Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The difference between us Martin, is that I don't carry any guilt for what we may have done in the past. That's history as far as I am concerned & we cannot change it.

I carry no guilt, but I accept responsibility, as should we all.

1961Nick wrote: »

We contribute 1% to current global emissions & that figure is decreasing as global economic activity increases. Whatever we do, our actions cannot therefore amount to any more than a fairy insignificant 1%....assuming we can get to zero.

Yes I have agreed with the 1% figure from the start. It was your attempt to misuse it to reduce the UK's cumulative contribution by 80% that I disagreed with. And then your attempt to suggest that 'experts' were in dispute over it being 1% or 4%, when again, the figure is 5%, no dispute, and a reference was provided.

Regarding your claim that our actions won't amount to anything - that's 100% false, and sadly (again) an argument I see repeatedly from the denialist camp.

If the UK is responsible for 1% of emissions, and we have 1% of the population, then our actions are clearly as important as the global average. To not do our part is to deny and ignore our responsibility. Going back to the issue of guilt, I would feel guilty if I / the UK did not accept its responsibility going forward.

1961Nick wrote: »

Your assertions about the cost of the UK not going "low carbon" mystify me. How can this be true if 99% of the carbon in our atmosphere originates elsewhere? This is the sort of nonsense you normally hear from our politicians...usually when they want to increase tax on something.

It shouldn't mystify you, I thought it was an entirely well known and accepted fact.

And your argument is again a misleading trick, somehow assuming no other countries are acting, or the £1tn cost is global, not UK based?

How about if we theoretically claim that the global cost is £100tn, and the UK spends £1tn to remove our part, does that help? Do you now understand why [STRIKE]spending[/STRIKE] investing £1tn is our national responsibility?

As to your politicians comment, this is backwards and actually destroys your argument. If the cost of inaction was less, or even marginally similar to the cost of action, then you can bet your last penny that they would advocate for no change - rocking the boat and taxes have never been vote winning arguments.

1961Nick wrote: »

I have nothing against being "green & ethical", but I'm not going to be blinkered about the impact we can make. The biggest difference will come by virtue of the fact that FF are running out. That will force us to turn to renewables & probably hydrogen as a high density liquid fuel for energy storage. When we have a viable solution to the energy storage problem, a future with 100% renewable energy is likely....and desirable.

Yep, totally agree, but you are now supporting my earlier argument that the 'cost' of changing to RE is not a cost but actually simply an expense/investment. It replaces expenditure on something else (such as FF's), and has to be done anyway ....... so it's not a cost then is it in the sense of being above and beyond normal expenditure?

1961Nick wrote: »

I don't need a scientific citation for my comments about BEVs. I last changed my car 2 years ago & they were the numbers at that time. Admittedly the Tesla Model 3 (Performance pack) brings those numbers closer, but a diesel is still considerably cheaper for me at the moment. I will make the change to electric when the numbers get closer to parity. A charging point in the car park I use would help that decision as well!

I'm sorry that's not good enough. You specifically challenged my claim that owning and operating a BEV did not incur additional costs. You stated that for a high mileage driver a BEV was twice as expensive.

I've never heard such claims. I provided a citation showing the exact opposite of what you have claimed (btw it's for the standard range plus car, not the high performance model as you've claimed). And now on two occasions you have failed/declined to support your claim.

Do you dispute/challenge the figures in the link I've given? Could they be far enough out to bring the BEV costs up to those of the ICE? Could they be so, so far out as to bring the BEV costs up to twice that of the ICE?

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts, that's why I back up my statements with the facts on which they based. Denying the need for a citation is I would suggest in a debate, even worse than failing to provide one originally, or when asked.

1961Nick wrote: »

Btw, 420ppm is well below the optimum for plant life as a whole.

As I said earlier, I suspected you were going down the 'CO2 is plant food' denialist route.

Sadly such claims are based on optimum conditions, such as those where plants are grown in greenhouses with additional CO2 pumped in.

However all the deniers I have debated this with (on other forums) fail to note that the artificial environment of a greenhouse also provides for optimum sunlight, heat and water, all of which can be controlled.

In 'the real world', as CO2 levels rise crop production also has to compete with higher peak temperatures, and water shortages.


TBH I'm really not interested in debating the benefits of more CO2, I'd class that as 'feeding the trolls'. Science, physics, facts and reality have concluded that AGW is a 'bad thing' that will have 'bad' results on flora and fauna*.

*To pre-empt counter arguments, I accept that some flora and fauna may benefit, but the net change is an undisputed negative.

The same can be argued for some countries who may receive a net benefit, possibly Canada and Russia due to the shifting climate. The US as a whole is a large net loser, though some of the most northerly contiguous 48 states may benefit, as might Alaska, but the losses from the other states will greatly outweigh and gains.

But on the whole the net result is a massive negative.

1961Nick

Martyn,
I'm exiting this discussion before you make it any more personal.

For the record, I'm definitely not a denialist.....but I'm also not delusional about what can & should be done about it.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Martyn,
I'm exiting this discussion before you make it any more personal.

For the record, I'm definitely not a denialist.....but I'm also not delusional about what can & should be done about it.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't believe I made it personal, and was actually making an effort not to respond in kind to the false claims you made about me:
- living in the past
- accepting any cost
given that I had explained all aspects in detail as I went along.

The problem we have here is that I've heard all of this many, many times before, admittedly not so much lately as most of these claims date back perhaps a decade or more, and have been dying out on forums since 2015(ish). Hence why I dismiss them so casually. The fact that they can not be supported, or are only ever supported with pseudo science or non-peer reviewed papers, is/was there downfall.

To raise them on a green and ethical energy thread, on a green and ethical board makes no sense to me, we should have moved past this, way past this, and to be honest, I'm pretty tired of it too since the arguments/debates are a zero sum game, anyone who doesn't accept the existence, cause, existing and impending costs of AGW today, probably never will, so butting heads has no value.

And to conclude in a similar vein to you, I didn't say you were a denialist, I only pointed out that the arguments you were raising were old denialist ones, so easily recognizable that I was even able to start predicting them in advance. As to whether or not you (or I) are delusional, whose to say, but supporting claims, costs, facts, figures and beliefs with citations is, I believe, key to such debates - for example your 2x costs for BEV ownership based on personal thoughts, v's hard data based analytical research/reviews claiming the opposite. If we want people to see us one way or the other, then it's really down to us, and how we present/support our thoughts and opinions.

Please don't take it personally, I would forcefully but politely rebuke such comments whoever made them, and will endeavor to hold the line where necessary, in the future. But as we now start to shift towards net cost benefits, I hope any future occurrences will grow fewer.

All the best, and thanks for the 'y', though I don't really mind either way, Mart will do just fine.

Martyn1981

Here's good ole Al Gore to the rescue, I have to admire his spirit, and can only hope he lives long enough to start to see things improve significantly as the foundations have, thankfully, already been laid. [If the Secret Service are monitoring this, I mean foundations for fighting AGW ..... not 'removing' Mr Gore!]

And, as I keep harping on, and on, and on (sorry), it looks like economics will come to the rescue, long before morality reaches those rich men at the top.

'Change is coming': Al Gore says economics will break fossil fuel dinosaurs

“The United States and Australia have some things in common,” he told Guardian Australia in Brisbane. “Both have national governments that are in thrall to the dirty fossil industries of the past.

“Both have dynamic business communities which are impatient with the obsolete ideas of governments that are dominated by special interests in one sector of the economy and both are experiencing the benefits of the sustainability revolution.

“Electricity from solar and wind continues to drop rapidly [in price] and no lobbyist is going to be able to change that. They can’t make coal clean and they can’t make renewables go away.

“So, they are kind of in the position of Wily E Coyote whose legs are moving furiously, even as he goes off the cliff, waiting for the pull of gravity to pull him down into the canyon below. That is an oft-used visual metaphor but it is appropriate here.”

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't believe I made it personal, and was actually making an effort not to respond in kind to the false claims you made about me:
- living in the past
- accepting any cost
given that I had explained all aspects in detail as I went along.

The problem we have here is that I've heard all of this many, many times before, admittedly not so much lately as most of these claims date back perhaps a decade or more, and have been dying out on forums since 2015(ish). Hence why I dismiss them so casually. The fact that they can not be supported, or are only ever supported with pseudo science or non-peer reviewed papers, is/was there downfall.

To raise them on a green and ethical energy thread, on a green and ethical board makes no sense to me, we should have moved past this, way past this, and to be honest, I'm pretty tired of it too since the arguments/debates are a zero sum game, anyone who doesn't accept the existence, cause, existing and impending costs of AGW today, probably never will, so butting heads has no value.

And to conclude in a similar vein to you, I didn't say you were a denialist, I only pointed out that the arguments you were raising were old denialist ones, so easily recognizable that I was even able to start predicting them in advance. As to whether or not you (or I) are delusional, whose to say, but supporting claims, costs, facts, figures and beliefs with citations is, I believe, key to such debates - for example your 2x costs for BEV ownership based on personal thoughts, v's hard data based analytical research/reviews claiming the opposite. If we want people to see us one way or the other, then it's really down to us, and how we present/support our thoughts and opinions.

Please don't take it personally, I would forcefully but politely rebuke such comments whoever made them, and will endeavor to hold the line where necessary, in the future. But as we now start to shift towards net cost benefits, I hope any future occurrences will grow fewer.

All the best, and thanks for the 'y', though I don't really mind either way, Mart will do just fine.

It might not seem like it, but I actually admire you enthusiasm for these issues. My interests are economics, politics & environment, which inevitably leads to a different slant on what is likely to happen & what can realistically be achieved.

The problem with the BEV, was the high initial cost & the reluctance of anybody to underwrite the residual value of a very high mileage example. The cost of ownership was 80% more than the vehicle I eventually bought. Your link did prompt me to have a look at the Tesla website again and I'm encouraged that the Model 3 (with performance pack for the awd), would meet my requirements. It will get careful consideration in 18 months time...assuming Tesla manage to remain in business of course - They really do need to start making some money because the tolerance of investors isn't finite.

Serious question - What do you think are the actual consequences of the UK not doing anything about GW compared to reducing our net emissions to zero?

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

... Your link did prompt me to have a look at the Tesla website again and I'm encouraged that the Model 3 (with performance pack for the awd), would meet my requirements. It will get careful consideration in 18 months time...assuming Tesla manage to remain in business of course - They really do need to start making some money because the tolerance of investors isn't finite ...

Hi

I don't really follow this - you're currently using a diesel and your next car requirements necessitate the performance of an extreme sports vehicle or even a supercar, yet missing that at £60k the Tesla in question is almost certainly classified as an absolute steal compared to anything with anywhere near a similar level of performance with the added advantage of being able to drop down the back seats and carry a decent amount of rubbish to the tip .... so, why not look to save £10k & consider the long range AWD as <5seconds on 0-60 would list alongside top spec performance vehicles at a similar price, have far lower emissions and far-far lower running costs ... then again, the standard model isn't exactly slow and would both be a further 20% lighter on the pocket and likely outperform almost any diesel vehicle costing less that 50% more ....

Don't worry too much about real investors, I think they understand the long term vision far better than those looking to make multiple quick returns through inducing market volatility ... Tesla are quite a few steps ahead of their competition at the moment and are at a stage where technology innovation, economies of scale, continuous improvement and further vertical consolidation are benefiting both their unit bottom line and pre-reinvestment earnings ... the next set of quarterly figures look to be interesting as they will include higher margin export sales, the one after adds considerable emissions credits income, then the one after that likely includes early production in China - by this time next year shorting stock on the brand will probably be recognised as a very risky strategy ...

HTH
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I don't really follow this - you're currently using a diesel and your next car requirements necessitate the performance of an extreme sports vehicle or even a supercar, yet missing that at £60k the Tesla in question is almost certainly classified as an absolute steal compared to anything with anywhere near a similar level of performance with the added advantage of being able to drop down the back seats and carry a decent amount of rubbish to the tip .... so, why not look to save £10k & consider the long range AWD as <5seconds on 0-60 would list alongside top spec performance vehicles at a similar price, have far lower emissions and far-far lower running costs ... then again, the standard model isn't exactly slow and would both be a further 20% lighter on the pocket and likely outperform almost any diesel vehicle costing less that 50% more ....

Don't worry too much about real investors, I think they understand the long term vision far better than those looking to make multiple quick returns through inducing market volatility ... Tesla are quite a few steps ahead of their competition at the moment and are at a stage where technology innovation, economies of scale, continuous improvement and further vertical consolidation are benefiting both their unit bottom line and pre-reinvestment earnings ... the next set of quarterly figures look to be interesting as they will include higher margin export sales, the one after adds considerable emissions credits income, then the one after that likely includes early production in China - by this time next year shorting stock on the brand will probably be recognised as a very risky strategy ...

HTH
Z

The current diesel is <5 secs to 60mph, awd, 50mpg & has 5 doors. The model 3 looks as if it may be a consideration in 18 months time if the maths work. Does that help?

I can’t think of any car maker that isn’t a risky investment at the moment. One that continually burns cash must be toward the top of that pile.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

It might not seem like it, but I actually admire you enthusiasm for these issues. My interests are economics, politics & environment, which inevitably leads to a different slant on what is likely to happen & what can realistically be achieved.

My interests too are economics, politics and the environment. As I have stated repeatedly, and the response to Mr Hammond from No10 has too, is that looking only at costs, not benefits, gives a false slant on investments.

1961Nick wrote: »

Serious question - What do you think are the actual consequences of the UK not doing anything about GW compared to reducing our net emissions to zero?

I'm sorry, but that question looks to be composed in a similar vein to earlier comments, and is therefore a false premise from the outset.

The consequences (not my thoughts, but the accepted science) of AGW, based on existing CO2 ppm's is for both enormous environmental and economic impact.

The consequences based on CO2 ppm's if/when the world hits net zero additions in 2050 is far worse.

The consequences based on net zero by 2050, and a removal of some CO2 between 2050-2100, is for 1.5C warming once the lag catches up with CO2 levels. This is the scenario that the Paris Accord is based on. +1.5C is thought to be a point were it's more likely that runaway AGW won't happen, but a significant risk still exists.

All of these consequences have been laid out in detail, and it's not for me to defend them on a thread/board such as this.

So the impact of the UK and all other countries of not doing anything is estimated to take warming past 4C, it might actually be more.

There is no plan for the UK to act on its own, and that is already clear as most countries around the world are already [STRIKE]spending[/STRIKE] investing. Some like the UK with high per capita emissions are starting to reduce emissions, some like China and India that are still growing their middle class are reducing their emission growth, and will never reach per capita levels that the UK, US and EU countries have reached.

To repeat earlier comments, the cost of action is less than the cost of inaction, so therefore inaction is actually the more expensive and fiscally irresponsible course to take.

Thank you for admiring my enthusiasm, but to be fair, environmental enthusiasm is no longer necessary when debating costs and cost benefits, just cold-hearted economics, as one option is cheaper than the other, plus as we are finding out already, RE is cheaper than FF generation, BEV's are unstoppable as a cheaper form of transport, etc ...... and in that FF's have a finite life, and we are simply moving sooner into a reality that we would have embraced anyway.

We (the UK) can't escape the costs, nor our responsibility, and it would be morally wrong to even try.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

the next set of quarterly figures look to be interesting as they will include higher margin export sales, the one after adds considerable emissions credits income, then the one after that likely includes early production in China - by this time next year shorting stock on the brand will probably be recognised as a very risky strategy ...

HTH
Z

Hiya, all up in the air of course, but there's a reasonable chance that Q4 won't just be early production for China, but might enter into 'significant' production, as the Shanghai Gigafactory is running ahead of schedule and might start limited production in Q3.

Just a possibility, not a personal prediction.

And the 'free money' from FCA does make me chuckle ...... as the big boys who've criticised Tesla for years, will end up helping to fund them due to their inaction. Emphasis on savings from inaction, without considering the later costs of said inaction.

Martyn1981

Germany just keeps pushing those RE levels up:

Germany's power was 50.7% renewable in May

There is the downside that they still burn a hell of a lot of coal and lignite, a lot of the generation now getting exported, due to corporate, union and political pressure supporting the coal industry, but step by step.