|
Commie, all you've done is say oil companies are mean and get facts wrong. You also keep banging on about nuclear replacement when I have literally never talked about replacing baseload with renewables. Engage with what I'm saying, rather than what you want me tl say. Renewables and gas ccs are good midmerit options, existing nukes and eventually SMRs are great baseload options, potentially even power BECCS too. Everyone should stop shutting nukes that have economic life left in them. Also, literally no-one is decarbonising with a mix of renewables and nukes alone. Even France is doing CCS, although their mid merit 'plant' is interconnection, as they're relying on other people to provide dispatchable power. Again, check your facts before asserting things. Aethernet fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jun 9, 2021 |
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Aethernet posted:It's entirely the need to make future profits and satisfy major investors like pension funds that is driving this change in behaviour. Good point. This is largely also the same reason why Engine No. 1 was able to do something absolutely miraculous earlier this month and instill their own board of directors on Exxon Mobil. Consumers value companies that don't pollute the planet and hence they're looking for ways to make more efficient and less emissions from O&G production. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
The 'facts' are that no country is addressing climate change in a way that makes a difference. The goalposts being whatever conservative policy that maintains petrochemical profits, in a country of your choice, is moronic. There are thousands of jobs in gas exploration that should be mercilessly destroyed, because there are millions of jobs in solar and wind that already need to be filled. The fact that they aren't is bad policy being promoted by selfish shills. You will never decrease energy demand, ever. If you want to use market pressure to lower fossil fuel usage, you need to make non fossil fuel alternatives more appealing than fossil fuels, that's it, that's the trick. Then people will gorge themselves on whatever the replacement is, satisfying demand that way. Promoting nuclear and renewables is literally the answer here. Also hydrogen is a terrible fuel. It's low in energy density, can only be created by wasting otherwise useful energy in industrial processes, and is impossible to store efficiently because it easily diffuses through solid objects and nanoscopic gaps in containers. You might as well use batteries at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The 'facts' are that no country is addressing climate change in a way that makes a difference. The goalposts being whatever conservative policy that maintains petrochemical profits, in a country of your choice, is moronic. There are thousands of jobs in gas exploration that should be mercilessly destroyed, because there are millions of jobs in solar and wind that already need to be filled. The fact that they aren't is bad policy being promoted by selfish shills. Incorrect, Analysis: UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade quote:The UK’s CO2 emissions fell by 2.9% in 2019, according to Carbon Brief analysis. This brings the total reduction to 29% over the past decade since 2010, even as the economy grew by a fifth. Some of the European Majors have even recently announced they're ending exploration and only using existing fields.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Commie, all you've done is say oil companies are mean and get facts wrong. You also keep banging on about nuclear replacement when I have literally never talked about replacing baseload with renewables. Engage with what I'm saying, rather than what you want me tl say. I engage honestly. You've failed to acknowledge a single thing we said, so lets be honest about who is engaging dishonestly here. I demonstrated your Hydrogen claims are not only false, but are misleading in the way hydrogen is planned to be sourced and is sourced. And even more, you come in here and accuse me of engaging dishonestly after making up such an absurd claim about "Well, we cannot risk the redundancies of we truly cut O&G significantly". That's loving bold to claim we're not engaging in good faith and you make this about jobs. Aethernet posted:Also, literally no-one is decarbonising with a mix of renewables and nukes alone. Even France is doing CCS, although their mid merit 'plant' is interconnection, as they're relying on other people to provide dispatchable power. Again, check your facts before asserting things. Absolutely false:  France's CCS is miniscule, its nowhere near the scale you pretend it is. And they, as I cited previously, are the ONLY ones actually considering producing Hydrogen via electrolysis of seawater rather than Fossil sourced. And this is why I'm done debating you. Pretty much every time you accuse someone of "having the facts wrong" you just shift the goal posts and double down. Just stop, at this point its embarrassing. You haven't made a single point that wasn't both heavily refuted but openly disproved or shown to be misleading or false either by its source or the fact that it was so heavily Greenwashed that you missed the forest for the trees. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
So why aren't NiFe batteries a good idea for grid storage? Yes, they weigh 10x what LiOn batteries weigh and you have to add distilled H2O, but they apparently last a long time (30 years or more), use cheap abundant materials (Nickel, Iron, and Potash), recyclable and seem pretty rugged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:
Yes, the FCEV's are a non-starter. The overall efficiency of the electrolysis->hydrogen->electricity is in the 60-70% range, you still need a battery for peak power and regeneration, home charging isn't practical, and they are pricy. Toyota and Honda wasted time and $$$ on this and now are playing catch-up on EV's to Tesla/VW/Hyundai/Kia/GM/Ford etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Getting recycling going for Lithium Batteries is going to be critical to making this sustainable anyways, ORNL is doing a lot of good work on that front. Otherwise we risk having to massively expand Lithium and other metals/rare earths mining to extreme levels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Getting recycling going for Lithium Batteries is going to be critical to making this sustainable anyways, ORNL is doing a lot of good work on that front. Otherwise we risk having to massively expand Lithium and other metals/rare earths mining to extreme levels. I've heard of some off-grid setups using NiFe batteries for 'ethical' reasons, hence my question. It's a really OLD tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9qlNCEZWKs
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:So why aren't NiFe batteries a good idea for grid storage? People are looking at them again and they're starting to find some uses. They were abandoned for a long time because they charge and discharge very slowly and power density is pretty low, so other technologies displaced them for most uses. Whether or not they are a superior choice for grid storage, for example, remains to be seen, but research is ongoing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I've heard of some off-grid setups using NiFe batteries for 'ethical' reasons, hence my question. It's a really OLD tech. I think Energy Density is going to be the big drawback, NiFe is ~30Wh/Kg which is really low, Hydrogen is about 33 kWh/Kg, and Lithium is about 158 wh/kg. So while NiFe might be good for large installations where you can deal with that size, it'll fall short elsewhere probably. E: beaten by Deteriorata Stanford has done some research on Fast Discharge NiFe at very small scale, ~1volt: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/ultrafast-edison-battery-062612.html CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think Energy Density is going to be the big drawback, NiFe is ~30Wh/Kg which is really low, Hydrogen is about 33 kWh/Kg, and Lithium is about 158 wh/kg. So while NiFe might be good for large installations where you can deal with that size, it'll fall short elsewhere probably. Hence using NiFe for terrestrial applications. Do we care about weight for that sort of thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Hence using NiFe for terrestrial applications. Do we care about weight for that sort of thing? Not directly, but weight and size are generally related and depending on how wide of an area these battery stations are intended to support they may need to be installed in places where land is not cheap or widely available. Also of course larger size/weight also increases deployment costs just from a transportation and handling standpoint. How much these factors matter in the overall picture I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Hence using NiFe for terrestrial applications. Do we care about weight for that sort of thing? Not that I'd imagine, the nice thing is that NiFe is not considered polluting in the same way other batteries would. I think you kinda hit the nail on the head though, which is we can redirect Lithium to EVs and use NiFe on larger energy storage installations. In other news: Iraq is considering building 8 reactors to tackle energy shortages: https://twitter.com/orsoraggiante/status/1402510845503021056?s=20 We'll see how the Israelis take this, and if the Russian's snap this up as another VVER sale. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Commie, all you've done is say oil companies are mean and get facts wrong. You also keep banging on about nuclear replacement when I have literally never talked about replacing baseload with renewables. Engage with what I'm saying, rather than what you want me tl say. Commie isn't accusing you of being in favor of nuclear replacement; they are accurately pointing out that oil and gas companies support renewables because they replace nuclear power, not fossil fuels. That's their goal: to replace nuclear power with natural gas while trying to convince the public that they are green. And as you have demonstrated, it's working.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I engage honestly. You've failed to acknowledge a single thing we said, I mean, two posts down from this is someone responding to me saying they were right, but sure. quote:so lets be honest about who is engaging dishonestly here. I demonstrated your Hydrogen claims are not only false, but are misleading in the way hydrogen is planned to be sourced and is sourced. You keep saying this so I went back to look at what your arguments are: quote:Carbon Capture too is almost exclusively a Oil Industry push to give them right to continue business as usual like Carbon Taxes before. Right now, even the big hydrogen pushes are basically a Natural Gas/fossil subsidy as 96% of Hydrogen is fossil sourced. Hydrogen sources via electrolysis through Nuclear might have a future, but right now any talk of Hydrogen energy is almost entirely goalpost shifting to give the Fossil fuel industry more money. So the first para is saying hydrogen is only about giving O&G more money. You've just claimed that; ranged against you are the massive investments being made by e.g. Germany in H2 production: https://www.wfw.com/articles/the-german-hydrogen-strategy/. They're focused on green H2 almost exclusively, so the role of O&G is of course limited. You'll need to provide evidence as to why this 5GW play is in line with your claim. The second para is the water thing I dealt with in another post. quote:Evaluating the tech is one thing, but given that the tech is very much in line with ensuring they can write off their continued fossil fuel interests, its more than likely they want to preserve the lucrative industry they already have than transition to a new one, and you have not proven otherwise. Right now, as of today, there is no reason to believe Hydrogen will ever transition even a majority to electrolysis sourcing. None. Its 96% fossil sourced today, and given that electrolysis is an energy intensive process, this continues to be in line with my prediction that we need more energy to do this, not less, meaning more than storage and renewables alone can do. France is the only one with a feasible case, and its almost entirely being done with Nuclear power. To this - notwithstanding the German play - I responded that it doesn't really matter as long as the CO2 is stripped out. You fell back on your previous argument which is that you don't trust the O&G majors. Fine, but that's not really an argument about energy, just about some guys you don't like. I've given you some evidence of the changes in their investment model, which I happily conceded don't go far enough yet. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt because they want to make money and O&G is going to be subject to diminishing returns over the next 30 years. What would it take for you to give them the benefit of the doubt? You also said this: quote: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: And posted a picture of a CCUS enabled blue hydrogen production facility. Which is what I'm advocating. I didn't understand the irony, as this was BP doing a good thing. quote:And even more, you come in here and accuse me of engaging dishonestly after making up such an absurd claim about "Well, we cannot risk the redundancies of we truly cut O&G significantly". That's loving bold to claim we're not engaging in good faith and you make this about jobs. Actually, I asked you whether you were happy to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and you said - or at least didn't deny - that you were. Asking people to think through the negative consequences of their choices is hardly bad faith. quote:Absolutely false: Once again, the past is not a guide to the future. Note the squiggle of green in there representing gas. What you're saying is equivalent to looking at the following graph:  And saying, "It is absolutely false that France is doing nuclear." Instead, you should look at this graph, which shows what ADEME thinks is a plausible 2050 scenario for electricity generation in France:  Note that nukes are baseload, and the mid-merit generation is primarily renewables with imports and - shock - unabated gas CCGT. I knew that France had gas in their target mix but had assumed they'd put CCS on it if they wanted to get to zero. Happy - well, unhappy for the planet - to say I was wrong on this. They are doing CCS on industry though. France has a target to reduce nuclear power as a share of its generation mix. I've no idea why you like them so much. France's CCS is miniscule, its nowhere near the scale you pretend it is. And they, as I cited previously, are the ONLY ones actually considering producing Hydrogen via electrolysis of seawater rather than Fossil sourced. quote:And this is why I'm done debating you. Pretty much every time you accuse someone of "having the facts wrong" you just shift the goal posts and double down. Just stop, at this point its embarrassing. You haven't made a single point that wasn't both heavily refuted but openly disproved or shown to be misleading or false either by its source or the fact that it was so heavily Greenwashed that you missed the forest for the trees. You keep saying this, and yet, here we are. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:You keep saying this, and yet, here we are. Yeah, done with you. Move on. I'm quitting you because you are incapable of actually analyzing your own fallacies. Stop dragging the thread down with you, because nearly everyone agree you are incapable of actually critically analyzing your own claims.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Commie isn't accusing you of being in favor of nuclear replacement; they are accurately pointing out that oil and gas companies support renewables because they replace nuclear power, not fossil fuels. That's their goal: to replace nuclear power with natural gas while trying to convince the public that they are green. And as you have demonstrated, it's working. This is mad conspiracy stuff. Please provide evidence. As in, literally someone from O&G or the Government saying it rather than the random assertions of people on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, done with you. Move on. I'm quitting you because you are incapable of actually analyzing your own fallacies. Sorry you have opted to not reflect on your position and stay in conspiracy land. But I'm staying in the thread, because energy is my favourite subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:This is mad conspiracy stuff. Please provide evidence. As in, literally someone from O&G or the Government saying it rather than the random assertions of people on twitter. "We cannot do nuclear because its too expensive" - Government, then subsidizing Fossil Fuels "We can do natural gas because its so Cheap" - O&G industry. Or better, remember the 'Clean Coal' push? Welcome to Green Gas! What, you thought there was a maniacal laugh and James Bond style plotting? No, they've literally been undermining nuclear energy for 40 years because it directly impacts their ability to sell their products.  "Sponsored by the Oil Heat Institute" And then here you come, arguing that "Guys, they are investing in green, so they cannot be that bad despite repeating the same arguments they used 30-40 years ago when they were openly lying about knowing about their impact on the climate via GHG emissions" You are not debating, you are putting your fingers in your ears and screaming as loud as you can that you bought what they are selling, and now everyone else needs to buy into it as well. Aethernet posted:Sorry you have opted to not reflect on your position and stay in conspiracy land. But I'm staying in the thread, because energy is my favourite subject. Then move on and talk about something else other than your bullet riddled talking points. You lost the entire debate as soon as you starting arguing about losing jobs to lack of O&G demand. We've literally proven they've been in multiple conspiracies: to cover up the effects of Tetraethyl Lead, to Cover up and even lie about the effects of GHG Emissions. And you are arguing that....there's no evidence for a conspiracy despite the evidence being widely available and accepted? No, I don't think you have anything useful to contribute to the thread honestly. https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Your evidence is literally a leaflet from before the construction of Long Island?!? So what you're claiming is that nuclear power isn't expensive, it's a conspiracy by the Government and the majors. Have you considered that you sound a bit mad? And yes, O&G has done lots of bad stuff, but for your conspiracy theory to be true it would need to be global and involve the government of France, who also think nukes are too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Your evidence is literally a leaflet from before the construction of Long Island?!? Talk about something else Energy. I said I'm done. O&G literally did a conspiracy and you are calling it not a conspiracy, I don't expect any headway in this argument with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I've heard of some off-grid setups using NiFe batteries for 'ethical' reasons, hence my question. It's a really OLD tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc&t=197s
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:This is mad conspiracy stuff. Please provide evidence. As in, literally someone from O&G or the Government saying it rather than the random assertions of people on twitter. What specifically do you find difficult to believe? That BP funds anti-nuclear groups and lobbies against nuclear power? That BP has spent billions trying to market themselves as a green energy company while the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from petroleum? That they primarily support green energy as a means of selling fossil fuels? This has all been proven to you already, you just dismissed it all because you think people like CommieGIR just wants to be mean to the oil companies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What specifically do you find difficult to believe? That BP funds anti-nuclear groups and lobbies against nuclear power? That BP has spent billions trying to market themselves as a green energy company while the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from petroleum? That they primarily support green energy as a means of selling fossil fuels? Or that better yet: BP had an ACTUAL SLIDE showing they want to bill their "Green Hydrogen" which they fully plan to source from Natural Gas and just....bury the CO2. Versus confronting their Fossil Fuel issues. Just keep doing what they are already doing, and make it "Green". But we gotta worry about those jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What specifically do you find difficult to believe? That BP funds anti-nuclear groups and lobbies against nuclear power? That BP has spent billions trying to market themselves as a green energy company while the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from petroleum? That they primarily support green energy as a means of selling fossil fuels? Specifically the bolded bit because of all the stuff I said before about how power markets work. Wind investments reduce natural gas sales. I've already said oil companies have a negative history; the question is how they can be exploited to reduce emissions now. If you don't believe they can, then setting how they should be unwound is a problem for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Or that better yet: BP had an ACTUAL SLIDE showing they want to bill their "Green Hydrogen" which they fully plan to source from Natural Gas and just....bury the CO2. Versus confronting their Fossil Fuel issues. Just keep doing what they are already doing, and make it "Green". Blue hydrogen. Blue. Facts, facts, facts. It was even your slide. Who cares if the carbon is underground, as long as it's not in the atmosphere?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Blue hydrogen. Blue. Facts, facts, facts. It was even your slide. Its sourced from Fossil Fuels, which is the ENTIRE problem. Its just a blank check for them to continue to demand more drilling, more fracking. Like I said, you are Greenwash blind, you see something ""Green"" and just ignore all the rest of the issue. Stop doubleposting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Your evidence is literally a leaflet from before the construction of Long Island?!? Nuclear power is inherently expensive, it is made more expensive by lobbyist efforts to make it more expensive. The oil industry has been backing these anti-nuclear groups since the 70s. This isn't a secret, that data is publicly available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its sourced from Fossil Fuels, which is the ENTIRE problem. Its just a blank check for them to continue to demand more drilling, more fracking. Like I said, you are Greenwash blind, you see something ""Green"" and just ignore all the rest of the issue. BLUE. Yes, I'm relaxed about continued extraction from existing wells, but I'm hoping the G7 will restrict investment in new plays, ideally to zero. And genuine apologies for double posting, I'm on the phone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear power is inherently expensive, it is made more expensive by lobbyist efforts to make it more expensive. The oil industry has been backing these anti-nuclear groups since the 70s. This isn't a secret, that data is publicly available. And its worth noting if Fossil Fuel industry had to deal with their waste the same way Nuclear did, and didn't get massive subsidies to keep Gas/Diesel cheap, their cost would be much higher. Once its built though, Nuclear is very cheap to operate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Yes, I'm relaxed about continued extraction from existing wells, but I'm hoping the G7 will restrict investment in new plays, ideally to zero. lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Yes, I'm relaxed about continued extraction from existing wells, but I'm hoping the G7 will restrict investment in new plays, ideally to zero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What specifically do you find difficult to believe? That BP funds anti-nuclear groups and lobbies against nuclear power? That BP has spent billions trying to market themselves as a green energy company while the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from petroleum? That they primarily support green energy as a means of selling fossil fuels? Why is so difficult to believe that Oil and Gas companies or really any company for that matter that consistent of literally millions of employees do both good/bad things and even change over time? The explanations and conclusions represented in this thread often aren't accurate and grossly oversimplified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nuclear power is inherently expensive, it is made more expensive by lobbyist efforts to make it more expensive. The oil industry has been backing these anti-nuclear groups since the 70s. This isn't a secret, that data is publicly available. Yes, this is true, and literally all companies lobby against their competitors. Oil has simply had more money. One of the challenges facing GW scale nukes is that cost reductions have historically only happened following fleet-scale deployment. But right now in the West they're competing against mass-deployable tech like RE or mature tech like gas turbines, mostly for first-of-a-kind plant like the EPR. The economics don't justify fleet deployment, meaning they never get cost reductions. I actually heard an amazing anecdote about the Hinkley Point C build the other day. The Chinese engineers they brought in from Taishan recommended that they bring the concrete floor of one of the reactor rooms in a single piece by crane, as they'd done there. The EDF chief engineer was about to agree before he realised it would mean suspending 10,000 tonnes of concrete over about 200 workmen below. Apparently this was an acceptable risk in Taishan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Why is so difficult to believe that Oil and Gas companies or really any company for that matter that consistent of literally millions of employees do both good/bad things and even change over time? A lot of companies do good and bad things. Very few companies have spent the better part of their existence ensuring that the bad things they do AND KNOW ABOUT are covered up with government and education existence through lobbying and disinformation that is still ongoing, to the point that they actively try to dress up their continued bad things as ""Good"" via greenwashing. Tetraethyl Leaded Gasoline and Climate Change are prime examples. They KNEW about the harm lead did, because people were literally going insane due to the lead exposure in the plant. Hell, we've known lead was toxic since the Roman era, yet they openly and willfully ignored it to sell a product and hired "Scientists" to cherry pick the data and testify in their favor in congress. We knew Tetraethyl Lead was an issue in the last 60s. It took till 1996 to get it banned finally. Same thing with Climate Change, their own scientists confirmed that GHG was a big issue and could lead to big problems in the 1960s, their reaction was to lobby harder to ensure that information was discredited and that it would be buried through propaganda, education, and disinformation both publicly and in Government. They have actively been doing this for more than 40 years. They actively lobbied to defang the EPA, and doubled down on those efforts under Trump to quite a lot of success. They actively fought Methane emissions monitoring. They actively fought cleanup of coal ash spills and oil spills. They actively expanded Oil and Natural Gas infrastructure all while knowing there was a crisis coming. No oil company, despite their meager investments in Green Tech, is doing majority good things. Its still drill, baby, drill and keep consuming that fossil fuels, to the point that they are promoting Green Tech like Hydrogen while openly saying they will continue to use fossil fuels to create the green tech. They continue to lobby against Climate Change initiatives and Environmental protections. They continue to spread disinformation about GHG and Fossil fuels. Nothing has changed. Its Clean Coal all over again: Absolute disinformation and bullshit being whitewashed to keep them relevant rather than changing their ways. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Specifically the bolded bit because of all the stuff I said before about how power markets work. Wind investments reduce natural gas sales. I've already said oil companies have a negative history; the question is how they can be exploited to reduce emissions now. If you don't believe they can, then setting how they should be unwound is a problem for you. No, they really don't. The data shows that they don't. This is that "greenwashing" term that people keep bringing up As an example, consider BP's "green hydrogen" initiative: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corpor...in-germany.html Using offshore wind to power electrolysis, harvesting hydrogen as a green fuel? That's great! But this plant will only produce about 9 kt of hydrogen per year; BP is simultaneously building a facility that will produce 260 kt per year from natural gas: https://www.powermag.com/bp-details-plan-for-uks-largest-hydrogen-project/ So what's actually happening here? BP will be selling massive amounts of natural gas in the form of blue hydrogen, but they also produce a tiny amount of green hydrogen so that they can gain positive PR and talk about how green-focused they are. They get to produce and sell 97% of their hydrogen from natural gas while talking about the 3% that they produce with wind power. This is greenwashing. It's not a secret or a conspiracy theory, it's just misleading advertising. Hydrogen also already has a very strong green image, so they get to take advantage of that despite their hydrogen coming from natural gas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:you are living in a fantasy world Me and these guys: https://news.trust.org/item/20210608180631-eogrp
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, they really don't. The data shows that they don't. This is that "greenwashing" term that people keep bringing up That's not how wind reduces gas demand. It pushes gas plant out of the merit order, as I explained earlier in the thread. You can see this by looking at the data for gas demand in power generation in the UK as the percentage of wind on the system has increased.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Why is so difficult to believe that Oil and Gas companies or really any company for that matter that consistent of literally millions of employees do both good/bad things and even change over time? Because we know for a fact that these good things are done in service of the bad things? Because if BP were actually a green company then they'd have no reason to continue giving millions of dollars to global warming skeptic groups? Because this is what they have done for decades, and have repeatedly admitted to doing? Millions of employees? Do you really think that the janitors or technicians at BP have any say in what the company does?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:26
|
|