Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

And the relevance of that to the substance of the case is what? ....

The case in a nutshell is simply ..

... that's both the basis & substance of the position posed, nothing to do with supposed 'groupthink' or any other excuse which could be applied in any form of diversionary way ... it's simple, it's factual and it's as close to irrefutable as a simple analagous statement could be on the subject, so I don't really see a logical reason to refute it ...

HTH
Z

Many thanks for the compliment, as I'm definitely not known for simple (brief) statements.

An additional concern of mine, for FF investments, is that another financial dam could burst, literally any day now (or 10yrs+ away(?)) if 'the World' makes a serious announcement to limit carbon emissions.

I appreciate that that's what the Paris Accord is/does, but saying you will follow it, and committing actions to it, are different.

Once that position becomes solid, then we have the thorny issue that we can never burn more than about 20% of the known FF reserves on the books of Big Oil/Gas/Coal. Since their value reflects their reserves, we could (and I'd suggest will) see a significant reduction in their values, be it a cliff edge panic, or a steady long term declining trend, but something anyone in for the long term should consider IMO.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

There's no need to get so aggressive all the time with me just because I support RE and support support for RE.

You have your opinions, I have mine. You support GA's opinions, who likes to suggest coal emissions aren't harmful, ICEV emissions aren't harmful, and Fukushima was an over reaction, but I don't.

You clearly don't agree with divestment, that's fine, but your argument/theory has never been shown to work, that's all I was pointing out, sorry if it upsets you.

Recently you've spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to undermine my comments on the grounds I'm no green warrior, but that too was doomed to fail since I've never pretended to be, and can't hold a candle to many others on here with excellent thermal stores, or rainwater harvesting, or minimal energy imports.

What I do, partly to make up for my practical limitations on being 'greenish' is to devote some of my spare time to posting RE news, and pushing back against false negatives. That's what I do, so I apologise for past upsets I've caused you, and in advance for the many more to come, if you don't share my views, or those of the vast majority of the UK public (and dare I say World) on the need and benefits of shifting as fast as possible to a low/zero carbon economy.

BTW, if I recall correctly, it has after all been 20yrs, Mark Thomas on noting that the CoE's corporate involvement (to guide the company) had led to the opposite effect, suggested they try the !!!!!! industry next ...... :rotfl:

Here you go:

Mark Thomas Comedy Product Series 2 Episode 2 Church Money

Funnier and also more serious than I remembered. If you're seriously interested in the subject of investing in something 'bad' to change a companies direction, and have a sense of humour you'll love it. Enjoy.

Mart, as I have said previously, your input on this forum is invaluable and I respect your views but don’t necessarily agree with them. That isn’t reciprocated unfortunately because apparently my views are wrong, i.e. they don’t accord with the consensus view on this forum.


I very much appreciate you keeping us up to date with green issues. Occasionally you do post items such as the Rhode Island legal action where I feel some balance is needed. The author of that article revelled in the prospect of Big Oil getting its comeuppance and being brought to its knees so i just wanted to inject a bit of perspective.

You state that I “support GA's opinions, who likes to suggest coal emissions aren't harmful, ICEV emissions aren't harmful, and Fukushima was an over reaction,”. That is blatantly untrue. I am not aware of ever having made a comment in support of any of those arguments. What I have challenged on here is the demonisation of everything that GA posts (by Z in particular) and questioned why that occurs.

There is an old saying that “if you aren't with us then you must be against us” which I don’t subscribe to but this does seem to have been applied to me. The world isn’t black or white. It is possible to agree with some RE measures and policies but not all.

Because I don’t agree with everything you post you perceive me as being against all things green. I am not. I just don’t like on shore wind farms in certain locations. I also recognise the contribution FF has brought to our well being in the past. If this makes my views on everything else unacceptable to you then really that is a problem at your end rather than mine.

I was born and brought up in the country. I have planted more than 1000 trees on my own land. When I built my house almost 30 years ago I built it to a much higher standard of insulation than was required by building regs. I have an open fire but have not burnt any coal for more than 10 years. I have solar panels. I respect and admire those who have “greened” their homes to a much higher degree.

Let us please have a little less bluster and grandstanding and a little more tolerance on all sides.

mmmmikey

michaels wrote: »

Am I wrong in thinking that if we had one of those big Tesla batteries like they do in Aus then this probably wouldn't have happened?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49300025

Seems pretty unlikely that the two generators would have gone offline simultaneously resulting in the frequency collapse - related failure or cyber attack?

Hi, if you want to help to stop this happening again, you can do your own little bit today....

Battery systems (such as the PowerVault) with frequency response built in start disharging to the grid when the frequency drops, for which the generators pay you a handsome fee. This reduces the possibility of power outtages like yesterday, although clearly there's a long way to go until there is a sufficient battery capacity to make a difference.

1961Nick

mmmmikey wrote: »

Hi, if you want to help to stop this happening again, you can do your own little bit today....

Battery systems (such as the PowerVault) with frequency response built in start disharging to the grid when the frequency drops, for which the generators pay you a handsome fee. This reduces the possibility of power outtages like yesterday, although clearly there's a long way to go until there is a sufficient battery capacity to make a difference.

I wonder how many battery installations would be required to keep the frequency above the shutdown threshold when two generators go offline simultaneously?

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I completely follow your logic, and recognised the argument instantly, I was simply pointing out that that argument has been used for decades, but doesn't work.

The Guardian seem to believe it is working at Shell

“Anglo-Dutch giant to spend $2bn on wind power, biofuels and electric cars as it bows to shareholder pressure by setting new company climate change target”


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/28/shell-doubles-green-spending-vows-halve-carbon-footprint?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Mart, as I have said previously, your input on this forum is invaluable and I respect your views but don’t necessarily agree with them. That isn’t reciprocated unfortunately because apparently my views are wrong, i.e. they don’t accord with the consensus view on this forum.


I very much appreciate you keeping us up to date with green issues. Occasionally you do post items such as the Rhode Island legal action where I feel some balance is needed. The author of that article revelled in the prospect of Big Oil getting its comeuppance and being brought to its knees so i just wanted to inject a bit of perspective.

You state that I “support GA's opinions, who likes to suggest coal emissions aren't harmful, ICEV emissions aren't harmful, and Fukushima was an over reaction,”. That is blatantly untrue. I am not aware of ever having made a comment in support of any of those arguments. What I have challenged on here is the demonisation of everything that GA posts (by Z in particular) and questioned why that occurs.

There is an old saying that “if you aren't with us then you must be against us” which I don’t subscribe to but this does seem to have been applied to me. The world isn’t black or white. It is possible to agree with some RE measures and policies but not all.

Because I don’t agree with everything you post you perceive me as being against all things green. I am not. I just don’t like on shore wind farms in certain locations. I also recognise the contribution FF has brought to our well being in the past. If this makes my views on everything else unacceptable to you then really that is a problem at your end rather than mine.

I was born and brought up in the country. I have planted more than 1000 trees on my own land. When I built my house almost 30 years ago I built it to a much higher standard of insulation than was required by building regs. I have an open fire but have not burnt any coal for more than 10 years. I have solar panels. I respect and admire those who have “greened” their homes to a much higher degree.

Let us please have a little less bluster and grandstanding and a little more tolerance on all sides.

Tolerance from you would be nice, yes please.

Perhaps if you don't agree with some, any, all of GA's comments about RE, nuclear, or me (and others) you could say so to him, rather than defending his right to post false information, whilst you try, in more and more ways, to undermine my position. Or is it simply an oversight that you haven't disagreed with some of his extremely false claims?

You've attempted opinions are more important than facts.
You've tried the 'silly' if you aren't 100% green then you don't have a valid opinion, trick.
You've tried (for no reason I can understand) to claim I'm no eco-warrior (didn't know I was!).
You've asked for more understanding of Big Oil.
You've repeatedly struggled with the very simple comparison of Big Tobacco's actions in denying the science against cigarettes (from about the 1950's) to protect profits at the expensive of customers, despite knowing that the impact was harmful, and the identical actions of Big Oil (from about the 80's) in denying the harmful science against FF consumption. It's an obvious comparison, and I state that as a fact, not an opinion.

We don't agree, simple as that, but please, please, please don't pretend that you are trying to defend GA's right to an opinion, when over the last few weeks you've slowly but steadily revealed your thoughts on RE and the need for central government support, whilst attacking my opinions*.

We don't have to agree, but all these silly diversionary off-topic arguments only spoil the thread.


*Fun little note - One of the arguments I dismissed as being completely untrue, was the claim that the government faced a gargantuan task in convincing the public to support RE and RE support.

But have you noted how those that question my position have responded?

I pointed to 26 government surveys, collecting the opinions of ~1,000 people each time, over 6+yrs, and demonstrating an absolutely solid support from number 1 through 26, with a steady trend line of support rising, and opposition falling. I also pointed to other surveys noting the same, whilst also noting that the UK public, on average, think the subsidies are about 14x greater than they are.

How was this 'solid' information dealt with by you - you refused to provide a counter argument.

How was it responded to recently (when repeated), that they questioned what people had answered - their opinion!!!!!!!! :rotfl:

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

The Guardian seem to believe it is working at Shell

“Anglo-Dutch giant to spend $2bn on wind power, biofuels and electric cars as it bows to shareholder pressure by setting new company climate change target”


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/28/shell-doubles-green-spending-vows-halve-carbon-footprint?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Please don't get mislead by 'small' moves. When you look to percentages Big Oil is committed to research and development of new FF reserves. Also don't confuse the wishes of shareholders who can see the writing on the wall, but want their profits, so encourage the need to invest in other technology, and those that feel that FF's as a whole need to be ramped down as quickly as is possible.

So long as Big Oil is fighting against AGW science, and slow walking changes, we should not be supporting them. The Koch Brothers are infamous for the damage they have effectively caused through their campaigning and astro-turfing.

I'm no 'radical leftie' simply pointing to what we need to do, and those that are standing in the way, even whilst touting some greenwashing.


Anyways, any chance we can chat about green and ethical energy issues again please.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

You state that I “support GA's opinions, who likes to suggest coal emissions aren't harmful, ICEV emissions aren't harmful, and Fukushima was an over reaction,”. That is blatantly untrue. I am not aware of ever having made a comment in support of any of those arguments. What I have challenged on here is the demonisation of everything that GA posts (by Z in particular) and questioned why that occurs.

Apologies, I should have clarified that better.

My assumption was based on the reasonable conclusion that you must agree with everything GA says. That's based on your multiple disagreements with most of my opinions (even if fact based and supported with references).

From there I concluded, that if you were willing to spend so much time challenging anything and everything I say in support of RE on a green and ethical board/thread, then it's safe to assume that you'd be near livid about the claims made by GA, of which I've only seen a tiny few from the odd quote.

Can I assume therefore that you don't agree with what GA is posting, but are too busy 'dealing with me' (for which I sincerely apologies), or perhaps all of GA's comments now are fully supportive of RE, and never mention me in an unflattering tone? Perhaps he has placed me on ignore too, since we have diametrically opposing views on RE, nuclear and FF's?

Hope that helps to clarify things, and feel free to devote more of your time to him, instead of me, I really won't mind.


Now, let's see what joys the world of RE has to tempt me with today.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Please don't get mislead by 'small' moves. When you look to percentages Big Oil is committed to research and development of new FF reserves. Also don't confuse the wishes of shareholders who can see the writing on the wall, but want their profits, so encourage the need to invest in other technology, and those that feel that FF's as a whole need to be ramped down as quickly as is possible.

So long as Big Oil is fighting against AGW science, and slow walking changes, we should not be supporting them. The Koch Brothers are infamous for the damage they have effectively caused through their campaigning and astro-turfing.

I'm no 'radical leftie' simply pointing to what we need to do, and those that are standing in the way, even whilst touting some greenwashing.


Anyways, any chance we can chat about green and ethical energy issues again please.

Certainly. I think we have both made our respective points. I did though think that that article had it been published today would have qualified for inclusion as news as it related to a move in a green and ethical direction.

JKenH

martyn1981 wrote: »

apologies, i should have clarified that better.

My assumption was based on the reasonable conclusion that you must agree with everything ga says. That's based on your multiple disagreements with most of my opinions (even if fact based and supported with references).

From there i concluded, that if you were willing to spend so much time challenging anything and everything i say in support of re on a green and ethical board/thread, then it's safe to assume that you'd be near livid about the claims made by ga, of which i've only seen a tiny few from the odd quote.

Can i assume therefore that you don't agree with what ga is posting, but are too busy 'dealing with me' (for which i sincerely apologies), or perhaps all of ga's comments now are fully supportive of re, and never mention me in an unflattering tone? Perhaps he has placed me on ignore too, since we have diametrically opposing views on re, nuclear and ff's?

Hope that helps to clarify things, and feel free to devote more of your time to him, instead of me, i really won't mind.


now, let's see what joys the world of re has to tempt me with today. :d

Apology accepted. No one would have the time to challenge all your posts so I let a few go.:)