U.S. says it will cut costs for clean energy projects on public lands

[SAJ-99]

should have added a winkey face


Point of my numbers, is that sometimes I think people have a hard time understanding the scale and efficiencies of various energy forms.
Honestly I just started going with those numbers and wasn't sure how they would turn out. I mean I definitely was guessing solar was waaay more.

We generated 38% of our power via natural gas and 2.8% from solar. So that means if you actually tried to replace OG with solar your at the very least doubling the amount of impact we already have.

Not to mention we are trying to swap out all IC cars for electric which is going to explode electricity demand... and the fact that aside from energy we us petroleum to make everything... from your boots to your medicine.


Also <10% of us Petroleum is produced from public lands it's mostly on private.

Well, we are throwing $5b in the infrastructure bill to cap old wells, so all the reclaiming that was promised came with a wink and crossed fingers. I’m sure solar companies will be the same way. I would rather decentralize the entire system- Roofs tops, high rise windows , all that. Expensive but a far better option that using raw land, especially public land. On the question of energy efficiency, O&G still flaring gas at the well? Seems like burning money at these prices.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

On the question of energy efficiency, O&G still flaring gas at the well? Seems like burning money at these prices.

Depends... mostly no.

Marcellus, Haynesville, Utica that are gas plays zero flaring occurs. In OK or DJ that have great infrastructure access ie gas on pipe not really either.

The biggest offenders are #1 Bakken and then Texas, Texas has fairly strict rules so if gas is flared its usually for a very limited time or an "emergency".

Also Crusoe energy, has exploded there services in the last couple of years. They capture the wasted gas and use it to power generators to run crypto servers. Very cool company.

Between $9.35 gas and ESG mandates I imagine everyone is trying to figure out how to flare as little as possible, but I'm sure it still an issue in some areas for some companies.

 

[Ben Lamb]

 

[Deleted member 28227]

View attachment 225038

* The practices described in this meme are entirely legal under CO, WY, TX, and Oklahoma law some restrictions apply see your state mineral agencies for more details.

 

[Ben Lamb]

* The practices described in this meme are entirely legal under CO, WY, TX, and Oklahoma law some restrictions apply see your state mineral agencies for more details.

Translation: Our Lobbyists got this shit legal, so suck it, America.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Translation: Our Lobbyists got this shit legal, so suck it, America.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 225040

Statistically, I'd be safer with the MOD squad than in a car with teenaged anything.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's all performative - nuclear is our only post-carbon option unless we are prepared for a major drop in standard of living. The sooner renewables fail the sooner we can move on to the real solution.

 

[Sytes]

Just up here on my soapbox spitting facts, sheeple.
View attachment 225034

Epic! This fact tops anything @wllm has shared, currently sharing, or future factoids to share! And that's a fact!

 

[WesternWyoming]

Here's my point... I don't think either of these is preferable to the other.
View attachment 225032

View attachment 225033

I live next to Exhibit A. Since it was carved out of the desert, I've had a hard time breathing when recreating outdoors in winter (ground-level ozone was higher than in LA); I've seen mule deer, pronghorn, and sage grouse numbers plummet in this and the adjacent gas field, seen my little town turn from lazy and safe to crazy and dangerous, seen 4 new hotels built then go bust. Cheatgrass has taken over the bare dirt before reclamation can take. Then there's the amount of water that comes up with the gas, used and abused and sent back down a 14,000' hole during the worst drought since 800 AD. All of this is documented. My partner and a lot of other friends lost their livelihoods when all the O&G guys left, after promising to stay. I don't like Exhibit B much either, and we can do better for sure. But let's not pretend that O&G will be around forever, or that it's safe and responsible. It's not.

 

[PrairieHunter]

what % of Europe is public land?? I never feel comfortable with the Europe analogies.

I was referring to power generation technologies. Had zero to do with public land.

Europe got ahead of the game with biomass which is why the US exports around 7 million tons of wood pellets. We export more pellets than we use, which demonstrates my point.

Look for coal plants near sources of biomass to be converted. I was at an event in Steamboat last week and Excel energy is looking convert their coal plant in the area to biomass for example.

 

[brocksw]

I was referring to power generation technologies. Had zero to do with public land.

Europe got ahead of the game with biomass which is why the US exports around 7 million tons of wood pellets. We export more pellets than we use, which demonstrates my point.

Look for coal plants near sources of biomass to be converted. I was at an event in Steamboat last week and Excel energy is looking convert their coal plant in the area to biomass for example.

Doesn't "biomass" or biofuel produce 1.5X the amount of CO2 as coal, per unit?

 

[PrairieHunter]

Doesn't "biomass" or biofuel produce 1.5X the amount of CO2 as coal, per unit?

No.

Biomass returns it's carbon to the atmosphere when it burns or decomposes. It's a circle. Pulls carbon out as the tree grows, and returns it when the tree dies. Carbon neutral overall with short term carbon storage. Then if you add biochar production it goes carbon negative and carbon credits are issued.

Coal is carbon that's already in the ground. Digging it up to burn it is net carbon positive. Coal is dead.

 

[PrairieHunter]

 

[antlerradar]

View attachment 225088

All carbon, even fossil fuel will go through the carbon cycle from storage on earth to in the atmosphere and back to storage. What matters is how much our actions speed up the time frame.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It's all performative - nuclear is our only post-carbon option unless we are prepared for a major drop in standard of living. The sooner renewables fail the sooner we can move on to the real solution.

Agreed, and I think developing those post-carbon options are vital.

I think worldwide we probably have a hundred years of Oil/NG but in the US I'm not sure if we even have 30, especially at current consumption rates.

Personally I can't imagine current Permian rates last a decade.

 

[BigHornRam]

The biggest problem with biomass is that it is a low density energy source. Transportation costs are a killer and are for the most part fueled with diesel. If it can be done locally with limited transportation distances, it starts to make sense. With $6.00 diesel, it does not.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The biggest problem with biomass is that it is a low density energy source. Transportation costs are a killer and are for the most part fueled with diesel. If it can be done locally with limited transportation distances, it starts to make sense. With $6.00 diesel, it does not.

Agreed. The "carbon in carbon out so it's neutral" thinking doesn't take into account the full energy life cycle. Once you do that, most of the biomass "renewables" are carbon creators, not reducers.

 

[BigHornRam]

As for carbon sequestration, I think developing crops with massive fine root production as well as useful food benefit like this one will be much more productive than using biochar. Biochar is expensive and energy/labor consumptive putting it back into the soil. It also has to be charged with nutrients prior to incorporating in the soil, or it will take available nutrients from the soil initially. It's a boutique soil amendment that will only pay for itself on high end crops such as vineyards.

Kernza®: A Perennial Grain with Climate Solution Potential Baked Right In | US Nature4Climate

Perennial grain crops hold unique and robust potential to help mitigate climate change by capturing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the air and putting it back into the soil.

usnature4climate.org

 

[BackofBeyond]

As for carbon sequestration, I think developing crops with massive fine root production as well as useful food benefit like this one

+ MOB/short term rotational grazing.