Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

This is precisely how many major northeast markets get their natural gas.  Little places like Boston. 

And that isn't ideal. But you shouldn't accidentally cultivate such a condition in an attempt to reach climate goals. It's counter to your goals.

Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What it demonstrates is that private industry knows how to take from the government.  And Texas' government knows how to give to private industry.

The rest of it doesn't matter.

I helped start a Midstream group for Nextera, the unregulated part of Florida's biggest utility, and the largest producer of Wind Power in Texas.

Nextera funded non-operated positions in O&G exploration and production, and used the tax credits from the windmills to offset the profits from O&G operations.

To make sure they get all the crumbs, they turn around and sell the production, and the underlying reserves, to the utility.

Not too difficult to make money when its tax free.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

This is precisely how many major northeast markets get their natural gas.  Little places like Boston. 

5 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

And that isn't ideal. But you shouldn't accidentally cultivate such a condition in an attempt to reach climate goals. It's counter to your goals.

The Northeast is its own version of fucked up.

It never had a proportionate amount of gas heating, and was reliant on a mix of fuel oil, coal, and ??? for power generation and home heating. They were starting from scratch to build gas infrastructure in a densely populated area with very little unused land. The domestic pipeline industry was more effective when starting with a blank slate.

The benefits of using natural gas to replace coal and fuel oil were obvious to most people, and with that came the reliance on eminent domain for infrastructure improvements.

Coal:

image.png.93276de71a0a475187449e51b6b85e9b.png

 

 Fuel Oil:

image.png.b90706de91f67716623ba0b1d49c73d3.png

 

Methane (Natural Gas)

image.png.85c307b06e0c61404ee2e6385fb2bc33.png

The northeast was well on its way to transitioning to natural gas, when the shale boom in Appalachia unlocked huge gas reserves that ultimately displaced gas production from the Gulf Coast and West Texas.

In the midst of coupling supply and demand in the most efficient way possible, the arguments to go from Coal to Fuel Oil to Natural Gas, and later to include Nuclear, Wind & Solar and all the above were based on logic based arguments. 

The notion of a worldwide industrial marketplace evolving to a zero carbon output, while the majority of the world still uses wood for cooking, was a novel idea.

Achievable? Yes. Kinda. Getting to zero output is achievable. Replacing everything lost is not.

Acceptable to destroy the economic engine that efficiently provides food, shelter, transportation and entertainment to the industrialized world? I would vote no.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I haven’t read through all your post but they’re sitting in very close proximity to the biggest gas field in North America, have for quite some time, and refuse to build the adequate infrastructure to deliver it to the most populous markets. It is insanely moronic what they have done. There are exactly two geographic regions that behave like this, at the express expense of their own populace: California and NY/NE. Every other region in the US including Colorado would’ve been delivering cheap relatively clean natural gas to their populace 10 years ago. 

Yes. Counter-productive. And gas burns much cleaner than coal.

And if they just had so much other energy sources that would be one thing, but if the alternative is piping in the gas from far away, what good are you doing?

Posted
You’re correct. Because without government subsidies, because of its very low EROI, renewables wouldn’t comprise the mix they do. 

Can you explain this last comment in more detail? I was under the impression that renewables, or at least wind energy, has a better EROI than sources like oil and natural gas.

It looks like solar is considerably worse, but I assume a number of factors go into that with highly variable results.
Posted
On 1/25/2025 at 10:20 AM, wild_turkey said:

For all the talk about how bad the Boomers are, every generation of adults today shares blame for the future of this planet. I don’t think history will look kindly on us. Maybe there won’t be any people to have a history so it won’t matter.

They are going to hate us so profoundly and righteously. The rusting carcasses of giant pick-ups and SUVs under globally warming skies will be our legacy. The oligarchs will likely come out okay.

Posted
On 1/25/2025 at 6:59 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Texas.

Apparently (see above post by Diggler) don't mess with Texas means just leave everything everywhere.

Oh, don't be so woke. 

Posted
23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What it demonstrates is that private industry knows how to take from the government.  And Texas' government knows how to give to private industry.

The rest of it doesn't matter.

 

22 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

You’re correct. Because without government subsidies, because of its very low EROI, renewables wouldn’t comprise the mix they do. 

image.png.80542b5a1eba728b06f04184d0272d8c.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
12 hours ago, wild_turkey said:


Can you explain this last comment in more detail? I was under the impression that renewables, or at least wind energy, has a better EROI than sources like oil and natural gas.

It looks like solar is considerably worse, but I assume a number of factors go into that with highly variable results.

He is wrong. EROI is a useful metric, but not the end all and be all that he attributes to it. EROI needs to be above 1. After that, other things matter more in determining what is economical and what isn't. If EROi were truly a driving economical metric, Nuclear power would be by far the most economical energy resource we have. But it is the opposite. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

He is wrong. EROI is a useful metric, but not the end all and be all that he attributes to it. EROI needs to be above 1. After that, other things matter more in determining what is economical and what isn't. If EROi were truly a driving economical metric, Nuclear power would be by far the most economical energy resource we have. But it is the opposite. 

Energy economics go from simple to complex very quickly.

Transmission lines, and land costs are huge variables that are treated differently.

-The footprint of a gas fired power plant is very small compared to a nuclear plant, a solar farm or a wind farm. A gas fired power plant can be located any place proximate to a gas pipeline and a electrical transmission line, making it easier to locate the power plant close to the power demand/population center, decreasing the size and length of power transmission lines.

Nuclear, Solar and Wind power generation facilities require a much larger footprint.

Sand Hills Gas fired Plant            595 MW,           ~ 50 acres, 2001

South Texas Nuclear Plant       2,600 MW,    ~ 12,000 acres, 1988

Sweetwater, TX Wind Farm         585 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2007

Roscoe Wind Farm                       782 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2009

Horse Hollow Wind Farm            736 MW,     ~ 47,000 acres, 2006

Roadrunner Solar Plant.              497 MW,      ~ 2,500 acres, 2019  

From the link below; (no judgment on the accuracy of the information)

Wind Turbine Cost: How Much? Are They Worth It in 2025?

image.thumb.png.e998bc9fce563339b6803106143c7656.png

At an installation coast of ~ $1 million/1 MW of capacity, the above numbers indicate you would not get a straight payout (undiscounted) for 8-10 years, at a 65% utilization rate. A 50% utilization rate would take well over 10 years.

Very few public companies, if any, would make capital investments on those economics.

Most large renewable projects have government support (subsidies). The absence of large scale commercial projects constructed with private equity is an indicator that those economics are challenging at best. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

No, fossil fuels have significantly higher EROI. 

They do. But renewables have their good points. Much lower entry costs. You can put solar panels on your house, but harder to get a generator to run constantly during daylight hours or set up your own gas turbine in your backyard.

And that extends to larger scale as well. Easier (well...less costly) to set up some wind turbines or a solar farm than a coal plant, presuming you have access to the transmission network. Though obviously if you do have gas plant money that is a better investment. But I do like that there is an access point for small business in energy generation.

And renewables are getting better all the time. Though the wind turbine people are always going: OUR NEW PRODUCT HAS AN EROI OF 44!!!111 Yeah ok guys, just hit 20 first ok?

Edited by Valmy77
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Energy economics go from simple to complex very quickly.

Transmission lines, and land costs are huge variables that are treated differently.

-The footprint of a gas fired power plant is very small compared to a nuclear plant, a solar farm or a wind farm. A gas fired power plant can be located any place proximate to a gas pipeline and a electrical transmission line, making it easier to locate the power plant close to the power demand/population center, decreasing the size and length of power transmission lines.

Nuclear, Solar and Wind power generation facilities require a much larger footprint.

Sand Hills Gas fired Plant            595 MW,           ~ 50 acres, 2001

South Texas Nuclear Plant       2,600 MW,    ~ 12,000 acres, 1988

Sweetwater, TX Wind Farm         585 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2007

Roscoe Wind Farm                       782 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2009

Horse Hollow Wind Farm            736 MW,     ~ 47,000 acres, 2006

Roadrunner Solar Plant.              497 MW,      ~ 2,500 acres, 2019  

From the link below; (no judgment on the accuracy of the information)

Wind Turbine Cost: How Much? Are They Worth It in 2025?

image.thumb.png.e998bc9fce563339b6803106143c7656.png

At an installation coast of ~ $1 million/1 MW of capacity, the above numbers indicate you would not get a straight payout (undiscounted) for 8-10 years, at a 65% utilization rate. A 50% utilization rate would take well over 10 years.

Very few public companies, if any, would make capital investments on those economics.

Most large renewable projects have government support (subsidies). The absence of large scale commercial projects constructed with private equity is an indicator that those economics are challenging at best. 

Always love these footprint comparisons. My dude go look at Texas in Google maps south of San Antonio. Those aren't windmills. You can farm under a windmill. You can't farm on those caliche tank batteries.

And I can see where damn near every pipeline in the Houston area is because there is nothing on top of them.

 

We can build transmission. Just requires some old fashioned will. 

Edited by elfenix
Posted
17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not wrong. I don’t think it’s the end all be all; don’t attribute that to me. I think it’s a highly determinative factor and drives where investment will go if subsidies weren’t a factor. EROI absolutely IS a driving economical metric and to ignore it is utterly disingenuous. Totally agreed on nukes. Nuclear is the wave of the future. Renewables will be forgotten at some point in the not too distant future. We will all be dead. 

It always is.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not wrong. I don’t think it’s the end all be all; don’t attribute that to me. I think it’s a highly determinative factor and drives where investment will go if subsidies weren’t a factor. EROI absolutely IS a driving economical metric and to ignore it is utterly disingenuous. Totally agreed on nukes. Nuclear is the wave of the future. Renewables will be forgotten at some point in the not too distant future. We will all be dead. 

With the current wave of deregulation, how willing would you be to live somewhere within 100 miles of a nuclear facility?  If we were a serious country, it would absolutely make sense to move to more nuclear generation.  Where we are now?  FUCK. THAT.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Nuclear is the wave of the future. Renewables will be forgotten at some point in the not too distant future. We will all be dead. 

If fusion works out everything else would be forgotten, not just renewables, for sure. But that isn't a certain future.

Whenever we go for conventional nukes some disaster always undermines the effort. 

Edited by Valmy77
Posted
1 minute ago, Gap03 said:

With the current wave of deregulation, how willing would you be to live somewhere within 100 miles of a nuclear facility?  If we were a serious country, it would absolutely make sense to move to more nuclear generation.  Where we are now?  FUCK. THAT.

I wonder how many of the five million plus people in the Houston metro know about the South Texas Project.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, PTINS said:

image.thumb.png.e998bc9fce563339b6803106143c7656.png

 

Yes. That is how they work. I think everybody understands that wind and solar are not operating at theoretical max production capacity. They need wind and sun to generate power. I presume anybody working in that industry understands how basic engineering works.

Next you will tell me coal plants require a constant stream of coal and operate by lighting a giant fireball in a boiler. 

Posted
Quote

 

Energy economics go from simple to complex very quickly.

Transmission lines, and land costs are huge variables that are treated differently.

-The footprint of a gas fired power plant is very small compared to a nuclear plant, a solar farm or a wind farm. A gas fired power plant can be located any place proximate to a gas pipeline and a electrical transmission line, making it easier to locate the power plant close to the power demand/population center, decreasing the size and length of power transmission lines.

Nuclear, Solar and Wind power generation facilities require a much larger footprint.

Sand Hills Gas fired Plant            595 MW,           ~ 50 acres, 2001

South Texas Nuclear Plant       2,600 MW,    ~ 12,000 acres, 1988

Sweetwater, TX Wind Farm         585 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2007

Roscoe Wind Farm                       782 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2009

Horse Hollow Wind Farm            736 MW,     ~ 47,000 acres, 2006

Roadrunner Solar Plant.              497 MW,      ~ 2,500 acres, 2019  

Yeah but with wind and solar farms you can lease that land instead of purchasing it and especially with wind farms you can still use it for other productive purposes. And just like gas plants, the location of a wind farm or solar farm will have to be close-ish to transmission assets.

But oil and gas production takes a shitload of electricity, will be done often in very inaccessible places, and will require large transmission projects as well. As we are currently doing in Texas with our Permian Basin Project at a cost to ratepayers, that's you and me, of 13+ billion dollars. That is a lot of transmission.

  • Like 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Always love these footprint comparisons. My dude go look at Texas in Google maps south of San Antonio. Those aren't windmills. You can farm under a windmill. You can't farm on those caliche tank batteries.

And I can see where damn near every pipeline in the Houston area is because there is nothing on top of them.

We can build transmission. Just requires some old fashioned will. 

I understand that.

You cannot build on a pipeline 50 foot ROW, but you can build next to it.  You can raise crops and cattle or damn near anything else above ground, over the ROW. You cannot see or hear a buried pipeline, and live next to it for years on end without ever being impacted by its operation.

You can hear the windmills, and see the towers and 100's of blinking lights that are visible from many miles away.  

Wind farms require tens of thousands of acres, ~ 80 acres per windmill. The actual "footprint" of a single windmill may only be 1/4 acre, but the "encumbered" area that cannot be built upon is many times that. 

There is a reason "windmill farms" are located on farm land, and in the places in Texas very few people live on; those are the only large tracts of relatively flat, undeveloped land to build upon.

You don't see many wind farms in Texas close to population centers, where the power is actually needed, with hardly anything at east of I-35 and north of I-10.

 image.png.11e76d73d037287058e27fad6c1f6ede.png

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I understand that.

You cannot build on a pipeline 50 foot ROW, but you can build next to it.  You can raise crops and cattle or damn near anything else above ground, over the ROW. You cannot see or hear a buried pipeline, and live next to it for years on end without ever being impacted by its operation.

You can hear the windmills, and see the towers and 100's of blinking lights that are visible from many miles away.  

Wind farms require tens of thousands of acres, ~ 80 acres per windmill. The actual "footprint" of a single windmill may only be 1/4 acre, but the "encumbered" area that cannot be built upon is many times that. 

There is a reason "windmill farms" are located on farm land, and in the places in Texas very few people live on; those are the only large tracts of relatively flat, undeveloped land to build upon.

You don't see many wind farms in Texas close to population centers, where the power is actually needed, with hardly anything at east of I-35 and north of I-10.

Very true, that is why Texas is particularly well suited to wind farms. Ultimately they will need to be more efficient so they generate more power with smaller areas, and they are developing in that direction.

Edited by Valmy77
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I understand that.

You cannot build on a pipeline 50 foot ROW, but you can build next to it.  You can raise crops and cattle or damn near anything else above ground, over the ROW. You cannot see or hear a buried pipeline, and live next to it for years on end without ever being impacted by its operation.

You can hear the windmills, and see the towers and 100's of blinking lights that are visible from many miles away.  

Wind farms require tens of thousands of acres, ~ 80 acres per windmill. The actual "footprint" of a single windmill may only be 1/4 acre, but the "encumbered" area that cannot be built upon is many times that. 

There is a reason "windmill farms" are located on farm land, and in the places in Texas very few people live on; those are the only large tracts of relatively flat, undeveloped land to build upon.

You don't see many wind farms in Texas close to population centers, where the power is actually needed, with hardly anything at east of I-35 and north of I-10.

 image.png.11e76d73d037287058e27fad6c1f6ede.png

It's not like oil production doesn't have an issue with light pollution - the flaring in the Permian is unbelievable flying over west Texas at night 

The point isn't that wind or solar doesn't have these issues, it's that it's so much of the pot calling the kettle black.

Frankly I think the ruined view argument is overblown by developers who don't want coastal wind. The view from Galveston already has a shit ton of lights from platforms and ship traffic.

 

 

Edited by elfenix
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PTINS said:

I understand that.

You cannot build on a pipeline 50 foot ROW, but you can build next to it.  You can raise crops and cattle or damn near anything else above ground, over the ROW. You cannot see or hear a buried pipeline, and live next to it for years on end without ever being impacted by its operation.

You can hear the windmills, and see the towers and 100's of blinking lights that are visible from many miles away.  

Wind farms require tens of thousands of acres, ~ 80 acres per windmill. The actual "footprint" of a single windmill may only be 1/4 acre, but the "encumbered" area that cannot be built upon is many times that. 

There is a reason "windmill farms" are located on farm land, and in the places in Texas very few people live on; those are the only large tracts of relatively flat, undeveloped land to build upon.

You don't see many wind farms in Texas close to population centers, where the power is actually needed, with hardly anything at east of I-35 and north of I-10.

 image.png.11e76d73d037287058e27fad6c1f6ede.png

Where are you getting that figure from? A long time ago, I heard that the standard setback distance for wind turbines was 1.5 times the total height. So, your typical 450-foot tower, including the blades, would be a little less than 15 acres.

Edit: Where I live now, I can see turbines from my front lawn, and the concentration of windmills is far higher than 1 per 80 acres. Here's a screengrab of some of the turbines viewable from my location.

The density of turbines (and clearings for pumpjacks and other oil shit) is pretty evident below. Not only that, there are semi-rural ranchettes (not included to avoid disclosing road/street names) scattered all over just the west of this screenshot with more wind turbines.

Amidst all this, you'll also find a shitload of cows grazing these acres, power lines, and new home construction. 

https://energy.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#6.23/33.264/-99.808

image.thumb.png.1aa1811cf1d62577c20647732c79f785.png

Edited by bolverk
Posted
2 hours ago, PTINS said:

Energy economics go from simple to complex very quickly.

Transmission lines, and land costs are huge variables that are treated differently.

-The footprint of a gas fired power plant is very small compared to a nuclear plant, a solar farm or a wind farm. A gas fired power plant can be located any place proximate to a gas pipeline and a electrical transmission line, making it easier to locate the power plant close to the power demand/population center, decreasing the size and length of power transmission lines.

Nuclear, Solar and Wind power generation facilities require a much larger footprint.

Sand Hills Gas fired Plant            595 MW,           ~ 50 acres, 2001

South Texas Nuclear Plant       2,600 MW,    ~ 12,000 acres, 1988

Sweetwater, TX Wind Farm         585 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2007

Roscoe Wind Farm                       782 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2009

Horse Hollow Wind Farm            736 MW,     ~ 47,000 acres, 2006

Roadrunner Solar Plant.              497 MW,      ~ 2,500 acres, 2019  

From the link below; (no judgment on the accuracy of the information)

Wind Turbine Cost: How Much? Are They Worth It in 2025?

image.thumb.png.e998bc9fce563339b6803106143c7656.png

At an installation coast of ~ $1 million/1 MW of capacity, the above numbers indicate you would not get a straight payout (undiscounted) for 8-10 years, at a 65% utilization rate. A 50% utilization rate would take well over 10 years.

Very few public companies, if any, would make capital investments on those economics.

Most large renewable projects have government support (subsidies). The absence of large scale commercial projects constructed with private equity is an indicator that those economics are challenging at best. 

Most large projects (renewable or otherwise) have government support via direct and indirect subsidies.  And certain tax breaks exist and will be taken advantage of. That isn't a sign that the projects wouldn't exist sans subsidies. It is a sign that people don't throw away free money as a general rule. I'm also unclear why we are assuming 2 cents per kwh. Nationally, wholesale prices have averaged between 3 and 4 cents per kwh. Texas is at the low end, but still well above 2 cents per kwh. 

Also, per below, gas turbine powerplants are at a 9-17 year payback:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178721001417

 

Posted
3 hours ago, elfenix said:

Frankly I think the ruined view argument is overblown by developers who don't want coastal wind. The view from Galveston already has a shit ton of lights from platforms and ship traffic.

Yeah. The view from Padre has tons of platforms. A few wind turbines wouldn't matter.

But I don't think there is any reason to put them out there yet. Cheaper and easier to just put them on land near the coast. 

Posted
Very few public companies, if any, would make capital investments on those economics.
Most large renewable projects have government support (subsidies). The absence of large scale commercial projects constructed with private equity is an indicator that those economics are challenging at best. 


While that may be true, perhaps the future of the planet should not be left entirely up to public companies and capitalism. Those same public companies have done a shitload of damage to get us here today, and continue to lobby against efforts to shift away from fossil fuels.

I would assume that any hope of solving this problem will involve a massive economic loss by governments around the world. This thread has suddenly painted government subsidies in a negative light, as if anything that receives a subsidy is an impractical technology, but these are all pieces of the puzzle and we can’t approach this problem from the standpoint of what is the most profitable.

Is it profitable for multiple large hurricanes to hit the east coast and wildfires to destroy Hawaii and California? Imagine 50 years from now. How big of a government investment will be needed to build seawalls around Miami and New Orleans?
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
2 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

 


While that may be true, perhaps the future of the planet should not be left entirely up to public companies and capitalism. Those same public companies have done a shitload of damage to get us here today, and continue to lobby against efforts to shift away from fossil fuels.

I would assume that any hope of solving this problem will involve a massive economic loss by governments around the world. This thread has suddenly painted government subsidies in a negative light, as if anything that receives a subsidy is an impractical technology, but these are all pieces of the puzzle and we can’t approach this problem from the standpoint of what is the most profitable.

Is it profitable for multiple large hurricanes to hit the east coast and wildfires to destroy Hawaii and California? Imagine 50 years from now. How big of a government investment will be needed to build seawalls around Miami and New Orleans?

 

Bruh. 50 years?  These people literally care about the next 3 months and then the next 3 months after that. Shareholder value must continue to increase in perpetuity. It is the will of the beast. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Where are you getting that figure from? A long time ago, I heard that the standard setback distance for wind turbines was 1.5 times the total height. So, your typical 450-foot tower, including the blades, would be a little less than 15 acres.

Edit: Where I live now, I can see turbines from my front lawn, and the concentration of windmills is far higher than 1 per 80 acres. Here's a screengrab of some of the turbines viewable from my location.

The density of turbines (and clearings for pumpjacks and other oil shit) is pretty evident below. Not only that, there are semi-rural ranchettes (not included to avoid disclosing road/street names) scattered all over just the west of this screenshot with more wind turbines.

Amidst all this, you'll also find a shitload of cows grazing these acres, power lines, and new home construction. 

https://energy.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#6.23/33.264/-99.808

image.thumb.png.1aa1811cf1d62577c20647732c79f785.png

The 80 acre/turbine was from an article I found via google.

It looking at your screen grab, some of those windmills have 75 ft blades, and are ~ 385 ft apart from each other.

Some of those windmills have 175 ft blades, and are ~ 920 ft apart from each other.

The rows of windmills are ~ 2000 ft apart.

Give me some rope here, but keeping the 2000' between rows as a constant, on optimal spacing ( no obstructions, flat topography, etc.), you could get (i) 75' blades, 70 windmills on a 2 sq mile parcel, or ~ 18.3 acres/windmill, or (ii) 175' blades, 35 windmills on a 2 sq mile parcel, or 36.6 acres/windmill. The 80 acre/windmill reference is probably more of worst case (not West Texas) scenario.

I hadn't been to Corpus in 10+ years. I was amazed at the windmill farms down there, and how many lights there are blinking at night.

I am happy as a hell to have a getaway where I can go at night and not see one artificial light, other than satellites and occasional airplanes.

 BTW, it took ~ 10 minutes to find your screen grab location. 🙂

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Most large projects (renewable or otherwise) have government support via direct and indirect subsidies.  And certain tax breaks exist and will be taken advantage of. That isn't a sign that the projects wouldn't exist sans subsidies. It is a sign that people don't throw away free money as a general rule. I'm also unclear why we are assuming 2 cents per kwh. Nationally, wholesale prices have averaged between 3 and 4 cents per kwh. Texas is at the low end, but still well above 2 cents per kwh. 

Also, per below, gas turbine powerplants are at a 9-17 year payback:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178721001417

 

FYI, I did Midstream Commercial Development for 30 years, and I don't recall many (any?) projects that had economic estimates showing a payout over 7 years.

We modeled run times of 350 days/year; I had guys ask me if they could just shut down the plant the last week of the year, as the 350 days was already in the bag.

Gas fired power plants are usually the first off-line when the power is not needed, so I would expect their annualized utilization rates to be something close to 40-50%.

1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

While that may be true, perhaps the future of the planet should not be left entirely up to public companies and capitalism. Those same public companies have done a shitload of damage to get us here today, and continue to lobby against efforts to shift away from fossil fuels.

I would assume that any hope of solving this problem will involve a massive economic loss by governments around the world. This thread has suddenly painted government subsidies in a negative light, as if anything that receives a subsidy is an impractical technology, but these are all pieces of the puzzle and we can’t approach this problem from the standpoint of what is the most profitable.

Is it profitable for multiple large hurricanes to hit the east coast and wildfires to destroy Hawaii and California? Imagine 50 years from now. How big of a government investment will be needed to build seawalls around Miami and New Orleans?

 

Human nature being what it is, putting free money, venture capitalists, "scientists" with an agenda, and politicians in the same room, is never a good idea.

In my lifetime, the world population has gone from 2.8 to over 8 billion people. The "Western World" only makes up ~ 15% of the total.  Half of the others still cook over wood fires.

Most of those people want what we have, roofs that don't leak, warm food, a car, heating & cooling, perhaps a cell phone.

Do whatever makes you feel better, and practice random acts of kindness. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I wonder how the fossil fuel industries would have done without subsidies.

It's a mystery.

I believe they are also complicit in killing extant mass transit. General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy

Quote

On April 9, 1947, nine corporations and seven individuals (officers and directors of certain of the corporate defendants) were indicted in the Federal District Court of Southern California on counts of "conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, forming a transportation monopoly" and "conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies to companies owned by National City Lines"[44] In 1948, the venue was changed from the Federal District Court of Southern California to the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois following an appeal to the United States Supreme Court (in United States v. National City Lines Inc.)[45] which felt that there was evidence of conspiracy to monopolize the supply of buses and supplies.[46]

In 1949, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, GM, and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by NCL; they were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies.

Thank goodness we now have laws and regulations restraining the robber baron urge! Never again will the wealthy have such sway!

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 2/16/2025 at 11:41 PM, Rex Kramer said:

No, fossil fuels have significantly higher EROI. 

Well, then: it's settled!  

(This world is too complex for some)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Second bolded part - what is the connection between multiple large hurricanes and wildfires to fossil fuels?

Here's a bigger question for you: What is the connection between denying science and global warming?

 

7 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

How will the world function without fossil fuels?

I guess there was no world prior to fossil fuels. How could there be without individual vehicles carrying tens of millions of people to and from the same place everyday? 

No jet skis, motorboats, snowmobiles, power lawnmowers, leafblowers, ATVs? Existence of a world is impossible without that vital stuff.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

How will the world function without fossil fuels?

Second bolded part - what is the connection between multiple large hurricanes and wildfires to fossil fuels?

Scientists who study the matter, as well as your average person with with 2 brain cells to rub together and no conflict of interest, would say that burning fossil fuels releases CO2, which traps heat, which warms the planet, which warms the ocean, which provides energy for hurricanes.

But people like Ron Johnson and companies whose existence depends on extracting fossil fuels might say this is corrupt science. Who to believe???

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Here's a bigger question for you: What is the connection between denying science and global warming?

 

I guess there was no world prior to fossil fuels. How could there be without individual vehicles carrying tens of millions of people to and from the same place everyday? 

No jet skis, motorboats, snowmobiles, power lawnmowers, leafblowers, ATVs? Existence of a world is impossible without that vital stuff.

Eternal growth is the only answer. Economic growth, technological growth, population growth... personal or social growth? Not so important.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
How will the world function without fossil fuels?


How will we ever find out if the O&G industry makes every effort to prevent change? People would rather bury their heads in the sand and condemn future generations if it means their current income and retirement plans are protected.

The world today would not function without fossil fuels, but no one is suggesting we immediately stop using them overnight. That’s a ridiculous strawman argument and you know it.

We need to reduce consumption and make progress towards better technologies, but we just elected a president who pulled out of the Paris Agreement because it “imposes unfair burdens on the American economy” (O&G lobbyists want him to help their stocks), and we are instead going to “Drill, baby, drill.”
Posted

Ya know, when I see Rex/Porterhouse/Beeper have made massive contributions to the climate thread I just know it's valuable insights and not just "anyone who disagrees with me is Greta"

Never change, you gasbag.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 hours ago, PTINS said:

Energy economics go from simple to complex very quickly.

Transmission lines, and land costs are huge variables that are treated differently.

-The footprint of a gas fired power plant is very small compared to a nuclear plant, a solar farm or a wind farm. A gas fired power plant can be located any place proximate to a gas pipeline and a electrical transmission line, making it easier to locate the power plant close to the power demand/population center, decreasing the size and length of power transmission lines.

Nuclear, Solar and Wind power generation facilities require a much larger footprint.

Sand Hills Gas fired Plant            595 MW,           ~ 50 acres, 2001

South Texas Nuclear Plant       2,600 MW,    ~ 12,000 acres, 1988

Sweetwater, TX Wind Farm         585 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2007

Roscoe Wind Farm                       782 MW,  ~ 100,000 acres, 2009

Horse Hollow Wind Farm            736 MW,     ~ 47,000 acres, 2006

Roadrunner Solar Plant.              497 MW,      ~ 2,500 acres, 2019  

From the link below; (no judgment on the accuracy of the information)

Wind Turbine Cost: How Much? Are They Worth It in 2025?

image.thumb.png.e998bc9fce563339b6803106143c7656.png

At an installation coast of ~ $1 million/1 MW of capacity, the above numbers indicate you would not get a straight payout (undiscounted) for 8-10 years, at a 65% utilization rate. A 50% utilization rate would take well over 10 years.

Very few public companies, if any, would make capital investments on those economics.

Most large renewable projects have government support (subsidies). The absence of large scale commercial projects constructed with private equity is an indicator that those economics are challenging at best. 

So where are you getting this figure from that they are charging a fixed rate of 2 cents per kWh?    How does this compare to an equivalent output for various other types of energy generation methods?   What are their payback rates?  What are the laws governing the rates being charged on a generation type (wind, nuke, coal, etc.)?   

Posted
10 hours ago, PTINS said:

FYI, I did Midstream Commercial Development for 30 years, and I don't recall many (any?) projects that had economic estimates showing a payout over 7 years.

We modeled run times of 350 days/year; I had guys ask me if they could just shut down the plant the last week of the year, as the 350 days was already in the bag.

Gas fired power plants are usually the first off-line when the power is not needed, so I would expect their annualized utilization rates to be something close to 40-50%.

I'm aware of your general background. The fact that some projects had shorter payout estimates doesn't mean that other projects with longer time tables don't exist. Capital intensive projects with multidecade life spans often have break even points of 10 years or even more. The cost per installed MW you provided for wind turbines aren't that far out of line with the  cost for a combined cycle power plant (i.e., 1,000,000 per MW). Your own estimates would have that same combined cycle plant paying off in the 8-10 year range, and that is completely ignoring operating and fueling costs. 

Just going to the general point of a 10-year+ breakeven point not being a strange concept for private industry, a 30-year mortgage at 5.5% doesn't break even until year ~14.  You'd need an interest rate north of 9% to get to a 10-year breakeven point or better. 

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So where are you getting this figure from that they are charging a fixed rate of 2 cents per kWh?    How does this compare to an equivalent output for various other types of energy generation methods?   What are their payback rates?  What are the laws governing the rates being charged on a generation type (wind, nuke, coal, etc.)?   

That's going to vary by regions and market. I'm not aware of specific laws capping prices by generation type (although I'm sure some are coming or have passed recently). Usually, price is just what the market will bear. Non-dispatchable generation will often have lower priced contracts, but not always. And at least some portion of generation just sells on the real time market as opposed to longer term contracts. National wholesale average is between 3 and 4 cents over the last couple of years. Covid also distorted prices for quite some time by lowering demand. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m aware. Specifically, what is the direct connection between any individual hurricane or wildfire and fossil fuels?  There is a direct connection between fossil fuel operations and seismic activity. 

Negged for the dumbness.

Dude.  You went to Lamar, didn't you?

(Edit: this news flash just in!  Smoking does not cause cancer.  How was this discovered?  Well, no one gets cancer after smoking a pack of cigarettes.  So, no direct connection).

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Actually it wasn’t. Glad you recognize it but I feel like I’m speaking to a bunch of Gretas on this thread. 

 

Renewables are not a large scale answer for EROI reasons. In no way am I preventing change. I’m discussing reality. 

 

Reducing consumption will NEVER happen. It’s a pipe dream and is a waste of time to discuss. I don’t think you realize how much damage Trump is doing to oil prices. 

I think you know that I'm not a Greta. We've gone back and fourth and these issues many times. You've latched onto EROI for some reason, but it simply isn't the problem you think it is. EROI of solar in particular has been increasing with more efficient panels and manufacturing techniques. EROI of fossil fuels has been decreasing as the easy to get at sources are used up. Some older studies have very low EROI for solar and other renewables. But there are contradicting studies that not only have higher EROI for renewables, but EROI exceeding current fossil fuels. EROI also isn't a single number for a given energy source, but rather a movable target depending on a number of factors (including percentage of the grid). 

Reducing energy consumption has been happening on a per capita basis in developed countries for quite some time. This is largely due to increases in efficiency.  That's why US energy consumption has basically been flat for 30 years despite a substantial increase in population.  

Posted
3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Actually it wasn’t. Glad you recognize it but I feel like I’m speaking to a bunch of Gretas on this thread.

I didn't know what you meant by Greta. I'm a Greta, then. The below is true:

image.png.c25bd5940b09708ed50ed1e2b9836af5.png

She's worth a thousand of me and some high multiple of that of you. 

I suppose you dismiss her because she was just a girl when this started, and manly manful men don't want to have anyone think they could ever adopt the words of a female. Fuck you.

Fuck your EROI. Fuck your devotion to obtuseness. Fuck your part in dragging down the republic. Fuck your face, fuckwad.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

I didn't know what you meant by Greta. I'm a Greta, then. The below is true:

image.png.c25bd5940b09708ed50ed1e2b9836af5.png

She's worth a thousand of me and some high multiple of that of you. 

I suppose you dismiss her because she was just a girl when this started, and manly manful men don't want to have anyone think they could ever adopt the words of a female. Fuck you.

Fuck your EROI. Fuck your devotion to obtuseness. Fuck your part in dragging down the republic. Fuck your face, fuckwad.

Please don't start with this. Y'all get a room.

Posted (edited)

From what I've learned being in the business and in grad school, EROI (or EROEI), SOME renewables are very close to MODERN day O&G extraction. I say modern day O&G (horizontal drilling, ultra deep water, etc.) because Spindletop and Thunderhorse ain't walking back in the door. A few graphics:

AD_4nXfXN80fJqR2TQNUk2X27gM-cKW11U0M8fTHNfMGpg9SikTrWfnWBxz5BBZYEx91Qu5_z9NmeWbBkApsMUj8iHI8MalUCXCgaGDHlkyXmS6kYVbvbZAdipftT72ZJBC-Y7KzeTc_?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

 

image.png.22ceeda74c772da5305df8254e6a3134.png

Edited by Vegas64
Posted

Start what? It's the climate thread. I don't engage in pointless argument. Maybe mind your own business or try to know what you're talking about.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
14 hours ago, PTINS said:

Human nature being what it is, putting free money, venture capitalists, "scientists" with an agenda, and politicians in the same room, is never a good idea.

Interesting how you put "scientists" in quotation marks as if broadly scientists are suspect and untrustworthy, and then explain that they have an agenda. Maybe we should try that with everyone else as well:

"Free money" with an agenda

"Venture capitalists" with an agenda

"Politicians" with an agenda

"Midstream commercial developers" with an agenda

"Oil and gas executives" with an agenda

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, RomaVicta said:

Start what? It's the climate thread. I don't engage in pointless argument. Maybe mind your own business or try to know what you're talking about.

Please try to contain yourself.

Posted
Just now, wild_turkey said:

Interesting how you put "scientists" in quotation marks as if broadly scientists are suspect and untrustworthy, and then explain that they have an agenda. Maybe we should try that with everyone else as well:

"Free money" with an agenda

"Venture capitalists" with an agenda

"Politicians" with an agenda

"Midstream commercial developers" with an agenda

"Oil and gas executives" with an agenda

Not to speak for him but I think him putting the scientists in scare quotes there is to make the distinction from scientists (real, authentic, as we use the term) and the psuedo-scientists or those who purport to be serious academics/scientists but are disingenious. 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...