured and dispatches energy.



Another is that renewable sources aren't currently considered reliable.



Intermittent Supply Spells Trouble

"This is because it's intermittent, and it can be impacted by several factors, including weather conditions," Duncan said.



Illustrating this, millions of Texans suffered power outages during a brutal winter storm in February 2021. Subsequently, the subzero tempest triggered a heated debate within the energy community about how fragile renewables are within the context of severe weather incidents.



This is despite the Lone Star state government spending more than $80 billion of federal subsidies over the course of a decade. Moreover, roughly $1.5 billion per year is also spent on state subsidies for renewable energy.



Regardless of how much money is being thrown at it, insiders maintain renewables haven't caught up to the reality of powering a country like the United States.



Much of this has to do with the narrative surrounding green energy. For many, the concept of totally renewable power means going fully electric. However, this is an ill-fated approach, according to some.



Yet there's opposition to using supplemental energies like natural gas and nuclear power amid the conversion phase.



Paradoxically, much of this comes from environmentalists, who cling to an "all or nothing" vision for green energy.



Much of the government legislation has also been built around this narrative, which Murphy says stacks the deck against true and lasting decarbonization.



And to decarbonize, he says more power plants are needed.



"We don't have enough generating capacity as they're trying to shut power plants down. Those plants are 50 years old," Murphy said.



There's also the peak hour demand issue, which has been a major stumbling block for renewables up to this point.



Supply Versus Demand

Demand wildly exceeds the supply capacity on the renewables front. Globally speaking, available green energy sources was estimated to grow by 35 gigawatts between 2021 and 2022. Though at the same time, power demands were forecasted to hit 100 gigawatts.



That means more flex alerts and blackouts aren't just possible, but likely.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-power-grid-needs-trillions-in-upgrades-to-accommodate-renewable-energy-demands_4745231.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe-ai&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-09-22-ai-28&est=thpkuxn5V2ijF2%2BNvOkFsgxjzElLGbVOKz5QKNA%2B9OIOPKGNg3m6f3JSy9nKn8UW8g%3D%3D

Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the "planet is on the ballot" during the midterm elections. ac_toofunny

They will lie and say anything.  Just like the Democrat shill on MSNBC declared the country will become a fascist dictatorship if Democrats don't win and Republicans will arrest and kill your children.



The left's failure is so complete they are now willing to spew any lie in order to fear monger and distract from their many failures.

We all here the bullshit about how cheap wind and solar are and yet countries that use it the most of the highest electricity bills. Wind and solar aint cheap and here is why.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/?sh=5acf43841dc6

The media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines.



And yet that's not what's happening. In fact, it's the opposite.



Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.



And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.



Electricity prices increased by:



51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;

24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;

over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest.

What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity rise instead of decline?



The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period.



The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat.



In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.



The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don't need it, and not enough when they do.



Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment's notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.



And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.



Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent.



In 2017, the share of electricity coming from wind and solar was 53 percent in Denmark, 26 percent in Germany, and 23 percent in California. Denmark and Germany have the first and second most expensive electricity in Europe.



By reporting on the declining costs of solar panels and wind turbines but not on how they increase electricity prices, journalists are — intentionally or unintentionally — misleading policymakers and the public about those two technologies. 



The Los Angeles Times last year reported that California's electricity prices were rising, but failed to connect the price rise to renewables, provoking a sharp rebuttal from UC Berkeley economist James Bushnell. 



"The story of how California's electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one," Bushnell wrote, but "the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation."



This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn't because they don't know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don't want to.



That could — and should — change. Reporters have an obligation to report accurately and fairly on all issues they cover, especially ones as important as energy and the environment.



A good start would be for them to investigate why, if solar and wind are so cheap, they are making electricity so expensive.

Unreliability, lower wind speeds, inefficient use of natural gas to back up wind and solar and storage are what makes wind and solar so expensive.



https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-true-cost-of-renewable-energy/

Over the past decade the National Grid has succeeded in virtually ending coal power in Britain. The proportion of our electricity generated by coal fell from 29.5 per cent in 2011 to just 2.1 per cent in 2021. Most of the coal power has been replaced by wind and solar (up from 5.2 per cent in 2011 to 24.6 per cent in 2021) and by 'thermal renewables' – the filthy business of burning wood pellets made from trees in North America – which is up from 3.6 per cent in 2011 to 12.9 per cent in 2021.



What the electricity industry has not managed to do is to wean us off gas. We are pretty much where we were a decade ago, with gas accounting for 39.9 per cent of generation in 2021 compared with 39.8 per cent in 2011. This matters not just because it has exposed consumers to high wholesale gas prices in recent months, but because the government's path to net zero involves eradicating all fossil fuels and ensuring a carbon-free electricity supply by 2035.



It costs three or four times more to store a unit of electricity than it does to generate it in the first place



Indeed, the price we are paying for gas-generated electricity is even higher than it need be at present because of the way we are now using it. We use gas-fuelled power to plug the gaps when intermittent wind and solar can't deliver the goods. Over the summer everyone from Boris Johnson to Extinction Rebellion was parroting the figure that wind power costs 'nine times' less than that of gas power. But this is a false comparison. The figure comes from an analysis by the pressure group Carbon Brief comparing the long-term, guaranteed, index-linked prices paid to renewable energy firms with the 'day ahead' prices which have to be paid to owners of gas power stations to fire them up for a few hours to make up a shortfall in supply. It is like comparing the cost of a season ticket on the train to the price of hailing an Uber in the rush hour on the day of a rail strike.



How many times this year have you heard advocates of green energy decrying the fact that consumers have been ripped off by our failure to shift to renewables even more quickly? Yet we really don't have an alternative to gas to make up for shortfalls in wind and solar. We could try to store renewable energy, but storage, in the form of batteries, say, or pumped-storage hydro-electric stations or some other emerging technology, is incredibly expensive. It costs around three or four times more to store a unit of electricity than it does to generate it in the first place.



If we are going to get anywhere near de-carbonising the electricity grid, we will have to invest in energy storage, at huge cost. At present we have the capacity to store less than an hour's worth of the country's electricity demand, yet in winter conditions can be both windless and overcast for days at a time. The grid was built to transport electricity generated in coal plants close to where it was consumed. Wind and solar farms tend to be distributed in more remote locations, by contrast, so the grid itself will have to be reconfigured, again at huge cost. We are also going to need a massive increase in overall generation capacity as road vehicles and central heating systems are forced to switch to electric power. A switch to renewable energy will be very far from cheap.



And at the moment, we are going in the wrong direction. Overall generation capacity available to the National Grid actually fell from 77.9 GW in 2019 to 76.6 GW in 2021. Moreover, wind and solar farms are not performing in the way which was hoped. Last year alone, the available generation capacity of wind power grew by 5.3 per cent and solar by 2.8 per cent. Yet the amount of electricity actually generated by wind, wave and solar plunged by 9.3 per cent, largely on account of low wind speeds. This is a problem which the wind industry has yet to grasp: there is a long-term declining trend in wind speeds over the UK – and indeed throughout most of the world. This is an aspect of climate change which gets little coverage, perhaps because it conflicts with the lazy and incorrect narrative, perpetuated by the former chairman of the Environment Agency among others, that Britain is facing more 'violent' weather.

Quote from: HermanUnreliability, lower wind speeds, inefficient use of natural gas to back up wind and solar and storage are what makes wind and solar so expensive.



https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-true-cost-of-renewable-energy/

Over the past decade the National Grid has succeeded in virtually ending coal power in Britain. The proportion of our electricity generated by coal fell from 29.5 per cent in 2011 to just 2.1 per cent in 2021. Most of the coal power has been replaced by wind and solar (up from 5.2 per cent in 2011 to 24.6 per cent in 2021) and by 'thermal renewables' – the filthy business of burning wood pellets made from trees in North America – which is up from 3.6 per cent in 2011 to 12.9 per cent in 2021.



What the electricity industry has not managed to do is to wean us off gas. We are pretty much where we were a decade ago, with gas accounting for 39.9 per cent of generation in 2021 compared with 39.8 per cent in 2011. This matters not just because it has exposed consumers to high wholesale gas prices in recent months, but because the government's path to net zero involves eradicating all fossil fuels and ensuring a carbon-free electricity supply by 2035.



It costs three or four times more to store a unit of electricity than it does to generate it in the first place



Indeed, the price we are paying for gas-generated electricity is even higher than it need be at present because of the way we are now using it. We use gas-fuelled power to plug the gaps when intermittent wind and solar can't deliver the goods. Over the summer everyone from Boris Johnson to Extinction Rebellion was parroting the figure that wind power costs 'nine times' less than that of gas power. But this is a false comparison. The figure comes from an analysis by the pressure group Carbon Brief comparing the long-term, guaranteed, index-linked prices paid to renewable energy firms with the 'day ahead' prices which have to be paid to owners of gas power stations to fire them up for a few hours to make up a shortfall in supply. It is like comparing the cost of a season ticket on the train to the price of hailing an Uber in the rush hour on the day of a rail strike.



How many times this year have you heard advocates of green energy decrying the fact that consumers have been ripped off by our failure to shift to renewables even more quickly? Yet we really don't have an alternative to gas to make up for shortfalls in wind and solar. We could try to store renewable energy, but storage, in the form of batteries, say, or pumped-storage hydro-electric stations or some other emerging technology, is incredibly expensive. It costs around three or four times more to store a unit of electricity than it does to generate it in the first place.



If we are going to get anywhere near de-carbonising the electricity grid, we will have to invest in energy storage, at huge cost. At present we have the capacity to store less than an hour's worth of the country's electricity demand, yet in winter conditions can be both windless and overcast for days at a time. The grid was built to transport electricity generated in coal plants close to where it was consumed. Wind and solar farms tend to be distributed in more remote locations, by contrast, so the grid itself will have to be reconfigured, again at huge cost. We are also going to need a massive increase in overall generation capacity as road vehicles and central heating systems are forced to switch to electric power. A switch to renewable energy will be very far from cheap.



And at the moment, we are going in the wrong direction. Overall generation capacity available to the National Grid actually fell from 77.9 GW in 2019 to 76.6 GW in 2021. Moreover, wind and solar farms are not performing in the way which was hoped. Last year alone, the available generation capacity of wind power grew by 5.3 per cent and solar by 2.8 per cent. Yet the amount of electricity actually generated by wind, wave and solar plunged by 9.3 per cent, largely on account of low wind speeds. This is a problem which the wind industry has yet to grasp: there is a long-term declining trend in wind speeds over the UK – and indeed throughout most of the world. This is an aspect of climate change which gets little coverage, perhaps because it conflicts with the lazy and incorrect narrative, perpetuated by the former chairman of the Environment Agency among others, that Britain is facing more 'violent' weather.

OMG  :oeudC:

Quote from: HermanUnreliability, lower wind speeds, inefficient use of natural gas to back up wind and solar and storage are what makes wind and solar so expensive.



https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-true-cost-of-renewable-energy/

Over the past decade the National Grid has succeeded in virtually ending coal power in Britain. The proportion of our electricity generated by coal fell from 29.5 per cent in 2011 to just 2.1 per cent in 2021. Most of the coal power has been replaced by wind and solar (up from 5.2 per cent in 2011 to 24.6 per cent in 2021) and by 'thermal renewables' – the filthy business of burning wood pellets made from trees in North America – which is up from 3.6 per cent in 2011 to 12.9 per cent in 2021.



What the electricity industry has not managed to do is to wean us off gas. We are pretty much where we were a decade ago, with gas accounting for 39.9 per cent of generation in 2021 compared with 39.8 per cent in 2011. This matters not just because it has exposed consumers to high wholesale gas prices in recent months, but because the government's path to net zero involves eradicating all fossil fuels and ensuring a carbon-free electricity supply by 2035.



It costs three or four times more to store a unit of electricity than it does to generate it in the first place



Indeed, the price we are paying for gas-generated electricity is even higher than it need be at present because of the way we are now using it. We use gas-fuelled power to plug the gaps when intermittent wind and solar can't deliver the goods. Over the summer everyone from Boris Johnson to Extinction Rebellion was parroting the figure that wind power costs 'nine times' less than that of gas power. But this is a false comparison. The figure comes from an analysis by the pressure group Carbon Brief comparing the long-term, guaranteed, index-linked prices paid to renewable energy firms with the 'day ahead' prices which have to be paid to owners of gas power stations to fire them up for a few hours to make up a shortfall in supply. It is like comparing the cost of a season ticket on the train to the price of hailing an Uber in the rush hour on the day of a rail strike.



How many times this year have you heard advocates of green energy decrying the fact that consumers have been ripped off by our failure to shift to renewables even more quickly? Yet we really don't have an alternative to gas to make up for shortfalls in wind and solar. We could try to store renewable energy, but storage, in the form of batteries, say, or pumped-storage hydro-electric stations or some other emerging technology, is incredibly expensive. It costs around three or four times more to store a unit of electricity than it does to generate it in the first place.



If we are going to get anywhere near de-carbonising the electricity grid, we will have to invest in energy storage, at huge cost. At present we have the capacity to store less than an hour's worth of the country's electricity demand, yet in winter conditions can be both windless and overcast for days at a time. The grid was built to transport electricity generated in coal plants close to where it was consumed. Wind and solar farms tend to be distributed in more remote locations, by contrast, so the grid itself will have to be reconfigured, again at huge cost. We are also going to need a massive increase in overall generation capacity as road vehicles and central heating systems are forced to switch to electric power. A switch to renewable energy will be very far from cheap.



And at the moment, we are going in the wrong direction. Overall generation capacity available to the National Grid actually fell from 77.9 GW in 2019 to 76.6 GW in 2021. Moreover, wind and solar farms are not performing in the way which was hoped. Last year alone, the available generation capacity of wind power grew by 5.3 per cent and solar by 2.8 per cent. Yet the amount of electricity actually generated by wind, wave and solar plunged by 9.3 per cent, largely on account of low wind speeds. This is a problem which the wind industry has yet to grasp: there is a long-term declining trend in wind speeds over the UK – and indeed throughout most of the world. This is an aspect of climate change which gets little coverage, perhaps because it conflicts with the lazy and incorrect narrative, perpetuated by the former chairman of the Environment Agency among others, that Britain is facing more 'violent' weather.

Climate change, changing wind speeds is a new reason to admit wind energy is a deeply flawed idea. #walkawayfromwindandsolar

Use of wind and solar makes electricity on West coast less reliable and make blackouts more likely.



https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-west-faces-power-reliability-issues-growing-use-renewables-2022-11-11/

Quote from: OerdinUse of wind and solar makes electricity on West coast less reliable and make blackouts more likely.



https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-west-faces-power-reliability-issues-growing-use-renewables-2022-11-11/

It's the same shit everywhere with wind and solar.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: OerdinUse of wind and solar makes electricity on West coast less reliable and make blackouts more likely.



https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-west-faces-power-reliability-issues-growing-use-renewables-2022-11-11/

It's the same shit everywhere with wind and solar.

Give it up already dickhead!

You're full of shit Herman. Everyone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource. It blows my mind that fuckheads like you push to disprove such a resource? Maybe if you had my science degree you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Yeah? Fuck off!

You're full of shit Herman. And you're fucking irresponsible! If I ever met up with you...I'll slap to to the ground.

Quote from: BreakfallYou're full of shit @Herman. And you're fucking irresponsible! If I ever met up with you...I'll slap to to the ground.

:MG_216:

Quote from: BreakfallYou're full of shit @Herman. Everyone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource. It blows my mind that fuckheads like you push to disprove such a resource? Maybe if you had my science degree you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Yeah? Fuck off!

You don't know jackass. It is the most environmentally destructive useless form of energy on the planet. Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your arse. It uses more resources including land that are finite than real energy sources like fossils and nuclear. It's environmental footprint per kilowatt hour is a hell of a lot higher than real energy sources. It requires natural gas to back it up. It costs consumers more. It does not lower emissions.



I could go on if you like. I think will all go right over your head.

Quote from: BreakfallYou're full of shit @Herman. Everyone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource. It blows my mind that fuckheads like you push to disprove such a resource? Maybe if you had my science degree you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Yeah? Fuck off!

You don't know jackass. It is the most environmentally destructive useless form of energy on the planet. Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your arse. It uses more resources including land that are finite than real energy sources like fossils and nuclear. It's environmental footprint per kilowatt hour is a hell of a lot higher than real energy sources. It requires natural gas to back it up. It costs consumers more. It does not lower emissions.



I could go on if you like. I think will all go right over your head.

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: BreakfallYou're full of shit @Herman. Everyone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource. It blows my mind that fuckheads like you push to disprove such a resource? Maybe if you had my science degree you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Yeah? Fuck off!

You don't know jackass. It is the most environmentally destructive useless form of energy on the planet. Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your arse. It uses more resources including land that are finite than real energy sources like fossils and nuclear. It's environmental footprint per kilowatt hour is a hell of a lot higher than real energy sources. It requires natural gas to back it up. It costs consumers more. It does not lower emissions.



I could go on if you like. I think will all go right over your head.

Hahahaa..I'm a fucking scientist you hillbilly. My degree took me fucking over six years to qualify. So fuck you you little insubordinate shit! It's about time you realise that I'm not your regular forum fucking gopher sunshine!

Quote from: HermanYou don't know jackass. It is the most environmentally destructive useless form of energy on the planet. Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your arse. It uses more resources including land that are finite than real energy sources like fossils and nuclear. It's environmental footprint per kilowatt hour is a hell of a lot higher than real energy sources. It requires natural gas to back it up. It costs consumers more. It does not lower emissions.



I could go on if you like. I think will all go right over your head.

Hahahaa..I'm a fucking scientist you hillbilly. My degree took me fucking over six years for me to qualify the basics. So fuck you you little insubordinate shit! It's about time you realise that I'm not your regular forum fucking gopher sunshine!

Quote from: BreakfallEveryone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource.

Except when it's raining.

Quote from: Oliver Clotheshoffe

Quote from: BreakfallEveryone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource.

Except when it's raining.

That's elementary. It blows my mind that I'm an Appliied Scientist and I have to deal with midlife idiots without qualification!

Go and spend six years of your life, both monetarily and physically and come speak some sense to me. You're a fucking idiot and you're brain—dead!

Quote from: Herman

Quote from: BreakfallYou're full of shit Herman. Everyone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource. It blows my mind that fuckheads like you push to disprove such a resource? Maybe if you had my science degree you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Yeah? Fuck off!

You don't know jackass. It is the most environmentally destructive useless form of energy on the planet. Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your arse. It uses more resources including land that are finite than real energy sources like fossils and nuclear. It's environmental footprint per kilowatt hour is a hell of a lot higher than real energy sources. It requires natural gas to back it up. It costs consumers more. It does not lower emissions.



I could go on if you like. I think will all go right over your head.

How old  are you that you confidently made that proclamation? Dude...I will drill your fucking mind arsehole. Herman...Im smarter than you!

Where is this racist motherfucker? I will punch in his front teeth and make him fragile for the rest of his fucking life! Fucking southern faggot!

The problem with you Americans, is that you'll get your face knocked the fuck in! You've been watching too much Hollywood!

Breakfall, Herman and Oliver are correct. Wind and solar are not concentrated energy sources. They cannot come remotely close to replacing real energy sources like nuclear or fossils. 



I'll give you an example.



Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana's 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.



or





Solar panels on Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde's output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.



Delving more deeply, generating 20% of U.S. electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, and rare-earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75% to 80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.



Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 terawatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons (461 billion tons) of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel, and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products, and shipped around the world.



And they still require natural gas to support them.



Is this responsible use of precious rare earth metals, land and water to produce to so little electricity? They are also produce so much toxic waste, throughout their lifecycle. They require a lot of cement production which is a major emitter of CO2.



If you take a look at this when you are sober and keep an open mind you will know that wind and solar is being by selfish interests. There is nothing in it for us except sky high energy costs, full toxic landfills and blackouts.

Quote from: DKGBreakfall, Herman and Oliver are correct. Wind and solar are not concentrated energy sources. They cannot come remotely close to replacing real energy sources like nuclear or fossils. 



I'll give you an example.



Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana's 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.



or



Hold on a sec! None of you have my education. You're dumb as fuck essentially...place your argument now!

Solar panels on Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde's output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.



Delving more deeply, generating 20% of U.S. electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, and rare-earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75% to 80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.



Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 terawatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons (461 billion tons) of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel, and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products, and shipped around the world.



And they still require natural gas to support them.



Is this responsible use of precious rare earth metals, land and water to produce to so little electricity? They are also produce so much toxic waste, throughout their lifecycle. They require a lot of cement production which is a major emitter of CO2.



If you take a look at this when you are sober and keep an open mind you will know that wind and solar is being by selfish interests. There is nothing in it for us except sky high energy costs, full toxic landfills and blackouts.

You people are insane!

I can disprove your bullshit every day of the week. You're an uneducated minority trying to rise up against me. None of you have my education. To me...you're fucking imbeciles.

It's fucking sickening that a member(s) here are allowed to broadcast such tripe on multiple forum boards without being checked! I have the qualifications to do just that!

It's fucking sickening that a member(s) here are allowed to broadcast such tripe on multiple forum boards without being checked! I have the qualifications to do just that!

Quote from: Breakfall

Quote from: Oliver ClotheshoffeExcept when it's raining.

That's elementary. It blows my mind that I'm an Appliied Scientist and I have to deal with midlife idiots without qualification!

That's 'Applied' there Einstein  ac_lmfao

Quote from: Oliver Clotheshoffe

Quote from: BreakfallThat's elementary. It blows my mind that I'm an Appliied Scientist and I have to deal with midlife idiots without qualification!

That's 'Applied' there Einstein  ac_lmfao

Thanks chief...misplaced my reading glasses!  ac_biggrin

Another gem here from my buddy Alex Epstein.



Myth: Solar and wind are helping save our grid from extreme heat

Truth: Preferences for S+W have made our grid embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves—and cold snaps—that a fossil-fueled grid could easily manage.



Myth: Solar and wind are helping save our grid from extreme heat caused by fossil-fueled climate change.



Truth: Preferences for S+W have made our grid embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves—and cold snaps—that a fossil-fueled grid could easily manage.



A recent Bloomberg story, "In Texas Heat Wave, ACs Keep Humming on Renewable Power" captures an increasingly popular argument: fossil-fueled climate change is causing overwhelming heat waves, while solar and wind are coming to the rescue with abundant electricity.



All wrong.¹



Myth: Fossil-fueled climate change is causing heat waves that our grids will inevitably have trouble handling.



Truth: The amount of warming that has occurred—about 2°F in 100 years—wouldn't challenge a grid fueled by fossil fuels and other reliable, resilient fuel sources.



The wide-ranging potential for extreme heat in California or Texas and the extreme cold potential in Texas every few decades is far greater than the slow-moving changes in climate. An extreme heat wave and high electricity demand in summer are not unexpected for grid planners.



Around the world, countries use fossil fuels to deliver reliable electricity under heat and cold extremes beyond what we face in the US.



As the wealthiest country in the world, obviously, the US could replicate this.



The cause is obviously something other than fossil fuels.



An example of fossil-fueled electricity thriving in extremely hot weather: Singapore, which has both growing electricity demand and temperatures comparable to those of African countries like Chad and the Ivory Coast.²



An example of fossil-fueled electricity thriving in extremely cold weather:



During the cold week that overwhelmed Texas's solar-and-wind-favoring grid, causing blackouts, the weatherized coal and gas infrastructure in Alberta, Canada was able to handle far colder temperatures than Texas.³



No conceivable warming of the planet could cause heat waves that would be a problem for a grid that's committed to reliable electricity. Just invest enough in reliable sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear, and any necessary weatherization infrastructure.



The reason that Texas and the rest of the US are having trouble meeting electricity demand that should be no problem is the obvious: policies that punish reliable fossil fuels and nuclear while privileging unreliable solar and wind.



Electricity Emergency

ALEX EPSTEIN

·

SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

Electricity Emergency

America's grid is in decline and about to get far worse due to policies that 1) reward unreliable electricity, 2) prematurely shut down coal plants, 3) criminalize nuclear, and 4) force electric vehicle use. Here's what's happening and how to fix it.



Read full story

Myth: The Texas winter blackouts were a failure of fossil fuels, especially natural gas.



Truth: Fossil fuels perform great in far worse winter weather than Texas had in 2021. Texas blackouts were caused by defunding fossil fuel resiliency to pay for unreliable solar and wind.

https://energytalkingpoints.com/texas-electricity-crisis/



Myth: Fossil fuels are making electricity unreliable via "extreme weather"—so we need to use solar and wind.



Truth: Fossil fuels can provide reliable electricity even under the most speculative extremes—whereas unreliable solar and wind alone can't provide it under any conditions.



The latest attempt to pretend that fossil fuels are causing electricity problems that can only be solved by solar and wind is to dishonestly fixate on the moments during a heatwave when solar and wind happen to produce electricity and ignore (the many more) moments they don't.⁴





Myth: Solar and wind are saving Texas during heat waves because they happened to produce a lot of energy portions of a few hot days.



Truth: Preferences for unreliable solar and wind—which are often low when needed the most—have made Texas embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves (and cold snaps).



Bloomberg: "Texas may be known for its oil and natural gas, but as temperatures breach 100F across the state for a full two weeks, it's wind and solar power that's helping keep residents cool."



This "journalism" is false solar and wind propaganda that should be retracted.



Bloomberg: "Texas may be known for its oil and natural gas, but... for a full two weeks, it's been wind and solar power that helped keep residents cool."



False: Solar and wind provided higher than average unreliable electricity that totally depended on reliable gas, coal, and nuclear.⁵





Bloomberg: "Green-power sources contributed about a third of total output Wednesday."



This is blatant cherry-picking: taking an unusually good day of sunlight and wind and pretending it can be generalized. Also, the unreliable output was 100% dependent on fossil-fueled life support.



Even during the period of unusually high solar and wind that Bloomberg cherry-picked to claim "ACs Keep Humming on Renewable Power," solar and wind at times provided < 20% of Texas electricity. Of course, that portion of the time didn't make the Bloomberg story.





Solar and wind haven't supported the Texas power grid even for a day—and can't. Solar goes to zero every hot night, delivering nothing to air conditioning, and wind frequently cycles from <20% to >60% of its supposed "capacity." (More accurately called "fantasy.")



Bloomberg: "grid officials have only had to ask consumers to conserve energy on one day since extreme temperatures descended on the Lone Star State"



A proper grid focused on reliability should almost never "ask consumers to conserve energy." Its job is to meet all demand.



"We've seen record demand, but we've also got quite a bit of wind and solar producing. While demand is really high, so is supply." —Bloomberg "expert" celebrating that solar and wind happen to help meet demand. Reliable sources always match high demand with high supply.



Bloomberg: "In just three years, oil-rich Texas has added the solar equivalent of 12 nuclear reactors"



There is no "solar equivalent of nuclear reactors." Nuclear reactors work all the time, including at night. Solar often doesn't work during the day and never works at night.



It is embarrassing that Texas and the US more broadly are having trouble providing enough electricity during heat waves and cold snaps.



And it is despicable that the media are ignoring the anti-reliability policies causing the problem and instead praising unreliable solar and wind.