|
MomJeans420 posted:If you're fine with conventional oil and gas wells but just don't like fracking, you're the anti-vaxxer of the energy world. Its also killing us, and we need a better way. Oil needs to go the way coal is already going. There's no other way about it. I'd point out: Pointing to China's coal issues and saying because they use it, we should also use fossil fuels, is an anti-Climate change tactic. Its not a good one. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Sep 2, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Racing to the bottom so hard we hope to loop back around and end up on top
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is 2020 going to exceed 2019 growth in wind, or has the downturn affected new deployment? Close to double if not more. 2021 will see a contraction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its also killing us, and we need a better way. Oil needs to go the way coal is already going. There's no other way about it. I’m not going to debate with you about the long term place of fossil fuels in the mix, but natural gas has today, right now, in the face of legislative inaction and public indifference, reduced the us’s carbon output by a fifth by displacing almost half the coal production in the marketplace. It’s not enough, it’s not the best, but talking about banning fracking right now is the very epitome of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Natural gas and fracking are at this very moment doing far more work than renewables or nuclear and any policy to curb or eliminate their growth would be an absolutely pyrrhic victory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:I’m not going to debate with you about the long term place of fossil fuels in the mix, but natural gas has today, right now, in the face of legislative inaction and public indifference, reduced the us’s carbon output by a fifth by displacing almost half the coal production in the marketplace. Ah yes, the very leaky, very much still a fossil fuel, Natural Gas. A gas that leaks at such a rate, that its on a steady course to replace CO2 as the chief Greenhouse gas and is 4x more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Congrats, you got played by the Fossil Fuel industry. hypnophant posted:Natural gas and fracking are at this very moment doing far more work than renewables or nuclear and any policy to curb or eliminate their growth would be an absolutely pyrrhic victory. Bullshit. Pure, and unadulterated bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:I’m not going to debate with you about the long term place of fossil fuels in the mix, but natural gas has today, right now, in the face of legislative inaction and public indifference, reduced the us’s carbon output by a fifth by displacing almost half the coal production in the marketplace. It’s not enough, it’s not the best, but talking about banning fracking right now is the very epitome of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Natural gas and fracking are at this very moment doing far more work than renewables or nuclear and any policy to curb or eliminate their growth would be an absolutely pyrrhic victory. If we banned fracing no one would bring those shut down coal plants back, the benefit has already been had, continued expansion of natural gas production only brings harms at this point. If we refuse to ban fracing we will keep massively emitting methane and further invest in fossil fuel infrastructure. We do not need fracing to run the natural gas power plants we have built already. Or consider this, in what decade would accept the idea we need to stop drilling new natural gas wells? You clearly think 2020/2030 is too soon, so what, 2050s? 2070s? Never?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Is it not true that fracking results in pollution of underground water supplies and in some cases even seismic activity where a traditional well would not? If there are legitimate differences in the impact on the local area then I think framing it as being like an anti-vaxxer is unfair at best and leaning heavily towards straight up dishonest. Fracking does not pollute underground water supplies, but any well with a bad casing can. There is nothing inherent in fracking that leads to more pollution of water. Trabisnikof posted:If we banned fracing no one would bring those shut down coal plants back, the benefit has already been had, continued expansion of natural gas production only brings harms at this point. We're already going to see an increase in coal in 2021 due to the Saudi war on the US shale industry raising natural gas prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:We're already going to see an increase in coal in 2021 due to the Saudi war on the US shale industry raising natural gas prices. The problem is Coal and Natural Gas need to be treated as one in the same, they have the same goals: Propping up an industry that has lied about emissions, fought heavily against Global Warming/Climate Science to protect their own interests, and are largely contributors to the problem, not solutions. Natural Gas is the new Clean Coal, and its no less an attempt to white wash the Petroleum industry as Clean Coal was a the Coal industry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:We're already going to see an increase in coal in 2021 due to the Saudi war on the US shale industry raising natural gas prices. This doesn’t make sense when discussing electricity generation. Is your premise that between now and 2021 new coal plants will be brought online or that they’re going to un-shutdown coal plants? Because if either was true, we’d already have the regulatory filings in place and you would be able to point to specific coal plants that are re-opening because of increases in natural gas prices. So which plants are they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Rime posted:Close to double if not more. 2021 will see a contraction. Double is good. Is it all in texas? Are there any plans to setup HVDC connections to move all that wind power around? I'm also really curious the usage factor for all that wind. Is it overcapacity or is it all being used? Going back to the baseload discussion, I got all my energy education done in 2006, so I may be out of date. Where can I read up on strategies to not rely on baseload plants like nuclear, and instead have it all be renewables with ridiculous overcapacity requirements?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ah yes, the very leaky, very much still a fossil fuel, Natural Gas.  quote:Bullshit. Pure, and unadulterated bullshit. The numbers are extremely clear. Here's the EPA again:  Renewables play a role but are not a large enough part of the mix to be responsible for more than a small portion of this decline. I agree with you that all fossil fuels must be replaced or minimized in the long term, but it is counterproductive to target natural gas specifically before renewables make up a much larger fraction of the mix. Trabisnikof posted:Or consider this, in what decade would accept the idea we need to stop drilling new natural gas wells? You clearly think 2020/2030 is too soon, so what, 2050s? 2070s? Never? When renewables make up 50% or greater of electricity production and coal makes up 0%, and not a day before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Fracking does not pollute underground water supplies, but any well with a bad casing can. There is nothing inherent in fracking that leads to more pollution of water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 -e- If you claim it's just from the casing, fracking is why those wells were made in the first place. Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Methane emissions have decreased since the fracking boom. Here's the EPA: And yet overall, Methane releases is reaching record highs worldwide: https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-concerned-by-record-high-global-methane-emissions and we don't need a single drop of methane more that is not naturally caused, because due to increasing global temperatures, natural methane releases are increasing Natural Gas is NOT a good bridge to a carbon neutral path. Period. This is clean coal all over again, and being sold to you by companies that have REPEATEDLY lied about their emissions and their methods. There is zero justifying Natural Gas, because its just more of the same. "We don't need nuclear, because natural gas is cheaper" is the rallying cry of the fossil fuel industry, and this thought process just lets them entrench themselves further. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:If you're fine with conventional oil and gas wells but just don't like fracking, you're the anti-vaxxer of the energy world. China is also building a metric fuckton of nuclear power and renewable generation, and unlike us they have a plan to cap their carbon emissions. So we should do at least that much, right? Or is this just one of those hard to answer questions you mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 That said it still seems to me that a well that's being actively pressurized for the explicit purpose of pushing substances through the earth would be more likely to experience that sort of a failure. There are also the disposal issues with the chemicals used in the process, I recall somewhere was literally spraying it on the roads which of course made it extremely likely to get in to the water system. Also as you point out, those wells in many cases would not be there if not for fracking, so even if the issue is not specific to fracking there would still be significantly more wells and thus more screw ups in proximity to residential areas as a direct result of fracking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yet overall, Methane releases is reaching record highs worldwide: https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-concerned-by-record-high-global-methane-emissions and we don't need a single drop of methane more that is not naturally caused, because due to increasing global temperatures, natural methane releases are increasing Natural gas is doing more to slow the increase in global temperatures than any other factor you can point to. quote:Natural Gas is NOT a good bridge to a carbon neutral path. Period. This is clean coal all over again, and being sold to you by companies that have REPEATEDLY lied about their emissions and their methods. The difference is that clean coal was always a desperate lie by an industry that saw the writing on the wall, but natural gas has led to a large, measurable decrease in net greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not arguing that we can get to carbon neutral by switching to natural gas or even that it's a "good bridge" whatever that means. I'm arguing that fracking has done more to reduce ghg emissions in the US than the entire effect environmentalists have had, and if environmentalists now choose to target fracking because of that or because of local concerns about water quality, they will be shooting themselves in the same loving foot they've been shooting at with their opposition to nuclear generation. If climate change is as urgent as we all believe it is, we need to start addressing the problem today, and fracking is the most significant factor currently working in our favor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Natural gas is doing more to slow the increase in global temperatures than any other factor you can point to. No its not because its being used to replace lower CO2 emitting sources like nuclear. Natural Gas is not going to save us. Right now its being lobbied in the EU as a "Green energy source" and its plainly not. There's no path where Natural Gas serves as a "temporary bridge" to greener energy, it only just replaces zero/low emissions sources. And this is by design, and your getting fooled by an industry that's spent almost 100 years doing so. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No its not because its being used to replace lower CO2 emitting sources like nuclear. It is mostly replacing coal. I will get more graphs if you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:It is mostly replacing coal. I will get more graphs if you want. And its not doing that "temporarily", but permanently. Coal is dying by its own hand, not because Natural Gas is doing us any favors. Its a fossil fuel. You are here arguing a fossil fuel is going to save us from a catastrophe fossil fuels are causing. And again, Nuclear is being killed by Natural Gas too, so yay, thanks a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And its not doing that "temporarily", but permanently. Coal is dying by its own hand, not because Natural Gas is doing us any favors. I am arguing that natural gas is the only thing that can currently claim to have reduced ghg emissions in the US. I have said multiple times that I don't believe natural gas is sufficient on its own, and that it is clearly not a permanent solution, but the statistics are undeniable that coal began to decline exactly when ng began to take over. This has led to the significant decrease in emissions I've already shown. I don't have to like the fossil fuel industry to recognize that this switchover has had an impact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
What is the over/under of coal's ironically cooling particulates versus "clean" gas' lower ghg emissions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:What is the over/under of coal's ironically cooling particulates versus "clean" gas' lower ghg emissions? There’s certainly no evidence for it, and my general understanding of particulates is that they have to make it into the upper atmosphere to have a substantial cooling effect, but if you’re bound and determined to hate natural gas specifically then you have to take what you can get I suppose
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:I am arguing that natural gas is the only thing that can currently claim to have reduced ghg emissions in the US. I have said multiple times that I don't believe natural gas is sufficient on its own, and that it is clearly not a permanent solution, but the statistics are undeniable that coal began to decline exactly when ng began to take over. This has led to the significant decrease in emissions I've already shown. I don't have to like the fossil fuel industry to recognize that this switchover has had an impact. Renewables make up nearly 20% of US electricity generation, and this was not always the case, so I think that what I'm bolding is a false statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
This is a common occurrence wherever you have a coal seam in proximity to an aquifer because methane from the coal bed infiltrates the water source. While it's frequently shown as an adverse effect of fracking, it happens far more commonly for no other reason than that that's where humans drilled a hole to get water from. And to the extent that it's an effect of fracking, it's not peculiar to fracking, it's from drilling natural gas wells at all. CommieGIR posted:Its a fossil fuel. You are here arguing a fossil fuel is going to save us from a catastrophe fossil fuels are causing. And again, Nuclear is being killed by Natural Gas too, so yay, thanks a lot. And now we're back to the part where you alternate between "We need a perfect solution right now or we are doomed!" and "It doesn't matter that China is building hundreds of new coal plants, every little bit helps so we should do what we can even if it that little bit" as needed in order to maximize volume. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And now we're back to the part where you alternate between "We need a perfect solution right now or we are doomed!" and "It doesn't matter that China is building hundreds of new coal plants, every little bit helps so we should do what we can even if it that little bit" as needed in order to maximize volume. Natural Gas is being pushed as the replacement for nuclear AND coal, not as a holdover until we get more nuclear. And gently caress China, please stop repeating Anti-Global Warming tropes about "Well, if China is doing it, why should we shy away from Fossil Fuels?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Renewables make up nearly 20% of US electricity generation, and this was not always the case, so I think that what I'm bolding is a false statement. There's a nice graph on this page showing renewables increasing from 8% in 2007 to 17% in 2019. Basic math should make it clear that there's no way for a 9% increase in renewables to lead to a 20% drop in emissions, though I'll admit I exaggerated the case for natural gas slightly. I should have said "largest reduction in emissions" or words to that effect. CommieGIR posted:Natural Gas is being pushed as the replacement for nuclear AND coal, not as a holdover until we get more nuclear. The same graph conveniently shows no decrease in nuclear output in absolute or proportional terms, contrary to your statements. It does nicely show the steep decline in coal, however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:There's a nice graph on this page showing renewables increasing from 8% in 2007 to 17% in 2019. Basic math should make it clear that there's no way for a 9% increase in renewables to lead to a 20% drop in emissions, though I'll admit I exaggerated the case for natural gas slightly. I should have said "largest reduction in emissions" or words to that effect. Can you work through that with me? I don't see why basic math would dictate this. The reduction in emissions should be proportional to the growth in renewables but it isn't necessarily 1:1, especially when the starting state consists of a variety of sources that emit to different degrees, and some not at all. If renewables are primarily displacing coal power plants in a market that has a mix of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power then that ratio should definitely be greater than 1
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
Using natural gas to hold us over until we can get more renewable and nuclear capacity online is good. Touting natural gas as a replacement for both coal and nuclear is a bare-faced lie and should be treated as such. Replacing coal with natural gas will result in reduced emissions, but it's a far cry from the reductions we get from going renewable or nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
In the long run, natural gas has to go. Right now, the primary focus should be retiring coal, which is pretty much uniformly uneconomic but is still pretty prevalent in a lot of the country. There's also a place for limiting the expansion of natural gas infrastructure, by blocking pipelines and challenging the creation of new gas-fired plants. If coal plants are being replaced by gas plants (outside of rarely-used peakers), that's locking in a lot of CO2 emissions for decades. Going after the existing gas infrastructure is kinda premature, given how limited the existing non-fossil dispatchable resources are, and also how much of the country doesn't yet have electrified heating. Note that I think fracking is so prevalent in the US there is general chatter about natural gas export through LNG terminals and the such. Needless to say that this is not really a great outcome for the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Renewables make up nearly 20% of US electricity generation, and this was not always the case, so I think that what I'm bolding is a false statement. The primary reason coal use has declined is due to Natural Gas becoming competitive. Renewables have helped but nowhere to the degree that Natural Gas has displaced coal. The only unintended consequence is Natural Gas is also competitive with Nuclear Power. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
How long do natural gas plants usually last? I'm skeptical of the idea of natural gas as a transitional step because it's so convenient to various entrenched and wealthy sectors to make natural gas a permanent step.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:The primary reason coal use has declined is due to Natural Gas becoming competitive. Renewables have helped but nowhere to the degree that Natural Gas has displaced coal. One is 20% of electricity production and the other is 40% so clearly they're both very significant
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
I took a look at the EIA's generation inventory data, and among retired combined cycle plants (I would expect big new gas plants to be combined cycle) the average lifespan seemed to be 27.5 years. Doesn't change much if you weight by nameplate capacity. Honestly, I'm surprised it's as low as it is. Power plants are expensive, and retiring them early is a huge financial hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
Perhaps some very educated person on energy infrastructure or engineering in this thread could tell me this, since I just recently became curious -- theoretically speaking, like, say we wanted a new nuclear power plant built as soon as possible, how fast could one safely be built? Like say for example, the USA were to go full command economy tomorrow, or like if Jeff Bezos commanded that a nuke plant be made somewhere. What I had read from this and that source was that the main reason why nuke plants take like 20 years to be built is because of all the extensive preparation and the fundraising.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Perhaps some very educated person on energy infrastructure or engineering in this thread could tell me this, since I just recently became curious -- theoretically speaking, like, say we wanted a new nuclear power plant built as soon as possible, how fast could one safely be built? Like say for example, the USA were to go full command economy tomorrow, or like if Jeff Bezos commanded that a nuke plant be made somewhere. What I had read from this and that source was that the main reason why nuke plants take like 20 years to be built is because of all the extensive preparation and the fundraising. The steel manufacturing is not something we can do with current capacity. New facilities and infrastructure would need to be developed first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Perhaps some very educated person on energy infrastructure or engineering in this thread could tell me this, since I just recently became curious -- theoretically speaking, like, say we wanted a new nuclear power plant built as soon as possible, how fast could one safely be built? Like say for example, the USA were to go full command economy tomorrow, or like if Jeff Bezos commanded that a nuke plant be made somewhere. What I had read from this and that source was that the main reason why nuke plants take like 20 years to be built is because of all the extensive preparation and the fundraising. the navy (really its contractors) have been able to build a ton of nuclear subs in about 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#List_of_boats on the other hand, every one of chinas projects in the last decade has stalled and not gone online yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#Reactor_technologies the most ardent optimist libertarian would probably say 5 years. reality says "null/undefined".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Okay, what are these numbers?  it probably hit 70/30 before covid, now its swinging back the other way haaaaard. also, while we're on the fracking topic again, whenever you see some stemlord bullshiting you about how fracking wells are no worse than normal wells remember that its the perfect kind of lie. "technically true" while supporting the false conclusion. fracking wells have a decay curve measured in months, vs traditional wells decades. to get the same amount of natgas to market you have to frack exponentially more wells. so even if they were perfectly the same amount of risk as a conventional well, the overall practice of fracking is still absolute crackhead insanity (still not as bad as tar sands tho).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The steel manufacturing is not something we can do with current capacity. New facilities and infrastructure would need to be developed first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
globalism is hell of a drug / sometimes its better to let other countries/peeps do things for cheaper/better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
sure if by "better" you mean "without these pesky labor unions complaining about injuries"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:01
|
|