While you guys are back on coal

[ivwshane]

Lol @ Internet expert. Now show us all the carbon-neutral coal-fired power plants.

This must be some of that insightful conversation you keep saying we can't have.

/s

 

[JSt0rm]

the dude is too stupid to know he is stupid.

 

[crashtech]

the dude is too stupid to know he is stupid.

How ironic. You are a pathetic primate that gets off on denigrating others and pretending to know shit that you are clueless about. At least you have found your niche here in the P&N cesspool, where your antisocial behavior is lauded and encouraged.

Again, poor form, I regret it.

 

[ivwshane]

How ironic. You are a pathetic primate that gets off on denigrating others and pretending to know shit that you are clueless about. At least you have found your niche here in the P&N cesspool, where your antisocial behavior is lauded and encouraged.

So you are just going to pretend that you weren't the one who started talking shit in this thread?

Sounds like you are projecting.

 

[crashtech]

Doing a google search and posting a bunch of nonsense just to try in vain not to be wrong is only going to reinforce people's misconceptions about what is possible re CO2 sequestration. This issue is something that has interested me for a long time, I know a fair bit about it and have friends and acquaintances in the power generation business.

 

[crashtech]

So you are just going to pretend that you weren't the one who started talking shit in this thread?

Sounds like you are projecting.

Maybe. I apologize.

 

[1prophet]

And when the oil runs out how are they going to fund their green movement?
Norway’s Addiction to Taxes on Oil
https://taxfoundation.org/norway-s-addiction-taxes-oil/

Norway is an outlier among the 34 Member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in one, interesting respect. Norway collects an equivalent of 10 percent of their GDP in corporate taxes, relying on these taxes for 25 percent of the country’s total revenue. This is compared to the OECD average corporate tax revenue of 3 percent of GDP and just under 9 percent of total tax revenue. Norway’s striking revenue statistic has one explanation: a heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

Norway is unique, among its OECD counterparts, in its ability to exploit oil production to fund its government. The 11th largest oil exporter in 2012, Norway both supports the oil industry by incentivizing exploration and development of new resources, while also heavily taxing any profits. On top of its 27 percent corporation income tax, Norway levies an additional 51 percent resource extraction tax on the exploration, development, and production of petroleum, a 78 percent total tax rate.

It is no surprise then that it raises far more from the corporate income tax than other countries. It raises about twice as much as Australia, with the second highest corporate income tax collections at 5.2 percent of GDP. The U.S. raises just over 2 percent of GDP from the corporate income tax.

In total, over 32 percent of Norway’s total revenues come from taxes, excise duties and other revenues from petroleum activities.

While the revenue from oil extraction has been a boon for Norway, it won’t last forever. For more than a decade, Norwegian petroleum exports have declined. The government places a large share of the oil revenue into a government run investment fund to prepare for a post-oil future. Norway recognizes that temporary revenues can create short-lived booms that are followed by difficult adjustment periods when revenues decline. The 2014 national budget projects revenues from their petroleum fund will peak in the next 15 years. If petroleum as a revenue source continues to decline, Norway’s generous welfare state will need to find different revenue sources.

It is not sustainable to tax just one industry at significantly higher rates than the rest of the economy and rely on that revenue to support over 30 percent of the government. Sound tax policy should have a broad base, low rates and be neutral between industries, activities, and products. Such a policy keeps tax revenue relatively constant over time and distorts individual economic decisions as little as possible.

 

[theeedude]

Tax Foundation has accomplished the promised economic miracle in Kansas and is now moving on to advising Norway?

 

[cytg111]

And when the oil runs out how are they going to fund their green movement?
Norway’s Addiction to Taxes on Oil
https://taxfoundation.org/norway-s-addiction-taxes-oil/

Norway is an outlier among the 34 Member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in one, interesting respect. Norway collects an equivalent of 10 percent of their GDP in corporate taxes, relying on these taxes for 25 percent of the country’s total revenue. This is compared to the OECD average corporate tax revenue of 3 percent of GDP and just under 9 percent of total tax revenue. Norway’s striking revenue statistic has one explanation: a heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

Norway is unique, among its OECD counterparts, in its ability to exploit oil production to fund its government. The 11th largest oil exporter in 2012, Norway both supports the oil industry by incentivizing exploration and development of new resources, while also heavily taxing any profits. On top of its 27 percent corporation income tax, Norway levies an additional 51 percent resource extraction tax on the exploration, development, and production of petroleum, a 78 percent total tax rate.

It is no surprise then that it raises far more from the corporate income tax than other countries. It raises about twice as much as Australia, with the second highest corporate income tax collections at 5.2 percent of GDP. The U.S. raises just over 2 percent of GDP from the corporate income tax.

In total, over 32 percent of Norway’s total revenues come from taxes, excise duties and other revenues from petroleum activities.

While the revenue from oil extraction has been a boon for Norway, it won’t last forever. For more than a decade, Norwegian petroleum exports have declined. The government places a large share of the oil revenue into a government run investment fund to prepare for a post-oil future. Norway recognizes that temporary revenues can create short-lived booms that are followed by difficult adjustment periods when revenues decline. The 2014 national budget projects revenues from their petroleum fund will peak in the next 15 years. If petroleum as a revenue source continues to decline, Norway’s generous welfare state will need to find different revenue sources.

It is not sustainable to tax just one industry at significantly higher rates than the rest of the economy and rely on that revenue to support over 30 percent of the government. Sound tax policy should have a broad base, low rates and be neutral between industries, activities, and products. Such a policy keeps tax revenue relatively constant over time and distorts individual economic decisions as little as possible.

In other words : Using oil money to foot the conversion bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
You have to remember that while the taxation is high so is the benefits.

 

[brycejones]

Tax Foundation has accomplished the promised economic miracle in Kansas and is now moving on to advising Norway?

We're so tired of winning based on the advice of out of state tax groups.

 

[K1052]

First we ought to take a look at how the electricity is being generated in various locales. It's conceivable that if some areas were to convert to electric vehicles to soon, net carbon output could actually increase. For areas served disproportionately by fossil fuel generation (coal especially,) hybrids are probably a much better answer in the medium-term.

There is no particular reason you can't move to electrics over say 10-15 years and deploy sufficient, cost effective, renewable power to complement it. As it stands now CA, for example, already produces too much solar power in the middle off the day which could easily be sucked up by a bunch more electric vehicles set to charge at that time to avoid curtailment.

 

[Jaskalas]

Arh the jump aint that far, you can make it. The topic is of course about going forward or backwards..

And you could read your own article.

But electric vehicle momentum is picking up in the US, as evidenced by the 400,000 people who have paid $1,000 to be on the waiting list for Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 car.​

404, going backwards not found with autos.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Just went online in January, not sure if they plan to do the same with the second coil fired plant. They used compressor from the company that I work for on this project.

http://fossilfuel.energy-business-r...e-facility-begins-operations-in-texas-5788068

NRG’s Petra Nova carbon capture facility begins operations in Texas

 

[Denly]

I spend the weekend modifying my 7.3 liter diesel powered 6,000 pound truck to use MORE fuel. The day that I can get that much power and utility out of an alternative fueled vehicle that can travel at least 1,000 miles a day will be the day I will start to consider alternative fueled vehicles. I will almost certainly never consider a battery powered vehicle though, give me hydrogen fuel cells at least.

Edit: Oh and all that for under $5k as well.

You drive a 1000 miles a day? Is it even humanly possible?

And to the topic, I wish someone release a EV or hybrid with a manual shift. I jump in the sec it available for pre order, I am sure our EU/Asia frd will love it as well.

 

[crashtech]

There is no particular reason you can't move to electrics over say 10-15 years and deploy sufficient, cost effective, renewable power to complement it. As it stands now CA, for example, already produces too much solar power in the middle off the day which could easily be sucked up by a bunch more electric vehicles set to charge at that time to avoid curtailment.

Sometimes I think the words in my posts have been chosen carefully enough, but it seems as if cautionary advice can easily be read as "it can't be done." But nowhere in my post will you find that. What I do find is that people in general are very ill-informed about the challenges facing the power generation industry, and indeed, even about where their power comes from. For example, SoCal to this day relies on coal power produced in Delta, Utah from a plant the LADWP commissioned back in the '80s. LADWP is mandated to stop purchasing power from the plant in 2020, but still, plug your electric car in at night in LA, and some of those electrons are being pushed by coal today. Really I wasn't talking about LA, though, but places like St. Louis and Columbus. It ought to be obvious that you can't put one ahead of the other; in areas that rely on coal, we need to limit the growth of demand as much as possible while the infrastructure catches up.

And don't even get me started on the nature of intermittent sources and what it means to integrate such sources into a grid that must supply power on-demand.

 

[K1052]

Just went online in January, not sure if they plan to do the same with the second coil fired plant. They used compressor from the company that I work for on this project.

http://fossilfuel.energy-business-r...e-facility-begins-operations-in-texas-5788068

$1B capital cost to capture 240MW worth of coal CO2 stream. What a sweet deal...

 

[ivwshane]

You drive a 1000 miles a day? Is it even humanly possible?

And to the topic, I wish someone release a EV or hybrid with a manual shift. I jump in the sec it available for pre order, I am sure our EU/Asia frd will love it as well.

A manual shift on an ev is pointless as the acceleration is instant.

 

[K1052]

Sometimes I think the words in my posts have been chosen carefully enough, but it seems as if cautionary advice can easily be read as "it can't be done." But nowhere in my post will you find that. What I do find is that people in general are very ill-informed about the challenges facing the power generation industry, and indeed, even about where their power comes from. For example, SoCal to this day relies on coal power produced in Delta, Utah from a plant the LADWP commissioned back in the '80s. LADWP is mandated to stop purchasing power from the plant in 2020, but still, plug your electric car in at night in LA, and some of those electrons are being pushed by coal today. Really I wasn't talking about LA, though, but places like St. Louis and Columbus. It ought to be obvious that you can't put one ahead of the other; in areas that rely on coal, we need to limit the growth of demand as much as possible while the infrastructure catches up.

And don't even get me started on the nature of intermittent sources and what it means to integrate such sources into a grid that must supply power on-demand.

Yea but the generation mix in CA has been tilting aggressively to renewable and seems that will accelerate even more, same with most of the bluer states. Even a few are considering 100% RPS at this point. CA is resisting more interconnection to the western grid because of the coal fleet that is still out there. With fewer and fewer customers those plants will be going away (and already are). By the time we could see large scale EV adoption most if not all of those plants will be retired.

For places like the midwest and southeast yes there is still a lot of coal fired plants operating. Though those also have not been immune from the low prices of natural gas and onshore wind plus increasing customer demand for renewables. These would however be about the last places I'd expect to see wide scale EV adoption.

 

[crashtech]

A transmission on an EV could only make it less efficient, but it would be a lot of fun!

 

[crashtech]

...CA is resisting more interconnection to the western grid because of the coal fleet that is still out there...

I find this point particularly ironic, because Delta was built specifically for the needs of LADWP customers. In typical fashion, LA imports clean water and exports dirty air. I applaud efforts to reverse this, but it's rather doubtful that a majority of EV owners in LA even know that their little car is, in effect, burning some coal to get down the highway.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

$1B capital cost to capture 240MW worth of coal CO2 stream. What a sweet deal...

But it's clean coal technology...........it more gooder because it's more green

 

[K1052]

I find this point particularly ironic, because Delta was built specifically for the needs of LADWP customers. In typical fashion, LA imports clean water and exports dirty air. I applaud efforts to reverse this, but it's rather doubtful that a majority of EV owners in LA even know that their little car is, in effect, burning some coal to get down the highway.

It's a short term tradeoff that will be taken care of as utilities stop buying coal power and retirements continue. The cleanest way to power a lot more EVs will be to charge them at workplaces during the day when there is excess solar power generated.

 

[crashtech]

It's a short term tradeoff that will be taken care of as utilities stop buying coal power and retirements continue. The cleanest way to power a lot more EVs will be to charge them at workplaces during the day when there is excess solar power generated.

Not at night after a long commute? I used to live in LA, that might be tough, but maybe new EVs will have the kind of range that would inspire that level of confidence, to take off to work on a half charge.

 

[Denly]

A manual shift on an ev is pointless as the acceleration is instant.

Is not just practical, you know that 30-60% of the car outside of NA are manual depends on regions? A lot of the people wanted EV or hybrid but not ready give up on manual.

No engineer but to your point, full EV might be pointless but a hybrid manual with small battery to help mainly on the lowend make a lot of sense to me.

 

[K1052]

Not at night after a long commute? I used to live in LA, that might be tough, but maybe new EVs will have the kind of range that would inspire that level of confidence, to take off to work on a half charge.

If your EV has 200+ miles of range you'll probably be left with much more than half a charge unless you have an insane commute. Bolt has 230 and the forthcoming Model 3 will have at least 200.