Register to Comment
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 83
Like Tree18Likes
  1. #21
    benroe benroe is offline
    benroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,783

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Joe Soap is more easily fooled, sad to say.

    And I need only mention the words "Robert Mercer".

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...p-nigel-farage

    And "Scott Pruitt", not a billionaire, but an ambitious lawyer, owned by the fossil fuel industry.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/1426...trump-deserves

    Incidentally, I am not one for conspiracy theories in general, but it seems worth while to put this one out there. It is a lot better than most.
    So why didn't Hillary win? she spent way more than Trump to fool joe soap, do you really believe that Mercers 13 million bought him enough influence to sway Trumps environmental policies?, do you really believe that 13 million dollars was decisive in Trumps election?

    The fact is every presidential candidate until Trump had to have a major industry backing them to have a chance of winning, the Bushes had the oil industry, Obama the bankers, Trump is beholden to no one.

    I believe Trumps attempt at a legacy will be one of cutting spending and borrowing while maximising surplus and I believe that if he was left alone he would succeed, but the hysteria of his opposition will bring him down eventually and the system may well be damaged beyond repair.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    Surkov Surkov is offline
    Surkov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,138

    Quote Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
    Thorium.

    It was discontinued during the Cold War in preference to Uranium.

    I think Thorium Nuclear is much better.
    Have trials with thorium met expectations?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Surkov Surkov is offline
    Surkov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,138

    Nuclear power
    The dream that failed


    The bureaucrats, politicians and industrialists of what has been called Japan's “nuclear village” were not unaccountable apparatchiks in a decaying authoritarian state like those that bore the guilt of Chernobyl; they had responsibilities to voters, to shareholders, to society. And still they allowed their enthusiasm for nuclear power to shelter weak regulation, safety systems that failed to work and a culpable ignorance of the tectonic risks the reactors faced, all the while blithely promulgating a myth of nuclear safety...

    Reactors bought today may end up operating into the 22nd century, and decommissioning well-regulated reactors that have been paid for when they have years to run—as Germany did—makes little sense. Some countries with worries about the security of other energy supplies will keep building them, as may countries with an eye on either building, or having the wherewithal to build, nuclear weapons. And if the prices of fossil fuels rise and stay high, through scarcity or tax, nuclear may charm again. But the promise of a global transformation is gone.

    Is nuclear power 'the dream that failed'?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    gracethepirate gracethepirate is offline
    gracethepirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    16,086

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Those who love conspiracy theories may like this one, my own personal deduction.

    It is clear from Trump's posturing and foreign policy visits that he loves these countries above all others - Russia and Saudi Arabia, a surrogate for a plethora of gulf states. With Russia as a "grey area", the fact is that if Cruz, Rubio or Bush had won the Presidency, their policy in relation to fossil fuel would not be much different.

    Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are brutal authoritarian regimes, enough to provoke disgust among most, but they all have something else in common - oil, or more accurately fossil fuel. Both are petro-states with a command of the world's greatest natural resource.

    OTOH, other US allies from the Cold War era, are fossil fuel consumers rather than producers, and this are less important in Trumptopia.

    So, let us say that a wealthy and powerful elite have decided that command of the world's oil and gas resources is the key to global power in the 21st century and have elected Trump to make sure command of those resources are kept in the "right" (our) hands?

    An alliance of petro-states with command of 75% of fossil fuel resources could pretty much dominate the planet. It is going to take decades for alternative sources to be sufficiently available to the displace what are now "traditional" fuel sources. They pollute and alter the climate, but if you are wealthy enough, you probably would not consider that a problem.

    At worst, there is a "window" in which fossil fuels are extremely important - the next generation of alternative power sources will have be made with energy generated by fossil fuels. In that window, you can make a pile of money.

    So forget about the "clash of civilisations" and "terrorism" (just a word to throw that those who stand in your way): follow the fossil fuel. Oh, terrorists do exist, but remember both Saudi Arabia and Russia funded a lot of them.

    But why Iran as an enemy? There are complications over Israel, which has influence in Washington, and of course Saudi Arabia see Iran as its main rival. So the Mullah's are not at the Top Table - yet. They could make it via Russia, which is there ally, and a brokered Israel-Palestine agreement.

    Outside the Pale, as we saw, are the 6 states left G7 states and the Paris Accord, along with China, and the majority of the world's states, who signed up to an Agreement that virtually guaranteed the death of fossil fuel as an industry, committed the world to leaving most of its fossil fuel reserves in the ground. An Agreement that would strand $trillions in assets of Russia, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

    So when Trump withdraws the US from the Paris Agreement, I expect the petro-states to follow. Not only that, they will make a strong attempt to destroy the Accord completely. Even if they stay the agreement, they can still destroy it from the inside. Time will tell.

    So I am putting it out there as the conspiracy theory du jour. An interesting one to watch over the coming months and years.

    PS Just off on a a 6-week vacation, where I intend to not follow news or sports. Ok, maybe a little.
    Hopefully solar power will make these countries and their oil resources generally irrelevant.

    I note that yesterday there was a report that on one day 25% of Brit electricity was generated from wind and/or solar power. May this trend continue. It will also lead to the diversification of electricty distribution so that individual homes and towns will be self-sufficient in their energy needs.

    Tough titties, Putin et al



    PS enjoy your vacation, otj.
    Last edited by gracethepirate; 28th May 2017 at 03:05 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    gracethepirate gracethepirate is offline
    gracethepirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    16,086

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    There are incremental developments taking place but to completely replace the ICE, there will need to be a completely revolutionary storage system and there are no signs of that happening at present.
    Yes there is. Do a google on rneweable resources, tesla. There are new developments virtually every week, vast improvements over the current system.

    Solar is taking off even in cooler climates such as GB, but in Australia major electricity companies are reluctant to develop any new power stations because so many people are generating their own electricity via solar and other renewables. There is plenty of coal in Australia but it is likely to stay in the ground. Even China is not buying so much.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    mr_anderson mr_anderson is online now
    mr_anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9,434

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    PS There is a bit more to it than transportation ... the prime use of fossil fuel world wide is in electricity generation. You can have all the electric cars you like, but if the charging power is coming off fossil fuel sources, then you have just shifted the problem.
    And watch that change rapidly too.
    The key isn't power generation per se, but storage.

    A simple example would be having 200% of power demand coming off solar.
    Excess during the day, nothing at night.
    As a power source it's unworkable unless you have a storage capacity.
    That's what battery technology is going to revolutionise.

    You're going to have cheap industrial-scale storage solutions kicking in.

    All the problems associated with renewables such as solar (what happens at night ?) or wind (what happens on a calm day ?) will be overcome.
    And it's going to happen within the next decade.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    Analyzer Analyzer is offline
    Analyzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    42,861

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Joe Soap is more easily fooled, sad to say.

    And I need only mention the words "Robert Mercer".

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...p-nigel-farage

    And "Scott Pruitt", not a billionaire, but an ambitious lawyer, owned by the fossil fuel industry.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/1426...trump-deserves

    Incidentally, I am not one for conspiracy theories in general, but it seems worth while to put this one out there. It is a lot better than most.
    Just wondering....Scott Pruitt.....is he getting money in a Foundation from Qatar or something

    Mercer is worth investigating.

    But he does not own MSNBC or the Complete Nonsense News.

    And then we have "our" own dodgy billionaire throwing money at the Royal Family of Arkansas politics.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Surkov Surkov is offline
    Surkov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,138

    Imagine if some hopeful spark attached some HUGE solar panels to a kerosene-free boeing 747 and then hit the accelerator.

    What would happen I wonder?

    Hmmm.

    When the KSA finally runs out of oil, I suspect we are all just going to have to start cancelling those package holidays, even if we really don't want to (wind power to the rescue though: sail boats will still be available).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    mr_anderson mr_anderson is online now
    mr_anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9,434

    Quote Originally Posted by gracethepirate View Post
    Hopefully solar power will make these countries and their oil resources generally irrelevant.

    I note that yesterday there was a report that on one day 25% of Brit electricity was generated from wind and/or solar power. May this trend continue. It will also lead to the diversification of electricty distribution so that individual homes and towns will be self-sufficient in their energy needs.

    Look at Germany as to the direction of renewables, as they are concentrating on it more than any other.

    16 May 2016
    Germany met all of its power demand through renewable energy for a brief spell lasting around an hour on Sunday afternoon, new figures show, in what was a first for Europe’s largest electricity market.

    On Sunday, the brief 100% renewables window occurred between 13:00 and 14:00 Berlin time, as almost 23GW of wind power – robust generation even by Germany’s high standards – combined with more than 16GW of solar to meet typically subdued Sunday demand.
    https://www.icis.com/resources/news/...mes-a-reality/



    I want you to remember that date - 16 May 2016.
    For one hour on that date, Germany produced it's entire power demand though renewables.


    Germany's renewable power generation went up over 250% in just 10 years.

    In 2006 German produced 71.64 TWh of renewable power (11.7% of total demand)

    In 2016 German produced 191.4 TWh of renewable power (32.3% of total demand)

    Renewable Electricity Generation in Germany (see final table)

    With increased efficiencies in renewable technology, greater storage facilities and continued concentration on energy conservation, it's only a matter of time before Germany is on 100% renewables permanently.


    Now remember that date again - 16 May 2016.
    Well on 30 April 2017, renewables contributed 85% of the days energy needs.

    On April 30, 85 percent of the electricity consumed by the European nation was generated by renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. “Most of Germany’s coal-fired power stations were not even operating on Sunday, April 30,” Patrick Graichen of the Agora Energiewende initiative told Renew Economy.


    Though noteworthy right now, Graichen expects days like April 30 to be “completely normal” by 2030 due to Germany’s firm commitment to clean energy.

    So in the space of less than 1 year, Germany has gone from producing 100% of 1 hour's electricity demand to 85% of a daily demand.

    I'll expect it to produce 1 full day in the coming months.

    Game over.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    mr_anderson mr_anderson is online now
    mr_anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9,434

    Quote Originally Posted by Surkov View Post
    When the KSA finally runs out of oil, I suspect we are all just going to have to start cancelling those package holidays, even if we really don't want to (wind power to the rescue though: sail boats will still be available).

    This is the funny thing with technology, Saudi Arabia is going to run out of demand for it's oil before it runs out of oil.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment