Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 9th Jun 15, 7:25 AM
    • 9,604Posts
    • 14,497Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks)
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 15, 7:25 AM
    Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) 9th Jun 15 at 7:25 AM
    MSE Insert:

    We've seen some debate on this thread about the relevance of some posts to the topic.

    To ensure the thread remains on topic for forumites wanting to discuss the latest news we're asking that all posts contain a link to the news you're discussing.

    For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks.

    Back to Martyn1981's original post.

    ---

    I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for posting general news items that may be of interest.

    PV and the 'Solar in the news' thread attract a lot of interest, so here's a thread for all the other goings on.

    Mart.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 09-10-2018 at 10:41 AM.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Page 192
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 22nd Oct 19, 2:57 PM
    • 4,009 Posts
    • 2,968 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Job opportunities for stage coach drivers, grooms, stable lads etc etc were decimated by the introduction of horseless carriages but the 'mass unemployment' that was no doubt forecast at the time didn't trouble us for long (though having a Great War probably helped).

    People & premises currently employed in making engines can probably be redeployed to meeting the increased demand for electric motors.
    Originally posted by EricMears

    Have you never been to Yorkshire?
    When there do you get a sense that the coal mine closures were on net a good idea?

    Anyway the conversion away from fossil fuels are so slow that these job arguments don't matter much a coal miner is probably safe to mine his coal until he retires and the coal companies can just stop hiring workers and let retirement shrink their workforce

    More rapid were things like the German nuke closures. overnight some towns become ghost towns as their biggest employer closed shop so not only did the local area lose the income of 1,000 workers but those people left for jobs elsewhere which meant 1,000 fewer families spending money in the economy so more job losses and more moving away from the town and so on
    • JKenH
    • By JKenH 22nd Oct 19, 4:07 PM
    • 1,049 Posts
    • 3,181 Thanks
    JKenH
    Have you never been to Yorkshire?
    When there do you get a sense that the coal mine closures were on net a good idea?
    Originally posted by GreatApe
    Yes, 35 years on, it probably is but there was a lot of pain along the way. RE will be good in the long run but if you lose your job you deserve sympathy, not cheering.
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps
    • JKenH
    • By JKenH 22nd Oct 19, 4:19 PM
    • 1,049 Posts
    • 3,181 Thanks
    JKenH
    The problem with that 'argument' is that like all the other excuses directed against RE and change, is that it has no depth, no depth whatsoever.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Not suggesting we keep burning coal, just spare a thought for those displaced by the new regime.

    I'm also a big Dylan fan, and he really nailed it with 'The Times They Are A-Changin'
    Originally posted by Martyn1981

    Then he grew up

    I was thinking we could in the future converse by way of Dylan quotes but then I realised he wasn’t exactly big on harmony.
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps
    • joefizz
    • By joefizz 22nd Oct 19, 4:34 PM
    • 403 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    joefizz
    Doesnt matter really how many jobs there are in RE in the states when the coal jobs are in swing states.
    Coal jobs went some way to electing the current president, they will probably do so again.



    RE jobs in the states are in states the anti-RE mob wont win and the pro-RE mob wont lose. Unless they are created in the coal areas (which is never going to happen politically as the pro RE mob want them in their states to keep the dosh coming in), then its a bit of a pointless comparison.



    I think things might have been different in the 80s if Coal/Steel workers were employed in Tory marginals.
    • ABrass
    • By ABrass 22nd Oct 19, 8:53 PM
    • 211 Posts
    • 288 Thanks
    ABrass
    Yes, 35 years on, it probably is but there was a lot of pain along the way. RE will be good in the long run but if you lose your job you deserve sympathy, not cheering.
    Apparently in 1970 there were about 300k jobs in coal mining in the UK. By 1990 that dropped to around 50k.

    250k jobs of a population of about 57 million. 50k jobs of a population of 330 million.

    30 times the difference. The US has fairly barbaric social security but it's not something that we can make a difference on, nor would propping up a failing industry, let alone such a polluting industry, be a good way to help.
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 22nd Oct 19, 10:38 PM
    • 2,733 Posts
    • 4,101 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Not suggesting we keep burning coal, just spare a thought for those displaced by the new regime.
    Originally posted by JKenH

    I don't remember much sympathy let alone help, when Thatcher was closing the mines back in the 80s. We just started to import cheap Colombian coal at a great social cost.



    There is no prospect of keeping on declining industries but you can help the process of adaptation, and at this there have been failures in both the UK and the US.



    The recent Thomas Cook collapse was noted for help from the German government to keep their local business functioning. Here the government declined support of £200m, and I can sort of understand why, but ended up paying £100m on repatriation of their customers. As ever, companies make losses but the top bosses will still be able to pay their mortgages with unjustifiable bonuses: as with Deliveroo, WeWork, Thomas Cook, and quite a few universities and local authorities too.



    I think bonuses should be received at least 5 years after the event to avoid the short term expansionist hubris we see so often.
    Last edited by silverwhistle; 22-10-2019 at 10:38 PM. Reason: sp
    • ABrass
    • By ABrass 22nd Oct 19, 11:08 PM
    • 211 Posts
    • 288 Thanks
    ABrass
    Moral hazard probably. Can't say they're wrong.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 23rd Oct 19, 1:27 AM
    • 4,009 Posts
    • 2,968 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Apparently in 1970 there were about 300k jobs in coal mining in the UK. By 1990 that dropped to around 50k.

    250k jobs of a population of about 57 million. 50k jobs of a population of 330 million.

    30 times the difference. The US has fairly barbaric social security but it's not something that we can make a difference on, nor would propping up a failing industry, let alone such a polluting industry, be a good way to help.
    Originally posted by ABrass

    There is a lot of misinformation about the UK coal story or rather lots of pub stats with no basis
    Thatcher gets the blame but she didn't do anything particular worse than any other labor or Tory government

    The first thing to note is that employment had fallen for a long time before Thatcher and in much greater numbers

    1920 was 1.19 million employed 233 million tons mined
    1930 was 910k employed 248 million tons
    1940 was 744,000 employed 228 million tons
    1950 was 693,000 employed 219 million tons
    1960 was 607,000 employed 198 million tons
    1970 was 290,000 employed 137 million tons
    1980 was 237,000 employed 130 million tons
    1990 was 49,000 employed. 93 million tons
    2000 was 11,000. Employed 31 million tons
    2010 was 6,000 employees 18 million tons
    2020s close to zero on both counts

    As you can see each decade lost lots of coal workers mostly through improved machines and methods.

    212,000 coal jobs were lost under the 6 years Wilson government (labor)
    193,000 coal jobs were lost under the 11 years of Thatcher government (Tories)
    Per year Thatcher got rid of half as many miners as did Wilson

    Also imported coal didn't play a significant part in meeting domestic demand.
    Imports during thatchers time were only about 10% of UK consumption
    The reality is coal demand was falling due to efficiency and North sea oil and gas but because of imports
    Last edited by GreatApe; 23-10-2019 at 2:18 AM.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 23rd Oct 19, 8:19 AM
    • 9,604 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Fracking is not going as well as hoped (assuming you hoped?) in the UK:

    Plan for fracking 'years behind schedule' and has cost taxpayer £32m

    Spending watchdog finds that only three wells have been dug, despite aim to have 20 by 2020
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • GreatApe
    • By GreatApe 23rd Oct 19, 11:15 AM
    • 4,009 Posts
    • 2,968 Thanks
    GreatApe
    Fracking has gone better than anyone could have hoped

    You don't need domestic fracking to feel it's force

    The 20mbpd of oil and gas Equivalent out of the USA is what keeps prices reasonable for both oil and gas

    The next three years they expect USA fracking industry to grow another 5mbpd a massive amount
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 23rd Oct 19, 5:28 PM
    • 9,604 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Update on the legal battle in the US concerning the disinformation campaign run by Exxon.

    Exxon has misled Americans on climate change for decades. Here’s how to fight back

    Today, the state of New York will face off with ExxonMobil for oral arguments in the trial alleging that the company misled investors by providing false assurances that the company was adequately costing climate-related risks. But win or lose, that doesn’t mean an end to deliberate misinformation campaigns. Here’s what we should all know about how to resist those efforts by Exxon and other big corporate actors.
    The fossil fuel industry has known about the role of its products in global warming for 60 years. Exxon’s own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, these companies have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. All the while, the science is clear that climate-catalyzed damages have worsened, storms have intensified, and droughts and heatwaves have become more frequent and severe, while forests have been damaged and wildfires have burned through the country.
    Exposing and explaining the techniques of denial are crucial steps in neutralizing disinformation, not just from the fossil fuel industry but from any source. Once people know the ways they can be deceived, disinformation no longer has power over them. As Edward Everett once said: “Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.” But it’s not enough to offer information – we also have to expose disinformation, so that people understand what we have been up against.
    [My bold] - Easy to say, but those authors don't have to deal with the 'three Amigos' on this thread/board!
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 23rd Oct 19, 5:38 PM
    • 9,604 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Nice news. BNEF suggest power prices will actually fall, before leveling off as storage costs are added.

    Why power prices will inevitably fall, then look like Charlie Brown

    Power prices will inevitably fall as more wind and solar comes on line and pushes baseload power out of the market — but energy storage will eventually keep prices relatively stable, according to a senior BloombergNEF (BNEF) analyst.

    With power-purchase agreements getting shorter and more subsidy-free and merchant renewables projects being built, wind and solar’s increased reliance on wholesale market prices means that power-price forecasts are becoming increasingly important for the renewable-energy industry.

    Yet most forecasts incorrectly predict ever-rising prices, BNEF head of clean-tech research Amy Grace told the BNEF Summit in London on Monday.

    Market prices, she explained, reflect the lowest price at which producers are willing to sell their power — which is their marginal cost of generation, or the cost of producing an additional hour of electricity.

    “So what goes into [the marginal cost]? What about all the cost it took to build that wind farm or solar farm, or all that $5bn overrun for that nuclear project? It doesn’t matter — totally irrelevant. Sunk costs have no bearing on the power price,” she said.

    “So what does matter? It’s basically your fuel cost and your operations and maintenance cost — that’s what goes into your marginal cost of generation. O&M is pretty negligible, especially for coal and gas, so what really matters is your fuel costs. So for renewables that’s good news, because until Donald Trump takes over the sun, renewables — our solar and wind — are free.”
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Exiled Tyke
    • By Exiled Tyke 23rd Oct 19, 5:42 PM
    • 364 Posts
    • 983 Thanks
    Exiled Tyke
    From the BBC today on the NAO report on fracking:


    The NAO report is a hammer blow to those aspirations.
    It found no evidence that prices would be lowered, uncertainty as to whether it could viably produce gas in meaningful quantities, no plan for clean-up if a fracking firm were to go bust, serial breaches of agreed limits on earth tremors, strains on local authorities in fracking areas, and plummeting public support.
    Local farmer John Bradley's land is about a mile from Cuadrilla's biggest fracking site in Preston.
    He told the BBC he had started with an open mind but he had been shaken (literally) off the fence he'd been sitting on when a tremor of 2.9 on the Richter scale was recorded in July.
    "It was not very nice at all - quite scary in fact. That settled it for me. Also we are dairy farmers producing a high quality rural product. Having a site like that nearby doesn't fit with what we do at all."
    Install 28th Nov 15, 3.3kW, (11x300LG), SolarEdge, SW. W Yorks.
    Install 2 Sept, 600W SSE
    Solax 6.3kW battery
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 23rd Oct 19, 5:57 PM
    • 9,604 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Too much good news, so sorry, but here's some negative stuff, and also helps (partly) explain why I keep saying the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction / less action.

    Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think

    For some time now it has been clear that the effects of climate change are appearing faster than scientists anticipated. Now it turns out that there is another form of underestimation as bad or worse than the scientific one: the underestimating by economists of the costs.

    The result of this failure by economists is that world leaders understand neither the magnitude of the risks to lives and livelihoods, nor the urgency of action. How and why this has occurred is explained in a recent report by scientists and economists at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

    One reason is obvious: Since climate scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change and the severity of its effects, then economists will necessarily underestimate their costs.

    But it’s worse than that. A set of assumptions and practices in economics has led economists both to underestimate the economic impact of many climate risks and to miss some of them entirely. That is a problem because, as the report notes, these “missing risks” could have “drastic and potentially catastrophic impacts on citizens, communities and companies.”
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • JKenH
    • By JKenH 23rd Oct 19, 7:14 PM
    • 1,049 Posts
    • 3,181 Thanks
    JKenH
    Too much good news, so sorry, but here's some negative stuff, and also helps (partly) explain why I keep saying the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction / less action.

    Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Just for a bit of balance - from the IPCC report

    ‘Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
    Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’


    Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters. Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded.



    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf
    Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 23rd Oct 19, 10:24 PM
    • 1,089 Posts
    • 3,642 Thanks
    1961Nick

    [My bold] - Easy to say, but those authors don't have to deal with the 'three Amigos' on this thread/board!
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Amigo here.....

    I really don't see why climate change was the responsibility of Exxon. Their role was to produce & market fuel to make a profit for the benefit of their shareholders. As long as they don't break any laws they should be free to go about their business.

    Any climate change data they produced would been for forward planning purposes & therefore a trade secret. Why would you give that information to your competitors?

    Their only misdemeanour seems to be that they gave their shareholders some misleading information regarding climate change & it's potential effect on the business. Considering how much money they've made, it's hard to argue that withholding that information cost shareholders anything.
    Last edited by 1961Nick; 23-10-2019 at 10:29 PM.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • ABrass
    • By ABrass 23rd Oct 19, 10:56 PM
    • 211 Posts
    • 288 Thanks
    ABrass
    The current court case accuses them of fraud. That's against the law.
    • 1961Nick
    • By 1961Nick 23rd Oct 19, 11:00 PM
    • 1,089 Posts
    • 3,642 Thanks
    1961Nick
    The current court case accuses them of fraud. That's against the law.
    Originally posted by ABrass
    They are currently innocent.

    They may be found guilty of giving shareholders misleading information which is a financial crime.
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400

    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus Batteries - 12kWh
    • Hexane
    • By Hexane 23rd Oct 19, 11:53 PM
    • 155 Posts
    • 177 Thanks
    Hexane
    They may be found guilty of giving shareholders misleading information which is a financial crime.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    The term "financial crime" has no special status under either U.S. law or U.K. law, as Jordan Belfort and others found out. It's odd that you used it as an immediate followup to your previous post which used the term "misdemeanour", which does have a different status under U.S. law. I don't think we're going to get confused between the two.
    Last edited by Hexane; 23-10-2019 at 11:55 PM. Reason: not him
    7.25 kWp PV system (4.1kW WSW & 3.15kW ENE), Solis inverter, myenergi eddi & harvi for energy diversion to immersion heater. myenergi hub for Virtual Power Plant demand-side response trial.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 24th Oct 19, 8:01 AM
    • 9,604 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Amigo here.....

    I really don't see why climate change was the responsibility of Exxon. Their role was to produce & market fuel to make a profit for the benefit of their shareholders. As long as they don't break any laws they should be free to go about their business.
    Originally posted by 1961Nick
    Their research confirmed exactly what all of the science was saying, that AGW was both real and would have a huge negative impact.

    They chose to lie, by omission, and then (like many other FF businesses) to lie openly to the World by funding a misinformation campaign designed to stop or delay action. They probably cost us 20yrs of action, delaying the big push to around 2010.

    The result of their (and others) actions, is that the environmental impacts, and cost impacts will be vastly greater, and if we do manage to avoid runaway GW (not certain anymore that that is even possible) then it will be at a temperature higher than it otherwise would have been, with all the negative connotations that that will bring.

    You like to talk about the cost of action, and how much we should spend (or not spend), well thanks to those companies we have to spend vastly more - yet you would rather argue against me, and defend them.

    PS - TSLA up 20% in out of hours trading.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

137Posts Today

2,120Users online

Martin's Twitter