The storm is coming - will you be ready?
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
Try explain to climate activists the world will survive by
burning natural gas after oil is depleted. To them you will
come across as another big oil lobbyist.
Last edited:
Whos fault is that?
Explaining the truth should not result in automatic cancellation
That and your handle.
Defending trying to burn all fossil fuels is pretty crazy at this point.
You really want to leave your kids a world heading towards a thermal maximum?
NG is a transition fuel, eventually they will use it to produce ammonia for the hydrogen transition and sequester the carbon, yes a lot of people say energy transitions take 80 years, but the solar and wind transition is not new, it is already decades old, and in case no one noticed, things move a lot faster these day. We will see MASSIVE changes in energy production in the next 20 years ,but yes, oil will still be in use in 20 years and in significant volumes.
Check this out, the entire northern hemisphere is divided in a 4 part standing wave, with 4 heat domes and 4 areas with southward air flow.
I don't think we've seen this before.
I don't think we've seen this before.
ammonia for hydrogen transition ??
#1. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen that is released via combustion
it also needs to be compressed for storage & transport
and then there is this little issue
2. Ammonia from hydrocarbons requires pyrolysis (lots of heat . lots of energy)
The major source of hydrogen is methane from natural gas. The conversion, steam reforming, is conducted with steam in a high-temperature and -pressure tube inside a reformer with a nickel catalyst, separating the carbon and hydrogen atoms in the natural gas.
steam in a high-temperature and -pressure tube
high temperature & high pressure = high energy consumption
ie more energy in than energy out
The loonies just do not get this concept , but it does not prevent the virtue signaling
3. concentrated ammonia & especially pressurized ammonia is very nasty / corrosive
good luck scaling that up to 100 mm barrels a day
good luck scaling that up to any meaningful fraction
it is just as bad an idea as biodiesel /bio mass (ie biofuels produces almost as much co2)
.
it is already decades old, trillions of dollars invested & the result is maybe 5% of energy and it is unreliable
the solar and wind transition is a failed experiment
the massive changes will be the about face that will occurs after the environut induced supply shock
they are targeting oil financing & that will lead to a supply shock
sadly it will likely take some deaths (people freezing to death) for these fools to re-evaluate their objectives and re-evaluate the AGW pseudoscience
Last edited:
The "visionaries " seem to think that hydrogen will just separate itself and jump into existing pipelines and storage vessels. Of course you cannot use the current infrastructure to move hydrogen and even obtaining it from oceans is very energy intensive. I guess the eco warriors are the "big picture " types and they leave the "small" details like metallurgical standards and energy requirements for production and logistics to be worked out at a later date by someone else.ammonia for hydrogen transition ??
#1. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen that is released via combustion
it also needs to be compressed for storage & transport
and then there is this little issue
2. Ammonia from hydrocarbons requires pyrolysis (lots of heat . lots of energy)
The major source of hydrogen is methane from natural gas. The conversion, steam reforming, is conducted with steam in a high-temperature and -pressure tube inside a reformer with a nickel catalyst, separating the carbon and hydrogen atoms in the natural gas.
steam in a high-temperature and -pressure tube
high temperature & high pressure = high energy consumption
ie more energy in than energy out
The loonies just do not get this concept , but it does not prevent the virtue signaling
3. concentrated ammonia & especially pressurized ammonia is very nasty / corrosive
good luck scaling that up to 100 mm barrels a day
good luck scaling that up to any meaningful fraction
it is just as bad an idea as biodiesel /bio mass (ie biofuels produces almost as much co2)
.
it is already decades old, trillions of dollars invested & the result is maybe 5% of energy and it is unreliable
the solar and wind transition is a failed experiment
the massive changes will be the about face that will occurs after the environut induced supply shock
they are targeting oil financing & that will lead to a supply shock
sadly it will likely take some deaths (people freezing to death) for these fools to re-evaluate their objectives and re-evaluate the AGW pseudoscience
Straw man.
There is no serious movement to use hydrogen as a fuel, its too problematic.
Wow the BS never stops. There has been no trillions invested in wind and solar, billions yes. Prices are dropping all the time and its the fastest growing source of new capacity. If its failed, why are there thousands of projects being built worldwide? I think Hydrogen is one potential source of power storage. If your source of eletricity is cheap, why do you care if more power used to produce it then it yields?ammonia for hydrogen transition ??
#1. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen that is released via combustion
it also needs to be compressed for storage & transport
and then there is this little issue
2. Ammonia from hydrocarbons requires pyrolysis (lots of heat . lots of energy)
The major source of hydrogen is methane from natural gas. The conversion, steam reforming, is conducted with steam in a high-temperature and -pressure tube inside a reformer with a nickel catalyst, separating the carbon and hydrogen atoms in the natural gas.
steam in a high-temperature and -pressure tube
high temperature & high pressure = high energy consumption
ie more energy in than energy out
The loonies just do not get this concept , but it does not prevent the virtue signaling
3. concentrated ammonia & especially pressurized ammonia is very nasty / corrosive
good luck scaling that up to 100 mm barrels a day
good luck scaling that up to any meaningful fraction
it is just as bad an idea as biodiesel /bio mass (ie biofuels produces almost as much co2)
.
it is already decades old, trillions of dollars invested & the result is maybe 5% of energy and it is unreliable
the solar and wind transition is a failed experiment
the massive changes will be the about face that will occurs after the environut induced supply shock
they are targeting oil financing & that will lead to a supply shock
sadly it will likely take some deaths (people freezing to death) for these fools to re-evaluate their objectives and re-evaluate the AGW pseudoscience
What does it matter if its energy intensive if the energy to produce it is very low cost. Its just a storage and transport option.
Hydrogen is used as an energy storage medium, it is not used as a miracle free-energy generator.
The advantage of using hydrogen is that we already have existing technology and equipment to handle hydrogen and the other input required to produce energy from hydrogen, oxygen, is all around us so we do not have to worry about also transporting oxygen. The waste product is pure H2O.
We do not need to replace 100MM barrels of oil worth of energy with hydrogen, that job falls to solar and wind, hydrogen is just there to act as a battery that can take extra energy and release energy when needed to provide stability.
The advantage of using hydrogen is that we already have existing technology and equipment to handle hydrogen and the other input required to produce energy from hydrogen, oxygen, is all around us so we do not have to worry about also transporting oxygen. The waste product is pure H2O.
We do not need to replace 100MM barrels of oil worth of energy with hydrogen, that job falls to solar and wind, hydrogen is just there to act as a battery that can take extra energy and release energy when needed to provide stability.
Renewable Energy Investment to Surpass USD 2.5 Trillion for 2010-2019, UNEP Report Finds | News | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD
And once again Nottyboi is shown to be wrong
Do you get tired of being wrong?
not enough to avoid unsustainable direct govt subsidies
its easy to grow a small and insignificant number into a still small and insignificant number
politics, plain and simple
Despite knowing it requires more energy to produce than it can provide
So, no you did not think
Unbelievable
What part of "green energy policies will make energy far more expensive do you not understand?
There will not be any spare excess capacity of cheap electricity to waste creating hydrogen and ammonia on the scale required
You still do not understand the scope of the issue
100 million barrels a day of oil & an equivalent amount of NG & Coal
Please give this some thought, so you can stop embarrassing yourself
your green energy dream is already falling apart before it gets anywhere near scale
Last edited:
We spend $400 million more per year on extreme weather damage than even a decade ago.
The costs of natural disasters from extreme weather are rising rapidly, averaging $1.9 billion annually, up about $400 million from a decade ago, a senior official with Natural Resources Canada told journalists on Monday.
That's only going up, as is the global temp.
The costs of natural disasters from extreme weather are rising rapidly, averaging $1.9 billion annually, up about $400 million from a decade ago, a senior official with Natural Resources Canada told journalists on Monday.
That's only going up, as is the global temp.
Bad news, its not oil that's going up massively but wheat.
Stupid heat causing crop failures through NA.
2.5 Trillion is not "trillions and trillions" its barely a few trillion.
The only reason energy is so cheap now is the full cost is hidden and it has huge subsidies attached to it. The full cost needs to be paid so that people use it more efficiently. Don't tell me that energy is expensive when people can buy a Ford F150 for a commuter vehicle. This nonsense needs to carry a high price with it.
You do understand that all the fossil fuels used by humanity in history amount to less then 30 days of sunshine right?
Do you understand the current fossil fuel consumption is probably in excess of 5 trillion a year right? This does not include the trillions invested in coal, gas and oil power plant infrastructure. Renewable power will gradually replace fossil fuel plants, maybe never completely, but they will becoom a huge part of the mix. There will be lots of spare energy. No one is talking about reducing power production. Its all upward.
So for the megre amout of 2.5T what percentage of the global power demand would you say that should cover? Its really a tiny invesment over 10 years to provide 5% of the worlds power.
All we are seeing is the govt subsidies transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables.
Last edited:
#1. I said trillions.
Trillions means more than 1 trillion
2.5 trillion is more than 1 trillion
#2.
Yes the BS never stops
Only it is the BS posted by Nottyboi
There are no direct subsidies by government to fossil fuels
You may think you can allocate all kinds of climate change cost to them but once again you would be wrong as CO2 does not control the climate, never has , never will.
Once again we have an ill-informed loonie who can not function properly unless he gets to control other peoples behavior
Taxes made up roughly 1/3 of the cost of gasoline in 2018
That was before the evil carbon tax and the new fuel standards tax (another hidden tax)
WTF is wrong with you?
This hurts low income people the most
Once again we have an ill-informed loonie who can not function properly unless he gets to control other peoples behavior
Are you going to pick up a load of drywall sheets for your next reno project in your volt?
You do understand that this factoid is useless information unless you are able to extract that equivalent amount of energy from the sun in an efficient manner
Current solar cells ware woefully inefficient & they are unreliable for baseload power and you will not get a quantum leap in solar cell technology
Yeah, no surprise when there are 7 billion consumers of that energy
Bought and paid for by private enterprise
No way 10-15% maybe , 20% tops
You do not seem to understand what base load requirements are and the need for reliability
Do not be ridiculous
The environuts are going to be far more effective at shutting down FF than replacing that energy with unreliables
A loonie calling 2.5 trillion dollars of other peoples money tiny?
And to produce an insignificant 5% of what is required
The problem with Socialists' is they are always running out of other peoples money
It is unsustainable and it is going to fail
The 2.5 trillion is the total investment over all time, as opposed to the 3.3 trillion annual oil industry revenue.
larue only posts oil industry disinformation,
The oil industry spends $200 million a year on disinformation and lobbying.
Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report
Ad campaigns hide investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction, says InfluenceMap
www.theguardian.com
Including spending 3.6 billion on ads.
Way more than has been spent on climate change research.
How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation
Activists say Democratic climate proposals won’t be able to pass until lawmakers put a stop to oil companies trying to rebrand themselves
www.theguardian.com
All that when their own scientists told them in 1978 that using their products would lead to global temperature increases of 2-3ºC.
Yeah ok. nationalizing an oil pipeline and oil developments is not a subsidy. The govt billions to clean up orphan wells are not a subsidy. I dunno what you are smoking but its good stuff. 2.5 Trillion dollars to provide 5% of the worlds energy is peanuts. Do you have ANY idea how much energy that is? If you were to build new plants to deliver 5% of the worlds energy what do you suppose it would cost if they were natual gas or coal? AND just to be clear the green plants are mainly wind and solar so the don't pay for fuel, just maint. which is lower then gas turbines and steam plants. What was the 1.5B your idol Kenney boy just wasted? A subsidy, a gift or a bribe?#1. I said trillions.
Trillions means more than 1 trillion
2.5 trillion is more than 1 trillion
#2.
Yes the BS never stops
Only it is the BS posted by Nottyboi
There are no direct subsidies by government to fossil fuels
You may think you can allocate all kinds of climate change cost to them but once again you would be wrong as CO2 does not control the climate, never has , never will.
Once again we have an ill-informed loonie who can not function properly unless he gets to control other peoples behavior
Taxes made up roughly 1/3 of the cost of gasoline in 2018
That was before the evil carbon tax and the new fuel standards tax (another hidden tax)
WTF is wrong with you?
This hurts low income people the most
Once again we have an ill-informed loonie who can not function properly unless he gets to control other peoples behavior
Are you going to pick up a load of drywall sheets for your next reno project in your volt?
You do understand that this factoid is useless information unless you are able to extract that equivalent amount of energy from the sun in an efficient manner
Current solar cells ware woefully inefficient & they are unreliable for baseload power and you will not get a quantum leap in solar cell technology
Yeah, no surprise when there are 7 billion consumers of that energy
Bought and paid for by private enterprise
No way 10-15% maybe , 20% tops
You do not seem to understand what base load requirements are and the need for reliability
Do not be ridiculous
The environuts are going to be far more effective at shutting down FF than replacing that energy with unreliables
A loonie calling 2.5 trillion dollars of other peoples money tiny?
And to produce an insignificant 5% of what is required
The problem with Socialists' is they are always running out of other peoples money
It is unsustainable and it is going to fail
