tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post4839485852952213514..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: CFACT says Net Zero is impossible? Debunked.Nick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-69514152535399658712023-07-07T09:37:42.694+10:002023-07-07T09:37:42.694+10:00Roger,
The analysis is hourly in time, but does as...Roger,<br />The analysis is hourly in time, but does assume that the electricity can be transmitted as required. But the grid will get better over that time.<br /><br />I would have thought the saviour of the NY requirement is Quebec Hydro. They will get smart about selling when the price is high, which makes them just the sort of battery NY needs.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-33567487904754665462023-07-07T04:46:08.362+10:002023-07-07T04:46:08.362+10:00I don’t think Gregory or your analysis adequately ...I don’t think Gregory or your analysis adequately address my renewable resource adequacy concerns. The first issue is that a reliable electric grid provides adequate power when it is needed the most so renewable resource projections have to address the peak requirements. The ultimate problem stems from the fact that wind and solar generating resources are strongly correlated over huge areas. The particular challenge is that the times when it is hottest and coldest causing peak loads are invariably times when the correlations are the highest. Overbuilding wind and solar to address the peaks and adding energy storage becomes exorbitantly expensive so the projections for the future net-zero energy system of New York call for a new dispatchable and emissions free resource. The proposed place holder is green hydrogen production and storage for the worst-case renewable availability and peak load periods. I am not optimistic that it will work.CNY Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128748617520028340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-60891495410114159332023-04-02T14:50:03.495+10:002023-04-02T14:50:03.495+10:00BOB=bigoilbob, yup!BOB=bigoilbob, yup!pphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737287219806254245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-8279682943928554442023-03-31T01:33:21.204+11:002023-03-31T01:33:21.204+11:00Good JPT article (I lost my sub when I resigned SP...Good JPT article (I lost my sub when I resigned SPE), but you can reach the same conclusions from business articles about the Permian - as well as from the article you later reference. When the best run outfit in the juiciest CONUS oil play, the Permian - Pioneer Natural Resources - is on track to lose YOY SEC PDP oil and oil associated gas reserves, - for many non 46 DS reasons - we are indeed trans Peak. Not only here, but in the CONUS in toto. Yes, it's been envisioned before, but we're out of tech tricks and we've hollowed out the oilfield service sector. I.e., the 2 processes that put off Peak Oil before. And since the only lands that are more prospective are either in open conflict and/or are run by auto/kleptocrats, we might/should be considering some changes....bigoilbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760441445401997332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-39428930372180334852023-03-30T11:48:24.106+11:002023-03-30T11:48:24.106+11:00A USA centric perspective -- The Bakken shale oil...A USA centric perspective -- The Bakken shale oil formation is already shot after just a few years. That's fracking for you, as in the Red Queen effect, the faster you deplete the faster you need new wells. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-shale-boom-shows-signs-of-peaking-as-big-oil-wells-disappear-2adef03f Re: "booted from office", now you understand why climate change is the smokescreen for the actual existential crisis the world faces. People think that climate change can be addressed, but they will start burning down cities when faced with actual oil shortages.pphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737287219806254245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-57114982100112766662023-03-30T08:23:10.555+11:002023-03-30T08:23:10.555+11:00pp: Sure, its all going away, but when. Peak oil...pp: Sure, its all going away, but when. Peak oil has been in the newsier several decades. Same for natural gas. That was dramatically changed by fracking. There is an enormous amount of coal (and probably oil sands), which most observers now don't assume will be burned in 8.5 emission scenario, but will be utilized in an age of limitations. Coal can be converted into liquid products like gasoline for something like $100. <br /><br />And if the Democrats say "welcome to the age of limitations", they will be booted from office. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-63168349817088342432023-03-30T03:09:40.649+11:002023-03-30T03:09:40.649+11:00The issue is that the future is royally screwed. C...The issue is that the future is royally screwed. Crude oil is a result of many millennia of concentrated solar energy creating a high density and efficient energy source. That's all going bye-bye, even according to the professional petroleum engineers https://jpt.spe.org/plummeting-energy-return-on-investment-of-oil-and-the-impact-on-global-energy-landscape. Real-time solar energy does not have the benefit of millions of years of charging. As for wind, can you imagine wind pushing a plane through the air or a propelling a packed freeway full of cars? Batteries may take up some slack but entropy eventually breaks the storage media down so it needs to be reconstituted. Nuclear? We need to kick all Republicans and conservatives out of office cuz they can't govern, as nuclear power will need all the regulation, insurance, oversight, and long-term investment in storage and maintenance that Democrats and progressives excel at. Welcome to the age of limitations,pphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15737287219806254245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-77517103316775110632023-03-27T06:45:41.058+11:002023-03-27T06:45:41.058+11:00Nick: Numerous sources agree that 100% renewable ...Nick: Numerous sources agree that 100% renewable electricity that is 99+% reliable will require building generation capacity that is roughly three-fold greater than needed to meet average demand with average output PLUS some storage capacity PLUS a large increase transmission capacity (5?-fold today's). In other words, two-thirds of the electricity that could be generated nearly for free from wind and solar capacity will be wasted, roughly tripling today's levelized cost of generation. <br /><br />I first came across this conclusion at ScienceofDoom which discussed this paper by Budischak for a single US distribution area. Other papers since reach the same conclusion. <br /><br />https://scienceofdoom.com/2015/10/20/renewables-xiv-minimized-cost-of-99-9-renewable-study/<br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759<br /><br />Princeton's Net-Zero American plan has a 100% renewable option (E+ RE+) that calls for generation capacity that is 5-fold bigger than today (See page 90). 4.5-X more transmission capacity (page 168) Land Use: Total area spanned by onshore wind and solar farms is ~590,000 sq-km, an area roughly equal to the size of IL, IN, OH, KY, TN, MA, CT and RI put together. (p 172)<br /><br />https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf331/files/2020-12/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf<br /><br />I don't need dubious Info from the Friends of Science. Just read the realistic advocates of 100% renewable. They had an option with lots of nuclear power. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-56905939921834174152023-03-25T11:48:05.539+11:002023-03-25T11:48:05.539+11:00Thanks.Thanks.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-10972542162030945912023-03-24T07:32:37.970+11:002023-03-24T07:32:37.970+11:00Good jobGood jobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com