Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears?
Fears? I think things are great and will keep getting better.
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...
... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"
Hilarious. \"How many armies does the IPCC have?\"
Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.
Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"
Hilarious. \"How many armies does the IPCC have?\"
Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.
Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
Now THAT is hilarious! Will China attack India, or the reverse,
because the other is burning too much coal? Will they use nukes?
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn\'t CO2
that did it.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
The planet has been green for centuries, and it wasn\'t CO2
that did it.
How would you like it if your food was 300 PPM nutrients?
Earth was running out of CO2; plants were faced with starvation.
Luckily, humans came along and liberated some of that sequestered
carbon. Let\'s keep at it.
In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.
In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.
....
On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 10:33:40 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
...
In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.
...
That is being naive - the strains of the dominant food crops that revolutionized yields were not around in that era. Semi-dwarf wheat for example was only created about 60 years ago.
High-yielding wheat and rice have already been showing declines that have been attributed to environmental changes.
I just read that one of my favorite hot chile sauce brands is not available now because of severe drought in Mexico.
Although extra carbon dioxide and higher temperatures may help in many plants, how it will affect our ability to grow food is not known. How will our crop plants fare in competition against weeds, lack of water etc.
kw
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:
\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"
Hilarious. \"How many armies does the IPCC have?\"
Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.
Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
Now THAT is hilarious! Will China attack India, or the reverse,
because the other is burning too much coal? Will they use nukes?
It\'s a long time treaty, and there will be changes in the next century.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:32:43 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Many signatories to the Paris accords...
Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.
Now THAT is hilarious! Will China attack India, or the reverse,
because the other is burning too much coal? Will they use nukes?
It\'s a long time treaty, and there will be changes in the next century.
The big change is that all the AGW hysteria will be laughed at as
old-timey paranoia.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:45:24 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:23:11 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:55:14 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:09:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 3:34:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:57:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 19:13:16 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Read about life before the 17th century. It was horrible.
Not relevant, because we aren\'t heading into a future that
resembles the 16th century. Also, there isn\'t a monster in your closet.
Greta Thunberg gets it; why doesn\'t John Larkin?
Because he isn\'t a worry-wart like you?
Huh? You\'re telling me it\'s rational to think the future will be
like pre-seventeenth-century as described in (mainly European) books?
John Larkin IS certainly a worry-wart.
No, it\'s you worrying about this fictitious end of the world scenario just because of a bit of gas.
Not true; where did that idea come from?
Your belief we\'re killing the world with a bit of gas.
John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering
solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood
histories,
No, he\'s just not concerned about something that will never happen.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUiURrUVIAI7I38?format=jpg&name=900x900
Various professional private-jet-owning doomsters have put us 10 years
from climate extinction for, what, 60 years now?
Things just keep getting better. Those curves WILL flatten out when we
run out of poor people.
and complete engineering failure to deal with \'a bit of gas\'.
He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least.
Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate
change is no fiction. The \'end of the world\' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant,
evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.
We\'re tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn\'t enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.
CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
Precisely. Why do these alarmists lack common sense?
A lot of professional alarmists are in it for power and money. Their
energy source is the fears of neurotic masses.
Actually, the public is mostly bored about AGW. They are not bored
with $7 gasoline.
On 06/09/2022 02:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Doesn\'t gas go in tanks? Like this sorta thing?
http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/gas-truck.jpg
Wow, that\'s the biggest rearview mirror I\'ve ever seen.
Gasoline, as in petrol.
https://www.anstertrailer.com/lng-lpg-tank-trailer-guide/
On 06/09/2022 04:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:15:47 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2022 01:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases in
the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so less
of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble, taxing
fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole, so it
probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry won\'t
like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.
Somebody told me they froze it, but that\'s -181 degrees, which is maybe
unfeasible on ships.
About -160 C. Not frozen but a liquid that can be stored at a low
pressure. Boil off is a problem.
When I said -181, I meant C. If the ships are currently -160C, then a
bit colder and they could freeze it into blocks.
Isn\'t high pressure easier than low temperature?
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-tube-trailers
Nope. That\'s the problem with hydrogen. It liquefies at â252.87 °C for
atmospheric pressure. The payload of hydrogen on a tube trailer is
ridiculously low although carbon fiber has reduced the tare somewhat.
On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.
It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.
The market works.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
The market or desperation?
On 06/09/2022 04:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about
mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.
Unusual sense of humour.
How are we supposed to know what you mean?
It could mean either in the context of the conversation.
And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it does
not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html
kw
Then there are the minor miners:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27
Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
there.
Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is still
deep
underground.
I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
couple off
State College north of Ball.
I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo
Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.
I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
warming
and all, you know.
A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is
something
like 70%, which is a big win.
After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
picked
up again.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/
That article claims
EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019, which
was
âmore than enough to supply every home in Texas.â
It wouldn\'t have helped the infrastructure problems but it\'s ironic
that
during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were warm
and cozy.
Who, what, or where, is the Permian?
The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952
As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger
problem
than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both worlds,
methane and CO2.
What\'s that place with a permanent fire they can\'t put out?
https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217
Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.
I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large
circular hole.
The one you mention is odd, why hasn\'t it run out of fuel yet?
It\'s a big coal vein?
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.
Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.
Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.
False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.
And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.
Why do want rational dialog to cease? So you can mutter nonsense to yourself
undisturbed? Chaotic systems have statistical properties (temperature is one of them)
that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties (Brownian motion)
are not.
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:29:01 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
sentiment seems to calm your fears?
Fears? I think things are great and will keep getting better.
But just minutes ago, you were concerned with $7 per gallon gasoline? Clearly
you do NOT think \'things are great\'. You\'re just covering up some deep foreboding.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.
Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.
Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.
False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.
Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.
It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.
The market works.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
The market or desperation?
They need to stop reproducing so fast.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.
Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.
Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.
False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.
Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.
Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
quantum mechanics will scramble things.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.
There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.
Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.
It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.
Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.
The market works.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
The market or desperation?
They need to stop reproducing so fast.
https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
2 billion would be a good number.