Pacific NorthWest LNG Project Not Proceeding

[Deer Hunter]

Good posts Peter Gill. Thanks!

[Fisherpeak]

Originally Posted by Peter Gill

My number is the cost of electricity, not including the added costs you "educated" progressives deem desirable. Like carbon taxes. There are lots of online resources for comparative purposes so I'm not going to clog this up further with that.
But since it might be that Tesla is the hill you want to die on...:

City of Vancouver is going to charge $16/hr (plus parking) for "fast charge," $2 (plus parking) for "slow charge." I can't define the time since it depends on how much charge you need. Tesla does state "full" at 75 minutes so it's about $20 for a full charge, 400km for a Model S if you bought the bigger battery. $5/100km, good deal actually. Assuming the Vancouver chargers are what Elon is talking about. If it's not cold and you have to run the heater, and if it's not humid and you have to run the defroster. K, not so cold in Van, but certainly humid. One spec I've seen is that a 50% loss in battery capacity for every 10 degrees below ICAO temperature. And if you don't have to carry a darn thing aside from your briefcase and your "educated" progressive latte. My daily driver 1997 diesel pickup costs about twice as much in fuel, but it's been running for 20 years on the same motor, can go 2000km without a fillup summer or winter, and can carry two Teslas on the sled deck and two more on the trailer without a hiccup. Let me know the next time someone brings a fridge home in the back of his Tesla, will you? And, please let me know the next time you see a broken Tesla being towed by another Tesla. Or by any zero-emission vehicle. Please, I can't wait to see it.

BC DC fast chargers cost $.35/kwh, so multiply your cost by 11.66 ($35), still cheaper than dino, but not looking so good now is it?

Might make a good urban vehicle in a non-cold environment (pretty much means Vancouver-Victoria?) but what do you do when the WARRANTY IS VOID if you leave it in -30c for more than 24 hours? That's a pretty normal winter low around here, I have to have a heated facility to park my wonderful environmentally-friendly car when it gets cold? Might be great in the Lower Mainland, doesn't really fit the rest of this country, what's the carbon emission for that? I can leave my 20-year old pickup in that temp, plug it in for 2 hours, cycle the glow plugs 3 times and it fires up. Tesla meanwhile rolls over and dies and voids the warranty.

For being cold. Sort of like Lower Mainland urbanites who have to double-insulate their lattes when it's gets below 5 degrees and have no idea what a snow tire is.
I'd love to see a survey about the number of morons who get lost on the North Shore in the winter and get rescued by NSR, and how they feel about reducing their personal carbon emissions when that fossil-fuelled Talon EC-140 hovers over them and long-lines them down to that fossil-fueled rescue vehicle to take them to the hospital where they get warmed up by fossil-fuelled heat? Here's a social-media idea, how about EV supports commit to only being rescued by zero-emission vehicles, and if that can't be done, get out on your own or die? Hey, do it for the children!!

And THIS is your example of the future? Bring on global warming, it's the only way Teslas are going to survive up here, along with people like you.

BTW, I have a nice aftermarket stereo in my 20-year old truck. The Tesla sound system sucks, I've heard it, but if you change it it voids the ENTIRE CAR WARRANTY.

I'm probably going to get warned or blocked for this, but here it is: you're either a troll or a complete moron. I imagine you toss your latte cup with it's plastic top into the trash every morning on your way to work and them claim you care for the environment. You drive on paved streets and walk on concrete sidewalks and then bemoan the destruction of the rainforest. You decry fossil fuels but use plastics every moment of your life. You support "fair-trade" coffee but buy it in plastic fossil-fuel sourced containers. You Are A Hypocrite.

Time to get back into the mountains, where I do pack everything in and out on my back and rarely run into morons like you. And that's usually when I have to pull your nuts out of the fire.

Shot, over

Thank you! That Yup was getting on my nerves.

[Chuck_Wagon]

wind produced only 0.73% of Alberta's electrical generation today, pretty much a meaningless amount
http://ets.aeso.ca/
click on current, then select report: current supply & demand (html)

[Peter Gill]

Originally Posted by Fisherpeak

Thank you! That Yup was getting on my nerves.

I needed to vent, feeling much better now.
Scotch helps.

[Scott h]

[QUOTE=Okotokian;3591642]Hey, but if you are in Ontario you can get poorer taxpayers to subsidize some of that $130,000 Tesla that they themselves can't afford.

Actually, I should correct that before Scott does. It's not taxpayers subsidizing it, it's the government. Big difference. "Progressive" governments are bright enough to develop helpful programs like that to drive social change. Credit ratings are over-rated.[/QUOT

Oh you have that wrong. I definitely don't vote for left wing governments. BC should be as embarrassed as Alberta.
I also agree with your subsidy issue and I would carry the your premise further in fact. How many "company" cars and trucks are paid for by our tax dollars that are used for personal use. Time to clamp down on that massively expensive perk that come out of our pockets.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Peter Gill

$75,000 for a Tesla Model S. Which can't carry diddly, can't tow diddly (except maybe another broken Tesla). US surveys I've seen indicate that no one buys a Tesla as their only car or as a daily driver. Meanwhile, us "fully loaded pickup" drivers use them to go to work, tow the trailer, take stuff to the transfer station, tow our friends Teslas home when they (often) fail, hunting, fishing, help our Tesla or Prius or other EV owners to haul home anything bigger than a briefcase.
Yeah, sometimes you see us in the Costco or SaveOn lot, but that's because our trucks are what we drive. Unlike your favourite Tesla driver, our trucks are reliable and we don't need second vehicles.

Hauled your new sofa home on your mountain bike lately?

Seen a bunch of EVs show up to fight a fire lately?

Flown across the ocean on an EV airplane lately?

Taken an EV BC ferry lately?

If I could afford a $100,000 pickup that actually gets better fuel economy than the West Coast Urbanite BMW/Merc urban assault vehicle SUV latte transporter, I'd choose it. Oh wait, the pickup DOES have better fuel economy. And more utility too.

If I have $100,000 to spend on a vehicle, who the frick are to decide where i should put my hard-earned dollars? Do I not get to decide where to spend the money I've earned doing two jobs? The value of that vehicle is what I place on it, not you.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

Shot, over.

Do you suffer road rage as well ?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Peter Gill

My number is the cost of electricity, not including the added costs you "educated" progressives deem desirable. Like carbon taxes. There are lots of online resources for comparative purposes so I'm not going to clog this up further with that.
But since it might be that Tesla is the hill you want to die on...:

City of Vancouver is going to charge $16/hr (plus parking) for "fast charge," $2 (plus parking) for "slow charge." I can't define the time since it depends on how much charge you need. Tesla does state "full" at 75 minutes so it's about $20 for a full charge, 400km for a Model S if you bought the bigger battery. $5/100km, good deal actually. Assuming the Vancouver chargers are what Elon is talking about. If it's not cold and you have to run the heater, and if it's not humid and you have to run the defroster. K, not so cold in Van, but certainly humid. One spec I've seen is that a 50% loss in battery capacity for every 10 degrees below ICAO temperature. And if you don't have to carry a darn thing aside from your briefcase and your "educated" progressive latte. My daily driver 1997 diesel pickup costs about twice as much in fuel, but it's been running for 20 years on the same motor, can go 2000km without a fillup summer or winter, and can carry two Teslas on the sled deck and two more on the trailer without a hiccup. Let me know the next time someone brings a fridge home in the back of his Tesla, will you? And, please let me know the next time you see a broken Tesla being towed by another Tesla. Or by any zero-emission vehicle. Please, I can't wait to see it.

BC DC fast chargers cost $.35/kwh, so multiply your cost by 11.66 ($35), still cheaper than dino, but not looking so good now is it?

Might make a good urban vehicle in a non-cold environment (pretty much means Vancouver-Victoria?) but what do you do when the WARRANTY IS VOID if you leave it in -30c for more than 24 hours? That's a pretty normal winter low around here, I have to have a heated facility to park my wonderful environmentally-friendly car when it gets cold? Might be great in the Lower Mainland, doesn't really fit the rest of this country, what's the carbon emission for that? I can leave my 20-year old pickup in that temp, plug it in for 2 hours, cycle the glow plugs 3 times and it fires up. Tesla meanwhile rolls over and dies and voids the warranty.

For being cold. Sort of like Lower Mainland urbanites who have to double-insulate their lattes when it's gets below 5 degrees and have no idea what a snow tire is.
I'd love to see a survey about the number of morons who get lost on the North Shore in the winter and get rescued by NSR, and how they feel about reducing their personal carbon emissions when that fossil-fuelled Talon EC-140 hovers over them and long-lines them down to that fossil-fueled rescue vehicle to take them to the hospital where they get warmed up by fossil-fuelled heat? Here's a social-media idea, how about EV supports commit to only being rescued by zero-emission vehicles, and if that can't be done, get out on your own or die? Hey, do it for the children!!

And THIS is your example of the future? Bring on global warming, it's the only way Teslas are going to survive up here, along with people like you.

BTW, I have a nice aftermarket stereo in my 20-year old truck. The Tesla sound system sucks, I've heard it, but if you change it it voids the ENTIRE CAR WARRANTY.

I'm probably going to get warned or blocked for this, but here it is: you're either a troll or a complete moron. I imagine you toss your latte cup with it's plastic top into the trash every morning on your way to work and them claim you care for the environment. You drive on paved streets and walk on concrete sidewalks and then bemoan the destruction of the rainforest. You decry fossil fuels but use plastics every moment of your life. You support "fair-trade" coffee but buy it in plastic fossil-fuel sourced containers. You Are A Hypocrite.

Time to get back into the mountains, where I do pack everything in and out on my back and rarely run into morons like you. And that's usually when I have to pull your nuts out of the fire.

Shot, over

This place really needs a "like" button.....

[sakogreywolf]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Do you suffer road rage as well ?

Peter's post are far from road rage......more like a simple dose of reality, which could be useful to you.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by hal53

This place really needs a "like" button.....

Gotta agree. Peters post is spot on.

[CF8889]

Not that I exactly have a stake in either camp..

1)Don't start throwing the word hypocrite around. Not one of us is a saint, and whether you like it or not (depending on who is judging us) we are all hypocrites in one way or another. So get off your high horse boys.

2) I am assuming you guys are adults. Why can't we ever have disagreements without name calling. YOU ARE ADULTS.

3)Don't for a second think, that any one on this board has the answer to one of the biggest and most complex questions of our time... because you googled it. No one here has the answer and calling someone a moron or yuppie because they don't share your GUESS as to what's going to happen is plain childish.

Seriously, you are adults. This is embarassing.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by CF8889

Not that I exactly have a stake in either camp..

1)Don't start throwing the word hypocrite around. Not one of us is a saint, and whether you like it or not (depending on who is judging us) we are all hypocrites in one way or another. So get off your high horse boys.

2) I am assuming you guys are adults. Why can't we ever have disagreements without name calling. YOU ARE ADULTS.

3)Don't for a second think, that any one on this board has the answer to one of the biggest and most complex questions of our time... because you googled it. No one here has the answer and calling someone a moron or yuppie because they don't share your GUESS as to what's going to happen is plain childish.

Seriously, you are adults. This is embarassing.

Here ya go....

safe place.jpg

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Fisherpeak

Thank you! That Yup was getting on my nerves.

That's funny! I've been called a lot of things, but never a yuppie....by the way, I don't think that term has been used since the 90's.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by sakogreywolf

Peter's post are far from road rage......more like a simple dose of reality, which could be useful to you.

But if you read my posts I'm not saying I'm against gas, I'm just pointing out that it is being replaced......

[CF8889]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Here ya go....

Attachment 136099

Curious as to how old you are

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Scott h

But if you read my posts I'm not saying I'm against gas, I'm just pointing out that it is being replaced......

You talking natural gas or gasoline?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by hal53

This place really needs a "like" button.....

+1

[Peter Gill]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Do you suffer road rage as well ?

Seriously, that's your "educated" progressive response? Way to deflect, you pitiful little person.

10 tours in 5 wars, I have a pretty good idea how to control and focus my "rage."

Not much chance you could defend your position with empirical information or relevant data, is there? Even after you move out of your parents' basement?

Shot, over (yeah, I realize you don't know what that means, you'd have to have fought to understand it).

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Scott h

But if you read my posts I'm not saying I'm against gas, I'm just pointing out that it is being replaced......

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You talking natural gas or gasoline?

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natura...tion-data.html

Natural Gas consumption still shows a healthy increase year over year in the world. As LNG expands so will consumption.

Oil took a hit in the 2008 recession however consumption is also growing at a healthy pace.

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/oil-pr...tatistics.html

You have to realize that world consumption of oil and gas is increasing and outside of Nuclear nothing can replace it.

Electricity is growing as well.

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electr...tion-data.html

You seem to assume that solar and wind can somehow replace coal and NG in a significant way while electricity, oil and NG consumption is also increasing.

On top of that solar and wind are not efficient sources of power due to variable availability and the need to have 100% coverage by coal, nuclear or NG. That means infrastructure costs are duplicated in the grid which unnecessarily increases costs.

Plus solar and wind are highly subsidized. Therefore rather than spending money on useful things one is wasting money.

[Peter Gill]

Originally Posted by CF8889

Not that I exactly have a stake in either camp..

1)Don't start throwing the word hypocrite around. Not one of us is a saint, and whether you like it or not (depending on who is judging us) we are all hypocrites in one way or another. So get off your high horse boys.

2) I am assuming you guys are adults. Why can't we ever have disagreements without name calling. YOU ARE ADULTS.

3)Don't for a second think, that any one on this board has the answer to one of the biggest and most complex questions of our time... because you googled it. No one here has the answer and calling someone a moron or yuppie because they don't share your GUESS as to what's going to happen is plain childish.

Seriously, you are adults. This is embarassing.

1. I WILL call a hypocrite a hypocrite, rather than say I shouldn't, I suggest you state why the person I call such isn't such. If you can't do that then you don't have a case. We "are all hypocrites?" Please show 3 examples of how I am. Okay, please show ONE. You're saying don't call anyone a hypocrite, then you've essentially called me one. Please back that up or retract it.

2. Calling someone a moron or stating they're moronic isn't name calling, it's basically stating what they are, and I quote: "fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod." I love the thesaurus. I submit that "scott h" has posted in a manner that supports that. If and when he defends his position in an informed, considered and competent manner I'll consider retracting the term "moron," but not until. And not because the term offends your delicate sensitivities. Unknot your panties.

3. Calling someone a moron because they're a moron is not childish, it's because they're a moron.

[Sundancefisher]

subsidies for energy in the US

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#6237eb61128c

May 30, 2017 @ 06:00 AM 8,392
12 Stocks to Buy Now
Why Do Federal Subsidies Make Renewable Energy So Costly?

A Chinese worker from Wuhan Guangsheng Photovoltaic Company tightens a panel while installing a solar project on the roof of a building on April 27, 2017 in Wuhan, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
subsidies

Source: University of Texas

Figure Caption: Subsidies for various energy sources normalized to total energy produced by each source for the years 2010, 2013, 2016 and projected for 2019. Data Source: University of Texas

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

Subsidies then decreased dramatically from 2013 to 2016, because:

• tax incentives expired for biofuels,

• the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were used up,

• energy assistance funds decreased,

• there was a 15% decrease in fossil fuel subsidies from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and

• a 12% decrease in nuclear subsidies from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

But the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are indirect subsidies like decommissioning and insurance assistance, leasing of federal lands, and other externalities, unlike the subsidies for renewables which are directly for the production of electricity and directly affect cost and pricing.

Within the renewables, electricity-related subsidies increased more than 50% for wind and solar, whereas conservation, end-use, and biofuel subsidies deceased more than 50%. This is unfortunate since conservation and efficiency usually yield great results with little cost or infrastructure requirements.

The Institute for Energy Research and the University of Texas calculated the subsidies per unit of energy produced, or cents per kWh. This is a more relevant number for comparing different energy sources as it normalizes to the amount of energy produced (see figure above).

Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all years.

Much of the subsidies in 2010 and 2013 resulted from ARRA stimulus funding following the economic crash of 2008 and the end of ARRA is why the 2016 and 2019 numbers are so much lower.

Solar also gets the most state-funded subsidies, some of which greatly exceed the federal subsidies. In my own State of Washington, where electricity prices are 8¢/kWh, the State pays me 54¢ for every kWh generated by my rooftop solar array, whether I use it or not. This has made my total electricity costs -7¢/kWh over the past two years, and will for the foreseeable future.

Yes, that’s negative (-)7¢ per kWh. And this is on top of my 30% installation federal tax credit which came to about $6,000 for my 4 kW array.

There is no doubt that these subsidies incentivize renewables, but what do they do to the cost of the electricity generated by them?

They actually increase the cost. However, this cost is transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and so goes unnoticed by most Americans.

Using the per-kWh subsidy numbers from EIA and UT in the figure above, each kWh of solar produced in 2010 received 88¢, more than ten times the actual cost of any other energy source. These subsidies have to be added to the retail cost of that energy to determine total costs since that’s what was actually spent to produce it.

So in 2010 and 2011, solar cost about 100¢ per kWh, and in 2013 and 2014, solar cost about 80¢ per kWh. Even after the ARRA funds were depleted after 2013, the cost of solar is still double what is usually given as its cost.

For comparison, nuclear energy cost between 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce over this time period. Remember, though, the cost to produce energy is not the same as the price charged for it. Price is set by the region and the market, and has add-ons for transmission, grid maintenance and other non-production costs. Subsidies decrease the price while increasing the cost.

Although wind received more total subsidies, wind received much less subsidies per kWh produced than solar as it produced much more energy. However, it is nonetheless significant for 2010 and 2013 and about 50 times that of nuclear and fossil fuels, allowing wholesale prices for wind and solar to become negative, unfairly undercutting nuclear, hydro and coal prices.

These subsidies for wind and solar will likely continue under the Trump Administration. Red States receive more of these subsidies than Blue States, so Congress is unlikely to kill them. In fact, in 2015 Congress extended the renewable tax credits to 2021.

Although nuclear energy gets very little federal subsidies, and almost no subsidies from the states, that may be changing. States like New York and Illinois are struggling with the closure of perfectly good low-cost nuclear plants because of subsidized renewables and low-cost natural gas, foiling their state’s emissions targets and laying off thousands of high-paid workers.

This is important since these subsidies have warped the wholesale electricity markets, causing negative pricing in some markets and threatening the closure of lone merchant nuclear power plants that don’t, but should, have similar subsidies to renewables. Especially since nuclear turns out to be as renewable as wind.

Exelon is discussing legislative solutions with stakeholders that could secure the future of its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, and some of their other plants in other states. The utility hopes that "anything and everything hopefully will be on the table for discussion," said David Fein, vice president for state government affairs.
world bank

Source: World Bank


Figure Caption: Change in nuclear and renewable energy from 1990 to 2014. Renewables are majority hydro but the increase from 2005 to 2014 is mainly wind, biomass and solar. Source: World Bank via Our World In Data

Unfortunately, this ideological disregard of nuclear as a low-carbon source has meant that there has been little substantial effect of renewables on emissions. From 2000, the point where renewables started to kick into high gear worldwide, to the present, the growth in renewables (18% to 23% of total electricity production globally) has merely offset the decline in nuclear (17% to 10% of total electricity production globally), with little net decrease in carbon emissions (see figure above).

On the other hand, nuclear energy is beginning to rise again in the world. As Eric Hanson notes, "For the second year in a row, ten new nuclear reactors started to generate electricity in 2016, the highest number since the 1980s, according to the 2017 edition of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Reactors in the World."

However, until we promote all low-carbon sources the same, I can’t see how we achieve our critical environmental goals in time to make any difference to the planet.

Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com

When I read this it explains a lot.

Biofuels have hurt many food producing regions. Fuels also have problems in the market place.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Peter Gill

Seriously, that's your "educated" progressive response? Way to deflect, you pitiful little person.

10 tours in 5 wars, I have a pretty good idea how to control and focus my "rage."

Not much chance you could defend your position with empirical information or relevant data, is there? Even after you move out of your parents' basement?

Shot, over (yeah, I realize you don't know what that means, you'd have to have fought to understand it).

You do have anger issues don't you. Too much time in the barracks with all the other "boys"????

[Pixel Shooter]

We're done here

[Deer Hunter]

Good thread thanks