|
The electric cars stuff is interesting since so much of oil goes to transportation. It looks like that electric cars will reach price parity with ICE cars in the next few years and may even get cheaper than regular cars. This seems to be happening 15-20 years than anyone expected. Given the advantages Ev's have over regular cars, such as lower maintenance costs and much longer lifespans per mile, I would not be surprised if by the end of the decade the vast majority of new car sales are evs. That could be apocalyptic for much of the oil industry.
Monaghan fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Dec 2, 2020 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
we currently have a 2012 focus we bought in 2011 and i fully expect it to be the last petropowered car we ever buy (barring potentially a cheap old pickup for hauling stuff around town but something like that wouldn't get very much actual use). i really want an electric motorcycle tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:The electric cars stuff is interesting since so much of oil goes to transportation. It looks like that electric cars will reach price parity with ICE cars in the next few years and may even get cheaper than regular cars. This seems to be happening 15-20 years than anyone expected. Given the advantages Ev's have over regular cars, such as lower maintenance costs and much longer lifespans per mile, I would not be surprised if by the end of the decade the vast majority of new car sales are evs. That could be apocalyptic for much of the oil industry. Not as much as you'd imagine, since right now the Oil/Gas industry would just reap the rewards of the Generation side of transit if we stay on the direction we're going now....
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not as much as you'd imagine, since right now the Oil/Gas industry would just reap the rewards of the Generation side of transit if we stay on the direction we're going now.... Except it's not a 1-1 conversion since electric cars are so much more efficient that they require way less oil and gas to use then ICE cars, even if all the electricity generated was from oil and gas. If most cars are electric, the oil industry takes a huge hit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Except it's not a 1-1 conversion since electric cars are so much more efficient that they require way less oil and gas to use then ICE cars, even if all the electricity generated was from oil and gas. If most cars are electric, the oil industry takes a huge hit. Except they are openly replacing lost load in place like California with things like Diesel Generating plants. Its not 1-1 no, but trust me they are still in this fight and Electric Cars still likely benefit them as Natural Gas is sold as a "Cheap Green Energy" that its not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Who cares about electric vehicles, I want Porsche's new carbon neutral gas: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-12-02/carbon-neutral-e-gasoline-porsche-egas
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
just found out that brazil, venezuela and columbia have some of the world's highest usage of renewable energy as a portion of their country's total energy usage 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:just found out that brazil, venezuela and columbia have some of the world's highest usage of renewable energy as a portion of their country's total energy usage Wood counts as renewable energy and given that all three of those are rainforest countries that might not be such a good thing in this case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Wood counts as renewable energy and given that all three of those are rainforest countries that might not be such a good thing in this case. ah i see. that makes more sense sadly 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
btw, how's china doing on the air pollution/green energy front? i remember reading a couple of years ago they planned on shutting down a bunch of coal fired power plants. but i hear they're also starting to build them back up again? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Who cares about electric vehicles, I want Porsche's new carbon neutral gas: A lot of it is just Natural Gas sourced, so the Carbon went somewhere, and still comes with the price tag of whatever methods the leaky Natural Gas industry has. And e-gas is just hydrogen with additives from electrolysis, which is still a massively energy intensive process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A lot of it is just Natural Gas sourced, so the Carbon went somewhere, and still comes with the price tag of whatever methods the leaky Natural Gas industry has. The carbon went back into the air where it came from. quote:Through a new pilot project the German maker of high performance automobiles announced on Wednesday, windmills in Chile would provide electricity to turn water into hydrogen fuel and oxygen. As part of the same process, carbon dioxide would be filtered from the air. The hydrogen and carbon dioxide would be combined to form methane, to be reformulated as a gasoline substitute. quote:And e-gas is just hydrogen with additives from electrolysis, which is still a massively energy intensive process. Yes, so you need a clean source of energy to have it mean anything. Like perhaps windmills. Seriously, man, using excess supply from wind to produce an energy-dense convenient form of fuel to store that energy so that it can be used elsewhere/when is an unmitigated good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
It's one of the better uses for solar - we already have too much solar power in CA at certain times and it drops off right as usage peaks, but solar is cheap to generate. As covered ad nauseam in this thread the main issue with renewables is storage, unless you want to massively overbuild them (and that still doesn't help you if it's at night and the wind isn't blowing). Make a ton of CO2 neutral gas during the day, use it to power cars or plants or whatever at night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
Ah yes, California, so choked with Renewables that they had to bring in Diesel Generators to help fight brownouts, lets then use all that renewables to dump into electrolysis, one of the most energy inefficient ways of creating hydrogen in the world. Its a stupid idea by a car company trying to extend their ICE engines in the face of growing demands for electrification. Even worse, its not like its excess capacity like France's nuclear plan for hydrolysis Hydrogen, its capacity California does not have and can barely spare, because we don't have the energy storage to keep their renewables viable when the factors are not present. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Dec 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
California has had to pay Arizona to take its excess solar power, it just depends on the day and time of year. We're using diesel generators precisely because of the stupid push away from natural gas plants and towards 100% "green" energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Reciprocating engines (generally not run on diesel fuel but natural gas) were chosen for a few new plants in California due to the large penetration of solar power. Batteries are the only other source of electrical power that can match reciprocating engines in speed of dispatch, which the CAISO currently lacks. Increasing renewable energy penetration will require a buildout of these power sources to provide grid support, but as renewable energy buildout is continued the total energy supplied by the fossil fuel portion of the generation fleet will decrease. With current prices of energy storage and renewable generation, it is likely that an optimal (in lowest ¢/kWh) electrical energy supply would have an oversupply of renewable energy. Having a way to create useful dispatchable loads would be incredibly beneficial to the CAISO grid, after all 1MW of dispatchable load is just as useful as 1MW of dispatchable generation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Reciprocating engines (generally not run on diesel fuel but natural gas) were chosen for a few new plants in California due to the large penetration of solar power. Batteries are the only other source of electrical power that can match reciprocating engines in speed of dispatch, which the CAISO currently lacks. Not gas turbines?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
A reciprocating natural gas plant is faster starting than a combustion turbine, can be used for black start (you only need a few lead acid batteries to turn over the starter on the first engine), can run at lower capacity, and are more efficient than a combustion turbine (CT) plant. CTs can take longer to ramp up, have higher minimum power run requirements, and generally aren’t as useful as a piston engine. The main advantage of a CT is when it is combined with a steam turbine, a combined cycle plant is more efficient than a piston plant. CTs also used to be cheaper on a MW basis than piston plants and more reliable, but this may no longer be true due to the large increase in reciprocating engines in both size and quantity in operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
freezepops posted:A reciprocating natural gas plant is faster starting than a combustion turbine, can be used for black start (you only need a few lead acid batteries to turn over the starter on the first engine), can run at lower capacity, and are more efficient than a combustion turbine (CT) plant. CTs can take longer to ramp up, have higher minimum power run requirements, and generally aren’t as useful as a piston engine. The main advantage of a CT is when it is combined with a steam turbine, a combined cycle plant is more efficient than a piston plant. CTs also used to be cheaper on a MW basis than piston plants and more reliable, but this may no longer be true due to the large increase in reciprocating engines in both size and quantity in operation. Interesting. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ah yes, California, so choked with Renewables that they had to bring in Diesel Generators to help fight brownouts, lets then use all that renewables to dump into electrolysis, one of the most energy inefficient ways of creating hydrogen in the world. Nobody said "let's do this in California and use diesel generators to do it." They're doing it in Chile, using windmills. Who the hell said anything about doing it in California? What, because California's energy mix is hosed nobody else is allowed to do a smart thing with their excess capacity when the wind blows ? Hey, here's a notion: if the California generation mix is such that when the wind blows they have to pay other states to take their excess of energy, it would make sense for them instead to turn that energy into nice storable liquid fuel that they could burn to generate energy. Perhaps even at times when the wind isn't blowing and they'd otherwise have to fire up a generator fueled with energy that we dug out of the ground. Are there any beneficial energy schemes you'd accept other than "a shitload of people die?" Phanatic fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Are there any beneficial energy schemes you'd accept other than "a shitload of people die?" Nothing Natural Gas, no. Also: For someone calling me about about hyperbole, "A shitload of people die" is REALLY high on that list of bad claims. Electrolysis is a poor energy storage method and generally requires really expensive (both in cost and environmental cost) catalysts. freezepops posted:A reciprocating natural gas plant is faster starting than a combustion turbine, can be used for black start (you only need a few lead acid batteries to turn over the starter on the first engine), can run at lower capacity, and are more efficient than a combustion turbine (CT) plant. CTs can take longer to ramp up, have higher minimum power run requirements, and generally aren’t as useful as a piston engine. The main advantage of a CT is when it is combined with a steam turbine, a combined cycle plant is more efficient than a piston plant. CTs also used to be cheaper on a MW basis than piston plants and more reliable, but this may no longer be true due to the large increase in reciprocating engines in both size and quantity in operation. ah yes, Natural Gas, something that has to go. MomJeans420 posted:California has had to pay Arizona to take its excess solar power, it just depends on the day and time of year. We're using diesel generators precisely because of the stupid push away from natural gas plants and towards 100% "green" energy. Natural Gas cannot and should not be expanded, it has to go as soon as physically possible, especially given that the Natural Gas industry openly admitted its lying about its methane emissions. We're looking at 4 degree increase right now assuming we do something drastic, and encouraging Natural Gas as a solution to anything doesn't help that in the face increasing natural methane emissions that we CAN'T control. Natural Gas is 30 years too late for its purpose of replacing coal, and needs to be on the chopping block. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Most reciprocating plants have the advantage of using pretty much whatever as fuel. They could run just as easily off of bio gas, landfill gas recovery, or hydrogen gas generated in a renewable way. No one is talking about expanding fossil fuel use, simply building out enough dispatchable generation to maintain system stability while increasing renewable energy’s share of the total supply. These generators are replacing coal or older less efficient natural gas plants that cant manage a fast enough response to maintain grid reliability during large swings in nondispatchable generation. These plants could make a shift to >80% renewable grid painless and even cheaper than current grid prices assuming a mostly wind powered mix and even to 100% by switching fuel type. Even without a switch in fuel type, batteries will eventually be cheap enough to cause a retirement of these plants. I think its also a good idea to keep in mind that a less than perfectly renewable grid can still serve to continue to reduce fossil fuel emissions by replacing natural gas heating infrastructure with electric heat and gas powered cars with electric vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
freezepops posted:I think its also a good idea to keep in mind that a less than perfectly renewable grid can still serve to continue to reduce fossil fuel emissions by replacing natural gas heating infrastructure with electric heat and gas powered cars with electric vehicles. Except that hasn't happened, and Germany is living proof of it, and they are largely doubling down on their Natural Gas usage to kill coal despite their massive renewables investment. Its part of why Nuclear is going to be key to doing a renewables plan effectively, especially with increased demand as we push further into electrified transit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
The situations in Germany and the United States are completely different. The US isn’t purposely shutting down nuclear plants to switch to coal and the idea that nuclear energy could be deployed in the US at a pace fast enough to reduce emissions faster than a wind/ICE/battery grid is laughable. I also wonder why you think nuclear is key for renewables. The only thing they have in common is a lack of dispatch ability. If you are going to demand a nuclear grid there is very little to no reason to even bother with renewables, renewables would only serve to drive up the cost of nuclear energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Now this thread has me worried that this scenario is likely to play out but for oil instead. quote:That is largely the story of what happened to coal in the 20th century: It lost market share to oil and gas, but because energy use itself expanded, the total amount of coal used continued to grow. Will COVID-19 Seal Big Oil’s Fate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
freezepops posted:The situations in Germany and the United States are completely different. No, its really not. While we don't have the investment in Renewables Germany does, we're pushing the same garbage like "Green Natural Gas". Germany is OPENLY arguing at the EU that Natural Gas is "Green Energy" and is pushing for completion of the Nordstream 2 pipeline https://twitter.com/karnfull_en/status/1333515591609708547?s=20 Renewables do have a key to play, even if a full nuclear grid made more sense, and we might as well exploit them where possible. The luxury of pretending ICE/Natural Gas is going to save us passed us in the 1990s. freezepops posted:The US isn’t purposely shutting down nuclear plants to switch to coal and the idea that nuclear energy could be deployed in the US at a pace fast enough to reduce emissions faster than a wind/ICE/battery grid is laughable. Battery tech, even with the advances is loving garbage, and to get the amount of batteries we'd need to store enough energy, we'd have to initiate a mining explosion that would be nearly triple the amount of mining we've done for rare metals and copper than we have in the past 100 years. For batteries that can barely maintain 100% drain for more than an hour. We do not have the luxury of time and environment you think we do. Meanwhile, Natural Gas would lead to more of this poo poo: https://twitter.com/ActivistEleanor/status/1330983964459188225?s=20 We are not going to escape the trap we are in with cheap energy. Its just not happening. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
freezepops posted:I also wonder why you think nuclear is key for renewables. The only thing they have in common is a lack of dispatch ability. If you are going to demand a nuclear grid there is very little to no reason to even bother with renewables, renewables would only serve to drive up the cost of nuclear energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:While nuclear is generally used in a baseload role, my understanding is that modern nuclear plants are technically dispatchable (maybe not for primary frequency regulation but at least a reasonable ability to ramp up and down) They are, its a funny argument that people argue they are not. They don't need to be, but it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
I’m pretty sure we both agree we don’t have the luxury of time. In fact, a lack of time is precisely why I don’t think nuclear has much more than a minor role to play in the decarbonization of the US energy supply. When it takes decades to complete a nuclear power plant in the US, it just isn’t feasible. Its too easy for the fossil fuel industry to screw up a build out of nuclear energy as nuclear energy would require massive subsidy to be competitive in most of the US energy markets, can be easily snarled in red tape with NIMBY concerns, and would be largely centralized with large expensive projects. This makes it easy to focus anti-nuclear sentiment to stop a buildout (Germany is a perfect example of this) or gently caress ups and failures can significantly impact projected reductions in emissions (CA’s San Onofre). Renewable wind energy backed by battery and ICE has the advantage of being cheaper than existing fossil fuel generation, has many more players in the market with many more beneficiaries, is largely decentralized, will provide more blue collar jobs in its construction, maintenance, and operation, and doesn’t have nearly as much NIMBY concern as nuclear in the US. The fossil fuel industry is literally incapable of stopping the switch to wind/battery/ICE which will see large reductions (>90% reduction) in the use of their fuels for electrical generation. 14 states have 100% clean or renewable energy goals by 2050. These will be achieved with minimal cost (or even some savings) over the existing grid backed by wind. I don’t see how nuclear could ever achieve that same goal of achieving 100% clean energy in that time frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nothing Natural Gas, no. First: it's not natural gas. It's synthesized methane. Second: why on earth not? It's very simple. Wind and solar are unpredictably variable in their output. That means that in order to have some minimum level of output, you need sufficient nameplate capacity that at other times you will have an oversupply. When you have that oversupply, there are two options about what to do with it: 1. Waste it. Use it to heat up a big grid of resistors or something. Alternately, pay some other market to take it off your hands, which means you're effectively subsidizing energy use which in turn reduces to "waste it." This is what Germany and California have to do when their overcapacity in renewables results in excess supply. 2. Time-shift it. That means storing it. That means pumping water uphill or pushing a big weight uphill to store it as gravitational potential energy. Or spinning up some bigass flywheel to turn it into kinetic energy. Or using it to heat up some big thermal mass, converting it into thermal energy. Or converting it to chemical potential energy by charging a battery. Or turning it into some easily-stored energy-dense chemical which you can later produce energy from, like synthetic hydrocarbons. And yet for some reason, you reject the latter. Why? That makes no sense. quote:Electrolysis is a poor energy storage method and generally requires really expensive (both in cost and environmental cost) catalysts. Oh no, it would require capital investment! I've got news for you: *all* those methods require capital investment. Many of them have lovely energy density, require expensive (both in cost and environmental cost) materials, or both. If that's a reason to not engage in them, then you've just argued against *all methods of storing the oversupply from renewables*. Good one. I have no idea what you mean by "electrolysis is a poor energy storage method," because it's not an energy storage method. The electrical energy you need to provide to crack a mole of H2O into a mole of H2 and half a mole of O is 237 kilojoules, a bit more to expand those gases but that comes from the environment, not the electrical source. The heat of combustion of hydrogen is 238 kilojoules/mole. It's symmetric. The problem is that hydrogen needs to be stored cryogenically, embrittles metals, and has a terrible volumetric energy density. Which is why they're not producing hydrogen as their end-product, they're producing methane. If you've got a hate-on for methane, then fine, you could produce higher hydrocarbons instead. Carbon Engineering's direct air capture system can produce a ton of CO2 for $100. It uses potassium hydroxide, which is manufactured to the tune of 800,000 tons per year. Turning that into carbon doesn't take really expensive catalysts either, unless copper oxide and tin oxide are really expensive. Hell, combining the CO2 directly with the hydrogen to produce methane takes the "expensive catalyst" of nickel, also produced to the tune of hundreds of thousands of tons per year (and again: catalyst. Not used up in the reaction. Capital expense.) One ton of CO2 could produce 20600 moles of methane, 336 kilograms, that's 18 gigajoules of energy, same as 139 gallons of gasoline, which would cost about $300 at the national average right now. And it likewise doesn't take really expensive catalysts to turn hydrogen and carbon into methane. That is *easily* within the realm of "could be useful" if you have an oversupply of solar or wind or hydro to produce your hydrogen and your carbon. Again: if you have an excess of supply you can either waste it, pay someone else to take it and do something with it that he wouldn't have done if you hadn't paid him to do it, which is also wasting it, or shift it into another form so you can use it at a later time. You have to pick one. Now, either you're maintaining that we should never build out renewables to a level which results in local oversupply when the clouds go away and it gets really windy, or you're maintaining that when that excess capacity results in oversupply of electricity it is better to just waste the excess than to turn it into a useful form. quote:Also: For someone calling me about about hyperbole, "A shitload of people die" is REALLY high on that list of bad claims. No, "a shitload of people die" is your own prediction in regards to global warming. But you consistently reject every single mitigatory proposal to this problem, on the grounds that they are not ultimate solutions in and of themselves, while maintaining your unshaken faith in a solution that is literally impossible and hence nonexistent. quote:Renewables do have a key to play, even if a full nuclear grid made more sense, and we might as well exploit them where possible. So, again: you suggest we build renewables, which means either we only build a tiny little bit of renewables that cannot be a significant portion of our supply, or we do something with the expect local oversupplies of electricity. Which do you prefer? CommieGIR posted:We are not going to escape the trap we are in with cheap energy. Its just not happening. See? "Make energy really expensive" equates to "a shitload of people die." When the problem is "a shitload of people die" and your solution reduces to "a shitload of people die" then your solution isn't one. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:While nuclear is generally used in a baseload role, my understanding is that modern nuclear plants are technically dispatchable (maybe not for primary frequency regulation but at least a reasonable ability to ramp up and down) They are dispatchable, in the sense that you can lose money and curtail your generation if renewables are supplying load you don’t need nuclear for. This means you are substituting wind for nuclear energy for no real gain other than an insignificant reduction in fuel burn. Almost all of your energy cost is in the capital of the nuclear plant. For every kWh you curtail your nuclear generation, you increase the cost of the energy it is supplying to the grid. So, if you have enough nuclear energy to supply your energy needs, why would you bother to build out wind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They are, its a funny argument that people argue they are not. They don't need to be, but it can be done. It depends on how the plant is built, but a lot of newer designs can ramp up/down quite quickly compared to older designs. There are still caveats, though. That being said - why not build multi-purpose nuclear plants? Desalination of salt water wouldn't go amiss in California, and you can even do (high-temperature) hydrogen electrolysis when you absolutely cannot find somewhere to put all that excess green power 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
freezepops posted:I’m pretty sure we both agree we don’t have the luxury of time. In fact, a lack of time is precisely why I don’t think nuclear has much more than a minor role to play in the decarbonization of the US energy supply. When it takes decades to complete a nuclear power plant in the US, it just isn’t feasible. Its too easy for the fossil fuel industry to screw up a build out of nuclear energy as nuclear energy would require massive subsidy to be competitive in most of the US energy markets, can be easily snarled in red tape with NIMBY concerns, and would be largely centralized with large expensive projects. This makes it easy to focus anti-nuclear sentiment to stop a buildout (Germany is a perfect example of this) or gently caress ups and failures can significantly impact projected reductions in emissions (CA’s San Onofre). Unfortunately, again, Germany also proved that a 100% renewable without Nuclear is basically just false advertising. I don't think its feasible to achieve the goals we need without nuclear. Period. Its not possible. freezepops posted:So, if you have enough nuclear energy to supply your energy needs, why would you bother to build out wind? As you already correctly pointed out, Nuclear buildout is going to take time, and Renwables can at least partially buy us time. Wibla posted:It depends on how the plant is built, but a lot of newer designs can ramp up/down quite quickly compared to older designs. There are still caveats, though. These are good goals, pretty sure San Onofre was a desalinization plant as well. Phanatic posted:First: it's not natural gas. It's synthesized methane. So its still Methane. Got it. What's the chemical formula for Methane again? And what do we need less of? Phanatic posted:See? "Make energy really expensive" equates to "a shitload of people die." When the problem is "a shitload of people die" and your solution reduces to "a shitload of people die" then your solution isn't one. This is not your first time basically coming in here and arguing that by facing facts with Natural Gas we're going to kill everyone, and its a poor argument this time too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is not your first time basically coming in here and arguing that by facing facts with Natural Gas we're going to kill everyone, and its a poor argument this time too. Citation needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Citation needed. I can't find the quote again, so retracting this. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He's been called out before for making doomsday arguments about cutting Natural Gas and subsidies for fossil fuels, down to arguing that doing so would result in a "White Flight" . Did you see that part I bolded? Please describe how Natural Gas is going to kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He's been called out before for making doomsday arguments about cutting Natural Gas and subsidies for fossil fuels, down to arguing that doing so would result in a "White Flight" . No, that was another guy, who you confused me with while that argument was ongoing. I never made or even thought about making that argument, and you can check my post history in this thread. And are you really arguing that pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and using it to synthesize methane is the same thing from a global warming perspective as actively drilling for methane in the ground and leaking it into the air? And I'm gonna ask again since you ignored it: When renewables result in a localized oversupply of electricity, what should we do it that oversupply? Waste it, subsidize more use of electricity, or store it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And are you really arguing that pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and using it to synthesize methane is the same thing from a global warming perspective as actively drilling for methane in the ground and leaking it into the air? Net neutral isn't what we need is it? We need that carbon out of the air and for it not to come back in the least. What's the benefit in basically being "neutral" for something we need to be going net negative? If we can remove it from the air (which carbon capture is still mostly a pipe dream) it should not be returned at all. Gabriel S. posted:Did you see that part I bolded? Please describe how Natural Gas is going to kill us all. Methane (Natural Gas) is a GHG 4x more potent than CO2, run by an industry with a NOTABLE history about lying about not only their environmental effects, but purposefully underreporting their emissions. Hell, they got caught on tape last year basically bragging about how much they are underreporting their methane emissions (because its self-reported). The methane they are mining needs to stay in the ground. Period. I didn't say it would kill us all (he specifically said not using cheap energy would result in deaths, I did not say that). And the industry openly painting Clean CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Methane (Natural Gas) is a GHG 4x more potent than CO2, run by an industry with a NOTABLE history about lying about not only their environmental effects, but purposefully underreporting their emissions. Hell, they got caught on tape last year basically bragging about how much they are underreporting their methane emissions (because its self-reported). CommieGIR posted:This is not your first time basically coming in here and arguing that by facing facts with Natural Gas we're going to kill everyone, and its a poor argument this time too. You are right, you didn't say that but how it going to kill everyone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Net neutral isn't what we need is it? We need that carbon out of the air and for it not to come back in the least. What's the benefit in basically being "neutral" for something we need to be going net negative? If you are substituting burning chemical fuel you made with carbon you pulled out of the air instead of burning chemical fuel made with carbon you pulled out of the ground, guess what? That is a *net negative*. And here's where you go and change tack again and say "It doesn't matter whether our greenhouse gas emissions decrease" and even "carbon neutrality is a useless goal!" until the next time you decide to argue that "It's vitally important that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions!" Now are you going to quote where I made this White Flight argument you attribute to me or are you going to retract the claim that I made it? CommieGIR posted:The methane they are mining needs to stay in the ground. Period. This really doesn't explain why you are arguing against synthesizing it using local oversupplies of electricity from renewables and using it as an energy storage medium. What, it's the same chemical so it's just as bad? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:36
|
|