Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Vegas64 said:

Please try to contain yourself.

Please demonstrate wit or the ability to come up with something fresh.

You likely don't grasp the irony of you writing the above after you dully said that what I was doing with Rex. Nice graphics, though.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Please demonstrate wit or the ability to come up with something fresh.

You likely don't grasp the irony of you writing the above after you dully said that what I was doing with Rex. Nice graphics, though.

The hackneyed attempts at trying to demonstrate wit or contorting yourself to try and say something fresh (or in your case, being extremely emotional and not matching the speed and tone of the thread and conversation) is the problem when trying to discuss.

I suspect Rex is most likely an O&G bigot in the sense he has a hard-wired bias that's hard to be objective or decouple his lived experiences and/or politics with the industry and macroeconomics (and intersectionality of "Climate"), but you being hysterical isn't a productive use of any one's time in this thread.

I hope this is the last I will have to address this behavior with you. /s (attempt at some wit to placate you).

Edited by Vegas64
Posted

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

I don't think that is EXACTLY accurate in that most EROEI models I've seen in modern times from sustainability consultancies (the big "McKinsey of ESGs" that all the big O&G use) account for the externalities as inputs/outputs in EROI calcs. LCA is a huge compononet when financial and physical modeling of new energy projects are being evaluated-- and these life cycle assessments (LCA's) aboslutely evaluate the environmental impacts of whatever you are trying to do (A or B in your analogy) throughout the entire life cycle, from soup to nuts. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

tumblr_psldqiLmPN1sx88n2o8_540.gifv

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

So, whether I have nuke plant, coal plant, or wind turbine I am still selling it all for 2 cents per kWh right?   

Posted
8 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I don't think that is EXACTLY accurate in that most EROEI models I've seen in modern times from sustainability consultancies (the big "McKinsey of ESGs" that all the big O&G use) account for the externalities as inputs/outputs in EROI calcs. LCA is a huge compononet when financial and physical modeling of new energy projects are being evaluated-- and these life cycle assessments (LCA's) aboslutely evaluate the environmental impacts of whatever you are trying to do (A or B in your analogy) throughout the entire life cycle, from soup to nuts. 

No. EROEI does not attempt to account for externalities like climate change. It isn't part of the formula at all. Energy in, Energy out. That's what matters to it. 

Lifecycle costs analysis may or may not include costs from climate change in the model depending upon who is doing the analysis. Some analysis is done to model the economic viability of a particular project, so it only cares about those costs that may actually impact the project (i.e., captured costs). That sort of analysis will by design not account for externalities because, by definition, those will not impact the project.  

32 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

The hackneyed attempts at trying to demonstrate wit or contorting yourself to try and say something fresh (or in your case, being extremely emotional and not matching the speed and tone of the thread and conversation) is the problem when trying to discuss.

I suspect Rex is most likely an O&G bigot in the sense he has a hard-wired bias that's hard to be objective or decouple his lived experiences and/or politics with the industry and macroeconomics (and intersectionality of "Climate"), but you being hysterical isn't a productive use of any one's time in this thread.

I hope this is the last I will have to address this behavior with you. /s (attempt at some wit to placate you).

What the fuck are you talking about? He responded to a very specific insult ("Gretas") with a very specific answer that was totally appropriate in a fucking thread titled "Climate Change" not "Rex ignores basic science and how it impacts everyone." 

41 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

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. 

Who do you think he was implying are the psuedo-scientists here? Because I can promise you Rex wasn't intending to dismiss the few phony scientists that dismiss human driven climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists understand how releasing carbon into the atmosphere changes the planet's climate. 

44 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

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

EROI is a moving target. EROI of solar is higher as non-dispatchable renewables become a larger percentage of the grid due to the need for additional storage. But, up to 50% or so renewable, modern utility solar would have an EROI competitive with natural gas. There are a lot of different calculations out there for EROI with a lot of different assumptions. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So, whether I have nuke plant, coal plant, or wind turbine I am still selling it all for 2 cents per kWh right?   

It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant.  But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. 

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

EROI is a moving target. EROI of solar is higher  lower as non-dispatchable renewables become a larger percentage of the grid due to the need for additional storage. But, up to 50% or so renewable, modern utility solar would have an EROI competitive with natural gas. There are a lot of different calculations out there for EROI with a lot of different assumptions. 

typo that I didn't catch in time. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant.  But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. 

 

Thank you, so now what we really need is just the price per installation and the kWh ratings, and the % capacity which should include maintenance, so we can have a real comparison.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

The problem is also mixing up energy return on investment for monetary return on investment. These aren't the same thing. Energy return on investment just tells me how much energy out I get for a given amount of energy in. Whether it costs more or less to get than energy or whether that energy causes downstream economic costs are all irrelevant to that metric. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m going to attempt to stop this right now: I’m sorry. This isn’t the thread for discussing economics and proper investment and I lost that. My “Gretas” comment was directed at those that would dispense with our entire energy feedstock complex to benefit the environment. I strongly feel that is not realistic for any nation, and made comments to that effect. I understand that there are quite a few in a Climate thread that will feel differently and this isn’t the place to argue about it. 

I agree with you on a lot, and we can argue about this elsewhere if you choose. 

I don't think you were necessarily in the wrong thread. That balance is an important topic in a thread concerned about the climate. But I do think it can become difficult to manage when both sides (truly in this case) get defensive about certain slights. I apologize for my post upthread where you got caught in the cross-fire with another poster than I felt was being dismissing/obtuse. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Electricity is still increasing, but oil has been flat (thank god because we don’t have enough oil), yet your point remains. US consumption doesn’t matter though. Most of the world population are in developing nations with skyrocketing energy needs. 

And that is a fair point. I think the fair way to say it is that primary energy consumption has been flat since 1995. Electric generation was flat from 2006 until recently, but the rise of crypto-currency and AI is changing that over the last couple of years. Worldwide trends are bit more difficult to deal with because you have decreases or flattening in the countries with the highest share of energy consumption and increases in countries with historically lower shares of energy consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). If the US population had been flat or decreasing like other Western and developed nations, our total energy usage would have decreased significantly. 

 

image.png.1a3e6d02d8abd99213cba440e4c3de4d.png

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
6 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

The hackneyed attempts at trying to demonstrate wit or contorting yourself to try and say something fresh (or in your case, being extremely emotional and not matching the speed and tone of the thread and conversation) is the problem when trying to discuss.

I suspect Rex is most likely an O&G bigot in the sense he has a hard-wired bias that's hard to be objective or decouple his lived experiences and/or politics with the industry and macroeconomics (and intersectionality of "Climate"), but you being hysterical isn't a productive use of any one's time in this thread.

I hope this is the last I will have to address this behavior with you. /s (attempt at some wit to placate you).

spacer.png

Posted
4 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m going to attempt to stop this right now: I’m sorry. This isn’t the thread for discussing economics and proper investment and I lost that. My “Gretas” comment was directed at those that would dispense with our entire energy feedstock complex to benefit the environment. I strongly feel that is not realistic for any nation, and made comments to that effect. I understand that there are quite a few in a Climate thread that will feel differently and this isn’t the place to argue about it. 

I agree with you on a lot, and we can argue about this elsewhere if you choose. 

Thanks, I'm now embarrassed about my post. Compliments on your civility here. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
People see me as their punching bag and I picked the absolute wrong thread to argue my case. Carry on. 


In fairness to you, fossils fuels are very necessary for you to be able to dip on an airplane in 2025.

Some of us are just hoping for a future in which people don’t dip on airplanes and fossils fuels comprise a much smaller percentage of global energy consumption.
Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 8:15 AM, wild_turkey said:

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.

Every work colleague that anybody in my family ever met was praised and respected by my family. Two weeks out of college, and everybody blamed me for oil and gas prices quadrupling after Three Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution. Together, as the O&G industry, we were the scum of the earth.  

One thing we were guilty of was efficiently and safely supplying what was demanded, 24/7/365.

Hired into a Management Development Program, with a specific goal of identifying individuals who could run the company, I knew I worked with some of the best and the brightest in a company that emphasized safety and innovation, that pioneered change, and rewarded judgement and decision making.

I also realized 90+% of the population would disagree with whatever I said or did, and it was a waste of time to try to help them understand. That would be one of the reasons I never posted in this thread til last week.

We were not Academia, bathed in theory and righteousness.  Our stuff had to work. We were a for-profit, publicly traded, oil & gas company. One that was the focal point of everything that was wrong in the world, tangled in a web of hostility, layers and layers of laws, regulations and guidelines, and ignorance, both inside and outside the industry. 

Makes every effort to prevent change? Other than efforts to enhance and improve safety, I cannot remember a single instance where that was ever the case.

On 2/18/2025 at 9:27 AM, 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.)?   

I simply provided a generic analysis done by others, showing an economic payout that I would decline to approve or fund.

I take no pride of authorship in what was offered.

My economic models have 50-60 variables, with supply and price being the most important, and the hardest to forecast. Both were dictated by the free market, which has little in common with the economics of renewables.  

On 2/18/2025 at 9:34 AM, Dahobbs said:

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. 

I agree that economic criteria are different for many reasons.

Perhaps the favorable investment opportunities in O&G invites the notion that O&G companies are against change. They aren't necessarily against it, they just choose to deploy their limited capital elsewhere. 

The supply side of gas, the gathering and processing, has a very short cycle, and constant business, with most wells declining in volume 50% the first year. If you don't do something, you will die at 15-20% per year.  Our base case threshold was a 20% IRR, or it probably didn't get funded.  The only growth projects approved with lower rates had synergies with other affiliated assets. Safety & environmental projects were non-discretionary and always funded. Chemical Plants and Refineries are the other end of the spectrum, with 50 year economic models.

My involvement in the mega projects was usually but a small piece. When I quietly questioned a long term price forecast, I was told, wink! wink!, that was what was needed to justify the project. I have always viewed longer term projects based on speculative economics as suspect.  That doesn't make them bad projects.

I made board presentations on larger projects.  I offered facts, my opinions on those facts, showed them the potential money, and influenced others to make the hard decisions. True to form, they always heard the part they wanted to hear. 

23 hours ago, 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

23 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

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. 

Thank you Vegas64.

I take it as a given the non-scientists have an agenda. That is expected.

Science is based on undeniable facts. Scientists know better than anyone where the facts end and speculation and opinion begins. A true scientist would make that distinction.  In my lingo, the "scientists" weave facts with opinions and make representations that are more opinions and less factual.

image.png.b3d63a5d148a53d22b539b4376d2ea12.png

The report "supporting" the decision to put the King's X on LNG is another example. It should have just said "We just don't want it."

I was in the forecasting business. I relied on factual information, where available, and always said in the absence of facts, I'll make some up. I had to make assumptions, "... the trend is your friend." My analysis was based on the best information available, factual or otherwise. 

21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The vast majority of climate scientists understand how releasing carbon into the atmosphere changes the planet's climate. 

If we didn't release carbon into the atmosphere, everything would die.

There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen.  You cannot have one without the other.

We should plant more plants.

Posted
21 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Every work colleague that anybody in my family ever met was praised and respected by my family. Two weeks out of college, and everybody blamed me for oil and gas prices quadrupling after Three Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution. Together, as the O&G industry, we were the scum of the earth.  

One thing we were guilty of was efficiently and safely supplying what was demanded, 24/7/365.

Hired into a Management Development Program, with a specific goal of identifying individuals who could run the company, I knew I worked with some of the best and the brightest in a company that emphasized safety and innovation, that pioneered change, and rewarded judgement and decision making.

I also realized 90+% of the population would disagree with whatever I said or did, and it was a waste of time to try to help them understand. That would be one of the reasons I never posted in this thread til last week.

We were not Academia, bathed in theory and righteousness.  Our stuff had to work. We were a for-profit, publicly traded, oil & gas company. One that was the focal point of everything that was wrong in the world, tangled in a web of hostility, layers and layers of laws, regulations and guidelines, and ignorance, both inside and outside the industry. 

This is the climate thread but your post reads more like an explanation or a justification of your career in O&G, like maybe you are speaking to an O&G interest group or your family or a therapist, trying to explain your history. I'm not trying to be a dick. The world's understanding of these things was a lot different for most of your career, but we have learned a lot since then. There's a lot of shit we still do today that future generations may not look upon favorably. That's great that your family respected you and your colleagues; I just don't see what those past feelings have to do with climate change today and our path forward. 

28 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Makes every effort to prevent change? Other than efforts to enhance and improve safety, I cannot remember a single instance where that was ever the case.

I never suggested that you, PTINS, personally stood in the way of progress to fight climate change. What I'm saying is that the O&G industry as a whole spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to prevent change. That seems pretty indisputable but someone please correct me if that is somehow inaccurate.

44 minutes ago, PTINS said:

There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen.  You cannot have one without the other.

We should plant more plants.

We should plant more trees, but please tell me you don't seriously think that is the solution. Nothing to do with shifting away from fossil fuels, but simply plant more trees to restore the balance?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, PTINS said:

If we didn't release carbon into the atmosphere, everything would die.

There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen.  You cannot have one without the other.

We should plant more plants.

The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 

1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But...

2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. 

The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. 

The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.  

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

Also, very very small trees 

IMG_4199.gif

Edited by NAVY
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions

Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

Hey I am just delighted they have a plan to counter this crisis, even if it is an unfeasible one. Plant away I say! Cover Oklahoma in a thick forest inside which OU will be lost forever.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 

1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But...

2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. 

The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. 

The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.  

This. I don’t understand why people don’t get this very simple explanation. Yes, the climate was different back then. And it would absolutely wreck our current ecosystem and existence if we were to suddenly, or over a few hundred years (the same thing in geologic terms), switch back to that level of CO2. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This. I don’t understand why people don’t get this very simple explanation. Yes, the climate was different back then. And it would absolutely wreck our current ecosystem and existence if we were to suddenly, or over a few hundred years (the same thing in geologic terms), switch back to that level of CO2. 

This.  That said....a combined approach of 1) reducing carbon emissions as much as possible, 2) preserving as much existing forest with large trees as possible, and 3) plant as much forest as possible - seriously, it's a planet-saving project, "expensive" should not be an obstacle.

We won't do any of that.  Because that's woke commie bullshit, anything that isn't just massive profit-taking and creating "shareholder value" is evil work of satan.

Posted

I have a plan for carbon capture. We should convert as much carbon as possible to plastic, and then shred all that plastic into little tiny pieces and spread it evenly all over the globe. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, elfenix said:

The GOP pledged to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change. There's currently about 3 trillion trees on earth. Where the fuck are they going to find the space to plant an additional trillion? It's not a serious solution, it's just a side show that they never plan on following through on, much like Hyperloop and the 1994 GOP health plan.

Well, we got these islands of trash rising in our major oceans and waterways. We start taking wildflower seeds and maybe some saplings for the bigger islands and say these trees are fruit bearing …I know who wants to eat trash fruit, but if we  add fertilizers and pesticides, these trees could get bigger and bear even more fruit…

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 1:38 PM, Vegas64 said:

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. 

Like the ones on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry like S. Fred Singer (who I’m happy to learn passed away 5 years ago), Alex Epstein, Judith Curry et al. who deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming? I didn’t get the impression that he meant it that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Let's all take a moment to congratulate King Trump for vanquishing our foes... our foes being Hawaiian songbirds.

 Despite the funds already having been allocated, and the mosquitoes prepared for release, the funding freeze has halted the release of male mosquitoes that produce sterile offspring.

Within the year, the final wild akikiki will perish. Those in captivity are doing poorly and will not be able to be released, as they will succumb to Avian Malaria. Goodbye, akikiki.

Akeke'e number around 600 individuals and are declining at a rate of 21%/year. Goodbye, akeke'e.

Maui parrotbill has dropped over 50% in the last decade to about 150 individuals. Goodbye, Maui parrotbill.

Puaiohi numbers around 500 species and is threatened more by invasive species. Good luck keeping those in check without federal funding. Goodbye, Puaiohi.

Akiapola'au numbers around 1000, and is susceptible to mosquito-borne disease and invasive wildlife. Goodbye, akiapola'au.

King Trump making extinction great again!

1200 (24).jpeg

1200 (25).jpeg

1200 (26).jpeg

1200 (27).jpeg

1200 (28).jpeg

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
23 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

This is the climate thread but your post reads more like an explanation or a justification of your career in O&G, like maybe you are speaking to an O&G interest group or your family or a therapist, trying to explain your history. I'm not trying to be a dick. The world's understanding of these things was a lot different for most of your career, but we have learned a lot since then. There's a lot of shit we still do today that future generations may not look upon favorably. That's great that your family respected you and your colleagues; I just don't see what those past feelings have to do with climate change today and our path forward. 

I never suggested that you, PTINS, personally stood in the way of progress to fight climate change. What I'm saying is that the O&G industry as a whole spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to prevent change. That seems pretty indisputable but someone please correct me if that is somehow inaccurate.

We should plant more trees, but please tell me you don't seriously think that is the solution. Nothing to do with shifting away from fossil fuels, but simply plant more trees to restore the balance?

I am not saying anyone here said this, but I have had others dismiss my beliefs simply because "... you're just an oil and gas guy." 

Most of the time when somebody with an O&G background is appointed to a government position, there is a predictable refrain about the travesty of appointing an O&G person to make decisions about ... O&G. Funny, nobody makes those comments about hiring pilots to fly airplanes.

Every dollar spent by the industry on lobbyists is not to prevent change. Some of it is to challenge the 150 +/- groups or entities that exist to make sure nobody ever drills an oil & gas, anywhere, ever. Don't get me started on ethanol.

Tongue-in-cheek about the trees, but it would help. Very few people moved to the Gulf Coast until we got air conditioning, and liquor by the drink.  Plants and trees are easy; just add water.

I only offer this as an observation, without knowing the accuracy of the information presented. If there is a discernible seasonality difference in CO2 levels, one could presume there are benefits to influencing that seasonality.

image.png.2db44f56684237f07179864f8820ad79.png  

 

23 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 

1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But...

2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. 

The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. 

The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.  

I understand, I over simplified.

Some of the byproducts of combustion are needed, there is just too much of it.

The Carbon gets the press, but the daily "consumption" of 80,000,000 barrels/day of oil (~5,000,000 BTU/bbl) and 400,000,000,000 Ft3/day of gas (~1,000 BTU/Ft3) includes putting all those residual BTU's, all that heat, into the atmosphere. 

Not unlike a hot oven in the kitchen.

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  That said....a combined approach of 1) reducing carbon emissions as much as possible, 2) preserving as much existing forest with large trees as possible, and 3) plant as much forest as possible - seriously, it's a planet-saving project, "expensive" should not be an obstacle.

We won't do any of that.  Because that's woke commie bullshit, anything that isn't just massive profit-taking and creating "shareholder value" is evil work of satan.

This.

"Capturing" CO2 and injecting it underground is very capital intensive. Subsidies and credits make it economical, I guess.

Treating water and planting vegetation seems like a no brainer, but ...

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

I understand, I over simplified.

Some of the byproducts of combustion are needed, there is just too much of it.

The Carbon gets the press, but the daily "consumption" of 80,000,000 barrels/day of oil (~5,000,000 BTU/bbl) and 400,000,000,000 Ft3/day of gas (~1,000 BTU/Ft3) includes putting all those residual BTU's, all that heat, into the atmosphere. 

Not unlike a hot oven in the kitchen.

I don't believe combustion of hydrocarbons specifically is needed, but I understand your point. Combustion is a part of the normal carbon cycle of the planet. 

Your second point makes some intuitive sense, but I don't think is a meaningful driver of global warming.  The heat itself from burning hydrocarbons is a statistical rounding error compared to the overall change driven by increased greenhouse gases. More critically, I'm pretty sure heat from combustion on its own would be radiated into space rather than drive meaningful climate change. The extent to which it remains captured by the planet would, I believe, mostly depend on increasing greenhouse levels preventing its release to space. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It appears there was a leak of the EU omnibus that is going to neuter big time the Sustainability mandates and regulations in Europe (e.g. CSRD, CSDD, etc.) and will have a nice ripple effect across the pond.

Posted
3 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

It appears there was a leak of the EU omnibus that is going to neuter big time the Sustainability mandates and regulations in Europe (e.g. CSRD, CSDD, etc.) and will have a nice ripple effect across the pond.

Rocket sled to the bottom baby. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Rocket sled to the bottom baby. 

I mean, if Europe is losing their nerve, what hope do we have in the States?

Posted

Sorry, kids.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3374ekd11po

BP to slash green investment and ramp up gas and oil

BP is expected to announce it will slash its renewable energy investments and instead focus on increasing oil and gas production.

The energy giant will outline its strategy later following pressure from some investors unhappy its profits and share price have been much lower than its rivals.

Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have already scaled back their plans to invest in green energy. Meanwhile US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels and a move away from low carbon projects.

Some shareholders and environmental groups have voiced concerns over any potential ramping up on production of fossil fuels.

Five years ago, BP set some of the most ambitious targets among large oil companies to cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030, while significantly ramping up investment in renewables.

In 2023, the company lowered this oil and gas reduction target to 25%. 

It is now expected to abandon it altogether while confirming it is cutting investments in renewable energy by more than half in what chief executive Murray Auchincloss called a "fundamental reset".

Mr Auchincloss is under pressure to boost profits from some shareholders including the influential activist group Elliot Management, which took a near £4bn stake in the £70bn company to push for more investment in oil and gas.

In 2024, BP's net income fell to $8.9bn (£7.2bn), down from $13.8bn the previous year.

Since 2020 when former chief executive Bernard Looney first unveiled his strategy, shareholders have received total returns including dividends of 36% over the last five years. In contrast, shareholders in rivals Shell and Exxon have seen returns of 82% and 160% respectively.

BP's under performance has prompted speculation that it may be a takeover target or may consider moving its main stock market listing to the US where oil and gas companies command higher valuations.

Not all shareholders want the company to change course so radically.

Last week, a group of 48 investors called on the company to allow them a vote on any potential plans to move away from its previous commitments to renewables.

A spokesperson for one of the signatories, Royal London Asset Management, said: "As long-term shareholders, we recognise BP's past efforts toward energy transition but remain concerned about the company's continued investment in fossil fuel expansion."

009783d0-f38e-11ef-896e-d7e7fb1719a4.png

The environmental group Greenpeace UK has warned BP could expect "pushback and challenge at every turn if it doubles down on fossil fuels - not just from green campaigners but from its own shareholders".

Senior climate adviser Charlie Kronick said: "Government policies will also need to prioritise renewable power, and as extreme weather puts pressure on insurance models - policymakers will be looking to fossil fuel profits as a way to fund extreme weather recovery. BP might want to seriously put the brakes on this U-turn."

'Science hasn't changed'

"I do wonder whether this sort of decision will look right in 10 years," added Sir Ian Cheshire, who has held many executive roles at companies such as B&Q owner Kingfisher and Barclays bank.

He told the BBC's Today programme that the "overall energy transition" to renewables was "still going to come". 

"The climate change issue has not gone away, the science hasn't changed," he said. 

AJ Bell analyst Russ Mould said this was one of the most significant moments for BP in the last four or five years.

"Other energy companies have been clearer about their intentions thus far than BP," he said.

"They need to prove to people that after a difficult operational and share price performance compared to their peers, that they're looking to do something about it, not just let things drift along, he added.

BP has already placed its offshore wind business in a joint venture with Japanese company Jera and is looking to find a partner to do the same with its solar business. 

The refocus on oil and gas could also see sales of other businesses in order to get "non-core stuff off the books" as insiders describe it. 

It is over 20 years since former chief executive Lord John Browne said BP could stand for "Beyond Petroleum" as he launched the company's first tentative moves away from oil and gas. 

Today's strategy shift could be dubbed "Back to Petroleum" - to the delight of some shareholders and to the dismay of others. 

Both BP and Elliott management declined to comment.

 

Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 12:57 PM, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

 

Hey man, the only time socialism is good is when the societal costs are socialized. 

Profits however, capitalize those, of course. What are you, a commie?

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 2:01 PM, Dahobbs said:

It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant.  But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. 

typo that I didn't catch in time. 

 

Are you sure this is correct? Because I think the extra my home solar panels generate is bought from me by my provider, at a set rate, that I agreed to when I chose that provider. 

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Are you sure this is correct? Because I think the extra my home solar panels generate is bought from me by my provider, at a set rate, that I agreed to when I chose that provider. 

 

It is correct. Whether you personally get it or not, depends upon your contract with your retail electric provider. Technically speaking, your retail electric provider is the beneficiary of the production from your solar panels. They sell that energy on the real time market when produced (although, theoretically, with enough customers with solar they could actually enter into log term contacts rather than just sell on the real time market). So, the energy from your panels get purchased for the same price as an other energy. You'll then have an agreement with your REP that will determine to what extent you share in those funds. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

image.png.504f65b941b5ae0f8db5386688ef4044.png
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/solar-accounted-84-new-us-power-added-2024-report-says-2025-03-11/

March 11 (Reuters) - Solar energy accounted for 84% of new electricity generation capacity added to the U.S. power grid last year, but the industry faces a challenging future with the new U.S. administration's energy policies, a report published on Tuesday said.

The country installed 50 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity in 2024, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie groups said in the report, adding that 2024 was largest single year of growth by any energy technology in over two decades.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT
The solar industry was a major beneficiary of subsidies contained in former President Joe Biden's landmark 2022 climate change law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The Trump administration has said it was reviewing federal funding plans, and any removal of tax credits issued under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act would impact clean energy deployment.

The clean-energy sector has been on high alert since the election of Donald Trump, whose first executive orders prioritized unleashing U.S. fossil-fuel production, paused federal wind projects and froze funding for clean-energy projects from two Biden-era laws.

BY THE NUMBERS
Total U.S. solar capacity is expected to reach 739 GW by 2035, the report said, warning that changes to federal tax credits, supply chain availability, and permitting policy will cause slowdown in solar deployment.

The low case forecast showed a 130 GW decline in solar deployment over the next decade compared to the base case, representing nearly $250 billion of lost investment, according to the report.

KEY QUOTES
"Last year’s record-level of installations was aided by several solar policies and credits within the Inflation Reduction Act that helped drive interest in the solar market," said Sylvia Levya Martinez, Principal Analyst, North America Utility-Scale Solar for Wood Mackenzie.

"We still have many challenges ahead, including unprecedented load growth on the power grid. If many of these policies were eliminated or significantly altered, it would be very detrimental to the industry's continued growth."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Researchers have learned how to recycle perovskite solar cells. Silicon solar cells are landfill waste.

Quote

A research team headed up at Linköping University in Sweden and Cornell University in the US has succeeded in recycling almost all of the components of perovskite solar cells using simple, non-toxic, water-based solvents. What’s more, the researchers were able to use the recycled components to make new perovskite solar cells with almost the same power conversion efficiency as those created from new materials. This work could pave the way to a sustainable perovskite solar economy, they say.

While solar energy is considered an environmentally friendly source of energy, most of the solar panels available today are based on silicon, which is difficult to recycle. This has led to the first generation of silicon solar panels, which are reaching the end of their life cycles, ending up in landfills, says Xun Xiao, one of the team members at Linköping University.

When developing emerging solar cell technologies, we therefore need to take recycling into consideration, adds one of the leaders of the new study, Feng Gao, also at Linköping. “If we don’t know how to recycle them, maybe we shouldn’t put them on the market at all.”

To this end, many countries around the world are imposing legal requirements on photovoltaic manufacturers, to ensure that they collect and recycle any solar cell waste they produce. These initiatives include the WEEE directive 2012/19/EU in the European Union and equivalent legislation in Asia and the US.

Perovskites are one of the most promising materials for making next-generation solar cells. Not only are they relatively inexpensive, they are also easy to fabricate, lightweight, flexible and transparent. This allows them to be placed on top of a variety of surfaces, unlike their silicon counterparts. And since they boast a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of more than 25%, this makes them comparable to existing photovoltaics on the market.

A shorter lifespan

One of their downsides, however, is that perovskite solar cells have a shorter lifespan than silicon solar cells. This means that recycling is even more critical for these materials. Today, perovskite solar cells are disassembled using dangerous solvents such as dimethylformamide, but Gao and colleagues have now developed a technique in which water can be used as the solvent.

Perovskites are crystalline materials with an ABX3 structure, where A is caesium, methylammonium (MA) or formamidinium (FA); B is lead or tin; and X is chlorine, bromine or iodine. Solar cells made of these materials are composed of different layers: the hole/electron transport layers; the perovskite layer; indium tin oxide substrates; and cover glasses.

In their work, which they detail in Nature, the researchers succeeded in delaminating end-of-life devices layer by layer, using water containing three low-cost additives: sodium acetate, sodium iodide and hypophosphorous acid. Despite being able to dissolve organic iodide salts such as methylammonium iodide and formamidinium iodide, water only marginally dissolves lead iodide (about 0.044 g per 100 ml at 20 °C). The researchers therefore developed a way to increase the amount of lead iodide that dissolves in water by introducing acetate ions into the mix. These ions readily coordinate with lead ions, forming highly soluble lead acetate (about 44.31 g per 100 ml at 20 °C).

Once the degraded perovskites had dissolved in the aqueous solution, the researchers set about recovering pure and high-quality perovskite crystals from the solution. They did this by providing extra iodide ions to coordinate with lead. This resulted in [PbI]+ transitioning to [PbI2]0 and eventually to [PbI3]− and the formation of the perovskite framework.

To remove the indium tin oxide substrates, the researchers sonicated these layers in a solution of water/ethanol (50%/50% volume ratio) for 15 min. Finally, they delaminated the cover glasses by placing the degraded solar cells on a hotplate preheated to 150 °C for 3 min.

READ MORE

Roll-to-roll-fabricated hybrid perovskite solar cells reach record efficiencies

They were able to apply their technology to recycle both MAPbI3and FAPbI3 perovskites.

New devices made from the recycled perovskites had an average power conversion efficiency of 21.9 ± 1.1%, with the best samples clocking in at 23.4%. This represents an efficiency recovery of more than 99% compared with those prepared using fresh materials (which have a PCE of 22.1 ± 0.9%).

Looking forward, Gao and colleagues say they would now like to demonstrate that their technique works on a larger scale. “Our life-cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis has already confirmed that our strategy not only preserves raw materials, but also appreciably lowers overall manufacturing costs of solar cells made from perovskites,” says co-team leader Fengqi You, who works at Cornell University. “In particular, reclaiming the valuable layers in these devices drives down expenses and helps reduce the ‘levelized cost’ of electricity they produce, making the technology potentially more competitive and sustainable at scale,” he tells Physics World.

 

https://physicsworld.com/a/perovskite-solar-cells-can-be-completely-recycled/

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 hours ago, bolverk said:

image.png.504f65b941b5ae0f8db5386688ef4044.png
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/solar-accounted-84-new-us-power-added-2024-report-says-2025-03-11/

March 11 (Reuters) - Solar energy accounted for 84% of new electricity generation capacity added to the U.S. power grid last year, but the industry faces a challenging future with the new U.S. administration's energy policies, a report published on Tuesday said.

The country installed 50 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity in 2024, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie groups said in the report, adding that 2024 was largest single year of growth by any energy technology in over two decades.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT
The solar industry was a major beneficiary of subsidies contained in former President Joe Biden's landmark 2022 climate change law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The Trump administration has said it was reviewing federal funding plans, and any removal of tax credits issued under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act would impact clean energy deployment.

The clean-energy sector has been on high alert since the election of Donald Trump, whose first executive orders prioritized unleashing U.S. fossil-fuel production, paused federal wind projects and froze funding for clean-energy projects from two Biden-era laws.

BY THE NUMBERS
Total U.S. solar capacity is expected to reach 739 GW by 2035, the report said, warning that changes to federal tax credits, supply chain availability, and permitting policy will cause slowdown in solar deployment.

The low case forecast showed a 130 GW decline in solar deployment over the next decade compared to the base case, representing nearly $250 billion of lost investment, according to the report.

KEY QUOTES
"Last year’s record-level of installations was aided by several solar policies and credits within the Inflation Reduction Act that helped drive interest in the solar market," said Sylvia Levya Martinez, Principal Analyst, North America Utility-Scale Solar for Wood Mackenzie.

"We still have many challenges ahead, including unprecedented load growth on the power grid. If many of these policies were eliminated or significantly altered, it would be very detrimental to the industry's continued growth."

 

Dual land use- grazing and solar generation. Sheep/cows/whatever get some shade, humans get electricity and wool/beef/whatever. 

 

Also, what is causing the unprecedented load growth? Could it be.. I don't know... bitcoin and AI?

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/climate/trump-ev-power-plant-rollbacks/index.html

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it will undo rules that would have pushed power plants and carmakers toward cleaner forms of energy. It also intends to roll back rules on soot, mercury and coal ash pollution, as well as the so-called “good neighbor rule” that regulates downwind air pollution, and eliminate its programs overseeing environmental justice and diversity.

Significantly, Trump’s EPA is also preparing to reconsider and strike down a consequential scientific finding on the dangers of climate pollution that has served as the basis behind federal regulations to curb them. Dismissing the precedent would strip the EPA’s authority to manage the pollution that causes global warming.


“The Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens,” Energy Sec. Chris Wright said at CERAWeek on Monday.

The Trump administration “will treat climate change for what it is — a global physical phenomenon that is a side effect of building the modern world,” he said.
  • Rage+1 5
Posted (edited)
Quote

The Trump administration “will treat climate change for what it is — a global physical phenomenon that is a side effect of building the modern world,” he said.

Well at least he admits it is real and caused by human action.

Just not going to do anything about it.

I like how we spent trillions fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East on behalf of fossil fuels but it is trying to use clean energy that "imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens" yeah ok. I will take those sacrifices over American soldiers getting their limbs blown off in forever wars so the spice must flow.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Like 5
  • Rage+1 4
Posted

Did anyone else watch Dark Matter? What I'd give to jump into that box with the fam and find myself in the alternate reality McPoyle's character ended up in. 

I honestly wonder if such an alternate reality would even exist, or if we (humankind) were always destined to end this way within a couple centuries of the industrial revolution? The shitty part is I don't think we were. Conscious decisions by a few powerful individuals fucked us all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Don't know where else to put this.  It's going to be awesome when the national parks are trashed and wilderness is destroyed.  Of course, they will probably just let it all burn down.  Fuck you Republicans.

Spoilered for long cat

Spoiler

Wilderness ranger speaks out about February wave of firings, impacts to Wilderness

NOTE: In February, the Trump administration fired approximately 3,400 U.S. Forest Service employees and 1,000 National Park Service employees, including wilderness rangers and trail crew members across the country. Shortly after termination, some wilderness rangers reached out to Wilderness Watch to share their stories and concerns about impacts to Wilderness. The following essay was written by one such wilderness ranger. Wilderness Watch has authenticated the wilderness ranger's identity, but we are publishing this story anonymously to protect their identity and to help prevent potential repercussions. The image in this story is unrelated to where the wilderness ranger works.

At the time of publishing, it was just announced that probationary employees will be “reinstated” for 45 days with pay. The long-term situation remains unknown, with cuts possible again.

 

I knew I wanted to be a wilderness ranger the moment I met the lead wilderness ranger during my first temporary U.S. Forest Service position back in 2018. I took the long way to get there, working positions in botany, then trail crew, but finally found my way to my wilderness ranger “dream job.”

It’s never that simple of course, and my small Forest Service recreation department required me to wear a variety of hats and complete whatever jobs needed doing. I started the season opening developed recreation sites with hazard tree assessments. I participated in the early season chainsaw logout of non-wilderness trails. I used my equestrian background to assist our mule packer with hauling in gear and materials for our Forest Service trail crew and non-profits and volunteer crews. I joined our trail crew with crosscuts and axes to remove as many logs from our wilderness trails as possible.

When all the extra duties were accomplished, I loaded up my pack, picked up my shovel, and headed alone into the Wilderness. I was never completely alone, a few miles away in any direction were other rangers, just a radio call away. Our small but mighty wilderness crew was comprised of our permanent seasonal lead ranger, several temporary rangers like myself, and one or two Americorp interns.

Working in a very busy Wilderness, there is never a shortage of work. There are always people to educate, there is always trash to remove, there are always illegal fire rings to disassemble and rehabilitate, and there are always people camping on fragile alpine vegetation. In the dry heat of summer, lightning peppers the landscape, and fires threatening people must be found and fought. There is a constant battle to manage the rapidly filling wilderness pit toilets, and deal with the ever-increasing piles of human waste from those that haven’t mastered the art of the “cathole.” Sometimes, when education isn’t enough, citations must be issued—but know that a wilderness ranger never reaches for their “ticket book” lightly.

Despite the challenges, being out in the Wilderness educating people about their public lands and maintaining these beautiful spaces is the most rewarding job I have ever experienced. I would have continued to work as a temporary employee as long as they would let me do this work. In June 2024, after 9 temporary appointments, I began my first permanent seasonal position with the Forest Service. More than a thousand other long-term temporary employees, including many other wilderness rangers, were hired into permanent positions last year as well. It felt like the agency that has struggled with attrition and hiring for so long was finally building up the next generation of public land stewards to carry on the work of our predecessors.

I was eager to learn the vast work of my mentor, friend, and lead wilderness ranger, who was approaching a well-deserved retirement. He began to teach me the grant application process. This is necessary because the on-the-ground Forest Service recreation employees in my state receive almost no direct federal funding and rely on competitive state recreation grants to fund their work. Read that sentence again—and remember it.

Fast forward to September 2024. My coworkers and I come out of the woods to an announcement that the Forest Service will not be hiring any temporary employees for the 2025 field season. This devastating news hit hard. All around me, friends and coworkers who began to learn the jobs they cherished, and returned to year after year, were gone. Our wilderness ranger “crew” was now a crew of two.

Despite losing our temporaries, we kept our chins up, because we had the recently-hired new cohort of permanent seasonal employees. We knew the next summer with bare-bones staffing would be incredibly challenging, but we are no strangers to doing more with less. I finished my field season, helped finish our grant applications, and received a glowing performance review from my supervisor.

January 2025 was barely over when we received news that every probationary employee was being placed on a list. A probationary period is at least a one year—and up to three years—in which a new permanent employee must display through their performance that they are a good fit for their position. I was a little worried, but I had a fantastic performance review.

Then came February 14, 2025.

I begin getting texts from friends and old coworkers across the region.

“People are being terminated from their positions!”

I get the call myself in the afternoon—I am also being terminated from my position. We all receive an identical letter stating: “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest. For this reason, the Agency informs you that the Agency is removing you from your position.”

Just like that, the career I have been tirelessly working toward is ripped away.

Your public land stewards, the protectors of your Wilderness, were fired. Not due lack of funding, not due to lack of work, not due to poor performance, but due to a complete lack of understanding, and an act of cruelty against federal employees.

The dust has had time to settle, and we can now assess the damage. All probationary Forest Service employees in “non-fire” positions were fired. There are almost no wilderness rangers left in my state and many of my neighboring states. Beyond Wilderness, there are almost no field-going recreation employees left. The temporaries are gone, the permanent seasonals are gone. Without staff, many ranger districts will struggle to even utilize volunteers or host Americorp interns.

Our Congressionally-designated Wilderness areas, and public lands as a whole, are now in greater danger than they have ever been. Visitation continues to increase, and the presence of wilderness rangers is more important than ever.

Without wilderness rangers, pit toilets will overflow, trash will pile up, more fragile alpine vegetation will be trampled by tents, feet, and fire rings, tripping over human and pet waste will become even more common, and already crowded areas likely will have no one to enforce wilderness permit requirements. I fear these precious, fragile places will have their wilderness character destroyed.

If you value public lands, and wild spaces, it is time to stand up for Wilderness.

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
22 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Don't know where else to put this.  It's going to be awesome when the national parks are trashed and wilderness is destroyed.  Of course, they will probably just let it all burn down.  Fuck you Republicans.

Spoilered for long cat

  Reveal hidden contents

Wilderness ranger speaks out about February wave of firings, impacts to Wilderness

NOTE: In February, the Trump administration fired approximately 3,400 U.S. Forest Service employees and 1,000 National Park Service employees, including wilderness rangers and trail crew members across the country. Shortly after termination, some wilderness rangers reached out to Wilderness Watch to share their stories and concerns about impacts to Wilderness. The following essay was written by one such wilderness ranger. Wilderness Watch has authenticated the wilderness ranger's identity, but we are publishing this story anonymously to protect their identity and to help prevent potential repercussions. The image in this story is unrelated to where the wilderness ranger works.

At the time of publishing, it was just announced that probationary employees will be “reinstated” for 45 days with pay. The long-term situation remains unknown, with cuts possible again.

 

I knew I wanted to be a wilderness ranger the moment I met the lead wilderness ranger during my first temporary U.S. Forest Service position back in 2018. I took the long way to get there, working positions in botany, then trail crew, but finally found my way to my wilderness ranger “dream job.”

It’s never that simple of course, and my small Forest Service recreation department required me to wear a variety of hats and complete whatever jobs needed doing. I started the season opening developed recreation sites with hazard tree assessments. I participated in the early season chainsaw logout of non-wilderness trails. I used my equestrian background to assist our mule packer with hauling in gear and materials for our Forest Service trail crew and non-profits and volunteer crews. I joined our trail crew with crosscuts and axes to remove as many logs from our wilderness trails as possible.

When all the extra duties were accomplished, I loaded up my pack, picked up my shovel, and headed alone into the Wilderness. I was never completely alone, a few miles away in any direction were other rangers, just a radio call away. Our small but mighty wilderness crew was comprised of our permanent seasonal lead ranger, several temporary rangers like myself, and one or two Americorp interns.

Working in a very busy Wilderness, there is never a shortage of work. There are always people to educate, there is always trash to remove, there are always illegal fire rings to disassemble and rehabilitate, and there are always people camping on fragile alpine vegetation. In the dry heat of summer, lightning peppers the landscape, and fires threatening people must be found and fought. There is a constant battle to manage the rapidly filling wilderness pit toilets, and deal with the ever-increasing piles of human waste from those that haven’t mastered the art of the “cathole.” Sometimes, when education isn’t enough, citations must be issued—but know that a wilderness ranger never reaches for their “ticket book” lightly.

Despite the challenges, being out in the Wilderness educating people about their public lands and maintaining these beautiful spaces is the most rewarding job I have ever experienced. I would have continued to work as a temporary employee as long as they would let me do this work. In June 2024, after 9 temporary appointments, I began my first permanent seasonal position with the Forest Service. More than a thousand other long-term temporary employees, including many other wilderness rangers, were hired into permanent positions last year as well. It felt like the agency that has struggled with attrition and hiring for so long was finally building up the next generation of public land stewards to carry on the work of our predecessors.

I was eager to learn the vast work of my mentor, friend, and lead wilderness ranger, who was approaching a well-deserved retirement. He began to teach me the grant application process. This is necessary because the on-the-ground Forest Service recreation employees in my state receive almost no direct federal funding and rely on competitive state recreation grants to fund their work. Read that sentence again—and remember it.

Fast forward to September 2024. My coworkers and I come out of the woods to an announcement that the Forest Service will not be hiring any temporary employees for the 2025 field season. This devastating news hit hard. All around me, friends and coworkers who began to learn the jobs they cherished, and returned to year after year, were gone. Our wilderness ranger “crew” was now a crew of two.

Despite losing our temporaries, we kept our chins up, because we had the recently-hired new cohort of permanent seasonal employees. We knew the next summer with bare-bones staffing would be incredibly challenging, but we are no strangers to doing more with less. I finished my field season, helped finish our grant applications, and received a glowing performance review from my supervisor.

January 2025 was barely over when we received news that every probationary employee was being placed on a list. A probationary period is at least a one year—and up to three years—in which a new permanent employee must display through their performance that they are a good fit for their position. I was a little worried, but I had a fantastic performance review.

Then came February 14, 2025.

I begin getting texts from friends and old coworkers across the region.

“People are being terminated from their positions!”

I get the call myself in the afternoon—I am also being terminated from my position. We all receive an identical letter stating: “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest. For this reason, the Agency informs you that the Agency is removing you from your position.”

Just like that, the career I have been tirelessly working toward is ripped away.

Your public land stewards, the protectors of your Wilderness, were fired. Not due lack of funding, not due to lack of work, not due to poor performance, but due to a complete lack of understanding, and an act of cruelty against federal employees.

The dust has had time to settle, and we can now assess the damage. All probationary Forest Service employees in “non-fire” positions were fired. There are almost no wilderness rangers left in my state and many of my neighboring states. Beyond Wilderness, there are almost no field-going recreation employees left. The temporaries are gone, the permanent seasonals are gone. Without staff, many ranger districts will struggle to even utilize volunteers or host Americorp interns.

Our Congressionally-designated Wilderness areas, and public lands as a whole, are now in greater danger than they have ever been. Visitation continues to increase, and the presence of wilderness rangers is more important than ever.

Without wilderness rangers, pit toilets will overflow, trash will pile up, more fragile alpine vegetation will be trampled by tents, feet, and fire rings, tripping over human and pet waste will become even more common, and already crowded areas likely will have no one to enforce wilderness permit requirements. I fear these precious, fragile places will have their wilderness character destroyed.

If you value public lands, and wild spaces, it is time to stand up for Wilderness.

 

one of my clients told me they plan to spend the summer visiting various national parks with their kids in a rv. I didn't have the heart to tell them they should probably plan a different trip. They'll likely figure that out on their own soon enough

Posted
On 3/13/2025 at 3:06 PM, Valmy77 said:

Well at least he admits it is real and caused by human action.

Just not going to do anything about it.

I like how we spent trillions fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East on behalf of fossil fuels but it is trying to use clean energy that "imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens" yeah ok. I will take those sacrifices over American soldiers getting their limbs blown off in forever wars so the spice must flow.

We're a beleagued populace. The socialists tried to make us cut back on hamburgers. Lord knows how many perished during that horrible period in our nation's history. Those unsettling days of wondering if Big Macs would be always available, were made worse by the not-knowing whether the electricity coming out of the socket and plugs was from, gasp, clean energy sources.

Woke energy from windmills or solar panels could be flooding our homes without us even knowing!

Talk about your post-Trump interregnum conspiracies. We were being constantly radiated by woke energy that was compromising our precious bodily fluids. God Bless President Trump for saving us!

image.png.8bb3abac419af0133b816faf087c6011.png

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 2/17/2025 at 1:07 PM, 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. 

What is the footprint of production of the gas? Should that not be factored in?



×
×
  • Create New...