How to replace the petroleum energy supply

Cite logic?

Who pursued a green energy program that failed so badly they were forced to build multiple pipelines to Russia?

Who decided to put like 80% of their energy dependence on a country that they have a NATO pact to protect themselves from?

Who laughed when told them they were making a mistake pouring money into Russia and putting themselves in a situation where the energy could be turned off?

Leftists pushed the green energy failure, they had the bright idea of getting their gas from their combined enemy, and then they scoffed and laughed when warned.

The existing pain and misery of Ukraine, and the coming pain and misery in all of Europe was pursued, funded and enabled by the morons on the left.

These are the same morons who want to stop producing gas in the US, and pay higher prices to foreign countries that hate us and pollute MORE than we do producing it.

 

I'm asking for a CITE, not more of your personal analysis.

As for Ukraine, Russia sees Ukraine as a rightful portion of Russia. Thus they invaded Crimea and now they invade Ukraine. From Putin's point of view, they are repatriating those regions.

 

You'd like someone to think the obvious for you?

You're welcome to explain in your own words what I said that was wrong, if you're able to do so.

Yes, Russia had those desires. And thanks to the billions of dollars pouring in from Europe due to their failed leftist fantasies, they can fund their war.

You know, with roughly half of Russia's income being oil and gas.

 

Of course there is. Energy density directly ties to costs. Fossil fuels have incredibly high energy densities which make them so cost efficient. And the beneficial externalities outweigh the cost externalities by orders of magnitude.

 

It seems that our present cadre of college educated individuals are not able to think for themselves. All they are capable of is repeating narratives. They do not question or answer the obvious questions.

 

Exactly.

Only thinking what they're told to think is one of their defining characteristics.

It's easy to see when what I said was all clearly true, yet the person responding had nothing to say about any of the points I raised.

Their argument simply becomes: do they accept the source of the information or not, regardless of the points raised. They literally choose who thinks for them and reject everything else.

That's why I always say reality bounces off a leftists forehead like a tennis ball.

Silly me.

I thought this was a debate forum. Apparently using your brain is optional in that endeavor.

 

I love their new narrative.

They're basically saying the invasion of Ukraine is going to help them transition to green energy, even though green energy failure led to Russia owning Europe.

You can't make this **** up.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/ru...-clean-energy-transition-s2AUHeKN6spzTnDZWyUj

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-surge-as-ukraine-war-fuels-energy-reckoning

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmi...ergy-due-to-ukraine-invasion/?sh=2f31d90b844f

The reality?

Europe will be burning a lot of coal this winter.

 

Germany, which has incredibly high energy prices, is in the process of shutting down all their nuclear power plants and replacing ghem with lignite fired power plants. Can’t make that up.

 

Yay progressivism.

I wonder if Greta will be protesting outside them this winter?

 

That theory of pressure on European energy is NOT working for Russia. Europe has NO plans to fold. They have been working on energy options for some time, knowing that Russia is an unreliable source.

And, it is not a reason for Russia attacking Ukraine.

 

Energy density aids in fuel transport, which is not a major cost. And, if you are just going to burn it, then it's not much of an advantage.

 

The major costs are extraction, refining, and distribution. Reducing the energy density basically doubles the costs.

Why don't the global warming alarmists advocate nuclear energy which is by far the safest form of energy production, has virtually zero waste materials, and emits no CO2?

 

How to replace the petroleum energy supply​

~ Natural human gas and wind generating on Capitola Hill, Washington DC will power the western continent for the foreseeable future.

 

Supplemented by Sacramento.

 

I'll need a cite for that.

The processes related to extraction and refining are entirely different. I just think there isn't enough info for that conclusion.

For example, growing algae is not the same as drilling/mining fossil fuel.

 

There are countries that are building nuclear plants today. So, your theories can be tested.

In short, electricity from those plants is turning out to be exceptionally expensive.

 

Which countries are building nuclear plants?

It’s expensive due to the government imposed costs.

 

Costs are doubled per energy unit.

 

The one I've looked at most is Sizewell in southeastern England.

Sizewell has one plant that is being decommissioned, one plant that is operating and one plant that gained approval from Boris Johnson a couple weeks ago.

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

 

One?? And this is an overall net zero.

 

That doesn't answer any question here.

 

Sire it does. But ghe bottom line is that algae oil will never be cost effective on an economically significant scale. How much ocean area is required?

 

I have no idea what you mean by "overall net zero".

The point is that the new plant C is a modern design and includes modern costs of construction, etc.

 

Now you switched away from energy density. Good.

I haven't seen any plan for generating electricity from algae that appeared to me to be economical.

It's unlikely anyone will be allowed to harvest algae from oceans on the required scale. Harvesting ocean algae would undoubtedly be devastating to fisheries, etc.

 

The UK has decommissioned one plant and may build another. The result is net zero new plants.

The new plant will include the excessive government imposed costs of regulation.