Pruitt is out at EPA

[Phantasmal]

Of course. The Saudis have used fracking since 1960.

Thanks, I did not know this.

 

[Legion]

Of course. The Saudis have used fracking since 1960.

Is that a valid reason to support it, krudzu?

BTW, what about those relative costs of coal and natural gas you bloviated about earlier?

 

[Legion]

Thanks, I did not know this.

That could be because it isn't true, as far as I can tell.

https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Saudi-Arabia-turns-to-Halliburton-for-its-12947347.php

But that's never stopped you from believing things before, has it?

 

[kudzu]

Is that a valid reason to support it, krudzu?

BTW, what about those relative costs of coal and natural gas you bloviated about earlier?

Who is going to build new coal fired power plants? You want the government to do that or will you force investors to do so?

 

[Legion]

Who is going to build new coal fired power plants?

Don't know.

You want the government to do that or will you force investors to do so?

I don't recall saying that.

What about those relative costs of coal and natural gas you bloviated about earlier?

 

[kudzu]

That could be because it isn't true, as far as I can tell.

https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Saudi-Arabia-turns-to-Halliburton-for-its-12947347.php

But that's never stopped you from believing things before, has it?

Haliburton has been in Saudi Arabia for 60 years, dingbat .. and fracking in NOT new in Arabia nor is horizontal drilling.

 

[Legion]

Haliburton has been in Saudi Arabia for 60 years, dingbat .. and fracking in NOT new in Arabia nor is horizontal drilling.

So you say, krudzu.

You say a lot of things, though.

What about those relative costs of coal and natural gas you bloviated about earlier?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Who is going to build new coal fired power plants? You want the government to do that or will you force investors to do so?

Doesn't seem to be a problem in Asia!! Maybe you should bone up on high-efficiency low-emissions (HELE) coal plants?

Why Is Asia Returning to Coal?

Just a few short years ago, few would have dared to predict that coal could have a future in the energy policies of emerging and developed countries alike. Yet the fossil fuel is undergoing an unexpected renaissance in Asia, buoyed by technical breakthroughs and looming questions about squaring development with energy security.

For Japan, coal has emerged as the best alternative to replacing its 54 nuclear reactors, which are deeply unpopular with the population and seen as symbols of devastation after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster six years ago. Mindful of the public mood, the government of Shinzo Abe has completely given up on the country’s dream of nuclear self-sufficiency, and pulled the plug in December on the $8.5 billion experimental reactor project at Monju. On February 1, the government pledged to decommission all reactors and replace them with 45 new coal-fired power plants equipped with the latest clean coal technology. In this, Tokyo seeks to achieve two overreaching goals: preserve its energy security and stay on course to fulfill the obligations set forth by the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement.

But why did Abe go with coal and not renewables or, say, natural gas? After Fukushima, Japan initially ramped up its imports of liquefied natural gas, but realized that LNG would be prohibitively expensive in the long-term. Cost-conscious, the government has instead opted for high-efficiency low-emissions (HELE) coal plants and plans to market its clean coal technologies abroad in addition to implementing them at home. Coal power already made up 31 percent of Japan’s energy mix in 2015 but under the current plan, the fossil fuel will become the country’s primary power source by 2019.

Japan’s embrace of coal puts it squarely within the general trend for Asia, where countries are turning to the fossil fuel for a host of different reasons. For India and China, the million-dollar question that any energy strategy has to answer is: “Does it promote or does it hinder the country’s economic development?” That question has been at the center of fierce debates and even though both Beijing and New Delhi have been adopting renewable energies, it doesn’t seem that coal’s position is threatened.

As China deals with a slowing economy and India tries to keep up with the demands of a fast-growing and increasingly affluent population, the only way to reconcile energy demands with public outcry over emissions and pollution is by finding cost-effective ways of integrating low-emissions coal technology into their power infrastructure. And much like in Japan, that task may not be as daunting as it looks.

India’s policymakers, for their part, have to deal with rapid development and population growth that make coal indispensable to meeting the expected 3.5 percent increase in year-on-year demand for electricity between now and 2040. At the same time, Prime Minister Narenda Modi and his ministers need to urgently tackle an air pollution crisis that contributes to over a million premature deaths every year. India’s deadly smog is not just the result of growing industrial activity, but it also stems from illegal practices like the crop burning and reliance on wood burning for cooking and heating homes.

Speaking on this issue, Energy Minister Piyush Goyal made clear that India’s current energy plan calls for reducing India’s carbon emissions by replacing aging thermal power plants with energy-efficient “supercritical” ones that will (much like their Japanese counterparts) maximize the energy produced from coal burned, while also curtailing CO2 emissions. This supercritical technology has already had tangible effects on the nation’s plan to cut pollution levels as the 51 units currently installed have saved 6 million tons of CO2 — the equivalent of taking 1,267,000 cars off the road for one year. A few Indian companies and entrepreneurs have been even more ambitious, pioneering local carbon-capture solutions that could keep even more emissions out of the air.
The battle over emissions and air quality is even more tense in China, where pollution and smog are provoking outrage among China’s growing middle class. Over the past few years, the government has been forced to act after pollution levels reached crisis levels: for 26 out of 31 days in January 2013, pollution levels in Beijing were too dangerous for inhabitants to remain outdoors. It was not just the air, either: 90 percent of groundwater in urban areas and 70 percent of mainland lakes and rivers were considered highly polluted. In response, President Xi Jinping launched a “war on pollution” that hunted down corrupt officials and claimed to rein in polluting industries that were ruining China’s air.

Xi’s moves are as much an act of political self-preservation as anything else. The upper echelons of the Communist Party are fully aware that, besides guaranteeing economic growth, environmental protection has become a key pillar of their own continued legitimacy. Like India, one of their methods has been to replace outdated coal technology: China opened its first carbon capture and storage plant in 2008, and a significantly larger plant was completed in Shanghai one year later to capture 100,000-120,000 metric tons of carbon annually. Of course, getting individual plants and businesses to implement new emissions rules instead of cutting corners is another battle entirely. The rhetoric from Xi and Premier Li Keqiang remains tough, but the public’s patience is limited.

Although beset by different challenges and endowed with different means to tackle their energy problems, it seems that Asia’s three largest economies have found one answer: HELE coal plants and carbon capture technologies. It’s becoming clear that, much like renewables have greatly progressed in terms of potential and costs, the coal plants being deployed in 2017 (and beyond) have little in common with the proverbial smokestacks of the 1950s and 1960s.

www.thediplomat.com/2017/02/why-is-asia-returning-to-coal/

 

[kudzu]

Doesn't seem to be a problem in Asia!!

https://www.ft.com/content/dbc47eaa-f499-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00

The US isn't Asia.. Who is going to invest in old technology?

 

[kudzu]

So you say, krudzu.

You say a lot of things, though.

What about those relative costs of coal and natural gas you bloviated about earlier?

You can look up the prices yourself..

Ain Dar and Shedgum have been in the business of water and gas injection since I was in grade school.

 

[Legion]

You can look up the prices yourself..

I could, but I didn't make this claim, krudzu:

natural gas is cheaper.. and cleaner.

It's cheaper?

Ain Dar and Shedgum have been in the business of water and gas injection since I was in grade school.

So you say, krudzu.

You also said this:

Gasoline is $5,00 a gallon in NYC.

I find it amusing that someone who pretends to be appalled by Scott Pruitt's actions is in favor of fracking, BTW.

 

[Cypress]

Haliburton has been in Saudi Arabia for 60 years, dingbat .. and fracking in NOT new in Arabia nor is horizontal drilling.

It seems like fracking has been around forever, and I never cease to amaze at the perception that it is some new-fangled technology.

I am not opposed in the least to fracking.

As an engineering method, it always has to considered on a case by case basis, aka, risk to shallow aquifers and drinking water supplies, et al.

The risk assessment is where the real action is in fracking. Not the technology itself, which is a perfectly valid and useful technology for some types of petroleum reservoirs.

 

[kudzu]

It seems like fracking has been around forever, and I never cease to amaze at the perception that it is some new-fangled technology.

I am not opposed in the least to fracking.

As an engineering method, it always has to considered on a case by case basis, aka, risk to shallow aquifers and drinking water supplies, et al.

The risk assessment is where the real action is in fracking. Not the technology itself, which is a perfectly valid and useful technology for some types of petroleum reservoirs.

Domestic oil production has never really been well integrated. Most US wells produce less than 50 bpd and they use old time rocker pumps.

 

[Cypress]

Domestic oil production has never really been well integrated. Most US wells produce less than 50 bpd and they use old time rocker pumps.

Pretty amazing that little Mom and Pop companies continue to squeeze a profit out of those kinds of wells.
I tried to avoid those old, mature east Texas oil fields like the plague. Even if horizontal drilling brought some life back into some of them.
I never worked in the Middle East, but my favorite oil province was deep water west Africa. More fun than a barrel of monkeys. Now, those were some petroleum reservoirs one could sink their teeth into!

 

[kudzu]

It seems like fracking has been around forever, and I never cease to amaze at the perception that it is some new-fangled technology.

I am not opposed in the least to fracking.

As an engineering method, it always has to considered on a case by case basis, aka, risk to shallow aquifers and drinking water supplies, et al.

The risk assessment is where the real action is in fracking. Not the technology itself, which is a perfectly valid and useful technology for some types of petroleum reservoirs.

Offshore?

 

[Cypress]

Offshore?

No, no fracking offshore in any areas I worked.
As you probably know, those deep water reservoirs are basically unconsolidated sand.
My petroleum engineer buddies were fracking tight gas formations in east Texas, and had been doing so for ages.

 

[Cypress]

Well you need people like me to work on managing benzene and toluene to make that possible as those are pretty darned useful chemicals. It’s not a case of one or the other. It’s a matter of understanding how they impact public health and the environment and managing them intelligently, responsibly, safely with as little waste as possible. I call that a win:win.

Keep up the good work, chap!

Very important to have people working to clean up VOC pollution, particularly at DOD sites.

VOCs are sort of old-school pollution -- still important to consider, but old-school. I am more than glad people are working on legacy pollution, VOCs, and solvents issues. I have a personal interest in pollutant of emerging concern. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, pyrethroids and newer generations of pesticides, toxic algal blooms. I also think less emphasis has been placed on our impacts to oceans and coastal waters than we actually need. Greenhouse gasses and the climate may be the most profound and pivotal environmental issue of our generation....one in which our generation will be judged on by history.

I think we can say that there is more than enough work to carry us over into retirement....so press forward and carry on, mate!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Coal mining jobs have declined steadily since 1950.. That's reality.. and natural gas is cheaper.. and cleaner.

Yup, lpg has taken a big bite out coals market. Toms arguments, particularly for clean coal, an oxymoron if there ever was one, is silly because clean coal technology requires a large investment in air pollution control equipment to meet ambient air quality standards nor does it do anything to address the environmental problems associated with coal extraction.

The development of coal washing techniques and oxy-fuel burners greatly reduces emissions as does coal gasification but it’s not as efficient as lpg. A number of new power plants have tried implementing coal gasification but afte huge cost over runs in the billions switched over to lpg.

Having said that the US is the worlds leader in exporting clean coal technologies to parts of the world that are not blessed with our vast lpg resources. Even with these new technologies to reduce coals combustion emissions so called clean coal, which is really greenwashing PR talk, as even so called clean coal produces substantial amounts of HAP’s (hazard air pollutants) that require post combustion treatment to meet emissions standards and again clean coal technologies doesn’t address environmental concerns related to extraction. So coal has just simply lost ground to lpg domestically due to lpg being cleaner and more cost affective.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Keep up the good work, chap!

Very important to have people working to clean up VOC pollution, particularly at DOD sites.

VOCs are sort of old-school pollution -- still important to consider, but old-school. I am more than glad people are working on legacy pollution, VOCs, and solvents issues. I have a personal interest in pollutant of emerging concern. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, pyrethroids and newer generations of pesticides, toxic algal blooms. I also think less emphasis has been placed on our impacts to oceans and coastal waters than we actually need. Greenhouse gasses and the climate may be the most profound and pivotal environmental issue of our generation....one in which our generation will be judged on by history.

I think we can say that there is more than enough work to carry us over into retirement....so press forward and carry on, mate!

As a sports fisherman toxic algal blooms is an issue I’m concerned about but good luck with that one. Not unless you can come up with a cheap and safe replacement for phosphate fertilizer and the ability to convince stubborn farmers to change their practices.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Yup, lpg has taken a big bite out coals market. Toms arguments, particularly for clean coal, an oxymoron if there ever was one, is silly because clean coal technology requires a large investment in air pollution control equipment to meet ambient air quality standards nor does it do anything to address the environmental problems associated with coal extraction.

The development of coal washing techniques and oxy-fuel burners greatly reduces emissions as does coal gasification but it’s not as efficient as lpg. A number of new power plants have tried implementing coal gasification but afte huge cost over runs in the billions switched over to lpg.

Having said that the US is the worlds leader in exporting clean coal technologies to parts of the world that are not blessed with our vast lpg resources. Even with these new technologies to reduce coals combustion emissions so called clean coal, which is really greenwashing PR talk, as even so called clean coal produces substantial amounts of HAP’s (hazard air pollutants) that require post combustion treatment to meet emissions standards and again clean coal technologies doesn’t address environmental concerns related to extraction. So coal has just simply lost ground to lpg domestically due to lpg being cleaner and more cost affective.

UCG produces syngas which can be used to make very high grade diesel, using the Fischer-Tropsch process, and hydrogen which can be used to produce electricity via alkaline fuel cells or even to provide fuel for hydrogen powered transport.

I find just a tad odd that you can tell me, as you've done many times, that renewables are getting more sophisticated, yet can't imagine scenarios where clean coal technology can't do the same. Coal generates 40% of the world's electricity and 30% of US electricity generation. In fact, without coal last winter, the North East would have suffered widespread blackouts due to the shortage of natural gas and renewables. Asia, and especially Japan and Korea, are leading the way and will do for the forseeable future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...d-states-as-a-clean-coal-leader/#fec7c911c38d

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/UCG.html