|
Tab8715 posted:Without Natural Gas you are either straight up burning oil, coal or you have brownouts. It is false to say that we must expand NG extraction or consumption to avoid those things.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Which means more methane leaks, because these guys are never going to accept heavy regulation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:How have right-wing brainworms infested the left so hard that even in "how to fix the world" fantasy land, it's impossible to regulate industry? If governments and regulators decided to do their jobs and write then enforce regulations that limit methane leaks, it doesn't loving matter that the industry "accepts," they follow the regulations or stop doing business. Can we at least pretend that government, the only actual way of overcoming collective action problems, is at least theoretically able to do that? Ah yes, totally possible under President Trump. Also: Does not answer for expanded drilling/fracking. Because what we need is more fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:How have right-wing brainworms infested the left so hard that even in "how to fix the world" fantasy land, it's impossible to regulate industry? If governments and regulators decided to do their jobs and write then enforce regulations that limit methane leaks, it doesn't loving matter that the industry "accepts," they follow the regulations or stop doing business. Can we at least pretend that government, the only actual way of overcoming collective action problems, is at least theoretically able to do that? because most people, especially in "technical" or "scientific" threads like energy/climate-change aren't even remotely leftist, they've just adopted the idioms and vernacular and argument framing of the left as a way of fitting in or flying under the radar. its not so much that they're particularly liberal or centrist or even righty as they're depressed and wallowing in learned-helplessness. fwiw, we're going to have sattelites that can spot methane leaks within hours watching every square meter of the globe within 5 - 10 years. certainly remains to be seen what we do with that info, but its gonna be nice to have it so laid-bare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:How have right-wing brainworms infested the left so hard that even in "how to fix the world" fantasy land, it's impossible to regulate industry? If governments and regulators decided to do their jobs and write then enforce regulations that limit methane leaks, it doesn't loving matter that the industry "accepts," they follow the regulations or stop doing business. Can we at least pretend that government, the only actual way of overcoming collective action problems, is at least theoretically able to do that? But the problem is you can't both claim current "coal busting" low NG prices and also assume 0% future leakage due to the impressive power of state control. If we had to retrofit the entire NG system from production to supply to distribution to se before we can achieve meaningful reduction in leakage then it won't be so cheap* anymore. Instead we have other technologies that are carbon neutral by default, already exist, and are only limited on cost. There's no reason to expand NG production or build new NG power plants at this point. We certainly don't need to open new basins to fracing. If the goal is to shut down NG production we should be upfront about it and in doing so we will better manage the externalities to workers and communities and thus make the transition far more politically feasible. (*Using whatever resource measure you pick, not just dollars but even under alternative economic systems, thinking in purely resources, capital use, and labor. )
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:How have right-wing brainworms infested the left so hard that even in "how to fix the world" fantasy land, it's impossible to regulate industry? If governments and regulators decided to do their jobs and write then enforce regulations that limit methane leaks, it doesn't loving matter that the industry "accepts," they follow the regulations or stop doing business. Can we at least pretend that government, the only actual way of overcoming collective action problems, is at least theoretically able to do that? There is no level of functional "regulation" which also allows the continued existence of an industrial civilization, full stop. What you are suggesting is akin to making GBS threads in a bowl of soup for a century, being surprised when it becomes toxic, and then thinking that if you poo poo 70, 80, or 90% less it will somehow make it safe for human consumption. This is loving idiotic. It's impossible to regulate industry because the only regulation which serves a hope of saving any life on earth is one which 100% bans industry and forcibly redirects the assets into widescale environmental remediation efforts. Including drawing down industrial agriculture, and the obvious results of that. Pray tell what government is going to support this. I'm waiting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
rime, love ya buddy, but back to cspam with ye. the d&d energy generation thread is not the place for "we should 100% ban industry"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Rime posted:There is no level of functional "regulation" which also allows the continued existence of an industrial civilization, full stop. What you are suggesting is akin to making GBS threads in a bowl of soup for a century, being surprised when it becomes toxic, and then thinking that if you poo poo 70, 80, or 90% less it will somehow make it safe for human consumption. This is loving idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:rime, love ya buddy, but back to cspam with ye. Tell that to the dying oceans and vanishing insects, it's an incredibly idiotic loving question no matter where its posted, IDGAF. We're out of runway on pollution, there's no room left for making GBS threads in the soup bowl. In energy news I spent 17 hours yesterday standing on a blade bearing, feet to the void, trying to guide a blade into a tower experiencing a 5' oscillation. Super fun stuff. Real good poo poo.  Infinite Karma posted:I'm not gonna jerk off to apocalypse fan-fiction with you, sorry Willful ignorance won't change the future you and your loved ones are 100% going to experience, so I don't really give a gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Which is why arguing in support of expanding Natural Gas is a fools errand. Do you think regulation is impossible? If the public can't get industry back under control then any attempt to combat climate change is doomed to fail anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
WorldsStongestNerd posted:Do you think regulation is impossible? If the public can't get industry back under control then any attempt to combat climate change is doomed to fail anyway. Here's the problem with this: Yes, regulation may work. But the same companies we need to regulate are the same one lobbying hard to prevent said regulation. And then, what they do when regulated, is make sure loopholes are included to allow smaller operations to have less stringent regulation (to prevent "Undue Burden") and then just contract out to those smaller operations. The other problem being is that you really are not solving any major problems by shifting to Methane, you are just whitewashing another fossil fuel, its about as effective as arguing in favor of clean coal. Its just creating another fossil fuel boom, that will require more drilling/fracking to satisfy. The reality is: The fossil fuel industry has shown their colors. Through repeated abuse of regulation, to outright pushing for Anti-Climate Change education and propaganda. They don't need another chance to 'clean up their act' because they've made it clear they intend to never do so. If we could regulated Natural Gas as well as Nuclear, maybe, but again, its just a fossil fuel and so we're not solving anything with it. Just kicking the can further down the road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Rime posted:Willful ignorance won't change the future you and your loved ones are 100% going to experience, so I don't really give a gently caress. Banning industry and industrial agriculture would kill billions so you're not exactly setting up an appealing alternative. People would die faster I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:
So one blade at a time? I follow this thread because I used to work as a contractor on wind power projects, playing in the dirt. I remember the first time I saw installation of the rotor and was floored. I had thought it would be the reverse of picking petals off a daisy. Just get the entire tower installed and pop blades on 1-2-3. Instead the three blades were put on the rotor, "ground level", and the entire assembly lifted and installed onto the nacelle. It was really interesting to watch, and this project was heavily treed and space constricted, very little clearance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Government can't successfully regulate the natural gas industry due to a lack of political will and too much industry power, so instead we're going to shut down the natural gas industry is an amazing take. In other news, the wind industry needs to accept more regulation. http://bronx.news12.com/story/41505358/massive-coop-city-wind-turbine-collapses
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
pumped up for school posted:So one blade at a time? I follow this thread because I used to work as a contractor on wind power projects, playing in the dirt. I remember the first time I saw installation of the rotor and was floored. I had thought it would be the reverse of picking petals off a daisy. Just get the entire tower installed and pop blades on 1-2-3.  Depends on the type of tower being installed, but in general single-picks aren't done anymore. We have work instructions for doing so, but the lifting capacity necessary for a 130m diameter rotor pick isn't cheap so we stab them individually, most projects do now with how huge (and heavy) things are getting. It's not supposed to take 17 hours, yesterday was a fuckshow with an inexperienced skeleton crew and management is in turmoil right now. Apparatchik Magnet posted:In other news, the wind industry needs to accept more regulation. I see these cheap chinesium pieces of poo poo spammed on my industry FB groups all the time and I never thought I'd see one actually installed in North America. I am thoroughly unsurprised it fell apart, sounds like a failure in the drivetrain. Rime fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Dec 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Without Natural Gas you are either straight up burning oil, coal or you have brownouts. That is false. We love fossil fuels so fuckin much that we have them everywhere, because natural gas is cheap, but there is no scientific or engineering restriction that necessitates fossil fuel power generation. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Rime posted:[timg]snip/timg] I love the cardboard boxes being craned up inside the blade. So on wind "failures." I worked on a project in Oregon where the tower twisted and collapsed, much like a coardboard tube for holiday wrapping paper would. A little twist, gets a kink, folded in half. One worker on top (died), one inside (luckily only injured). Wondered about the odds of two maintenance guys being up on the one turbine that failed. I got a call that morning from the foundation design engineering company "You have guys nearby on another project right? We want you to drop everything and get over there and take pictures before this thing turns into a shitshow." Everyone covering their asses. And I've seen blades fail an on-site evaluation. Near one project, the developer "donated" the blade to a local park. Kids could play on it. One way to get rid of your garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What it should be is abandoned as rapidly as it can be replaced. Trabisnikof posted:It is false to say that we must expand NG extraction or consumption to avoid those things. QuarkJets posted:That is false. We love fossil fuels so fuckin much that we have them everywhere, because natural gas is cheap, but there is no scientific or engineering restriction that necessitates fossil fuel power generation. Are you guys reading the thread? We are so far behind with current energy demand today that it is literally impossible to do so with only renewables. And you’ve got even growing demand on top of that. The only way this would work would today would be to either reduce consumption and shrink or pause the economy of which so far there’s barely if any political will to do so outside of Greta, The Sun Rise Movement, GND, etc. which are still incredibly small, new but honestly our only hope. Or we could just go back to burning more coal too but that’s even worse! Outside of that this has already been repeatedly discussed previously in the thread months ago and it wasn’t even my argument. If you really want to continue this discussion go dig up MomJeans420s original posts on this topic and show me some hard data that disputes it. CommieGIR posted:Which means more methane leaks, because these guys are never going to accept heavy regulation. I didn’t say regulate. I said nationalize that way the goal of the company wouldn’t be just to make money at the planets expense and all of the climate-denying shareholders and executives would be gone. The only thing left would be the rank and fill who’s sole job would be to cap the leaks, clean up huge ecological messes and turn stuff off. I’m also seriously interested in their engineers because if they can make giant oil rig platforms, literal islands, etc. which are truly phenomenal feats if they could be somehow repurposed or those construction services used to design say anything that pulls carbon out of air, water, etc. Going further I can’t remember where I read this but someone said the ideal Oil & Gas industry would be 8% of it’s current size mainly used mainly for plastics, lubricants, heating oil, coolant, chemicals, etc. but obviously since we based our economy off of growth it’s no wonder they just keep drilling for oil. CommieGIR posted:Natural Gas is 30 years too late to be an effective solution. You are longing for a time long since passed. Have you ever done any reading over the Bakkan Formation or Permian Basin? The majority of that today is fracking. The fracking boom has already happened, is happening and will likely continue. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy about it. At all but that is reality. I can’t find it at this moment but Bloomberg had an excellent article on the West Texas Oil Boom and guess what it is all fracking. Everything I’m able to find at the moment is about the recent bust cycle but there something titled “Good for the US, bad for the World” that was an informative read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
tab how much could I paypal you to never post again
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:
So the climate apocalypse is unavoidable. Great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Are you guys reading the thread? That's not true. We can do it with renewables, nuclear, storage, efficiency etc. There are lots of technologies and mixes we could successfully use. We do not need to expand natural gas production or consumption. We very much can use any number of other technology mixes, including things like efficiency and restructuring related industries to rapidly decarbonify the energy sector while neither expanding total NG consumption over 2018/2019 numbers and without drilling new wells. That's about the question of can we. If you want to discuss the question of, will we, and you want to argue that our bias towards fossil fuels, the subsidies and regulatory control, etc makes anything except more fossil fuels impossible, that's a different argument. quote:I’m also seriously interested in their engineers because if they can make giant oil rig platforms, literal islands, etc. which are truly phenomenal feats if they could be somehow repurposed or those construction services used to design say anything that pulls carbon out of air, water, etc. Also this is extremely engineering cargo cult and at the same time incredibly dismissive of the current scientists and engineers working on DAC etc. But the cherry on top is it is still a terrible justification for allowing expanded fossil fuel development or the continued existence of the fossil fuel industry even if nationalized. If your premise is all this incredible talent would be available for DAC and other marvels, but alas they're stuck calculating mud mixtures, then that's an argument for even more rapidly shutting down the industry. If you're dream is that Chevron and Exxon branded DAC machines will account for a considerable portion of our future GDP, well at least that fits the overall argument. Big Oil controls our fate so Big Oil needs the biggest payoff to let us live. quote:Have you ever done any reading over the Bakkan Formation or Permian Basin? The majority of that today is fracking. The fracking boom has already happened, is happening and will likely continue. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy about it. At all but that is reality. You have to be extremely careful about the dates on the sources you read. Because you're mistaken if you think the fracing boom is still happening right now. Its a bit of a bust atm. Its the classic resource cycle. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Dec 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Are you guys reading the thread? Your not happy about, your just the same guy constantly cheerleading for it while spouting nonsense about pragmatism. Jesus loving christ you are dense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
we should rename this thread name to "energy thread tab8715 talks about how the only way forward is to reach across the aisle and burn some more fossil for pragmatism"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
Can fracking wells be turned into compressed gas storage systems?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's not true. We can do it with renewables, nuclear, storage, efficiency etc. There are lots of technologies and mixes we could successfully use. Let me explain your argument in my own to ensure I am understanding you correctly. Is it - Yes, current energy demand may be meet by entirely 100% renewable sources including Nuclear Power? If so, then how do you dispute the evidence earlier provided by MomJeans420 that this isn't technically feasible even discounting political aspects as no one wants a reactor in their backyard. Trabisnikof posted:Also this is extremely engineering cargo cult and at the same time incredibly dismissive of the current scientists and engineers working on DAC etc. But the cherry on top is it is still a terrible justification for allowing expanded fossil fuel development or the continued existence of the fossil fuel industry even if nationalized. If your premise is all this incredible talent would be available for DAC and other marvels, but alas they're stuck calculating mud mixtures, then that's an argument for even more rapidly shutting down the industry. That's not what I'm supporting. I 'm explaining how I ideally envision Oil & Gas if they were to be nationalized which maybe they should be and all the wealth ripped out from the shareholders, executives, etc. but with that I would suspect parts of the company are quite useful. That doesn't mean every engineer, product or service would remain but I suspect some of them could be beneficial. Do you disagree? Trabisnikof posted:You have to be extremely careful about the dates on the sources you read. Because you're mistaken if you think the fracing boom is still happening right now. Its a bit of a bust atm. Its the classic resource cycle. Right now, there is a bust cycle but all of those drills sites are shale which can't be extracted through conventional means hence fracking. I know the Balkan is all if not most fracking but it's largely idle due to low oil prices but when they do go up things will start again. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:tab how much could I paypal you to never post again PayPal me a solid persuasive argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Can fracking wells be turned into compressed gas storage systems? I'm under the impression the leak natural gas, methane, etc. isn't economical to capture and that's why it is flared off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 07:42
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Are you guys reading the thread? Yes, I'm aware that this conversation has happened multiple times already, the one where you shout "Drill, baby, Drill!" over and over while everyone else (correctly) points out that alternatives exist and can be rapidly built out over the next ~decades, but won't be because Congress is full of conservative assholes. There's no need to rehash it again, I know that you're not going to change your misinformed opinions on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Let me explain your argument in my own to ensure I am understanding you correctly. Is it - Yes, current energy demand may be meet by entirely 100% renewable sources including Nuclear Power? I'm saying there are multiple pathways to zero carbon that involve different grid mixes from the 95+% renewables discussed in NREL's RE:Futures report to a goon's fantasy of exotic ramping nuclear stations everywhere.In particular that there are a multitude of successful pathways relying on the interactions of multiple technologies like storage, demand response, efficiency, biofuels, etc. quote:If so, then how do you dispute the evidence earlier provided by MomJeans420 that this isn't technically feasible even discounting political aspects as no one wants a reactor in their backyard. Technical feasibility isn't political feasibility. But the reason why Kinder Morgan gets to install a compressor station that gives you migraines but Vestas can't get new power lines built for a wind site isn't something related to the company, its just an expression of their political power. We don't need to nationalize O&G to give other power sources the political fiat O&G gets. If we have the power to nationalize the industry we have the power to sunset it. But on the, on the topic of nuclear, we've had more nuclear plants sited and passed NIMBY concerned than actually built in recent years in the US. Hippies take the blame but its operators who don't want to manage the costs of nuclear. If fossil fuels weren't so heavily subsidized it would have kept a few more nukes operating. Besides this all falls prey to market based thinking. The idea that, for example, limiting the range of personally owned EVs, is completely unworkable in a market context -- never would fly. But yet, it is exactly the sort of solution that both can very much work in the context of a strong centralized social structure (government) and can provide the missing leeway to reduce energy consumption and thus reduce the challenge of carbon neutral energy production. Diets, driving, conditioned space, etc all provide space for massively useful adaptive efficiencies that are certainly themselves potential cultural adaptation challenges. And to hold those challenges as insurmountable leaves no room for success. History is filled with examples of cultural shifts far larger than diet and commute changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
Here's a graph, which I found on Wikipedia: Coal started dropping at exactly the same time natural gas spiked. Is that good or bad for climate change?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Here's a graph, which I found on Wikipedia: It's still fossil fuel, so no change. The reason is mainly the price. There's not much quality coal left, so it's replaced by cheaper gas. As for environmental effects, you trade mining for fracking, both of which affect large areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Here's a graph, which I found on Wikipedia: Methane leaks are now a direct contributor to climate change, and Natural Gas producers argue its too much of a burden to control. Same old fossil fuels, different day
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That's not what I'm supporting. I 'm explaining how I ideally envision Oil & Gas if they were to be nationalized which they should be and all the wealth ripped out from the shareholders, executives, etc. but with that I would suspect parts of the company are quite useful. Nationalization of the oil and gas industry in the US means purchasing it at taxpayer expense at current market value. It doesn’t take wealth away from shareholders. You wan expropriation, which isn’t possible without getting rid of a constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Here's a graph, which I found on Wikipedia: In theory, it's better because natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per joule of energy released when burned than coal. In practice, it doesn't really make that much difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Nationalization of the oil and gas industry in the US means purchasing it at taxpayer expense at current market value. It doesn’t take wealth away from shareholders. That's not hard to get around, you just need cooperative representatives and courts. The value of all those countries are vastly inflated because they don't have to pay for any of their externalized costs. If you pass liability laws mandating that they clean up after themselves then suddenly they're bankrupt and worth $0. This sort of thing happens all the time, though typically to the benefit of corporations rather than to their detriment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's not hard to get around, you just need cooperative representatives and courts.  Step one, assume a can opener. Also multinational oil and gas companies are...multinational. Your fantasy US government can't regulate the value of their assets in other jurisdictions. You either pay that market value or they split the company. None of this matters because of China and India anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:None of this matters because of China and India anyway. This is indirect climate change denial: "We should do nothing because India and China will do nothing"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
it is also simply morally disgusting 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is indirect climate change denial: "We should do nothing because India and China will do nothing" Nothing we do will ultimately matter much in preventing climate change, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything. Exercising doesn't prevent my death, but I still do it sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Diets, driving, conditioned space, etc all provide space for massively useful adaptive efficiencies that are certainly themselves potential cultural adaptation challenges. And to hold those challenges as insurmountable leaves no room for success. History is filled with examples of cultural shifts far larger than diet and commute changes. "We can't do this, who would pay me?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 18:06
|
|
