Scrutable

I love love love this pissing competition that is "I have a job".

Well done, have a pat on the back, we can see you're very proud, you've done very well. Maybe more gold stars are called for?

Alternative explanations for Shell's change:

i)
It is the culmination of decades of civil war

ii)
They planned this 10 years ago and have been trundling along ever since, regardless of events.
(Brexit wasn't invented by Shell, and therefore doesn't matter)

iii)
they've done the sums wrong

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:33 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:05 am

A firm that didn't also invest billions in fossil fuels?

Shell need to find a way to be relevant when fossil fuels are completely regulated away. I think they've got enormous incentives to work on things like carbon sequestering for 'blue' hydrogen, wind & solar etc.. not because they're nice people but because they'll need to do that to still have a business in 50 years.

Then why do you want to subsidise them?

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:17 am

There will be no increase of Shell's employment of Brits in the UK as a result of its HQ being based here.

The executive team is already going to be paying tax on their incomes from the UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-592 ... 0employees.

When execs move, support staff move.

Stef Blok, economic affairs and climate minister, said earlier on Monday: "We are in a dialogue with the management of Shell over the consequences of this plan for jobs, crucial investment decisions and sustainability."

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:34 am

Then why do you want to subsidise them?

Why would you want to subsidise any environmental project that claims to be capable of generating profits in the free market?

If I did, I'd probably rank the contenders in terms of things like, I don't know, sustainability?

If Shell need to rely on their fossil fuel revenues to subsidise their renewable divisions (clue - they do) then that ship sailed a decade ago.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:42 am

If I did, I'd probably rank the contenders in terms of things like, I don't know, sustainability?

If Shell need to rely on their fossil fuel revenues to subsidise their renewable divisions (clue - they do) then that ship sailed a decade ago.

Everybody is relying on fossil fuels to subsidise renewables at the moment, I don't see the point being angry at the people who just happen to do the work.

They're not actively extracting and promoting the ongoing sale of them though including through extensive and sophisticated lobbying. It might help if you understood that Shell were and still are an oil company.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:53 am

They're not actively extracting and promoting the ongoing sale of them though including through extensive and sophisticated lobbying. It might help if you understood that Shell were and still are an oil company.

I do understand they're an oil and gas company. Point is we'd be living in extreme poverty at the moment without fossil fuels, and would be for years to come. Some of the early lobbying on climate change was actually supported by natural gas companies as they wanted people to switch from coal to their product.

Even you use fossil fuels, and I know you don't want to, it's just that you don't have practical alternatives for everything yet. Companies like shell are being made to undergo an enormously expensive transformation but we still need them for now.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:30 pm

Come on, I'm being reasonable here. You're condemning a company that produces something you use

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:34 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:30 pm

Come on, I'm being reasonable here. You're condemning a company that produces something you use

Reasonable? You want to subsidise Shell and you're cheering that Brexit allows us to do that. You don't explain why you'd support such a daft position and instead give ponderous explanations that fossil fuels are important m'kay.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is what the thread is supposed to be about.

Here is a thread for positive news about how aspects of Brexit benefit the population of the United Kingdom.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:44 pm

You want to subsidise Shell and you're cheering that Brexit allows us to do that.

Don't you want to subsidise the development of alternative energy sources?

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:46 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:44 pm

You want to subsidise Shell and you're cheering that Brexit allows us to do that.

Don't you want to subsidise the development of alternative energy sources?

Not if it involves more protracted use of fossil fuels a part of the deal.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:48 pm

Not if it involves more protracted use of fossil fuels a part of the deal.

But Shell don't create the demand of fossil fuels, they just satisfy a demand that exists. You won't be encouraging longer use of fossil fuels by helping a major energy company develop alternatives

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:45 pm

Here is a thread for positive news about how aspects of Brexit benefit the population of the United Kingdom.

When you have time could you please move my posts about brexit benefits here please. There are one or two posts by others that are sincerely about brexit benefits to the UK too.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:45 pm

Here is a thread for positive news about how aspects of Brexit benefit the population of the United Kingdom.

When you have time could you please move my posts about brexit benefits here please. There are one or two posts by others that are sincerely about brexit benefits to the UK too.

I've moved some over already, but I'll have to have another look to make sure I've brought over some of the related discussions too

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:24 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:45 pm

Here is a thread for positive news about how aspects of Brexit benefit the population of the United Kingdom.

When you have time could you please move my posts about brexit benefits here please. There are one or two posts by others that are sincerely about brexit benefits to the UK too.

I've moved some over already, but I'll have to have another look to make sure I've brought over some of the related discussions too

Thank you Stephanie

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:24 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:45 pm

Here is a thread for positive news about how aspects of Brexit benefit the population of the United Kingdom.

When you have time could you please move my posts about brexit benefits here please. There are one or two posts by others that are sincerely about brexit benefits to the UK too.

I've moved some over already, but I'll have to have another look to make sure I've brought over some of the related discussions too

Thanks!

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:52 pm

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:46 pm

Being able to use GM or GE in food production.

Provided we don't want to export anything to the EU obvs

We can use it for things that are going to be exported outside the EU. Most of our exports already go to non-EU countries, and it's also a faster growing segment.

... as long as UK manufacturers consider it worth it to set up two different production lines if not renounce EU exports entirely.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:03 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:52 pm

Trinucleus wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:46 pm

Being able to use GM or GE in food production.

Provided we don't want to export anything to the EU obvs

We can use it for things that are going to be exported outside the EU. Most of our exports already go to non-EU countries, and it's also a faster growing segment.

... as long as UK manufacturers consider it worth it to set up two different production lines if not renounce EU exports entirely.

Some will, some wont. They have a choice now that they didnt before. Just like other countries outside the EU that send some of their exports to the EU

Martin_B wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:33 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:14 pm

Is it {hydrogen} any worse than petrol or jet fuel in that respect?

...
b) Yes. Hydrogen is easier to ignite in two ways. Firstly, it requires much less energy to ignite (typically about ~10% of natural gas) so while natural gas requires an induced spark to ignite it, hydrogen can ignite from static electricity (and the flow of gas can sometimes create it's own spark large enough to ignite!) If there is a black surface exposed to the sun, this can ignite hydrogen without even a spark. Secondly, while natural gas needs to be in a concentration of 5-15% in air to sustain a fire (lower than 5% and there's not enough fuel, higher than 15% and there's too much fuel and it starves itself of oxygen) hydrogen will ignite in concentrations of 4%-75% in air. This means that any release of hydrogen is far more likely to ignite than a release of natural gas. By contrast, releases of petrol and jet fuel are actually quite difficult to ignite.
...

I'm not a chemical engineer, but I'd like to add some observations I have made, which mainly relate to point (b), and maybe Martin can comment?

The explosion at the Heroya ammonia plant in Norway is a telling case study of how hydrogen explosions can be really large, precisely because the explosion can happen when the hydrogen is at a much higher concentration when natural gas explodes. It is also notable that the explosion occured within a couple of minutes of the leak being initiated. A key factor was that the leak was into a confined space, a main operating hall of the factory. The amount of hydrogen that exploded was, iirc, very roughly of the order of 10kg, the kind of quantity you might use to refuel a modestly-sized vehicle.

This is why it is very important that there should be care to avoid hydrogen leaks into confined spaces, where the hydrogen concentration can build up to the point of making a very large explosion, as happened at Heroya. My gas supply enters the house at the opposite corner from the location of the gas appliances, and crosses under the floorboards of several of the main downstairs rooms. I would not want such an arrangement with a hydrogen supply. It's bad enough with a methane supply, but the risk is much worse with hydrogen. People do survive explosions from methane leaks into their houses - far from always - but sometimes. And very frequently they survive an explosion in the neighbouring house - not always - but mainly. The kind of hydrogen explosion that could result from the pipe arrangements in my house could demolish quite a few of the neighbours houses.

Clearly other kinds of fuel explosion can be large also, such as the Buncefield fire, but these seem to be relatively rare. Meanwhile explosions in domestic property due to gas leaks occur perhaps of the order of monthly or weekly in this country. If it is hydrogen that is leaking then there is a risk these explosions will be much larger. And due to the greater ease of escape, more frequent.

I have assumed - though I have no confirmation - that the reason the fuel tank is on the roof of the demonstration German hydrogen train is to reduce the risk of a hydrogen leak into the cabin.

It is sometimes said to be quite hard to get a large explosion when hydrogen leaks into an unconfined space, as the gas escapes upwards too fast to reach an explosive concentration except for a small volume of space in the immediate vicinity of the leak. Many people cite this as a reason why we shouldn't worry so much about hydrogen leaks. But that doesn't mean it can't have a small explosion and cause a nasty fire, burning off like a jet as it escapes. The ease of that was demonstrated at the hydrogen refuelling station fire at Sandvika in Norway. It was one of only a dozen or so such filling stations in Europe at the time, resulting in most of them being closed down pretty quick. Fires at fuelling pumps for liquid fuel for vehicles are very rare indeed. Indeed, I've never heard of one, if we agree that is not what Buncefield was.

Sorry - are you saying that in the EU conpanies couldn't export to countries outside the EU ? Surely, they always could export to the EU and elsewhere while we were in.

Lew Dolby wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:25 pm

Sorry - are you saying that in the EU conpanies couldn't export to countries outside the EU ? Surely, they always could export to the EU and elsewhere while we were in.

No, I'm saying that they previously had to comply with EU standards even if they weren't exporting to another EU country. Now they don't have to when it doesn't make sense for them.