|
GABA ghoul posted:It's not their "green" gas. It's not named that way, it's not advertised that way. It's a product explicitly designed to do one thing and it does it. poo poo you read on blogs on the internet isn't always correct Do you prefer to call it ProWindgas?
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:proWindgas is the name of their product that started off as 100% natural gas, and that currently contains 1% H2 from wind energy. That name seems pretty misleading to me! You keep touting this poo poo as if you have uncovered the Watergate scandal when this information is literally in the third sentence on their product description page and the whole freaking point of the scheme. Nobody is confused about it, nobody was ever confused about it except people who got paid to be confused about it. You can't just pipe pure knallgas into people's kitchens without facing charges for mass murder. The stuff being majority non-hydrogen is VERY essential and non-optional. Let me summarize how the scheme works, because I don't think many people actually spent any time to try to understand it. You switch you gas provider to Greenpeace Energy and pick the prowindgas tariff. Now for every kWh of gas you use Greenpeace Energy collects a fixed surcharge that they invest fully into acquiring as much electrolytic hydrogen on the market as they can or rent or invest into their own electrolyzer plants. They then pipe whatever they can get into the grid up to the legal limit of 10%. That's all. That's what they state in their product description, that's what you sign up for and that's exactly what you get. Nobody is confused by what they are getting, especially not the technology nerds this is primarily aimed at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
Gaba has been all over the place on what exactly this company is and what they provide. And apparently he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a paid blog conspirator. I think it's pretty clear that he's all in regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Settle down Beavis
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
The Greenpeace Conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Corn cobs are a good way to produce biogas.
Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:You keep touting this poo poo as if you have uncovered the Watergate scandal when this information is literally in the third sentence on their product description page and the whole freaking point of the scheme. Yes, that's exactly how greenwashing works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The NRDC is another hedge fund with similar types of oil and gas investments; Don't get me wrong, the NRDC are horrible for many reasons and I hate when news articles include a quote by them on any subject, but they're not some pro-fossil fuel group. Like many of these groups they've received funding from people who made a lot of money on fossil fuel investments, and they may be invested in broad index funds that include fossil fuel companies, but they're more of a "chemicals and science bad" group. I've never looked into their stance on nuclear power but since they've been against GMOs in the past I'm going to go ahead and assume they're not pro-nuclear. Not to be a broken record but the real goal of a lot of these groups (like the Sierra Club) is NIMBYism and keeping development down, not anything to do with sustainability. Any technology that supports more people is inherently bad for them, no matter how clean. Ironically, the stupid Exxon knew campaign is funded by the Rockefeller foundation (yes, that Rockefeller).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, that's exactly how greenwashing works.  Have you considered actually reading up on what green washing is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 10:30
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:
What Greenpeace is doing counts, and is inline with the fossil industries attempts to do with natural gas what they did with their Clean Coal campaign. Greenpeace and multiple other Environmental groups have become major hypocrites in the face of climate change, mainly because their goals have been entirely about degrowth rather than fighting climate change. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
Amazon and Natural Conservancy team up to protect the Amazonian Rainforest - through paying Landowners to Protect itquote:Up to 47 million acres of Amazonian rainforest have been damaged in fires since 2001, per a Nature study out last week, but the company Amazon and the Nature Conservancy hope a new initiative may help alleviate the situation. The rainforest absorbs vast quantities of carbon dioxide and contains about 10% of all known species. But, since blazes are intentionally set to clear land for farming or livestock, some hope providing those farmers compensation may preserve the Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:
Earlier you suggested that I was forming opinions from blog posts when I was actually citing a Greenpeace document. Now you're implying that I've never seen the definition for greenwashing after I nearly gave you the textbook definition on the previous page. Maybe you should start following your own advice
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What Greenpeace is doing counts, and is inline with the fossil industries attempts to do with natural gas what they did with their Clean Coal campaign. How the gently caress does it count when the most important element of green washing(deceptive behavior and intent) is just simply not present? If you redefine the deceptive intent away almost everything becomes green washing making the term completely useless. A free range egg? Green washing, because the farmer could also just not keep chicken. Not rolling coal with your F150? Green washing, because you could just go and kill yourself instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:How the gently caress does it count when the most important element of green washing(deceptive behavior and intent) is just simply not present? If you redefine the deceptive intent away almost everything becomes green washing making the term completely useless. A free range egg? Green washing, because the farmer could also just not keep chicken. Not rolling coal with your F150? Green washing, because you could just go and kill yourself instead. Greenpeace is protesting actual low/zero carbon energy, and selling 90%+ Fossil fuel as "Green Energy". It is absolutely Greenwashing. Germany is doing the exact same thing, openly arguing in the EU that things like Nuclear should not be counted as green energy, but Natural Gas should be. Its incredibly deceptive, and outright disgusting. Also, none of your comparisons are even valid, are you just throwing these out to muddy the waters? GABA ghoul posted:Not rolling coal with your F150? Green washing, because you could just go and kill yourself instead. Are you serious here? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Sep 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Greenpeace is protesting actual low/zero carbon energy, and selling 90%+ Fossil fuel as "Green Energy". It is absolutely Greenwashing. Germany is doing the exact same thing, openly arguing in the EU that things like Nuclear should not be counted as green energy, but Natural Gas should be. Its incredibly deceptive, and outright disgusting. Also, none of your comparisons are even valid, are you just throwing these out to muddy the waters? We already went over this. Greenpeace does not sell gas nor do they profit from the sale of gas. And the co-op that actually sells gas with the licensed Greenpeace name does not sell it as "green energy". It's literally not true. It's just something someone made up on the internet. When you try to buy this product on their page it literally tells you as one of the very first things that this is natural gas. You are buying natural gas. If you subscribe to this product, we will buy natural gas on the exchange for you. You are buying NATURAL GAS. This is not ~green gas~. There are some small mirco gas providers in rural regions that offer 100% biogas from local farmers or something. This is not it. It's natural gas. It's not green gas. Moving people to green gas is not the goal of the product. That would be a totally different product designed in a very different way. quote:Are you serious here? It's a joke? e: yeah, I loving done with this argument. This is going absolutely nowhere and there is no point in continuing this. All I'm gonna say is that when someone makes an extraordinary and seemingly absurd claim on the internet, research it yourself or reserve judgment. Don't eat up everything you read online, even if it's supposedly coming from ~your side~ GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Sep 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
What purpose would there be to license the name other than to greenwash?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:We already went over this. Greenpeace does not sell gas nor do they profit from the sale of gas. And the co-op that actually sells gas with the licensed Greenpeace name does not sell it as "green energy". It's literally not true. It's just something someone made up on the internet. When you try to buy this product on their page it literally tells you as one of the very first things that this is natural gas. You are buying natural gas. If you subscribe to this product, we will buy natural gas on the exchange for you. You are buying NATURAL GAS. They literally held shares in the company, so much so that when the recent media storm kicked up about it, the company declared they would change their name. They occupy the same office building as well. Nobody here claimed they profited from it, however the ENTIRE COOP was founded entirely to further what was Greenpeace's goals of Clean Energy. Greenpeace e.V. was literally a founding member. Hey let's check out their website quote:FROM GREENPEACE ENERGY quote:And the co-op that actually sells gas with the licensed Greenpeace name does not sell it as "green energy". Nah, instead they call it Pro Wind Gas, I wonder why they do that. quote:Since 2011 Greenpeace Energy has been selling the ProWindGas product which was initially 100% imported fossil gas and the company promised a gradual increase in the proportion of hydrogen generated from renewable energy.[3] As of 2020 the share of hydrogen oscillated below 1%.[4] Sales of 99% fossil gas presented as “eco-gas” have been criticized as misleading,[5][6] "contradictory"[7] and "greenwashing" of Russian gas.[8] In 2015 Greenpeace Energy also attempted to sue the European Commission over approving state aid for the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C. The European Court of Justice eventually denied Greenpeace Energy's request as unsubstantiated.[9][10] In 2021 the company added further 10% of biogas, resulting in a mix of 1% hydrogen, 10% biogas and 89% fossil gas and declared it plans to replace all fossil gas by 2027.[11] Its Greenwashing dude. Sorry that upsets you. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Sep 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:How the gently caress does it count when the most important element of green washing(deceptive behavior and intent) is just simply not present? If you redefine the deceptive intent away almost everything becomes green washing making the term completely useless. A free range egg? Green washing, because the farmer could also just not keep chicken. Not rolling coal with your F150? Green washing, because you could just go and kill yourself instead. The Greenpeace Energy product titled Prowindgas is primarily just natural gas lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Looks like Illinois might just save a couple of functioning nuclear power plants yet. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/illinois-legislature-edges-toward-saving-two-nuclear-power-plants-2021-09-09/ TLDR: Illinois house passed a bill that provides subsidies to Dresden, Byron, and one other (Braidwood I think). The Senate holds a session on Monday to vote on it. Gov Pritzger supposedly supports and will sign this version of the bill. It does have a carve out for Prairie State Gateway, but they have to start reducing emissions by 2035 (something like 45%), and be at 0 emissions or shut down by 2045.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
I've been busy for months and just now starting to follow the energy markets again, but it looks like I'm just in time and they're getting pretty interesting. Natural gas is getting expensive again, Biden begging OPEC for lower oil prices, China selling some of their strategic reserve to force lower oil prices, and Nord Stream 2 is going to start selling gas next month right after Europe gets hit hard with high gas prices. It's going to get really interesting if this is a particularly cold winter. Either way, Russia is free to do whatever it wants now politically and Germany isn't going to complain. I hate to say it but I bet coal is going to be doing pretty well too. In California we had to grant temporary (five year) licenses for five 30 MW gas generators as obviously our grid is not up to the task right now. Which will help, but we're losing Diablo Canyon so say goodbye to 1,100+ MW in 2023 and another 1,100+ MW in 2024. I'm not aware of any solid replacement plans for all that lost power generation capability, other than a CA law which says the power must be replaced with "greenhouse-gas-free" sources. Should be interesting times, especially since it's a complex topic which really shouldn't be dictated by public opinion but it partly is anyway. Step one will be getting people to understand that a battery installation that can provide 100MW for 4 hours is not an adequate replacement for a 100 MW power plant. It's often surprisingly hard to find a time component of new energy storage projects when reading press releases and news articles. Orvin posted:TLDR: Illinois house passed a bill that provides subsidies to Dresden, Byron, and one other (Braidwood I think). The Senate holds a session on Monday to vote on it. Gov Pritzger supposedly supports and will sign this version of the bill. It does have a carve out for Prairie State Gateway, but they have to start reducing emissions by 2035 (something like 45%), and be at 0 emissions or shut down by 2045. I wish the "cost of power generation" discourse would include the cost to have reliable power 24/hr a day. It's great that you can buy solar for $0.03 kWh or whatever it costs now, and Diablo Canyon is $0.06, but if your power is more expensive at night because it's coming from a gas plant running at 50% capacity then your power isn't really $0.03 kWh during the day if you also happen to like having power at night. Maybe massive battery + solar installations will get to the point where they're cheaper than nukes while still providing power 24/hr a day even during a rainy winter, but that requires a lot of overbuilding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
Illinois better pass that bill. That's all I can say
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 11:42
|
|
|
Natural gas and electricity prices going crazy, specially in Europe. If we get hit with a cold winter things will get bad. I guess it's just another argument against over-reliance on natural gas, but I'm sure some people will start clamoring for coal and fuel oil. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/expensive-winter-ahead-europes-power-prices-surge-2021-09-10/ "FRANKFURT/LONDON/PARIS Sept 10 (Reuters) - A record run in energy prices that pushed European electricity costs to multi-year highs is unlikely to ease off before year-end, pointing to an expensive winter heating season for consumers. The key benchmark EU and French power contracts have both doubled so far this year due to a confluence of factors ranging from Asia's economic recovery - which sent related coal and gas prices soaring - to political will to drive up European carbon emission permits, higher oil prices and low local renewable output. The benchmark EU power contract, German Cal 2022 baseload power , on Friday set a new contract record of 97.25 euros ($115.09) a megawatt hour (MWh), while its French equivalent was just off a record 100.4 euros/MWh." Freezer fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Sep 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Yeah basically at this point with Natural gas prices being what they are, Germany is going to easily miss their coal deadline. Shuttering their nuclear plants is going to just be an avalanche of disaster
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
I don't think I saw this discussed here https://mobile.twitter.com/nytimes/status/1435593488163299328
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
It's certainly a good goal, but unless we get the rest from Nuclear, it's gonna sputter like Germany's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It's certainly a good goal, but unless we get the rest from Nuclear, it's gonna sputter like Germany's. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-futures-study Only 4-5% nukes by 2050. Balancing is done by 1.6TW (yes, TW) of batteries, plus about 100GW of DSR. Buy lithium now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-futures-study This seems... Unlikely. How are flow batteries coming along?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-futures-study Not happening. It just won't. Between the need for rare Earth's for the batteries and the fact that you need to charge them, from energy that will already be committed to supplying the grid, batteries as a main replacement for natural gas or coal is a full on laughing stock
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This seems... Unlikely. In fairness, it's not just batteries, there's some hydrogen and pumped storage in there. They also use a bit of CSP, which I'd assumed was now tech history. The report is actually quite good though - they've even considered solar black start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not happening. It just won't. Between the need for rare Earth's for the batteries and the fact that you need to charge them, from energy that will already be committed to supplying the grid, batteries as a main replacement for natural gas or coal is a full on laughing stock It's worth reading the report to see how they do it - namely, massive overbuilding of plant. I have more questions about the economics than the technical side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Between the need for rare Earth's for the batteries ???
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Unless Iron Oxide batteries become more of a thing, demand for Lithium and other rare earth minerals is going to make battery and renewables only a non starter. And regardless, there's nobody really doing large battery buildouts yet, it's still very much groundbreaking stuff. Australia is doing it but they are still a net fossil exporter and generator. Regardless, what we've seen with renewables only has been increased demand for fossil fuels, which is kinda the opposite direction we need to go And yeah I agree Aerthernet, it's the economics and logistics that are likely the biggest hurdles. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Sep 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This seems... Unlikely. vanadium flow batteries are available for purchase now, though i'm not sure how hard they are to produce
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Most of the Rare Earths are neither rare nor expensive, though. "Rare" applied to the strange ore that turned up at the quartz mine in Ytterby, Sweden occasionally, not the elements themselves. Once people knew what to look for, most of them could be found pretty easily elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Lithium is not even a rare earth metal, nor is it particularly scarce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lithium is not even a rare earth metal, nor is it particularly scarce. It is the 25th most abundant element on Earth, but we don't produce it in nearly the quantities we need to produce enough batteries to replace Coal/Gas/Oil. There's also the problem that unlike a lot of fossil fuels, lithium has a lot of other uses and demands, including electric cars, batteries for electric devices, and as a reactant. Its also, again, not an energy producer. We have to charge those batteries with something, and even assuming we get 45% solar by 2045, whatever the rating output for all those panels, half of it will be dedicated to just the grid at any one time, and solar panels rarely meet their nameplate ratings except for the peak sunlight hours of the day. For the most part, there's no all renewables plan that is feasible without some sort of energy dense baseload. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danrunkevicius/2020/12/07/as-tesla-booms-lithium-is-running-out/ CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Sep 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It is the 25th most abundant element on Earth, but we don't produce it in nearly the quantities we need to produce enough batteries to replace Coal/Gas/Oil. There's also the problem that unlike a lot of fossil fuels, lithium has a lot of other uses and demands, including electric cars, batteries for electric devices, and as a reactant. Its also, again, not an energy producer. We have to charge those batteries with something, and even assuming we get 45% solar by 2045, whatever the rating output for all those panels, half of it will be dedicated to just the grid at any one time, and solar panels rarely meet their nameplate ratings except for the peak sunlight hours of the day. But we absolutely will produce it in large enough quantities if the demand is there, which is what the article you linked says. And solar continues to decline in price, so we can continue to spam out arrays. The question is what the price point for lithium is that makes it too expensive to roll out batteries at the terawatt scale, and whether that price point is above the marginal cost of production for the volume of lithium needed. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, but my bet would be extraction costs will come down significantly over the next couple of decades as the market develops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
I know Fusion isn't coming anytime soon, but is direct energy conversion for fission equally as far off? Seems like it would hypothetically be more efficient if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It is the 25th most abundant element on Earth, but we don't produce it in nearly the quantities we need to produce enough batteries to replace Coal/Gas/Oil. There's also the problem that unlike a lot of fossil fuels, lithium has a lot of other uses and demands, including electric cars, batteries for electric devices, and as a reactant. Its also, again, not an energy producer. We have to charge those batteries with something, and even assuming we get 45% solar by 2045, whatever the rating output for all those panels, half of it will be dedicated to just the grid at any one time, and solar panels rarely meet their nameplate ratings except for the peak sunlight hours of the day. We'll also have to see if auto companies/R&D figure out how to make their lithium batteries recyclable. Grouchio fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Sep 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 19:38
|
|