The article makes the point that the Republicans are the world’s only political group solidly against doing anything about climate change, and by not calling it a treaty, the UN are crafting a way to bypass any need for a Senate vote. Of course, Republicans will see this as even more evidence of a great global conspiracy against them.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
I find nothing to argue with in the article. It is open and tells it like it is.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
Jim D,
The article makes the point that the Republicans are the world’s only political group solidly against doing anything about climate change
Absolute nonsense for many reasons
First there are many political groups in many countries that do not support wasting money on the $1.5 trillion global climate industry http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
Several countries pulled out of Kyoto Protocol, and the large majority of countries have never signed on to any UN climate deal.
At least 99% of the global population does not support wasting money on fighting climate change.
Second, as I understand Republicans are opposed to stupid policies that would make zero difference to the climate but would cost the an enormous amount of money And therefore, cause a great deal of avoidable human suffering that could have been mitigated by rational use of available resources.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
In other countries, they mean that the do-nothings are minorities divided among the parties, and only in the US is it a de facto party platform where if you don’t support it you are essentially out. They put a lot of pressure on their representatives to fall in line in this area. No other country has such a party.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
Jim D. You are talking complete nonsense. You are simply making stuff up. You haven’t a clue what the situation in in other countries..
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
The Chinese won’t cut CO2 emissions one iota due to any climate deal. There agreement with the US meant business as usual for them.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
Peter Lang, read the article. That’s what I am talking about. Argue with the author.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Natural Gas: The ’20 Bcf Per Day Tsunami’ Has Arrived – 10 Years Earlier Than Some Expected
Sep. 9, 2015 6:30 AM ET | Includes: DGAZ, GAZ, UGAZ, UNG
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…)
Summary
Northeast region natural gas production passed the 20 Bcf/d milestone in August.
The region’s resource base is sufficient to support production growth at a brisk pace for another decade.
In the next three years, growth rate will be limited essentially by the market’s capacity to absorb new production.
…
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Also from the article … a warning to prognosticators …
In January of last year, I posted a note “Marcellus Shale: A 20 Bcf Per Day Natural Gas Tsunami” (Seeking Alpha, January 16, 2014) flagging that expectations with regard to natural gas production growth from the Marcellus/Utica region were overly conservative. The article is an interesting read as it allows to compare macro expectations dating few years back versus the actual outcome. It also highlights the danger of using a backward-looking mindset to predict the future.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
jim2, according to the article, China is doing a lot more than many people here may think. They have several major renewable projects.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer
Great point. The “environmental fringe” often argue against the status quo with alternatives that are immature and impractical or even less than half baked schemes. Sure if they worked well we should change the status quo and the benefits would be wonderful-but they don’t. When they don’t have to do anything and their ideas won’t be put to the test, they can critique the status quo with impunity. It’s easy when someone else has the job of taking care of the details.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
But the politicians will listen to people like AK then “will” these systems into existence. After that they will walk away into a plum “consulting” job and not take one consequence for the rape of their countrymen.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
New knowledge, from the article:
…
Abstract
Producing gas from shale gas reservoirs has played an increasingly important role in the volatile energy industry over recent years in North America for considerable volume of natural gas stored in the reservoirs. Unlike conventional gas reservoirs, the gas flow in shale reservoirs is a complex multi-scale flow process and has special flow mechanisms. Most importantly, the shale gas reservoir contains a large portion of nano pores. The study of flow in nano pores is essential for accurate shale gas numerical simulation. However, there is still not a comprehensive study in understanding how gas flows in nano pores.
In this paper, based on the advection-diffusion model, we constructed a new mathematical model to characterize gas flow in nano pores. We derived a new apparent permeability expression based on advection and Knudsen diffusion. Acomprehensive coefficient in characterizing the flow process was proposed. Simulation results were verified against the experimental data for gas flow through nano membranes. By changing the comprehensive coefficient, we found the best candidate for the case of Argon with membrane pore diameter 235 nm. We verified the model using different gases (Oxygen, Argon) and different pore diameters (235 nm, 220 nm). The comparison shows that the new model matches the experimental data very closely. Additionally, we compared our results with experimental data, Knudsen/Hagen-Poiseuille analytical solution, and existing researcher’s work. The results show that this study yielded a more reliable solution. For shale gas simulation where gas flowing in nano pores plays a critical role, the results from this work will made the simulation more accurate and reliable.
…
https://www.1petro.org/conference-paper/SPE-167179-MS?sort=&start=0&q=nano+pores&from_year=&peer_reviewed=&published_between=&fromSearchResults=true&to_year=&rows=10#
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
How to sleep at night, your conscience should be keeping you awake. From the article:
…
China has been praised recently for its investments in renewable energy. And the credit is well deserved as China’s commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China’s renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.
But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China’s energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China’s reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.
…
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
↧
Comment on Managing uncertainty in predictions of climate change and impacts by Ian Blanchard
Geoff
Your last paragraph reminds me of the comment about trusting what is in the papers until it is something that is close to your expertise, when you can see how wrong it is…
Going back to the start of your comment, one of the things that made me somewhat sceptical of climate science was that the communication strategy used was basically a ‘hard sell’. Good science does not need to be sold, it stands up to scrutiny on its merits, only weak or uncertain findings need additional promotion. Perhaps it’s just my personality or science training, but I’d rather think for myself than be told what to think by those whose ‘expertise’ is in communication strategies. Your comparison with modern art critics is well made.
Tumbleweed:
To paraphrase – computerised calculations just allow you to get the wrong answer more quickly.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by stevenreincarnated
There are many ways to avoid the complications of a democracy. Tanks are my preferred method, but I suppose exercising the machinations of a bureaucracy would work as well.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
For Tony B … some info.
…
Sadly, in another iteration of the anger that is the wind beneath Donald Trump’s wings, many readers insist that GOP leadership has no intention to block Obama on Iran. If that is so, it is passing strange. The national-security threat here is grave. Plus, how much credibility can Republicans have (maybe I should just end the sentence there) in complaining about Obama’s disregard of federal law if they won’t even follow the law they themselves enacted just four months ago?
…
“Surrender . . . Then Play-Fight ” is Republican leadership’s shameful approach to “governing.” The quotes around “governing” are intentional. After voters, having trusted the GOP’s 2014 campaign promises to block Obama’s agenda, gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) notoriously said that the party’s primary objective was to show the public that it could “govern.” As I countered at the time, this was gibberish. Governing is principally an executive exercise. Presidents govern, while legislators prescribe. Prescribing law and monitoring the administration’s execution of it are crucial functions, but they are not governing, because lawmakers are powerless to carry out policy.
Worse, the “show we can govern” tripe is just a rationalization for capitulating to Obama. GOP leaders said they must prove they can overcome legislative gridlock and (all together now) “get things done.” Perforce, the way a legislature “gets things done” is by helping the president do the things he wants to do.
…
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423679/corker-cardin-congress-obama-iran-nuclear-deal
…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>So, how do you start a conversation with someone who [...]</blockquote>Has ideas you haven't thought of and don't like?
Why with a great load of straw-man arguments. Obviously, whatever ridiculous and unworkable notions enter <b>your</b> mind, if any, <b>must</b> be what I'm talking about.<blockquote>[...] who can’t fathom that four or five Km of cable has a bit of weight and some electrical resistance?</blockquote>Of course it does. And since I spent thousands of paragraphs, with <strike>pictures </strike>drawings and calculations, you know exactly what designs I have in mind to deal with the issue.<blockquote>And that stratospheric winds can generate huge forces on large tethered objects.</blockquote>How do “<i>stratospheric winds</i>” stack up against surface winds? Here, “<i>sci</i>”guy54, show us what somebody who comes to a scientific blog claiming a handle like that can do: What is the typical maximum wind force on, say, a 10m sphere at a height of 35 Km, based on maximum normal stratospheric wind speeds? How does it compare to wind at the surface during, say, a thunderstorm? <a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/drageq.html" rel="nofollow">This</a> might help. But don't forget the effects of <a href="http://www.aij.or.jp/jpn/symposium/2006/loads/Chapter6_com.pdf" rel="nofollow">turbulence</a>, which AFAIK (and mentioned in my original comment) is much reduced above the very lowest statosphere.<blockquote>And that one must space the anchors (and reels and control systems and inverters) as far apart as the cables are long in order to prevent tangling of the cables. Which then limits you to about one concentrator for every 25 square Km.</blockquote>So if the cables are 20m long, our 10m spheres could be spaced at about 20% zenith coverage. Of course, they (cables) would have to be strong enough to resist the wind force on all the spheres in their local structure, not just the one(s) they're attached to. And light enough so each balloon could carry its own lengths of cable.<blockquote>But these are simply details. We have engineers to take care of details.</blockquote>Engineers do. “<i>We</i>”? I doubt it. Real engineers I know don't say "it can't be done" based on straw man arguments. They ask "how could it be done?"
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
First you have to have a good reason to spend the money to do something like that. We don’t.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>We don’t.</blockquote>You mean <b>you</b> don't. Right now. 20 years from now, depending on how materials science and technology progresses, somebody with capital to invest might. According to the calculations I've done, no real "breakthroughs" wold be required, just routine technological progress.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
