“Based on the results, the AMOC is more stable than we thought,” co-author Linus Vogt said. “This might mean that the AMOC isn’t as close to a tipping point as previously suggested.”
Of course, the usual caveat about past performance not necessarily being predictive applies:
Co-author Nicholas Foukal: “That doesn’t say anything about its future, but it doesn’t appear the anticipated changes have occurred yet.”
While a graduate student more than 50 years ago, I wrote a paper entitled “The Use of Natural Gas in Improving Air Quality.” My professor, Dr. Richard Gordon (RIP), a terrific economist who greatly influenced my thinking about energy, liked the paper but thought I was too optimistic about the availability of gas.
The sense at the time was that natural gas was a premium energy source in short supply. I was blissfully ignorant and thought we geologists and petroleum engineers would find and produce the gas. The Shale Boom, for which I can take zero credit, has proven me correct, so I’m taking another victory lap. 😀
Last week, the great Dan Yergin and his team at S&P Global issued a report that explains how economically and environmentally important natural gas has become. Key findings from the report are pasted below:
Higher US LNG exports lead to lower overall global emissions by displacing the more GHG intensive fuels that would replace them.
End use combustion is responsible for 57–87% of GHG intensity for coal, oil, gas and LNG, with supply chain methane emissions the key driver of variation between fuels (e.g., domestic vs. international LNG, domestic versus piped natural gas imports, or different crude oil streams).
Coal emits roughly 70% more greenhouse gases than the US LNG it would replace across all the alternatives analyzed.
US LNG’s unprecedented growth is enabled by an extended cross-state value chain, that reaches beyond the core-producing states – about 90% of every dollar spent remains within United States supply chains
Of the annual average of 495,000 US jobs supported through 2040, 37% will be in non-producing states. As many jobs will be supported in on-producing states as in Texas
Over the same period, LNG Exports will contribute $1.3 trillion in GDP, with $383 billion or 30% in non-producing states. On a per capita basis, producing states benefit from a cumulative $13.2K GDP per capita
The US Northeast (NE) has vast amounts of low-cost gas reserves in the Marcellus and Utica formations (New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio), sufficient to meet nationwide demand for ~17 years
Due to pipeline constraints these reserves are being developed at a suboptimal rate, pushing gas prices at Boston, Chicago and New York City Gates up 160% higher than the national gas market in peak months
Expanding NE pipeline capacity by 6.1 Bcf/d could reduce HH gas prices by $0.20/MMBtu and significantly lower prices across the region. Cumulative nationwide consumer savings could reach $76 billion through 2040
WSJ: “How many multibillion-dollar projects must go bust before a Governor comes to his senses? The answer is blowing in the wind, but New Jersey’s Phil Murphy doesn’t seem to be listening.”
Ouch!:Note how it’s always the developers that give up on these projects and never the state, despite the awful prospects for ratepayers. Gov. Murphy has treated renewable energy as a sacred cause no matter the costs since 2018. That includes a bill he signed to let Ørsted pocket federal credits it had promised to pass on to customers, though he clawed money back when the projects died.”
Thanks to the Colorado Oil & Gas Association’s tongue-in-cheek “Customer Appreciation Award,” which rivals the Not My Job Award as a means of recognizing extraordinary individual and organizational chutzpah, Chris Wright was on our radar long before he became Secretary of Energy.
He continues to impress:
BREAKING: America’s new Secretary of Energy just exposed the entire climate scam
“Media & politicians NEVER bothered to actually learn about climate change.”
“For three decades you were labeled a crank, a “climate denier,” someone who pigheadedly rejects “settled science,” if you didn’t embrace the belief that life on earth faces imminent extinction from “global warming” and, later, “climate change.” The possibility that an entire academic discipline, climate science, could have gone badly amiss by groupthink and self-flattery wasn’t thought possible. In many quarters this orthodoxy still reigns unquestioned.“
“In an age when energy policy is so often hostage to fierce partisanship, there is hope that geothermal can be the one clean energy solution that could satisfy climate change campaigners and the ‘drill baby drill’ lobby alike.”
Updates on Quaise Energy’s highly anticipated gyrotron field test and related information:
“Lab-test data suggest that the gyrotron’s beam will lose only around 50% of its power at a depth of six miles. To put that into perspective, the attenuation of a rotating drill string at 10 kilometers can be 98%,” Araque said. “You only get 2% of the mechanical power down to the bit.”
Quaise’s field test will take place on a disused oil drilling pad in the northern exurbs of Houston. Next month, a gyrotron 100 times as powerful as the one in the laboratory will be pointed at the earth and switched on.
By spring, Quaise will have erected another platform in a disused quarry near Marble Falls, a city on the Colorado River northwest of Austin.
Quaise’s ultimate ambition is that its drills can be “dropped-in” to existing oil and gas wells.
By 2026, Quaise should be positioned to launch its first commercial venture. Within that short timescale, an answer to the question of whether superdeep geothermal can be truly transformative should come into clearer focus.
Quaise’s Araque: “Our civilization uses 25 terawatts, and it doubles every 25 years. By 2050 we need 50 terawatts. By 2100 we need 200 terawatts. When you look at those numbers, you realize that diffuse and intermittent renewables don’t have the scale. The externalities are too high.”
Equinor’s investment of over 26 billion kroner in the Danish wind power company Ørsted has so far been a financial disaster – and now it’s going from bad to worse.
“We are very negative about the whole green initiative, as the return on the investments they make is far too low. When they also buy minority stakes in other green companies that we cannot count on, such as Ørsted, it means that we would rather own other oil companies.” Gaute Eie, Eika Kapitalforvaltning
The market has long been concerned that Equinor will throw money at renewable projects with low or no profitability.
In a recent note, Pareto analysts Tom Erik Kristiansen and Olav Haugerud point out that the Ørsted writedown does not bode well for Equinor’s own US projects either. They foresee a writedown of up to $1.1 billion, given that Equinor faces the same type of challenges as Ørsted.
Eie believes there is no reason why Equinor in particular should have a green initiative:
Aker BP is not doing green, Vår Energi is not doing green, and all the big oil companies are going back on this. Then we’ll see if Equinor has the guts to buy even more Ørsted shares, because now it’s 35 percent cheaper. If they do, we’ll have even fewer Equinor shares.
Sissener believes Equinor should rather focus on dividends and concentrate on oil and gas projects.
– We generally stay away from companies where the state is a major owner, because there you have to be so politically correct all the time. What we need are shareholder-friendly board representatives who know how to run a business and maintain control. In a broader perspective, this helps to destroy trust in Norwegian business.
A senior administration official who is familiar with the executive actions and authorized to brief Fox News Digital said Trump on day one will end “Catch and Release;” pause all offshore wind leases; terminate the electric vehicle mandate; abolish the Green New Deal; withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord; and take several major steps to assert presidential control over the federal bureaucracy.
The senior official told Fox News Digital that the energy executive order deals with “every single energy policy,” andaddresses liquid natural gas, ports, fracking, pipelines, permitting and more, while also terminating President Biden polices he said “have constrained U.S. energy supply.”
The two ruling parties in Norway want to cut the two power inter-connectors that link the country with Denmark when they come up for renewal in 2026. The smaller coalition party, the Center Party, wants to revisit similar energy links with the UK and Europe.
A related matter is Norway’s push to power offshore platforms with electricity from shore. This policy makes neither economic nor environmental sense, and introduces new safety and operational risks.
This BOE post cites the obvious (per NPD): “The power from shore projects will lead to an increase in electricity prices in Norway.” The post also presents seven other reasons why powering those facilities from shore is not a good idea.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) will independently finance, build, own, and operate a grid-scale fusion power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Dominion Energy will provide non-financial collaboration, including development and technical expertise as well as leasing rights for the proposed site.
This pioneering plant will generate 400 MW of continuous energy on 25 acres (total site is 100 acres). By comparison, Dominion Energy’s offshore wind project, which will include 176 turbines and 3 offshore substations, will intermittently produce (on average) 1092 MW (2600 MW x 0.42 capacity factor).
Gov. Youngkin emphasized that the project will be financed entirely by CFS, with no costs passed on to Dominion Energy ratepayers. (Good news for us Dominion Energy customers! 😀)
Fusion technology works by combining hydrogen isotopes — deuterium extracted from water and tritium from lithium — under extreme heat and pressure, using powerful magnets to fuse the elements. The process generates heat, which boils water to create steam that spins a turbine, producing electricity. The byproduct is helium.
Why BOE, and most everyone else, likes nuclear fusion:
Clean and sustainable power source.
Unlike traditional nuclear power plants that rely on fission, fusion replicates the energy-producing process of the sun.
Modest space requirements.
Generates four times more energy per kilogram of fuel than fission and nearly four million times more energy than burning oil or coal.
No radioactive waste
Safe energy source; no risk of a meltdown event
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that fusion technology, unlike fission, does not require a federal license.
The implications of advanced nuclear technology, not only the holy grail of fusion energy, but also modular fission reactors, for intermittent wind and solar power are substantial.Ultradeep geothermalis on a similar timeframe, and could also supersede wind and solar.
The logic behind costly offshore wind projects is therefore questionable, and the regulators better make sure that the decommissioning of these facilities is fully funded. The most likely long-term scenario is for natural gas to continue meeting most power generation needs as the nuclear and ultradeep geothermal alternatives are phased in.
More about fusion. Most of you can start at Level 3. 😉
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 