Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

markin

We will all be saved when this works.



First Light Fusion: The Future of Electricity Generation and a Clean Base Load? | Fully Charged
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1RsHQCMRTw

17 Sep 2019
As Helen Czerski asks, fusion energy has been forty years away for the last 70 odd years. Are we getting any closer, Helen visits First Light Fusion in Oxfordshire.

silverwhistle

Martyn, you really should try and avoid quoting you-know-who when so may of us have him on ignore, but I have to admit this statement jumped out at me.;-)

I don't ignore externality costs o just assign a value of close to zero to them

Is this normal for scientists and engineers? Do they put in zero into their equations and calculations? Is there some sort of universal null value they can utilise? How do they choose which part of a calculation to ignore? Will we ever know?

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

The articles Martyn posted weren't from greencheerleaders dot anything, but were in fact from oilprice.com, The Economist, Reuters, New York Times, Rigzone.com and RT. It's only the last of those whose reliability and neutrality I would doubt.

That made me chuckle. The RT article was the first I found ...... so I kept digging as I'm of a similar mind to you.


Shame GA doesn't know the difference between revenue and profits. I particularly liked this part I quoted:

An investor who put $100 into the S&P 500 Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Index in 2013 would have had $58.99 at the end of 2018. Similar $100 investments were worth just $9 in Whiting Petroleum Corp, $33.51 in Apache and $38.88 in Devon, according to financial filings. By contrast, $100 in the S&P 500 grew to $150.33 over the same period.

So, a $100 in the S&P 500 on average would grow to $150. $100 into oil and gas would fall to $58.99. And $100 in shale heavy companies, as low as $9-$39.

As per many share articles and vids on US shale, revenue and PR might claim or suggest one thing, but the relative change in the share price is quite illuminating, as that will reflect profits, profitability, and anticipated profitability.

We also know that Poland was touted as one of (if not) the best shale countries in Europe, but was an industry disaster too.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Marty and presumably your good self do not seem to understand the difference between profit and cashflow

The Economist article for instance says cashflow has been negative

Marty somehow uses that as evidence for his assertion that shale industry is a Ponzi nowhere in the Economist article does it say or suggest the shale industry is a Ponzi

I'm a little shocked that someone who promotes fracking so hard is surprised at my use of the term "Ponzi scheme"? Anyone who does the smallest amount of research will see that comparison used regularly.

GIYF - try "us fracking + ponzi" and you will get no end of hits and articles. Here's a recent one:

A fracking great Ponzi scheme

The messages coming from energy analysts, the financial industry, and the fracking industry all lead to the same conclusion: The US shale industry has been a financial disaster for investors, with producers piling up huge amounts of debt despite extracting copious volumes of fuel from disappearing sweet spots. Now, shale companies are under mounting pressure to pay back that debt.

Investors seem to be finally catching up to the bad deal that fracking represents. But the question remains: What took them so long to spot this Ponzi scheme? And why is the new UK Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom so convinced we should follow the American example?

For anyone else reading (and I apologise for wasting more time and space on this individual and topic), a quick explanation regarding Ponzi schemes.

These are schemes that appear to be viable as they start to pay out to early investors from new monies coming in from new investors. Typically they require ever larger new numbers (at the base) to finance those already in (at the top), giving the shape of a pyramid.

In the case of US shale it's been noted that to maintain revenues (as the market price drops due to additional supply, and falling production from existing wells) you need to drill more (and more) wells - thus creating a Ponzi like scheme which grows out of control and could collapse losing money for the bulk of investors.


Back to US shale - displacing coal with gas is a great idea as gas produces around half the CO2 emissions of burning coal. However, fugitive emissions of methane (a much worse GHG) of around 2% will nullify the savings, and the US industry appears to have far worse fugitive emissions than anyone had, at first, realised.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Martyn, you really should try and avoid quoting you-know-who when so may of us have him on ignore, but I have to admit this statement jumped out at me.;-)


Is this normal for scientists and engineers? Do they put in zero into their equations and calculations? Is there some sort of universal null value they can utilise? How do they choose which part of a calculation to ignore? Will we ever know?

You are right, and I was going to empty the quote (leaving the link to the post) but 'he' has a history of altering contents later on, or deleting posts.

Don't worry, I have no intention of responding to all posts, or even many more.

Like you I don't believe a scientist, engineer or real physicist would ignore facts, but fizzycyst might!

Martyn1981

Good link posted on Navitron explaining the CfD system/process.

I know it's boring, but this is our main subsidy mechanism now, and the off-shore wind results from the Spring auction are due shortly. So some boring homework for anyone interested.

Rebecca Explains It All: The CfD


And for more background, here is the list of CfD's already issued:

CFD Register

Please note that off-shore wind contracts have steadily fallen from £170/MWh to £65/MWh - closing in on average wholesale prices of around £50/MWh, so a very rough rule of thumb, subsidy element reducing from about £120/MWh down to £15/MWh ..... so far.

Reed_Richards

Martyn1981 wrote: »

.... the relative change in the share price is quite illuminating, as that will reflect profits, profitability, and anticipated profitability.

About 20 years ago there was a phenomenon called the dot.com bubble when people got wildly over-excited about any tech stock, no matter how unprofitable, and the share price of tech stocks went through the roof then crashed down to earth again. What this tells me is that a share price reflects anticipated profitability much more than anything else. And in some instances this anticipation can be totally misconceived.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Good link posted on Navitron explaining the CfD system/process.

I read it and I think I nearly understand it.

silverwhistle

Gosh, I must be getting old as I remember it well. I'm not much of an investor in shares but the ones I have/had were producing fundamental requirements or making things. Not glamorous but with understandable outcomes: I couldn't see at the time what some of the companies had to offer, let alone at some of the valuations.



Currently I'd steer clear of any fossil fuel companies, particularly as I'm a long term holder. Traders may have a different view and there's always some innocents to be the final loss makers.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Good link posted on Navitron explaining the CfD system/process.

I know it's boring, but this is our main subsidy mechanism now, and the off-shore wind results from the Spring auction are due shortly. So some boring homework for anyone interested.

Rebecca Explains It All: The CfD


And for more background, here is the list of CfD's already issued:

CFD Register

Please note that off-shore wind contracts have steadily fallen from £170/MWh to £65/MWh - closing in on average wholesale prices of around £50/MWh, so a very rough rule of thumb, subsidy element reducing from about £120/MWh down to £15/MWh ..... so far.

Sorry, haven't read and my qs are probably answered in the link.
1 Are CFD payments symmetrical? Are subsidies paid when production happens when prices are below the strike price offset by removing profit when sales are at a price higher than the CFD.
2 Just be uase CFD are close to average market price doesn't mean subsidy free. If all wind generation happened when prices are low then there could still be huge subsidies paid even if the strike price was below the average market price.