What Would a Real Renewable Energy Transition Look Like?

[JohnLarue]

Because the head of Green Peace has actually stated this. Coal pollutes and provides poor air quality . Its shouldn't be used for energy anymore now that we have nuclear and hydroelectric which are more practical affordable and efficient. You can't say that about solar and wind. Natural gas is much cleaner than petroleum and we have lots of it. Eventual hydrogen will be an alternative to oil but not at the moment. You know what fucks with wildlife the most. Deforestation. Are government doing anything to curb that. No. It's just build build build for their developer buddies. What bat pandemic covid? That only killed people's way of life. Canada has the most unused land in the world. Our forests absorb more CO2 than we emit. The Amazon drying has more to do with deforestation than CO2 in the atmosphere. Eventually oil and gas will be replaced by something else. Innovation will take care of these problems. Not government policies.

RE: hydrogen requires more energy to produce and compress than it provides upon combustion
hydrogen will not displace fossil fuels on a global scale

Re: Deforestation.
the planet has become greener as co2 levels have increased
crop yields have also increased
this makes sense as co2 is plant food.
water use by plants will naturally decline as well.
a huge number of water molecules are released by a plant to absorb one molecule of co2 via their stomata

I am not advocating paving over of the Amazon rainforest, however a greener planet does not reconcile with catastrophic deforestation

RE: government policies. - driven by ideology and political objectives rather than what's best for the electorate and the application of common sense
i.e. not questioning ridiculous statements like "the science is settled" - a huge red flag
Science is never settled

 

[Frankfooter]

No they don't. But they do provide us with something we need for everyday life. How do you heat your home. What do you think powers the bus you take to the welfare office to get your check.

They take trillions in subsidies and kill millions with pollution and climate change.
They rake in the cash and will make your kids lives miserable.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1831873262147817958

 

[Frankfooter]

RE: hydrogen requires more energy to produce and compress than it provides upon combustion
hydrogen will not displace fossil fuels on a global scale

Re: Deforestation.
the planet has become greener as co2 levels have increased
crop yields have also increased
this makes sense as co2 is plant food.
water use by plants will naturally decline as well.
a huge number of water molecules are released by a plant to absorb one molecule of co2 via their stomata

I am not advocating paving over of the Amazon rainforest, however a greener planet does not reconcile with catastrophic deforestation

RE: government policies. - driven by ideology and political objectives rather than what's best for the electorate and the application of common sense
i.e. not questioning ridiculous statements like "the science is settled" - a huge red flag
Science is never settled

Wow, that's an amazingly idiotic post, larue.

The planet is not greener, its wetter because the heat is holding more water vapour.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1831958010584850889

 

[JohnLarue]

They take trillions in subsidies and kill millions with pollution and climate change.
They rake in the cash and will make your kids lives miserable.

you would have starved or frozen to death long ago if it were not for energy companies.
try thinking with common sense instead of ideology

 

[JohnLarue]

Wow, that's an amazingly idiotic post, larue.

The planet is not greener, its wetter because the heat is holding more water vapour.

speaking of idiotic , you have posted again

yes the planet has become greener

A quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.Mar 18, 2025

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

re twitter post from a climate activist >>>> Yawn


so once again frankfooter sticks his foot in his mouth

 

[Frankfooter]

you would have starved or frozen to death long ago if it were not for energy companies.
try thinking with common sense instead of ideology

So what?
This is about what we do now so we don't totally fuck up the climate of the planet.
Try understanding the science and looking at the facts, not oil$gas bullshit.

Phoenix gets hot, but never 100 days of +!00Fº
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/phoenix-arizona-hits-100-degrees-fahrenheit-for-a-record-100th-straight-day/

 

[JohnLarue]

So what?
This is about what we do now so we don't totally fuck up the climate of the planet.
Try understanding the science and looking at the facts, not oil$gas bullshit.

Phoenix gets hot, but never 100 days of +!00Fº
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/phoenix-arizona-hits-100-degrees-fahrenheit-for-a-record-100th-straight-day/

So what? ???


you do understand you owe your life to fossil fuels don't you ?

This is a fact and an undeniable fact

you would have starved or frozen to death long ago if it were not for energy companies.

and you still will freeze or starve to death without energy companies
the real problem though is most of the worlds population would also suffer and perish without fossil fuels
because of....... a very strong, well funded and co-ordinated propaganda program, supposedly based on "settled science" that you do not even understand?




your statement , is pure alarmist bullshit rhetoric

This is about what we do now so we don't totally fuck up the climate of the planet.

science is based on facts, not alarmist bullshit rhetoric

you do not get to define "what this is about '

you have zero understanding of science , as you view 'science' as a tool to push an agenda
and that is revolting and despicable

 

[Frankfooter]

speaking of idiotic , you have posted again

yes the planet has become greener

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

re twitter post from a climate activist >>>> Yawn


so once again frankfooter sticks his foot in his mouth

This is from the article you posted.
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

Do you agree with this article?

 

[Frankfooter]

So what? ???


you do understand you owe your life to fossil fuels don't you ?

This is a fact and an undeniable fact


and you still will freeze or starve to death without energy companies
the real problem though is most of the worlds population would aliso suffer and perish without fossil fuels
because of....... a very strong, well funded and co-ordinated propaganda program, supposedly based on "settled science" that you do not even understand?




your statement , is pure alarmist bullshit rhetoric

science is based on facts, not alarmist bullshit rhetoric

you do not get to define "what this is about '

you have zero understanding of science , as you view 'science' as a tool to push an agenda
and that is revolting and despicable

So what, larue.

We are beyond that now, we can transition to renewables and it will be cheaper and cleaner.
As a bonus, you'll stop making Putin and Saudi Arabia rich.

You really wanna kill your kids?

You once said something along the lines that if the science is correct and its not bullshit, then it would be the single greatest crime against humanity ever. But you haven't done your due diligence and are stuck pushing really pathetic arguments while ignoring the rising temperature, CO2 levels and extreme weather events.

 

[oil&gas]

i have always found this concept to be amusing
the energy derived via the combustion of hydrocarbons is due to the breaking of C-H or C-C bonds in the presence of oxygen
The supposed evil CO2 molecule is produced whether the source be diesel, gasoline or natural gas or even coal
.....................................................

Perceived benefit of carbon emission reduction is a bonus not the primary
benefit of the transition from oil to natural gas. It is the economy not climate
change that would make conversion to natural gas on a global scale the viable
path to the post-oil era.

At current market price of a barrel of crude oil you can buy around 6
times the energy equivalent of natural gas. In the foreseeable
future natural gas will in all likelihood remain substantially cheaper than
crude oil. Natural gas is more abundant than oil. Russia alone has enough
of it to enable China and India to phase out gasoline entirely and
guarantee a steady supply of the fuel for longer than a century.

 

[JohnLarue]

Perceived benefit of carbon emission reduction is a bonus not the primary
benefit of the transition from oil to natural gas. It is the economy not climate
change that would make conversion to natural gas on a global scale the viable
path to the post-oil era.

that was strange
expected co2 emission reduction is the driver behind the 'energy transition' fantasy

it make zero economic sense to invest the gabillions in order to try switching from a liquid which is easily stored and transported to a gas which is much harder and far more expensive to store and transport,

At current market price of a barrel of crude oil you can buy around 6
times the energy equivalent of natural gas.

oh boy

do you honestly think that economic relationship remains stable as you try to implement ill conceived world wide transition policies ( restricting the supply of one and trying to increase the demand of the other) on interchangeable energy sources, into a supply and demand driven energy market?

not a snowballs chance in hell
that would become a mess very quickly

OPEC tried for years to control the oil market
there was always one or more of the cartel countries who was willing to sell volumes above quota
you are delusional if you think co-operation can be achieved on a world wide scale

In the foreseeable
future natural gas will in all likelihood remain substantially cheaper than
crude oil. Natural gas is more abundant than oil. Russia alone has enough
of it to enable China and India to phase out gasoline entirely and
guarantee a steady supply of the fuel for longer than a century.

gee...... Russia, China and India are going to harmoniously buy into your transition fantasy.
you could not possibly have picked three better examples of countries who will charter their own independent energy paths governed by what they view as their own specific economic and geopolitical objectives.

when oil has an economic advantage they will overweight oil use, where switching costs permit
when nat gas has an economic advantage they will overweight nat gas use, where switching costs permit

A wholesale permanent switch to exclusive Nat Gas as you describe would be prohibitably expensive and make China and India, quite dependant upon Russia.
China will not do that

again if CO2 emissions reductions is not the primary supposed benefit of the transition from oil to natural gas it makes no sense for any policy intervention into the supply / demand of energy

again both are hydrocarbons where the energy value is breaking c-c and c-h bonds via combustion to produce heat energy and the rapid expansion of newly formed co2 gas

 

[oil&gas]

that was strange
expected co2 emission reduction is the driver behind the 'energy transition' fantasy

The 'energy transition' fantasy you refer to is not the same
energy transition we (scientists in the know) are involved in.

Thirty years ago if someone told me transition to world's energy future
was to be guided by climate change movement headed by a Swedish 16
year old attention whore of the century I would be amused. My response
would be along the line of something like it is up to the market to decide
what form of energy source to switch to from oil.

Fast forward 30 years we are told by Trudeau sales of new ICE automobiles
are to be banned to rescue Earth's climate. This was never how events would
unfold in my mind on the path to the post-oil era.

it make zero economic sense to invest the gabillions in order to try switching from a liquid which is easily stored and transported to a gas which is much harder and far more expensive to store and transport,

If someone asks me where oil price is going in the next 5 years I can only say
anywhere between $20 and $200 USD for one barrel. In the long run say between
2030 and 2050 I anticipate widespread conversion to CNG and LNG to become
noticeable. Complete conversion will likely turn out to take a lot longer than than I had expected earlier. But I have little doubt by the 22nd century natural gas will
be the fuel to power transportation globally. I think UPS and Canadian National
Railway have already begun testing LNG as fuels for their fleet of vans and locomotives. Fuel economy not climate change is the driving force of the conversion although the advantage of carbon emission reduction will likely be taunted for good publicity.

 

[JohnLarue]

If someone asks me where oil price is going in the next 5 years I can only say
anywhere between $20 and $200 USD for one barrel.

you could also make a similarly volatile guess at Nat gas prices
a double inside of one year



Nat gas pricing is also tends to vary from region to region far mor than oil, due to logistical constraints
many energy intensive compressor stations are required to maintain the pressure across the lengthy pipelines


if you are arguing such a wholesale ''transition" will be driven primarily by economics then you need to explain how you are going to overcome these constraints

try switching from a liquid which is easily stored and transported to a gas which is much harder and far more expensive to store and transport,

your 'transition' would also require a massive build out of gas pipelines, which has all sorts of regulatory and political risks
good luck getting any big pipeline built in Canada - ironically thanks to the same folks demanding a transition

• An economic justification requires: investing gabillions must generate a positive return on the gabillions in excess of the cost of money
• particularly if you already have an existing storage and transportation system for the incumbent commodity
• Odd how the auto companies are dialing back EV production targets

connect the dots

 

[Frankfooter]

you could also make a similarly volatile guess at Nat gas prices
a double inside of one year

View attachment 357373

Nat gas pricing is also tends to vary from region to region far mor than oil, due to logistical constraints
many energy intensive compressor stations are required to maintain the pressure across the lengthy pipelines


if you are arguing such a wholesale ''transition" will be driven primarily by economics then you need to explain how you are going to overcome these constraints



your 'transition' would also require a massive build out of gas pipelines, which has all sorts of regulatory and political risks
good luck getting any big pipeline built in Canada - ironically thanks to the same folks demanding a transition

• An economic justification requires: investing gabillions must generate a positive return on the gabillions in excess of the cost of money
• particularly if you already have an existing storage and transportation system for the incumbent commodity
• Odd how the auto companies are dialing back EV production targets

connect the dots

Why do you keep pushing for the more expensive option that also funds despots and causes climate change?

 

[JohnLarue]

Why do you keep pushing for the more expensive option that also funds despots and causes climate change?

you do not process facts well, do you ?

try switching from a liquid which is easily stored and transported to a gas which is much harder and far more expensive to store and transport,

your 'transition' would also require a massive build out of gas pipelines, which has all sorts of regulatory and political risks
good luck getting any big pipeline built in Canada - ironically thanks to the same folks demanding a transition

• An economic justification requires: investing gabillions must generate a positive return on the gabillions in excess of the cost of money
• particularly if you already have an existing storage and transportation system for the incumbent commodity
• Odd how the auto companies are dialing back EV production targets

connect the dots

personally I do not have a preference for oil over gas, or gas over oil.
the free market as well as logistics and switching costs will determine the mix regionally and globally
expecting govt to dictate a change in mix will just create a mess, inflation, diminish vital energy security, and destroy any cost advantage you perceive

re: funds despots ..... pretty funny coming from a devoted union man
re: causes climate change? .... give it a rest , our extremely complex, non linear dynamic climate system is not controlled by an inert colorless odourless gas (CO2 = plant food) measured in parts per million


you do not understand the difference between scientific evidence confirming / rejecting a hypothesis vs. alarmist bullshit propaganda

 

[oil&gas]

i have always found this concept to be amusing
the energy derived via the combustion of hydrocarbons is due to the breaking of C-H or C-C bonds in the presence of oxygen
The supposed evil CO2 molecule is produced whether the source be diesel, gasoline or natural gas or even coal

A claim can be made natural gas burns cleaner, but that is different type of pollution relative to the creation of plant food (CO2)
the huge problem with your energy transition fantasy is natural gas is ........ a gas

the logistics / infrastructure challenges of your fantasy are enormous and also quite energy intensive
one must compress the gas to store / ship it- a energy intensive / material intensive process (lots of steel is need to created pressure vessels)
a wholesale "transition" from diesel/gasoline to natural gas in the transportation sector would result in a overall increase in energy consumption and very likely an over increase in the creation of plant food (CO2)

so no net perceived benefit to offset the massive cost / societal disruptions
.....................................................................

This is the story of how one of the myriads of scientists and engineers
endeavoring to secure world's energy future get started.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................................................................
In the early 1980s Philip Hill, then a University of British Columbia mechanical engineering professor, sought improvements to natural gas combustion in engines.Hill's team of graduate students and research engineers focused on natural gas as a fuel in diesel engines to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and harmful atmospheric particulate matter. At the same time, he wanted to preserve the performance, fuel economy, durability and reliability characteristics of the traditional diesel engine.

With funding limited and finding few suitable commercial components or testing equipment, Hill and his team designed and fabricated their own components and equipment. The theoretical results they obtained from their research and experimentation was a significant factor in the later development of Westport.

By injecting a small amount of diesel fuel before a main, high-pressure, direct injection (HPDI) of natural gas to start the combustion, Hill was able to successfully retain important characteristics of the diesel engine.In 1994, through UBC's University-Industry Liaison Office, Hill met David Demers, who later became Westport's CEO. In 1995 the two founded Westport Innovations Inc. to capitalize on the HPDI technology.
.......................................................

Westport Innovations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philip Hill's business is still growing to this day,

 

[Frankfooter]

your 'transition' would also require a massive build out of gas pipelines, which has all sorts of regulatory and political risks

Wow, you really are old.

We are talking about transition from fossil fuels, which includes natural gas.
Solar, wind, heat pumps and renewables.

 

[oil&gas]

Signs the transition to natural gas has begun though there
is still a long way to go.

May 17, 2020

UPS ditches gas guzzlers, opts for natural gas (LNG) trucks instead

United Parcel Service will add 48 heavy-duty trucks powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) to its UPS Ground operation on the West Coast of the U.S., a...

supplychaindigital.com

APRIL 23, 2024

UPS CNG Trucks Acquisition: A Progressive Move Towards...

Explore the impact of the UPS CNG trucks acquisition on sustainability goals, detailing how the integration of CNG technology propels UPS towards fleet carbon neutrality by 2050.

tanktransport.com

Sep 28, 2012

Natural gas-powered locomotive drives CN into eco-friendly(er) future

CN has retrofitted two of its existing diesel-fired locomotives to run mainly on natural gas

nationalpost.com

Natural Gas Trains

With high fuel expense, railroads are examining LNG options. They will need to develop solutions to technical, regulatory and safety concerns.

www.wearethepractitioners.com

 

[oil&gas]

........................................................
gee...... Russia, China and India are going to harmoniously buy into your transition fantasy.
you could not possibly have picked three better examples of countries who will charter their own independent energy paths governed by what they view as their own specific economic and geopolitical objectives.
......

Expansion of existing capacity and construction of new pipelines
from Russia to China is in progress. Absent disintegration of Russia
brought on it by the NATO-US funded proxy way most of the supply
of the fuel to Europe will be redirected to China in a decade.

China and, perhaps to a lesser degree, India think ahead of the
energy future unlike the climate-change-obsessed west. They
won't let go the opportunity of gaining exclusive access to Earth's
most valuable fossil fuel resource trapped in Siberia.

 

[oil&gas]

4 years ago.

1 year ago.