The Alternative Green Energy Thread

joefizz

Pile_o_stone said:

I wonder how long it would take for the fossil fuel industry to "move gracefully" from their position of global domination and unlimited income to much reduced influence and, for many, bankruptcy?

Exxon, maybe they will go down with the fracking ship. The rest, well most are already the biggest players in the RE space (BP, shell, repsol, equinor etc).

They will just wind down exploration (they have been for a while), increase prices and then buy up RE companies (that they dont already own or have funded or JVs in).

Its looking likely that Shell will be the hydrogen player in Northern Europe, possibly repsol in south/iberia. BP/Equinor north sea wind (elsewhere in the US) etc etc.
Probably a rebranding exercise for most of them, some consolidation and in 15-20 years time nobody will know what we are talking about now....

Pile_o_stone

joefizz said:

Pile_o_stone said:

I wonder how long it would take for the fossil fuel industry to "move gracefully" from their position of global domination and unlimited income to much reduced influence and, for many, bankruptcy?

Exxon, maybe they will go down with the fracking ship. The rest, well most are already the biggest players in the RE space (BP, shell, repsol, equinor etc).

They will just wind down exploration (they have been for a while), increase prices and then buy up RE companies (that they dont already own or have funded or JVs in).

Its looking likely that Shell will be the hydrogen player in Northern Europe, possibly repsol in south/iberia. BP/Equinor north sea wind (elsewhere in the US) etc etc.
Probably a rebranding exercise for most of them, some consolidation and in 15-20 years time nobody will know what we are talking about now....

And they will continue to pour millions into the re-election campaigns of politicians to promote the fossil fuel industry.

As to Ken's comments. I find it laughable that some people still think that corporations can be trusted to do the right thing if we just 'let them get on with it'.

JKenH

Pile_o_stone said:

joefizz said:

Pile_o_stone said:

I wonder how long it would take for the fossil fuel industry to "move gracefully" from their position of global domination and unlimited income to much reduced influence and, for many, bankruptcy?

Exxon, maybe they will go down with the fracking ship. The rest, well most are already the biggest players in the RE space (BP, shell, repsol, equinor etc).

They will just wind down exploration (they have been for a while), increase prices and then buy up RE companies (that they dont already own or have funded or JVs in).

Its looking likely that Shell will be the hydrogen player in Northern Europe, possibly repsol in south/iberia. BP/Equinor north sea wind (elsewhere in the US) etc etc.
Probably a rebranding exercise for most of them, some consolidation and in 15-20 years time nobody will know what we are talking about now....

And they will continue to pour millions into the re-election campaigns of politicians to promote the fossil fuel industry.

As to Ken's comments. I find it laughable that some people still think that corporations can be trusted to do the right thing if we just 'let them get on with it'.

Let me put the extent of political contributions from the fossil fuel industry in the US in context. Donations from the Energy and Natural Resources sector amounted to just 2.2% of total political donations exceeding $3.5bn with the Republicans receiving $58.2m and the Democrats receiving $20.3m.



https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/

JKenH

....and interestingly on the subject of funding political parties it now seems the renewables industry is directing its contributions to the Republicans rather than Democrats.

As renewable energy capacity continues to grow and concentrate in Republican constituencies, more Republican lawmakers are championing those jobs and benefiting from the mega-popularity of clean energy leadership and messaging," said Alex Bozmoski, managing director at republicEn, a community of conservatives working to advance climate solutions. "It just makes sense for these industry groups to reflect their constituencies, and a supermajority of their capacity and jobs are in Republican states and districts.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-and-wind-companies-spend-republican-campaigns-democrats

DiggerUK

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

ABrass

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

joefizz

ABrass said:

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

Not directly related to this particular forum but I remember the editor of spiked talking about the UK govt following the science at the start of the covid outbreak.

Didnt of course mention that the science they were following was social science. Which, lets be honest, isnt a real science.

Its why people who say science is settled should just be ignored because they are obviously not scientists. Science is about coming up with a theory, checking for invalidity, exhausting all your tests, giving it to someone else to break and if they cant break it put it out there until someone does or something is developed which supercedes it or negates it or consigns it to obsolescence.

Speaking of which, was talking yesterday to someone connected to a rather large wind farm (200+ turbines). Covid nearly put them out of business - curtailment and oil price dropping so much oil fired stations were cheaper and turned back on again. They had to cut back maintenance and roll outs etc so are sitting tight for a while. The impression I was left with was that they saw wind as a stop gap (due to variability) and in about 10 years we will be seeing something else which has less output, less efficient but similar cost and almost always on and a larger percentage recyclable.

DiggerUK

ABrass said:

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

I've always viewed sources as sources. They can be readable or unreadable, true or false; but  I've never viewed them as "fun"

I've only ever viewed sources as the grunt and grime of research that lets us find out what's wise and what's foolish.

I hope you had fun reading the link I provided to 'Scientific American', if you found it too dry you should stick to 'Comedy Central' for your research..._

ABrass

DiggerUK said:

ABrass said:

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

I've always viewed sources as sources. They can be readable or unreadable, true or false; but  I've never viewed them as "fun"

I've only ever viewed sources as the grunt and grime of research that lets us find out what's wise and what's foolish.

I hope you had fun reading the link I provided to 'Scientific American', if you found it too dry you should stick to 'Comedy Central' for your research..._

You miss my point. It's fun seeing which barrel bottoms you're scraping for your sources.

Could you confirm which in particular gave you your quote?

JKenH

DiggerUK said:

ABrass said:

DiggerUK said:

The bastardisation of science to politics has reached revolting new levels in the US Presidential election. The funding of political parties is often done on the quiet, with donors hedging their bets by giving money to both sides. But this time a one way bet has been placed.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

"Earlier this month, Scientific American broke with what it claims is its 175-year history of political neutrality to endorse US presidential candidate, Joe Biden according to the magazine’s editorial: ‘The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the US and its people.’ Strong stuff. But what field of science produced this judgement? Physics, perhaps? Chemistry? Biology? None of them, of course. The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicised itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science"......

......" When institutional science attaches itself to politics, to support candidates, it loses any claim to objectivity, and any ability to speak truth to power".....

The dangers from the past of what happens to freedoms and liberties when politics takes the whip hand is known to us all. For now we shall just have to be content to make sure that future power supplies are plentiful, reliable and as cheap as possible..._

It's always fun following up your sources. Would this be from Spiked online, funded by the Koch's, or GWPF?

I've always viewed sources as sources. They can be readable or unreadable, true or false; but  I've never viewed them as "fun"

I've only ever viewed sources as the grunt and grime of research that lets us find out what's wise and what's foolish.

I hope you had fun reading the link I provided to 'Scientific American', if you found it too dry you should stick to 'Comedy Central' for your research..._

My philosophy is read everything - that is if you have an open mind and are interested in learning. If you reject everything that is not from one of your trusted sources you risk getting only filtered information and if you never see the other side of the coin you end up with a lop-sided view of the subject. The best articles to read are the ones that challenge our preconceptions not confirm what we already believe.