Bruddah IZ
DA
Especially if Harry throws another Climate conference.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
AUGUST 3, 2019
US Natural Gas Will Soon Run the World
By Todd Royal
United States carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector and the broader economy have declined 61 percent between 2006 and 2014, mainly from "switching from coal-to-gas-powered generation," according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Second Installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, January 2017. These environmentally sound numbers from higher use of natural gas can also be translated globally to help with pollution in countries such as China, India, and the entire continent of Africa.
The U.S. now uses natural gas converted to liquid natural gas (LNG) from shale deposits in states such as Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania to transform geopolitics. Lower LNG prices stymie terrorist-financing budgets in Tehran and lower the ability for Putin's Russia to weaponize their energy assets for geopolitical adventures in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
How this new soft power of energy transforms the world economically, geopolitically, and positively toward Western-aligned institutions is through increasing LNG exports, which "hit a new record high at 4.7 billion cubic feet per day in May 2019." The U.S. is approximately the world's third largest LNG exporter. Illustrating this power has seen the U.S. add four new LNG trains "with a combined capacity of 2.4Bcf/d come online since November 2018."
Countries with heavy LNG deposits can transform their national fate and redirect their foreign policy and national security initiatives without deploying their militaries. Energy economics overtakes military significance, because everyone needs the power generation and electricity that clean-burning LNG exports provide.
Positively, it means that the U.S. no longer has to rely on Middle Eastern authoritarians to power its economy, and the world order that has depended on the U.S. for global security since the end of World War II (WWII). Negatively, since the U.S. no longer needs Saudi oil or Qatari LNG, then the debate over protecting the Strait of Hormuz, where "90 percent of oil exported from the Gulf, [and] about 20 percent of the world's supply passed through," would be a non-starter.
Europe, led by Germany, is where the LNG's soft power persuasiveness is changing continent-wide dynamics. In the first half of 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "[r]oughly 40 percent of U.S. LNG exports went to Europe, and in January, Europe surpassed Asia as a buyer of U.S. LNG for the first time." This is a direct, soft power approach to counteringGermany moving forward with the Russian-backed Nord Stream 2 pipeline that the U.S. and other European countries have deeply opposed.
Additionally, this newfound purchasing of U.S. LNG in Europe is another poker chip without military forces against Turkey leaning away from NATO over the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft weapon system, and through continued encroachment by Turkish vessels off Cyprus's coast illegally drilling for oil and natural gas. This puts the entire Mediterranean security profile at risk, says "Athens' newly elected government."
But coercion and diplomatic solutions, without shots being fired, or crippling sanctions, are the opportunities the soft power of LNG provide large and small nation-states. With the U.S. since 2017 being the world's top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons, this offers opportunities never dreamed of during the Cold War, when it was the U.S. and the West versus Russia for global supremacy.
Beating Russia at weaponization of oil and natural gas can be traced to 2009, when "U.S. natural gas production surpassed that of Russia." Russian firms heavily influenced or owned by the Kremlin — Rosneft and Gazprom — took a serious blow, which meant they no longer had free rein to manipulate prices in Central Asia, Eastern, and Western Europe whenever it suited Moscow's needs.
As an example, the first cargo delivery of LNG arrived in Poland earlier this summer from PGNiG (a Polish firm), and U.S. LNG provider Cheniere Energy at President Lech Kaczyński LNG Terminal in Świnoujście. The long-term contract, which was signed in November of 2018, will total approximately 39 bcm of natural gas over the 24-year period of the agreement.
Piotr Woźniak, president of the PGNiG Management Board, said:
Our portfolio of contracts with U.S. suppliers covers over 9 billion cubic meters of natural gas after regasification annually — that is more than we import from Russia. Such a volume strengthens Poland's energy security, but also gives us the opportunity to actively participate in LNG trading on the global market.
This bolsters "energy relations" between Poland and the U.S. without involving military friction that normally precipitates NATO movements against Russia. Instead, U.S. LNG blocks Russian energy from interfering in Polish internal affairs or economic development.
Global security and European Union foreign policy against Russian LNG will also speed ahead in the coming years and decades ahead. New oil and natural gas project spending is expected to jump fivefold in 2019, according to Wood Mackenzie. Even smaller geopolitical players like Mexico are seeking ways to boost their natural gas production 50% through government-owned oil firm Petroleo Mexicanos (PEMEX).
Fossil fuel — particularly, natural gas and/or LNG — will be at the forefront when it relates to soft power, national security, and robust economic growth for mature and emerging markets. Natural gas markets are dominated by U.S. energy decisions translated into policy more than ever before, "as Washington prosecutes a trade war with China and takes a hard line on Iran."
The dominance takes place, because U.S. gross imports of crude and natural gas have steadied or declined whereas "rising LNG exports provide another point of US entry into world energy markets." This balances world LNG markets, provides stability, and moves international energy trade forward in a soft power direction and platform over the weaponization of energy assets seen from Russia, China, and Iran.
There is an LNG, soft power drama playing out on the world stage to engage international relations. LNG keeps major wars from erupting, and that is a positive economic and human longevity aspect of energy that few people, companies and governments seem to understand these days.
US Natural Gas Will Soon Run the World
By Todd Royal
United States carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector and the broader economy have declined 61 percent between 2006 and 2014, mainly from "switching from coal-to-gas-powered generation," according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Second Installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, January 2017. These environmentally sound numbers from higher use of natural gas can also be translated globally to help with pollution in countries such as China, India, and the entire continent of Africa.
The U.S. now uses natural gas converted to liquid natural gas (LNG) from shale deposits in states such as Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania to transform geopolitics. Lower LNG prices stymie terrorist-financing budgets in Tehran and lower the ability for Putin's Russia to weaponize their energy assets for geopolitical adventures in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
How this new soft power of energy transforms the world economically, geopolitically, and positively toward Western-aligned institutions is through increasing LNG exports, which "hit a new record high at 4.7 billion cubic feet per day in May 2019." The U.S. is approximately the world's third largest LNG exporter. Illustrating this power has seen the U.S. add four new LNG trains "with a combined capacity of 2.4Bcf/d come online since November 2018."
Countries with heavy LNG deposits can transform their national fate and redirect their foreign policy and national security initiatives without deploying their militaries. Energy economics overtakes military significance, because everyone needs the power generation and electricity that clean-burning LNG exports provide.
Positively, it means that the U.S. no longer has to rely on Middle Eastern authoritarians to power its economy, and the world order that has depended on the U.S. for global security since the end of World War II (WWII). Negatively, since the U.S. no longer needs Saudi oil or Qatari LNG, then the debate over protecting the Strait of Hormuz, where "90 percent of oil exported from the Gulf, [and] about 20 percent of the world's supply passed through," would be a non-starter.
Europe, led by Germany, is where the LNG's soft power persuasiveness is changing continent-wide dynamics. In the first half of 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "[r]oughly 40 percent of U.S. LNG exports went to Europe, and in January, Europe surpassed Asia as a buyer of U.S. LNG for the first time." This is a direct, soft power approach to counteringGermany moving forward with the Russian-backed Nord Stream 2 pipeline that the U.S. and other European countries have deeply opposed.
Additionally, this newfound purchasing of U.S. LNG in Europe is another poker chip without military forces against Turkey leaning away from NATO over the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft weapon system, and through continued encroachment by Turkish vessels off Cyprus's coast illegally drilling for oil and natural gas. This puts the entire Mediterranean security profile at risk, says "Athens' newly elected government."
But coercion and diplomatic solutions, without shots being fired, or crippling sanctions, are the opportunities the soft power of LNG provide large and small nation-states. With the U.S. since 2017 being the world's top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons, this offers opportunities never dreamed of during the Cold War, when it was the U.S. and the West versus Russia for global supremacy.
Beating Russia at weaponization of oil and natural gas can be traced to 2009, when "U.S. natural gas production surpassed that of Russia." Russian firms heavily influenced or owned by the Kremlin — Rosneft and Gazprom — took a serious blow, which meant they no longer had free rein to manipulate prices in Central Asia, Eastern, and Western Europe whenever it suited Moscow's needs.
As an example, the first cargo delivery of LNG arrived in Poland earlier this summer from PGNiG (a Polish firm), and U.S. LNG provider Cheniere Energy at President Lech Kaczyński LNG Terminal in Świnoujście. The long-term contract, which was signed in November of 2018, will total approximately 39 bcm of natural gas over the 24-year period of the agreement.
Piotr Woźniak, president of the PGNiG Management Board, said:
Our portfolio of contracts with U.S. suppliers covers over 9 billion cubic meters of natural gas after regasification annually — that is more than we import from Russia. Such a volume strengthens Poland's energy security, but also gives us the opportunity to actively participate in LNG trading on the global market.
This bolsters "energy relations" between Poland and the U.S. without involving military friction that normally precipitates NATO movements against Russia. Instead, U.S. LNG blocks Russian energy from interfering in Polish internal affairs or economic development.
Global security and European Union foreign policy against Russian LNG will also speed ahead in the coming years and decades ahead. New oil and natural gas project spending is expected to jump fivefold in 2019, according to Wood Mackenzie. Even smaller geopolitical players like Mexico are seeking ways to boost their natural gas production 50% through government-owned oil firm Petroleo Mexicanos (PEMEX).
Fossil fuel — particularly, natural gas and/or LNG — will be at the forefront when it relates to soft power, national security, and robust economic growth for mature and emerging markets. Natural gas markets are dominated by U.S. energy decisions translated into policy more than ever before, "as Washington prosecutes a trade war with China and takes a hard line on Iran."
The dominance takes place, because U.S. gross imports of crude and natural gas have steadied or declined whereas "rising LNG exports provide another point of US entry into world energy markets." This balances world LNG markets, provides stability, and moves international energy trade forward in a soft power direction and platform over the weaponization of energy assets seen from Russia, China, and Iran.
There is an LNG, soft power drama playing out on the world stage to engage international relations. LNG keeps major wars from erupting, and that is a positive economic and human longevity aspect of energy that few people, companies and governments seem to understand these days.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The Green New Deal
The Green New Deal, mocked for some of its more absurd initial suggestions, such as abolishing airplanes and cows, is a top-down government-planning industrial-policy nightmare. It proposes over twelve years to:
(1) Require that 100 percent of power be provided by renewables. Impossible. Wind and solar now account for just 8 percent and, despite all the subsidies and mandates, are not projected to reach even 30 percent for several decades. Intermittent wind and solar require backup if electricity is to be reliably provided, and that will come from fossil fuels. The only renewable alternatives are hydroelectric power and nuclear power. Together they account for more than three times the power from wind and solar, of which nuclear accounts for two-thirds but will decline with impending plant retirements. We should be using more, not less, nuclear power, but it cannot be expanded quickly for a host of reasons, from a dearth of young nuclear engineers in the pipeline to permitting red tape. In any event, it
is strongly opposed by most environmentalists, as are more dams. California’s legislature and regulators are so captured by the solar and wind lobbies that hydro is excluded from meeting renewables standards, and of the state’s two nuclear power plants, one is shuttered and the other likely soon will be.
Finally, battery storage is beyond prohibitively expensive, costing many trillions of dollars because of the required scale. Decades of publicly funded university and national lab—and private—research has not resulted in sufficient progress. Worse yet, massive amounts of rare earth minerals and a huge expansion of lithium production from China, or huge costs and significant time to discover, produce, and scale output from Australia, Brazil, and the United States, would also be required to produce the magnets for wind turbines and the batteries for electric cars.
The Green New Deal, mocked for some of its more absurd initial suggestions, such as abolishing airplanes and cows, is a top-down government-planning industrial-policy nightmare. It proposes over twelve years to:
(1) Require that 100 percent of power be provided by renewables. Impossible. Wind and solar now account for just 8 percent and, despite all the subsidies and mandates, are not projected to reach even 30 percent for several decades. Intermittent wind and solar require backup if electricity is to be reliably provided, and that will come from fossil fuels. The only renewable alternatives are hydroelectric power and nuclear power. Together they account for more than three times the power from wind and solar, of which nuclear accounts for two-thirds but will decline with impending plant retirements. We should be using more, not less, nuclear power, but it cannot be expanded quickly for a host of reasons, from a dearth of young nuclear engineers in the pipeline to permitting red tape. In any event, it
is strongly opposed by most environmentalists, as are more dams. California’s legislature and regulators are so captured by the solar and wind lobbies that hydro is excluded from meeting renewables standards, and of the state’s two nuclear power plants, one is shuttered and the other likely soon will be.
Finally, battery storage is beyond prohibitively expensive, costing many trillions of dollars because of the required scale. Decades of publicly funded university and national lab—and private—research has not resulted in sufficient progress. Worse yet, massive amounts of rare earth minerals and a huge expansion of lithium production from China, or huge costs and significant time to discover, produce, and scale output from Australia, Brazil, and the United States, would also be required to produce the magnets for wind turbines and the batteries for electric cars.
Strawman, sucker.
Bruddah IZ
DA
oh good. I thought you were a supporter of NGD.
Some parts.
Bruddah IZ
DA
AOC is not interested in you Straw men. She's all or nothing. Only racist oppose her.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Maybe we can use solar and wind power to power chilling towers at both poles to augment ice packs since the poles get more sun in their summers.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Delingpole: Greenland Ice Melt Shock – The Terrifying Truth!
Mario Tama/Getty
JAMES DELINGPOLE4 Aug 2019271
3:17
Greenland just lost 11 billion tons of ice melted in one day because of this shocking weather event known as ‘summer’.
CBS News‘s resident climate expert Ted Scambos [loving the poetry of that first syllable in his surname!] thinks this is worrying and unusual; so does the Washington Post, which declares it “one of its greatest melting events ever recorded”; so too does renowned Canadian alarmist Bill McKibben.
If you’re not scared yet, you really should be.
Do you not realise that if the Greenland ice sheet goes on melting at this extraordinary rate, then within 12,500 years HALF of it will be gone?
Yes, you read that right. In 12,500 years – that’s about twice as far ahead into the future as we are now from the world’s earliest civilisation, Sumer, in 4500 BC – the Greenland ice sheet could be half gone, with almost incalculable consequences for those of us who are still alive.
We have Willis Eschenbach to thank for this timely warning. He has been doing the math at Watts Up With That? and thisis his finding:
Here’s one way of looking at that. We can ask, IF Greenland were to continue losing ice mass at a rate of 103 billion tonnes per year, how long would it take to melt say half of the ice sheet? Not all of it, mind you, but half of it. (Note that I am NOT saying that extending a current trend is a way to estimate the future evolution of the ice sheet—I’m merely using it as a way to compare large numbers.)
To answer our question if 103 billion tonnes lost per year is a big number, we have to compare the annual ice mass loss to the amount of ice in the Greenland ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet contains about 2.6E+15 (2,600,000,000,000,000) tonnes of water in the form of snow and ice.
So IF the Greenland ice sheet were to lose 103 billion tonnes per year into the indefinite future, it would take about twelve thousand five hundred years to lose half of it …
And even if the loss were to jump to ten times the long-term average, it would still take twelve hundred years to melt half the ice on the Greenland ice sheet. Even my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren won’t live long enough to see that.
Paul Homewood isn’t much impressedwith the panic-mongering either.
The ice sheet surface mass balance is running well above that of 2012:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
And there is no mention of the fact that the ice sheet grew substantially last year, and also the year before:
The simple fact is that the Greenland ice sheet melts every summer, particularly when the sun shines. That’s what it does. And it grows back again in winter as the snow falls. Indeed, if it did not melt, it would carry on growing year after year.
Mario Tama/Getty
JAMES DELINGPOLE4 Aug 2019271
3:17
Greenland just lost 11 billion tons of ice melted in one day because of this shocking weather event known as ‘summer’.
CBS News‘s resident climate expert Ted Scambos [loving the poetry of that first syllable in his surname!] thinks this is worrying and unusual; so does the Washington Post, which declares it “one of its greatest melting events ever recorded”; so too does renowned Canadian alarmist Bill McKibben.
If you’re not scared yet, you really should be.
Do you not realise that if the Greenland ice sheet goes on melting at this extraordinary rate, then within 12,500 years HALF of it will be gone?
Yes, you read that right. In 12,500 years – that’s about twice as far ahead into the future as we are now from the world’s earliest civilisation, Sumer, in 4500 BC – the Greenland ice sheet could be half gone, with almost incalculable consequences for those of us who are still alive.
We have Willis Eschenbach to thank for this timely warning. He has been doing the math at Watts Up With That? and thisis his finding:
Here’s one way of looking at that. We can ask, IF Greenland were to continue losing ice mass at a rate of 103 billion tonnes per year, how long would it take to melt say half of the ice sheet? Not all of it, mind you, but half of it. (Note that I am NOT saying that extending a current trend is a way to estimate the future evolution of the ice sheet—I’m merely using it as a way to compare large numbers.)
To answer our question if 103 billion tonnes lost per year is a big number, we have to compare the annual ice mass loss to the amount of ice in the Greenland ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet contains about 2.6E+15 (2,600,000,000,000,000) tonnes of water in the form of snow and ice.
So IF the Greenland ice sheet were to lose 103 billion tonnes per year into the indefinite future, it would take about twelve thousand five hundred years to lose half of it …
And even if the loss were to jump to ten times the long-term average, it would still take twelve hundred years to melt half the ice on the Greenland ice sheet. Even my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren won’t live long enough to see that.
Paul Homewood isn’t much impressedwith the panic-mongering either.
The ice sheet surface mass balance is running well above that of 2012:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
And there is no mention of the fact that the ice sheet grew substantially last year, and also the year before:
The simple fact is that the Greenland ice sheet melts every summer, particularly when the sun shines. That’s what it does. And it grows back again in winter as the snow falls. Indeed, if it did not melt, it would carry on growing year after year.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Berkeley somehow bans natural gas
JAZZ SHAW Posted at 12:31 pm on August 04, 2019
The day may come when we run out of stories about the municipal government in Berkeley, California doing hilariously inane things, but today is not that day. Their latest “green” initiative to save the planet involves a ban on natural gas lines or appliances using natural gas in any new construction starting next year. Instead, everyone will need to employ electrical appliances. (CBS San Francisco)
Berkeley’s mayor signed a new city ordinance banning natural gas in new construction projects starting next year.
For years, consumers were told that the desirable fuel was clean burning natural gas.
“Gas is the clean energy relative to coal and diesel, but California has committed to the environmental requirement, in that is all gas has to be gone by mid-century,” Dan Kammen – Professor of Energy, U.C. Berkeley.
And the city of Berkeley is leading the charge with the law that covers new construction.
Furnaces, stoves, water heaters… if they run on natural gas, they all have to go. (This is only for new construction. Existing structures will be grandfathered.)
This is all part of a longer-term plan that will see all natural gas usage in California eliminated by 2050. I wonder how that’s going to work?
California has already pretty much wiped out coal plants and they’ve pretty much maxed out their hydro capacity (much of it is a desert, after all). They’re not allowing any new nuclear plant construction. So how do they propose to take the next step and shut down all natural gas use? They can’t produce anywhere near enough solar and wind energy to replace basically half the juice on the grid.
Well done, Berkeley. (And really all of California.) Have fun sitting in the dark with no air conditioning.
Meanwhile, San Francisco airport has banned plastic bottles of water. I have at least a bit more sympathy for the drive to stop flooding the oceans and landfills with plastics, but it needs to be done intelligently. If you can’t buy a plastic bottle of water in the boarding area and they won’t let you bring your own containers of water through TSA (even if they are glass or metal), what are you supposed to do? This state is regulating its way into the dark ages.
Multi Sport
DA
There have been times in the Earths history that there was no permanent ice and the current existence of two polar caps was not always the case. Some climste scientist believe that we are still exiting an ice age...
You're obviously a racist...
Multi Sport
DA
Thirty seven states set their record highs over 75 years ago.... NY city had more 100 degree days in the 80/90s then they have in the 21st Century.
Your gun, remember?
The one you never posted.