Solar, Wind Renewable Energy

[explanade]

What ever happened to comedians who want to just be comedians?

Perhaps this is why we don't talk about it.

Our system of collective dialog in this world is seriously broken.

Obviously TV personalities won't have the expertise or depth of knowledge of scientists in the field.

But can those scientists convey to the public about the importance of a subject that touches on their expertise?

I don't think this HBO show has that great a reach since it's a pay TV service, though usually some segments of it get millions of views on Youtube.

Some videos of scientists do get posted online but they don't get millions of views.

Even before social media and TV shows taking on scientific subjects, I think scientists have always depended on media to disseminate info of national interest.

For instance, during the whole space race and the moon landings, people didn't have to know about orbital velocity or how rocket chemistry worked or the physics of escape velocity down to solving the equations.

But I believe media coverage of this whole period got a lot of attention. People read those articles and watched the news segments.

 

[explanade]

Not looking for a food fight, but I would have to see the numbers that show wind/solar are cheaper than fossil right now. If we invested (as a country or if our country allowed business to invest in fossil instead of trying to shut it down) I contend that fossil is still way cheaper than wind/solar. Sure, if the gummint does everything in its power to help wind/solar while choking off fossil fuels, we can MAKE solar/wind cheaper - but I contend that, even now, that is not the case. Just the fact that we have no storage for wind/solar suggests it's not ready for prime time. Even now, the high FF prices don't reflect the difficulty of getting more FFs. They reflect the imbalance between supply and demand - and it's only a couple or 3 percent. If the gummint announced the equivalent of the support for FFs that it has signaled for renewables, prices would drop (SWAG) 40% the next day before the first extra bbl was pumped. That's how FF pricing works. Anticipation of added supply is as important to pricing (more important than, for instance when the Saudis just "say" they are dropping 2 million bbl) than pumping one extra bbl.

The biggest "problem" with fossil right now (other than the obvious issue of CO2) is that the demand/price is inelastic and we don't have enough buffer for the occasional geopolitical short-fall. If in stead of half a billion bbl of strategic storage, we had 2.5 billion (or more) bbl of strategic storage, we could outlast any war or other geopolitical interruption. That's gotta be cheaper than developing the storage for wind/solar electricity. AND, we already know how to do it. We don't know how to build a battery big enough to store even a day's electricity yet.

I believe that a shift to renewables will be because we determine it is in our best interest. NOT because it is now (or will even soon be) economically better than fossil fuels. I'm not against shifting to renewables. We need to do it. But artificially inflating the price of FFs to make renewables viable causes a lot of issues for people.

Maybe some day, someone will propose a "grand plan" of "How we get to renewables." As pointed out, Eisenhower did that with the Interstate system. It then HAPPENED because people saw a plan and they bought into it. It wasn't because folks stopped fixing the old roads to make an interstate seem like a better idea. YMMV

Where is the proof that "gummint" is "choking" off fossil fuels.

Please cite specific policies or actions which have reduced the production of fossil fuels in this country.

Presumably you mean since the current administration took office because there were no such accusations when the previous administration was in office.

 

[aja8888]

Where is the proof that "gummint" is "choking" off fossil fuels.

Please cite specific policies or actions which have reduced the production of fossil fuels in this country.

Presumably you mean since the current administration took office because there were no such accusations when the previous administration was in office.

I can give you two recent instances under the current admisistration:

1. Restriction of any new drilling for hydrocarbons on Federal lands. Mostly BLM property.

2. Refusing to offer for sale offshore Gulf of Mexico leases for hydrocarbon exploration and production.

 

[Montecfo]

I think small-scale, local wind and solar are great, but I believe they are a *net negative* on a large scale. Primarily this is due to the fact that for every mw of wind and solar added to the grid you have to add a mw of standby generation, which at this point is usually gas or coal. Otherwise you have rolling brownouts every time the wind dies, or at night. Better to just stick with the gas or coal (or, better, nuclear) and forget the weather-dependent energy sources.

I agree. It seems that grid connected local solar is a feel-good type measure which is not currently economical. These systems should not be government subsidized in my opinion.

 

[JoeWras]

Obviously TV personalities won't have the expertise or depth of knowledge of scientists in the field.

But can those scientists convey to the public about the importance of a subject that touches on their expertise?

I don't think this HBO show has that great a reach since it's a pay TV service, though usually some segments of it get millions of views on Youtube.

Some videos of scientists do get posted online but they don't get millions of views.

Even before social media and TV shows taking on scientific subjects, I think scientists have always depended on media to disseminate info of national interest.

For instance, during the whole space race and the moon landings, people didn't have to know about orbital velocity or how rocket chemistry worked or the physics of escape velocity down to solving the equations.

But I believe media coverage of this whole period got a lot of attention. People read those articles and watched the news segments.

I miss Jules Bergman. I miss Carl Sagan. Neither are comedians. Both have personalities that may not be, uh, bubbly.

Neil Tyson deGrasse is good, but spends too much time in politics. He might want to try comedy, as politics is laughable.

 

[Winemaker]

Where is the proof that "gummint" is "choking" off fossil fuels.

Please cite specific policies or actions which have reduced the production of fossil fuels in this country.

Presumably you mean since the current administration took office because there were no such accusations when the previous administration was in office.

During the administration from 1/2009 to 1/2017, the amount of Federal inspections of coal mines was quadrupled. Anytime one showed up on a mine property, it required a company official, a hourly worker, and a vehicle for transportation for a minimum of six hours, and their purpose was not to improve conditions or cite violations, it was to stop operations and bring them to a halt. I was there, I saw it, I experienced it, I was the one trying to get things operational again. When we fought the violations later in court and won, we never had to pay the fines, but lost production hurt us and raised costs on us, our customers, and the folks that bought electricity.

Some power plants were ordered shut down immediately and not given a proper cooldown period to allow the plant to be started back up later if needed. They were ruined on purpose.

 

[aja8888]

Wasn't the gas pipeline from Canada killed off in 2020? That would certianly reduce gas imports to the USA. Or at least make it a lot more expensive.

Yes, I didn't mention that because it was just imported crude oil supply without US production. We still import 1/3 of our hydrocarbon needs anyway.

That was the first thing the administration did when the bell rang for the new Pres. It was really a political kick in the face for the outgoing Pres that cost the Canadians and companies building the Keystone pipeline Billions. The US has been sued over this action.

 

[Ronstar]

What was the reason they thought it would impede growth? There has to be a reason, not just "solar."

When we looked at a farm on our non-profit property, the main push-back mentioned by the solar companies were: 1) aviation, 2) the view.

Aviation is sneaky. If your county has plans to expand an airport, a farm can limit flight paths. This is due to reflective glare.

The view issue is just a psychological thing. It can be "ugly" to some people, hence perhaps the county is afraid they wouldn't build around there, especially a fancy mall? If it is warehouse or manufacturing district, it would fit right in with that commercial usage.

In my city, we have a medium sized farm that sits right in the middle of the city in a near-flood zone. This was supposed to become a set of hotels or something, but became unusable for that purpose due to flooding. So they put a farm up on it, with the equipment raised fairly high, apparently enough to take a few feet of water. You wouldn't know it is there since it sits down in a valley. The occupants of the hotel next door have a great view of it. Doesn't seem to impede them as the hotel is well occupied.

The proposed solar farm site is near a state highway / interstate interchange in a prime commercial development area. A major box store company has sizable warehouses in the area and is looking to expand. Other commercial companies are also in the area. Although unincorporated now, it won't be long before the site is developed. City and county planners have determined that a solar farm is not the highest and best use for the property.

 

[JoeWras]

The proposed solar farm site is near a state highway / interstate interchange in a prime commercial development area. A major box store company has sizable warehouses in the area and is looking to expand. Other commercial companies are also in the area. Although unincorporated now, it won't be long before the site is developed. City and county planners have determined that a solar farm is not the highest and best use for the property.

It always comes down to tax revenue.

 

[TripleLindy]

Yes, I didn't mention that because it was just imported crude oil supply without US production. We still import 1/3 of our hydrocarbon needs anyway.

That was the first thing the administration did when the bell rang for the new Pres. It was really a political kick in the face for the outgoing Pres that cost the Canadians and companies building the Keystone pipeline Billions. The US has been sued over this action.

Yes, Biden denying the permit led to TC Energy officially abandoning the project in ‘21, but it was effectively shut down due to multiple spills in North Dakota, including one of almost 400,000 gallons in ‘19.

Interestingly, the majority of Keystone XL oil was already earmarked for export overseas due to the 2015 reversal of a ban on crude oil exports (a key element in the government shutdown/budget approval negotiations) and thus would not have impacted U.S. prices. Because of that ban reversal, U.S. oil companies currently export roughly 8.5 million barrels of crude oil and refined fuel per day, which is almost half of the total U.S. consumption, and more than 10x the capacity of Keystone. Additionally, there are more than 9,000 drilling permits available today on more than 12 million acres of federal land, so the feds are not preventing drilling. Instead, U.S. energy companies prefer the higher prices for current production over the cost of exploration of new drilling. When they’re reporting record profit margins that they’ve never seen before, who can blame them?

Seems like reinstating a ban on exports, or at least imposing limits, would be a solution that could have immediate impact.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming of renewable energy…

 

[aja8888]

Yes, Biden denying the permit led to TC Energy officially abandoning the project in ‘21, but it was effectively shut down due to multiple spills in North Dakota, including one of almost 400,000 gallons in ‘19.

Interestingly, the majority of Keystone XL oil was already earmarked for export overseas due to the 2015 reversal of a ban on crude oil exports (a key element in the government shutdown/budget approval negotiations) and thus would not have impacted U.S. prices. Because of that ban reversal, U.S. oil companies currently export roughly 8.5 million barrels of crude oil and refined fuel per day, which is almost half of the total U.S. consumption, and more than 10x the capacity of Keystone. Additionally, there are more than 9,000 drilling permits available today on more than 12 million acres of federal land, so the feds are not preventing drilling. Instead, U.S. energy companies prefer the higher prices for current production over the cost of exploration of new drilling. When they’re reporting record profit margins that they’ve never seen before, who can blame them?

Seems like reinstating a ban on exports, or at least imposing limits, would be a solution that could have immediate impact.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming of renewable energy…

You do realize that Enbridge has crude pipelines entering at Superior, WI to provide crude to there (sold now) refinery there? They have used that corridor for many years. They also have rehabilitated the old pipeline (previous ARCO/BP) that runs from south of Chicago to Cushing, OK to continue to deliver crude oil to the southwest and the Gulf. I work on that project to turn the line's direction south years ago.

 

[explanade]

I can give you two recent instances under the current admisistration:

1. Restriction of any new drilling for hydrocarbons on Federal lands. Mostly BLM property.

2. Refusing to offer for sale offshore Gulf of Mexico leases for hydrocarbon exploration and production.

Were those lands already being developed and the current administration stopped that activity or they haven't been developed previously at all?

If the latter, why haven't previous administrations approved them being developed.

The claim is that there are plenty of federal leases but the operators are relunctant to borrow and increase production by a large volume, though they have been steadily increasing production.

Reason is, in the previous decade or two, there was a rush to develop shale oil so there was a lot of debt taken on, which they couldn't service when oil fell in the middle of the last decade.

Oil companies reported huge profits. But are they plowing all that money back immediately into actively developing more fields?

Or do they want to bank some leases for the future?

If these BLM and Gulf of Mexico leases were approved 18 months ago, would they be producing now?

 

[explanade]

Yes, I didn't mention that because it was just imported crude oil supply without US production. We still import 1/3 of our hydrocarbon needs anyway.

That was the first thing the administration did when the bell rang for the new Pres. It was really a political kick in the face for the outgoing Pres that cost the Canadians and companies building the Keystone pipeline Billions. The US has been sued over this action.

Again, my understanding is that these pipelines were for future construction, not something which would have any bearing on supplies now.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, a planned extension to this larger system that would run 1,210 miles from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, is considered “the fourth phase of the Keystone Pipeline System” (www.keystonexl.com/about/).

Reuters spoke via email with James Stevenson, a spokesperson for the Canada Energy Regulator, which oversees the Canadian portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline (here). Stevenson confirmed that as of late 2020, about 152 kilometers, or 93 miles, of pipeline had been laid near the U.S.-Canada border.

Therefore, about 8% of the planned 1,210-mile XL extension had been built by the time President Biden revoked the permit.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...nding-it-was-only-8-constructed-idUSL1N2LA2SQ

 

[RetMD21]

Yes, Biden denying the permit led to TC Energy officially abandoning the project in ‘21, but it was effectively shut down due to multiple spills in North Dakota, including one of almost 400,000 gallons in ‘19.

In 2020 the permit was invalidated in federal district court so construction in the US was on hold. The appeals court closed the case since Biden's cancellation made it moot. The transmountain pipeline in Canada is being expanded which seems like a better plan anyway.

 

[aja8888]

Were those lands already being developed and the current administration stopped that activity or they haven't been developed previously at all?

If the latter, why haven't previous administrations approved them being developed.

The claim is that there are plenty of federal leases but the operators are relunctant to borrow and increase production by a large volume, though they have been steadily increasing production.

Reason is, in the previous decade or two, there was a rush to develop shale oil so there was a lot of debt taken on, which they couldn't service when oil fell in the middle of the last decade.

Oil companies reported huge profits. But are they plowing all that money back immediately into actively developing more fields?

Or do they want to bank some leases for the future?

If these BLM and Gulf of Mexico leases were approved 18 months ago, would they be producing now?

You apparently are not the least bit knowledgeable about the oil & gas business.

Do research instead of asking questions. BLM land has been produced in this country for 75+ years. The administration just stopped all NEW drilling.

Every year or so, the gov puts new offshore tracts up for lease. It generally takes an oil company 10 years after lease purchase to develop the lease. Platforms, drilling, completions, underwater pipelines, etc cost the oil company BILLIONS. And there is no guarantee that the lease will produce any oil or gas.

 

[aja8888]

Again, my understanding is that these pipelines were for future construction, not something which would have any bearing on supplies now.
]

The Keystone pipeline was under construction.

 

[explanade]

You apparently are not the least bit knowledgeable about the oil & gas business.

Do research instead of asking questions. BLM land has been produced in this country for 75+ years. The administration just stopped all NEW drilling.

Every year or so, the gov puts new offshore tracts up for lease. It generally takes an oil company 10 years after lease purchase to develop the lease. Platforms, drilling, completions, underwater pipelines, etc cost the oil company BILLIONS. And there is no guarantee that the lease will produce any oil or gas.

Again did they stop existing fields which had been producing?

Or are we talking about future production.

Sounds like they didn't expand their portfolio of future leases.

So what, what bearing does that have on current production?

 

[explanade]

The Keystone pipeline was under construction.

So they weren't increasing production.

The Keystone XL pipeline decision is often cited as a cause of the current high oil prices.

They wouldn't be producing now.

 

[aja8888]

I give up.....putting you on "ignore".

 

[TripleLindy]

You apparently are not the least bit knowledgeable about the oil & gas business.

Do research instead of asking questions. BLM land has been produced in this country for 75+ years. The administration just stopped all NEW drilling.

Every year or so, the gov puts new offshore tracts up for lease. It generally takes an oil company 10 years after lease purchase to develop the lease. Platforms, drilling, completions, underwater pipelines, etc cost the oil company BILLIONS. And there is no guarantee that the lease will produce any oil or gas.

You are partially correct. The administration stopped all new LEASES AND PERMITS on federal land, not new DRILLING. There are more than 9,000 already approved leases on more than 12m acres of federally land that oil company are free to drill on.

 

[TripleLindy]

So they weren't increasing production.

The Keystone XL pipeline decision is often cited as a cause of the current high oil prices.

They wouldn't be producing now.

That is correct. Even if still under construction, it wouldn’t be a factor with today’s prices. The amount of oil being exported today by U.S. oil companies is 10x the amount that would have come from Keystone. Halting those exports would have an immediate impact on today’s prices.

 

[NW-Bound]

Just saw the following on Bloomberg.

Need capital and time to build up the infrastructure to support production. It is not as simple as dig, dig, dig.

Bloomberg Oct 24, 2022 - Texas Natural Gas Drops Toward Zero as Output Swamps Pipelines

* Gas in the Permian Basin trades for as little as 20 cents

* Pipeline maintenance expected to aggravate shipping headaches


Natural gas prices in the Permian Basin of West Texas are plunging toward zero as booming production overwhelms pipeline networks, creating a regional glut of the fuel.

Gas in an area of the vast Permian known as Waha traded for as little as 20 cents to 70 cents per million British thermal units on Monday, traders said. That compares with the US benchmark futures contract that’s trading around $5.20 and European prices close to $28 ...

 

[explanade]

How can that be "booming production" when supposedly Washington was putting up all these roadblocks on industry?


I hear now Europe has a glut of gas, with tankers lining up outside ports because storage is full.

Natural gas prices have gone down.

However, that doesn't mean they're out of the woods. An extended cold weather period could consume all the LNG gas that they've been banking for months.

They should be looking at converting heating to electric and insulating the homes better.

The second part has a lot of room for improvement but it's not easily accomplished because of some of the old buildings and lack of enough skilled labor.

 

[NW-Bound]

They should be looking at converting heating to electric and insulating the homes better.

How do they get electric power? Germany was talking about going back to burning more coal in their thermal plants.

Europe already uses less energy per capita than the US. I think it is hard for them to squeeze out more efficiencies.

 

[TripleLindy]

How can that be "booming production" when supposedly Washington was putting up all these roadblocks on industry?

.

Because that’s just part of a political playbook - messaging to make the other party look bad. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Nothing has been done to slow current production and there are plenty of available permits if the industry wants to drill more, but they don’t. There are headwinds of investing capital into a market that is expected to decline as alternative energy grows. That’s what is preventing new drilling and refining.