Zero Carbon CH4

9 Responses to Zero Carbon CH4

1. Greg Raven says:

   November 5, 2021 at 4:52 pm

   If Governor Gruesome could now do this with coal, crude oil, gasoline, and diesel, it would go a long way toward fighting climate change.

   Reply
2. Michael Peinsipp says:

   November 5, 2021 at 5:06 pm

   I can’t even…when solar panels get to 75-100% efficient than I might think about losing my money on that expensive crap. Until then I’ll use power from Coal and Natural Gas that I get for $0.1145 a KW.

   Reply
   • arn says:

     November 5, 2021 at 8:12 pm

     I think a 40% efficiency with perovskite solar cells that can last 50 years would be more than enough.
     Perovskite is 80-90% cheaper,has reached 30% efficiency and can be printed even on glass – sadly the durability is still crap

     Reply
3. Solar Mutant Ninjaneer says:

   November 5, 2021 at 5:51 pm

   It looks to me like gov. Newsome has given himself a “get out of jail” card by ruling natural gas to be carbon free. There is absolutely no way it can be done otherwise.

   As a retired solar engineer I recall suffering through presentations at solar conference roughly 10 years ago discussing the limits to solar and wind penetration. Using very sophisticated commercial models employed by utilities, they determined the maximum is about 30%, depending on the renewable resources and utility load profile. For most electric utilities it is less.

   There is certainly a place for solar and wind, especially for remote applications. For utilities it is a fuel saver, which depending on relative costs, can be advantageous. It provides a hedge on costs and should be considered as a way for a utility to diversify its production portfolio. Forcing utilities to rely only on solar and wind is not going to be helpful to those industries in the long run. Just like the big push for solar in the 1970s and the poorly thought out subsides that led to a host of fly-by-night disastrous solar installations and subsequent loss of credibility, the current push for solar and wind is not going to end well. What’s wrong with just letting the utilities utilize these resources where they truly add value without being constrained by poorly thought out government mandates?

   Reply
   • GreyGeek says:

     November 5, 2021 at 8:06 pm

     Wind and Solar don’t work when the wind does not blow and the sunshine does not reach the Earth’s surface.
     Texas found that out last February, and people died because of their political correctness.
     Texas oil and gas producers converted to Solar to power their gas and oil wellhead facilities. When the sky clouded over Solar didn’t produce enough power. Wind turbines failed to generate power when the wind stopped blowing. The moisture in the pipes leading from the oil and gas wellheads, which would have never condenses if Wind and Solar had done their job, froze, blocking the transmission of oil and gas. Homes lost power and people froze to death. Businesses and jobs shutdown and folks were without food resources because grocery stores had no power.
     ERCOT, which assured the governor and the state that everything would be fine, underestimated how much damage solar and wind generation failure would do to the rest of the system. They have, however, spent the last 10 months trying to spin the disaster away from renewables and to natural gas, by failing to mention that renewables powered the wellheads.

     Reply
     • Solar Mutant Ninjaneer says:

       November 6, 2021 at 4:05 pm

       GreyGeek. I do not disagree with anything you said. My only point is that there is a role for solar and wind, it is just not anywhere near what our politicians want. It can have value as a demand side management tool, and serves as a hedge against escalating fossil fuel prices, for example when natural gas prices surge like now. A utility still needs to have sufficient capacity, plus reserves, to meet demand. Like I said, what is wrong with utility managers making the decisions and letting the chips fall where they may? It may wind up with 1% solar and wind or it may end up at over 10%. (I doubt it is much more than that in even the best conditions.)

       When you make financial investments, it makes sense to diversify assets. You don’t just buy high-flying stocks, but if you’re smart you also invest in bonds, real estate and/or other assets. Solar and wind can be valuable additions but like anything else there is a limit.

       Reply
4. Graeme No.3 says:

   November 5, 2021 at 10:42 pm

   If you shut down coal-fired plants and nuclear stations and rely on variable renewables, you MUST HAVE some backup, which usually comes from “peaking plants” burning gas.

   The “advantages” of this policy can be seen in Germany and The UK right now. A desperate shortage of generation since both reduced their gas orders. Right now,
   shut-down coal-fired stations are back running flat out (and at £4,000 a MWh at Drax, very, very profitably), and diesel generators are making lots as well.

   So California had no option but to declare natural gas as ‘non-emitting’ much as the EU has with wood burning.

   Reply
5. kzvx says:

   November 6, 2021 at 1:38 am

   Newsom is a complete idiot. But probably more intelligent than those lovely people that voted for him recently

   Reply
6. Robert L. Gipson says:

   November 6, 2021 at 2:21 am

   The lies (they call “science”) are increasing in absurdity and hilarity. But they (Newsom, et al) are caught between a rock and a had place, thus they’re left no recourse but to tell bigger and bigger lies.

   Their current rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma is that they need to push electric vehicles in order to control people, but (oh, darn!) electric vehicles are all charged by burning natural gas. Problem solved: just issue a *royal decree* that oxidation of natural gas does not produce CO2. Furthermore, any chemistry professor who continues to teach that oxidation of natural gas produces CO2 will be labeled a domestic terrorist and/or conspiracy theorist.

   This reminds me of a Louisiana state law passed many decades ago that re-defined alligators as a type of fish.

   Reply