12 Years is looking more and more realistic

[mrjurrs]

It does not mean that at all, the profit centers of the oil companies were broken up under antitrust laws.
The refinery buys oil, to make their product, fuels, when they can make their product from atmospheric CO2, Hydrogen and electricity,
for less than what they pay for oil, that is the path they will take.
Based on what has been published so far, that number is between $75 and $90 a barrel!

I don't believe those refineries will be able to change the resources they use. What could they shift to?

 

[longview]

I don't believe those refineries will be able to change the resources they use. What could they shift to?

I am not sure your beliefs are important!
Can the refineries change how they get the feedstock to make fuel products?
They currently take oil, and break it down into olefins, and then put the olefins together into the demanded fuel.
Under the new process they will capture CO2, extract the carbon, Generate hydrogen from water, and combine the C's and H's together in the demanded string.
This is not unproven, they are building a plant in Norway to make jet fuel already!

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Do you really think enough people would do such things? One reason we are a first world nation is the freedoms we have. we have the economic wealth not to concern ourselves with such things. You are asking us to go backwards in status.

People do such things. And it's easily automated, eg the dishwasher can be told to run through after the evening peak, depending only on the going rate of electricity.

There is a lot of resistance to Smart Meters, and it's based on pseudo science of course. Like the power company cares when you heat water or clean dishes

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I am not sure your beliefs are important!
Can the refineries change how they get the feedstock to make fuel products?
They currently take oil, and break it down into olefins, and then put the olefins together into the demanded fuel.
Under the new process they will capture CO2, extract the carbon, Generate hydrogen from water, and combine the C's and H's together in the demanded string.
This is not unproven, they are building a plant in Norway to make jet fuel already!

Extracting carbon from CO2 is a massively uphill reaction, you need energy for that. Wind energy, or large-scale solar, or nooclear! However the investment cost of a plant that can't run all the time, is rather bad.

Extracting carbon from methane (all that melting tundra!) is incredibly easy by comparison. Methane IS a fuel (a gaseous one admittedly).

I think you're trying to kill two birds with one stone, and that is difficult.

One reason I support a Carbon Tax is it will make fossil fuel fossils finally get serious about Carbon Capture. My take is they're slow pedalling in the hope of grants but will never take the business risk of sequestered carbon leaking back out. A high enough tax would make it Do or Die for them.

 

[longview]

Extracting carbon from CO2 is a massively uphill reaction, you need energy for that. Wind energy, or large-scale solar, or nooclear! However the investment cost of a plant that can't run all the time, is rather bad.

Extracting carbon from methane (all that melting tundra!) is incredibly easy by comparison. Methane IS a fuel (a gaseous one admittedly).

I think you're trying to kill two birds with one stone, and that is difficult.

One reason I support a Carbon Tax is it will make fossil fuel fossils finally get serious about Carbon Capture. My take is they're slow pedalling in the hope of grants but will never take the business risk of sequestered carbon leaking back out. A high enough tax would make it Do or Die for them.

So far the storage efficiency is between the NRL’s 60% and Sunfire’s 80%. Keep in mind the main idea is to be able to store grid scale surplus electricity seasonally, in a way the reduces new CO2 emissions, and provides carbon neutral transport fuels.

 

[mrjurrs]

I am not sure your beliefs are important!
Can the refineries change how they get the feedstock to make fuel products?
They currently take oil, and break it down into olefins, and then put the olefins together into the demanded fuel.
Under the new process they will capture CO2, extract the carbon, Generate hydrogen from water, and combine the C's and H's together in the demanded string.
This is not unproven, they are building a plant in Norway to make jet fuel already!

Building would indicate new. Are they repurposing an existing refinery or building a new one?

 

[longview]

Building would indicate new. Are they repurposing an existing refinery or building a new one?

Yes, that was the path they choose, but that does not mean that the entire back end of existing refineries cannot be used
to assemble hydrocarbon molecules just like they currently do!
Keep in mind that the only real change is the source of the olefins.
Audi which spun off Sunfire Energy, started their research by purchasing an old refinery.

 

[HangLow]

 

[HangLow]

Extracting carbon from CO2 is a massively uphill reaction, you need energy for that. Wind energy, or large-scale solar, or nooclear! However the investment cost of a plant that can't run all the time, is rather bad.

Extracting carbon from methane (all that melting tundra!) is incredibly easy by comparison. Methane IS a fuel (a gaseous one admittedly).

I think you're trying to kill two birds with one stone, and that is difficult.

One reason I support a Carbon Tax is it will make fossil fuel fossils finally get serious about Carbon Capture. My take is they're slow pedalling in the hope of grants but will never take the business risk of sequestered carbon leaking back out. A high enough tax would make it Do or Die for them.

Please accept my apology in advance...
Not to interrupt but you guys may find this interesting...

NASA Tests Methane-Powered​

Engine Components for Next Generation Landers​

NASA Tests Methane-Powered Engine Components for Next Generation Landers - NASA

NASA tested components for an engine that could be used for Mars landers powered with methane, a fuel that has never before propelled a NASA spacecraft.

www.nasa.gov

Making methane on Mars​

Making methane on Mars

How physicists are making a return trip from the Red Planet a possibility.

www.universityofcalifornia.edu

​

 

[HangLow]

 

[longview]

The cartoons are funny, but the climate will likely change no matter what Human do.
We will always have flooding, droughts, wildfires, ect!
We will be required to move to sustainable energy sources, not because of climate change, but because the cost of the natural sources will quickly
surpass the cost of alternative methods of energy storage.
On the energy conservation front, A home built today has half of the energy use per square foot as homes built 40 years ago,
and net zero energy homes are close to being a reality.

 

[Glitch]

Coal is insanely inefficient. Only about 44% efficiency and 56% waste its for luddites.

Yet that is the only fuel that is readily available in some locations. What are you going to do, tell them to go pound sand, that they can't enjoy the same standard of living that you enjoy? Sounds damn elitist and selfish to me. Get off your high-horse, not everyone has access to the same resources that you have access.

 

[calamity]

Yet that is the only fuel that is readily available in some locations. What are you going to do, tell them to go pound sand, that they can't enjoy the same standard of living that you enjoy? Sounds damn elitist and selfish to me. Get off your high-horse, not everyone has access to the same resources that you have access.

Well, that's rather dumb.

 

[Glitch]

Extracting carbon from methane (all that melting tundra!) is incredibly easy by comparison. Methane IS a fuel (a gaseous one admittedly).

You have that backwards actually. It is the increasing temperatures that is causing the permafrost to thaw, and in return that is releasing the trapped methane. It is certainly not the methane melting the tundra.

I think you're trying to kill two birds with one stone, and that is difficult.

One reason I support a Carbon Tax is it will make fossil fuel fossils finally get serious about Carbon Capture. My take is they're slow pedalling in the hope of grants but will never take the business risk of sequestered carbon leaking back out. A high enough tax would make it Do or Die for them.

Why is it the ONLY solution AGW fanatics have is to massively increase taxes on everyone? That tells me immediately that AGW is nothing more than a scam by Marxists who is using AWG as a vehicle for redistribution of wealth.

 

[Glitch]

I am not sure your beliefs are important!
Can the refineries change how they get the feedstock to make fuel products?
They currently take oil, and break it down into olefins, and then put the olefins together into the demanded fuel.
Under the new process they will capture CO2, extract the carbon, Generate hydrogen from water, and combine the C's and H's together in the demanded string.
This is not unproven, they are building a plant in Norway to make jet fuel already!

Do you have any idea how much energy is required to separate hydrogen from water? Were is all this energy suppose to come from? You are talking about expending more energy to produce even less energy. Which is insanely stupid.

 

[Glitch]

Well, that's rather dumb.

What is dumb, that not every one has access to the same energy resources, or that leftists are elitist and selfish pricks who consider themselves better than others?

 

[longview]

Do you have any idea how much energy is required to separate hydrogen from water? Were is all this energy suppose to come from? You are talking about expending more energy to produce even less energy. Which is insanely stupid.

I understand that this is energy storage at a loss, The Navy is saying a 60% overall efficiency, While Sunfire is saying they can get to 80% efficiency at scale.
But also consider what it would mean for remote places like Alaska, if they could store 60% of the energy from those long summer days, as CH4 for winter heating.

 

[Glitch]

I understand that this is energy storage at a loss, The Navy is saying a 60% overall efficiency, While Sunfire is saying they can get to 80% efficiency at scale.
But also consider what it would mean for remote places like Alaska, if they could store 60% of the energy from those long summer days, as CH4 for winter heating.

We already have energy resources that are much cheaper than trying to separate hydrogen from water. Why would we want to lower the standard of living for every Alaskan by massively increasing the cost of an inefficient energy resource?

 

[longview]

We already have energy resources that are much cheaper than trying to separate hydrogen from water. Why would we want to lower the standard of living for every Alaskan by massively increasing the cost of an inefficient energy resource?

For now! but consider what your annual heating bill is, vs say $20 K of a solar panel system that would produce many winters of heating.
Does the efficiency really matter if the sunlight from the long summer days was being wasted at 100%?

 

[Glitch]

For now! but consider what your annual heating bill is, vs say $20 K of a solar panel system that would produce many winters of heating.
Does the efficiency really matter if the sunlight from the long summer days was being wasted at 100%?

For now? There is enough oil in Alaska alone to fuel the entire State for multiple centuries. Currently Alaska only consumes 2% of the oil produced. There is also 35 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves in Alaska that remains untouched. Alaska also produces ~100,000 short tons of coal annually, or ~14,365 billion BTU (using 2017 data).

You also can't use solar during the Winter in Alaska. There is no sunlight above the Arctic Circle between November and February, and the overwhelming majority of the State has less than 4 hours of daylight by Winter Solstice.

During the Summer, when the sun is shining pretty much all the time and the temperatures are warm, we really don't need the power. What we are looking at are energy resources that can provide power all year long, regardless of the climate conditions. Like fossil-fuels, hydroelectric, and we are even looking into geothermal.

 

[watsup]

You have that backwards actually. It is the increasing temperatures that is causing the permafrost to thaw, and in return that is releasing the trapped methane. It is certainly not the methane melting the tundra.


Why is it the ONLY solution AGW fanatics have is to massively increase taxes on everyone? That tells me immediately that AGW is nothing more than a scam by Marxists who is using AWG as a vehicle for redistribution of wealth.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[longview]

For now? There is enough oil in Alaska alone to fuel the entire State for multiple centuries. Currently Alaska only consumes 2% of the oil produced. There is also 35 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves in Alaska that remains untouched. Alaska also produces ~100,000 short tons of coal annually, or ~14,365 billion BTU (using 2017 data).

You also can't use solar during the Winter in Alaska. There is no sunlight above the Arctic Circle between November and February, and the overwhelming majority of the State has less than 4 hours of daylight by Winter Solstice.

During the Summer, when the sun is shining pretty much all the time and the temperatures are warm, we really don't need the power. What we are looking at are energy resources that can provide power all year long, regardless of the climate conditions. Like fossil-fuels, hydroelectric, and we are even looking into geothermal.

The difference between Summer and Winter, is why seasonal storage is important.
All Summer the system would make and store whatever fuel is needed for heat, to be used in the winter months.
Geothermal would be great, but it is usually not near where it is needed, consider a remote geothermal power plant, adding natural gas to a pipeline
supplying gas for heating and cooking to remote locations than cannot get gas right now.

 

[Glitch]

The difference between Summer and Winter, is why seasonal storage is important.
All Summer the system would make and store whatever fuel is needed for heat, to be used in the winter months.

I noticed that you failed to mention how much such energy would cost the consumer.

Geothermal would be great, but it is usually not near where it is needed, consider a remote geothermal power plant, adding natural gas to a pipeline
supplying gas for heating and cooking to remote locations than cannot get gas right now.

The Augustine volcano is just a few miles off the coast of the Kenai Peninsula, and is the most logical candidate.

Alaska’s Division of Oil and Gas has received a proposal for geothermal exploration on Augustine Island in Cook Inlet — the name of the individual or company, per state statute,
has not yet been released.

Source: Petroleum News, July 24, 2021.

We are also looking at using tidal generators to create power in Cook Inlet which has the fourth largest tide on the planet, but that is still very much in the experimental phase, only able to generate 5 MW initially.

Alaska Tidal Energy Pilot Project Moves Forward

Portland-Maine based Ocean Renewable Power Co. Inc. seeks federal OK for 5-MW project in Cook Inlet.

www.enr.com

Considering that the natural gas resources in Cook Inlet are rapidly running out, we need reliable alternative sources of energy to replace it.

 

[longview]

I noticed that you failed to mention how much such energy would cost the consumer.


The Augustine volcano is just a few miles off the coast of the Kenai Peninsula, and is the most logical candidate.


Source: Petroleum News, July 24, 2021.

We are also looking at using tidal generators to create power in Cook Inlet which has the fourth largest tide on the planet, but that is still very much in the experimental phase, only able to generate 5 MW initially.

Alaska Tidal Energy Pilot Project Moves Forward

Portland-Maine based Ocean Renewable Power Co. Inc. seeks federal OK for 5-MW project in Cook Inlet.

www.enr.com

Considering that the natural gas resources in Cook Inlet are rapidly running out, we need reliable alternative sources of energy to replace it.

I have not looked into the cost of the natural gas, but I did find a good paper on the topic this week.
Techno-Economic Assessment of Power-to-Liquids (PtL) Fuels Production and Global Trading Based on Hybrid PV-Wind Power Plants
Although I do not think they talk about the cost of e-gas directly, but prices for syn fuels.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

You have that backwards actually. It is the increasing temperatures that is causing the permafrost to thaw, and in return that is releasing the trapped methane. It is certainly not the methane melting the tundra.

I have it right. There's going to be a lot of methane released, as tundra melts. I can't think of a neat way to capture it (without killing all the vegetation there) but give me a few million and I could probably think of something.

There's an equivalent problem with the sea bed: methane clathrates are ice cages with methane 'guest' molecules, that rely on cold AND water pressure to keep from breaking apart and releasing the methane. There may be bacterial life involved too, but the prospects for methane 'harvesting' are much better. A sea bed crawler could warm a patch, or temporarily decrease its pressure, releasing methane up a pipe to be liquified on a ship. (Not liquifying it would be better, but a floating pipe back to land would rather limit the range of the machine.)

Why is it the ONLY solution AGW fanatics have is to massively increase taxes on everyone? That tells me immediately that AGW is nothing more than a scam by Marxists who is using AWG as a vehicle for redistribution of wealth.

I think you spat up a furball. You probably shouldn't eat so many Marxists, my friend.

I'm not an AGW fanatic, nor did I specify a "massive" carbon tax. All that's necessary is to shift the burden of taxes (for instance the anti-jobs FICA tax could go) to encourage the sort of economic behaviour which is low-emissions. At the very least we could stop SUBSIDIZING fossil fuels, and if the Canadians want to pipe in even more filthy polluting muck that is practically illegal in Canada, maybe they could BUY the land instead of begging for eminent domain.

A carbon tax, just on fossil fuels, is less than ideal. The agriculture (particularly dairy) emissions are pretty huge, and a nominal tax is necessary there to get producers planning for low-emissions breeds and low-emissions feed. Government should also endorse a system of offsets, for the public to voluntarily buy into or to prefer products with offsets. That's typically reforesting marginal farming land, but also re-establishing mangroves. It could even be 'negative' offsets, with benefits going to loggers who use more expensive but less wasteful methods, farmers who protect their soil better at the cost of lesser yields.

Yes I'm in favor of tax. Anyone who is opposed to tax in every case, is as ridiculous as a character out of an Ayn Rand novel. WHAT is taxed is a matter for active minds, and brave people who aren't afraid of hurting any industry when they're going to get hurt pretty bad just carrying on like they are. Ten years from now, the coal industry will be begging for government help. "Buy our beautiful coal, there's nothing wrong with it. Fill in the Grand Canyon or something, we don't care, just buy the coal!"