Opinion Climate change

Remove this Banner Ad

Lawnchair Larry said:
Due to the war in Ukraine at least one LNG tanker has arrived in Europe from Australia.

I wondered how much LNG (>90% methane) was on that ship, and what profit the oil and gas cartel were making. And how much CO2 would be generated.
What numbers do I need?
1. Volume of LNG transported on the European shipment:
174,000 cubic metres
2. Temperature of storage of LNG:
-163.5C
3. Density of LNG at -163.5C:
426kg per cubic metre (about 43% of the density of room temp water)
4. Because LNG is sold by its energy capacity in gigaJoules (10^9 Joules):
16grams LNG yields 890kJ of energy
(1kJ is10^3 Joules and converting kJ to GJ implies dividing kJ by 10^6)
5. CO2 emissions:
16grams of LNG yields 44grams of CO2

So, on that LNG tanker, using that data:
Weight of LNG: 74,124 tonnes
Energy content of that weight: 4.123mill GJ
CO2 emissions: 203,800 tonnes

Now lets get down to money making. The spot price of LNG is through the roof. Transactions are in $US, and I will assume:
Spot price: $US25 per GJ
Cost of production: $US6 per GJ
Profit: $US19 per GJ
Total profit on shipment of 4.123mill GJ:
$US78.3mill

Note that oil and gas cartel use antiquated energy units of mmBTU = 1.055GJ
Note that for transport within Asia about 6% is lost in off gases, often used to help power the ship. More will be lost in transit to Europe.
Note for simplicity I have assumed LNG is 100% methane - approximately correct

View attachment 1579829
Click to expand...

I can't see where you added the emissions involved in turning the gas from "gas " to liquid.
LNG is a terrible idea.

Many organizations that announce their emissions use a standard emission's factor for natural gas, and don't differentiate whether its LNG transported by ship, or just NG from a pipeline.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
I can't see where you added the emissions involved in turning the gas from "gas " to liquid.
LNG is a terrible idea.

Many organizations that announce their emissions use a standard emission's factor for natural gas, and don't differentiate whether its LNG transported by ship, or just NG from a pipeline.
Click to expand...
The CO2 calc is an assessment from the combustion of the load on the ship to generate the stated GJ of energy. I did the calc because this is a climate change thread, and without that calc the data didnt have much climate change relevance. Still, the amount of CO2 produced is staggering.

Agreed LNG needs to disappear quickly.

Really my post was a whinge about the exorbitant profits being made by the cartel.
Exxon Mobil have paid no/ bugger-all tax, irrespective of what they might say.

The Russians, prior to the Ukraine debacle, were shipping with LNG tankers 3-4 times the capacity of the tanker that left Australia for Europe (ie the example I have given).
 
How long until B-double trailers are walled and rooved in solar panels, with an auxiluary battery behind the cabin, in addition to the main one at the front end of the truck?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lawnchair Larry said:
How long until B-double trailers are walled and rooved in solar panels, with an auxiluary battery behind the cabin, in addition to the main one at the front end of the truck?
Click to expand...

Trucks remain a problem, they are working on electric trucks in Europe , but they don't see anywhere near the distances we do in Australia.
If they were electric what you suggested would make sense.

If it happens , I could see Prime Movers becoming longer, almost like a Van, to stow all their batteries.
They would then probably need to have stops where they can stop and switch prime movers , like they did with horses and stage coaches.

Its the same reason electric "pickups" or "utes" are an issue.
If you're a suburban legend with your big truck, hauling the groceries home from Coles, no problemo, but if you actually need to use that 1 tonne capacity or tow something significant over a long range, good luck.

Trains may become an increased option for freight.
When i was a kid, my father had a business as close as Latrobe Valley.
He often used the rail freight service, the station was across the road from the Post Office, so picking up some packages was no big deal.
Long since road couriers have become a cheaper and more convenient option.
That may easily reverse, though it would take a lot more incentive to invest capital into new railways.

That railway was originally electrified to Traralgon, but they pulled down the wires citing maintenance costs.

(( In Australia Diesel is more expensive than Petrol, because trucks are causing the majority of road damage, and roads need to be built stronger to accommodate them, the fuel excise is probably not actually paying for all of that . )).
 
1673317795860.png

This makes sense primarily because Tasmania gets 100% of its electricity from renewables so has the spare capacity to manufacture eFuel (in this case, synthetic methanol) while still being carbon neutral. I would say that eFuels will be used for performance and classic cars with ICE engines i.e. those people who still want to run V8s and whatnot.

I keep telling people that investment in technology is the solution and that once the world's industries got behind carbon reduction it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as people make out.
 
Janus said:
View attachment 1584231

This makes sense primarily because Tasmania gets 100% of its electricity from renewables so has the spare capacity to manufacture eFuel (in this case, synthetic methanol) while still being carbon neutral. I would say that eFuels will be used for performance and classic cars with ICE engines i.e. those people who still want to run V8s and whatnot.

I keep telling people that investment in technology is the solution and that once the world's industries got behind carbon reduction it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as people make out.
Click to expand...

My only issue with something like that is the fact that Hydro power in Tasmania is very finite and the population there is small. Population growth could mean that they struggle to maintain surplus Hydro power , which is always a compromise about how much gets to flow down the river or not, and whether you damn ecologically valuable areas. Why would Porsche not construct a solar facility and use that for their fuel. ( when the sun is shining).

Stuff the people with Classic cars and V8's ( who would probably be very reluctant to modify the engines for different fuels if they are true collectors ) , Electricity is not looking like a viable solution for Heavy transport over long distance, and particularly not for Aircraft.
Hydrogen via electrolysis is not new or novel.
If they pay market rates for the electricity they should be able to produce Hydrogen for the equivalent of around $2.00 /litre of petrol. ( Hydrogen has more energy per kg than Petrol ) so it all depends how fast they want to pay for their capital and much profit they want to make from that.

The Hydrogen currently sold in Canberra is equivalent $3.00-$4.00 i think.
 
EskimoPAFC said:
Carbon offsets work. We also need to reduce consumption.
Click to expand...

In a pure technical sense, yea. Not when companies just greenwash statements and don't actually follow through.

Regeneration of forests to sequester carbon is nice on a balance sheet, but we can't replace billions of years of evolution. Our natural remaining forests are many times more valuable than re-planted forests which are usually monoculture without much in the way of ecological sustainability in mind. Plantation forest is also vastly more susceptible to fire, all your "carbon offsets" up in smoke. To do proper bush regeneration is pretty expensive and a slow process.

We're far better off in the long run conserving what we have PLUS adding regeneration and dramatically reducing our consumption.
 
sobrave said:
In a pure technical sense, yea. Not when companies just greenwash statements and don't actually follow through.

Regeneration of forests to sequester carbon is nice on a balance sheet, but we can't replace billions of years of evolution. Our natural remaining forests are many times more valuable than re-planted forests which are usually monoculture without much in the way of ecological sustainability in mind. Plantation forest is also vastly more susceptible to fire, all your "carbon offsets" up in smoke. To do proper bush regeneration is pretty expensive and a slow process.

We're far better off in the long run conserving what we have PLUS adding regeneration and dramatically reducing our consumption.
Click to expand...
Pine trees made in to wood and re-planted sequester carbon pretty quickly and as long as that wood doesn't get burned it creates ongoing carbon removal.

Trees aren't the only way to sequester carbon either.

Edit: But I agree with the rest of what you've said. Changing energy sources is of course just as important as reducing consumption.
 
EskimoPAFC said:
Pine trees made in to wood and re-planted sequester carbon pretty quickly and as long as that wood doesn't get burned it creates ongoing carbon removal.

Trees aren't the only way to sequester carbon either.

Edit: But I agree with the rest of what you've said. Changing energy sources is of course just as important as reducing consumption.
Click to expand...

Purchasing "Green" energy is the other corporate rort.
Cashed up corporations pay extra for the privilege of "saying" they use green energy, but its a lie.

If the grid has 60% coal , you are using 60% coal. Its like saying you have salt free seawater.
It ignores the need for storage, as they will happily give them their virtual Solar electricity in the middle of the night.

Everyone who is not paying for it, looks like they are worse on paper.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

i live in the wettest part of Tasmania, last year we set a record for the driest January on record with 16mm. Currently halfway through the month and sitting on 0.0

so uh yeah, cool

the world heritage listed SW Wilderness hit 36.1 degrees today. tasmania has a lot of endemic cold adapted endemic speices.

this is not so good.

also, sydney was hitting almost 50 degrees a couple of years ago and just set a 140 year old record for not hitting a day above 30 degrees.

this shit is bonkers. once la nina fades, the next lot of bushfires are probably going to be even worse than when scomo decided to go on holidays.
 
sobrave said:
i live in the wettest part of Tasmania, last year we set a record for the driest January on record with 16mm. Currently halfway through the month and sitting on 0.0

so uh yeah, cool

the world heritage listed SW Wilderness hit 36.1 degrees today. tasmania has a lot of endemic cold adapted endemic speices.

this is not so good.

also, sydney was hitting almost 50 degrees a couple of years ago and just set a 140 year old record for not hitting a day above 30 degrees.

this s**t is bonkers. once la nina fades, the next lot of bushfires are probably going to be even worse than when scomo decided to go on holidays.
Click to expand...

I heard somewhere that El Nino, and La Nina are likely to be a lot more frequent.
 
edgie said:
El Nino is going to be devastating.

Water is finite, sunlight isn't.

We need to be conversing and planning years ago for what to do when the rain dies down on the mainland.
Click to expand...

What is there to do? You build dams you lose your environmental flows, in a drought it's gonna evaporate out of there anyway. More desal plants?
 
edgie said:
El Nino is going to be devastating.

Water is finite, sunlight isn't.

We need to be conversing and planning years ago for what to do when the rain dies down on the mainland.
Click to expand...

It's climate "change" so it means some areas could become wetter.
Despite all the experts i don't think anyone really has a clue what the change will entail yet.
 
sobrave said:
What is there to do? You build dams you lose your environmental flows, in a drought it's gonna evaporate out of there anyway. More desal plants?
Click to expand...
Last time this happened environmental flows were overdone, resulting in dry lakes, resulting in no environmental flows. Five years of water supply in menindee was gone in two. Poor water management. The issues when there's an abundance of water beyond what the natural system can handle, what are we doing with it? Hopefully going forward policies and investment are more sustainable than before, numerous ideas are out there.

SaintsSeptember said:
It's climate "change" so it means some areas could become wetter.
Despite all the experts i don't think anyone really has a clue what the change will entail yet.
Click to expand...

Some areas can afford to become 'dryer', now in Aus we are seeing many dry areas enjoying 'wet' which is having amazing effects on biodiversity, but it will be death when it dries up again.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
It's climate "change" so it means some areas could become wetter.
Despite all the experts i don't think anyone really has a clue what the change will entail yet.
Click to expand...

The long term forecasts for my part of the world predict rainfall to stay pretty similar, in contrast to most places drying out. However that might mean more heavy downpour events and less consistent rain, which isn't great either.

The La Nina years have meant extreme dry on the west, but the eastern side of the island has been very wet.

Last I heard there is a chance we bounce straight from La Nina into an El Nino.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Should anyone find photographs of the above event , please refrain from posting.
Click to expand...
Please pm me directly with them though...

Tim And Eric Smile GIF
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Climate change

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top