myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Climate Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4195

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boggsman.

Craig Station closes in three years. At least I got to ski when I had to work up there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8887
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Boggsman

Emotionally, I agree that clean energy is our future. But, fracking produces 2/3 of the natural gas used in this country right now. The cost to convert a house heating system to electricity from natural gas is about $15000. This electricity (from green sources) will have to include the costs of new transmission lines. And, while ultimately green energy may be competitive, the facility costs will be substantial.

So, we gotta ask our burgeoning senior population, who haven’t saved enough, to commit to new heating systems and higher fuel costs?

My negativity around fracking is primarily financial around shale oil fracking. Risk /reward not the same as nat gas fracking. Continental Resources makes more money from nat gas than oil, and oil is 2/3 of their top line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4195

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boggsman

I won't argue the oil shales for oil fracking. It's been a boom and bust (mostly bust) operation in Western Colorado for 4 decades. It is, probably, not worth the effort...right now.

My statements really have to do with the difficulties in relying on the electrical grid to power everything including a move to grid powered EV. My personal feeling is that we are on the wrong track with the EV revolution. I would much prefer to see hydrogen fuel cells as the technology of the future for automobiles. It would seem that a technology that could result in much better range at greatly reduced usage of lithium batteries (therefore lighter vehicles) makes more sense to occupy our research efforts. There are greater losses in transportation of energy. Power lines are highly efficient...if we can get them built. None of it will be easy and none of it will be soon enough to prevent climate change.

We might be better off trying to construct facilities with the thought that we will be living with carbon effects for the foreseeable future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8887
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB... I agree, it wont be easy. And I think if Hydrogen fuel cells can scale, they will . I think the current form of EV was a long hanging fruit of sorts, and it will morph into a more efficient system. Either way, watching Americans drive around in heavy 8 -cylinder boats is a thing of the past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10419

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm glad to see others interested in hydrogen fuel cell technology. Given that hydrogen production can be derived from the oil refining process, I would guess that even mrgybe could see value in hydrogen fuel cell use in powering vehicles and the transportation sector into the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17236
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:

Finding and producing oil and gas is a difficult and dangerous business which the US O&G industry executes with exceptionally efficiency.


Belittling the problems of the Valdez spill with false equivalencies. Ignoring the fact that Exxon stiffed those whose livelihoods they damaged for years. The spill occurred in 1989.

Quote:
By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times environment reporter
Hopes of fishermen throughout Washington and Alaska were sunk Wednesday when the Supreme Court slashed the amount of punitive damages that Exxon must pay for the epic Exxon Valdez oil spill nearly two decades ago.

The high court, in a 5-3 decision, found that punitive damages could not be larger than the compensatory damages for actual losses from the spill, which totaled $507.5 million.

The justices rejected the amount — $2.5 billion — that a federal appeals court had granted to be shared by 32,677 plaintiffs who had claimed damages from the worst oil spill in U.S. history, including fishermen, Alaska natives, local businesses and others.

That amount had been reduced from the $5 billion that a jury awarded in 1994.


The anxiously awaited decision, delivered on the eve of the Supreme Court’s summer recess, brings to a close one of the longest-running class-action lawsuits in the country.

But it was not the end that many had hoped for.

“Crime pays, and environmental crime pays really well,” said William Rodgers, a professor of law at the University of Washington and an expert on the Exxon Valdez case.

“I am sure they [Exxon] are sitting down and having a toast of the town. The other lesson they have taught is scorched-earth litigation pays. Just keep litigating, making up issues.”

The fight over the punitive damages reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Since then, Exxon filed more than 60 petitions and appeals, sought 23 time extensions and filed more than 1,000 motions, briefs, requests and demands. The company requested a reduction in the damages amount, a reversal of the verdict and a new trial, claiming jury misconduct and jury tampering, according to Rodgers.

More than 3,000 claimants died waiting for an outcome in the case.



EXXON, the sign of the double cross, has helped deliver the best Supreme Court money can buy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5171

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
I am rooting for a greener future, cleaner, and less reliance on the country that hatched 15 of the 9/11 hijackers .. In spite of Mr. Trump hosting them this weekend in New Jersey....

So we come full circle. California's policies achieve none of the things you are rooting for.....quite the reverse. CA prefers to put Saudi crude on pollution spewing tankers, for a 17,000 mile round trip, which includes very dangerous waters, rather than produce its own resources. Biden has that same policy, but his loose lips have hopefully sunk that ship.

As for hydrogen, 95% currently comes from hydrocarbons (here we are again!). Unfortunately, it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen than it produces. Until a better process, and safe storage, is developed, it makes little sense for anything other than niche applications, like rocket fuel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8887
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. G did you know we only import 500,000 barrels a day from Saudi? 4.6 mm from Canada..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17236
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
I am rooting for a greener future, cleaner, and less reliance on the country that hatched 15 of the 9/11 hijackers .. In spite of Mr. Trump hosting them this weekend in New Jersey....

So we come full circle. California's policies achieve none of the things you are rooting for.....quite the reverse. CA prefers to put Saudi crude on pollution spewing tankers, for a 17,000 mile round trip, which includes very dangerous waters, rather than produce its own resources. Biden has that same policy, but his loose lips have hopefully sunk that ship.

As for hydrogen, 95% currently comes from hydrocarbons (here we are again!). Unfortunately, it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen than it produces. Until a better process, and safe storage, is developed, it makes little sense for anything other than niche applications, like rocket fuel.


Hysterical. The flack for EXXON now has concerns about the safety of tankers. EXXON fought California for more than a decade on air quality rules so it could use its fleet of tankers rather than ship by pipeline. Like they fought paying for the losses of fishermen until many of them died. Up is down, until EXXON and their flacks say it is up.

There are still more than 10,000 tankers active. But transporting oil on the high seas is hard on metal as well risky. It seems that the oil majors have largely offloaded the shipping function, perhaps to escape liability? But despite buggy whip's cherry picking, that is still how most of the oil is moved around.

For a nice little view of EXXON's "citizenship" ethics, this article from 2003 shows how they work the system to avoid responsibility.

Quote:
However, the case of the Exxon Valdez shows that FOC or not, the oil majors can still evade liability. The Exxon Valdez, flying under its own flag, registered in the US, broke up after hitting a reef in Alaska in 1989, releasing 11m gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. This was the worst spill in US history. The slick drifted 500 miles, covering 10,000 square miles of ocean and contaminating 1,500 miles of shoreline.

In 1991, Exxon was fined $150m for "environmental crime", but $125m of this was "forgiven" because, the court ruled, Exxon had helped clean up the oil and paid certain private claims. For "criminal restitution" it was fined another $100m - which was divided between the state and federal governments. The civil settlement, of $900m was spaced in annual payments over 10 years. The last instalment was paid last year.

However, to date, not one of the claims by fishermen and others who lost their livelihoods as a result of the spill has been met - despite the fact that in 1994, an Alaskan jury found Exxon liable for punitive damages of $5bn. At that time, Exxon appealed and the payment was ruled "excessive" by the court. In June 2002 Exxon Mobil filed to reduce the $5bn damages to only $40m. Exxon claims it has "done its duty" by spending (so it claims) $2bn on cleaning up the pollution. So, 13 years later, this payment is still under review!


https://www.union-communiste.org/en/2003-01/the-prestige-disaster-a-tale-of-oil-profiteering-and-state-complicity-1171
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13733
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Baja. I don’t think I’m wrong about all this. If demand were flat and did not consider the increases necessary to convert to EV use, getting us to a carbon free (not counting nuclear) electric grid is a pipe dream. Sure, Boulder Nevada might be able to supply enough electricity using solar. I get ALL of my electricity (net producer). But, when the sun goes down, I’m on the grid with everybody else. Boulder Nevada and Durango Colorado are blessed with LOTS of sunny days too.

Im not claiming a carbon free energy system is not possible. Advances in storage batteries could reduce costs both in dollars and environmental damage.

The issue is that increased worldwide demand is likely going to severely impact the gains we can make on reducing carbon by development of renewables. I’d like to see the numbers presented if I’m wrong. But, we can’t even keep up with the production of copper needed for the electric motors in the short term.

I can’t find an EV or solar panels for a project. We can’t get the new high tech electric heating systems on board in houses and commercial buildings I’m designing. We are forging ahead with business as usual. It will be decades before the investment capital will be available to revamp away from carbon.


yep we have money for a war on lies, but not a war as Cater told us that would cost us dearly if we did not become energy independent. Yep and a giveaway to billionaires of 2 trillion by trump so they could fund hate for generations..


The plants in tonopah and california NV stateline have expanded the storage (super heated salt) to provide energy for from what I have read newer than those up and running presently 10 hours.

Yes I am all nuclear with the micro reactors. Should be, as my knowledge about them; comes from my father that had several patents on them. I would fund I think there were 5 or so companies wanted to build one in the competition that looked promising, the DOE funded one. the long term benefits that can be had are worth the risks of funding 5 of them... these are low pressure salt systems that if a pump goes down it does not matter because of low-non pressure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187  Next
Page 183 of 187

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group