Reply With Quote
Fires bad now.
Nurdles, Gregory-Portland, TX related
https://www.desmog.com/2021/12/20/ground-flare-exxon-sabic-plastics-petrochemical-plant-gulf-mexico-texas/“Whether a petrochemical plant uses the tower flare or the ground fare or a combination of both … it’s going to be spread out close to the workers on the ground and the community around it,” Subra told me. Such flaring can release carcinogens such as benzene and vinyl chloride, she said.
Encarnacion Serna, a chemical engineer who lives 3 miles from the GCGV site, agrees with Subra. “It doesn’t matter if it is a tower or a ground flare, the chemistry is the same,” Serna said.
He pointed out that fencing doesn’t stop the pollution. “The reason they burn it low to the ground is less people can see it,” he said.
Hiding the flare also does nothing to stop greenhouse-gas emissions. According to its air-quality permit, the Exxon-SABIC plant is allowed to emit about 3 million tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere. It is one of 31 new oil, gas, and petrochemical projects along the Texas and Louisiana coasts that will add another 50 million tons of greenhouse-gas pollution – the equivalent of 11 new coal-fired power plants, according to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization.
Fires bad now.
Bad for Gregory-Portland.
The smell of money, tho.
Drill baby drill
doable in principle, all that's lacking is political will and investment
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-...ingle-Day.htmlThe transition required for the world to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 would need spending of $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050, or $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets, McKinsey & Company said in its new report.
This annual average includes investment in the energy, mobility, industry, buildings, agriculture, and forestry and other land-use sectors.
The estimated spending on all those needs to be $3.5 trillion per year more than today if the world is to achieve net-zero by 2050, according to McKinsey.
“To put it in comparable terms, that increase is equivalent to half of global corporate profits and one-quarter of total tax revenue in 2020,” McKinsey said in the report.
Renewable energy has many benefits, but it’s not always sunny when it comes to renewable energy. Here are some disadvantages to using renewables over traditional fuel sources:
- Renewable energy has high upfront costs
- Renewable energy is intermittent
- Renewables have storage capabilities
- Renewable energy sources have geographic limitations
- Renewables aren’t always 100% carbon-free
1. Higher upfront cost
While you can save money by using renewable energy, the technologies are typically more expensive upfront than traditional energy generators. To combat this, there are often financial incentives, such as tax credits and rebates, available to help alleviate your initial costs of renewable technology.
2. Intermittency
Though renewable energy resources are available around the world, many of these resources aren’t available 24/7, year-round. Some days may be windier than others, the sun doesn’t shine at night, and droughts may occur for periods of time. There can be unpredictable weather events that disrupt these technologies. Fossil fuels are not intermittent and can be turned on or off at any given time. Wondering if you should make the switch to renewables? Find out if an energy source like solar power is a good fit for you.
3. Storage capabilities
https://www.energy.gov/articles/pres...acturing-cleanPresident Biden today issued presidential determinations providing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with the authority to utilize the Defense Production Act (DPA) to accelerate domestic production of five key energy technologies: (1) solar; (2) transformers and electric grid components; (3) heat pumps; (4) insulation; and (5) electrolyzers, fuel cells, and platinum group metals. The DPA determinations are part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s plan to lower energy costs for families, strengthen national security, and achieve lasting American energy independence that reduces demand for fossil fuels and bolsters our clean energy economy
The best time to start doing something you need to do is usually right away.
Batteries+solar, plus new transmission could be a game changer for sunny places like Texas.
Under WHEELS leadership Texas will become the leader in cost effective renewable energy over the next decade. The cool thing is that it leaves more fossil fuels for us to sell to other states which is a nice way taxing the other 56 states so we can keep taxes low.
Too bad he's failed to keep power bills low right now, or keep the electricity running when we need it the most, but you could be right about the future.
Thanks for your support.
Good . When I buy another home solar is at the top of the needs list
Sorry you cannot afford energy. Contact El Nono for more sympathy.Too bad he's failed to keep power bills low right now, or keep the electricity running when we need it the most, but you could be right about the future.
Thanks for your support.
Gravity storage is the . Just imagine the uses you can find for excess gravity.
I'm still not sold that it's cost effective
with inflation and the cost of Nat Gas increasing do to USA being the biggest exporter of LNG, putting USA clients in compe ion with foreign clients, the payback time on solar, after subsidy will be shortening.
I have a guy I am close with who builds net zero houses. Ive seen his own house and seen the numbers. Its worth the investment easily
conversion to 100% renewable power technologically doable by 2050, says Stanford study. cost recouped in 11 years, net jobs added.
The study concludes that we do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap and reliable energy everywhere.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...osts-doing-it/We found that the overall upfront cost to replace all energy in the 145 countries, which emit 99.7 percent of world carbon dioxide, is about $62 trillion. However, due to the $11 trillion annual energy cost savings, the payback time for the new system is less than six years.
The new system may also create over 28 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost worldwide and require only about 0.53 percent of the world’s land for new energy, with most of this area being empty space between wind turbines on land that can be used for multiple purposes. Thus, we found that the new system may require less energy, cost less and creates more jobs than the current system.
the study:https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/arti.../EE/D2EE00722C
see also:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify
btw, nat gas in your stove is not purified, so it contains some very nasty stuff, so use strong exhaust ventilation to pollute the atmosphere and not your house and lungs
... or switch to full electric.
Lower battery costs make electrifcation of shipping a real possibility
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01065-yInternational maritime shipping—powered by heavy fuel oil—is a major contributor to global CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions. The direct electrification of maritime vessels has been underexplored as a low-emission option despite its considerable efficiency advantage over electrofuels. Past studies on ship electrification have relied on outdated assumptions on battery cost, energy density values and available on-board space. We show that at battery prices of US$100 kWh−1 the electrification of intraregional trade routes of less than 1,500 km is economical, with minimal impact to ship carrying capacity. Including the environmental costs increases the economical range to 5,000 km. If batteries achieve a US$50 kWh−1 price point, the economical range nearly doubles. We describe a pathway for the battery electrification of containerships within this decade that electrifies over 40% of global containership traffic, reduces CO2 emissions by 14% for US-based vessels, and mitigates the health impacts of air pollution on coastal communities.
press release essentially, but this is cool as
a "brick toaster" that purportedly stores energy with 98% efficiency at 20% the cost of an electrochemical battery.
it's reportedly capable of putting out at 1500 degrees C, hot enough for ~80% of industrial applications.
https://newatlas.com/energy/rondo-he...ter/#gallery:1
the basic idea is that the toasters are powered by peak production from renewables
We know bro
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
