Fossil fuels rule. I spent 24 years in the petroleum business, and I know how cleanly gasoline can be refined, transported, sold, and burned with modern technology intelligently applied.
It's funny, if you put up a bunch of dams then more of your supply would be renewable, but supply has zilch to do with demand.
Most generators of energy keep gas turbines or other peak demand mitigations at the ready, so they don't dip too heavily into that 15nor 20 percent reserve. I'm assuming most EU countries do not have dozens of gas turbines ready to kick on during peak consumption days. For all the obvious reasons.
Decarbonization can't occur without base load replacement, and that would largely be nuclear. For those who hate fossil fuels, I wonder if they hate freezing to death in the winter more.
"Ehrlich’s message, crying out in desperation to urge what’s already happening, is not unique. We have a contemporary example of the call by politicians and activists to end our dependence on fossil fuels and move to a carbon-neutral lifestyle. Their call to action is, however, a little bit late.
According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, the industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning that we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay, which is one to one, to coal, to oil, and finally to natural gas, where it’s one to four.
(Snip)
Here’s an illustration from one of Ausubel’s articles. The blue atoms are hydrogen and the dirty brown ones are carbon.
And you can see as we go from coal to oil to gas, natural gas, if there’s still any for sale, we are increasing the proportion of hydrogen to carbon. Ausubel expects this trend will continue through this century as we move toward what he imagines as a pure hydrogen energy system, without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously, if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.
Regarding picture of the year - can you even tell where Biden is heading? The framing makes it look like he is about to walk into a wall. Brilliant foreshadowing on the part of the photojournalist that should be celebrated.
Perhaps you missed the subtlety of the judging panel when they were evaluating the finalist photos.
Not every famous photo needs to be a Chinese dissident in front of a tank, a presidential candidate triumphant after an attempted assignation, or that horrible shot of a young girl who's village was just bombed in Vietnam.
It is pretty amazing that Bloomberg allowed that piece by Mr Blas to be up on their site. Bloomberg is all in on "renewable" energy sources windmills, Chinese solar panels, killing birds and whales, etc. Blas' article actually made some sense which is rare for Bloomberg.
"You may think you hate the media, but you don’t hate them enough, chapter 12,186. Guess which picture here was chosen by the White House Correspondents Association as the Photo of the Year for 2024:"
WH Correspondents NOW Celebrate Reporter's Biden Cognitive Reporting, with Jashinsky and Johnson
Megyn Kelly is joined by Emily Jashinsky, host of "Undercurrents" on UnHerd, and Eliana Johnson, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, to discuss the absurdity at the White House Correspondents Dinner this year, one reporter getting an award for his coverage of Biden’s cognitive decline, how the entire media ignored the issue and gaslit the public for years, and more.
Does spinning reserve mean fossil or nuclear plants running at, say, 75%, with room to increase output? Now that I typed that, I realize the answer is yes. Their <4% gas fueled isn't much and they might feel a lot of pressure to minimize anything but renewable power.
Fossil fuels rule. I spent 24 years in the petroleum business, and I know how cleanly gasoline can be refined, transported, sold, and burned with modern technology intelligently applied.
It's funny, if you put up a bunch of dams then more of your supply would be renewable, but supply has zilch to do with demand.
Most generators of energy keep gas turbines or other peak demand mitigations at the ready, so they don't dip too heavily into that 15nor 20 percent reserve. I'm assuming most EU countries do not have dozens of gas turbines ready to kick on during peak consumption days. For all the obvious reasons.
Decarbonization can't occur without base load replacement, and that would largely be nuclear. For those who hate fossil fuels, I wonder if they hate freezing to death in the winter more.
Decarbonization
"Ehrlich’s message, crying out in desperation to urge what’s already happening, is not unique. We have a contemporary example of the call by politicians and activists to end our dependence on fossil fuels and move to a carbon-neutral lifestyle. Their call to action is, however, a little bit late.
According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, the industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning that we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay, which is one to one, to coal, to oil, and finally to natural gas, where it’s one to four.
(Snip)
Here’s an illustration from one of Ausubel’s articles. The blue atoms are hydrogen and the dirty brown ones are carbon.
And you can see as we go from coal to oil to gas, natural gas, if there’s still any for sale, we are increasing the proportion of hydrogen to carbon. Ausubel expects this trend will continue through this century as we move toward what he imagines as a pure hydrogen energy system, without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously, if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.
(Snip)
An Evening with Michael Crichton
“States of Fear: Science or Politics?”
November 15, 2005
https://www.independent.org/news/event-transcripts/an-evening-with-michael-crichton/#2
Regarding picture of the year - can you even tell where Biden is heading? The framing makes it look like he is about to walk into a wall. Brilliant foreshadowing on the part of the photojournalist that should be celebrated.
Perhaps you missed the subtlety of the judging panel when they were evaluating the finalist photos.
Not every famous photo needs to be a Chinese dissident in front of a tank, a presidential candidate triumphant after an attempted assignation, or that horrible shot of a young girl who's village was just bombed in Vietnam.
It is pretty amazing that Bloomberg allowed that piece by Mr Blas to be up on their site. Bloomberg is all in on "renewable" energy sources windmills, Chinese solar panels, killing birds and whales, etc. Blas' article actually made some sense which is rare for Bloomberg.
"You may think you hate the media, but you don’t hate them enough, chapter 12,186. Guess which picture here was chosen by the White House Correspondents Association as the Photo of the Year for 2024:"
WH Correspondents NOW Celebrate Reporter's Biden Cognitive Reporting, with Jashinsky and Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMFG97hki8
Apr 28, 2025
Megyn Kelly is joined by Emily Jashinsky, host of "Undercurrents" on UnHerd, and Eliana Johnson, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, to discuss the absurdity at the White House Correspondents Dinner this year, one reporter getting an award for his coverage of Biden’s cognitive decline, how the entire media ignored the issue and gaslit the public for years, and more.
Does spinning reserve mean fossil or nuclear plants running at, say, 75%, with room to increase output? Now that I typed that, I realize the answer is yes. Their <4% gas fueled isn't much and they might feel a lot of pressure to minimize anything but renewable power.
Phil Harris, not Kamala Harris.