Fossil Fuel Is Dead! Long Live Fossil Fuel! -- October 29, 2020

Not a day goes by that the mainstream media doesn't print stories fed by the globalists about the demise of fossil fuel. 

I think most folks following this story know what's really going on. 

30-second elevator speech: 

Before 2007, it appeared that OPEC would control the availability and the price of oil. The US would be a loser.The shale revolution upset the "apple cart" as they say. From 2010 on, the globalists began to take steps to stop the surging US shale industry. Part of that effort was a massive propaganda program to convince Americans fossil fuel was dead. 

Actions speak louder than words (speaking of which: BP has been marketing "green" for years; most recently, it appears they are doing more "talking" than "acting." Most recently, their earnings improved only because of their fossil fuel activity, not their "green" activity). 

From September 29, 2020, WSJ: BP, investors remain wary. 

Which brings us to this. From a reader.

• FYI, article from Platts - October 29,  a two-minute read
• describes the just-held conference in SE Asia
• a slew of massive Gas-To-Power projects have been announced
• from Hai Phong, Son My, Lung An, to Bac Lieu ...
• totaling almost 15,000 megawatt capacity (comparable to all of New England's routine consumption)
• much of this construction has started with start ups expected  in 2024 or thereabouts
• Comment from the reader:
• setting aside the profound strategic implications vis a vis China/US current trade status,  these projects display the potential for long range US LNG growth, 
• electrification of far flung locations, and - not least - 
• the confluence of several technologies (FSRUs, for one), that will continue to have enormous impact in energy, economic,  and socio-political affairs far off into the future.

*****************************
NGCC

By the way, did anyone else see this?

I'm not sure what to make of this. Will spend some time on this later. Later: see updates below the graphic. 

Link here. 

 What does this mean? Link here. 

A reader explains it very, very succinctly:

If you go to the EIA site, the October 26 article (3 minute read), that accompanies that tweet briefly explains the huge benefits of a low hest rate/kilowatt generated.

Essentially, it is a measure of efficiency, specifically, how little fuel (natgas, in this case) needs to be burned in order to generate 1 kilowatt of electricity.

Lower is better.

Newer Combined Cycles are kicking butt. 

When paired with abundant, cheap fuel, this approach offers a formidable pathway for cheap, reliable electricity.

Going to the EIA link:

Recent installations of natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) power blocks, which are sets of generators that operate together by recovering waste heat from combustion turbines and use it to generate steam that powers one or more steam turbines, demonstrate lower heat rates and higher capacity factors. 

Capacity factor (the ratio of the actual output of a generator to its theoretical maximum output over a period of time) is a metric that indicates the frequency and duration of generator dispatch. 

Heat rate is the ratio of energy consumed (in British thermal units [Btu]) to generation (in kilowatthours [kWh]) and is a metric of generation efficiency. 

Generators that are more efficient use less fuel and tend to run at higher capacity factors because of their lower cost of operation. 

This relationship is evident in the [above] chart, which shows that the capacity factors for newer NGCC power blocks, particularly those delivered in the past five years, are higher than average and their heat rates are lower than average.