Inflation/Gas Prices/Rising Prices in General

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't forget all the rich and powerful flying their private jets everywhere while telling us all how we should 'consume less', and be more minimalist.

Nothing grates me like middle class folk telling other middle class folk they should stop living such a luxurious life.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I think this doesnt apply to everyone, including the rich and powerful. It was just a facetious comment as once upon a time, going on international vacations was something only the extremely wealthy were capable of. I think everyone needs to live more simple, less energy intensive lifestyle

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

If the timeline of the transition had begun 10-15 years sooner than it did, the undertaking would have been much more manageable. Instead it's going to be perhaps the hardest challenge humanity has ever taken on, yet it must be taken on.

It's highly simple. Money and CapEX. You can twist this to corporate greed, but I think it's actually a bit more complex than that. Most consumer are still not ready for the transition. They'll do it, but only if it's not inconvenient to them and doesn't cost them a bunch of money. It's not as simple as you're making it.


I got curious about the geothermal aspect of the debate, so I asked around. Yeah, we can build them, but the cost to build the transmission lines to locations favorable to geothermal is supposedly many, many, many times higher than the cost of the geothermal system itself.

Residential geothermal units have break even rates of something like 20-30 years as of today. Sure, costs are dropping and savings perhaps increasing, but this doesn't even begin to address the CapEX break even/profit requirements of companies. I can totally see how they'd refuse to put major money in a project that would require an optimistic break even of 20+ years.

IIRC, a few years ago, wind turbine break evens were in the 15-25 year range. Solar around 10-15 years. Hydro I think is 5-10. Nuclear is around 5-10 years.

Hydrogen although touted by many, IIRC is its own special level of barriers. It needs external energy to produce the hydrogen "stored energy" that can be transported. But I don't believe it can produce enough energy on its own to repeat the cycle like O&G. The main current method of hydrogen production uses natural gas (Blue hydrogen via steam methane method). In the long run, you'd have to pair it up with another renewable tech to separate the hydrogen (Green hydrogen via electrolysis). You can also use O&G to create hydrogen. This is considered "grey hydrogen" and the cost of production for grey hydrogen is something like 1/6 to 1/16th of green hydrogen. This basically means that there's just very little reason to do in major CapEX in hydrogen until we sort out other forms of energy first. Otherwise, it's just straight up tied to the O&G that you're trying to migrate from, or it's so damn expensive that the break even/ROI is pointless to pursue.

Basically, an overly simplistic summary of the restrictions could be explained as...
- Geothermal (Location dependent, poor infrastructure, ultra long break even duration)
- Wind (Location dependent, noise and visual complaints, long break even)
- Solar (Location dependent, large space usage, silicon materials shortage increasing break even duration from a few years ago)
- Hydro (Location dependent, infrastructure poor for most proposed new locations, potentially changes geography)
- Nuclear (Catastrophic risk potential, political and social barriers, probably a dirty reputation on par with O&G)
- Hydrogen (Seemingly best storage of the methods, but needs external energy to produce the hydrogen/waiting on other tech break throughs, little to no infrastructure/tech being developed, hydrogen can partner with other types of energy but could also displace those energy forms rather than parallel etc.)

IMO, expecting the changes in trend to be spearheaded by haphazard government subsidies and large corporations is why we will continue to fail. Some of those beating the renewable energy drum seriously have no idea that we've known of and have had prototypes of these energy productions and consumer products for decades and in some instances over a century. The problem has always typically been some form of commercial viability. Consumer/social input is highly important.

But then you have a chicken vs egg scenario. A typical consumer literally has no idea the major science and business hurdles required to bring something to market. Tesla's success (for instance) came with major failures of other companies and teams to bring EVs to market.

IMO, the issue is similar to many other things. The solution is not complete replacement, but a balanced approach. We should look to reduce and parallel usage of non-renewables with renewables, not aggressively phase out non-renewables. That way, we don't waste energy (pun not intended) fighting each other about which direction to go with in the future and instead we all can focus on the different desired methods for a better balanced energy future. A combination of old and new methods is what I would consider the best approach rather than haphazard application of multiple approaches. Think about it, if you try and parallel O&G with a specific green energy target, they're more likely to work along side green energy rather than secretly railroad it.

If I'm a fantasy rich genius mad man who wants to create a viable long term energy production method using existing technology, I dig a hole that's 1-2 KM into the ground and create a power plant that uses 2-4 different methods to create different combinations of on site used energy and transportable energy. Perhaps nuclear/geothermal (converted to electricity and require transmission lines to get out and Hydrogen (more easily transportable).

Hell, I've also joked that if I won the lottery, I'd love to buy a piece of rural but scenic land or island somewhere and build a self sustaining compound using multiple methods of energy production (geothermal, hydro, solar etc.). I would then market it as an off grid apocalypse training acreage getaway sort of thing and either sell it or rent it out.

[Azure]

Which is what exactly? Everyone drive an EV and eat vegan?

Canada developing low emission natural gas and selling it to the rest of the world to replace the high emission gas coming from other countries would probably do more for climate change than any action by any Canadian here in Canada, rich or poor.

But lets all pretend this is ACTUALLY about preventing climate change and saving our planet.

[Mathgod]

@DoubleF I largely agree with what you're saying.

But, just as a hypothetical example, could geothermal plants produce power that then gets directly fed into producing hydrogen, thus removing the need for electricity transmission lines? (Edit: It's being tried in New Zealand)

Or, say, solar and wind power gets stored via other storage types (such as compressed gas or gravitational storage methods), which then gets fed back into the grid when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

My original point stands, that while there are complex hurdles and challenges standing between where we are now and where we need to get, we're much farther behind the technological advancement curve than we should be, thanks to the spreading of lies, confusion, and undue complacency.

Originally Posted by Azure

Which is what exactly? Everyone drive an EV and eat vegan?

Canada developing low emission natural gas and selling it to the rest of the world to replace the high emission gas coming from other countries would probably do more for climate change than any action by any Canadian here in Canada, rich or poor.

But lets all pretend this is ACTUALLY about preventing climate change and saving our planet.

This wouldn't result in the kind of emissions reductions that are needed to avoid catastrophic outcomes. Fossil fuel dependency needs to end relatively quickly.

Like it or not, we're a global community, and as a species we're all in this together. The "I'm just a Canadian living in Canada" line really doesn't hold much water.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

But lets all pretend this is ACTUALLY about preventing climate change and saving our planet.

What do you think this is actually about?

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

This wouldn't result in the kind of emissions reductions that are needed to avoid catastrophic outcomes. Fossil fuel dependency needs to end relatively quickly.

Like it or not, we're a global community, and as a species we're all in this together. The "I'm just a Canadian living in Canada" line really doesn't hold much water.

People in China, India and Africa just want to be like North America and Europe when it comes to standard of living. And because of that fossil fuel use is not going to end quickly at all. It is projected to keep increasing until at least 2040.

If Canada can reduce global emissions by selling gas to the world to replace coal and less environmentally conscious producers how is that not a good thing?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What do you think this is actually about?

I gotta be honest I honestly have no idea but it doesn’t seem like the environment or people would be acting differently.

But I like the question. What do you think happens with climate change? Maybe a different thread topic, but I don’t think it’s the end of humanity the way it’s portrayed. Similar to nuclear war. There’s over 7 B people on every corner of the planet. Not everyone is dying. Even alligators and sharks survived what killed the dinosaurs and climate change is not even close to that type of extinction event. Like, not even remotely close, even read the scientists own words.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do you think better batteries are thing that would have been developed sooner if we had just thrown more money at it? Lithium batteries are decades old, with endless amounts of research and development. So no, I don't think we'd be any further along.

This makes no sense. Even today, EVs are largely in demand because of environmental considerations. They're objectively a pain in the ass in many regards compared to ICE vehicles, and the delta in energy costs to run them largely exists because of environmentally driven price increases in the fossil fuel supply chain and fuel tax structures.

There is an insane amount of money and time invested in battery R&D now vs. 10 years ago, and the improvements in batteries have been staggering. That wouldn't have happened if the R&D investments had stayed flat because everyone wasn't worried about continuing along with fossil fuel vehicles.

[Fuzz]

https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/soli...ater-autonomy/

The first prototype li-ion battery was in 1985. Sony had the first commercial one in 1991. How would this curve have changed with more R&D earlier? I argue it really wouldn't change much, because the cutting edge advances rely on material sciences that wouldn't have been any further along. You can only force progress in a specific field so much, when it relies on many fields to advance. I'm saying that we are where we are, not for a lack of trying.

It 's like, why haven't we solved cancer yet? We probably will, once other fields advance to give the tools for success. It's not like we haven't been trying for decades.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't forget all the rich and powerful flying their private jets everywhere while telling us all how we should 'consume less', and be more minimalist.

Nothing grates me like middle class folk telling other middle class folk they should stop living such a luxurious life.

and I hate people (not you, people in general) going on about what we all need to be doing to save the earth, while they're still flying for vacations multiple times per year.

not a lot of people walk the walk.

I think poor people are doing the most because they can't afford to do anything. they don't travel, don't drive off to a cabin every second weekend and ride quads, don't have 2 or more cars, heading off to the golf course, etc.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oi...-Closures.html

This won't help oil prices.

Libya is producing only about 100,000-150,000 bpd of crude oil as almost all of its fields get shut down amid the latest flare-up of fighting between political factions in the war-torn country.

Oil minister Mohammed Aoun said earlier in the week that the country’s oil production was down by 1.1 million barrels daily—from 1.2 million barrels daily earlier this year

~1% of world supply gonzo for the time being

edit for being dumb

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oi...-Closures.html

This won't help oil prices.



~10% of world demand gonzo for the time being.

1% of demand

[Azure]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What do you think this is actually about?

I think there are a small group of people in business, government, post secondary and other places who are trying to push an agenda that is centered around the completely unrealistic and stupid idea that fossil fuels need to end, and it has absolutely ZERO to do with saving the environment, and everything to do with their warped sense of how the world is supposed to function.

Oil = Evil. No compromise.
Gas = Evil. No compromise.

ESG principle stupidity.

If it were really about the environment, Canada would be a world leader in natural gas supply, AND also in the development of the technology used to extract and produce natural gas.

But instead, we are seeing a surge in coal power because of years of short sighted policies, which again have zero to do with actual environmental reasons.

This attitude and misconception can be seen in how Mathgod thinks the world should function.

Fossil fuels need to end immediately.
The only reason we don't have the battery technology needed to immediately replace fossil fuels is because oil companies are evil.
Etc, etc.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows both of those things are not realistic at ALL.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

1% of demand

1% of supply...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

This makes no sense. Even today, EVs are largely in demand because of environmental considerations. They're objectively a pain in the ass in many regards compared to ICE vehicles, and the delta in energy costs to run them largely exists because of environmentally driven price increases in the fossil fuel supply chain and fuel tax structures.

There is an insane amount of money and time invested in battery R&D now vs. 10 years ago, and the improvements in batteries have been staggering. That wouldn't have happened if the R&D investments had stayed flat because everyone wasn't worried about continuing along with fossil fuel vehicles.

You've got this backwards. We aren't seeming more battery progress because there is more demand. There's more demand because there is more progress.

Once again, the lithium ion battery has been in the works since the 1970s, with virtually all of the big electronics, consumer products, and automobile companies in on the action. Do you really think that having members of the public telling them to work faster would have sped things up? Once again if a company like Sony had developed and patented a modern cell phone battery in 1985, they should have cornered the entire electronics market. That's not enough incentive? Instead having Joe Public say make it faster is what was missing?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think there are a small group of people in business, government, post secondary and other places who are trying to push an agenda that is centered around the completely unrealistic and stupid idea that fossil fuels need to end, and it has absolutely ZERO to do with saving the environment, and everything to do with their warped sense of how the world is supposed to function.

Oil = Evil. No compromise.
Gas = Evil. No compromise.

ESG principle stupidity.

If it were really about the environment, Canada would be a world leader in natural gas supply, AND also in the development of the technology used to extract and produce natural gas.

But instead, we are seeing a surge in coal power because of years of short sighted policies, which again have zero to do with actual environmental reasons.

This attitude and misconception can be seen in how Mathgod thinks the world should function.

Fossil fuels need to end immediately.
The only reason we don't have the battery technology needed to immediately replace fossil fuels is because oil companies are evil.
Etc, etc.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows both of those things are not realistic at ALL.

Fossil fuels do need to end. We just aren't ready to do it yet.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/soli...ater-autonomy/

The first prototype li-ion battery was in 1985. Sony had the first commercial one in 1991. How would this curve have changed with more R&D earlier? I argue it really wouldn't change much, because the cutting edge advances rely on material sciences that wouldn't have been any further along. You can only force progress in a specific field so much, when it relies on many fields to advance. I'm saying that we are where we are, not for a lack of trying.

Without research you don’t know what technology you actually need, which lowers demand for said technology to be researched and developed. This isn’t the chicken or the egg type scenario you’re trying to make it out to be, more research will always lead to more knowledge, alternative method trials using existing technology and a higher likelihood of progress than with less investment in research.

It 's like, why haven't we solved cancer yet? We probably will, once other fields advance to give the tools for success. It's not like we haven't been trying for decades.

By that logic we shouldn’t be donating any money to cancer research because the technology doesn’t exist to make any advancements in treatment. Again, you don’t know what your current limitations are and what technology you need unless you are researching it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by blankall

You've got this backwards. We aren't seeming more battery progress because there is more demand. There's more demand because there is more progress.

Once again, the lithium ion battery has been in the works since the 1970s, with virtually all of the big electronics, consumer products, and automobile companies in on the action. Do you really think that having members of the public telling them to work faster would have sped things up? Once again if a company like Sony had developed and patented a modern cell phone battery in 1985, they should have cornered the entire electronics market. That's not enough incentive? Instead having Joe Public say make it faster is what was missing?

I think its obvious if we threw more money at developing the batteries they would be further along.

Companies need an ROI in a certain time frame. Very few companies (if any) are going to throw endless amounts of money that isn't going to return anything for 20 years. You need either government incentives or a disruptive new company (Tesla) to come in and force existing companies into action.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Without research you don’t know what technology you actually need, which lowers demand for said technology to be researched and developed. This isn’t the chicken or the egg type scenario you’re trying to make it out to be, more research will always lead to more knowledge, alternative method trials using existing technology and a higher likelihood of progress than with less investment in research.

By that logic we shouldn’t be donating any money to cancer research because the technology doesn’t exist to make any advancements in treatment. Again, you don’t know what your current limitations are and what technology you need unless you are researching it.

You aren't really reading what I'm saying. It's not that we shouldn't fund the research, it's that there are limitations to progress that can't just be overcome by throwing money and research at it. It's not like we haven't been making steady progress over decades, which seems to be what you think. "If we had just looked into batteries more, we would have better ones" is not an argument based on reality. We have been throwing everything at the field for decades.

Look at the complications around cold fusion. No one would argue we haven't been spending boatloads for decades on it, or that it wouldn't be an incredibly beneficial tool to society, one that you could argue we should pursue at all costs. But we don't have the technology to get there, and we sure didn't in the 90's. We are closer now, but no amount of thinking harder or spending more would make it happen sooner.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think there are a small group of people in business, government, post secondary and other places who are trying to push an agenda that is centered around the completely unrealistic and stupid idea that fossil fuels need to end, and it has absolutely ZERO to do with saving the environment, and everything to do with their warped sense of how the world is supposed to function.

Oil = Evil. No compromise.
Gas = Evil. No compromise.

ESG principle stupidity.

If it were really about the environment, Canada would be a world leader in natural gas supply, AND also in the development of the technology used to extract and produce natural gas.

But instead, we are seeing a surge in coal power because of years of short sighted policies, which again have zero to do with actual environmental reasons.

This attitude and misconception can be seen in how Mathgod thinks the world should function.

Fossil fuels need to end immediately.
The only reason we don't have the battery technology needed to immediately replace fossil fuels is because oil companies are evil.
Etc, etc.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows both of those things are not realistic at ALL.

I thought the prevailing research was showing that methane from natural gas extraction makes it as problematic as other fossil fuels in terms of greenhouse gases.

I think there are a majority of people who genuinely view climate change as a problem. Whether they are willing to accept any personal sacrifices to help stop it is another question though.