Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

I am grateful you have posted as it has made me take a step back and realise this type of exchange on a forum is not edifying. I shall not continue the exchange.

With this I will bow out too and intend to delete this account (if possible) if not I'll randomly generated a password I can't recover. I hope not to return to this part of the forum for quite some time (hopefully months if not years)

As someone somewhat prone to obsess it's better to obsess on things that are productive and this really isn't

So I bid you all adieu

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Mart, your answer to any argument you can’t legitimately counter is to ascribe it to a FF apologist.

A few posts back you said we are where we are. I agree.

Whatever happened in the past happened, blaming Big Oil for something they did 30 years ago won’t magically solve today’s problems or relieve us individually of our responsibilities. Spreading good RE news does not solve the problem either and I am disappointed that you feel it is sufficient to absolve you for your failure to do enough on a practical level. Every litre of fuel you burn adds at least 100g of CO2 to the atmosphere. You are directly contributing to the problem just as I am. It is in our gift not to use FF but we continue to do so. You justify it by claiming the oil companies could have and should have done more 30 years ago. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

But you are openly apologising for the actions of the FF companies.

And have at every turn tried to spin away from their actions. You've tried to suggest it was just one company, not multiple industries. You've tried talking about WWII. And now, you are again referring to actions 30yrs ago, when they are still doing it.

Their deliberate mis-information campaigns, and science denial, and then fake claims that scientists don't agree (something Nick repeated recently) has been the main cause for us carrying on 'as normal' probably for 30yrs longer than we should.

Please note the comments from Ed and Z too please on this matter. Nobody (well very few) will buy what you are trying to sell here.

So please don't apologies for their actions and complain about being called an apologist at the same time.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

That might be a little simplistic. Yes, we may get there eventually but it will be a very bumpy ride and there may be a lot of hardship on the way. As things are we simply cannot manage without FF either at a nation state level or an individual level.

Correct, we can't transition today. However, had the FF industries not lied and misled, we may have now been able today, that's the price of losing 30yrs. And it's not just the time, we're adding more CO2 every year to the pot, when we should have reducing it, and could have.

As Z points out, once funding was directed into alternative technologies their costs tumbled, much praise should go to Germany and Italy for their early and large scale subsidy support.

So lot of hardship ahead, yes. But there could have been far less but for the FF industries that you absolve of guilt.

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry Mart, that is a little naive.

Or it's simple and honest for those of us that don't apologise for the actions of the FF industries. It may even be illegal if denying AGW has propped up their share values, we'll have to see what the courts conclude.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

When “British Wind” pays a dividend equal to that of British Petroleum, the investment will naturally shift towards RE. Nothing needs to be ‘done’, it will just happen so there’s no need to fret about big oil.

I couldn't make sense of that at first, then remembered that you have tried a number of AGW denial arguments in the past (CO2 good for crops, UK doesn't have a moral responsibility to act, UK only responsible for 1% of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere when it's actually 5%, scientsis don't agree on the 5% figure (you actually said 4%!)).

So, to explain RE support in a nutshell.

It will happen naturally over time, thanks to normal market forces, but we (the world) have supported it artificially via subsidies to speed up it's deployment as we are facing a simply terrible result from the CO2 emitted and still to be emitted.


BTW, I thought wind paid a dividend via the Royal Estate, and (as has been seen elsewhere in Europe), when it goes subsidy free, the government will offer locations at a fee, a licence, so it will raise monies.

Plus of course, whilst you concentrate on money from oil, you fail to account for the externality costs of burning FF's.

Martyn1981

Solarchaser wrote: »

I think it's safe to say the arguement of unless you are selling everything you own to buy an EV, then you are not green enough to talk about green issues will be laughed at by the vast majority of users of this forum.... and to persist with it, just takes your own rating, down a few more pegs.

I've lurked on this board for a couple of years, drawn here by the domestic battery thread.
Several times I've seen what looks like a logical argument be ripped apart by the Z and M tag team, sometimes I feel, A little too vociferously.

But when I see the utter BS in the last couple of pages of this thread, I do indeed start to understand why it's so vociferously done.

Thank you for your kind comments. Issues like this do pop up every now and then, but blow over as the base for the argument is non existent (AGW denial, FF apologies etc etc).

I have no interest in a green willy waving contest, as such childish games are ..... well ...... childish.

I don't recommend you go back and read all again, but hopefully you will see that I start off trying to engage and providing facts, figures and citations. But when I spot that the point of challenge is not to learn, but to disrupt threads and spread false info, then I do push back.

On this occasion I think most concluded I was pushing back too hard, but as posts have continued, I now believe I'm fully vindicated.

Plus, many of the posts are now getting thanked by a decade long RE subsidy hater, who deliberately hid his support for nuclear (subsidy hypocrite anyone?) Whenever I see him arrive, I instantly know I'm on the right side of history.

Funny old game isn't it.

Hopefully we can back to RE news soon, rather than AGW denial, FF apologies, and offensive green waggling!

Martyn1981

Not new news, as it's been an on-going situation in Germany, but on-shore wind is struggling a bit due to permitting and policy issues.

So auctions are seeing high prices and low volume. I suppose the good news is that off-shore wind is rapidly getting cheaper.

I think I said 5yrs+ ago, that PV in the UK would never get as cheap as on-shore wind, but it's giving it a go, and off-shore wind is simply killing it.

Shows what a little support can achieve, what an incredible decade this has been, so far.

German Onshore Wind Tender Fails Again

pile-o-stone

Solarchaser wrote: »

I think it's safe to say the arguement of unless you are selling everything you own to buy an EV, then you are not green enough to talk about green issues will be laughed at by the vast majority of users of this forum.... and to persist with it, just takes your own rating, down a few more pegs.

I've lurked on this board for a couple of years, drawn here by the domestic battery thread.
Several times I've seen what looks like a logical argument be ripped apart by the Z and M tag team, sometimes I feel, A little too vociferously.

But when I see the utter BS in the last couple of pages of this thread, I do indeed start to understand why it's so vociferously done.

I could not agree more with what you have typed, especially the first part as the resident troll aimed that sort of laughable attack at me when I mentioned to Mart that I had a diesel car (bought when we were encouraged by government to buy them to reduce CO2) and I wanted to replace it with an EV when funds allow.

When I say laughable, I mean it because GA's comments literally made me laugh. I do however feel an underlying sadness for GA and people like him as their arguments and nasty digs invariably reveal them to be unhappy people with generally a depressing and negative outlook on life.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I couldn't make sense of that at first, then remembered that you have tried a number of AGW denial arguments in the past (CO2 good for crops, UK doesn't have a moral responsibility to act, UK only responsible for 1% of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere when it's actually 5%, scientsis don't agree on the 5% figure (you actually said 4%!)).

So, to explain RE support in a nutshell.

It will happen naturally over time, thanks to normal market forces, but we (the world) have supported it artificially via subsidies to speed up it's deployment as we are facing a simply terrible result from the CO2 emitted and still to be emitted.

I get the feeling that if anyone dares to disagree with you just 1%, they are immediately branded a 'denialist'. I have solar pv, battery storage, ASHP & an EV within 12 months.....and I'm a denialist!:rotfl: If I'm a denialist then that makes you an AGW extremist.

Your misunderstanding arises from the fact that I don't see any gain from dwelling on historical CO2 emissions. What's done is done & you can't change history....although you would probably endorse bankrupting us trying to recover that CO2 from the atmosphere?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

I get the feeling that if anyone dares to disagree with you just 1%, they are immediately branded a 'denialist'. I have solar pv, battery storage, ASHP & an EV within 12 months.....and I'm a denialist!:rotfl: If I'm a denialist then that makes you an AGW extremist.

Your misunderstanding arises from the fact that I don't see any gain from dwelling on historical CO2 emissions. What's done is done & you can't change history....although you would probably endorse bankrupting us trying to recover that CO2 from the atmosphere?

None of that seems true, though supporting references would be nice?

As I recall it, it was you, not me that brought up the historical CO2 emissions, and I simply assumed it was an error (you stating 1% not 5%) but when I gave you a link to the correct 5% figure you responded with the anti-AGW argument (lie) that 'scientists don't agree'.

Regarding expense, you still don't seem to understand the problem. The costs from AGW are vast, adn getting worse every day. Trying to argue against spending to mitigate against it, is like arguing against the cost of a fire engine when your house is on fire.

Some costs are simply unavoidable now, and the longer we delay, and the less we spend (than necessary) the worse the final bill will be.

And I've no idea why you persist with this bankrupting nonsense. RE subsidies have tumbled, BEV's are getting affordable, RE employs more people, and dare I say, clean air is a nice thing, so spending suitable amounts of money seems to have no downside.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. In fact I think you have perfectly demonstrated the problem with this forum. Most of us on here are interested in RE to some degree or another and implement it where it works for them financially. Mart is like that so am I. We could do more but for financial reasons we choose not to.

I personally see this is a strength not a problem. We all have different financial circumstances and so some people can be early adopters and some can't. The early adopters post on here with their experience and it helps the rest of us to make informed purchasing decisions once the tech falls to the price levels we can afford.

I'd also say that I'd change your comment to "we could do more but for financial reasons we cannot do" (choice may not come into it, not all of us have high levels of disposable income).

Speaking of which, I received an unexpected bonus at work and so I extended my solar array with an additional 1.5kw of solar. I do not get any FIT or export payments for this and will probably not see a return on my investment for years (if ever). I don't care, I have an aim where I want to reduce my carbon footprint and this helps me.

While I currently can't afford any more solar panels (I have a planned solar pergola in mind) and I can't afford an EV, I can afford to buy some fruit trees and plant them in the garden, I can afford to build some raised beds and create an allotment, both of which I am currently doing. In the grand scheme of things, they're a drop in the ocean, but from a personal level I am continuing to reduce my carbon footprint and I am slowly becoming part of the solution not the problem.