Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

zeupater wrote: »

Hi



Maybe it's time that the main protagonists in this discussion realised that they're being played as puppets in a game of disruption & took the appropriate actions ... after all, isn't deliberate disruption of discussions on RE & energy efficiency just what we've seen plenty of evidence of recently?!

HTH
Z

What I think attracts a lot of people to this forum is that Mart (and others like yourself) are brilliant at the technical stuff and put a lot of effort into research and posting but it is obvious people hate all this squabbling.

It is not the technical news items that generally cause the problems as much as the overtly political (AGW) stuff. It is the AGW/political arguments that are the most divisive and polarising and cause perfectly reasonable people to metaphorically start grabbing each other’s throats.

AGW is like a religion to some people and evokes similar emotions. Nothing can be said against it - there is no room for compromise, it is a black and white world and every battle has to be fought to the last man standing. This is is the fundamental problem.

Yes I have wound Mart up and so have Nick and Great Ape but as I pointed out in another post the battles are all with Mart. Or should I actually say the long acrimonious battles are with Mart about AGW.

The orthodoxy of AGW cannot be questioned and to do so defines you in all future arguments whatever you are trying to say. It polarises debate. You are either with us or against us. (Mart started referring to me and Great Ape and subsequently Nick, collectively as they.) There is no possibility of being a little bit green.

Those who don’t have particularly strong views one way or the other find themselves reluctant to post and unsure as to whether they should even give thanks on a post for fear of offending someone in the opposite camp.

I might be wrong but I suspect a lot of people are on this forum for the news, advice and comment on practicalities of RE technology, rather than the AGW campaigning.

Could I suggest that the technical news be separated off from the overtly political (AGW) stuff which could then have its own thread. Mart could have a thread just for posting the more technical news then if anyone wants to develop it they can go off and start a new thread much has has happened with the black out thread.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

What I think attracts a lot of people to this forum is that Mart (and others like yourself) are brilliant at the technical stuff and put a lot of effort into research and posting but it is obvious people hate all this squabbling.

It is not the technical news items that generally cause the problems as much as the overtly political (AGW) stuff. It is the AGW/political arguments that are the most divisive and polarising and cause perfectly reasonable people to metaphorically start grabbing each other’s throats.

AGW is like a religion to some people and evokes similar emotions. Nothing can be said against it - there is no room for compromise, it is a black and white world and every battle has to be fought to the last man standing. This is is the fundamental problem.

Yes I have wound Mart up and so have Nick and Great Ape but as I pointed out in another post the battles are all with Mart. Or should I actually say the long acrimonious battles are with Mart about AGW.

The orthodoxy of AGW cannot be questioned and to do so defines you in all future arguments whatever you are trying to say. It polarises debate. You are either with us or against us. (Mart started referring to me and Great Ape and subsequently Nick, collectively as they.) There is no possibility of being a little bit green.

Those who don’t have particularly strong views one way or the other find themselves reluctant to post and unsure as to whether they should even give thanks on a post for fear of offending someone in the opposite camp.

I might be wrong but I suspect a lot of people are on this forum for the news, advice and comment on practicalities of RE technology, rather than the AGW campaigning.

Could I suggest that the technical news be separated off from the overtly political (AGW) stuff which could then have its own thread. Mart could have a thread just for posting the more technical news then if anyone wants to develop it they can go off and start a new thread much has has happened with the black out thread.

Ken, this campaign of yours has gone on now for months. It would be great if you could now drop it, so that I (and others) can get back to enjoying the thread without all the necessary defence of RE and AGW caused by those posting outrageous arguments (AGW denial arguments, FF apology arguments, nuclear campaigning, and demanding that those of us that have simply had enough of GA's silliness, must respect his opinions).

I and I suspect many others spotted your little game some time back. With your overtly desperate post against me yesterday and now this one, I feel your actions are now in the open, and I no longer need to pretend.

So, can we talk about RE, something you seem to have very, very little interest in if we look at how many posts you are making, and how few have anything to do with the thread.

I've defended my position, and I believe that of RE, AGW and storage where necessary. Any more of these less than subtle posts from you, simply reveal more about you and your motives, than, I believe, do me any harm, so your time (and mine, and all others) is simply being wasted now going forward.

Hopefully you will now let me, and this thread continue in peace. Thanking you in advance, and i won't be responding to anymore of these posts by you.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Decent article, maybe could have mentioned that the efforts were little more than a delaying strategy though! .... apart from that, the main point I picked up was Texaco's reported position in the battery sector ... odd that, wonder if it fits into a pattern?! ...

HTH
Z

More again on the same issue, and the same report, but I think it's worth a watch as it's set out simply, and makes for easy watching/listening by the Tesla Time News father and son team.

Regarding Texaco, I'm not sure what you think they did wrong. They simply invested $100m's in NiMh battery technology then wasted the opportunity by deliberately preventing it being used for EV's ....... nothing odd about that ..... ?

Show's (suggests?) how far Big Oil will go to delay EV's and prop up their profits/revenue, even at the cost of ever greater AGW.

Jack Rickard’s “The Tesla Conspiracy” | In Depth


Edit - And for full disclosure I bought a couple of Tesla shares when they were being shorted below $200. My action was of course trivial, but I felt I had to do something to help counter the unprecedented shorting campaign against them.

Too risky an investment to recommend, not because Tesla is a risk, they are simply unstoppable in a 'fair' market, but the machinations going on in the background make the near future questionable. But investing in RE, BEV's etc, and avoiding FF's is something extra we can do if anyone is looking to do a bit more.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ken, this campaign of yours has gone on now for months. It would be great if you could now drop it, so that I (and others) can get back to enjoying the thread without all the necessary defence of RE and AGW caused by those posting outrageous arguments (AGW denial arguments, FF apology arguments, nuclear campaigning, and demanding that those of us that have simply had enough of GA's silliness, must respect his opinions).

I and I suspect many others spotted your little game some time back. With your overtly desperate post against me yesterday and now this one, I feel your actions are now in the open, and I no longer need to pretend.

So, can we talk about RE, something you seem to have very, very little interest in if we look at how many posts you are making, and how few have anything to do with the thread.

I've defended my position, and I believe that of RE, AGW and storage where necessary. Any more of these less than subtle posts from you, simply reveal more about you and your motives, than, I believe, do me any harm, so your time (and mine, and all others) is simply being wasted now going forward.

Hopefully you will now let me, and this thread continue in peace. Thanking you in advance, and i won't be responding to anymore of these posts by you.

Mart, I have no problem whatsoever with us getting back to RE, that is why and others come on here. Let’s keep the thread to RE please.

There is no campaign against you, going on for months, unlike that childish troll “I am not a crank” campaign launched against me and Great Ape which some people attributed to you?

Just over a week ago I posted after there were harsh and personal comments made about Great Ape - they weren’t actually made by you. The comments were aimed at the board in general about a bit more tolerance. If you look back you will find I had been pretty quiet on this thread for some months prior to that knowing that if I did post it would end up in a runaway argument about FF, Nuclear, AGW, or whatever.

Other than onshore wind I am in support of all RE and have not argued against it so please don’t continue to push that line. Yes I have made what you call FF apologist remarks but only against your overtly political posturing against oil companies.

If you want to push political comment then you cannot expect not to have some push back. As I suggested, split the threads. AGW and RE are not the same in everybody’s eyes. To you RE is a tool to use against AGW. To others like me RE is an end in itself.

I want to read about RE and your posts are a good source but please don’t try and disguise your political posts as RE.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ken, this campaign of yours has gone on now for months. It would be great if you could now drop it, so that I (and others) can get back to enjoying the thread without all the necessary defence of RE and AGW caused by those posting outrageous arguments (AGW denial arguments, FF apology arguments, nuclear campaigning, and demanding that those of us that have simply had enough of GA's silliness, must respect his opinions).

I and I suspect many others spotted your little game some time back. With your overtly desperate post against me yesterday and now this one, I feel your actions are now in the open, and I no longer need to pretend.

Am I the only one wondering where all these "outrageous arguments (AGW denial arguments, FF apology arguments, nuclear campaigning" posts are? All I see is a group of people with a common interest in RE exchanging ideas & debating current RE/AGW issues.

Ken, this campaign of yours has gone on now for months....

This is starting to sound like paranoia....:(

Martyn1981

More bad news for the FF companies and AGW deniers who think RE will bankrupt us. It turns out we have more than a little bit of on-shore wind potential in Europe, who'd have thunk?

Europe has the untapped onshore capacity to meet global energy demand

Europe has the capacity to produce more than 100 times the amount of energy it currently produces through onshore windfarms, new analysis from the University of Sussex and Aarhus University has revealed.

In an analysis of all suitable sites for onshore wind farms, the new study reveals that Europe has the potential to supply enough energy for the whole world until 2050.

The study reveals that if all of Europe's capacity for onshore wind farms was realised, the installed nameplate capacity would 52.5 TW -- equivalent to 1 MW for every 16 European citizens.

Obviously this is more a theoretical example, just to show what is possible, or perhaps to show what isn't not possible.

It reminds me of the response to all those silly claims way back, about having to cover the whole of the UK in PV panels, then the maths was done and to generate the equivalent of the UK's annual leccy demand, around 350TWh, we'd need to cover 2% of England, roughly the same as is covered today in golf courses, driving ranges etc.. FORE!

Oh, and that's an old calculation using 250Wp 1.6m2 panels, so more and more of England can be 'spared' now as panels push passed 350Wp, 400Wp and onwards.

markin

How to erase 100 years of carbon emissions? Plant trees—lots of them.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2019/07/how-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees-lots-them

..................................................................................

The Impending Big Auto/Oil Implosion Explained | In Depth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUC6lsLr04I
Here's where all the graphs are from https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-ice-impact-2023-beyond

EDIT: to add a new vid ... that Martyn1981 already posted.
Jack Rickard’s “The Tesla Conspiracy” | In Depth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfILTM_xcOE

JKenH

Edit: I accidentally posted under the wrong article so if any one saw my post about Tesla and wonders where it went it can be seen elsewhere.

I haven’t had chance yet to watch the video on this thread about the impending big oil implosion.

However I am very much in support of planting more trees which I first started doing in quantity in 1985.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

More again on the same issue, and the same report, but I think it's worth a watch as it's set out simply, and makes for easy watching/listening by the Tesla Time News father and son team.

Regarding Texaco, I'm not sure what you think they did wrong. They simply invested $100m's in NiMh battery technology then wasted the opportunity by deliberately preventing it being used for EV's ....... nothing odd about that ..... ?

Show's (suggests?) how far Big Oil will go to delay EV's and prop up their profits/revenue, even at the cost of ever greater AGW.

Jack Rickard’s “The Tesla Conspiracy” | In Depth


Edit - And for full disclosure I bought a couple of Tesla shares when they were being shorted below $200. My action was of course trivial, but I felt I had to do something to help counter the unprecedented shorting campaign against them.

Too risky an investment to recommend, not because Tesla is a risk, they are simply unstoppable in a 'fair' market, but the machinations going on in the background make the near future questionable. But investing in RE, BEV's etc, and avoiding FF's is something extra we can do if anyone is looking to do a bit more.

I do actually agree with you that Tesla build a great EV and at the moment a Tesla is currently top of my wish list for my next car.

However, having watched the whole 28 mins video I should point out that there was no attempt to provide any evidence to support the claims made that oil companies were shorting the stock and the SEC had been bought to turn a blind eye.

Tesla has been struggling to deliver cars and burning through cash. Hedge funds have shorted its stock in the hope of making a quick killing. I have not seen anything in the main stream financial press to support the conspiracy theory put forward.

Martyn1981

markin wrote: »

EDIT: to add a new vid
Jack Rickard’s “The Tesla Conspiracy” | In Depth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfILTM_xcOE

Hiya, just to say that's the vid I posted too. I think it does a great job of explaining how 'odd' it's all been.

A few years ago when the media was full of FUD and nonsense about Tesla, I was reluctant to conclude any conspiracy. After all the US media, and news channels are funded via advertising, and Tesla doesn't advertise, plus being the new best thing will always attract attention. So when a Tesla catches fire it makes the news, but not the 100's of ICE cars that do that every day, or the lack of news on BMW's recent recall due to multiple fires.

But as the years have ticked on, and the FUD continued, Tesla has a supply problem, Tesla has a demand problem, etc etc my doubts have grown.

[Edit - To be clear, there is no definitive proof yet that there is a 'grand conspiracy', it could just be a lot of stalwarts fighting against change, but for me, we've now moved into 'duck' territory .... if it walks like ..... M.]

But the big one is the shorting, at around $10bn and 35%, they are simply in a league of their own, and to short them when their price was down to $180 seemed crazy.

But the good news, as that article explains, they are simply in a league of their own, and elsewhere the worst estimates suggest they have a base / asset value around $140/share at which point Amazon would most likely buy them out.

In a funny way they have also, almost become redundant. They have been producing cars now for over five years that have a purchase price similar to the competition, but have TCO's comparable to much cheaper cars and models, so the genie is out of the bottle, and EV's are unstoppable, but as the report (and the vid on it) explain, every day's delay is worth a vast amount of money to Big Oil, and also more status quo business for Big Auto, and the dealerships.

This disruption (like all before it) won't be pretty for the old guard, but for will create new jobs/industries, and for me its one of the best bits of good news since RE leccy has proven itself (won the battle) so shifting from low efficiency FF burning cars, to high efficiency leccy will allow RE to clean up that sector too.