Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Here's part two of the Cleantechnica articles on the auto industry lying about AGW:

Ford And GM Lied. The Planet Died. Part Two

In a “Public Interest Report” in 1989, GM’s public relations department portrayed the field of climate science as full of uncertainties. “The hot dry summer of 1988 in the U.S. brought to the forefront a debate among environmental scientists about whether human activities may cause a significant enough increase in the greenhouse effect to result in global warming. Although the four warmest years of the last century have occurred in the 1980s, most scientists agree that there is no strong evidence for a cause [and] effect relationship between the four warm years and the increased emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere,” it said.

When E&E News asked Ruth Reck, now 88 years old, about that so-called report, she  said it mischaracterized the certainty of the science. “There was never any doubt for a minute. That really misrepresents the truth. The PR people use those kinds of weasel words to misrepresent things. The thing is, the greenhouse gases were the greenhouse gases. There was absolutely no ambiguity from the very beginning. If the temperature is changing and it’s happening, you’re seeing it.”

A Deliberate And Cynical Campaign

It was about this time that both companies joined the Global Climate Coalition, whose main purpose was to debunk the claims that carbon dioxide had a negative effect on the environment The GCC, in conjunction with the American Automobile Manufacturers Association — both Ford and GM were members — ran a number of ads disparaging the Kyoto Protocol as a bad deal for Americans, primarily because it placed most of the burden of lowering carbon emissions on the world’s wealthiest nations — who of course were responsible for the majority of those emissionsand benefited the most from them.

Cardew

Solarchaser said:

Cardew said:

Pile_o_stone said:

Solarchaser said:

Speaking for myself only, from 2014 we were promised more devolved powers that never arrived, and promised that everything that came back from EU would go to Scotland rather than the UK and that hasn't happened.
The internal market bill is further stripping of devolution. 

So in short when the UK gov tells us about more devolution coming, I straight up dont believe them, as the actions point in the other direction.

The EU, im a fence sitter.
What I'd like to see is an independent Scotland inside the EU for maybe 5 years, and then an in/out referendum, because I just dont know if its a positive or negative thing.

If brexit has taught us anything, its how much the media and the current government lies to us from bendy bananas, to £350m to the NHS and even no control over our borders.

As the wee nyaf said in that film "I want the truth"
And its crystal clear we will never get that with the current government 

I'm not sure you can get the truth from any government, and the larger the government is the more they hide their misdeeds in the herd. If I were living in Scotland I'd vote for independence, but outside the EU. When I see the SNP on TV, all the arguments they make for EU membership are the same ones the UK government make for Scotland to stay in the UK. When they talk about independence, they make the same arguments the Brexiteers made about leaving the EU. It all seems very muddled and hypocritical. I was working in Scotland during the last Indyref and the one guy who impressed me was the Green Party leader who said that people should ignore the economic arguments and ask themselves simply whether they wanted to live in an independent country or not, even if it made them worse off financially. 

Just to keep  the discussion vaguely on topic, the SNP financial case for Independence was a nonsense even when playing their trump card of exporting oil at US$118  a barrel with an inexhaustible supply!  I gather from this thread that RE is the future and it will be so cheap it won’t need to be metered

Should independence be achieved will the heir apparent  - Alex Salmond – still become President?

Erm I dont think the snp did that.
But here is the UK government report of predictions for the same time

Note their predictions were actually much higher than the Scottish government, funny how thats never mentioned 🤔

And the oil (not that we want it to all be used anyway) but has a maximum of 4 years till it runs out.... or at least that's what we were told in 1984, and many times since, including 2014.

The oil has made the UK alot of money, but its time it was wound down imo, or at least the mass production for burning in ICE's.

As for independence,  I think even the most staunch and blinded unionist would now admit its *when* Scotland becomes independent,  and not *if*, and when that happens id be surprised to see either Mr salmond or Ms sturgeon in a lofty position in Scotland after the transition period.

We would be going way of track if we discussed your view on the inevitability of Scottish Independence. So on oil revenue predictions this recent FT article may be of interest: https://www.ft.com/content/2f298c24-36e1-48c3-b401-0ac0066c18b4

“Many of the arguments around the transition to independence are now more challenging,” said Graeme Roy, director of Strathclyde university’s Fraser of Allander Institute, citing in particular the collapse in oil prices and resulting tax revenues since 2014.

The SNP government’s November 2013 white paper, the key document on which it fought the 2014 referendum, outlined scenarios suggesting annual revenues from Scotland’s geographic share of North Sea oil and gas would be worth between £6.8bn and £7.9bn in 2016-17. In fact, Scotland’s share of oil and gas revenues were worth £157m in 2016-17 and in the year to April reached just £724m, according to the Scottish government’s annual report entitled Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland.

Solarchaser

Sorry, can you explain how thats relevant?
Most predictions around the world in 2013 thought oil prices would rise.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole, see how much Norway has taken in oil revenue since 2014, then look how much the UK has taken.

Interestingly the UK has took loses while others have profited.
You could argue that it was a good time for the UK to offer money for decommissioning of old rigs, certainly was, as the right wing point to the uk's decision to lose revenue as if that somehow affects Scottish independence. 

Oh and don't worry,  its coming 😉

Cardew

Solarchaser said:

Sorry, can you explain how thats relevant?
Most predictions around the world in 2013 thought oil prices would rise.

I would have thought the relevance was obvious. The central plank of the SNP's financial case for independence was their oil revenue. It matters not how many experts predicted oil prices would rise - and many experts took the opposite view - the Scottish Government's own figures show what actually happened to oil revenue. The SNP were no different to any other political party in using a best case scenario for assets, and downplaying any disadvantages; look at Boris with Brexit and Trump with everything!

My wife was Scottish, daughter born in Scotland, my wife's relatives live North of the border and I visit frequently; thus am reasonably 'in touch'. So I agree with you that if there was a Independence Referendum now the SNP would win despite the financial case being far weaker than 2014. That said all my Scottish relatives were amongst the 55% and naively believed the 'once in a lifetime' promise.

 

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 said:

Martyn1981 said:

silverwhistle said:

Those megapack batteries at 3MWh each would on  their own be a useful local reinforcement embedded within networks and not just associated with generation sites. I know my local DNO in the past had small generators of shipping container size in some critical spots for peak lopping.

Couldn't agree more, I really think something like that could be used to mop up supply side excesses when needed, support increased demand side generation by storing excess PV, and reduce the need for the supply to the area to cope with annual peaks and the associated costs.
What if each local sub station had something like this, but sized appropriately, would we then be able to install much larger amounts of PV? Our supplies are typically 80A+ (about 20kW) so the cables can cope with much higher loads than the 3.68kW export standard, it's just the ability to cope with it locally at the time of generation that is a problem.
I mention this as I assume as time goes on, with more PV being deployed and bigger systems possible and more economic*, then it seems that we can kill multiple birds with less stones ....... (too early to mention birds again?)

*3.68kW wasn't a bad number with low installs and 250Wp panels, but now that we approaching 400Wp standard panels and similar installs now reaching 6kWp+.

Doh! Why didn't I mention this? Tesla is already offering this ...... kinda ...... but on a domestic up basis not a DNO down basis with their UK based Tesla tariff for folk who own a Powerwall. It's 11p/kWh import and export, or 8p/kWh if you also own a Tesla car, and no standing charge. Tesla then uses the Powerwalls as a VPP (virtual power plant).

Octopus Energy - Tesla tariff FAQs

More on this idea / product:

Tesla Expanding Into Solar Microgrids And Virtual Power Plants

Elon Musk says he expects Tesla’s energy business will one day be equal to or exceed its automotive business. That day may be some time in the future but the company is clearly expanding its solar and battery operations rapidly, both for grid scale and residential applications.

Tesla Virtual Power Plant Plan In The UK

Asmus may be right. Tesla has teamed up with Octopus Energy in the UK to offer home owners the ability to take part in a virtual power plant program. There are a few prerequisites, however. The home owner must already own a Tesla electric car and home charger. Then a rooftop solar system and a Tesla Powerwall needs to be added to the home. According to Bloomberg News, Tesla claims its offer represents a 75% savings compared to its competitors.

The program means homes can generate, store, and return solar energy to the grid during peak times. Imports and exports of electricity will be determined by software and will happen automatically based on energy use patterns, solar generation forecast, and wholesale energy prices. While there are other V2G systems available to UK residents, Bloomberg says this is the first to incorporate a household storage battery and solar panels.

Martyn1981

Bit of a whacky one this, but the argument for growing diamonds does raise the issue of the energy consumption and environmental damage caused by mining. I recall a company in New York (I think) that makes fake* diamonds from diamond seeding, plus carbon material plus enormous pressure.

So think diamonds, think South Africa Stroud.

* It was probably over a decade ago, but I recall that the diamonds (slightly yellowish) have to be laser etched to prove they have been made, as they are identical to 'real' diamonds, and to help prevent the price of 'real' diamonds being reduced as this is artificially maintained high via restricting supply.

Ecotricity founder to grow diamonds 'made entirely from the sky'

A British multi-millionaire and environmentalist has set out plans to create thousands of carats of carbon-negative, laboratory-grown diamonds every year “made entirely from the sky”.

Dale Vince, the founder of green energy supplier Ecotricity, claims to have developed the world’s only diamonds to be made from carbon, water and energy sourced directly from the elements at a “sky mining facility” in Stroud.

Solarchaser

Cardew said:

Solarchaser said:

Sorry, can you explain how thats relevant?
Most predictions around the world in 2013 thought oil prices would rise.

I would have thought the relevance was obvious. The central plank of the SNP's financial case for independence was their oil revenue. It matters not how many experts predicted oil prices would rise - and many experts took the opposite view - the Scottish Government's own figures show what actually happened to oil revenue. The SNP were no different to any other political party in using a best case scenario for assets, and downplaying any disadvantages; look at Boris with Brexit and Trump with everything!

My wife was Scottish, daughter born in Scotland, my wife's relatives live North of the border and I visit frequently; thus am reasonably 'in touch'. So I agree with you that if there was a Independence Referendum now the SNP would win despite the financial case being far weaker than 2014. That said all my Scottish relatives were amongst the 55% and naively believed the 'once in a lifetime' promise.

 

There's alot in that to disect. 
Firstly oil was never the central plank for independence, thats just plain wrong.
Even back when it was in the white paper it was accounting for around 10-15% of the finance, and was said at the time to anyone who actually listened, that oil was a bonus, not a requirement. 

No industry experts in 2013 said oil prices would fall, again, just wrong.
Everyone believed they would rise, everyone was wrong.

Scottish governments own figures, eh?
You mean gers? In which figures for import and export etc is made by UK government and then given to the Scottish government to put into their formula,  so the UK figures in the Scottish publication yes?

Comparing indyref to brexit is lazy and ridiculous to be perfectly honest.
One was built on self determination and a will to improve our lot, the other was built on racism and hating immagrunts.
You can talk about the snp white paper being wrong in its estimates.... they were estimates,  you cant do that for brexit, there was no white paper, just old rich white men stoking up hatred.

So you have family in Scotland,  cool, all good, I have family in England and Ireland. 
If the financial case is weaker now.... after another 6 years of Westminster rule, tell me how thats a plus for the union?

However with you final sentence you tell me all I need to know, once in a lifetime eh?
A promise?
Go on. Prove it!

I'm sure you can find a video of Salmond or sturgeon sharing THEIR THOUGHTS about it, but trying to make out it was a promise, is just utterly ridiculous. 

I'm still waiting on boris lying down in front of the bulldozers in Heathrow, and I'm not sure if he has been found dead in a ditch... oh and there are no general elections ever again, cos apparently the last one was once in a generation. 
Show me that financial case for brexit?
350m on the side of a bus?

In 2016 they put this in their manifesto

Guess what, they were voted in on that manifesto, and now both of those are true.
We have left the eu against our vote, and there is now sustained support for independence. 

You don't have to like it, just like I didnt like boris getting in with an 80 seat majority,  but its democracy,  and that doesn't stop just because you don't like it.

I dont even like the snp, but right now they are the only game in town for independence. 

Martyn1981

Hi Solarchaser. As a Welshman I'm torn about Scottish independence. I see Scotland as a bigger sibling living in the same, somewhat, abusive household with us. I don't want you to go and leave us here, but at the same time I hope you do leave and get free after the dirty trick of being pulled out of the EU after deciding to stay with us.
If it helps, regarding income and 'fuel', I suspect Scotland is perfectly placed to thrive in the new RE world, and export vast amounts of energy to the rest of the UK and the EU. A nice little earner as Delboy might say.

NigeWick

I don't think the Scots need oil as they can build more wind farms and export clean energy to England. 
As to independence, I believe it should be up to the Scots to decide. 

EVandPV

NigeWick said:

I don't think the Scots need oil as they can build more wind farms and export clean energy to England. 
As to independence, I believe it should be up to the Scots to decide. 

Not just wind, there's more hydro in the pipeline too (pun intended).
Add that to salmon farming and tourism (pandemic permitting) and we'd do just fine.