|
mobby_6kl posted:What's true for the UK isn't necessarily true for developing countries, which is most of them unfortunately . This is a really important point I admit I brushed over. The West needs to do a lot more on technology transfer and investment to ensure the benefits of tackling climate change are felt by all. The upcoming G7 is going to be really jmportant, as will COP at the end of the year.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:What's true for the UK isn't necessarily true for developing countries, which is most of them unfortunately .
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:It literally doesn't matter if the majority of hydrogen production doesn't transition to electrolysis during the next thirty years, as long as the carbon is extracted from the FF used to produce it and buried. GHGs are the enemy, after all. So evaluate the plans of the oil majors against that timeline, and see whether they'll roll out CCS fast enough on H2 production. If they won't, then they're the villains once again. They are the villains now, they never stopped being the villains, and have shown no reason to believe they will do otherwise. GHG are the enemy and they continue to be the prime benefactor and providers in producing them. They continue to push for more pipelines, more drilling, more fracking, if they were serious about tackling this issue they WOULDN'T have been using Trump as a way to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling. So at what point did they demonstrate they stopped being the villains? Show me where they recognized their failings and stopped doing the bad things, because so far it seems like they are doubling down on it. Hell, you know I'm pro Nuclear, but lets be honest: The American Nuclear Society believes that Fossil Fuels are still in there interest and invites fossil fuel execs to speak (without anyone being allowed to debate them) frequently! https://twitter.com/nuclearkatie/status/1402003855802613765?s=20 They haven't changed. Not at all. They are still pushing anti-climate change propaganda and lobbying against environmental interests. You get a whiff of one tech that MIGHT be green and here you are singing their praises? That's literally why Greenwashing is such a huge problem because it allows people like you to be blinded to the fact that they haven't change at all by waving something "Green" in your face! CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Oil majors do bad things but also good things: https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/bp-blows-away-bid-rivals-with-big-bet-on-wind-farms-12212580 Currently, not enough of their investments are in cleantech for me to be wholly comfortable with their direction of travel. However, they are starting to put major money into the right sorts of bets. The next five years are going to be crucial; if they don't move hard enough then they"ll need to be forced to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Oil majors do bad things but also good things: Their investment in wind is likely partially to hedge their bets on Natural Gas peaker plants needed to help the wind and solar keep up, so again this is very much inline with their desire to continue to do the same old stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their investment in wind is likely partially to hedge their bets on Natural Gas peaker plants needed to help the wind and solar keep up, so again this is very much inline with their desire to continue to do the same old stuff. BP doesn't own any gas power stations in the UK. They do own solar, however. It's much more likely a hedge against future lower gas and oil demand, which is precisely what we want to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What could be super expensive now could be much cheaper later - two steps forward one step back. Or we could do the thing right now that we already know works, that has no huge holes (like grid storage) and will reverse climate change. Multiple wealthy nations already use nuclear as their backbone power source and they do it cheaply. It works! Right now! We don't have to wait or guess on the future! Also it will kill fewer people and require less destructive mining than renewables!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:It literally doesn't matter if the majority of hydrogen production doesn't transition to electrolysis during the next thirty years, as long as the carbon is extracted from the FF used to produce it and buried. GHGs are the enemy, after all. So evaluate the plans of the oil majors against that timeline, and see whether they'll roll out CCS fast enough on H2 production. If they won't, then they're the villains once again. This analysis is assuming zero GHG leakage from the fossil system and is also ignoring the parasitic load of ccs. We already know that methane leakage is such massive problem and is enough to make combined cycle NG + ccs not realistic from a climate perspective. Meanwhile the parasitic load is such that the plan is reality to burn 2-3x more coal or gas to generate the same electricity while either leaks ruin it all or we spend billions on upgrading a natural gas system that we have to shut down within the next few decades anyway. There’s a reason coal companies and oil companies both back the CCS movement and it’s not the best interests of the climate. Taffer posted:Or we could do the thing right now that we already know works, that has no huge holes (like grid storage) and will reverse climate change. Multiple wealthy nations already use nuclear as their backbone power source and they do it cheaply. It works! Right now! We don't have to wait or guess on the future! The problem is no one is making new nuclear cheaply except maybe China. Areva in France went bankrupt. CB&I / Toshiba went bankrupt. The USA only has a 50% success rate at finishing new reactors because it’s more profitable to gently caress things up than do it right (all the contractors still get paid even if the reactor never gets built and ratepayers get the bill). But we don’t need new technology we just need to actually invest in infrastructure, a problem plaguing our existing fossil fuel based grid too. Like people say renewables are impossible because we won’t spend the money to upgrade the grid to prevent freak blackouts, but we already get 700+ people dying in freak blackouts on our current grid. That’s not a renewables issue, that’s a gridwide issue regardless of our fuel source.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Yeah, you're going to need to provide a source for that 2x-3x claim, as the load of an amine cycler is waaaaay less than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem is no one is making new nuclear cheaply except maybe China. Areva in France went bankrupt. CB&I / Toshiba went bankrupt. The USA only has a 50% success rate at finishing new reactors because it’s more profitable to gently caress things up than do it right (all the contractors still get paid even if the reactor never gets built and ratepayers get the bill). The Russian VVER reactors are being built pretty cheap as they have a reliable assembly line now. But again, that highlights the problem: Even a mass exporter of fossil fuels like Russia recognizes that Nuclear is probably a better bet than the very natural gas they sell to Germany (ironically). The EU and Germany are basically kneecapped because they are dependent on Russian gas, its a massive geopolitical issue, and Russia recognizes that. Aethernet posted:BP doesn't own any gas power stations in the UK. They do own solar, however. It's much more likely a hedge against future lower gas and oil demand, which is precisely what we want to happen. They don't have to! They sell them the gas. That's the problem! Your vastly oversimplifying how they exploit this. Also, its incredibly ironic you mention BP given your views on Hydrogen:  Its almost like they don't intend to change at all.... Hell, on top of the very solar farms you praise, they probably have pipelines like this:  Welcome to Greenwashing 101. Its like Money Laundering but for Fossil Fuels. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
All Russia has to do now is make sure they contruct and attend to their power plants with care and precision so as to prevent any more chernobyls. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:All Russia has to do now is make sure they contruct and attend to their power plants with care and precision so as to prevent any more chernobyls. Its worth noting: There are still active RBMK plants in the world, while it was a flawed reactor and the flaw made the disaster worse (ironically its still only the 65th worst energy disaster in the world), the issue was entirely about failing to follow nuclear safety principles when they carried out the test. But overall, compared to the sheer death count of Fossil fuels and their emissions, Nuclear disasters like Chernobyl don't even scratch the surface. Still the lowest death/kwhr source of energy on the planet. Outside of those who died from the immediate disaster, we've only found 15 cases of cancer deaths versus the predicted 4,000+ that Greenpeace predicted. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They don't have to! They sell them the gas. That's the problem! Your vastly oversimplifying how they exploit this. Also, its incredibly ironic you mention BP given your views on Hydrogen: You literally said gas peaker plant hedging, but please, continue to shift the goalposts. If you build wind in the UK you reduce the volume of power needed from gas plants, therefore you reduce gas demand. So by building a windfarm BP is reducing the market for a product that - according to you - they want to sell more of. I assume you'll talk about 'gas lock in' now, but there's no scenario under which we don't consume considerably less gas than we previously did. Even under a heavy nuclear scenario you'd want your mid merit plant to be gas ccs, as the economics of flexing nukes are really poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:You literally said gas peaker plant hedging, but please, continue to shift the goalposts. If you build wind in the UK you reduce the volume of power needed from gas plants, therefore you reduce gas demand. So by building a windfarm BP is reducing the market for a product that - according to you - they want to sell more of. They don't have to build the plants to benefit from supply the natural gas to them. Again, this seems really odd that you do not make that connection on your own. Between that and their greenwashing of their fossil sourced Natural Gas (which Coal is also used as a source for Hydrogen, so that can be greenwashed as well) you are basically giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to companies that have repeatedly shown they should've even be trusted to tell you the current time without an angle. Aethernet posted:I assume you'll talk about 'gas lock in' now, but there's no scenario under which we don't consume considerably less gas than we previously did. Even under a heavy nuclear scenario you'd want your mid merit plant to be gas ccs, as the economics of flexing nukes are really poor. This isn't true at all. And besides, there's very little reason to flex nuclear plants regardless, its far better for both the reactor and the fuel cycle to just keep them operating at peak efficiency, but even then nuclear is just as dispatchable, you do so by just throttling the turbine rather than adjusting the actual reactor. Again, I'm gonna point at Indian point for why your claim falls flat: Because the gas NOW being consumed was not being consumed prior to to Indian Point's closure. Ergo, your argument that "We don't consume less gas" is really a poorly made one, when in fact closing the nuclear plant meant we consume MORE gas. https://twitter.com/owasow/status/1391795023742599169?s=20 Your claim not only wrong, its the exact opposite. https://twitter.com/wang_seaver/status/1388200845926227968?s=20 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:All Russia has to do now is make sure they contruct and attend to their power plants with care and precision so as to prevent any more chernobyls. That would be great but it's worth noting that every coal power plant is basically an ongoing chernobyl, every year, for as long as the plant keeps running. That isn't a joke, coal power is just super hosed up. And that's just in terms of radioactive waste produced through normal operation, not even getting into any of the massive coal power disasters that have caused far more damage than Chernobyl but receive a tiny fraction of the news coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They don't have to build the plants to benefit from supply the natural gas to them. Again, this seems really odd that you do not make that connection on your own. Between that and their greenwashing of their fossil sourced Natural Gas (which Coal is also used as a source for Hydrogen, so that can be greenwashed as well) you are basically giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to companies that have repeatedly shown they should've even be trusted to tell you the current time without an angle. I didn't say anything about closing nukes, so I'm going to ignore that weird aside. Sweat existing nukes for all they're worth, say I. I'm glad that you agree with me that flexing nukes is not economically desirable. However, on the first point I think I'm going to have to explain how gas and wind interact in the power system, as I assumed you knew that when I was making my point. The marginal plant in an electricity system is the one that you turn on last as demand rises towards peak. The order you turn them on is known as the merit order. Typically this is a function of price; you turn the most expensive one on last. This is typically a gas peaker in the UK, which will have an efficiency of about 30-40%. CCGTs, which are less flexible, have an efficiency of about 50-60% and are therefore cheaper and further down the merit order. Wind turbines are normally further down the merit order than CCGT. So, when the wind blows, more expensive gas plants further up the merit order don't switch on - or at least run at a lower output - and therefore less gas is consumed. This means that by building a wind farm BP is reducing gas demand in the power sector. This is something that on your analysis they shouldn't be doing, and yet they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I didn't say anything about closing nukes, so I'm going to ignore that weird aside. Sweat existing nukes for all they're worth, say I. I'm glad that you agree with me that flexing nukes is not economically desirable. However, on the first point I think I'm going to have to explain how gas and wind interact in the power system, as I assumed you knew that when I was making my point. quote:but there's no scenario under which we don't consume considerably less gas than we previously did Dude, I don't know what it is with you but you LOVE to nitpick others then fail to even fully consider your own arguments. I'm kinda bored with this exchange: Allowing natural gas, natural gas producers, and Oil/Gas Industry companies to continue to do business as normal under the cover of being "Green" is greenwashing and you've bought it hook, line, and sinker. You pitched hydrogen, I demonstrated its largely Fossil sourced and most of these companies plan to continue to do so. You pitched Natural Gas and I demonstrated that its Greenwashing by promoting it as peaker/CCGTs while giving the public image of being "responsible" by building solar and wind plants to cover what they are doing. Your arguments make zero sense and are largely defending Fossil Fuel industry, so I dunno what to say to you to get you to realize whom you are defending, but you don't seem to be willing to actually read my arguments other than to nitpick or double down on your own. There is no scenario under which Natural Gas being used to buffer Renewables ends the majority of our dependence on Fossil Fuels. And that's a prediction you can take to the bank. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Dude, I don't know what it is with you but you LOVE to nitpick others then fail to even fully consider your own arguments. I'm kinda bore with this exchange: Allowing natural gas, natural gas producers, and Oil/Gas Industry companies to continue to do buisiness as normal under the cover of being "Green" is greenwashing and you've bought it hook, line, and sinker. I'm open to being persuaded, but you're not going to do it by continually getting facts wrong. It makes it difficult to believe you, especially when you appear to be demanding that hundreds of thousands of people be immediately be made redundant because oil and gas companies are pantomime villains and not just standard corporate psychopaths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I'm open to being persuaded, but you're not going to do it by continually getting facts wrong. It makes it difficult to believe you, especially when you appear to be demanding that hundreds of thousands of people be immediately be made redundant because oil and gas companies are pantomime villains and not just standard corporate psychopaths. We openly demonstrated your facts are wrong, yet somehow mine are also wrong? That's straight cognitive dissonance dude. Stop trusting Fossil Fuel companies as having your best interest in mind, and maybe my arguments and data points might make sense. Aethernet posted:It makes it difficult to believe you, especially when you appear to be demanding that hundreds of thousands of people be immediately be made redundant because oil and gas companies are pantomime villains and not just standard corporate psychopaths. At what cost is the planet worth to you? How many lies do Oil/Gas companies have to say before you question their necessity because "Jobs" As our wonderful Climate Change thread is titled: There is no jobs on a dead planet, and keeping the Fossil Fuel industry alive because "Jobs" has got to be one of the most pathetic arguing points I've ever heard. Might as well start arguing that we need to bring back the horse and buggy industry because we made them redundant. Hell, bring back Leaded Gasoline, might as well ensure all those people we fired making Tetraethylead have a job! The cost of our environment, of our climate, is not worth those "Jobs" and regardless, we HAVE solutions to them being made redundant in things like Universal Basic Income. You are not here to argue energy, you are here to argue saving jobs for the sake of jobs. Maybe that's why nothing we are showing you makes sense. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We openly demonstrated your facts are wrong, yet somehow mine are also wrong? That's straight cognitive dissonance dude. You'll need to point out where you've proved me wrong, as I appear to have missed it. So you do want to make lots of people redundant. What if you could not do that and save the planet too? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be a reason to actually look at what companies are doing rather than scream "EVIL!" at them? I mean, to believe what you believe, you'd have to think that there's some kind of secret plan to reverse all the cleantech investments and public commitments made by O&G companies, because otherwise nothing they're doing right now makes sense. I'm off to bed now, but I look forward to continuing this debate in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I mean, to believe what you believe, you'd have to think that there's some kind of secret plan to reverse all the cleantech investments and public commitments made by O&G companies, because otherwise nothing they're doing right now makes sense. you have no idea what the profit motive is lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Look massive corporations would never spend a small fraction of their revenue on ultimately useless technology just to serve as PR cover for their primary operations!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:So you do want to make lots of people redundant. What if you could not do that and save the planet too? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be a reason to actually look at what companies are doing rather than scream "EVIL!" at them? "We can't stop using fossil fuels, think of the jobs" We're done debating. This has to be both the most reductive and the worst possible cognitive dissonance I've seen yet in this thread. Their investment in "Green Tech" has little to no bearing on their actual fossil fuels production, they have not decreased production and based on their push to increase pipeline construction and expand drilling, they have no intention of taking the threat of Climate Change seriously. The best part? YOU OPENLY ADMITTED THIS WAS TRUE! You said yourself, the need for natural gas won't decrease (ironically, you said so in regards to nuclear plants, which was wrong) so you yourself openly admitted that Renewables are probably not going to make a significant dent on Fossil fuel usage. You are talking about some of the largest, most wealthiest companies on Earth as if they are some innocent pawn rather than those directly responsible for the majority of the damage we've done to the planet you live on, who have OPENLY and REPEATEDLY lied and lobbied to cover up their lies about the damage they do. Get your head straight, because you are at this point openly defending the worst environmental criminals on Earth because of a very meager Green spend on their part and fear of layoffs. And let's be honest: The fear of redundancies is a pretty stupid one anyways, because doing more with less people has been the Corporate strategy for nearly the last 20 years! We have to deal with lean-style job management anyways, Fossil fuels be damned so you'd better find a better goalpost to move.  If they were anywhere near as serious as you openly pretend they are, this money would not be being spent. Yet it is, so either you're being fooled by multi-billion dollar energy companies who have spent 40+ years lobbying against Scientists and Environmentalists to ensure they could keep doing what they do unchanged, or I'm entirely wrong. No amount of jobs is worth continuing the damage, and you are gonna have to face facts about that rather than cheering for those destroying of the planet to ensure its continued rape for another decade. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:So you do want to make lots of people redundant. What if you could not do that and save the planet too? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be a reason to actually look at what companies are doing rather than scream "EVIL!" at them? Protip: if you have to resort to this kind of argument, then you've already lost. "But think of the lost jobs!" is already an ineffective argument in a vacuum, but when you account for the economic effects of climate change even the employment numbers don't make sense; you want to save thousands of jobs at the expense of millions of other jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Protip: if you have to resort to this kind of argument, then you've already lost. "But think of the lost jobs!" is already an ineffective argument in a vacuum, but when you account for the economic effects of climate change even the employment numbers don't make sense; you want to save thousands of jobs at the expense of millions of other jobs. Its like when Conservatives go on and on about all the Jobs building oil pipelines will bring, only to forgo telling you it'll be only temporary and then the pipe will be run with a minimal staff afterwords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:you have no idea what the profit motive is lol This is an interesting point, I want to re-wind this earlier discussion a bit to this earlier post. QuarkJets posted:The oil and gas industry wants to sell as much oil and gas as possible. That's not a conspiracy. You are right that it is not a conspiracy that businesses have the goal of maximizing profits. Nor is it a conspiracy that consumers aren't going to buy a product or service when it isn't necessary or more affordable alternatives exist. There are good entirely legitimate reasons why Natural Gas Peaker's exist in liberal states like California. Or why Africa and Asia are still expanding Natural Gas. Because humanity demands Oil and Gas. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to diminish Global Warming. It's serious issue that'll impact everyone on the planet but if we ever going solve it then it's important to understand it is a much bigger problem than simply lovely Corporation with greedy Executives/Shareholders/C-Levels/etc. If it were just that we could simply take them court, sue, pass legislation, etc. and that would be it! We'd declare victory and move to the worlds next big problem but that just simply isn't the case. It's a insanely massive complex problem that spans from technology, sociology, economics and politics. I completely agree that we should absolutely not prop up industries that are polluting the planet just so people are to remain employeed but one thing I do know is that those that are on the verge of losing entire careers or unemployed are extremely motivated to vote. And they sure as hell won't be voting for any "Green Climate Legislation" if their left in the past with nothing. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This analysis is assuming zero GHG leakage from the fossil system and is also ignoring the parasitic load of ccs. Source? Trabisnikof posted:There’s a reason coal companies and oil companies both back the CCS movement and it’s not the best interests of the climate. CCS for coal is absolute pipedream. CCS depending on which CCS technology you are referring to such as mixing Natural Gas exhaust with water or other materials can reduce emissions at a small cost to total power generation. In my opinion, what I think will happen over the next decade is the "Least Emitting" O&G producer will be the only ones that are able to sell their products and services on the market while others will need to get inline or even potentially barred from doing business. This is a super hot wild take but in the future I don't it is entirely unreasonable to say that you might see legislation to reduce Oil and Gas imports from Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. because they put minimal effort or if any into reducing fugitive emissions like methane but O*G Companies that are based in Europe, North America, Canada, etc. because they are required to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This is an interesting point, I want to re-wind this earlier discussion a bit to this earlier post. People also used to demand Thalidomide, that alone is not a good enough reason to satisfy that demand. And I don't know if you know this but it turns out that governments have the power to effect that kind of edict, through all kinds of mechanisms. We could stop subsidizing the oil industry, we could start construction on a shitload of nuclear power stations, we could create new taxes and subsidies for electric vehicles and clean energy sources to run them, we could actually give two shits about public transportation instead of just shrugging our shoulders at hourly bus schedules. But we are stopped from doing any of that by people making "It's Complicated" arguments when the question is actually quite simple: do we want to try to address climate change, or not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
We are stopped from doing any of that by the interests of Capital, to which essentially all existing governments are subservient.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:People also used to demand Thalidomide, that alone is not a good enough reason to satisfy that demand. No, it's not but look at what happened to Thalidomide. It is still used even today but just merely more regulated, providers/consumers educated and alternatives are readily available. QuarkJets posted:And I don't know if you know this but it turns out that governments have the power to effect that kind of edict, through all kinds of mechanisms. We could stop subsidizing the oil industry, we could start construction on a shitload of nuclear power stations, we could create new taxes and subsidies for electric vehicles and clean energy sources to run them, we could actually give two shits about public transportation instead of just shrugging our shoulders at hourly bus schedules. Yes and nearly everything you have listed is already a work-in-progress? See Chuck Schumer's Electric Car Bill to the retrofitting of a former Wyoming Coal Power Plant into a Nuclear Power Plant. Or even San Diego's public transportation plans granted coronavirus hurt those efforts but hopefully San Diego won't end up in a traffic-gridlock LA Situation. QuarkJets posted:But we are stopped from doing any of that by people making "It's Complicated" arguments when the question is actually quite simple: do we want to try to address climate change, or not? Who is this we you speak of exactly? Emissions globally are likely to peak over the next decade or so because the world is dramatically changing the way it functions. Industrialized Nations have finally disconnected economic growth from emissions - see the UK. Ford one of the largest automotive companies on the planet not even a few weeks ago just announced a Electric Pickup Truck for the first time ever and even today announced a smaller hybrid model. Of course, it's not being addressed as fast as any of us would have like and there's tons of room for improvement. The claim that "we stopped doing any of that [addressing climate change]" is a false statement and not at all true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This is a super hot wild take but in the future I don't it is entirely unreasonable to say that you might see legislation to reduce Oil and Gas imports from Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. because they put minimal effort or if any into reducing fugitive emissions like methane but O*G Companies that are based in Europe, North America, Canada, etc. because they are required to do that. That would be the smart thing but we're going to do the exact opposite. Geopolitical issues should also be a major concern but they are 100% ignored in this thread. Something tells me when the Russians eventually shut off the gas to Ukraine in the middle of winter, Germany's human rights concerns won't stop them from taking that sweet Nord Stream 2 gas. You'll also find that most people have no idea what regulation and testing is required to produce O&G in places like California so they'll refuse to believe it's possible to produce it cleaner here than in Russia. CommieGIR posted:This contributes nothing to the thread, but thanks for coming back: Tells us more about how you don't want to harm your investments in Natural Gas and your direct connection to the natural gas industry? This is quite the reply but my posts have been pro nuclear so I have no idea why you'd think it's directed at you? I just thought it was funny, and you can't say it didn't just prove true. I'm pretty sure the only people I've made fun of are the solar bazingas on twitter. You are posting in a thread on a forum based off an old comedy website with people who don't really know what they're talking about, with ideas so bad if they were given carte blanche over world power generation we'd see worse results than the Great Leap Forward. Unless I missed something I don't think Biden is going to base his energy policy off of who can "win arguments" in this thread, but admittedly this thread's traffic has increased and I missed a few pages of posts. Also not worried about my investments in O&G, my whole thesis is the lack of understanding of your average person's need for O&G is going to lead to massive spikes in the price of oil. This thread reinforces that view, although it's obviously not representative of your typical voter. I just hope we're giving money to companies other than Aramco and Gazprom, but realistically they stand to profit the most off of the current political climate. I've done work for O&G clients but also public utilities and even a recent nuclear plant, it's not like I live and breathe O&G. In other news, utilities are trying to gently push back at some of the current unrealistic goals we have in CA: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-utilities-reliability-affordability-concerns/601188/ quote:Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) also identified the reliability of the grid and energy supply as a key priority. PG&E anticipates that decarbonized gas-fueled generation resources will be required in the long run to ensure peaking capability, the utility's director of energy strategy and innovation, Jan Berman told regulators. As California's current fossil generation fleet begins to retire, these plants will be replaced by new generation that could include some combination of hydrogen, renewable natural gas and possibly fossil fuels combined with carbon capture and storage, she added. Utilities can also enable customers to support reliability by structuring rates that align load and the use of distributed energy resources with grid needs, Berman said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:That would be the smart thing but we're going to do the exact opposite. Geopolitical issues should also be a major concern but they are 100% ignored in this thread. Something tells me when the Russians eventually shut off the gas to Ukraine in the middle of winter, Germany's human rights concerns won't stop them from taking that sweet Nord Stream 2 gas. You'll also find that most people have no idea what regulation and testing is required to produce O&G in places like California so they'll refuse to believe it's possible to produce it cleaner here than in Russia. Is not possible meet or severely diminish European NG demand with shipped LNG from other places? I thought that's what Poland was doing? MomJeans420 posted:
For the last few years, I've always wanted an electric car. It's cool, reliable, better for the planet, etc. yet held back because I have some skepticism over Tesla and any 1st Generation Product. That said, given the highly emotional politics surrounding Oil and Gas I am quickly coming to the realization owning an ICE vehicle may just become more a liability than an asset much, much sooner than anticipated. Or maybe I should just fork the money over for a place in the city so I could just walk everywhere but urban apartments so freaking expensive. quote:California's definition of "zero-carbon" should include the combustion of renewable natural gas, green hydrogen, and natural gas combined with carbon capture and sequestration, said Jeff DeTuri, policy and strategy manager with San Diego Gas & Electric. He urged regulators to include reliability assessments in the modeling around California's 100% clean electricity goal, and to conduct this modelling more frequently than every four years.  Wow, that's... Sure as hell something but I think a good thing. The world is changing a lot.
Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:This is quite the reply but my posts have been pro nuclear so I have no idea why you'd think it's directed at you? I just thought it was funny, and you can't say it didn't just prove true. Your twitter post was passive aggressive and uncalled for. You knew exactly why you posted it so don't come off like it was just a coincidence. Some limp dick narcissistic Stock Trader's take on "Clean Energy" and why he thinks it triggers Nuclear people didn't contribute one iota to the conversation at hand other than to attack what I was saying at that exact moment. And since you are so well versed in this thread, you ALSO know I support both Renewables and Nuclear, and I'm sick of acting like its one or the other. We already know Renewables alone is a no go, but Renewables with Natural Gas is just cutting off our nose to spite our face and does nothing in the long run but prop up explotative companies who seek to keep doing the same thing they've been doing for the last 100 years and pretend being cheap is the only solution MomJeans420 posted:I'm pretty sure the only people I've made fun of are the solar bazingas on twitter. You are posting in a thread on a forum based off an old comedy website with people who don't really know what they're talking about, with ideas so bad if they were given carte blanche over world power generation we'd see worse results than the Great Leap Forward. Unless I missed something I don't think Biden is going to base his energy policy off of who can "win arguments" in this thread, but admittedly this thread's traffic has increased and I missed a few pages of posts. Unfortunately we're going to have to live with the reality that we're going to have to get off the majority of O&G. Its going to have to happen sooner or later. And you are entirely correct: Germany and the EU in general has kneecapped itself by continuing to support Nordstream while Russia recognizes the issue and is expanding its VVER buildouts. And the article about California basically proves our point about shuttering nuclear: Its almost entirely being shifted to Natural Gas and reinforcing fossil fuel positions. But the problem is Natural Gas is entire part of the problem, not the solution. Like I've said so many times in the past few pages: Its greenwashing and its only digging the hole deeper. its going to take a major financial cost to switch to clean energy, anybody saying it'll be cheap is either full of it or buying into Greenwashing. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
We just have to eventually offset all this NG with excess power from a clean source. The longer that takes the worse it gets. The oil and gas companies have a fundamental economic interest in loving us all over.
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I don't think you understood my point. H2 is being funded by FF companies, but it doesn't matter because the point is to save the planet, not care who does it. Evaluate the tech, not the proponent. Currently 95% of the H2 being used in fuel-cell cars is coming from fracked natural gas. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming Excuse me if I consider it to be gas company greenwashing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 06:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"We can't stop using fossil fuels, think of the jobs" I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance means. On natural gas, please read what I actually said - demand will go down but it won't go to zero. This is a very important distinction, as, again, what we want is to eliminate emissions and removing unabated natural gas combustion is a key part of that. If you do that, demand does down and so does emissions. I also never said renewables won't make a dent on fossil fuel usage - they absolutely will, as they already have in the UK. It feels like you're arguing with yourself. I would suggest that you compare how much the majors are spending on lobbying on climate change now with how much they spent in the past. Yes, all that spending is bad, but consider the trajectory because: i say swears online posted:you have no idea what the profit motive is lol It's entirely the need to make future profits and satisfy major investors like pension funds that is driving this change in behaviour. QuarkJets posted:Protip: if you have to resort to this kind of argument, then you've already lost. "But think of the lost jobs!" is already an ineffective argument in a vacuum, but when you account for the economic effects of climate change even the employment numbers don't make sense; you want to save thousands of jobs at the expense of millions of other jobs. You quoted a post in which I said we could both as evidence that I think we should only do one thing. VideoGameVet posted:Currently 95% of the H2 being used in fuel-cell cars is coming from fracked natural gas. Today is not the future. Also FCEVs are a bit of a non-starter in any case; BEVs have beat them to the post. Low carbon hydrogen's role will be in power generation, industry, and a degree of heat supply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
Actually, what might make this debate more productive is if we had something more concrete to talk about. @CommieGIR, can you pleasr set out your transition plan to a global decarbonised economy? Five year intervals with a few bullets against each is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:You quoted a post in which I said we could both as evidence that I think we should only do one thing. That's because we can't actually do both, I thought that was so obvious that it didn't even need to be stated. So I'll state it very specifically now: the oil and gas industry cannot continue to have its current size and scope if we want to do anything about climate change. Full stop. I'm glad that BP is building solar and wind farms, that on its own would be a cool thing; I'd be a lot gladder if their support of renewables wasn't entirely in service of selling more fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 10:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's because we can't actually do both, I thought that was so obvious that it didn't even need to be stated. So I'll state it very specifically now: the oil and gas industry cannot continue to have its current size and scope if we want to do anything about climate change. Full stop. I'm glad that BP is building solar and wind farms, that on its own would be a cool thing; I'd be a lot gladder if their support of renewables wasn't entirely in service of selling more fossil fuels. Well yes. That's why I've been talking about the importance of reducing gas demand, and reducing oil demand is just as important. We must very rapidly move to a world where there is no unabated combustion of fossil fuels. I want to see all unabated gas plant removed from the UK power system by 2030 (our coal is already shutting down), FF cars banned in 2040 and domestic gas heating banned in the same year. But in the short run, as I pointed out above, building renewables reduces the volume of fossil fuels oil companies can sell. So let's do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Aethernet posted:Actually, what might make this debate more productive is if we had something more concrete to talk about. @CommieGIR, can you pleasr set out your transition plan to a global decarbonised economy? Five year intervals with a few bullets against each is fine. Something more productive to talk about? Something more concrete? That's a load coming from someone who basically ignores every talking point delivered and just doubles down to the point of appealing to the need to save "Jobs" to keep Fossil fuels relevant. No. I don't owe you homework. You owe the thread a better explanation about why you've chosen to ignore everyone and continue to say "Hydrogen is the future" (you can't demonstrate this and its been openly demonstrated its, for all intents and purposes, a Fossil fuel racket), "Natural gas can help us decarbonize if we decrease demand" (demand is going up, and every source shuttered gets replaced by Natural Gas, so this is also false and there's absolutely no reason to believe it'll suddenly swing the other way). Aethernet posted:Well yes. That's why I've been talking about the importance of reducing gas demand, and reducing oil demand is just as important. We must very rapidly move to a world where there is no unabated combustion of fossil fuels. I want to see all unabated gas plant removed from the UK power system by 2030 (our coal is already shutting down), FF cars banned in 2040 and domestic gas heating banned in the same year. But in the short run, as I pointed out above, building renewables reduces the volume of fossil fuels oil companies can sell. So let's do that. ....but it doesn't? We've given you graph after graph showing renewables is not making up for lost baseload and baseload like nuclear that is shuttered is being replaced, Megawatt for Megawatt, Joule for Joule, by Natural Gas. Its on you to demonstrate why this is true. And you have not done so. Your timeline is insane given current UK Gas Demands and current plans to shutter Nuclear Baseload and replace them with Natural Gas. There are no cases where Nuclear comes offline to be replaced by Renewables. So, again, you are placing faith in companies with a streak of absolutely falsehoods. In order to ban Fossil Fuel cars by 2030, you need to assume every joule of energy consumed by those cars will need to be provided by the grid. That's increased demand, not decreased. The need for transit won't disappear, and while we all believe Mass Transit is the best solution, we're keenly aware nobody is going to fully give up their cars in 10 years. That means EVs. That means more demand. Aethernet posted:I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance means. On natural gas, please read what I actually said - demand will go down but it won't go to zero. This is a very important distinction, as, again, what we want is to eliminate emissions and removing unabated natural gas combustion is a key part of that. If you do that, demand does down and so does emissions. I also never said renewables won't make a dent on fossil fuel usage - they absolutely will, as they already have in the UK. It feels like you're arguing with yourself. From the man who said "well, redundancies would be bad if we stopped using fossil fuels, but don't worry folks, demand will go down, and I fully believe corporations who have OPENLY AND REPEATEDLY LIED to us, surely this time they will be honest and fair because of a meager green spend" Like I said yesterday, the debate is over. You haven't demonstrated a single reason why ANYONE should buy your talking points, and we've fully refuted the Greenwashing you keep spilling on us. Nobody here owes you homework. You owe us some explanations about why, despite all evidence, you've openly repeated claims we've shown to be either faulty or completely false. You owe us an explanation on why we should preserve Oil/Gas Industry jobs for the jobs alone despite the sheer amount of damage they do. Shifting the goals posts 20-30 years down the road, saying Hydrogen will be "green" when its not and there's no roadmap where that will be true, pretending that meager investments in solar and wind somehow make up for continued increasing Gas/Oil demand and expanding current fossil production. You are basically blinded by Greenwashing to the point of defending one of the most malicious groups of corporations on Earth. The Greenest countries on Earth are doing so via Renewables combined with Nuclear. There are zero countries doing so with Natural Gas and Renewables, and any attempt to argue that "Well, we can keep using fossil fuels and decarbonize later because demand will go down" needs to be seen as the moving goalpost that it is. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 13:56
|
|