Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:21 am

M564038 wrote:
So yes,
You are going at it the wrong way and using the wrong numbers.
I drive a bit more than average, but my car also use a bit less than an average EV per km, and the meter show it has consumed 2503.55kWh over the last year. (Including transmission loss)

In addition, to find the actual draw on the grid, you need to subtract the savings in gasoline refinement which, according to those in the know is about about 1kWh/10km.

Combining these numbers with average driving distances, you’ll find that an average draw over 24hours for a EV is 125Wh.

To point you to where your numbers is off:
A car has 2 kW ratings:
1/The engine size: Maximum theoretical power output, just as an fossil car, where it was traditionally measured in Horse Power. You never actually reach even a fraction of this number. This is not an interesting number in measuring consumption.

2/The battery size, measured in kWh.
The most popular size for newer mid range EVs (Polestar, Tesla 3, Ioniq 5 etc) seems to be around 70kWh. This will get you around 400Km in real life. Upwards of 500Km in an M3 on a summers day.

Completely in line with what I measure myself of my owns car’s consumption, and what I see from the numbers I have access to from our housing area’s garage charging stations where we have closer to 200EVs with individual stations to measure.

Aquila3 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!



Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand her.


No, I think your numbers are out of a couple of orders of magnitude.
125 Wh? That is the consumtion of a small kitchen tool for one hour, like a mixer or a coffe grinder. Not for moving around a one ton or more vehicle. A small Nissan Leaf has a WLTP consuption of about 20kWh, for 100 Km. If it does 60 Km in such hour, it will take about 12kWh, 100 times more of your 125 Wh.
Your same car at 2500/365 takes about 7kWh a day in average, that, even if fantastic, is 50 times more than your 125 Wh.
 
M564038
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:15 am

125W average continous draw on the grid, I apologize if there got a Wh in there somewhere.


Another thing to remember is that most homechargers have smart load-distrobution. That means charging-effect is adjusted to the time of day, and number of people charging on the local transformer plus electricity prices and overall grid load can be taken into account.

This means that in the future, no real power peak increase at all is expected.


Aquila3 wrote:
M564038 wrote:
So yes,
You are going at it the wrong way and using the wrong numbers.
I drive a bit more than average, but my car also use a bit less than an average EV per km, and the meter show it has consumed 2503.55kWh over the last year. (Including transmission loss)

In addition, to find the actual draw on the grid, you need to subtract the savings in gasoline refinement which, according to those in the know is about about 1kWh/10km.

Combining these numbers with average driving distances, you’ll find that an average draw over 24hours for a EV is 125Wh.

To point you to where your numbers is off:
A car has 2 kW ratings:
1/The engine size: Maximum theoretical power output, just as an fossil car, where it was traditionally measured in Horse Power. You never actually reach even a fraction of this number. This is not an interesting number in measuring consumption.

2/The battery size, measured in kWh.
The most popular size for newer mid range EVs (Polestar, Tesla 3, Ioniq 5 etc) seems to be around 70kWh. This will get you around 400Km in real life. Upwards of 500Km in an M3 on a summers day.

Completely in line with what I measure myself of my owns car’s consumption, and what I see from the numbers I have access to from our housing area’s garage charging stations where we have closer to 200EVs with individual stations to measure.

Aquila3 wrote:

Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand her.


No, I think your numbers are out of a couple of orders of magnitude.
125 Wh? That is the consumtion of a small kitchen tool for one hour, like a mixer or a coffe grinder. Not for moving around a one ton or more vehicle. A small Nissan Leaf has a WLTP consuption of about 20kWh, for 100 Km. If it does 60 Km in such hour, it will take about 12kWh, 100 times more of your 125 Wh.
Your same car at 2500/365 takes about 7kWh a day in average, that, even if fantastic, is 50 times more than your 125 Wh.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:07 am

Aquila3 wrote:
No, I think your numbers are out of a couple of orders of magnitude.
125 Wh? That is the consumtion of a small kitchen tool for one hour, like a mixer or a coffe grinder. Not for moving around a one ton or more vehicle. A small Nissan Leaf has a WLTP consuption of about 20kWh, for 100 Km. If it does 60 Km in such hour, it will take about 12kWh, 100 times more of your 125 Wh.
Your same car at 2500/365 takes about 7kWh a day in average, that, even if fantastic, is 50 times more than your 125 Wh.


There are lots of solutions, indeed a smart grid at the home level, but also at the neighborhood level. If you see it as a battery, it is possible to power your home from your car with a setting to leave enough range for your next appointment. You can recharge your car during the day at work of wherever you are. It is a change in behavior, sure, but electrifying transportation will help things move forward. It is happening so let's go and solve the problems. Solutions are there.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:25 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Only what is easily possible. Not one thing is very difficult. Renewable energy is already cheaper than the alternatives. Some fossil fuels to cover shortages. EVs are about ready to predominate, battery shortages are the only real slow down. Modern public health care is surprisingly inexpensive. Agriculture presents some readily solivable challenges. Selfishness can wreck it all.


Indeed, if you look at the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, almost all were achieved, pre-corona. If we put the global mind to solve the real problems, it can be achieved. Some resist change in general and will just put everything in its way to stay what it is. I, for one, embrace change, in order to make things better, not just for me, but for society in general. You have laggers with everything, vested interests putting up 'arguments' to keep their interest first instead of society's interests. And you see people resisting change, to keep recycling those arguments, but there has changed something, it is the second level, the first level was: there is no human climate change - that is a small, but sometimes vocal minorities opinion and is best just ignored. Now the second stage: it cannot be done because of XYZ. It can, so let's move on and just do it.

this and stalling techniques.

Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:00 am

Dutchy wrote:



Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.


There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

There are vested interest groups and lobbyists on both sides of the divide, it’s not the scientific community that change the political minds it’s the lobbyist who do that most effectively
 
M564038
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:36 am

I am really tired of this «both sides are equally bad» strategy.
This isn’t a football match. These aren’t two equally weighted «opinions”.

One side is solidly backed up by all known science and fact.
The other side is backed up by the opinion of a bunch of selfish boomers and insane amounts of money from the fossil industries.

This is not in any way two equal sides.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:



Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.


There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

There are vested interest groups and lobbyists on both sides of the divide, it’s not the scientific community that change the political minds it’s the lobbyist who do that most effectively
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:49 am

A101 wrote:
There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.


Could you please give us some reliable data, including their budgets and access, to substantiate this 'fact'.

And indeed, the politicians should listen more to scientists, I full-heartedly agree. We would have had a much more green society by now.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:03 am

M564038 wrote:
I am really tired of this «both sides are equally bad» strategy.
This isn’t a football match. These aren’t two equally weighted «opinions”.

One side is solidly backed up by all known science and fact.
The other side is backed up by the opinion of a bunch of selfish boomers and insane amounts of money from the fossil industries.

This is not in any way two equal sides.


This is indeed a well-known tactic: whataboutism, everyone is doing it, so everybody is doing the same, so everyone calling out the other is the hypocrite. On the surface, it seems all logical, but indeed, the initial comparison is way off.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:16 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.


Could you please give us some reliable data, including their budgets and access, to substantiate this 'fact'.

And indeed, the politicians should listen more to scientists, I full-heartedly agree. We would have had a much more green society by now.



Here a couple, if you goggle you will find more just as you will on traditional energy Lobbyists that is the point I’m making

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ ... ?ind=E1500

https://www.washingtonpost.com/pol

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/0 ... -lobbyist/



They even have a green lobbyist school

https://www.environmentalscience.org/ca ... l-lobbyist
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:22 am

M564038 wrote:
I am really tired of this «both sides are equally bad» strategy.
This isn’t a football match. These aren’t two equally weighted «opinions”.

One side is solidly backed up by all known science and fact.
The other side is backed up by the opinion of a bunch of selfish boomers and insane amounts of money from the fossil industries.

This is not in any way two equal sides.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:



Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.


There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

There are vested interest groups and lobbyists on both sides of the divide, it’s not the scientific community that change the political minds it’s the lobbyist who do that most effectively


Don’t think I have said both sides equally bad, from my POV that there is no climate emergency

Nope it’s all about money and funding and subsidies and blah blah blah
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:49 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.


Could you please give us some reliable data, including their budgets and access, to substantiate this 'fact'.

And indeed, the politicians should listen more to scientists, I full-heartedly agree. We would have had a much more green society by now.



Here a couple, if you goggle you will find more just as you will on traditional energy Lobbyists that is the point I’m making

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ ... ?ind=E1500

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... istration/


now you are expanding the issue: as you are well aware, the new clean energy business is something else than the green-lobby, a.k.a. NGO's wanting better environment for us all and making sure that my grandchildren still have a good world to live in.

And you are taking the US as source, just have a look at your own source 'opensectets' link:

Oil & gas: $82,309,750
Coal mining: $2,132,000
Natural Gas Pipelines: $14,596,072

Versus:

Alternative Energy Production & Services: $23,467,377

Just going by your own source, you are wrong, 4 times as many gray and black lobbies as green energy lobby.

So the original question still stands. You make a statement and present it as fact, so giving a source for your presented facts should be no problem at all, or alternatively don't present it as a fact but as an opinion.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:59 am

A101 wrote:
Don’t think I have said both sides equally bad, from my POV that there is no climate emergency

Nope it’s all about money and funding and subsidies and blah blah blah


So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

And yes, it is all about money and funding, as we have seen with tobacco, consolidating the interest of a certain group of companies is quite important. The same with oil, gas and coal.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:33 pm

Dutchy wrote:

now you are expanding the issue: as you are well aware, the new clean energy business is something else than the green-lobby, a.k.a. NGO's wanting better environment for us all and making sure that my grandchildren still have a good world to live in.

And you are taking the US as source, just have a look at your own source 'opensectets' link:

Oil & gas: $82,309,750
Coal mining: $2,132,000
Natural Gas Pipelines: $14,596,072

Versus:

Alternative Energy Production & Services: $23,467,377

Just going by your own source, you are wrong, 4 times as many gray and black lobbies as green energy lobby.

So the original question still stands. You make a statement and present it as fact, so giving a source for your presented facts should be no problem at all, or alternatively don't present it as a fact but as an opinion.



Good lord, I haven’t expanded anything you were trying to paint a picture between scientists and lobbyists on who you trust. I had not even looked into the funding streams of lobbyists, I literally got that little bit of information within a few minutes after reading your post and you wanting a breakdown on funding. I think if I really drilled down into it I could make a better presentation of funding stream but those links were the first to pop up, but I can’t be arsed.

The whole point of my post was that there are lobbyists on both sides fossils and green fuels and there effectiveness is controlled by the views of the incumbents nations highest politicians view point.

It only stands to reason that lobbying for fossil fuels is larger as its has had decades of experience dealing with political infrastructures in its own nations and green energy lobbyists are relatively new hence the renewed emphasis when Biden came to power.







.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:37 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.




How do you know that those facts are right?

Not all scientists agree

You obviously haven’t been reading what I posted a short while ago
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:33 pm

A101 wrote:
[Good lord, I haven’t expanded anything you were trying to paint a picture between scientists and lobbyists on who you trust.


False, I have never said anything about trusting lobbyist, so do not put words in my mouths. And of course, I don't trust lobbyists. Scientists on the other hand, yes, science is fundamental in this and every discussion. Science is transparent in its methods. I know you do not put too much value in it given your statements in the past, this thread very much included.

A101 wrote:
I had not even looked into the funding streams of lobbyists, I literally got that little bit of information within a few minutes after reading your post and you wanting a breakdown on funding. I think if I really drilled down into it I could make a better presentation of funding stream but those links were the first to pop up, but I can’t be arsed.


Fine, but don't make any statements like this:

A101 wrote:
There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy


You literally say you do not have any foundation for these kinds of statements. And yes, I already suspected that, so I asked for your source. Now we have established that you do not have a source and you should not present unfounded things like that. That's all.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:15 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.




How do you know that those facts are right?

Not all scientists agree

You obviously haven’t been reading what I posted a short while ago


Alright, the moderators are ok with you saying this, so I have to reply to this. As mentioned before, the scientific consensus is that human-induced climate change is here and humankind is experiencing it with real-life consequences. If you don't subscribe to it, fine, but then you're living in a parallel universe and we have nothing to talk about. I have nothing more to say about that, it is as simple as that.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:04 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Good lord, I haven’t expanded anything you were trying to paint a picture between scientists and lobbyists on who you trust.


False, I have never said anything about trusting lobbyist, so do not put words in my mouths. And of course, I don't trust lobbyists. Scientists on the other hand, yes, science is fundamental in this and every discussion.


You must have selective memory;
Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.


You mention tobacco lobbyists and it’s propaganda by virtue you believe because it’s not true; as you later confirmed what I said my premise is correct

propaganda
noun
1; information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

Dutchy wrote:

Science is transparent in its methods. I know you do not put too much value in it given your statements in the past, this thread very much included.


The men and women behind the science are not infallible, especially if they start with a flawed model, remember the information I provided that showed a continued use of of false information when it came to peer reviewed paper and the linkage to breast cancer cells which showed that the sample actually came from Skin cancer and the continued to use that same model even once they knew

Just as some are questioning the modelling used for this so called climate emergency

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy

Fine, but don't make any statements like this:


Is it fundamentally wrong what I said?

We will never know the exact numbers on either camp, but you don’t see protests marches for the fossil fuel industry quite the contary; they too are fundamentally lobbyists just not paid ones


Dutchy wrote:

You literally say you do not have any foundation for these kinds of statements. And yes, I already suspected that, so I asked for your source. Now we have established that you do not have a source and you should not present unfounded things like that. That's all.


No: you have not established anything, I was talking about what information you wanted about the funding streams for green lobbyists and within that reply was an article about the formation of a couple of new green lobbyists groups after the last US Presidential elections

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.


How do you know that those facts are right?

Not all scientists agree


Alright, the moderators are ok with you saying this, so I have to reply to this. As mentioned before, the scientific consensus is that human-induced climate change is here and humankind is experiencing it with real-life consequences. If you don't subscribe to it, fine, but then you're living in a parallel universe and we have nothing to talk about. I have nothing more to say about that, it is as simple as that.


It’s a valid question, I already replied to the “ scientific consensus” which was debunked in the earlier thread so there is no actual consensus. And I put a link into the questioning of the models used to come to the conclusion when they are showing great discrepancies on the modelling to what is happening in the real world. But as the green movement is building up momentum in the media which is hard to stop even when the fact comes to light once you have the ear of persons in power

As I said before scientists are not infallible and not all agree that we are in a climate emergency
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:53 pm

Here we go again. All word games, as I have said before, it is boring, so will not participate in your little games. Except for your following statement:

A101 wrote:
As I said before scientists are not infallible and not all agree that we are in a climate emergency


Now in itself, it is a truism, sure, find one scientist, doesn't matter if he is a climate scientist or not, let's say a linguist and he or she says: no climate emergency - what is that anyway, and there you go.

But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.
In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.

Now, of course, I do not know you, so I am not saying you tip all those boxes, and frankly, I do not care. As I have said before, not interested anymore in that debate. Shell and other oil companies have successfully argued that since the mid-1990-ish, before that the narrative was we don't know the extent of the damage etc. The parallel with the tobacco lobby is there for anyone to see.

Denying the link between climate change and human behavior is like this,
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:13 am

Dutchy wrote:

Here we go again. All word games, as I have said before, it is boring, so will not participate in your little games


Well you know the answer to that

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
As I said before scientists are not infallible and not all agree that we are in a climate emergency

Now in itself, it is a truism, sure, find one scientist, doesn't matter if he is a climate scientist or not, let's say a linguist and he or she says: no climate emergency - what is that anyway, and there you go.


As I showed earlier it’s not just one person saying it, multiple people who have better and that are more knowledgeable than myself are saying it

Dutchy wrote:


But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.


Would that not equally apply to yourself?

Everything man does has an impact, by your reasoning to stop it is to make the human species extinct


Dutchy wrote:

In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.


You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists

What’s good for the goose is good for the ..........

Dutchy wrote:



Shell and other oil companies have successfully argued that since the mid-1990-ish, before that the narrative was we don't know the extent of the damage etc. The parallel with the tobacco lobby is there for anyone to see.



I’d say it’s well before that to an extant, what some are arguing is the extent of man- made CO2 on the environment to what the modelling shows that climate research has already diverged significantly from the real world compared to modelling compared to the actual climate sensitivity

Remember climate change it happens, with or without our help.
 
DTVG
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:19 am

Now is the best time to buy oil stocks. Just like Tobacco they will become uninvestable for pensions funds and endowments, keeping their stock prices relatively low. And while oil firms will be unwilling/unable to finance new exploration (due to public pressure) limiting oil supply, demand will be rising because we in the West are not willing to shift our consumption habits (so quickly) and millions of people in emerging economies will want to enjoy the lifestyle that we currently enjoy. So in the long term oil prices remain high and oil firms enjoy great cash flows that they pay out as dividends or share buybacks…
 
M564038
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:45 am

A101 wrote:
It’s a valid question, I already replied to the “ scientific consensus” which was debunked in the earlier thread so there is no actual consensus.


Excuse me, what?
Your «arguments» where absolutely smashed to pieces regarding the consensus. This is cognitive dissonance on a pretty high level.
 
M564038
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:03 am

A101 wrote:
I’d say it’s well before that to an extant, what some are arguing is the extent of man- made CO2 on the environment to what the modelling shows that climate research has already diverged significantly from the real world compared to modelling compared to the actual climate sensitivity .


Not true. The modelling is incredibly close to what is observed in real life. The width of rral observations supporting man-made climate change is undeniable, and thus there is consensus among those that paid any attention at school.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:14 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.


Would that not equally apply to yourself?


Bingo, yes it does, that's why I said that I am a layman for climate change modeling. And as a consequence, I am not going to debate it, but instead listen to those who are in the know, who are experts. I am not the one who is questioning science and the scientific consensus.

See the difference between me and you? I acknowledge my limitations on my own limited knowhow, you, on the other hand, think you can point to some scientists who disagree with the scientific consciences and use that as an excuse to have your own train of thought about a matter which you, by your own admission, know far too little about. And that, my friend, is why I said it is useless to debate this issue with you.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.


You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists


Haha, it is not an argument, it is an observation. And I do not use it to justify anything, let alone my position of green lobbyists, which you don't know what my position is, anyway.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:16 am

DTVG wrote:
Now is the best time to buy oil stocks. Just like Tobacco they will become uninvestable for pensions funds and endowments, keeping their stock prices relatively low. And while oil firms will be unwilling/unable to finance new exploration (due to public pressure) limiting oil supply, demand will be rising because we in the West are not willing to shift our consumption habits (so quickly) and millions of people in emerging economies will want to enjoy the lifestyle that we currently enjoy. So in the long term oil prices remain high and oil firms enjoy great cash flows that they pay out as dividends or share buybacks…


Yes, it is, until the carbon bubble bursts, and then it will become worthless.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:36 am

Another report, with the same message:

A report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) shows that in scenarios consistent with the 1.5-degree goal, Latin American oil production needs to fall to less than 4 million barrels per day by 2035--60% below pre-pandemic levels. This would mean that up to 81% of their proven, probable, and possible oil reserves will not be used before 2035. The fiscal impact would be enormous: the region’s oil exporters could lose up to around US$ 3 trillion in royalties by 2035 if strong global climate action materializes.


Link

Investing in fossil fuel assets is becoming more and more risque. So given the investment theories, it should give a very high return rate in order to offset the risk.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:15 pm

M564038 wrote:
A101 wrote:
It’s a valid question, I already replied to the “ scientific consensus” which was debunked in the earlier thread so there is no actual consensus.


Excuse me, what?
Your «arguments» where absolutely smashed to pieces regarding the consensus. This is cognitive dissonance on a pretty high level.


I suggest you go back and read again


The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.
Last edited by A101 on Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:17 pm

M564038 wrote:
A101 wrote:
I’d say it’s well before that to an extant, what some are arguing is the extent of man- made CO2 on the environment to what the modelling shows that climate research has already diverged significantly from the real world compared to modelling compared to the actual climate sensitivity .


Not true. The modelling is incredibly close to what is observed in real life. The width of rral observations supporting man-made climate change is undeniable, and thus there is consensus among those that paid any attention at school.


It appears even a study at those at University of Colorado in the area of Cooperative Institute for Research In Environmental Sciences, say that “Worst-case emissions projections are already off track” and have “IPCC baseline scenarios have over-projected CO2 emissions and economic growth” and also say “Recent studies find that observed trends and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections of global CO2 emissions have diverged from emission scenario outlooks widely employed in climate research.”
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:19 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.

Would that not equally apply to yourself?

Bingo, yes it does, that's why I said that I am a layman for climate change modeling. And as a consequence, I am not going to debate it, but instead listen to those who are in the know, who are experts. I am not the one who is questioning science and the scientific consensus.


You make a interesting comment and continue repeat the same pattern and theme hopping to shut down debate using the same formula to silence dissent,

You said;
I am not the one who is question science and the scientific consensus.

One should always be questioning it and not blindly following the crowd because it is convenient, you are closing your mind to the alternative thinking from the scientific community and quite unashamedly continue to put the “con” into consensus when has has been shown to be false.




Dutchy wrote:

See the difference between me and you? I acknowledge my limitations on my own limited knowhow, you, on the other hand, think you can point to some scientists who disagree with the scientific consciences and use that as an excuse to have your own train of thought about a matter which you, by your own admission, know far too little about. And that, my friend, is why I said it is useless to debate this issue with you.


What are you saying you cannot fathom an independent thought after reading arguments from those who have broader knowledge on the subject on both sides of the divide


Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.

You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists

Haha, it is not an argument, it is an observation. And I do not use it to justify anything, let alone my position of green lobbyists, which you don't know what my position is, anyway.


You comment changed from an observation to an argument when you called people who question the science selfish and do not want to change, that changes the complexity of your so called observations.
 
M564038
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:34 pm

Questioning science is how science itself works.
You aren’t questioning, you are denying and cherry picking. You act the same way when reading and reading back on posts in this thread. This is how cognitive dissonance happens.

I can’t read your mind, so I don’t know why this happens, and I am not trying to attack you personally, but you seem to represent a pattern that is shared by many. This is about how an emotional connection to a certain (often traditional) way of seeing things, is so strong that objective facts, observation, science and logic come up short when opinion is formed.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Would that not equally apply to yourself?

Bingo, yes it does, that's why I said that I am a layman for climate change modeling. And as a consequence, I am not going to debate it, but instead listen to those who are in the know, who are experts. I am not the one who is questioning science and the scientific consensus.


You make a interesting comment and continue repeat the same pattern and theme hopping to shut down debate using the same formula to silence dissent,

You said;
I am not the one who is question science and the scientific consensus.

One should always be questioning it and not blindly following the crowd because it is convenient, you are closing your mind to the alternative thinking from the scientific community and quite unashamedly continue to put the “con” into consensus when has has been shown to be false.




Dutchy wrote:

See the difference between me and you? I acknowledge my limitations on my own limited knowhow, you, on the other hand, think you can point to some scientists who disagree with the scientific consciences and use that as an excuse to have your own train of thought about a matter which you, by your own admission, know far too little about. And that, my friend, is why I said it is useless to debate this issue with you.


What are you saying you cannot fathom an independent thought after reading arguments from those who have broader knowledge on the subject on both sides of the divide


Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists

Haha, it is not an argument, it is an observation. And I do not use it to justify anything, let alone my position of green lobbyists, which you don't know what my position is, anyway.


You comment changed from an observation to an argument when you called people who question the science selfish and do not want to change, that changes the complexity of your so called observations.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5215
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:44 pm

I see much of the Third World skipping a lot of the infrastructure we think necessary. Cell phones (and with banking!) have revolutionized communications in those parts of the world we thought could not afford to string up lines on poles to every village, hamlet, and wide place in the road. (incidentally it is the roads that are necessary, not wires). Solar, first enough to power lights, phones, and a TV, will fairly quickly also power some limited air-conditioning (an essential in a warming world), some sort of minimal utility ATV (probably made in China) cooking (no more women and children breathing indoor soot from combustion), and dispersed small scale manufacturing (3D printing, anyone?).

The threats to all of this: 3 degree C warming, and the everywhere burgeoning neo-fascism.

PS - Second Hand offers another way of looking at all of that 'junk' that is exported around the world and especially to Africa. It is very much worth the time to read it. I got it at the library (don't need or have room to store all the books I read every years)

https://www.amazon.com/Secondhand-Trave ... 4549&psc=1
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:50 pm

M564038 wrote:
Questioning science is how science itself works.
You aren’t questioning, you are denying and cherry picking. You act the same way when reading and reading back on posts in this thread. This is how cognitive dissonance happens.



Exactly what I have been doing questioning the science, I haven’t been running with the crowd like a flock of sheep, over the years I have read a wide cross section of work between scientific, articles and listening to what people have said

But if that’s your take well whatever floats your boat.

M564038 wrote:
I can’t read your mind, so I don’t know why this happens, and I am not trying to attack you personally, but you seem to represent a pattern that is shared by many. This is about how an emotional connection to a certain (often traditional) way of seeing things, is so strong that objective facts, observation, science and logic come up short when opinion is formed.


True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:14 pm

A101 wrote:
True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either


And that's it, it is your conclusion based on your own opinion and in the big scheme of things that makes it worthless. The problem is that your conclusions cannot be verified in any scientific way, so we should take your word for it that it is the right sort of conclusion and not just an opinion. Ad as with all things: the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence. And your opinion goes against the scientific consensus. So yes, you believe in something, that is the exact right word for it, 'believe', because facts point in another direction.
Don't you think your believes and 'conclusions' might be wrong? And if that is the case, when should we act as a world community? After the fact? After all the things which have been predicted are becoming true? when?
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:43 pm

"Power prices soar on French nuclear questions, gas worries". https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/power-p ... as-worries.
Issue occured at French nuclear plant delaying restart coupled with pending German nuclear plant shutdowns at year end.
Excerpt -
"The scare that the French nuclear maintenance period will be extended after the signal about this one reactor is spreading to the rest of the market," said Fabian Ronningen, analyst at Rystad Energy. "The market is very nervous, it is not just a short-term thing."
Germany's ongoing nuclear exit programme takes 4.2 gigawatt (GW) of capacity out by Dec. 31.POWER/DE
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either


And that's it, it is your conclusion based on your own opinion and in the big scheme of things that makes it worthless.


If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions


Dutchy wrote:

The problem is that your conclusions cannot be verified in any scientific way, so we should take your word for it that it is the right sort of conclusion and not just an opinion.


No real modelling on the subject can be verified because every model starts with an assumption, hence why the modelling predictions are all over the shop.

The modelling is presuming that the fluctuations in the earths temperature is 100% man made from excess CO2 in the atmosphere but that is far from the truth, fluctuations in temperature can also be caused by natural elements with climate change such as the pacific decadal oscillation and this is far from measurable from the balance of CO2 as CO2 is measured as a whole it cannot be deduced which is man made or natural in the atmosphere as the earths temperature is calculated by both the amount of sunlight the earth absorb or emit into space.

The study done at University of Colorado show that “Worst-case emissions projections are already off track” and “IPCC baseline scenarios have over-projected CO2 emissions and economic growth” and also said that Recent studies find that observed trends and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections of global CO2 emissions have diverged from emission scenario outlooks widely employed in climate research.”

The above shows that the assumptions used for the modelling is wrong and that is from the scientific community making those assertions which is why that the consensus is just not there as I showed earlier



Dutchy wrote:

Ad as with all things: the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence. And your opinion goes against the scientific consensus.


Seems like you have taken a few lessons from Trumps, saying the same thing over and over again does not change the fact that there is no scientific consensus, illusory truth effect

Dutchy wrote:

So yes, you believe in something, that is the exact right word for it, 'believe', because facts point in another direction.


Actually I have showed the opposite that Science is infallible, in a court of law that is called reasonable doubt, if you want to believe unquestionably that is your prerogative to believe what ever you want

Dutchy wrote:

Don't you think your believes and 'conclusions' might be wrong?


Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:48 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either


And that's it, it is your conclusion based on your own opinion and in the big scheme of things that makes it worthless.


If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions


Now you are getting it, you are absolutely correct. The world is very complex, climate change is very complex, people who dedicated their lives to understanding the matter, those opinions do matter. We call those people experts in their field. Those people work in the academia of the world and those opinions have been resumed in the IPCC report. That's why I rely on that source and not my own 'research', aka reading some papers and cherry-picking some scientists which happen to coincide with my opinion. My opinion isn't leading, facts are experts interpreting those facts are.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Don't you think your believes and 'conclusions' might be wrong?


Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either


So if you believe you are not 100% correct, why don't you think we should be on the safe side and listen to the experts and act on their recommendations?

A101 wrote:
there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either


Nobody said that science is infallible, but you only know about this, because of the scientific process which in itself corrects itself. And given science isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that one can do a bit of 'research' in the evening, reading a few papers and think that one's layman opinion has the same value as the opinion of experts, that is ludicrous.

But more importantly, with statements like that, you put doubt on every fact and contribute to the so-called post-fact society. And as we know the post-fact society leads to the rise of populists, given the people the simplistic 'solutions' which don't work and have a lot of adverse effects. This is perfectly logical because simplistic solutions don't take into account the complexity of the real world. We have seen the adverse effects all over the world.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:59 am

Because this post is your opinion can we take it the entire post is worthless?


Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions

Now you are getting it, you are absolutely correct. The world is very complex, climate change is very complex, people who dedicated their lives to understanding the matter, those opinions do matter. We call those people experts in their field. Those people work in the academia of the world and those opinions have been resumed in the IPCC report. That's why I rely on that source and not my own 'research', aka reading some papers and cherry-picking some scientists which happen to coincide with my opinion. My opinion isn't leading, facts are experts interpreting those facts are.


So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

So if you believe you are not 100% correct, why don't you think we should be on the safe side and listen to the experts and act on their recommendations?


Because I don’t believe we should not act in haste until alternate technologies have proved themselves to be reliable affordable and practical, fossil fuels have had an enormous impact across the wealth of the industrialised societies. With the move to decarbonisation we are increasingly creating inequality in the industrialised nations because of the shift to renewable energy because we are currently using tax subsidies incentives while those that can least afford it at the same time driving up the cost of prices of fossil fuel energy, which in turn leads to an energy poverty crisis

Also why should we deny those same benefits to those developing nations that do not have access to cheap reliable basic energy service and help provide the means for more people to be released from generational poverty


Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

Nobody said that science is infallible, but you only know about this, because of the scientific process which in itself corrects itself. And given science isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that one can do a bit of 'research' in the evening, reading a few papers and think that one's layman opinion has the same value as the opinion of experts, that is ludicrous.


Yet you propagate myth by your inane belief to not hold the modelling to account and to continue blindly accept it without your own research, you don’t blindly accept a political POV without research acceptance in this area is no different
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6349
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:28 am

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Germany's ongoing nuclear exit programme takes 4.2 gigawatt (GW) of capacity out by Dec. 31.POWER/DE

That should be fun. There is something deeply irrational about German/Austrian attitude to nuclear power. It will take two, three winter blackouts max to bring them back to senses.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:13 am

A101 wrote:
Because this post is your opinion can we take it the entire post is worthless?


Your endless word games. If you do not grasp what I am saying, then I cannot help you, sorry.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions

Now you are getting it, you are absolutely correct. The world is very complex, climate change is very complex, people who dedicated their lives to understanding the matter, those opinions do matter. We call those people experts in their field. Those people work in the academia of the world and those opinions have been resumed in the IPCC report. That's why I rely on that source and not my own 'research', aka reading some papers and cherry-picking some scientists which happen to coincide with my opinion. My opinion isn't leading, facts are experts interpreting those facts are.


So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies


Is everything black and white with you? Yes, I take at face value what experts in the field are telling us. I lack the knowledge to judge those research papers. And that is the main difference between you and me, you claim that you understand climate change a lot better than the IPCC researchers and I do not, I listen to experts. By not listing to experts you are debating what facts are and what is not, so one cannot have a thought process if you donot have a paradigm.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

So if you believe you are not 100% correct, why don't you think we should be on the safe side and listen to the experts and act on their recommendations?


Because I don’t believe we should not act in haste until alternate technologies have proved themselves to be reliable affordable and practical, fossil fuels have had an enormous impact across the wealth of the industrialised societies. With the move to decarbonisation we are increasingly creating inequality in the industrialised nations because of the shift to renewable energy because we are currently using tax subsidies incentives while those that can least afford it at the same time driving up the cost of prices of fossil fuel energy, which in turn leads to an energy poverty crisis

Also why should we deny those same benefits to those developing nations that do not have access to cheap reliable basic energy service and help provide the means for more people to be released from generational poverty


There you go, the selfish argument, nicely packed in consequences for others people. 2% of the world's GDP should be directed towards making the world carbon neutral. So if you think that is not doable, then why have you voted for b, that has cost one of your home countries 4% of its GDP and has a lot more consequences for the poorer part of the population over there than this can ever have. BTW fossil fuels have more subsidies than green energy, so what are you talking about?
And if your worries were truly with developing nations, yes they have a point there, and with energy poverty, then you would have thoughts about how to solve that. That is a political question and we can have a debate on that, but that is a totally different thing than what you are doing, and that is debating the scientific consensus.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

Nobody said that science is infallible, but you only know about this, because of the scientific process which in itself corrects itself. And given science isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that one can do a bit of 'research' in the evening, reading a few papers and think that one's layman opinion has the same value as the opinion of experts, that is ludicrous.


Yet you propagate myth by your inane belief to not hold the modelling to account and to continue blindly accept it without your own research, you don’t blindly accept a political POV without research acceptance in this area is no different


On the contrary, it makes all the difference. Political POV are personal and just are opinions, modeling climate change is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter for experts to decide. I do not propagate to not holding the modeling to account, I propagate to have the scrutiny of the modeling done by experts, not by laymen like you and me. See the difference?
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:32 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies

Yes, I take at face value what experts in the field are telling us. I lack the knowledge to judge those research papers

It’s not about judgment on the paper, it’s about informing yourself on the different aspects of the problem



Dutchy wrote:

And that is the main difference between you and me, you claim that you understand climate change a lot better than the IPCC researchers and I do not,


Can you show where I made such claims please



Dutchy wrote:

I listen to experts. By not listing to experts you are debating what facts are and what is not, so one cannot have a thought process if you donot have a paradigm.


That tells me you only want to listen to one argument



Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Because I don’t believe we should not act in haste until alternate technologies have proved themselves to be reliable affordable and practical, fossil fuels have had an enormous impact across the wealth of the industrialised societies. With the move to decarbonisation we are increasingly creating inequality in the industrialised nations because of the shift to renewable energy because we are currently using tax subsidies incentives while those that can least afford it at the same time driving up the cost of prices of fossil fuel energy, which in turn leads to an energy poverty crisis

Also why should we deny those same benefits to those developing nations that do not have access to cheap reliable basic energy service and help provide the means for more people to be released from generational poverty


There you go, the selfish argument, nicely packed in consequences for others people. 2% of the world's GDP should be directed towards making the world carbon neutral. So if you think that is not doable, then why have you voted for b, that has cost one of your home countries 4% of its GDP and has a lot more consequences for the poorer part of the population over there than this can ever have. BTW fossil fuels have more subsidies than green energy, so what are you talking about?
And if your worries were truly with developing nations, yes they have a point there, and with energy poverty, then you would have thoughts about how to solve that. That is a political question and we can have a debate on that, but that is a totally different thing than what you are doing, and that is debating the scientific consensus.


Have you been protesting to your national government to stop all fossil fuel usage in the EU and immediately use solar or wind power for industrial and domestic consumption without wait for the new technology to develop and except what ever cost increase that they may bring without resorting to biomass as that has a greater impact on CO2 levels than fossil fuels.

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Yet you propagate myth by your inane belief to not hold the modelling to account and to continue blindly accept it without your own research, you don’t blindly accept a political POV without research acceptance in this area is no different

On the contrary, it makes all the difference. Political POV are personal and just are opinions, modeling climate change is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter for experts to decide. I do not propagate to not holding the modeling to account, I propagate to have the scrutiny of the modeling done by experts, not by laymen like you and me. See the difference?


The difference I am using the “experts” advice that hold the modelling to account. That’s something you choose to ignore
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:58 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies

Yes, I take at face value what experts in the field are telling us. I lack the knowledge to judge those research papers

It’s not about judgment on the paper, it’s about informing yourself on the different aspects of the problem


And you and I are no experts in the field, you can think you informed yourself in different aspects of the problem, but you are not an expert, so you cannot make the call on it and that is the main point. And because you cannot your opinion is just that, your opinion and your opinion is quite useless. As is mine. Or do you think your opinion has much more merit or even is equal to experts?

I had written a rebottle to everything you claim and say, but I think we are again arguing in circles yet again, so basically, it is no use. The above is basically what it all boils down to: do you value your own opinion of the evidence more important than that of scientists. If so, we have nothing to talk about.

So, if you don't want to accept the scientific consensus in the IPCC as facts and go from there, fine, but then we live in a totally different reality and have nothing to talk about.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:22 pm

As a neutral party - Dutchy and A101 should call a truce. Neither of you are going to convince the other.

The recent problems with the French reactor and the continuing shut down of German reactors. Add in the chance of a Russian embargo if war starts in Ukraine. Europe will be in for a world of hurt if they don't keep coal plants ready to go. The US is more than willing to ship tons of low sulfur coal in case you need it. Wood chips and LNG too.

IMO - this points out that Green aspirations can get ahead of the energy needs of nations. At least for the next few years.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:00 pm

Dutchy wrote:

And you and I are no experts in the field, you can think you informed yourself in different aspects of the problem, but you are not an expert,


To which I have never claimed to be an “expert” you could not find the evidence to back up your unfounded claim when you said;
And that is the main difference between you and me, you claim that you understand climate change a lot better than the IPCC researchers and I do not,


Dutchy wrote:

so you cannot make the call on it and that is the main point. And because you cannot your opinion is just that, your opinion and your opinion is quite useless. As is mine. Or do you think your opinion has much more merit or even is equal to experts?


And now you arguments are just getting siller and siller, you do realise that if enough people inform themselves they can actually effect change. That’s why people protest hoping for enough momentum on it to affect political outcomes

To which do you refer to make a call? By scientific researcher, by political policy or by informal research and forming my own opinions

Dutchy wrote:

I had written a rebottle to everything you claim and say,


Well the above shows just one example of a rebuttal where none was forthcoming , but you have consistently have not made a rebuttal to anything, you choose to ignore the imperfections of the science to which I have shown their is no scientific consensus, the modelling are not flawless and using biomass actually increases the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere all by doing my on research using the informed opinions of the “experts”

Dutchy wrote:

So, if you don't want to accept the scientific consensus in the IPCC as facts and go from there, fine, but then we live in a totally different reality and have nothing to talk about.


You have been saying that also for quite some time and continue to engage with me and try and silence dissent.

What I do not have to accept is a science report which is shown to be unreliable and also has been shown to becoming from wrong assumptions within the modelling.

Assumptions are the mother of all f&#k ups, and here we are making major decisions based on flawed assumptions within the modelling
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:19 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The recent problems with the French reactor and the continuing shut down of German reactors. Add in the chance of a Russian embargo if war starts in Ukraine. Europe will be in for a world of hurt if they don't keep coal plants ready to go. The US is more than willing to ship tons of low sulfur coal in case you need it. Wood chips and LNG too.

IMO - this points out that Green aspirations can get ahead of the energy needs of nations. At least for the next few years.


Yes it does show one needs to build resilience within the power grid and a level of self reliance in power generation, it’s here where I think fossil and renewables have a place side by side now and into the future
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:06 pm

Resilience in the grid is critical.
Hacking the grid, sabotage, or system error along with brown outs and rolling blackouts will crush a modern economy. I would hope that "the smart grid" would be less vunerable but the more we electrify the more important resilience becomes.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:38 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Resilience in the grid is critical.
Hacking the grid, sabotage, or system error along with brown outs and rolling blackouts will crush a modern economy. I would hope that "the smart grid" would be less vunerable but the more we electrify the more important resilience becomes.


Resilience is always important. Given that electricity can be generated anywhere with solar panels and with wind, it will be much more decentralized and thus more resilient. Smart grid is also important to spread out the peaks and low of the system as a whole. With systems as a powerwall or even with electricity from your electric car, one could power one's home. That would be the ultimate resilience on a personal level.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:45 pm

A101 wrote:
You have been saying that also for quite some time and continue to engage with me and try and silence dissent.


You are right on this point, I will leave you with your drool. If you want to believe in drool, that is up to you. The rest of the world will move away from its fossil fuel addiction, hopefully in time to avoid catastrophe.
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:58 pm

Dutchy wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Resilience in the grid is critical.
Hacking the grid, sabotage, or system error along with brown outs and rolling blackouts will crush a modern economy. I would hope that "the smart grid" would be less vunerable but the more we electrify the more important resilience becomes.


Resilience is always important. Given that electricity can be generated anywhere with solar panels and with wind, it will be much more decentralized and thus more resilient. Smart grid is also important to spread out the peaks and low of the system as a whole. With systems as a powerwall or even with electricity from your electric car, one could power one's home. That would be the ultimate resilience on a personal level.



Untill the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, hence why you need both resilience and self reliance in the grid
 
A101
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:00 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
You have been saying that also for quite some time and continue to engage with me and try and silence dissent.


You are right on this point, I will leave you with your drool. If you want to believe in drool, that is up to you. The rest of the world will move away from its fossil fuel addiction, hopefully in time to avoid catastrophe.


Be while before the world moves away from fossil energy for power and life in general
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12827
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:06 am

A good editorial Editorial about why climate risk isn't reflected in company reports of the fossil fuel businesses.

Last week, Shell walked away from 170 million barrels of oil off the coast of Shetland, declaring the “economic case for investment” too weak. As might be expected with such a politically sensitive venture, there has been much speculation about what other factors might have been at play, whether pressure from Nicola Sturgeon or from Whitehall. But let’s try another question: how did Shell ever decide that there was an economic case? After all, the energy giant does not deny that its entire business will have to change. It advertises its “target to become a net zero emissions” company by 2050, publishes a “sustainability report” and partners with environmental organisations around the world. Yet little of this environmental awareness shows up in the hard numbers.


Link

Shell is indeed the obvious company here, the accountants didn't sign their environmental report, because it was not in line with their investment policies. Even in that industry things are changing and need to change fast, otherwise, Shell and the likes will be the next Kodak.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:57 am

Dutchy - you are spot on about wind and solar adding to the resiliency of the grid. The move in the past to large generators and power lines shipping electricity hundreds of miles is very vulnerable. I live in northeast Ohio. In the summer of 2003, a high capacity power line 5 miles from where I live sagged down and made contact with a tree. That short coupled with a software failure caused the better part of eastern Ontario and the US northeast to be without electricity for days. Everyone was without except those with auxiliary generators or solar panels.

But I am worried about the vulnerability of a smart grid to a malware attack. WW 3 might be started without firing a shot.

Shell and the UK better hope that farmers have electric tractors, lorries are electric and every piece of construction equipment is electrified by the early 2030's. Oh and pretty much every aircraft too. IMO its too soon to stop domestic drilling for any western nation.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FGITD, MarcoT, NIKV69 and 35 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos