Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
-
jimbob
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 5366
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
- Location: High Peak/Manchester
Post
by jimbob » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:38 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:29 pm
This is very cool - a growing number of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for lying about climate change for 50 years, causing irrevocable damage to communities.
‘At the Forefront of Climate Change,’ Hoboken, New Jersey, Seeks Damages From ExxonMobil
Hoboken is the 20th municipality, state or private organization to sue the fossil fuel industry over climate change since 2017. Other plaintiffs include Baltimore, Oakland and San Francisco; numerous counties in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Washington; and the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Minnesota.
The number of high tide flood days has already more than doubled since 2000, the lawsuit said, while climate change also threatens the city with more frequent and severe flooding from storm surge during coastal storms.
Other defendants named in the lawsuit include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas trade association.
"The climate harms masked by defendants' half-century of deception have now slammed into the shores of Hoboken," the lawsuit said.
And a different set of lawsuits:
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/07/30/fos ... port-warns
Warning of an impending financial implosion driven largely by fossil fuel industry deception, a recent report calls on fossil fuel insiders and other potential whistleblowers to help expose and prosecute this fraud.
According to this new report from the National Whistleblower Center (NWC) published July 23, fossil fuel executives’ deception on the financial risks of climate change—to their business and the economy at large—is widespread and is likely actionable fraud, meaning that further securities fraud lawsuits against companies like ExxonMobil should be expected particularly if whistleblowers come forward to work with financial regulators and prosecutors.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:22 pm
That's interesting, thanks jimbob.
Talking of financial misrepresentations, fossil fuel companies are also long overdue a revaluation because at least 80% of reserves are unburnable. While there are other uses for some of them, the purported values of a lot of these corporations are based on stranded assets, which doesn't seem to be getting corrected by the market on its own.
Some suggestions for regulatory intervention here:
https://carbontracker.org/reports/carbon-bubble/ and it would make sense for the UK to be one of the first markets to do this, because the country as a whole isn't a big fossil fuel producer, unlike say the USA. Unfortunately I don't see the current government doing anything to harm big investors, so the still need to be pressured into divesting pronto.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Post
by EACLucifer » Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:25 pm
jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:38 pm
And a different set of lawsuits:
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/07/30/fos ... port-warns
Warning of an impending financial implosion driven largely by fossil fuel industry deception, a recent report calls on fossil fuel insiders and other potential whistleblowers to help expose and prosecute this fraud.
According to this new report from the National Whistleblower Center (NWC) published July 23, fossil fuel executives’ deception on the financial risks of climate change—to their business and the economy at large—is widespread and is likely actionable fraud, meaning that further securities fraud lawsuits against companies like ExxonMobil should be expected particularly if whistleblowers come forward to work with financial regulators and prosecutors.
Much as I'd love to see fraudulent companies lose for environmental and ethical reasons, securities fraud and misleading investors seems to be something that is very tolerated in the US.
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:20 am
Poland to accelerate coal phase-out, spend billions on renewable and nuclear energy
Poland has been the only European Union state to refuse to pledge climate neutrality by 2050, with the ruling Law and Justice party saying that it needs more time and money to shift its economy from coal to cleaner energy sources.
But rising carbon emission costs, the European Union’s ambitious climate policies and the coronavirus outbreak are forcing Warsaw to speed up its energy transformation.
In the updated energy strategy, which still needs to be approved by government, the climate ministry said that coal’s share in electricity production will fall to 37%-56% in 2030 and to 11-28% in 2040, depending on the carbon emission costs.
In November 2019 Poland had expected the share of coal at 56%-60% in 2030 and at 28% in 2040.
Following the announcement, shares in Polish utilities jumped on the view that these companies would benefit from phasing out coal more quickly.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
FlammableFlower
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1520
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm
Post
by FlammableFlower » Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:13 pm
Due to the pandemic, 80% of North Dakota's oil rigs are sitting idle.
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:38 pm
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:13 pm
Due to the pandemic, 80% of North Dakota's oil rigs are sitting idle.
Hopefully for long enough that the companies owning them get into financial trouble and they never start pumping again.
-
Grumble
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4851
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Post
by Grumble » Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:09 pm
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:39 pm
Also for the state to look elsewhere for revenue.
I imagine they should have plenty of potential for solar. They are south of the U.K. after all.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:10 am
Grumble wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:09 pm
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:39 pm
Also for the state to look elsewhere for revenue.
I imagine they should have plenty of potential for solar. They are south of the U.K. after all.
Wind resources are pretty good actually.
I imagine that many of the skills needed to build and maintain oil wells are transferable to building and maintaining wind turbines.
-
dyqik
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7644
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
- Location: Masshole
-
Contact:
Post
by dyqik » Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:26 pm
bjn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:10 am
Grumble wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:09 pm
FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:39 pm
Also for the state to look elsewhere for revenue.
I imagine they should have plenty of potential for solar. They are south of the U.K. after all.
Wind resources are pretty good actually.
I imagine that many of the skills needed to build and maintain oil wells are transferable to building and maintaining wind turbines.
So much so that west Texas has combined oil and wind fields/farms operating on the same land.
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:25 pm
Hydrogen as an energy storage for transport seems to have just had a kick in the teeth. Nikola, wannabe makers of H2 fuelled artic tractors,
seems to have perpetuated something very close to fraud, including filming a prototype rolling down a hill at speed pretending it was moving under power. They may be in some trouble very soon. Share price has tanked.
Even if the company isn't fraudulent, there is no rational way that H2 can compete against FFs or batteries for road transport. Large inefficiencies in round-tripping electricity through H2, capital cost of H2 generation equipment, storage and transportation problems work against it.
-
shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
-
Contact:
Post
by shpalman » Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:53 pm
bjn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:25 pm
Hydrogen as an energy storage for transport seems to have just had a kick in the teeth. Nikola, wannabe makers of H2 fuelled artic tractors,
seems to have perpetuated something very close to fraud, including filming a prototype rolling down a hill at speed pretending it was moving under power. They may be in some trouble very soon. Share price has tanked.
Even if the company isn't fraudulent, there is no rational way that H2 can compete against FFs or batteries for road transport. Large inefficiencies in round-tripping electricity through H2, capital cost of H2 generation equipment, storage and transportation problems work against it.
You really don't need something called "Hindenburg Research" fisking your hydrogen-based transport solution.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:54 pm
shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:53 pm
bjn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:25 pm
Hydrogen as an energy storage for transport seems to have just had a kick in the teeth. Nikola, wannabe makers of H2 fuelled artic tractors,
seems to have perpetuated something very close to fraud, including filming a prototype rolling down a hill at speed pretending it was moving under power. They may be in some trouble very soon. Share price has tanked.
Even if the company isn't fraudulent, there is no rational way that H2 can compete against FFs or batteries for road transport. Large inefficiencies in round-tripping electricity through H2, capital cost of H2 generation equipment, storage and transportation problems work against it.
You really don't need something called "Hindenburg Research" fisking your hydrogen-based transport solution.
That was an amusing side note to the whole thing.
-
Sciolus
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm
Post
by Sciolus » Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:35 pm
Permission for that new coal mine in Northumberland
has been refused again. The effect on CO2 emissions was considered neutral for reasons I can't be bothered to reproduce. But I'm sure some locals will be pleased.
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:04 pm
Hitachi looks to be pulling the plug on the proposed Wylfa nuke plant in Wales. Seems to be that no one wanted to pay for it. Should find out the details tomorrow.
-
Grumble
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4851
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Post
by Grumble » Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:16 pm
bjn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:04 pm
Hitachi looks to be pulling the plug on the proposed Wylfa nuke plant in Wales. Seems to be that no one wanted to pay for it. Should find out the details tomorrow.
That’s a shame. We will be using gas and coal for a bit longer I suspect. I really hope I’m wrong and storage + renewables + interconnectors make up for it.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:22 pm
Grumble wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:16 pm
bjn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:04 pm
Hitachi looks to be pulling the plug on the proposed Wylfa nuke plant in Wales. Seems to be that no one wanted to pay for it. Should find out the details tomorrow.
That’s a shame. We will be using gas and coal for a bit longer I suspect. I really hope I’m wrong and storage + renewables + interconnectors make up for it.
It wouldn’t be generating power for at least a decade, you can deploy a lot of wind turbines and interconnects in that time period.
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:21 am
The National Infrastructure Commission now thinks that
65% renewables generation is achievable in the UK by 2030, because of their continual plunge in prices. The loss of Wylfa is no biggy.
NIC wrote:New research carried out for the National Infrastructure Commission shows how sharp falls in the cost of renewable generation mean that Britain should aim for renewables to meet two thirds of electricity needs by 2030 and that this can be delivered at the same overall cost as meeting only half of total demand by that date.
However, we need more interconnects and storage longer term...
NIC wrote:The report further notes that renewables alone cannot create a resilient energy system for future decades, and that further work on new storage technologies, efficient interconnectors, and other innovations are needed to support renewables and ensure the security of the electricity system. This could include an increased role for low carbon hydrogen generation, as envisaged in the Commission’s report Net Zero: Opportunities for the Power Sector, published in March 2020.
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:07 am
BP modelled future energy demand under a range of scenarios and oil is either to going to
stagnate or be totally f.cked in the coming decades. They ran 3 models,
- business as usual : which is weak recovering demand, then a slow decline, with a 10% drop in oil use by 2050,
- rapid : doing what we need to do to limit carbon emissions to achieve a 2 degree target by 2100, with a 50% drop by 2050,
- net zero : the rapid scenario plus extra measures to limit warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100, with a 70% drop by 2050.
Hopefully 3, but probably somewhere between 1 and 2. It's still not good news for the oil industry.
The
report (PDF) covers overall energy demand, not just oil. Their overall modelling of CO2 decline under the 3 scenarios looks like...
![Image](https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/images-svg/energy-economics/energy-outlook/co2-emissions-from-energy-use-eo20.svg)
.
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:06 am
Both the EU and possibly the US (election depending) are looking likely to commit to scenario 2, with targets for 2030. Those are both pretty big markets, which might help to f.ck some of those companies up.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
Grumble
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4851
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Post
by Grumble » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:06 am
bjn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:21 am
The National Infrastructure Commission now thinks that
65% renewables generation is achievable in the UK by 2030, because of their continual plunge in prices. The loss of Wylfa is no biggy.
NIC wrote:New research carried out for the National Infrastructure Commission shows how sharp falls in the cost of renewable generation mean that Britain should aim for renewables to meet two thirds of electricity needs by 2030 and that this can be delivered at the same overall cost as meeting only half of total demand by that date.
However, we need more interconnects and storage longer term...
NIC wrote:The report further notes that renewables alone cannot create a resilient energy system for future decades, and that further work on new storage technologies, efficient interconnectors, and other innovations are needed to support renewables and ensure the security of the electricity system. This could include an increased role for low carbon hydrogen generation, as envisaged in the Commission’s report Net Zero: Opportunities for the Power Sector, published in March 2020.
Hopefully that includes scenarios where for some days we are overproducing renewables here and exporting electricity to Norway so they can send us hydro power back when the wind dies down.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:18 am
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:06 am
Both the EU and possibly the US (election depending) are looking likely to commit to scenario 2, with targets for 2030. Those are both pretty big markets, which might help to f.ck some of those companies up.
Wait, I'm misreading. The EU and US are looking to commit to net zero by 2050 with 50%+ reductions by 2030, which is probably beyond scenario 3 though "net" gives a lot of wriggle room.
Next they need to find ways of imposing similar targets on the rest of the world without harming development.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:07 am
Standard and Poor's, the global credit-rating agency, sees
little economic rationale for new nuclear build in the US or Western Europe, owing to massive cost escalations and renewables’ cost competitiveness
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... l-nuclear/
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
bjn
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2960
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
- Location: London
Post
by bjn » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:21 am
Nice that it's finally starting to dawn on the relevant folks.