For my fellow Libertarian, Tiny

Fossil Fuels Aren’t Going Anywhere
By Irina Slav - Feb 05, 2021, 6:00 PM CST
“There is no scenario where hydrocarbons disappear,” the chief executive of Baker Hughes, Lorenzo Simonelli, said during his keynote speech at this year’s annual meeting in the company. Like other executives from the industry, Simonelli acknowledged and welcomed the energy transition, but he noted that a 100-percent renewable energy scenario was simply not possible. There is plenty of evidence this is indeed the case, despite the hopes and ambitions of many environmental advocates.

These hopes and ambitions imagine a world where human activity is powered from electricity only, and this electricity in turn is being generated using only renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower.


Such a world, however, is unrealistic.

Take Germany, for example. The country, which is among the EU members with the most renewable energy capacity, has not produced a single Watt of solar energy since the start of this year. The reason: it’s winter. It is producing solid amounts of wind power, that’s for sure, but it is also generating power from the most despised fossil fuel of all: coal.

At the time of writing its carbon intensity was 264 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh. That was comparable to the carbon intensity of another poster girl for renewables in Europe, Denmark, which is currently getting most of its energy from wind power.

So, it seems building renewable capacity in itself is not a silver bullet solution to the emissions problem. In fact, if you build it too quickly without adding substantial storage capacity, it could backfire. This was most recently evidenced by a narrow miss of a major blackout in Europe prompted by a minor problem at a Croatian substation that rippled through the continent, highlighting the importance of maintaining the grid at a constant frequency—something renewables cannot do because of their intermittent generation.
Related: Canada Oil And Gas Deals Surge 468%

Even Denmark has thermal power plants to secure the baseload any grid needs to function properly and eliminate or at least reduce the risk of blackouts.

But back to Simonelli’s prediction about the guaranteed future of oil and gas. This future won’t be like the past. The world is firmly on course to change the way it generates and uses energy. Both Simonelli and the other keynote speaker at Baker Hughes’ AM2021, IHS Markit’s Daniel Yergin, recognized that. It is simply that this change will not be limited to a build-up of solar- and wind-generating capacity.

Energy efficiency, for one, will be a big part of the transition.

Efficiency has been pushed out of the spotlight recently, replaced by things like green hydrogen and the constant emission-reduction narrative, but it has not gone away. According to Baker Huges’ Simonelli, efficiency alone could help meet as much as 27 percent of the Paris Agreement climate change targets. On a global scale, this is a massive amount of emissions cut, at a rate of half a gigaton annually.

Unfortunately you can't explain this to Californian Utopists. They don't understand things like "seasons", "clouds", "the difficulties in maintaining power grids", since they live in a bubble and import 1/3 of their electricity from other states.

It's sort of like how they like to campaign and bitch for human rights and a fair wage, but still stand in line for 2-3 days waiting for the newest slave-made iPhone.

Unfortunately you can't explain this to Californian Utopists. They don't understand things like "seasons", "clouds", "the difficulties in maintaining power grids", since they live in a bubble and import 1/3 of their electricity from other states.

It's sort of like how they like to campaign and bitch for human rights and a fair wage, but still stand in line for 2-3 days waiting for the newest slave-made iPhone. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

I was trying to help out Tiny who seems to have fallen into Chicken Little mode in regards to oil production.

I love California's weather and landscape but they are delusional in many ways.

For instance....their water problem. They are robbing other states of their water to survive. Jarrod Diamond has a great book from many years ago about how seasonal century old weather patterns can disrupt societies. I don't wanna go off on a rant but California and the world as far as I'm concerned has a population problem. Solve that and all other problems shrink.

Heaven forbid that a Calif power meter on the side of someone's house stops spinning.

Maybe all air conditioning equipment to cool residential and commercial buildings should be outlawed and removed.

As for southern calif water sources, I note that the Colorado river water rights are Federal granted, and have expiration dates, thus no state laws apply.

I was trying to help out Tiny who seems to have fallen into Chicken Little mode in regards to oil production.

I love California's weather and landscape but they are delusional in many ways.

For instance....their water problem. They are robbing other states of their water to survive. Jarrod Diamond has a great book from many years ago about how seasonal century old weather patterns can disrupt societies. I don't wanna go off on a rant but California and the world as far as I'm concerned has a population problem. Solve that and all other problems shrink. Originally Posted by WTF

Heaven forbid that a Calif power meter on the side of someone's house stops spinning.

Maybe all air conditioning equipment to cool residential and commercial buildings should be outlawed and removed.

As for southern calif water sources, I note that the Colorado river water rights are Federal granted, and have expiration dates, thus no state laws apply. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

LA was literally built on the desert. It only exists because of the work of Fred Eaton and William Mulholland to rob the farmers of Owen's Valley of their water. Read up on the "California Water Wars"

While not a documentary in the slightest, this whole concept of major metropolitan areas of CA stealing water is such common knowledge that it's the primary plot to the movie Chinatown. You should watch it.

As for southern calif water sources, I note that the Colorado river water rights are Federal granted, and have expiration dates, thus no state laws apply. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Not sure about that...

https://ivn.us/2012/04/10/california...olorado-river/

California, Arizona and five other states get substantial amounts of water from the Colorado River, which is rightfully known as the most litigated river on the planet. The water is allocated by the 1922 Colorado River Compact, an agreement that most everyone agrees is outdated. Yet no one really wants to renegotiate it for fear they might end up with less water than they get now. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t is the unspoken assumption.

You may be startled to learn that California gets more water from the Colorado than any other state, 4.4 million acre feet a year. Of that 3.8 goes to the Imperial Valley and three other irrigation districts for agriculture. Now, if you will, prepare yourself to enter the looking glass world of water rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact

Law of the River
The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as "the Law of the River."[2]

Even if fossil fuel truly are running out libertarians believe it not the government place to save the ride industry by making it solor.


Also there the carbon to life or all life to carbon. Even one diesy believe in god it hard to think everything was alive at one time and we are few living creatures left. It goes against bible to multiple. So there for there has to be some never have been living carbon on earth as other plants.
There for making fossil fuel a fake.

I was trying to help out Tiny who seems to have fallen into Chicken Little mode in regards to oil production.

I love California's weather and landscape but they are delusional in many ways.

For instance....their water problem. They are robbing other states of their water to survive. Jarrod Diamond has a great book from many years ago about how seasonal century old weather patterns can disrupt societies. I don't wanna go off on a rant but California and the world as far as I'm concerned has a population problem. Solve that and all other problems shrink. Originally Posted by WTF

Well if Liberals would stop bitching about the Second Amendment more people might get shot thus reducing the population. Maybe congress should pass "Green Light Day" where every third Wednesday of every month we can shoot people without worry of prosecution. It would become a Holiday in some places.

Well if Liberals would stop bitching about the Second Amendment more people might get shot thus reducing the population. Maybe congress should pass "Green Light Day" where every third Wednesday of every month we can shoot people without worry of prosecution. It would become a Holiday in some places. Originally Posted by Levianon17

You mean like this?

[/COLOR]
Well if Liberals would stop bitching about the Second Amendment more people might get shot thus reducing the population. Maybe congress should pass "Green Light Day" where every third Wednesday of every month we can shoot people without worry of prosecution. It would become a Holiday in some places. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Libertarians believe in the 2nd amendment....hell I believe we shout be able to buy tanks if we want.

I don't want any gun restrictions. I want people held responsible when they misuse a gun just like they take you rights away to use a car after you have abused that right.

WTF. Poor analogy and I expect better of you. I'm a car guy. We can't drive most race cars on the street for a lot of good reasons, but the gist is they are made for one purpose (competing in whatever specific event) and are not suited to "drive" on public roads. Not anti gun, but also reasonable. No one needs a tank, machine gun, anti ballistic missle, F15 fighter, etc. to provide self protection or even hunt game. Or even an automatic rifle capable of many rounds per minutes (if you need that for defense, you're likely involved in things normal people would avoid). Another prime example of how the chest-thumping "right" is going to dig their own Graves and lay in them soon. Nothing wrong with guns per se, but the nut case with an armory IS a threat. Back to my central theme, learn to compromise, or risk losing ground. In poker terms, a split pot is better than no post and way better than losing an all in bet.

[/COLOR]
Well if Liberals would stop bitching about the Second Amendment more people might get shot thus reducing the population. Maybe congress should pass "Green Light Day" where every third Wednesday of every month we can shoot people without worry of prosecution. It would become a Holiday in some places. Originally Posted by Levianon17

As clueless Joe is now the Resident, I've decided to switch teams. Since im now a liberal, I find your statement about using guns to control population offensive. Abortion is much more efficient. Although one race is disproportionately represented in abortion statistics. Perhaps one of my more experienced liberal brothers...sorry, siblings can help me understand why this disproportionality is not racist.

Libertarians believe in the 2nd amendment....hell I believe we shout be able to buy tanks if we want.

I don't want any gun restrictions. I want people held responsible when they misuse a gun just like they take you rights away to use a car after you have abused that right. Originally Posted by WTF

Oh you can buy a Tank Arnold Schwarzenegger has one.

As clueless Joe is now the Resident, I've decided to switch teams. Since im now a liberal, I find your statement about using guns to control population offensive. Abortion is much more efficient. Although one race is disproportionately represented in abortion statistics. Perhaps one of my more experienced liberal brothers...sorry, siblings can help me understand why this disproportionality is not racist. Originally Posted by goodman0422

That's a cowardly statement. The unborn are defenseless. A good firefight is what makes a man feel vital. I am just going along with you Liberals it seems you all believe in Population control just trying put out a few ideas.

WTF. Poor analogy and I expect better of you. I'm a car guy. We can't drive most race cars on the street for a lot of good reasons, but the gist is they are made for one purpose (competing in whatever specific event) and are not suited to "drive" on public roads. Not anti gun, but also reasonable. No one needs a tank, machine gun, anti ballistic missle, F15 fighter, etc. to provide self protection or even hunt game. Or even an automatic rifle capable of many rounds per minutes (if you need that for defense, you're likely involved in things normal people would avoid). Another prime example of how the chest-thumping "right" is going to dig their own Graves and lay in them soon. Nothing wrong with guns per se, but the nut case with an armory IS a threat. Back to my central theme, learn to compromise, or risk losing ground. In poker terms, a split pot is better than no post and way better than losing an all in bet. Originally Posted by reddog1951

Well said rd. I have this argument with a good friend of mine all the time. He owns an M-16 and I am forever asking him why does he need such a thing. His response is usually along the lines that guns like this are necessary to combat the government if it becomes oppressive. And then I always ask if he is fucking kidding me. I bring up Hungary in 1956, Prague in 1968 and Tiananmen Square in 1989. I remind him that the government forces used tanks, armored personnel vehicles and military assault rifles in each of these instances. And you want to go up against that with your little machine gun??? Knock yourself out.

However, at least my friend is a responsible gun owner and does take every precaution to ensure that some nut case can't steal his weapons and use them in a mass shooting. I think that anyone that allows their guns to be stolen and then used in a mass shooting should be prosecuted as if they pulled the trigger themselves.