-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Brent slides to $50.50
MBS must be shitting his pants. The ensuing chaos is the only reason I was OK with Hillary stealing the primary. Lord knows what it'll be like now.
MBS must be shitting his pants. The ensuing chaos is the only reason I was OK with Hillary stealing the primary. Lord knows what it'll be like now.
The economic absurdity is this. Wind, solar and storage is already cheaper than gas and coal without CCS. CCS adds at least 30% to the cost of gas and coal for 25% less output. So in no way is this competitive. Also the implied reduction in out put capacity would need to be replaced with new capacity for which only wind, solar and storage would be the hands down winner.Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) comes up periodically as a "solution" to keep us burning more fossil fuels.
Here's an interesting perspective on CCS that debunks the myth. Unfortunately, like nuclear, it's too expensive and just doesn't work.
Al Gore’s right about carbon capture and sequestration
Note that they even went out of their way to say that Al Gore is right about CCS
Vaclav's oil industry analogy is pretty useless and misses the more salient point that even at small scale this is a dead horse. Vaclav has long dismissed renewable energy on grounds of silly analogies to scale. But he missed the key point that through learning curve reductions in cost, renewable energy has achieved cost competitiveness at small scale which is the precondition to renewables to become truly large scale, bigger than all fossil fuels combined. So his scale arguments were worthless in appraising renewable energy, and they are equally worthless in appraising CCS. He's also pushed the insipid idea that fuel density is super important. This too is terribly irrelevant from an economic point of view. If low density adds incremental cost, that is enough to recast things as a economic problem. It is the total cost of delivering power that matters most, especially at scale.
Investors Are Turning Their Back On Coal | OilPrice.com
More evidence that the carbon divestiture movement is having an impact.
More evidence that the carbon divestiture movement is having an impact.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Another denier (worm scientist) says don't worry, be happy, the worms will take care of CCS.
New Study On Soil Carbon Capture Has Deniers In Rapture | CleanTechnica
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Here's an interesting solution to the problem:
A Plan to Nationalize Fossil-Fuel Companies
One strong option: nationalizing fossil-fuel companies. While hardly discussed in the US, this ambitious approach is being proposed by the Labour Party in the UK and is already in place in Norway. It would work just as well in the US.
Free-market solutions and incentives are incapable of spurring the economic transition needed, on a quick enough timescale, to avoid environmental disaster. The use of workers in the fossil-fuel industry as a cynical bargaining chip by the owners of those firms represents a massive political obstacle to a real energy transition, as does the valuation of these firms based off an expectation by investors that much or all of their underground assets will be developed — which, if we are to avoid climate catastrophe, will not be.
A Plan to Nationalize Fossil-Fuel Companies
One strong option: nationalizing fossil-fuel companies. While hardly discussed in the US, this ambitious approach is being proposed by the Labour Party in the UK and is already in place in Norway. It would work just as well in the US.
Free-market solutions and incentives are incapable of spurring the economic transition needed, on a quick enough timescale, to avoid environmental disaster. The use of workers in the fossil-fuel industry as a cynical bargaining chip by the owners of those firms represents a massive political obstacle to a real energy transition, as does the valuation of these firms based off an expectation by investors that much or all of their underground assets will be developed — which, if we are to avoid climate catastrophe, will not be.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It's difficult to make predictions... especially about the future:
The Oil And Gas Situation: Eight Predictions For 2019
The Oil And Gas Situation: Eight Predictions For 2019
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Germany installed 2.1GW of solar in December of 2011 spurred by very simple regulation and incentive. One month. 7 years ago.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Good... but not good enough.
Germany needs to stop burning coal completely starting... now.
What market incentive could cause that to happen?
- There are still subsidies for coal
- The national power grid does not have enough capacity to transmit renewable energy from the wind parks in the north to the south of Germany. I have a guess why the power grid is not extended.
- When there is too much energy production, renewable energy is switched off instead of coal and nuclear.
Google translate: Google Translate
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Looks like the fossil fuel industry is still in charge of "incentives".
Governments still have their heads in the sand about fossil fuel and climate change. It will require drastic, radical action to avoid catastrophe and governments don't seem capable and the weak economic incentives in place are too little.
I think the French people have the right idea. Riot in the streets against the corrupt bourgeois system of corporate kleptocracy. It's our only hope.
The Real Reason Behind Beijing’s War On Pollution | OilPrice.com
This is interesting. It does raise in my mind the limits of swapping gas for coal. Does it make sense for any country to build out gas capacity to supply more than 20% of annual power generation? Every country should be targeting reducing GHG emissions from power generation to 50% by 2030 and 25% by 2040 and 0% by 2050. So building out gas capacity today can help reach 50% by 2030, but then you have big problems reaching 25% by 2040 if you have a bunch of gas capacity that is less than 20 years old. Even reaching 0% by 2050 is put into questing by building out any new gas capacity over the next ten years. So perhaps China is starting to grapple with this.
This is interesting. It does raise in my mind the limits of swapping gas for coal. Does it make sense for any country to build out gas capacity to supply more than 20% of annual power generation? Every country should be targeting reducing GHG emissions from power generation to 50% by 2030 and 25% by 2040 and 0% by 2050. So building out gas capacity today can help reach 50% by 2030, but then you have big problems reaching 25% by 2040 if you have a bunch of gas capacity that is less than 20 years old. Even reaching 0% by 2050 is put into questing by building out any new gas capacity over the next ten years. So perhaps China is starting to grapple with this.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Saudi Energy Minister Throws Shade At Electric Vehicles | CleanTechnica
Could electric vehicles disrupt the reign of Big Oil? Apparently not. According to Arab News, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih publicly downplayed, “what he described as the ‘hype’ of the electric vehicle market.” And he emphasized that “miscalculations around the pace of [vehicle] electrification could create ‘serious’ risks around global energy security.”
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Could electric vehicles disrupt the reign of Big Oil? Apparently not. According to Arab News, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih publicly downplayed, “what he described as the ‘hype’ of the electric vehicle market.” And he emphasized that “miscalculations around the pace of [vehicle] electrification could create ‘serious’ risks around global energy security.”
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
mspohr
Well-Known Member
EVs Or Not, We'll Always Have Petrochemicals -- Or Not! | CleanTechnica
Oil companies are counting on plastic to keep demand up. However, demand for plastic is running up against powerful environmental concerns with plastic bans becoming more common.
Oil companies are counting on plastic to keep demand up. However, demand for plastic is running up against powerful environmental concerns with plastic bans becoming more common.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
So, the blur between EV and ICE is the difference between peak ICE sales or not.
2019 Chinese quota require PHEV to have greater than 50km EV range, preferably 100km. By fuel use these are EVs, but by industry production, they still include ICE.
Todate the industry has mostly not understood how to make a compelling ev/phev. BYD being the obvious exception, their sales suggest that at yuan sized vehicle, BEV will outsell PHEV, but next step up to Song size, that PHEV would outsell BEV, that is for a manufacturer equally competent and motivated to sell both BEV and PHEV.
2019 Chinese quota require PHEV to have greater than 50km EV range, preferably 100km. By fuel use these are EVs, but by industry production, they still include ICE.
Todate the industry has mostly not understood how to make a compelling ev/phev. BYD being the obvious exception, their sales suggest that at yuan sized vehicle, BEV will outsell PHEV, but next step up to Song size, that PHEV would outsell BEV, that is for a manufacturer equally competent and motivated to sell both BEV and PHEV.
Properly calculated, I'm not sure switching from coal to natural gas results in any reduction in GHG emissions, at least in the next 20 years. https://thinkprogress.org/bombshell...g-actually-fuels-global-warming-bc530e20bedc/
The emphasis should be on renewables with natural gas only a stop-gap that may be marginally less bad than coal only because its equally bad climate effects may be less persistent.
Similar threads
