-
How would you confront the energy problem?
-
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/energy-environment/supreme-court-upholds-a-federal-approach-to-power-pricing.html?_r=0]
Supreme Court Upholds Efforts on Managing Electricity Use Through Pricing[/url][/h1]The [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org]Supreme Court[/link] on Monday [link=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-840_k537.pdf]ruled[/link] that federal regulators may encourage electricity users like schools, hospitals and shopping centers to reduce consumption at peak times in exchange for price breaks. The regulatory approach, known as demand response, lowers costs for consumers and lessens the risk of system failures that can cause blackouts. That practice arose because wholesale market operators can sometimes say, on a muggy August day offer electricity both more cheaply and more reliably by paying users to dial down their consumption than by paying power plants to ramp up their production, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority in the 6-to-2 decision.
Environmental groups welcomed the ruling. Demand response programs make energy cheaper, ensure the reliability of the grid, and protect our air and water from fossil fuel pollution, Casey Roberts, a lawyer with the Sierra Club, said in a statement.
Demand response cuts into the profits of companies that own power plants, which lose money when price spikes are avoided. Business groups and their supporters said the majority had ignored legal principles that should have constrained the regulator, the [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_energy_regulatory_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org]Federal Energy Regulatory Commission[/link].
This might cause a bitof financial pain to utilities but that’s OK. We need to put the “public” back into “Public utilities”.
Or as the Bloomberg editorial board put it:
“This ruling may hurt U.S. power generators, shares of which [link=http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-25/ferc-s-demand-response-rule-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court]fell[/link] after it was issued. But U.S. energy policy must take into account larger concerns. There are plenty of obstacles — technological, economic and political — that prevent the U.S. from reducing emissions as quickly as it should, or from modernizing its energy market. The Supreme Court deserves credit for allowing the federal government to make progress on both fronts. ”
-
I heard this reported last evening & was surprised to say the least. No surprise about Scalia & Thomas, Alito recused himself, that’s surprising also not to mention Roberts.
-
-
[img]http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/03/1-2-newuselectricitygeneratingcapacityadditions2012-2015-100650174-orig.jpg[/img]
[link=http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044132/sustainable-it/us-set-to-smash-solar-power-records-this-year.html]Solar exceeded natural gas for new energy installations for the first time[/link]
New U.S. solar power installations this year are set to break all previous records by more than doubling what was installed last year with 16 billion new watts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity.
The total operating solar PV capacity in the U.S. is expected to reach 25.6 gigawatts (billion watts or GW) of direct current (DC) by the end of the year, according to GTM Research’s U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2015 Year in Review.
When accounting for all projects(both distributed and centralized), solar accounted for 29.4% of new electric generating capacity installed in the U.S. in 2015, exceeding the total for natural gas for the first time.
-
And 10 years ago Mistrad said that would be impossible.
-
I’d still like to see some Hydrogen stations built out. The technology is there for cars, just not the network of hydrogen stations. Tesla built out a charger network, so maybe some of the car companies need to step up and do it. I know Honda built a really nice one in Murrysville, Ohio so employees there could drive the Hydrogen Civic.
-
Need more H2 cars. Only electric now. I’m not aware of any makers planning H2 fuel cells for mass production yet, not even on a small scale like Tesla’s.
-
[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/saudi-arabia-s-oil-chief-prepares-for-a-world-after-fossil-fuels]Saudi Arabia’s Oil Chief Prepares for a World After Fossil Fuels[/url]
Even as it pumps near-record quantities of oil, Saudi Arabia is getting ready for a time when the world will no longer need its biggest export.
The worlds largest crude exporter is focusing on renewable-energy sources such as solar power in preparation for a post-oil global economy, Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said at a conference in Berlin on Thursday. Still, he doesnt expect that era to dawn any time soon, estimating that consumers will still be burning fossil fuels for at least another 50 years.
I dont think there is a more ideal country for renewables than Saudi Arabia, given its abundant sunshine, available land and plentiful sand, which is needed for making solar panels, al-Naimi said. Studies by the kingdom and other countries into alternative energy are looking at ways to shift from oil and gas to renewables, he said.
-
Quote from Frumious
Need more H2 cars. Only electric now. I’m not aware of any makers planning H2 fuel cells for mass production yet, not even on a small scale like Tesla’s.
Agree, but you can’t have the cars if you can’t fill them up. So it’s a double edged sword. I believe Honda and Toyota have the all the technology to do it. The Honda clarity car does something like 60city/60HWY MPGs, with zero emissions.
Eventually it would seem we’ll all be driving electric, hybrids, fuel cell or something. So that infrastructure needs to be built out. In the campaigns you hear candidates talking 21st century jobs. It seems like revamping or adding to the gas station infrastructure could create a lot of jobs.-
Trump delivers energy policy address. Sarah Palin would be proud…. it’s [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html]Drill, baby. Drill![/url]
Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of Americas oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to cancel the Paris climate agreement, the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change.
Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obamas signature climate change rules and revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canadas oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
…
A central question confronting the next president will be how to address climate change. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the established science that climate change is caused by humans, vowed in his speech to undo many of Mr. Obamas initiatives. He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, Were going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones weve been hearing about.-
Teump says what he needs to appease the crowd. If he were in front of Kentucky coal miners it would be “dig baby dig”
-
In Pittsburgh he told them he was going to bring back the steel industry
……. Pittsburghers gave up on the steel industry in the 80’s and have since moved on to medicine and technology
Trump is an spoiled little rich boy who can pander to the lowest of ” Merican” intellect
He is rehashing the pat with no plan for the future except be afraid
He is running out of steam already
-
Trump has promised to bring back coal, another fossil fuel, blaming coal’s loss on government environmental regulation.
What else would be to blame for coal’s market crash. After all Hillary said she would make all those coal miners lose their jobs, as is “interpreted” by the miners and the Republican Party. Who knew she had that much power.
Reality is the market itself killed coal. That and fracking making abundant oil and gas in this country, making us a major player in oil and gas again. Trump is going to reverse that by laying off oil and gas workers one must suppose. At least until they complain. But it will be the fault of the Clintons and Obama, of course.
To paraphrase Senator Hiram Warren Johnson,
[align=center]”Truth is the first casualty” in war and politics.[/align] [align=left]
Other elements of Mr. Trumps energy proposals appear less viable. As coal mining jobs have declined, Mr. Trump has vowed to fully restore their numbers.
Were going to bring back the coal industry, save the coal industry, he said. I love those people.
It is unclear how Mr. Trump could restore lost jobs in the coal industry. As domestic coal demand has declined, companies have laid off thousands of miners. But economists say that shift is driven by market forces: The [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/natural-gas/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier&version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click]natural gas[/link] boom led power companies to buy cheaper gas rather than coal.
Most analysts would say that coal is hurting because natural gas prices have collapsed, said Robert McNally, the president of the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm, and a senior energy official in the George W. Bush administration. Donald Trump would have to find a way to raise natural gas prices.
Mr. Trump also repeatedly emphasized energy independence the idea that the United States could isolate itself from global oil markets and cease importing fuels.
Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence, he said. We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest.
But experts say that such remarks display a basic ignorance of the workings of the global oil markets.
Ignorance. The real platform of Trump and his supporters.
[/align]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Donald wants to burn more fossil fuels and lately says he doesn’t believe in global warming.
And yet he wants to have a wall built around an oceanside golf course of his to protect against rising sea levels? Presumably to be paid for by King Neptune.-
Quote from Frumious
The Donald wants to burn more fossil fuels and lately says he doesn’t believe in global warming.
As Trump takes office threatening to increase fossil fuel use, CHina goes the other way:
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/world/asia/china-renewable-energy-investment.html]China plans massive renewable push; Will spend $360 billion by 2020[/link]China intends to spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable power sources like solar and wind, the governments energy agency said on Thursday.
The agency said in a statement that China would create more than 13 million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2020, curb the growth of greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and reduce the amount of soot that in recent days has blanketed Beijing and other Chinese cities in a noxious cloud of smog.
Chinas announcement was a bold claim on leadership in the renewable energy industry, where Chinese companies, buoyed by a huge domestic market, are already among the worlds dominant players. Thanks in part to Chinese manufacturing, costs in the wind and solar industries are plummeting, making them increasingly competitive with power generation from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.
…
Sam Geall, executive editor of [link=https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9532-China-raises-its-low-carbon-ambitions-in-new-2-2-targets]Chinadialogue[/link], an English- and Chinese-language website that focuses on the environment, said that the United States, by moving away from a focus on reducing carbon emissions, risked losing out to China in the race to lead the industry.
Mr. Trump has in the past called the theory of human-cased global warming [link=https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en]a hoax[/link] and picked a [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html]fierce opponent [/link]of President Obamas rules to reduce carbon emissions, Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
The investment commitment made by the Chinese, combined with Mr. Trumps moves, means jobs that would have been created in the United States may instead go to Chinese workers.The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012
-
China is becoming the new leader of the world as Trump threatens to retreat America.
-
I’ll buy you a one way ticket to China First Class if you agree to never return to this awful country………
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
I’ll buy you a one way ticket to China First Class if you agree to never return to this awful country………
I’d like to visit but it’s not my country. As a Trump supporter though I’d have thought you’d be first in line to emigrate from America in decline.
But the pay in China is lousy compared to here so here you are.
-
Can the pilots see runway lights in Beijing? last pictures I saw you can barely see a hundred yards because of smog.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Can the pilots see runway lights in Beijing? last pictures I saw you can barely see a hundred yards because of smog.
All the more reason to move to renewables.
True story:
When I was in Beijing in May 2008 ahead of the Olympics. I was visiting a friend. The whole time we were there the skies were clear and blue.
Finally I said “I thought it was supposed to be full of smog here.”
He replied, “It is. But the Chinese government turned off all the heat to the entire city back in early March so they wouldn’t burn any coal.”
Amazing what kind of quick results you can get in a dictatorship.-
I recall that story from the Olympics. China is probably a decent place to put solar if they could somehow get that infrastructure into a place like the Gobi desert.
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Can the pilots see runway lights in Beijing? last pictures I saw you can barely see a hundred yards because of smog.
That’s because they are such leaders and do everything better than us [;)]
-
-
Quote from Frumious
As a Trump supporter though I’d have thought you’d be first in line to emigrate from America in decline.
Why would he emigrate now that America will be made great again 😉-
This is true.
-
LOL…I can’t believe this post is still going. Almost 9 years!
-
Quote from MISTRAD
LOL…I can’t believe this post is still going. Almost 9 years!
Well, it IS one of the biggest issues in our lifetimes… of our children’s lifetimes.
-
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/us-solar-market-sets-record-breaking-year-in-2016-says-new-report.html]US solar market sets record breaking year in 2016[/url]
The U.S. solar market had its biggest year in 2016, with more than 14 gigawatts (GW) of solar power installed, according to a new report released on Thursday.
Other key findings from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) U.S. Solar Market Insight 2016 Year-in-Review report include: a new megawatt of solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity going “on-line”, on average, every 36 minutes; and the expectation that the total amount of installed solar PV in the U.S. will almost triple over the next five years.
“Prices dropped to all-time lows, installations expanded in states across the country and job numbers soared,” Ross Hopper added. “The bottom line is that more people are benefitting from solar now than at any point in the past, and while the market is changing, the broader trend over the next five years is going in one direction and that’s up.”
And …
[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-08/tesla-completes-hawaii-storage-project-that-sells-solar-at-night]Tesla Completes Hawaii Storage Project That Sells Solar at Night[/url]The Kapaia installation includes a 13-megawatt solar system and 52 megawatt-hours of batteries that can store energy during the day and dispatch it after the sun goes down, the Palo Alto, California-based company said Wednesday. Tesla has a 20-year contract with the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative on the island of Kauai to deliver electricity at 13.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Thats lower than the utilitys cost for power from diesel plants of 15.48 cents, and about half the 27.68 cents that consumers paid in December for electricity in the state.
The project is the largest of its kind to be placed in service by Tesla since its $2 billion acquisition of panel installer SolarCity Corp. in November. It underscores the effort by Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk to transform Tesla into a one-stop-shop for clean energy consumers. Musk is coupling solar power with Tesla batteries to provide more reliable energy for utilities and reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Hawaii, which has the highest electric rates in the U.S., has set a goal of getting all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045. The state, which has relied on pricey, oil-fired power plants, is grappling with how to integrate increasing amounts of intermittent solar on its system. In January, power developer AES Corp. agreed to build a 28-megawatt solar project with 20 megawatts of battery storage for the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative.
-
-
Quote from MISTRAD
LOL…I can’t believe this post is still going. Almost 9 years!
Eisenhowers ‘Atoms for peace’ speech was on Dec 8th 1953. The Shippingport reactor went on the net in 1958 and the Yankee Rowe station went online in 1960. If we still had the soviets breathing down our necks, we would have solved the energy ‘problem’ in the 9 years since this thread was started.-
9 years later solar and wind and alt power has made significant inroads in cost and public supply of power, contrary to nay-sayers declaring it impossible.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Another record (just weeks after the last record)
[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/cheapest-solar-on-record-said-to-be-offered-for-abu-dhabi]Cheapest Solar on Record Offered as Abu Dhabi Expands Renewables[/url]
Government-owned Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Authority received a record-low bid of 2.42 cents a kilowatt-hour for power from a planned facility in the Persian Gulf sheikhdom, state-run Emirates News Agency said. The utility on Monday opened six bids to build a solar plant capable of generating at least 350 megawatts, the agency said. JinkoSolar Holding Co. of China and Japans Marubeni Corp. made the lowest joint offer, according to an official from the Middle East Solar Energy Industry Association, who asked not to be identified citing policy.
The bid marks another record for solar technology prices, which have fallen almost 70 percent in the past five years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Competition among Chinese solar manufacturers including Jinko has brought down the cost of delivering panels while more investors have become comfortable with backing the technology, reducing borrowing costs.
The utility is still evaluating the bids received and aims to sign a final agreement for construction and operation of the plant in the first quarter, Emirates News said. Three calls to JinkoSolars director of investor relations, Sebastian Liu, went unanswered. Officials at Marubeni declined to comment.
-
makes sense. The desert seems like an ideal place for solar power.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from IR_CONSULT
I’ll buy you a one way ticket to China First Class if you agree to never return to this awful country………
I’d like to visit but it’s not my country. As a Trump supporter though I’d have thought you’d be first in line to emigrate from America in decline.
But the pay in China is lousy compared to here so here you are.
So again I ask again what misinformation was spread that duped you into voting for Trump? -
Human Sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria…
NYT: [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/science/exxon-carbon-tax.html]Exxon Mobile (and Shell and BP) support a carbon tax[/link]The group, the Climate Leadership Council, unveiled a conservative climate solution in February that would fight global warming by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and returning the money to taxpayers as a climate dividend. The underlying idea is that, by making energy derived from fossil fuels more expensive, the free market will move more quickly and effectively toward renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions.
Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total S.A. publicly backed the plan on Tuesday, and they have a number of reasons to lend their support. The plan calls for scrapping Obama-era regulations intended to fight climate change, arguing that a market-driven approach will have the same effect in reducing emissions as the regulations would.
The oil giants could simply pass the cost of new taxes on to customers. And to protect American companies, the plan would introduce so-called border adjustments, intended to increase the cost of goods coming from nations that do not have a similar carbon tax.[/QUOTE]
NPR gives a nice look at the opportunism in the policy position: [link=http://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533909743/exxonmobil-uses-carbon-tax-strategy-to-its-advantage-author-says]http://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533909743/exxonmobil-uses-carbon-tax-strategy-to-its-advantage-author-says[/link]
-
Divide and conquer & confuse the masses who remain confused today believing the corporations who profit from the misinformation campaign but not scientists who do not gain – “over 95% of scientists are lying!”
Truth is there more money in them thar hills to be got for denial than there is for reality.
Go figure why stupidity is more attractive than the reality in front of your eyes.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
9 years later solar and wind and alt power has made significant inroads in cost and public supply of power, contrary to nay-sayers declaring it impossible.
Agree. It’s not very affordable right now. Like I wouldn’t/couldn’t dump $7k into a Tesla battery, plus another $X number of dollars into solar roof panels, and infrastructure to feed the battery. Plus you have to buy another battery every so often. That’s an expensive proposition. It only cost me $8000 at peak high prices in oil to put on a 30 year petro-based shingle roof.
-
Murray coal’s squirrel sues John Oliver for truthful defamation.
Watch the Oliver segment who exposes the coal industry’s lying liars.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/22/john-oliver-a-giant-squirrel-and-a-defamation-lawsuit-by-a-coal-industry-titan]https://www.washingtonpos…-a-coal-industry-titan[/link]-
Quote from Frumious
Murray coal’s squirrel sues John Oliver for truthful defamation.
Watch the Oliver segment who exposes the coal industry’s lying liars.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/22/john-oliver-a-giant-squirrel-and-a-defamation-lawsuit-by-a-coal-industry-titan]https://www.washingtonpos…-a-coal-industry-titan[/link]
[link=http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/john-oliver-lawsuit-dismissed-1202709801/]http://variety.com/2018/t…-dismissed-1202709801/[/link]
Murray lawsuit against John Oliver dismissed.
[blockquote] [link=http://variety.com/t/john-oliver/]John Oliver[/link] and HBO were vindicated Wednesday when the judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by coal company CEO Robert Murray against the host and premium cabler dismissed the case.
I find the arguments set forth in the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Reply well-founded, appropriate in this matter and will grant the same, Judge Jeffrey Cramer wrote in a letter to attorneys for both sides. The Court adopts, with little exception, Defendants argument in support of their Motion regarding all issues addressed in the same.
The attorneys for HBO argued that Murray did not have a case for defamation, as the critical portions of Olivers segment were based on judges opinions and government reports, and the more personal jabs at Murray counted as satire, which is protected speech and cannot be proven false.
[/blockquote]-
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/26/study-wind-and-solar-can-power-most-of-the-united-states][b]Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States: [/b]Wind, solar, and storage could meet 90100% of Americas electricity needs[/url]
The authors analyzed 36 years of hourly weather data (19802015) in the US. They calculated the available wind and solar power over this time period and also included the electrical demand in the US and its variation throughout the year.
The authors found that with 100% power capacity and no mechanism to store energy, a wind-heavy portfolio is best (about 75% wind, 25% solar) and using large aggregate regions is optimal. It is possible to supply about 75-80% of US electrical needs. If the system were designed with excess capacity (the 150% case), the US could meet about 90% of its needs with wind and solar power.
The authors modified their study to allow up to 12 hours of US energy storage. They then found that the 100% capacity system fared even better (about 90% of the countrys energy) and the optimal balance was now more solar (approximately 70% solar and 30% wind). For the over-capacity system, the authors found that virtually all the countrys power needs could be met with wind, solar, and storage.[/QUOTE]
-
by 2030 MIT is trying to make their fission reactor a reality.
[link]https://nrl.mit.edu/[/link]
will we have the infrastructure to support the fission reactor if it works out?-
Fission reactor? Why?
-
I’m confusing the process. Fusion reactor. From what I’ve read they’re building some powerful magnets that will enable them to build a fusion reactor, make a lot of power, and cleanly.
-
[url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-resolution-1155146]Democrats release “Green New Deal” [/url]
[A] new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity … to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States; to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and to counteract systemic injustices,” the resolution, which was shared with POLITICO, states.
As POLITICO previously [link=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/04/green-new-deal-fossil-fuels-1142544]reported[/link], the plan seeks to transition the U.S. to a 100 percent clean energy system without specifically calling for an end to fossil fuels, stating that it aims for[b] [/b]”net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” It also calls for creating “millions of good, high-wage jobs” and pledges “to promote justice and equity” across all communities within 10 years.
…
The resolution advocates for eliminating fossil fuels pollution and greenhouse gas emissions “as much as technologically feasible” in agriculture and transportation, two of the major sources of climate change gases.
Under the plan, the electricity system would run entirely on “clean, renewable, and zero-emission sources,” the resolution states. It envisions new[b] [/b]investments in public transportation, improving building energy efficiency, clean manufacturing and green infrastructure. Investments would prioritize communities that “may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries” while also ensuring room for “high-paying union jobs” that include prevailing wages and protect collective bargaining rights. It also pushes to “stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas.”
-
I think it makes sense to put money into infrastructure. Guarantee on union jobs is kind of scary. Sometimes the union spoils it. Supposedly the return on infrastructure spending is 6 to 1 for dollars spent.
I saw it pointed out that it calls for replacing or upgrading every building in the country. Sounds pretty expensive.-
[link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/renewable-energy-to-expand-by-50-in-next-five-years-report]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/renewable-energy-to-expand-by-50-in-next-five-years-report[/link]
[h1]Renewable energy to expand by 50% in next five years – report[/h1]
Energy agency says solar power will drive faster than forecast growth in renewablesGlobal supplies of renewable electricity are growing faster than expected and could expand by 50% in the next five years, powered by a resurgence in solar energy.
The International [link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/energy]Energy[/link] Agency (IEA) found that solar, wind and hydropower projects are rolling out at their fastest rate in four years.
Its latest report predicts that by 2024 a new dawn for [link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2019/oct/20/chasing-the-sun-the-world-solar-challenge-2019-in-pictures]cheap solar power[/link] could see the worlds solar capacity grow by 600GW, almost double the installed total electricity capacity of Japan. Overall, [link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/renewableenergy]renewable electricity[/link] is expected to grow by 1,200GW in the next five years, the equivalent of the total electricity capacity of the US.
[link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/renewableenergy]Renewable energy[/link] sources make up 26% of the worlds electricity today, but according to the IEA its share is expected to reach 30% by 2024. The resurgence follows a global slowdown last year, due to falling technology costs and rising environmental concerns.
[/QUOTE]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Republican anti-alternate energy “folks” said this was impossible!!! Government overreach as well as scientist conspiracy & fraud! Forcing people off of tungsten lightbulbs onto LED bulbs is Socialism! Not to mention wind and solar could never replace fossil fuels and doing so would bankrupt American economy!!!
Ignorant idiots. Lemmings and Luddites. -
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/14/blackrock-letter-climate-change/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/14/blackrock-letter-climate-change/[/link]
[h1]BlackRock makes climate change central to its investment strategy[/h1] [h2]The shift by the nations leading money manager is sure to be closely watched by its rivals and the rest of corporate America.[/h2]
BlackRock, the worlds largest money manager, will make sustainability and climate risks key tenets of its investing strategy, a move that its chief executive said should push financial institutions to prioritize climate change issues.
But activists noted the firms lackluster history on this front and the need for it to push further.
Climate change has become a defining factor in companies long-term prospects, BlackRock chairman and chief executive Larry Fink said in his annual letter to chief executives. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.
In a separate letter to [link=https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/blackrock-client-letter]investors,[/link] BlackRock announced it would exit investments with high environmental risks, including thermal coal, which is burned to produce electricity and creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. BlackRock will also launch new investment products that screen for fossil fuels.
[/QUOTE]
-
Does that mean they fear government control, not actually the BS hysteria known as “climate change” especially since climate changes, by definition?
They don’t really say so, though your posts presumably claims such.-
Black Rock is in the business of making money
They believe that in the coming years climate change will cause some investments/technologies/businesses to be more profitable while it will cause others to be less profitable
They are going to use similar analytics used for active management to find places where they can get outsized return
It is not a social/ethical play… it’s about money
-
I always get a kick out of the climate change is hysteria people. The Pentagon thinks it’s real and it will change our ability to operate and even where we might fight wars in the future. See melting arctic and it’s resources.
-
Actually I love the “scientific” reasoning by the climate deniers, that the “climate changes” by definition. So lemming Luddites like cigar/Castlevania see no question with climate that changes over thousands and millions of years vs climate that’s changed over decades. Somehow the light never goes on in their teeny little heads that glaciers and Arctic ice that has existed for thousands of years are gone within a few decades.
I suppose if you are a Fundamentalist there is no issue since the Universe was created in 7 days, so to them a few decades is a very looonngggg time by comparison.
DUH!
And on this forum, many of them are allegedly science majors, as in medicine is science? But again, scientists don’t know what they are talking about since “they” are in a conspiracy.
How does climate change?
Magick. It just does. The climate changes but no one knows how or why. Everything works in mysterious and conspiratorial ways to Luddites & Fundamentalists.
-
James and Kathryn Murdoch upset about the Murdoch family empires role in climate change denial ignorance.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/murdoch-family-discord-plays-out-publicly/2020/01/15/ab4d177e-37c1-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…107303481a4_story.html[/link]
The comments, while focused narrowly on the way Murdoch-owned media properties have covered the wildfires in Australia, highlighted the familys underlying discord. (The fires have claimed 27 lives and an estimated 1 billion animals.)
Even when he was an executive at his fathers company, Jamess values were on display. When he ran the paid-television division Sky, he turned that entity into a carbon-neutral operation. A lot of people are worried about climate change but are waiting for someone else to do something about it, he said in a 2006 statement. We are showing that you can take action.
In her bio, Kathryn notes that she is an advocate for improving science communications. She is a trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund and Climate Central, and is a founding trustee of SciLine, a group that connects scientific experts with journalists. From 2007 to 2011, she served as the director of strategy and communications for the Clinton Climate Initiative. She also serves on the board of the Climate Leadership Council, a group focused on establishing Republican support for climate solutions.
In an interview with the New York Times last fall, Kathryn said that she decided to work to stem climate change after hearing Al Gore speak at the Fox retreat in 2006. The former vice president had recently made An Inconvenient Truth, and presented an abridged version of its findings at the retreat. I decided to switch everything I was doing, she said. I wanted to be able to look my children in the eye and say I did everything I could.
-
Has anyone yet suggested to harness the energy from all the hot air created by members of the house democrat majority ?
-
Trump is very honest and never lies
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Castlevania
Does that mean they fear government control, not actually the BS hysteria known as “climate change” especially since climate changes, by definition?
They don’t really say so, though your posts presumably claims such.
here’s Larry Fink’s letter:
[link=https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter]https://www.blackrock.com…/larry-fink-ceo-letter[/link]
Climate change has become a defining factor in companies long-term prospects. Last September, when millions of people took to the streets to demand action on climate change, many of them emphasized the significant and lasting impact that it will have on economic growth and prosperity a risk that markets to date have been slower to reflect. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.
The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance. Research from a wide range of organizations including the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the BlackRock Investment Institute, and many others, including new studies from McKinsey on the socioeconomic implications of physical climate risk is deepening our understanding of how climate risk will impact both our physical world and the global system that finances economic growth.
…
As a fiduciary, our responsibility is to help clients navigate this transition. Our investment conviction is that sustainability- and climate-integrated portfolios can provide better risk-adjusted returns to investors. And with the impact of sustainability on investment returns increasing, we believe that sustainable investing is the strongest foundation for client portfolios going forward.
…
We believe that all investors, along with regulators, insurers, and the public, need a clearer picture of how companies are managing sustainability-related questions. This data should extend beyond climate to questions around how each company serves its full set of stakeholders, such as the diversity of its workforce, the sustainability of its supply chain, or how well it protects its customers data. Each companys prospects for growth are inextricable from its ability to operate sustainably and serve its full set of stakeholders.
We believe that when a company is not effectively addressing a material issue, its directors should be held accountable. Last year BlackRock voted against or withheld votes from 4,800 directors at 2,700 different companies. Where we feel companies and boards are not producing effective sustainability disclosures or implementing frameworks for managing these issues, we will hold board members accountable. Given the groundwork we have already laid engaging on disclosure, and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them.
-
Quote from Castlevania
Does that mean they fear government control, not actually the BS hysteria known as “climate change” especially since climate changes, by definition?
They don’t really say so, though your posts presumably claims such.
Gee, you’re right, cigar, the climate does change. It’s been snowing & just a feew days ago it was in the low 60’s.
Yup, climate changes. By definition.
-
-
-
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-03/miners-ditching-diesel-seek-to-cut-costs-as-well-as-emissions?srnd=premium]Miners Ditching Diesel Seek to Cut Costs as Well as Emissions
[/link][b]Shift to solar and gas will deliver savings
Australias diesel imports declined 7% in 2019[/b]
Mining companies under investor pressure to curb carbon emissions are weaning themselves off the most polluting power sources, and see lower costs in using alternatives.
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FMG:AU]Fortescue Metals Group Ltd.[/link] joined rivals including [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BHP:AU]BHP Group[/link] and [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAL:LN]Anglo American Plc[/link] in flagging potential savings from new investments to switch mines to renewable energy as it expands a $700 million program to add transmission lines, solar arrays and battery storage in Australias Pilbara region. With energy accounting for as much as a fifth of a mines costs, less polluting options can often be cheaper than shipping diesel to remote locations.[/QUOTE]
-
I actually thought mining was largely electric as is because you cant have exhaust in the mines.
-
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-14/climate-skeptic-asset-managers-face-pressure-to-reveal-donations?srnd=premium]Climate Skeptic Asset Managers Face Pressure to Reveal Donations[/link]
Harris Associates signed a sustainable investing pledge, but Deputy Chairman David Herro supports a group that challenges climate science. Should investors care?
-
[link=https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/842807177/pandemic-shutdown-is-speeding-up-the-collapse-of-coal]https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/842807177/pandemic-shutdown-is-speeding-up-the-collapse-of-coal[/link]
[b]The Pandemic Shutdown is speeding the Demise of Coal[/b]
Since the coronavirus hit the U.S., coal mines across the country have begun shutting down, laying off workers and slowing production. Bankruptcies loom everywhere in the industry.Coal has been struggling for many years. Now there’s a drop in demand because of the economic shutdown (as well as warmer weather), but coal is being pummeled more than other sources of energy.
… right now, coal is more expensive than natural gas, wind or solar in many parts of the country. So when demand slows, coal plants are the first to shut down.
In fact, over three days earlier this month, wind and solar actually produced more electricity than coal in the U.S., the first time that has happened, according to a new research note from the Rhodium Group.
Rhodium found that coal accounted for just 16.4% of the U.S. electric power from mid-March to mid-April, compared with 22.5% for a similar period last year.
-
Some of the pictures Ive seen are amazing. The smoggiest places have clear skies. Venetian canals are clear water.
-
BlackRock said this year it has used its shares to take “voting action” against 53 companies that are “making insufficient progress integrating climate risk into their business models or disclosures.”
[link=https://www.axios.com/blackrock-voting-action-climate-change-energy-cf778747-2fd4-4265-930b-943c02e12cc8.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100]https://www.axios.com/blackrock-voting-action-climate-change-energy-cf778747-2fd4-4265-930b-943c02e12cc8.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100[/link]
-
Energy plan:
1. Nuclear fission
2. Better Nuclear fission
3. Cheaper, smaller nuclear fission
4. Pray for fusion, solar sail with laser transmission to Earth, etc.
Pretty crazy we have wasted such a great energy tech for so long.-
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-16/warren-buffett-sees-natural-gas-sticking-around-for-a-long-time?srnd=premium]Warren Buffett Sees Natural Gas Sticking Around for a Long Time[/link][/h3] While Joe Biden pushes 100% clean electricity by 2035, the billionaires latest investment shows hes far from abandoning fossil fuels
-
It’s not possible to do 100% clean energy by 2035 (nor is there any real reason to if it is going to cost extra/hurt the economy). Nuclear is the only chance you have and can’t build that many that fast. With current tech, wind and solar max out around 15%-20% coverage of the grid due to land and resource use issues, not to mention the resource and energy use of actually making the things.
If you truly are a climate change warrior, then you should be promoting fracking, natural gas, and nuclear. If you’re an ideologue of the climate change religion, then you won’t.
The issue is that climate change “solutions” are more self inflicted wounds considering nothing the US can do (even going 100% green/carbon free/etc) would change anything.
-
There are plenty of problems with fracking and natural gas and nuclear making none of the above a solution to CO2 into the atmosphere and anthropogenic global warming.
Fracking has the problem of land and water degradation. A lot of people have had their water wells poisoned by fracking. A lot of frackers allow a lot of methane to leak out into the atmosphere during collection and transport, a not insignificant amount; burning natural gas only reduces CO2 into the atmosphere over other fossil fuels when measured from the stack. As a replacement for coal, yes but only because of the high output of pollution of SO2 and NOx from coal while CH4 for coal is lower, but all things being equal, natural gas is not significantly better than coal.
Regarding fission reactors, as we have already experienced, there are significant dangers from accidents, Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl as examples. The half-lives extend into the centuries. And then there are the waste products when the rods are depleted, where are you going to safely store them for many centuries? That problem exists now & we are not on a nuclear scale sufficient to replace fossil fuels as it stands. Then decommissioning old plants leaves more radioactive materials than just the rods, we are talking about a significant amount of material from decommissioned plants.
Fusion is not exactly on the horizon yet either, hot or cold.
Any alternatives are at best bad compromises at this time with tradeoffs, not solutions. Yes, anthropomorphic carbon generation would be reduced and as such is worth a consideration hoping the future will offer a nuclear waste solution.
But before we even get to there we have the fossil fuel industry and its supporters to deal with who will oppose any efforts to get off of fossil fuels and who oppose even the possibility that CH4 and CO2 are being added to the atmosphere in amounts enough to cause warming. Meaning, you have a major political party and industries and people now opposed to the belief that warming even exists much less what to do about it. -
Has anyone suggested harnessing the hot air generated in congress ?
-
Quote from fw
Has anyone suggested harnessing the hot air generated in congress ?
Believe it or not, there’s not enough hot air to run the country in lieu of fossil fuels.
-
Quote from Frumious
There are plenty of problems with fracking and natural gas and nuclear making none of the above a solution to CO2 into the atmosphere and anthropogenic global warming.
Fracking has the problem of land and water degradation. A lot of people have had their water wells poisoned by fracking. A lot of frackers allow a lot of methane to leak out into the atmosphere during collection and transport, a not insignificant amount; burning natural gas only reduces CO2 into the atmosphere over other fossil fuels when measured from the stack. As a replacement for coal, yes but only because of the high output of pollution of SO2 and NOx from coal while CH4 for coal is lower, but all things being equal, natural gas is not significantly better than coal.
Regarding fission reactors, as we have already experienced, there are significant dangers from accidents, Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl as examples. The half-lives extend into the centuries. And then there are the waste products when the rods are depleted, where are you going to safely store them for many centuries? That problem exists now & we are not on a nuclear scale sufficient to replace fossil fuels as it stands. Then decommissioning old plants leaves more radioactive materials than just the rods, we are talking about a significant amount of material from decommissioned plants.
Fusion is not exactly on the horizon yet either, hot or cold.
Any alternatives are at best bad compromises at this time with tradeoffs, not solutions. Yes, anthropomorphic carbon generation would be reduced and as such is worth a consideration hoping the future will offer a nuclear waste solution.
But before we even get to there we have the fossil fuel industry and its supporters to deal with who will oppose any efforts to get off of fossil fuels and who oppose even the possibility that CH4 and CO2 are being added to the atmosphere in amounts enough to cause warming. Meaning, [b]you have a major political party and industries and people now opposed to the belief that warming even exists much less what to do about it. [/b]
The major industry pushing the idea that its fossil fuels is the agriculture industry. They’re in denial about their contributions.
Go be vegan! That has a way bigger impact on the environment than driving a Tesla. Moving down the food chain a couple rungs saves so much water, land, and fossil fuels used in farming and food production. One burger takes hundreds of gallons of water to produce.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You’re not wrong with anything you said Frumi, it’s just that they are the best options we have right now. I’m a big proponent of nuclear. The risk is actually pretty low despite some high profile accidents. Waste products with new gen V reactions are very very low and there are some new salt-based generators that have no waste.
Fracking and natural gas are bridges to nuclear and future tech as they do have downsides as you mentioned. My point was that there’s nothing that can get us to carbon free or whatever by 2035 and even if we did, we aren’t doing anything for the planet as a whole – only self-inflicting economic wounds.
Denying climate change is like denying gravity. The denial comes from the amount of it that is attributed to humans and whether it’s better/cheaper to just adapt. -
[link=https://www.axios.com/hydrogen-support-growing-5ee4cfbb-ee83-4494-8561-c172467b7e5e.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100]https://www.axios.com/hydrogen-support-growing-5ee4cfbb-ee83-4494-8561-c172467b7e5e.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
[/link]
[h1][b]In pandemics wake, global support builds for hydrogen[/b][/h1]Of the $54 billion in economic stimulus funding approved in countries around the world (but mostly Europe) thats going toward clean energy, 19% of that is for hydrogen. Thats second only to electrified transportation, according to BloombergNEF.
In just the past month
[ul][*]The European Union, which is proposing an additional $500 billion or more for green energy as part of its recovery, unveiled a [link=https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_1257]sweeping hydrogen strategy[/link] and targets for hydrogen made from renewable energy.[*]The U.S.-based conglomerate Air Products & Chemicals [link=https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-firm-unveils-worlds-largest-green-hydrogen-project#:~:text=The%20%245%20billion%20plant%20will,fueled%20buses%2C%20Air%20Products%20said.]announced plans[/link] to build in Saudi Arabia what it says will be the worlds largest hydrogen plant powered by renewable energy.[*]The U.S. Energy Department announced [link=https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale]$64 million[/link] worth of funding for hydrogen projects earlier this month and plans to invest up to $100 million over five years for two new research efforts on hydrogen. [/ul]
…The biggest hurdle is the cost of transforming the light, odorless gas into usable formats.
[ul][*]In my view, hydrogen is today where solar was 10 years ago, Birol said. He expects costs to decline as governments grow policies supporting it like they did with solar.[*]Hydrogen produced from natural gas is already in use for industrial processes and a small subset of cars, which was all the [link=https://www.topgear.com/car-news/concept/honda-new-hondas-hydrogen-first-2007]rage in the 2000s[/link] and [link=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/chap2.html]backed by[/link] then-President George W. Bush. But electric cars [link=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/12/06/hydrogen-cars-appear-dead-as-evs-take-the-reins/39385555/]appear to be pulling away[/link] as the winner in that category.[*]What were talking about now is using hydrogen derived from cleaner methods, especially with renewable energy and natural gas with carbon dioxide captured. The uses would be[b] [/b]as varied as storing electricity and fuel for [link=https://www.barrons.com/articles/hydrogen-fuel-trucks-nikola-green-energy-51595430426]big trucks[/link] and ships. [/ul]
[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://www.axios.com/bp-peak-oil-demand-10569b34-d5cc-459a-8fba-b03319965e26.html]https://www.axios.com/bp-…8fba-b03319965e26.html[/link]
[h1]BP projects peak oil demand is very close or already happened[/h1]
Global oil consumption is slated to plateau early this decade even without vastly stronger measures to combat climate change, BP said in a new analysis.
BP now sees this moment arriving a decade sooner than last year’s version of their long-term outlook for oil-and-gas, coal, renewables, cars and more.
[ul][*]The new projection signals how the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping analysts’ views of the energy future.[*]The timing of peak oil demand, and the slope of its decline, will affect carbon emissions, corporate strategies and the finances of oil-producing nations. [/ul] BP projects demand for liquid fuels (a rough oil proxy) entering a long plateau in the early 2020s in their “business as usual” (BAU) scenario.
[ul][*]It assumes “government policies, technologies and social preferences continue to evolve in a manner and speed seen over the recent past.”[*]Oil demand plateaus at roughly 100 million barrels per day where it was before the pandemic drove it downward for almost 20 years, and then declines slightly through 2050. [/ul] In other BP scenarios, oil demand [i]never[/i] reaches pre-pandemic levels again and declines steeply by 2050, the end of its outlook period.
[ul][*]BP’s “rapid transition” case assumes policies strong enough to slash energy-related CO2 emissions by 70% by 2050. It shows oil demand falling to roughly half of pre-COVID levels by 2050.[*]Under its “net zero” scenario which explores policies and behaviors aligned with holding temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels demand falls to about one-third of pre-pandemic levels.[*]When it comes to transportation, the largest source of oil demand, all three scenarios see increasing efficiency, while the “rapid transition” and “net zero” cases both see much greater increases in electric cars and hydrogen fuels than BAU. [/ul] The report comes as BP is [link=https://www.axios.com/bp-posts-loss-slashes-dividend-coronavirus-second-quarter-e8990cdb-d660-4d2b-a1fe-6b8e726c8c49.html]planning to diversify[/link] away from its dominant fossil fuel business in coming decades, including plans to cut aggregate oil-and-gas production by 40% by 2030.
[b]The big picture:[/b] Oil demand across the models is “significantly affected” by the pandemic, due in part to its economic effect in emerging economies that are centers of demand growth.
“The experience of coronavirus also triggers some lasting changes in behavior, especially increased working from home,” the report finds.
[b]but …[/b]”We cant predict the future; all the scenarios discussed in this years Outlook will be wrong,” said BP chief economist Spencer Dale. Instead, BP uses these scenarios to “better understand the range of uncertainty we face as the energy system transitions to a lower-carbon world.”
[/QUOTE]
-
[h3][link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-18/u-s-election-joe-biden-would-be-a-sea-change-for-the-oil-price?srnd=premium]Joe Biden Would Be a Sea Change For the Oil Industry[/link][/h3]
[b]DOMESTIC[/b]
If Joe Biden wins, things will certainly change for domestic energy companies and policy. The Democratic candidates [link=https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/]climate plan[/link] includes the following:
[ul][*]Requiring aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations[*]Permanently protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas[*]Banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters[*]Modifying royalties to account for climate costs [/ul] A shift in White House policy toward tackling global warming may impact oil and gas jobs. But a green energy program could utilize the skills of laid-off oilfield workers whether thats supporting [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-21/oil-services-find-hope-in-giant-windmills-anchored-to-ocean-bed?sref=Y5lbSVTx]offshore wind farms[/link] or [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-03/let-s-hire-laid-off-oil-and-gas-workers-to-fight-climate-change?sref=Y5lbSVTx]plugging the 3 million or so abandoned U.S. oil and gas wells[/link] that are leaking copious amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.[b]INTERNATIONAL[/b]
Under Biden, I wouldn’t expect a sudden easing of the sanctions on either Iran or Venezuela. Bringing the U.S. back into the Iran nuclear deal is a policy goal, but it may not be high on his agenda. What is more likely is that both sanctioned countries would test U.S. resolve to police its current restrictions. A Biden presidency probably couldnt let either country flout them without losing leverage. It would be much harder, for example, to bring Iran back into full compliance with the nuclear deal if it could already export all the oil it wanted.
[b]…[/b]
A Biden presidency is unlikely to have anything like the same influence {as Trump} on OPEC. He has signaled he intends to take a much tougher line with Saudi Arabia and others on human rights. That will win him few friends on the Arabian Peninsula.…
But the absolutely No. 1 impact of a change of president would be none of these. It would be the impact on broader markets, the appetite for risk among investors and traders and the value of the dollar.
Oil prices have been sent soaring and plunging by Trumps words (spoken or tweeted) and deeds. A reversion to a less in-your-face style of leadership (if thats the outcome) will reduce the gyrations. That may lead to a steadier oil market, but it will also be less fun to write about.[/QUOTE]
-
[b]Japans Big New Climate Goal [/b]
[b][/b]
Japans new prime minister said on Monday the nation will seek to become carbon-neutral by 2050, a move that will require huge changes in its fossil fuel-heavy energy mix in order to succeed, [link=https://www.axios.com/japan-climate-neutral-2050-851ea20f-6c5f-48d2-a612-df8e9034894c.html]Axios[/link] reports.-
Not sure why but seeing Japan and energy made me think about Fukushima. Wonder whats happening there.
-
NRC just gave prelimnary approval to a new modular reactor design:
[link=https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design]https://www.energy.gov/ne…modular-reactor-design[/link]
Interesting concept.-
I’ve been following that company for awhile and mentioned it a few times on here. It’s great news as I am a huge proponent of nuclear and think it’s ridiculous that we waste that tech.
-
[link=https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/10/29/suckered_by_big_wind_in_the_uk_582362.html]https://www.realclearener…_in_the_uk_582362.html[/link]
-
Well Darwell is very clear, he does not link any study but continues to claim that regardless of timeframe, moving from fossil fuels to anything will impoverish a countrys & the global economy.
Sure, sounds realistic.
-
It’s all about the “completeness” and “rapidness” as we have talked about.
Nuclear is the best option.
Would you rather do nuclear and go carbon neutral by 2050 or not do nuclear and maybe never get neutral or neutral by 2100+
-
-
-
-
-
-
