Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 575597 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1150 on: November 15, 2022, 10:05:34 AM »
Better perhaps than Drill Baby Drill, would be to pitch natural gas as why we are outperfoming the rest of the world in reducing emissions (this is correct, yes?) and the new nuclear technology, while presenting the alternative as a Maoist Green Leap Forward with similar consequences while facilitating Chinese power and creating massive toxicity from the minerals involved in batteries.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1151 on: November 16, 2022, 12:25:44 PM »
We know what happens when we close nuclear power plants.  We closed one in NY in 2019.  Coal and natural gas usage goes up.



Must scroll right to see.  Or click on the image link.  Wish I knew how to re-size these.
The nuclear line shifts down and coal and gas go up.  After all the subsidies, wind is small and up and down.  Solar is insignificant.

One nuclear reactor at one facility generated more energy than all wind and solar all across the state combined:



Again, scroll right.

https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Indian-point-nuclear-before-and-after-1024x555.jpg

https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Indian-Point-vs-wind-and-solar-1024x632.png

https://www.americanexperiment.org/new-york-nuclear-plant-shutdown-proves-liberals-are-unscientific-and-unserious/
« Last Edit: November 16, 2022, 12:34:33 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Wind and solar require natural gas to fill the enormous gaps
« Reply #1152 on: November 16, 2022, 12:45:36 PM »
Stated before but proven here.  For every megawatt, gigawatt or terawatt hour capacity of wind or solar you install, you need an equal sized fossil fuel plant to supplement it.  That is because the wind goes up and down and so does the sun and they don't offset each other.  Demand also goes up and down throughout the hours of the day, the seasons and the temperatures outside and not in any sequence with the above.

Think of a natural gas power plant as a gas stove burner with a knob.  A carbon free nuclear plant doesn't scale up and down with demand.  It can only provide steady base power.  Coal can somewhat but natural gas can do it almost perfectly, except for the carbon dioxide released.

Another scroll right chart to see it all.  When wind and solar are down, gas usage is up.  It's unavoidable.



https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/wind-generation-vs-gas-generation-in-MISO-feb-1-through-feb-28-2021-1-1024x596.png

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1153 on: November 16, 2022, 01:09:59 PM »
From the previous: 
"When wind and solar are down, gas usage is up.  It's unavoidable."

But the Lefties tell us batteries will make up the difference!

Was it the "infrastructure" bill or the "Inflation reduction Act" where they "invest" a zillion in batteries?

But all the batteries in the world projected to be manufactured by 2030 ...

... will power the world at present rates for 17 minutes.  10 minutes at best if you project demand forward.

Battery backup for a brief outage is different than battery backup for every time the sun or wind goes down which is pretty much every day - for half the day.  And my Lithium batteries for with low usage are lasting 3 years.

Soooo...  you're going to run all the cars and the trucks in the world on electricity, using batteries, and charge those vehicles on a grid, using batteries, with at least a 6% transmission and distribution loss.  How much Lithium is that, and what could possibly go wrong?

My point is, they are lying to you folks.  If you buy the whole program, you will be staying home, and in our climate it will be cold at home with the power off.  Don't have to dream of a white Thanksgiving this year:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/11/14/photos-twin-cities-sees-first-sticky-snowfall

My numbers are extrapolated from Isaac Orr, Energy Analyst at Center for the American Experiment, Minneapolis.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2022, 01:18:34 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Reality bitch slaps Biden into approving oil terminal
« Reply #1154 on: November 24, 2022, 11:51:49 AM »

Biden Admin Quietly Greenlights Plan to Build Huge Gulf Oil Terminal
By Katabella Roberts November 24, 2022 Updated: November 24, 2022biggersmaller Print



The Biden administration has quietly approved plans to build a new crude oil terminal in the Gulf of Mexico off Texas, seemingly in contradiction to the president’s climate agenda.

The Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration approved the application (pdf) for Enterprise’s Sea Port Oil Terminal, one of four proposed offshore oil export terminals, on Monday.

According to the application, the port will be located offshore of Freeport, Texas. It will have 4.8 million barrels of storage capacity and add 2 million barrels per day to the U.S. oil export capacity.

In its 94-page decision (pdf), the Maritime Administration said that it had approved the application because the construction and operation of the port is “in the national interest and consistent with other policy goals and objectives.”

“The construction and operation of the Port is in the national interest because the Project will benefit employment, economic growth, and U.S. energy infrastructure resilience and security,” the administration wrote. “The Port will provide a reliable source of crude oil to U.S. allies in the event of market disruption and have a minimal impact on the availability and cost of crude oil in the U.S. domestic market.”

Protests Over Planned Oil Terminal
The decision states that the project will expand on an existing Enterprise Crude Houston operated terminal located in Houston and will generate 62 permanent jobs over 30 years. Additionally, 1,400 temporary construction jobs will be created, with the majority of the workforce being hired from existing labor pools in Texas and Louisiana, according to the application.

The Environmental Protection Agency quietly issued its approval (pdf) of the project in October but stressed that “more emphasis is needed to ensure that environmental justice and climate change considerations are included in the project for the protection of overburdened communities.”

Protests broke out shortly after on the Gulf Coast, The Texas Tribune reported, with climate activists condemning the move, and pointing to the fact that President Joe Biden has prioritized issues such as climate change and clean energy incentives during his time in office. Biden has vowed to cut carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030.

Ahead of the U.N. climate conference in Egypt this month, the White House said that Biden was set to “announce new initiatives to strengthen U.S. leadership tackling the climate crisis and galvanize global action and commitments,” and that the United States is “acting to lead a clean energy future that leverages market forces, technological innovation, and investments to tackle the climate crisis.”


‘Peak Hypocrisy for President Biden’
Greenpeace promptly took aim at the Biden administration’s decision regarding the new oil terminal, stating that the new terminal would “emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide every year polluting the air and water of Brazoria and Harris counties in Texas while creating serious health threats for everyone living there.”

“It is peak hypocrisy for President Biden and Secretary [of Transportation] Pete Buttigieg to shorten the fuse on the world’s largest carbon bomb by greenlighting additional oil export terminals right after lecturing the world about increasing climate ambitions at COP27,”  the independent global campaigning network added.

The approval of the Sea Port Oil Terminal would facilitate the safe and efficient long-term loading of large crude carriers while simultaneously slashing oil transportation costs and reducing ship collision risks among other issues, according to officials.

In a separate statement, Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks, a national organization aimed at ending oil and gas mining pollution, said, “President Biden cannot lead on combating climate change, protecting public health or advocating for environmental justice while simultaneously allowing fossil fuel companies to lock-in decades of fossil fuel extraction.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the Department of Transportation for comment.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
WSJ: How fusion works and why it's a breakthrough
« Reply #1155 on: December 15, 2022, 08:33:29 AM »
How Fusion Works and Why It’s a Breakthrough
American science scores a triumph, though it’ll be decades before it yields a viable energy source.
By Steven E. Koonin and Robert L. Powell
Dec. 14, 2022 5:34 pm ET



The Energy Department has announced the first gain in energy from fusion in a laboratory—the first time fusion reactions produced more energy than it took to induce them. Last week 192 laser beams at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility heated and compressed a capsule of hydrogen to previously unattainable temperatures and pressures, igniting fusion reactions that produced 50% more energy than the laser beams had delivered.

Nuclear reactions can release the energy that binds together protons and neutrons in an atom’s nucleus. Nuclear power plants use fission, not fusion. Fission releases energy when a large uranium nucleus splits into two radioactive fragments, which carry the energy as they fly apart.

Fusion, by contrast, relies on the universe’s smallest atom, hydrogen. Energy is released when two hydrogen nuclei combine to produce a helium nucleus and a neutron. Unlike fission, fusion produces no radioactive fragments. Fusion is much harder to induce than fission, since the hydrogen nuclei must be heated to nearly 100 million degrees Celsius to overcome the electrical repulsion that hinders their reaction. Stars run on fusion energy, but on Earth it has previously been released only in thermonuclear explosions. This stunning new result in laboratory fusion opens doors for unprecedented studies in basic and applied science.

The concept of laser fusion had been pursued without success since the 1960s and it became a central part of a 1990s program to ensure continued confidence in the nuclear-weapons stockpile without underground testing. Although scientists knew that high-powered laser beams could probe the properties of matter relevant to the early stages of detonating a nuclear weapon, the goal of laser fusion would allow for studies in the later stages. It would also challenge and demonstrate the ability to understand and predict the dynamics of hot, dense matter more generally.


Construction of the ignition facility at the Livermore lab began in 1997, and experiments attempting ignition began soon after construction was completed in 2009. The design and construction of the world’s most powerful laser was an engineering triumph, but three years of failed attempts to achieve fusion ignition brought the program close to cancellation in 2012. But the program continued with a more deliberate approach that included outside peer review.

The decade of research from 2012 to 2022 illustrated the ability of the Energy Department’s national laboratories to marshal an interdisciplinary team of scientific and engineering talent from the government, universities and private sector in long-term pursuit of an audacious goal. Researchers in lasers, nuclear and plasma physics, precision-target fabrication, instrumentation and high-fidelity computer modeling helped design and undertake a series of experiments that gradually approached ignition conditions. The payoff came last week.

As recent world events make apparent, the U.S. nuclear deterrent is effective only if there’s confidence that the weapons remain effective. Laser ignition demonstrates to the world a deep understanding of weapons science and will be important in sustaining confidence in the coming decades.

The U.S. hasn’t been alone in recognizing the importance of laser fusion. France and China are building comparable facilities. But as the new American results show, the years of learning were necessary to form a potent intellectual and innovation ecosystem at the National Ignition Facility. The U.S. now leads every other country by a decade because of its foresight, perseverance and research enterprise. Continued investment in laser fusion will ensure that this leadership endures.

These days one can’t mention fusion without thinking about energy. The ignition milestone demonstrates fusion gain, a necessary condition for practical energy production. But that is only the first step. Several decades of engineering would be required to make fusion a practical, emissions-free source of electricity. And even then, it would have to be cost-competitive with alternatives. Like the initial decision to pursue the ignition goal, this is not at all guaranteed. But it’s well worth considering.

Mr. Koonin is a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.” Mr. Powell is a professor at the University of California, Davis. Both are governors of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
GPF: Turkmenistan Nat Gas to Europe via Turkey?
« Reply #1156 on: December 16, 2022, 04:42:55 PM »
I claim considerable prescience here  :-D :-D :-D

=============
December 16, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Turkmenistan Targets the European Gas Market
New pipeline infrastructure must be built first.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Turkmenistan Gas Market
(click to enlarge)

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe has announced its intent to diversify its gas supplies away from Russia. Sensing an opportunity, Turkey is angling to become a natural gas hub and alternative supply route to the European Union from resource-rich countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. During a trilateral summit on Dec. 14 involving Azerbaijan, Turkey and Turkmenistan, Ankara announced its intention to carry Turkmen gas west through the Caspian Sea.

Since gaining independence, Turkmenistan has strived for neutrality, relying on its huge natural gas reserves. It has sought new export markets for years, and the drop in Russian supplies to Europe is a clear opening. However, new infrastructure must be built first, meaning a solution is far off. Additionally, the Kremlin does not take kindly to competition in the post-Soviet space and, as an important trading partner for Turkmenistan, Moscow has some leverage.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Russia and Turkey convo
« Reply #1158 on: January 05, 2023, 02:12:53 PM »
GPF

Erdogan and Putin. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by phone about the situation in Ukraine and the Syrian crisis. They also discussed a plan, proposed by Russia in October, to establish Turkey as a natural gas hub using Russian supplies. Ankara is interested in the proposal as part of its broader efforts to stabilize its economy ahead of presidential elections in June.



German energy. Germany’s grid regulator and its economy minister agreed that Berlin should construct 17-21 gigawatts' worth of additional gas power plants by 2030. According to Germany’s energy strategy document, the government wants the country to run on 80 percent renewable electricity and fully phase out coal. To ensure that enough gas is available, the government is committed to LNG development, and the document adds that import capacities will increase. Investment in new LNG capacities will also increase.

===========================================

RANE

The third geopolitical event that altered the balance of power in the European Union was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which led to a spike in inflation across Europe amid tighter and more expensive energy supplies. The economic fallout from the war and the subsequent disruptions to Russian energy exports saw European governments (again) introduce large stimulus packages, as well as desperately look for alternative supplies of natural gas to avoid gas rationing and blackouts. Energy-intensive industries across the continent in sectors ranging from cement to fertilizers were also forced to reduce or halt their operations. The war presented both a risk and an opportunity for Central and Eastern European countries, which for decades had warned about Russia's threat to peace in the continent, and had demanded a greater presence of NATO troops in the region and a more hawkish EU position toward Moscow. Under pressure from Poland and the Baltic states, the European Union imposed economic and political sanctions on Russia while increasing financial, humanitarian and military aid for Ukraine. Notably, the war also forced Germany to break with its decades-old policy that sought to keep political tensions between Russia and the West separated from Germany's massive imports of Russian natural gas. Berlin's decision in February 2022 not to use the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline connecting Germany to Russia (which previous German governments had fervently defended) was highly illustrative of this policy change.

Perhaps more crucially, the war also gave NATO a renewed sense of purpose that was in line with Central and Eastern Europe's views, less than three years after French President Emmanuel Macron had declared the military alliance ''brain dead'' and promoted European alternatives to NATO cooperation. The fact that Sweden and Finland broke their historical neutrality to join the Western security alliance realized Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia's aspiration of completely surrounding Russia in the Baltic region and opened the door to deeper Baltic-Nordic security cooperation.

Finally, the war also increased the strategic importance of Southern European countries, which overnight became key players in the European Union's push to diversify its natural gas supplies away from Russia. Spain and Italy's multiple LNG terminals and their pipeline connections with Northern Africa contrast with Germany's high dependence on pipelines coming from Russia, and put Madrid and Rome at the center of ongoing plans to multiply and diversify the European Union's energy suppliers. In addition, Southern Europe's significant investments in renewable energy (including solar power, which has a huge potential in sun-blessed Mediterranean countries) will only further expand its role in the bloc's energy mix in the coming years —- especially if Northern Europe is willing to pay for the necessary infrastructure to distribute the energy across the continent. Ironically, Europe's energy crunch also resulted in Brussels tolerating countries using more coal, which was a short-term victory for heavy coal users like Poland and other countries in the region.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 03:53:10 PM by Crafty_Dog »




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1162 on: January 10, 2023, 11:10:04 AM »
Far out.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science, solar
« Reply #1163 on: January 11, 2023, 08:59:26 AM »
John Hinderaker reports:
"It doesn't pay to clear the snow off the solar panels because they produce so little electricity in the winter anyway."

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/solar-energy-is-useless.php
« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 02:18:08 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Energy Politics & Science, The report behind banning gas stoves
« Reply #1164 on: January 12, 2023, 02:19:02 AM »
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/01/real-science-behind-reversal-of-gas-stove-ban/

From the study:
We don’t want people to go out and completely ditch a perfectly good gas stove,” lead author Eric Lebel said.
----------
Who knew?

Quick question, what fuel do electric stoves burn?
"In 2021, coal-fired electric power plants accounted for 91% of West Virginia's total electricity net generation"

Ban natural gas.  Replace it with coal.  Or would this region not be part of a national ban?
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WV

Broken record alert:. Build nuclear first. Then discuss the future of the declining need for fossil fuels.  But no...

This isn't new.They banned incandescent bulbs before LED was ready so we installed tens of billions of mercury based cfl's, now in our landfills.  All in the name of saving the environment.

How stupid can they be?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2023, 02:37:49 AM by DougMacG »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1167 on: January 14, 2023, 10:45:35 AM »
Good info.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Isaac Orr, The High Cost of Solar
« Reply #1168 on: January 24, 2023, 05:55:31 AM »
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/01/24/sunshine_might_be_free_but_solar_power_is_not_cheap_877463.html

No question he reads the forum.

Actual data from a southern state, solar panels are producing 22% of the time.

From the article:
"families and businesses are forced to pay for two electric systems: one that works when the sun is out, and one that works when it isn’t."

In their actual data, natural gas is only slightly cheaper than nuclear, and coal and solar are more expensive.

If you figure in any value for being carbon-free, there is no excuse for not building more nuclear.

Build more solar and you will have to use fossil fuels for the other 78% of the time. That is not carbon-free!

All that subsidies do is transfer and distort costs causing utilities to make the wrong choices. Choices that produce more carbon, not less.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2023, 06:04:30 AM by DougMacG »