[Plantagenet]

Biden just promised to send enough US natural gas to Europe to replace all the Russian natural gas they aren't going to buy anymore.



Somehow Biden has forgotten the whole idea of getting off fossil fuels to mitigate climate change. Now he's all for pushing for more drilling and more fossil fuel production (and that means more climate change).

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Yes reality is beginning to strike home even for Biden if not the squad.
Instead of shutting down our fossil fuel industry BEFORE we have renewables in place to replace it we will have to use Natural gas as the bridge fuel to keep the lights on while we build enough new nuclear power plants to provide base load and grid sync. and wind and solar installations sufficient to replace all our conventional generation plus additional capacity to charge all the EVs we will build to replace the fleet of ICE vehicles out there all 276 million of them in the US alone.
It will take years if not decades but shutting down drilling and pipelines as a first step was about as stupid as it gets.

[jawagord]

Biden just promised to send enough US natural gas to Europe to replace all the Russian natural gas they aren't going to buy anymore.



Somehow Biden has forgotten the whole idea of getting off fossil fuels to mitigate climate change. Now he's all for pushing for more drilling and more fossil fuel production (and that means more climate change).

Cheers!

Why would anyone believe any of Biden’s promises. In theory by the end of year 2022 Russian gas imports could be largely offset by shipping the entire volume of US LNG to Europe (not sure current customers would agree to that). However unless Europe greatly increases (like doubles) its capacity of LNG import terminals/pipelines it will not be able to take in anymore LNG than it already is and that’s a decades worth of projects.

LONDON/MADRID, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Europe's liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals have limited available capacity to absorb extra supply from the United States or other major producers in the event gas from Russia is disrupted if it invades Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-02-17/

In 2021, the European Union imported 155 billion cubic metres of natural gas from Russia,

By the end of 2022, U.S. nominal capacity is expected to increase to 11.4 Bcf/d, and peak capacity will increase to 13.9 Bcf/d,

A little math shows:
Russian Imports -155 x35.31 = 5437 BCF of gas per year

US Exports - 13.9 BCF/D x 365 = 5037 BCF of gas per year

[vtsnowedin]

I don't think Biden promised a full replacement. As you say we don't have it to give right now and even if we pulled out all stops and drilled our hearts out could not double our production for years to come. I think he did promise a large portion of our production but they will have to get cracking on the transfer facilities on both ends to do even that. The Europeans need more port facilities anyway for any gas they can import from the middle east as LNG.

[Plantagenet]

Biden promised a ....large portion of our production but they will have to get cracking on the transfer facilities on both ends to do even that. The Europeans need more port facilities anyway for any gas they can import from the middle east as LNG.

We'll have to see if this really happens.

But what disappoints me is that rather then proposing to help Europe Build nukes or expand wind and solar or some other non-polluting technology for power, Biden has instead abandoned all his promises to curtail the use of fossil fuels, and has instead decided to push for MORE USE OF NATURAL GAS.

And Natural Gas (or methane) is a huge contributor to global warming, which is destabilizing the climate of the entire planet.

Biden essentially is proposing to destroy the planet in order to save Ukraine.


Biden's stupidity is causing more and problems. It isn't bad enough that the first thing he did upon coming into office was remove US sanctions on the Nordstream pipeline, thereby signalling to Putin that he was Poootie's big buddy. He then backed down when Pootie started to threaten Ukraine, leading Pootie to invade. It wasn't until Germany and Britain started sending weapons into Ukraine that Biden joined in with NATO, but by then it was too late and the war had started. Now Biden is showing the same kind of stupidity when it comes to climate change. His plan to expand US exports of LNG will just make things worse with the climate, because methane is such a powerful greenhouse gas.

Cheers!

[Doly]

Just build the houses over the tundra and punch a hole in the floor and light it up!

To state the bleeding obvious, you wouldn't get much methane that way. Certainly nothing worth exploiting commercially. And probably not even enough to keep a house warm, either.

[vtsnowedin]

And Natural Gas (or methane) is a huge contributor to global warming, which is destabilizing the climate of the entire planet.

Do you not realize that natural gas causes about 40% less emissions of CO2 then coal to produce the same amount of electricity?
Get that 40% reduction today and work on a better replacement that does not just move the pollution to China and India with their coal fired technology which is much more polluting then even our existing coal fired plants.

[suxs]

Biden essentially is proposing to destroy the planet in order to save Ukraine.

And Planty wonders why girls won't come within ten feet of his person. Would you?

[Plantagenet]

Do you not realize that natural gas causes about 40% less emissions of CO2 then coal to produce the same amount of electricity?
.

Thats a false claim. In reality (1) methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2. Each molecule of CH4 is 30-70 times more powerful then a molecule of CO2 when it comes to the Greenhouse effect.

AND (2) methane emissions have been wildly undercounted in the past, and the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is growing rapidly.

methane-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-severely-underestimated

There is a large international effort underway now to try to determine exactly how much methane human activities are putting into the atmosphere. The problem is that much of
it is coming from leaks during drilling operations, and leaks in pipelines and leaks in storage facilities rather then just from the power plants, and not much attention was paid in the past to all the methane (NG)
emissions from these sources. A pile of coal just sits there until its combusted so all you have to do is determine how much CO2 is emitted during combustion, but CH4 leaks into the atmosphere at every step of the supply chain.



Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Wrong again.

Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fossil fuel

Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation and as a transportation fuel for fleet vehicles in the United States.
Natural gas is mainly methane—a strong greenhouse gas

Some natural gas leaks into the atmosphere from oil and natural gas wells, storage tanks, pipelines, and processing plants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 2019, methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems and from abandoned oil and natural gas wells were the source of about 29% of total U.S. methane emissions and about 3% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.1 The oil and natural gas industry takes steps to prevent natural gas leaks.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nat ... onment.php

[Doly]

methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2. Each molecule of CH4 is 30-70 times more powerful then a molecule of CO2 when it comes to the Greenhouse effect.

True, but it's also true that methane in the atmosphere becomes CO2 in about a year, while CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Methane and CO2 are different greenhouse gases and very much an apples-to-oranges comparison. They both need to be taken into account, but so far, methane doesn't appear to be the main worry.

[vtsnowedin]

If one is aware of the science of one gas being measured in parts per million in the atmosphere and the other being measured in parts per billion then Methane fades away as being your primary concern. That said there is no good reason to just vent any methane into the air via leaks of any kind from well heads to pipelines. Also I find it illogical to just burn off or vent methane from oil wells without doing something useful with the heat. If you can cap it without a catastrophic failure do so and wait until you have a way to use or pipe off the gas before you proceed with your oil production.The world will still need your oil after you have usefully bleed off the gas.

[Plantagenet]

Methane fades away as being your primary concern.

Methane isn't the primary concern. CO2 is the primary concern.

But methane is a very important secondary contributor to global warming.

There's no sense in denying that.

Right now methane is producing about 20% of the total amount of global warming.

AND more methane releases means more global warming.

Its not hard to understand.

there is no good reason to just vent any methane into the air via leaks of any kind from well heads to pipelines. Also I find it illogical to just burn off or vent methane from oil wells without doing something useful with the heat.

The problem isn't venting or burning.

The problem is that methane is a colorless, odorless gas and it leaks out from drilling operations, pipelines, storage tanks, transmission lines, etc.

The more the world relies on Natural gas, the more accidental leaks are going to occur. There are lots of giant leaks from underground storage facilities and there are millions of little leaks from the natural gas systems used to heat homes and cook food. The problem is all the leaks of NG add up to a large increase in CH4 in the atmosphere, and that means more global warming.


The more the world relies on Natural gas, the more accidental leaks are going to occur.

The only way to slow and stop global warming is to slow and then stop the use of fossil fuels like Natural gas, coal, and petroleum.

The Obama administration didn't understand this.....in fact Obama's much ballyhooed "Paris climate accords" contain no mention of methane.

And now the Biden administration is showing they don't understand this simple truth either.

Far from being against climate change, Biden's policies are resulting in the use of MORE oil and MORE natural gas and MORE coal.

I can't say I'm surprised.

Things are turning out exactly as I expected, to tell the truth.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

The only way to slow and stop global warming is to slow and then stop the use of fossil fuels like Natural gas, coal, and petroleum.

And just how do you propose to do that without destroying economies and killing billions?
Again we must build the alternative sources of energy and get them up and running before we cap all the oil and gas wells. In the meantime we might replace thousands of miles of 100 year old gas mains in our cities and suburbs to eliminate that large source of methane leaks.
Don't let the impossible perfect plan be the enemy of the possible good plan.

[Plantagenet]

The only way to slow and stop global warming is to slow and then stop the use of fossil fuels like Natural gas, coal, and petroleum.

And just how do you propose to do that without destroying economies and killing billions?

Thank you for asking, VTSNOW.

Actually, it is climate change that is also going to destroy economies and kill billions, so we need to quickly take steps to stop the use of fossil fuels in order to protect our economies and our lives.

If it was up to me the US (and the world) would start on a crash program of building nuclear power plants. The idea would be to replace every coal-fired power plant and every NG-fired power plant with carbon-free nuclear power. More wind and solar too.....but we definitely need nukes to really replace the current system.


Build nuclear power plants and replace coal and NG power plants

I would subidize the construction of high speed electric intercity train systems for long distance travel, and more construction of electric trams within cities to allow people to commute and move within cities without emitting CO2.

Simultaneously, I would increase taxes on gasoline to reduce its use, and I would ban all large trucks, SUVs, and luxury cars. People can get around quite well in smaller cars and they emit much less CO2. I would also encourage the replacement of ICE cars with small EVS to reduce CO2 emissions from transpiration.

IMHO those three steps would go a long way towards eliminating the use of fossil fuels.


CHEERS!

[vtsnowedin]

Well let us know when you get all the permits for those Nuclear plants issued and all the NIMBY law suits all settled in your favor.

[Newfie]

VT & Plant,

There is the rub. We can adequately predict the consequence of our actions. But we can not adequately change our actions.

Left unattended CC (and other actions) will reduce carrying capacity very significantly. We have the knowledge to mitigate that to some degree. We do not have the wisdom to implement the necessary changes.

[Tanada]

Well let us know when you get all the permits for those Nuclear plants issued and all the NIMBY law suits all settled in your favor.

If the Government were serious the regulatory arm of the NRC could work a thousand times faster than they do with less BS and the NIMBY issue could be dealt with by a government imposition under Eminent Domain. For example in WW II the Feds needed hundreds of new military training and construction facilities built and anyone with a NIMBY challenge was told in plain English that they had no standing in court and attempts to interfere could send them to prison for a term of years, not months.

That is not to say I am in favor of the government stepping on people whenever they feel like it but if something is a real national priority then the Government has the capability of removing the red tape and BS from every puffed up self styled "Important Person".

The most likely to succeed plan would be modeled on the French. They picked a standard reactor design, a 900 MWe LWR, and built 20 copies of that proven design then when they had things working smoothly they switched to a larger 1250 MWe design for the last dozen units they ordered in their mass effort. Between 1973-1985 they switched their grid form about 11% nuclear to 80% nuclear and they did it by the cookie cutter method the same way the USA turned out thousands of Liberty Ships in WW II. Because it takes at best three years to go from a vacant site to producing full power there was plenty of time to spend a year or longer training technicians and operators to man the system as fast as it could be built without reducing educational standards a single point in the process.

SO yes we COULD switch the USA/World grids to 80% nuclear in about a decade with a logically implemented plan popping out unified design reactors in factories purpose built for the project. However doing that would require two things, the political will to succeed despite whatever BS objections and objectors got in the way and choosing the best available design or designs and moving forward for a sustained period without changing our political mind half way through the project.

If I were absolute monarch of the USA or world from 1970 on I would have already done this as soon as the French had proven it works and things would have been completed during the 1988-2000 period over the objections of all those nattering about cheap oil and endless coal. On the other hand while it would have provided lots of great jobs in the Nuclear industry it would have destroyed on the order of 90% of the demand for Coal and that alone would have huge economic consequences as a lot of unemployed 40-65 year old miners would be hard pressed to learn a new career to replace their former employment. If you went all the way electrifying railroads like France did you eliminate a chunk of petroleum demand and the more of your transport you electrify the more demand you destroy. Around 2000 you make a sweetheart deal with China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and so on to sell them mass produced "Fission islands" at cost with low interest loans to finance their conversion to fission and the system goes world wide. Instead of China building two coal fired plants a week they prepare the sites for grid connection, a reactor gets shipped in and assembled and tada China never starts beating the USA CO2 emissions records.

But it all takes political will and long term commitment to the project, neither of which any of the modern democracies seem capable of producing.

[AdamB]

But it all takes political will and long term commitment to the project, neither of which any of the modern democracies seem capable of producing.

Hoo-Rah! Now that is a decent breakdown as to the how and why it could be possible and wasn't and yet could be in the future. I don't object that it tends to discombobulate the entire peak oil being meaningful angle either, as nukes creating hydrogen for direct combustion or fuel use is a nice green way to solve yet even more of the worlds underlying energy use issues.

You know, do we have a "frequently asked questions" place somewhere on this site where the question "why hasn't the US gone nuclear and what is stopping us" are answered, and Tanada's explanation can be used to fill in the blank on that one? Because it really covers the entire topic rather succinctly. And it applies as a global answer as well, with maybe some exceptions for countries whom no one wants to get their hands on anything fissionable.

[Tanada]

But it all takes political will and long term commitment to the project, neither of which any of the modern democracies seem capable of producing.

Hoo-Rah! Now that is a decent breakdown as to the how and why it could be possible and wasn't and yet could be in the future. I don't object that it tends to discombobulate the entire peak oil being meaningful angle either, as nukes creating hydrogen for direct combustion or fuel use is a nice green way to solve yet even more of the worlds underlying energy use issues.

You know, do we have a "frequently asked questions" place somewhere on this site where the question "why hasn't the US gone nuclear and what is stopping us" are answered, and Tanada's explanation can be used to fill in the blank on that one? Because it really covers the entire topic rather succinctly. And it applies as a global answer as well, with maybe some exceptions for countries whom no one wants to get their hands on anything fissionable.

Most of it can be found here; Fission FAQ