Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ABrass

This is a huge thread that's been going for years. Little meandering discussions off the original topic are normal.

My personal vote is that it might be best for all concerned to try to reign it in and leave it for a more appropriate thread.

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Previously, many of the oldies, lived with 10yrs of anti-PV posts, many every day calling the support 'immoral', from one nuclear supporter, and my personal views on demand side PV was falsely misrepresented for 5+yrs before that nuclear supporter was reined in by MSE. Though he still pops on to 'thank' posts (such as yours a while back) that argue against me.
.

Ah yes, I remember. No names, no pack drill...


But as this is a thread for news, not wild musings, I thought this was an interesting viewpoint. I certainly won't be investing in oil or coal myself..


https://investors-corner.bnpparibas-am.com/investment-themes/sri/petrol-eroci-petroleum-age/

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

If seeing racially and religiously intolerant posts, the best approach is to click the Report button rather than to engage with the poster. It does work, and if such posts continue after the account in question has been warned, then their account will be disabled. Which will slow them down at the very least.

I have some sympathy with those who have mentioned that putting a poster on ignore is not then best followed up by mentioning that one has done so. However I also have some sympathy with the viewpoint that making others aware of the option, helps to keep the forum useable. Likewise I understand the encouragement not to quote a poster that most others have put on ignore, but I sometimes just feel like it ... just as some of those who've mentioned having the poster on ignore, then also engage enthusiastically in discussions of the ideas that poster has put forward ...

The poster to whom many currently object has more recently started separate threads to discuss the ideas they have (one or two threads about self-driving cars and one or two threads about fission-powered shared heating, or something like that), and in my opinion that is to be encouraged, because those interested can discuss those ideas in those separate threads, hopefully keeping such discussion out of threads like this one where they are off topic.

The history (prior to your arrival) was to spread false information against renewables on the Energy Board, and in favour of nuclear, fracking and coal.

In one instance where false claims about the cost of leccy supply was finally abandoned, the poster then deleted 100+ posts (Z estimates twice that) before denying any such posts. This was when folk started to simply ignore that profile, so we then got the new profile on the G&E boards, and posts that led to a 'hard ignore' by many.

Philosophical arguments about the value of opinions supporting non-green tech, that are fundamentally flawed both economically and scientifically, on a Green & Ethical board/thread, seem somewhat pointless to me.

Please don't misunderstand my (nor others) actions here. I'm more than happy to discuss the technology and provide facts and citations to back up my position, and why it has changed over time, in line with the economics of RE, and the advances in RE supportive technology.

But, I've done that, been there, got the t-shirt, with this individual, so when I see the same false and inflammatory claims still being made on a green energy thread (such as renewable energy leading to a lowering of living standards), then I'm going to speak out. Please don't assume my (or others) actions are typical, it's simply a matter of time (and history). Also, perhaps I'm simply getting too old, to repeat the same game, over and over, with the same poster ....... what's that definition about insanity?

Hope this makes sense, and remember the rule about walking a mile in someone's shoes before judging their actions. After all, if you still disagree with my (or others) motives, then at least you're now a safe distance away, and have a free pair of shoes.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

While many on this forum would be delighted to see the sudden demise of Big Oil the world is not quite ready for that. I suspect most people celebrating this will still be filling their cars up with petrol or diesel tomorrow. For most people there is simply no alternative.

Big Oil has for the last 100 years been one of the main drivers of prosperity in most developed countries. Imagine what public sentiment would have been had the industry thrown its hands up in the air in the sixties and said we cannot with a clean conscious continue to produce oil.

We have had all the benefits for the last 60 years and now want to crucify the industry for producing what we all wanted.

Can anyone honestly say that the world now would be a better place if the US companies that constitute much of Big Oil had shut up shop as soon as they reportedly became aware of the potential impact on climate?

I think that's a strawman argument.

We are where we are, and nobody is calling for a big oil 'ban' today. What we need is a sensible, but rapid shift away from FF's.

The same applies to big oil shutting up shop as soon as they became aware of the AGW issue (I believe their internal reports confirmed AGW and the serious impact of it, in the 80's). What we needed then, was rapid action to reduce the serious impact of FF burning - but sadly those companies then began a long and enormous mis-information campaign against AGW DESPITE knowing the truth.

Prior to their campaign, there was no serious campaign against AGW, in fact it was well accepted (as was Margaret Thatcher's speech to the UN General Assembly).

I feel the same about coal. The industrial revolution, powered by coal, has given us the lifestyles we now enjoy. Coal is not evil, nor are those that used it to make the World 'better'. But once we realised the true cost, we needed to change direction, not kill off coal, but thank it, and offer it a pleasant retirement.

Hysteria about ending FF's today is not constructive. What I want, is for the UK (and all other) governments to shift policies to allow me to choose alternatives to FF's. I can't change the industry as an individual, so governments need to do this as quickly as possible, rather than as slow as possible (circa 1980-2010).

Move us to EV's, and I can get an EV. Move us to heat pumps, or bio-gas, and I can move away from FF heating. Use carbon taxing to increase the price of goods and services to one that actually reflects their true cost - after all, we should be paying a fair price, not ripping off the generations to come, shouldn't we?

Martyn1981

ABrass wrote: »

This is a huge thread that's been going for years. Little meandering discussions off the original topic are normal.

My personal vote is that it might be best for all concerned to try to reign it in and leave it for a more appropriate thread.

Or a more appropriate Board, since the promotion of nuclear, fracking and coal, and the denial of the health impacts of coal burning or ICEV emissions does not seem, to me, to be green or ethical?

As per my response to Hexane, there is a very long history here, we are not being offensive, we are playing defense. Those that like to stir and upset G&E threads are more numerous than you'd think, but typically move on after a while ...... unless defended by some that might not know the whole story.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

What I want, is for the UK (and all other) governments to shift policies to allow me to choose alternatives to FF's. I can't change the industry as an individual, so governments need to do this as quickly as possible, rather than as slow as possible (circa 1980-2010).

Move us to EV's, and I can get an EV. Move us to heat pumps, or bio-gas, and I can move away from FF heating.

Mart, you are perfectly free to choose alternatives to !!!!!!. What is stopping you getting an EV or a heat pump? Other members on this forum have already gone down that route. What is it you want the government to do that would make you buy or lease an EV - substantial grants are already in place?

If every one who was genuinely concerned about AGW “put their money where their mouth is” (not particularly polite but apposite) the cost of renewables would already have fallen and we would be much further down the road.

JKenH

There was an interesting article in today’s Daily Telegraph which sheds some light on why the musings of Great Ape cause such condemnation.

Here is an extract

The US psychologist Jonathan Haidt has shown how progressives particularly struggle to comprehend the motives of conservatives; he found that, when asked to think as their opponents do, conservatives answered moral questions as the liberal would have done, yet liberals were unable to perform the reverse exercise. This tendency to mischaracterise perhaps explains progressives’ heightened fear of ending up on the losing side – since your opponents must have the worst of intentions – and why many seek solace in forms of “in-group love” like the Twitter hashtag #FBPE (“follow back, pro EU”).



The full article is available here.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/eco-zealots-hardline-remainers-driven-feelings-not-facts/

ed110220

JKenH wrote: »

Mart, you are perfectly free to choose alternatives to !!!!!!. What is stopping you getting an EV or a heat pump? Other members on this forum have already gone down that route. What is it you want the government to do that would make you buy or lease an EV - substantial grants are already in place?

If every one who was genuinely concerned about AGW “put their money where their mouth is” (not particularly polite but apposite) the cost of renewables would already have fallen and we would be much further down the road.

This is a classic pro-FF apologist line. Individuals can do a bit, but ultimately it's government policies and regulations that drive a large part of the change. For example I always chose all-renewable electricity tariffs, have invested money in renewable energy and upgraded my house with insulation and more efficient lighting and appliances to save money. But it's government that decides whether say on-shore wind energy is permitted or blocked, whether nuclear power stations are built or not etc.

As for EVs I'd love to get one but I don't have any off street parking to install a charger so one of those that's available reasonably affordably second hand wouldn't be suitable as the range would be too short (with say a 64 kWh Hyundai Kona EV or Kia Niro I'd only have to charge up once per week and so it wouldn't be such an issue). I have asked my employer if they would install charges or just let me charge up at work (they have an outdoor socket) but the answer is no. Again, government regulation would help if there was a requirement to allow charging at work car parks. The supply of EVs is also in many cases driven by regulations, with manufacturers only importing enough to meet emissions regulations. If these were tightened, the supply of EVs would be increased and more and cheaper second hand EVs would filter down to people who can't afford the ~ £500/month PCP rates of the newer longer range EVs.

Basically people should do as individuals what they can, but it's not a substitute for policies to phase out fossil fuels.

JKenH

I was looking at EVs last week and there was a 64 plate Nissan Leaf at my local dealer with an owned battery, 21k miles for less than £10k.

michaels

I think their is a correlation between our standard of living and energy usage which currently largely also equates to ff usage. Thus at the moment to be greener we need to consume less = a lower standard of living.

This works for the economy as a whole just as it works for the individual. Electric cars are more efficient but cost more, switching to heat pumps uses less energy but costs more for installation and running costs.

Yes over time we can get greener without being worse off but right now there is a cost that most are not willing to pay. [I suspect the reason is that psychologically we discount the future more than our offspring would like us to]