Good News

[Old Rocks]

In one day, three major oil companies will start changing their operations. A remarkably good day;

This is nothing more than an infomercial for her book, thinly veiled as a fake news item.

If the Green Earth Idiots actually think we can thrive without fossil fuels, they have no idea whatsoever of the range of products that require fossil fuels in order to be manufactured or produced. Electricity is the most significant among them.

What Life Would Be Like Without Fossil Fuels?

If there were no fossil fuels, human life in this world would be significantly different. The earth contains fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. They create electrical power, heat houses, power vehicles, and transform the environment.

www.reference.com

What would life be like without fossil fuels such as gas and oil?

Leftists like Bill McKibben of 350.org suffer from irrational fantasies that lead them to believe that we can move society forward without all the benefits that petroleum brings to our modern socie…

wattsupwiththat.com

Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?

Various scenarios have been put forward showing that 100% renewable energy is achievable. Some of them even claim that we can move completely away from fossil fuels in only couple of decades. A world entirely...

energycentral.com

https://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf

Seven reasons a world without fossil fuels is not practical - Washington Examiner

There has been a lot of talk about a "Green New Deal" that will rapidly phase out the use of all fossil fuels. As an investor who has long experience in the energy field, let me say that it is not practical for us to live in a world without fossil fuels for seven reasons.First,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Damn, do I have to explain to every one of you 'Conservatives' that the issue is burning the fossil fuel, not using it as an industrial stock.

In one day, three major oil companies will start changing their operations. A remarkably good day;

This is nothing more than an infomercial for her book, thinly veiled as a fake news item.

If the Green Earth Idiots actually think we can thrive without fossil fuels, they have no idea whatsoever of the range of products that require fossil fuels in order to be manufactured or produced. Electricity is the most significant among them.

What Life Would Be Like Without Fossil Fuels?

If there were no fossil fuels, human life in this world would be significantly different. The earth contains fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. They create electrical power, heat houses, power vehicles, and transform the environment.

www.reference.com

What would life be like without fossil fuels such as gas and oil?

Leftists like Bill McKibben of 350.org suffer from irrational fantasies that lead them to believe that we can move society forward without all the benefits that petroleum brings to our modern socie…

wattsupwiththat.com

Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?

Various scenarios have been put forward showing that 100% renewable energy is achievable. Some of them even claim that we can move completely away from fossil fuels in only couple of decades. A world entirely...

energycentral.com

https://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf

Seven reasons a world without fossil fuels is not practical - Washington Examiner

There has been a lot of talk about a "Green New Deal" that will rapidly phase out the use of all fossil fuels. As an investor who has long experience in the energy field, let me say that it is not practical for us to live in a world without fossil fuels for seven reasons.First,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

For electrical generation, fossil fuels are very easy to replace. Right now, solar and wind are the cheapest electrical generation to build and operate. If we decided to do it, we could easily replace almost all fossil fuel and nuclear generation with renewables by 2030.

 

[asaratis]

The court order against Shell will not stand.

Ten years from now, Chevron and Exxon will be doing the exact same thing they are doing now only more efficiently.

The sky is not falling.

LOL A lot of very smart people think you what you posted is laughable. Why do you think Tesla is now the most valuable auto company in the world?

No. A lot of people believe the government will effectively mandate it like they mandated buying health insurance. But as we have seen in the past that just gets them thrown out of office.

As for the order against Shell, just watch. Same for Exxon and Chevron. They will still be in business long after BP has been bought out. Like I said, earlier renewables and EV's have a role but it's not the utopia you envision. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The government is crossing the line into communism when they try to make and manage markets. Picking winners and losers is Stalinesque. And it never works out.

As for Tesla, you think they can compete and beat Ford and GM at manufacturing high volumes of car? I wouldn't bet on Tesla long term. I love my Stihl AK series tools but it's only because I don't have to use them every day.

LOL So the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are communism. Glad you cleared that up.

Let's examine that. How much and who got subsidies and why? How is the subsidy applied? Is it a tax credit? Is it fixing a price? These things matter. Did the market already exist before the subsidy was issued? '

If the answers to those question shows that you can point to how the government was trying to drive one industry or company out of business or prop up an industry that would not have existed, then sure. But otherwise, fuck off cause you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.


Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.


Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.


Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

I don't see this as the same thing as regulating ICE vehicles and electrical generation from fossil fuels out of existence.

It is not regulations that will be the death of ICE's and use of fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation. The cost of batteries is rapidly declining while their energy density is increasing. And renewables are now cheaper for electrical generation than fossil fuels, and far cheaper than nuclear;
View attachment 496042

And renewables are now cheaper for electrical generation than fossil fuels,

How many gas peaking plants are we going to need with all your groovy cheap renewables?
How do you account for those in the cost of the renewables?

There are a number of ways to store energy. Liquid air, pumped water, batteries, and other ways, also. So you store with you are producing too much, and use as you need it. Also many utilities are now looking a VPP's. No need for fossil peaking plants at all, and the grid is far more robust.

How much energy are you going to consume in making liquid air?...in pumping water?...making batteries?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The court order against Shell will not stand.

Ten years from now, Chevron and Exxon will be doing the exact same thing they are doing now only more efficiently.

The sky is not falling.

LOL A lot of very smart people think you what you posted is laughable. Why do you think Tesla is now the most valuable auto company in the world?

No. A lot of people believe the government will effectively mandate it like they mandated buying health insurance. But as we have seen in the past that just gets them thrown out of office.

As for the order against Shell, just watch. Same for Exxon and Chevron. They will still be in business long after BP has been bought out. Like I said, earlier renewables and EV's have a role but it's not the utopia you envision. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The government is crossing the line into communism when they try to make and manage markets. Picking winners and losers is Stalinesque. And it never works out.

As for Tesla, you think they can compete and beat Ford and GM at manufacturing high volumes of car? I wouldn't bet on Tesla long term. I love my Stihl AK series tools but it's only because I don't have to use them every day.

LOL So the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are communism. Glad you cleared that up.

Let's examine that. How much and who got subsidies and why? How is the subsidy applied? Is it a tax credit? Is it fixing a price? These things matter. Did the market already exist before the subsidy was issued? '

If the answers to those question shows that you can point to how the government was trying to drive one industry or company out of business or prop up an industry that would not have existed, then sure. But otherwise, fuck off cause you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.


Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.


Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.


Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

I don't see this as the same thing as regulating ICE vehicles and electrical generation from fossil fuels out of existence.

It is not regulations that will be the death of ICE's and use of fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation. The cost of batteries is rapidly declining while their energy density is increasing. And renewables are now cheaper for electrical generation than fossil fuels, and far cheaper than nuclear;
View attachment 496042

And renewables are now cheaper for electrical generation than fossil fuels,

How many gas peaking plants are we going to need with all your groovy cheap renewables?
How do you account for those in the cost of the renewables?

There are a number of ways to store energy. Liquid air, pumped water, batteries, and other ways, also. So you store with you are producing too much, and use as you need it. Also many utilities are now looking a VPP's. No need for fossil peaking plants at all, and the grid is far more robust.

So you store with you are producing too much, and use as you need it.

How much extra is all your cheap solar going to produce?
How much will we need to power all the new EVs?

Also many utilities are now looking a VPP's.

Is that like the idea that you plug in your EV to charge at work, and if the building needs some juice, it pulls charge from your car? That always made me laugh when I heard it.
Is that the plan at night when solar drops to zero? Instead of charging your car, your utility
will drain it? Will they send you a text to warn you your battery won't get you to work?

No need for fossil peaking plants at all,

LOL!

 

[asaratis]

In one day, three major oil companies will start changing their operations. A remarkably good day;

This is nothing more than an infomercial for her book, thinly veiled as a fake news item.

If the Green Earth Idiots actually think we can thrive without fossil fuels, they have no idea whatsoever of the range of products that require fossil fuels in order to be manufactured or produced. Electricity is the most significant among them.

What Life Would Be Like Without Fossil Fuels?

If there were no fossil fuels, human life in this world would be significantly different. The earth contains fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. They create electrical power, heat houses, power vehicles, and transform the environment.

www.reference.com

What would life be like without fossil fuels such as gas and oil?

Leftists like Bill McKibben of 350.org suffer from irrational fantasies that lead them to believe that we can move society forward without all the benefits that petroleum brings to our modern socie…

wattsupwiththat.com

Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?

Various scenarios have been put forward showing that 100% renewable energy is achievable. Some of them even claim that we can move completely away from fossil fuels in only couple of decades. A world entirely...

energycentral.com

https://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf

Seven reasons a world without fossil fuels is not practical - Washington Examiner

There has been a lot of talk about a "Green New Deal" that will rapidly phase out the use of all fossil fuels. As an investor who has long experience in the energy field, let me say that it is not practical for us to live in a world without fossil fuels for seven reasons.First,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Damn, do I have to explain to every one of you 'Conservatives' that the issue is burning the fossil fuel, not using it as an industrial stock.

In one day, three major oil companies will start changing their operations. A remarkably good day;

This is nothing more than an infomercial for her book, thinly veiled as a fake news item.

If the Green Earth Idiots actually think we can thrive without fossil fuels, they have no idea whatsoever of the range of products that require fossil fuels in order to be manufactured or produced. Electricity is the most significant among them.

What Life Would Be Like Without Fossil Fuels?

If there were no fossil fuels, human life in this world would be significantly different. The earth contains fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. They create electrical power, heat houses, power vehicles, and transform the environment.

www.reference.com

What would life be like without fossil fuels such as gas and oil?

Leftists like Bill McKibben of 350.org suffer from irrational fantasies that lead them to believe that we can move society forward without all the benefits that petroleum brings to our modern socie…

wattsupwiththat.com

Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?

Various scenarios have been put forward showing that 100% renewable energy is achievable. Some of them even claim that we can move completely away from fossil fuels in only couple of decades. A world entirely...

energycentral.com

https://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf

Seven reasons a world without fossil fuels is not practical - Washington Examiner

There has been a lot of talk about a "Green New Deal" that will rapidly phase out the use of all fossil fuels. As an investor who has long experience in the energy field, let me say that it is not practical for us to live in a world without fossil fuels for seven reasons.First,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

For electrical generation, fossil fuels are very easy to replace. Right now, solar and wind are the cheapest electrical generation to build and operate. If we decided to do it, we could easily replace almost all fossil fuel and nuclear generation with renewables by 2030.

Had you read my comments and links, you would know that we cannot make wind turbines, batteries, solar cells... without using fossil fuels.

We cannot build nuclear plants without products made using fossil fuels.

There is just too much that you do not understand about the use of fossil fuels for you to pretend to be an expert on the topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In one day, three major oil companies will start changing their operations. A remarkably good day;

Useful products are useful.

Until they are not.

Let me know when you stop using fossil fuels or products made from them.

As soon as I am able to. As far as products made from them, that is a completely different subject. That you bring it up here only means that you are trying to muddy the debate or that you simply cannot follow simple logic.

As far as products made from them, that is a completely different subject.

You want oil companies to stop producing oil or not?
It's ok to drill for it but not okay to burn any of it?

Really, are you trying to prove yourself to be mentally deficient? The thrust of the article was that the oil companies vastly reduce their emissions. Simply switching most transportation to EV's would achieve that. Yes, that would shut down a lot of expensive oil, such as tar sands, but there would still be plenty for industrial stock. And, yes, it is not OK to burn it.

Simply switching most transportation to EV's would achieve that.

Simply? Not unless you want to build a bunch of new nuke plants to charge them.

It would take about 30% more electricity to achieve that. Easy to do.

Easy? California can't even produce what they need now (how much "dirty" electricity do they import?), let alone 30% more from green sources.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we decided to do it, we could easily replace almost all fossil fuel and nuclear generation with renewables by 2030.

Hilarious!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much energy are you going to consume in making liquid air?...in pumping water?..

I wonder what the efficiency is in any of these "easy" storage methods?

 

[asaratis]

Damn, do I have to explain to every one of you 'Conservatives' that the issue is burning the fossil fuel, not using it as an industrial stock.

The ultra-left wants to eliminate the drilling for and extraction of all fossil fuels. They are among the dummies that think the rest of the oil producing world will follow suit.

 

[asaratis]

How much energy are you going to consume in making liquid air?...in pumping water?..

I wonder what the efficiency is in any of these "easy" storage methods?

That parlays into my question, "How much energy..."

In all production of energy (for immediate use or storage), the energy required for production is greater than the energy produced. Some energy is always lost, usually in the form of heat.

He doesn't have any idea. He's just blowing fantasy bubbles.

 

[ding]

The court order against Shell will not stand.

Ten years from now, Chevron and Exxon will be doing the exact same thing they are doing now only more efficiently.

The sky is not falling.

LOL A lot of very smart people think you what you posted is laughable. Why do you think Tesla is now the most valuable auto company in the world?

No. A lot of people believe the government will effectively mandate it like they mandated buying health insurance. But as we have seen in the past that just gets them thrown out of office.

As for the order against Shell, just watch. Same for Exxon and Chevron. They will still be in business long after BP has been bought out. Like I said, earlier renewables and EV's have a role but it's not the utopia you envision. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The government is crossing the line into communism when they try to make and manage markets. Picking winners and losers is Stalinesque. And it never works out.

As for Tesla, you think they can compete and beat Ford and GM at manufacturing high volumes of car? I wouldn't bet on Tesla long term. I love my Stihl AK series tools but it's only because I don't have to use them every day.

LOL So the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are communism. Glad you cleared that up.

Let's examine that. How much and who got subsidies and why? How is the subsidy applied? Is it a tax credit? Is it fixing a price? These things matter. Did the market already exist before the subsidy was issued? '

If the answers to those question shows that you can point to how the government was trying to drive one industry or company out of business or prop up an industry that would not have existed, then sure. But otherwise, fuck off cause you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.


Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613. Active). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.


Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A (Active) and 48B (Inactive). These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.


Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code § 45. Inactive). Sunsetted in 2014, this tax credit was created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Although amendments to the act limited the list of qualifying fuel sources, this credit provided $12.2 billion to the coal industry from 2002-2010.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

I don't see this as the same thing as regulating ICE vehicles and electrical generation from fossil fuels out of existence.

It is not regulations that will be the death of ICE's and use of fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation. The cost of batteries is rapidly declining while their energy density is increasing. And renewables are now cheaper for electrical generation than fossil fuels, and far cheaper than nuclear;
View attachment 496042

Don't kid yourself. It's effectively a government mandate.

 

[ding]

What isn't a good idea is for government to pick and choose which industries are allowed to exist or which products manufacturers are allowed to make. That's called communism and it has been tried before and failed

Regulations isnt close to state ownership so I have to disagree. Anyway Communism doesn’t regulate for safety and here’s a famous example.

The lasting legacy of China's 2008 baby-formula disaster

Ten years after six babies died from drinking melamine-laced formula, Chinese people remain deeply distrustful of locally produced dairy products.

qz.com

Trojan horse.

 

[ding]

What can possibly go wrong with government deciding what is best for markets?

 

[asaratis]

In one day, three major oil companies will start changing their operations. A remarkably good day;

Useful products are useful.

Until they are not.

Let me know when you stop using fossil fuels or products made from them.

As soon as I am able to. As far as products made from them, that is a completely different subject. That you bring it up here only means that you are trying to muddy the debate or that you simply cannot follow simple logic.

As far as products made from them, that is a completely different subject.

You want oil companies to stop producing oil or not?
It's ok to drill for it but not okay to burn any of it?

Really, are you trying to prove yourself to be mentally deficient? The thrust of the article was that the oil companies vastly reduce their emissions. Simply switching most transportation to EV's would achieve that. Yes, that would shut down a lot of expensive oil, such as tar sands, but there would still be plenty for industrial stock. And, yes, it is not OK to burn it.

Simply switching most transportation to EV's would achieve that.

Simply? Not unless you want to build a bunch of new nuke plants to charge them.

It would take about 30% more electricity to achieve that. Easy to do.