Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

gefnew

Hi all












Some news about wind turbines. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43576226


































Regards
gefnew

michaels

Have to say that without us shale sure we would have moved to renewables even quicker with oil over 150usd.

However we would have seen levels of growth that make the post financial crash look like a massive boom and the whole economy would be much smaller with correspondingly much less to spend on the NHS (or imported iPhones).

Sure using any fossil fuels is bad for CO2 and by definition any lower cost supply means relatively more will get used but the alternative would be being much poorer and a fair bit colder. It is quite a big call to say it would be better overall.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That's fake misdirection, just like all your shale claims, and arguments that buying oil or gas of a UK company saves us money, no it just changes the payee.

Remember, you used the same arguments regarding 'the poor' in the past with me, when you claimed coal was good for poverty, but that's also a myth put about by the FF industry.

Shale oil, or shale gas, is just FF's, the planet can't cope with a fraction of existing reserves, let alone creating more.

FF's are dead and buried, the worst thing we can do is dig em up just to cremate them.

Care to remove any suggestion that I or my comments support an argument opposed to childhood vaccination?

I didn't say you were anti vaccination I said the same 'logic' seems to be used for anti shale or even anti nuclear. You have to accept shale is working and working well in the USA and you have to accept that it has saved the west $5+ trillion and saved the world from enriching religious fanatics.

You can accept all that and still say you don't like FF and would like to max out PV and wind.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

Have to say that without us shale sure we would have moved to renewables even quicker with oil over 150usd.

However we would have seen levels of growth that make the post financial crash look like a massive boom and the whole economy would be much smaller with correspondingly much less to spend on the NHS (or imported iPhones).

Sure using any fossil fuels is bad for CO2 and by definition any lower cost supply means relatively more will get used but the alternative would be being much poorer and a fair bit colder. It is quite a big call to say it would be better overall.

Yes the argument can be made that lower FF prices slowed renewables but I don't think higher FF prices could have seen much more renewables than we have already done. And what would have been the impact of $5-10 trillion more out our pockets into the mullahs pockets?

People have short memories. In 2008 the talk was how to do mass coal to liquids. China wasn't going to pay $150 oil to the mullahs they would rather do coal to oil. The Americans too unlikely to accept $150 sustained oil they would have gone coal to liquids too and oil sands would have been exoanded too the yanks have massive coal deposits they don't use them because they have ample gas and oil now. The idea that had shale not arrived we would all be wind or solar powered is silly. Most the 18mbpde of shale would have instead been coal and coal derivatives and sand oils.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

I didn't say you were anti vaccination I said the same 'logic' seems to be used for anti shale or even anti nuclear. You have to accept shale is working and working well in the USA and you have to accept that it has saved the west $5+ trillion and saved the world from enriching religious fanatics.

You can accept all that and still say you don't like FF and would like to max out PV and wind.

No, you introduced a nonsense argument that we should listen to the small minority of people that support fracking, because a small minority don't support childhood vaccination.

There is no rational argument in what you said, other than to imply some link between my argument and non support of vaccination.

Once again, the $5tn has not been 'saved' it was just paid to someone else.

I don't think your constant attacks on other other FF nations or religions is rational, especially as most of our gas imports come from Norway.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Have to say that without us shale sure we would have moved to renewables even quicker with oil over 150usd.

Do you have any evidence to support that? Post economic crash the oil price has stayed low not just because of US shale oil (don't expect any from UK shale), but also from a 10% lower Chinese demand than expected, and world wide overproduction.

Check out Tony Seba on oil prices, he expects that the rollout of EV's will have a significant impact on oil demand in the world within 5yrs. That will lower prices slightly. A slight reduction in oil prices will make all unconventional sources un-economical, and the first to fail will be tar sands oil and shale oil.

michaels wrote: »

However we would have seen levels of growth that make the post financial crash look like a massive boom and the whole economy would be much smaller with correspondingly much less to spend on the NHS (or imported iPhones).

I can't follow your argument. With UK gas consumption falling, how has US shale production helped the NHS.

michaels wrote: »

Sure using any fossil fuels is bad for CO2 and by definition any lower cost supply means relatively more will get used but the alternative would be being much poorer and a fair bit colder. It is quite a big call to say it would be better overall.

Again, I can't follow this, could you explain. US shale production hasn't lowered UK costs, and UK shale production, if successful, won't lower UK gas costs (it will have a negligible impact on European supplies, and therefore price), so how are we / would we be poorer?

The alternatives to UK shale gas, are:-
Norwegian gas,
increased RE deployment, already undercutting gas generation costs,
more nuclear, taking the contribution from 20% to 40% of generation,
lowered domestic gas demand through efficiency and heat pumps,
replacement of domestic FF gas consumption with bio-gas production (short term carbon cycle).

So I don't see the argument for being colder, could you please explain?

Martyn1981

Renewables Are Closing In On Fossil Fuels

Coal has been getting the squeeze for years now, but the plunging cost of renewable energy is already starting to give natural gas a run for its money. The implications for the incumbent fossil fuel industry are dire.

“Coal and gas are facing a mounting threat to their position in the world’s electricity generation mix, as a result of the spectacular reductions in cost not just for wind and solar technologies, but also for batteries,” according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Martyn1981

Solar Plus Batteries Beat Out Natural Gas In Two US Electricity Markets

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but used to be more expensive than coal. Fracking changed all that. The cost of natural gas plummeted and suddenly utilities began shutting down their coal powered plants and replacing them with natural gas facilities. People don’t care that fracking turns the countryside into a polluted sewer that will take centuries to clean up, because electricity is still cheap and hey, it’s better than coal, right? In a world where unbridled greed is the one and only market force that matters, low cost has always been the beginning and end of any conversation.

But now it may be time for natural gas to move over and make room for solar power. Bloomberg reports that the combination of solar power plants and grid scale battery storage is now cheaper than natural gas and utility companies all across the US are starting to notice. First Solar has recently won a contract to supply Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility company, with electricity during the hours of 3 pm and 8 pm when demand for electricity is highest.

Emissions From Fracking 5 Times Higher Than Reported

Natural gas is not a “bridge fuel to the future.” It is a death sentence for humanity. Think that is too strong? Think again. A new study by the Environmental Defense Fund finds that methane escaping from fracking operations in Pennsylvania “causes the same near term climate pollution as 11 coal fired power plants” and is “five times higher than what oil and gas companies report” to the state. A previous assessment by EDF last November found methane emissions escaping from oil and gas wells in New Mexico are “equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal fired power plants.”

In its executive summary of the study, the EDF says, “The analysis — based on peer-reviewed research and emissions data collected at Pennsylvania well sites — examines both the total amount of methane and volatile organic compounds emitted from oil and gas sites. These pollutants increase global warming and are hazardous to human health.” Several interactive maps and more information about the data collection procedures and analysis used by EDF are available on its website.

Methane is the primary component of what is popularly known as “natural gas.” It is a powerful greenhouse gas which traps 86 times as much heat as carbon dioxide over a 20 year period, according to Think Progress. The amount of methane in the earth’s atmosphere has increased dramatically since 2006. A recent NASA review determined that the majority of that increase is attributable to oil and gas extraction.

Fracking has been around a long time, but did not become popular until it was combined with a relatively new technique known as horizontal drilling in the 1990s. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of natural gas wells in the United States doubled, thanks in large part to fracking and horizontal drilling, according to Live Science. Is it a coincidence that a dramatic increase in atmospheric methane occurred contemporaneously with a sharp rise in fracking? You decide.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Once again, the $5tn has not been 'saved' it was just paid to someone else

How do you figure that one? If oil prices are $50 rather than $150 thanks to shale oil output of nearly 7mbpd how are consumers not saving?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Renewables Are Closing In On Fossil Fuels

I think the media and people who peddle this do a disservice because all that happens is the public and government get disappointed by continual need to support and subsidize year after year despite these promises

Be more honest say wind and solar will likely always (by which I mean 10+ years as more than 10 years is too far a time frame to predict anything imo with AI near AI software here) need support but its a price worth paying.

I think the UK would do well to deploy 50GW of high CF offshore wind and 10GW of mostly rooftop solar to take the UK grid towards 80% solar/wind. Will it cost more than importing natural gas to power CCGTs sure a lot more but that is a price worth paying to stop enriching dictators and mullahs. And sure we import Norwegian gas but if we didn't that would be fed somewhere else still pushing down prices for dictators and mullahs.