johnny wrote: ↑26 Oct 2022, 22:30
Don't you just love how the natural gas exporters can make a mint in either the scenario I outlined above, or yours because that same government won't drill to the benefit of their citizens? I mean, for corporations it is like your government handing them the keys to the soveign mint and just letting them print up all the money they want in either case. A win-win! Not for you as the citizen in general or your government failing to lead, but for the corporations with a rock solid reliable market being handed to them on a silver platter. It will be interesting to watch all this unfold this winter. Hopefully global warming will mitigate cold weather this winter? Sort of like a silver lining for the UK in the global warming disaster and all that.
Your framing of the financial scenario is correct, but the solution still ISN'T FRACKING....
We need a LABOUR GOVERNMENT who will introduce a massive increase in WINDFALL TAXES on the fossil fuel companies.
Mark wrote: ↑27 Oct 2022, 11:47
Your framing of the financial scenario is correct, but the solution still ISN'T FRACKING....
I tend to agree with you. And Hubbert. The solution is nuclear. I figure it will become more clear as energy needs grow, and non-renewables are banned/restricted because of climate concerns. The driving factor is folks won't allow the answer to be Amish, and governments will either solve it and arrive at the place where there is plenty of supply (even if they have to be the financial and insurance guarantor of last resort to make it happen) or their citizens will oust them for another that will.
Drilling for what benefit of our population? Any additional gas produced will add to the disbenefit of climate change and will lengthen the changeover to renewable energy. That is why a troll for the fossil fuel industry like johnny/RGR is arguing for fracking
Mark wrote: ↑27 Oct 2022, 11:47
Your framing of the financial scenario is correct, but the solution still ISN'T FRACKING....
I tend to agree with you. And Hubbert. The solution is nuclear. I figure it will become more clear as energy needs grow, and non-renewables are banned/restricted because of climate concerns. The driving factor is folks won't allow the answer to be Amish, and governments will either solve it and arrive at the place where there is plenty of supply (even if they have to be the financial and insurance guarantor of last resort to make it happen) or their citizens will oust them for another that will.
We have an advantage in this country in that we can reduce the 40% of our energy which goes to heating buildings by at least 80% by insulating our buildings, they are that badly insulated. Yes it would take about 30 years to achieve but it would still be significant and would reduce greatly the amount of energy we need to produce and the need for energy storage. If new build was built with significant thermal mass or some sort the requirement for overnight storage of energy would be reduced because the buildings would do that themselves. They would in effect become night storage radiators.
Knocking 32% off the growth figure and energy company turnover is the problem that the government has to address or, at least, get the power companies to address themselves.
kenneal - lagger wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 14:53
Drilling for what benefit of our population? Any additional gas produced will add to the disbenefit of climate change and will lengthen the changeover to renewable energy.
Sure. And is exactly what we've been doing since Kyoto. Do you still have hopes that us humans will change our behavior after all these years of not giving a crap?
kenneal-lagger wrote:
That is why a troll for the fossil fuel industry like johnny/RGR is arguing for fracking
Oh, I'll bet that no one on this forum has worked in the oil field for....quarter century...maybe more. Hard for anyone here to be a troll for any industry they haven't worked in like...forever! And pay closer attention, I'm arguing for getting to renewables and nukes, fracking is just what some folkss could do if they didn't want to freeze in the dark. Hubbert was right way back when, McDoomsters didn't notice that the title to his seminal work wasn't about peak oil, nor the solution he explicitly mentioned. Can you believe people couldn't be bothered to read his work for what it was? A siren song....for nukes. And some religious nutters just launched on the oil aspect of it, without thinking the issue through. Good thing scientist types figured out peak oil awhile back now and it has moved out of the land of just broken clocks guessing at when it will happen I suppose.
kenneal - lagger wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 15:02
Knocking 32% off the growth figure and energy company turnover is the problem that the government has to address or, at least, get the power companies to address themselves.
Well, hopes and dreams across 30 years abound. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that if the UK disappeared like Atlantis, the trajectory the world is aimed at won't change by much, in either consequences or time? This issue isn't just about you, or every active climate concerned citizen in the entire world as best I would guess. Or the entire island. It is about changing human behavior, and so far, we haven't.
And if no one does anything no one will do anything so someone has to start doing something sometime!
The UK and the US were among the first to enjoy the benefits and wealth from the industrial revolution so we have a moral obligation to be the first to lead the way into the post industrial revolution.
kenneal - lagger wrote: ↑30 Oct 2022, 23:51
And if no one does anything no one will do anything so someone has to start doing something sometime!
Absolutely correct. But people, being humans, and tribal, a couple people here and there doing things appears to be the limit of our concern. I suppose there is a pssychologist or economist who could explain why, I just find the empirical data proving it fascinating.
kenneal-lagger wrote:
The UK and the US were among the first to enjoy the benefits and wealth from the industrial revolution so we have a moral obligation to be the first to lead the way into the post industrial revolution.
Well, according to you perhaps. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions in those two named regions to disagree with what you think our moral obligation is, in terms of putting the citizens at a economic disadvantage to the likes of China.
johnny wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 01:58
.............
Well, according to you perhaps. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions in those two named regions to disagree with what you think our moral obligation is, in terms of putting the citizens at a economic disadvantage to the likes of China.
So according to johnny we should all imitate lemmings and jump off the cliff.
johnny wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 01:58
.............
Well, according to you perhaps. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions in those two named regions to disagree with what you think our moral obligation is, in terms of putting the citizens at a economic disadvantage to the likes of China.
So according to johnny we should all imitate lemmings and jump off the cliff.
Wrong.
According to Johnny, we are lemmings. I'm surprised you haven't noticed. And doing what we are doing until we can't.
Living Amish is a hard sell, so us humans will keep doing what we are doing. Until we can't.
The government is facing growing calls to raise more money from the windfall tax on energy firms after oil giant BP reported a huge rise in global profits. BP made $8.2bn (£7.1bn) between July and September, more than double its profit for the same period last year.
Surging oil and gas prices have led to big gains for energy firms but are also fuelling a rise in the cost of living. BP expects to pay $800m in UK windfall taxes this year while rival Shell recently said it will pay none.
Looks like the government's u-turns might cost us between £500m and £1billion ?
Talk about a double whammy of incompetence. Let's ban it...oops...need it...open it up....oops....change mind.....get sued....instead of spending money and getting warmth and electricity for the people, we get no warmth or electricity and doing what we originally had planned now costs hundreds of millions! Sounds like confusion reigns, nothing happens, Old World rules are really weird.
kenneal - lagger wrote: ↑07 Nov 2022, 15:15
Sounding more like RGR every day!!!
His analysis is correct...., it's just his solutions that aren't.....
If the fracking firms do eventually win between £500m and £1billion, HMG should windfall tax them between £1billion and £2billion....
It's all a game..., we already know the government is incompetent...., only the lawyers get rich,,,,., but the bottom line is we're not going to be fracking in the UK any time soon...., which is good news...
