• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Aramco CEO says energy transition is failing, world should abandon ‘fantasy’ of phasing out oil

Lord Tammerlain said:
Sodium ion batteries are already in production just at a smaller scale right now
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. They have been prototyped and the performance specs are still in the "trust us" phase. There is no production of any scale or long term testing of the platform.

It'll be cool if it works, but it's not proven. And, as I said, take every breakthrough report from China with a huge grain of salt.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope, it's true. The problem is you are too geared to fight about stupid shit that you can't see the point I'm making...
Click to expand...
Silly me, actually reading the words you wrote. 😆

jmotivator said:
People who drive a Tesla don't see the nickel mine or the cobalt mines of the coal power plant ... while people who drive a gasoline vehicle know that the exhaust is toixic.

You see the point?
Click to expand...
I see your straw man. We're not talking about EVs, we're talking about electricity generation.

I'm sure there are some people who blithely believe that constructing a wind farm has zero environmental impact, and that's not true. However, as I've already pointed out, the negative impacts of wind and solar are so much smaller than fossil fuels, and the upsides so significant, that the only reason to even think about the environmental impacts is in making sure they are optimally sited.

jmotivator said:
"You'll eat bugs and like it" levels of utter disconnect. I pay $0.14 per kWh where I live.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

As I already pointed out: Scotland's cost of electricity is lower than numerous comparable nations. As to the $0.14 you're paying? That's because you are ignoring all the other costs, ranging from spewing CO2, to fouling waterways, to causing health issues in nearby neighborhoods. Not to mention that the federal government subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of $10 to $50 billion a year, meaning everyone in the US is paying a few cents for your cheap electricity.

Weren't you the one hyping on "out of sight, out of mind?"

jmotivator said:
And Scotland is realizing that they will need to ... replace the grid.
Click to expand...
And again, you might want to read your own article. Contrary to your claims about the horrors of switching to renewables, they successfully hit 95% plus wind generation without needing to overhaul the entire grid. The main reasons they'd need to upgrade are:

• They plan to increase wind generation five times by 2050
• The additional electricity will be exported to the UK, to help the UK reach emissions targets
• Support micro-grids
• Reduce costs for end users

jmotivator said:
The primary issue is that the grid with fossil fuel generators produce a more stable flow of electricity than wind...
Click to expand...
Again, that's not the biggest issue facing Scotland (or other grids). Electricity demand varies significantly from day to day, and month to month; they're already built to handle variable supply and demand. That's why Scotland was able to go from 0% wind to 95% wind in the span of about 10 years, without having to replace the grid.

jmotivator said:
In order to combat this they will need to upgrade the grid and split it into mini regional grids to help limit cascading surges and brown outs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. There is a degree of smoothing out the grid, but the larger issue is that Scotland has a lot of rural areas, islands and remote areas that are difficult and expensive to connect to a national grid. Micro-grids are more efficient and cheaper overall, and are much harder to set up with fossil fuel generation.

jmotivator said:
And, by the way, those UK offshore wind projects are in trouble due to cost. Their auction in September last year had no takers....
Click to expand...
Let's clarify this a bit. For years, offshore wind was actually the cheapest way for the UK to domestically generate electricity. The government auctioned off the rights to make offshore wind, and in doing so they set a maximum rate the utility can charge. Due to inflation and higher interest rates -- not costs isolated to wind -- it wasn't economically feasible for the energy companies.

Needless to say, new fossil fuel plants face the same economic pressures, in addition to the political issues due to Russia's ongoing belligerence, and obviously won't help the UK reach its emissions targets.

As per usual, you're exaggerating the issues, ignoring the upsides, and come to think of it, not proposing any viable alternatives.

To wit, you claim you want cheap and sustainable energy, but don't bother to explain how to generate it. If you want anything remotely sustainable, fossil fuels are out, and biofuels are very iffy. That only leaves nuclear, which is great on paper, but practically impossible to build enough to meet the need. If a failed UK auction invalidates wind, then why doesn't the failure of NuScale, or wasting $9 billion on VC Summer -- all paid by residents -- rule out nuclear? :unsure:
 
Visbek said:
Silly me, actually reading the words you wrote. 😆
Click to expand...

No, you really didn't.

Visbek said:
I see your straw man. We're not talking about EVs, we're talking about electricity generation.
Click to expand...

No straw man, batteries are essential to both EVs and electricity generation by wind and solar.. all being the tip of the spear for the "green energy" movement.

Visbek said:
I'm sure there are some people who blithely believe that constructing a wind farm has zero environmental impact, and that's not true. However, as I've already pointed out, the negative impacts of wind and solar are so much smaller than fossil fuels, and the upsides so significant, that the only reason to even think about the environmental impacts is in making sure they are optimally sited.
Click to expand...

There is little to no upside to solar and wind over conventional upgrades from coal. Nobody here is arguing for an all coal solution.

Visbek said:
As I already pointed out: Scotland's cost of electricity is lower than numerous comparable nations. As to the $0.14 you're paying? That's because you are ignoring all the other costs, ranging from spewing CO2, to fouling waterways, to causing health issues in nearby neighborhoods. Not to mention that the federal government subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of $10 to $50 billion a year, meaning everyone in the US is paying a few cents for your cheap electricity.
Click to expand...

Nope. My region is mostly nuclear and natural gas. And you are making the assumption that the problems with your chosen energy sources will remain constant with with scale, and I'll argue that that is never the case.

Also, you might want say that part about subsidies a little louder. There are a lot of people on your side of this debate who think that government spending money make things "free".

Also, the US spend $16 billion on renewable subsidies in FY 2022. At scale that would be equivalent to $80 billion a year.

Visbek said:
Weren't you the one hyping on "out of sight, out of mind?"
Click to expand...

I wasn't "hyping" it at all. I was pointing out that this kind of disconnect leads to a false assumption of the environmental impact of "green energy" and "green" vehicles.

Visbek said:
And again, you might want to read your own article. Contrary to your claims about the horrors of switching to renewables, they successfully hit 95% plus wind generation without needing to overhaul the entire grid. The main reasons they'd need to upgrade are:

• They plan to increase wind generation five times by 2050
...er -- all paid by residents -- rule out nuclear? :unsure:
Click to expand...

Taking the rest of this all at once.

I don't care what their intentions or their plans are by 2050. I care about what will actually happen by 2050. You said tat they didn't need to upgrade the grid in Scotland when it is turning out they very much do need to replace the grid to accommodate their wind farms.

As for the future sources of energy, I'm not going to make predictions on what will win out in the long run, I just don't see it being solar or wind. Both are far too real estate intensive and conditionally applicable given the real limitations on electricity transmission over long distances. One of the weakness of geothermal, for instance, is that the regions where geothermal is the most cost effective also tend to be too far from civilization to transmit.

There are numerous synthetic liquid fuels and power generation potentials down the road, but I won't make the mistake you have and just pick a favorite. All of them, including wind and solar, have major hurdles they need to overcome, and I'd rather not usher in Wind and solar as an answer at the expense of potentially better solutions.

If you want me to turn all futurist, then I'll allow myself to imagine what an improved energy infrastructure would look like, most of this is technology that is already available and being manufactured: A new focus on hydrogen fuel cell generators for vehicles, with nuclear or hydro or geothermal (or solar or wind) power plants dedicated to generating liquid hydrogen fuels that can be distributed using the same infrastructure we currently use.

Electricity generation would be nuclear, and geothermal if we ever develop more conductive materials to make geolocation of generators less restrictive.

I lean away from solar and wind even if they overcome their economic and technical weaknesses because there is no way to avoid the huge amount of land required.
 
jmotivator said:
No straw man, batteries are essential to both EVs and electricity generation by wind and solar.. all being the tip of the spear for the "green energy" movement.
Click to expand...
...and again, the impact of manufacturing solar pv/wind turbines etc... including magnets, rare earths, batteries, whatever, all pales in comparison to the environmental impact of fossil fuels over the lifecycle of the installations.

jmotivator said:
There is little to no upside to solar and wind over conventional upgrades from coal.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. Energy independence; significantly lower carbon footprint; significantly lower environmental impact; lower life cycle cost...

jmotivator said:
And you are making the assumption that the problems with your chosen energy sources will remain constant with with scale, and I'll argue that that is never the case.
Click to expand...
Based on... pulling objections out of thin air, I assume? 😆

jmotivator said:
I wasn't "hyping" it at all. I was pointing out that this kind of disconnect leads to a false assumption of the environmental impact of "green energy" and "green" vehicles.
Click to expand...
And I'm reminding you that the environmental impact of renewables is so much lower over the life cycle of these different types of generation, that positing it as a negative is downright disingenuous.

jmotivator said:
You said tat they didn't need to upgrade the grid in Scotland when it is turning out they very much do need to replace the grid to accommodate their wind farms.
Click to expand...
No, what I said was they went from 0% wind to 95% wind in just a few years without needing to upgrade the grid. And since you missed it, that is correct. Again! Per the source you linked, the motivation for upgrading the grid is because they want to increase generation fivefold by 2050, and plan to export the excess.

jmotivator said:
I just don't see it being solar or wind. Both are far too real estate intensive and conditionally applicable given the real limitations on electricity transmission over long distances.
Click to expand...
Yaay, a new objection!

Complaining about land use is a red herring. E.g. Wind and solar are both fully compatible with existing agricultural farms. Offshore wind is expensive, but doesn't use up any land. Rooftop solar is definitely not cheap, but doesn't use up any land.

So is transmission. Which is better for micro-grids, wind and solar? Or a nuclear power plant? 😆

jmotivator said:
There are numerous synthetic liquid fuels and power generation potentials down the road, but I won't make the mistake you have and just pick a favorite.
Click to expand...
Meaning what, you prefer generation methods that don't even exist yet, to ones that do? :cautious: The world cannot wait another 50+ years to start switching to clean energy.

I might add that every day that the US dawdles, China strengthens its grip on the renewables market.

jmotivator said:
All of them, including wind and solar, have major hurdles they need to overcome, and I'd rather not usher in Wind and solar as an answer at the expense of potentially better solutions.
Click to expand...
But those better solutions do not exist yet! This is like telling a cancer patient that they shouldn't get chemo, because someday maybe perhaps we'll have better treatment options. :rolleyes: (This is why I'm not hyping fusion.)

jmotivator said:
A new focus on hydrogen fuel cell generators for vehicles, with nuclear or hydro or geothermal (or solar or wind) power plants dedicated to generating liquid hydrogen fuels that can be distributed using the same infrastructure we currently use.
Click to expand...
Hydro is maxed out.

Geo isn't enough. Max potential is 8% of US generation.

We haven't discussed conservation. Why make more plants, when you can just use less? (And yes, there's lots of room for conservation.)

Nuclear: The US isn't adding nuclear plants, it's losing them. The average age of a nuclear plant in the US is 42 years old. Nuclear generation in the US flatlined in 1987. New plants are too expensive and keep getting canceled, including NuScale's first small reactor. Unless something changes very soon, nuclear is not the future.

Wind and solar are available now. They're getting cheaper now. They're clean now. They're growing now. And yes, we know it can work. Demanding perfection is not a valid excuse to avoid it.
 
I guess a conference of Oil tycoons got together and proclaimed oil is the only way forward.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

Next thing you know the Cookie Monster will proclaim chocolate chips are a super food.🥘
 
PoS said:
LOL China? One car is produced (and we have no details other than what the commies say) and you think its widespread? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Did I.say widespread? I said it was in production.
 
And the CEO of Philip Morris says smoking has no negative health effects.
 
We should be skeptical of this Saudi Aramco CEO, but we should be equally skeptical of anyone saying this transition off of fossil fuels is going well.

Plenty of reason to be skeptical of lithium-ion batteries in everything from obtaining cobalt, nickel, and manganese, to the production of batteries, to use, to disposal. And we can see other types of batteries are in their infancy in practical use.

But the real elephant in the room is the ability to produce power, and enough of it to see a mass migration off of fossil fuels to rechargeable applications. The ambition and political will is there, the practicality of achieving it on their schedule is not.

It seems that we are still a decade, perhaps several, from seeing practical solutions that accomplish what is actually needed without modern liberalism's answers of using less energy, business and commerce operating with less, and all the other answers from an ideology that knows without being able to admit we are not there to end fossil fuel use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom