3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

They could be profitable, but the cant be Affordable, and profitable.

 

4 hours ago, kallend said:I guess the best way to explain is by example.  In Alaska each citizen gets dividend of as much as $2000+ because of the bounty provided by the oil and gas industry and the Saudis get even more than that.   Notice that oil and gas are SUBSIDIZING the citizens not the other way around.  In California and Germany the citizens are paying more for their electricity to SUBSIDIZE renewables.  I just don’t understand why folks are unable to grasp the difference.
Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the best way to illustrate my point is by way of example.  Citizens of Alaska receive an annual dividend of as much as $2000+, Saudis get even more from the bounty provided by the oil and gas industries.  In other words, oil and gas are SUBSIDIZING the citizens not the other way around.  Juxtapose that to the situation in California and Germany where citizens are paying sky high electricity prices to SUBSIDIZE renewables.  I really don’t get why folks are having such a hard time wrapping their brain around this simple reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 6:37 PM, kallend said:

Looks like yet another one of your unproven conjectures to offset known facts.

BTW I was a scholarship fund boy (to Cambridge, the REAL Cambridge) and no-one gave me any answers.  I went on to earn a "double first"** and get a PhD there, all on scholarship.

 

**https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double first

 

And yet here you are arguing on an internet forum. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54242055

 

In a dramatic reversal, one of the world's biggest makers of coal-fired power plants is to exit the market and focus on greener alternatives.

US industrial giant General Electric said it would shut or sell sites as it prioritised its renewable energy and power generation businesses.

 

GE has said in the past it would focus less on fossil fuels, reflecting the growing acceptance of cleaner energy sources in US power grids.

But just five years ago, it struck its biggest ever deal - paying almost £10bn for a business that produced coal-fuelled turbines.

In a statement, the firm suggested the decision had been motivated by economics.

Russell Stokes, GE's senior vice president, said: "With the continued transformation of GE, we are focused on power generation businesses that have attractive economics and a growth trajectory.

"As we pursue this exit from the new build coal power market, we will continue to support our customers, helping them to keep their existing plants running in a cost-effective and efficient way with best-in-class technology and service expertise."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kallend said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54242055

 

In a dramatic reversal, one of the world's biggest makers of coal-fired power plants is to exit the market and focus on greener alternatives.

In a statement, the firm suggested the decision had been motivated by economics.

AKA natural gas.  Hardly dramatic, everyone is doing it... because .....economics.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 7:34 PM, mistercwood said:

Almost. For a true level playing field you'd strip the subsidies from fossil fuels completely now, but continue providing them to green energy for about another century, so that they've each had roughly the same support overall.

This is my *massive* bugbear with Brent's constant crying about subsidies and how big oil doesn't need them - he never, ever, ever acknowledges that the fact they're viable now without them is also a product of how long they've had them in the past.

They did not need them in the past either.  If you took away every subsidy the oil and gas industry ever had, what do you think would happen?  People would go back to riding horses?  Was there another substance that could compete with oil and gas?  Oh yeah, wood and coal.  There was no other more economical energy source to take its place. The fact that they received subsidies was so politicians could get donations in return.  Just like Solindra.( except Solindra was not economically viable....obviously )

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billvon said:

"GE has said in the past it would focus less on fossil fuels, reflecting the growing acceptance of cleaner energy sources in US power grids."

It’s called Greenwashing.  Throw a sparkly solar panel in front of the sheep, while the real business gets done, via fossil fuels.

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55620848

“Researchers found that around 2,500 power plants are planned, enough to double electricity production by 2030.”

”Until now, there has been a widely shared view that African countries would "leapfrog" directly to renewable energy sources, and away from old world coal, oil and gas. This has already happened with communications, where countries have invested in cellular technology and over 90% of people across the continent have access to a mobile service.

But the new research indicates that this same sort of leap isn't likely to happen with green electricity over the next decade. 

By 2030, the study suggests that coal, oil and gas will continue to dominate the generation of electricity across 54 African countries, with just 9.6% coming from renewable sources”

Looks like somebody forgot to tell Africa about global warming ¬¬

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29Q1S5
 

“U.S. President Joe Biden’s promised ban on new oil and gas drilling on federal lands would take years to shut off production from top shale drillers because they already have stockpiled permits, according to Reuters interviews with executives.”

Enough stockpiled permits to outlast his administration....so another pointless act of virtue signaling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29Q1S5
 

“U.S. President Joe Biden’s promised ban on new oil and gas drilling on federal lands would take years to shut off production from top shale drillers because they already have stockpiled permits, according to Reuters interviews with executives.”

Enough stockpiled permits to outlast his administration....so another pointless act of virtue signaling. 

Hi Brent,

There has never been a permit written that could not be terminated.  It's all in the details.

Jerry Baumchen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29Q1S5
 

“U.S. President Joe Biden’s promised ban on new oil and gas drilling on federal lands would take years to shut off production from top shale drillers because they already have stockpiled permits, according to Reuters interviews with executives.”

Enough stockpiled permits to outlast his administration....so another pointless act of virtue signaling. 

You forgot to mention how all the Republicans who were screaming that he was going to kill the oil industry were just fear mongering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 5:53 PM, brenthutch said:

AKA natural gas.  Hardly dramatic, everyone is doing it... because .....economics.

Yet you started a threadAfrica to build thousands of coal fired power plant

Natural Gas Is Booming In Africa   Oct 16, 2020 in OilPrice.com a oil industry information service.

"With Morocco and Egypt in particular, both countries are increasingly embracing natural gas and renewable energies, and according to reporting by African Business, “it is likely that such big thermal projects will become increasingly rare.” In fact, this is likely not just limited to North Africa but to the entire African continent: “This could be an Africa-wide process in the case of coal, as its forecast rise as an African generation feedstock seems to be fizzling out,” reports African Business. 

In fact, large-scale coal projects are already being shelved. In Egypt, the construction of the Hamrawein coal-fired plant has been halted, representing just 6.6 GW of a considerable 15.2 GW’s worth of coal projects in Egypt alone that are now cancelled or on indefinite hiatus. The swift move away from coal is occurring in conjunction with the development of gas and renewable projects, and has continued at a brisk clip even as COVID-19 has thrown a wrench into the continent’s transition toward natural gas as a cleaner alternative and effectual stepping stone toward decarbonization."

Is there coherent messaging in your climate denial syndrome?

Wait...Jakee are you ready to deal with his mismash,mumbo jumbo answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
20 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Yet you started a threadAfrica to build thousands of coal fired power plant

Natural Gas Is Booming In Africa   Oct 16, 2020 in OilPrice.com a oil industry information service.

Is there coherent messaging in your climate denial syndrome?

Ten years from now Africa’s energy production will be 90%+ fossil fuel and <10% renewables. (Much of that hydro) This reality is reflected in the rest of the world where fossil fuels provide roughly the same percentage of our energy needs as they did a century ago.  
 

The message was, and continues to be: the Green New Deal = magical thinking.  For example, Biden stops the Keystone pipeline, killing thousands of jobs, loosing millions in tax revenues, pissing off our neighbor to the north while forcing the oil from Canadian tar sands to be transported via rail which is more dangerous and carbon intensive, just  so he can virtue signal to the far left wackos.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Is there coherent messaging in your climate denial syndrome?

Wait...Jakee are you ready to deal with his mismash,mumbo jumbo answer?

Of course.  His message is "I can annoy Phil and get him to respond."  He wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
33 minutes ago, billvon said:

Of course.  His message is "I can annoy Phil and get him to respond."  He wins.

As long as most of our energy comes from fossil fuel and most vehicles use internal combustion engines, I win.  

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As long as most of our energy comes from fossil fuel and most vehicles use international combustion engines, I win.  

Damn auto makers kowtowing to Paris is what that is! We need to keep our combustion engines INTERNAL! Think of the people of Pittsburgh!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3