GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Rob Plant + 2,244]

Scottish government in line for near-£700m payday after windfarm auction

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/17/scottish-government-windfarm-auction-scottish-power-shell-bp-sse#:~:text=Simon Hodge%2C the chief executive,worth of supply chain commitments”.

https://www.cityam.com/scotland-boosts-renewable-goals-with-700m-auction-for-offshore-wind-projects/

Edited January 18, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,244]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Heavy demand for natural gas in Britain has already derailed the supposed Green transition, due to unreliable wind power.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UK-Power-Prices-Fall-To-One-Month-High-On-Low-Wind-Generation.html

"UK peak-hour power prices for Monday evening through 6 p.m. surged to the highest level in a month due to low wind power generation during the weekend.

The contract for the 5-6 p.m. slot electricity price in the UK on Monday surged above the 1,000-pounds per megawatt-hour threshold to stand at US$1,585 (1,161 pounds) per MWh, according to data from the N2EX exchange cited by Bloomberg. That’s the highest price since December 16.

Most of the jump in power prices was due to very low wind power generation in the UK from Friday through Monday.

The power and energy crisis in the UK highlights the challenges that the country faces toward powering every home with wind in 2030, as the government pledged at the end of 2020. 

The UK will aim to become a global leader in offshore wind energy, powering every home in the country with wind by 2030, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in October 2020.

Yet, coal closures and no immediate replacements for nuclear power have exposed the UK’s vulnerabilities to the whims of the weather, with cold winters stoking natural gas demand and still weather lowering wind power generation.

On Friday, gas generated 53.7 percent of British electricity, followed by nuclear 14.7 percent, imports 9.2 percent, biomass 6.9 percent, wind 6.9 percent, coal 3.9 percent, hydro 3.0 percent, and solar 1.7 percent, National Grid ESO said. On Saturday, gas generated 51.0 percent of British electricity, followed by nuclear with 15.9 percent and wind with 10.8 percent, the grid operator said."

The UK is heavily dependent on gas powegen as well as gas for heating.

Usually gas generation makes up 40-45% of the UK's demand. However when the nuc's all shut which they are already doing and coal shuts by 2024 we will be left with gas, wind and a little bit of pumped hydro, biomass and interconnectors. This is a disaster if the wind doesnt blow as it wont be enough. The energy mix is all wrong and hugely reliant on gas and wind. Our gas generating capacity is 32GW, we need to find another 15GW from somewhere or we are in big trouble. Why there isnt massive investment in battery back up when it is windy is beyond me.

Scotland has just announced £700M worth of wind projects giving 25GW but this is still putting all your eggs in 1 basket territory.

[Rob Plant + 2,244]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Still working in a museum

You're not that old Jay!

[Rob Plant + 2,244]

35 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

.this is a political quandary with potentially disastrous consequences for the current guy in office.

Thats presuming he still has any form of cognitive ability

[Ecocharger + 1,065]

Oil is the red hot source of energy, with panicked Green governments pushing up the price of oil with misguided climate policies.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Goldman-Sachs-Sees-105-Oil-In-2023.html

"Due to gas-to-oil substitution, supply disappointments, and stronger-than-expected demand in Q4 2021, OECD inventories are set to dip by the summer to their lowest levels since 2000, Goldman’s analysts note. Moreover, OPEC+ spare capacity is also set to decline to historically low levels of around 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd).  

“At $85/bbl, the market would remain at such critical levels, insufficient buffers relative to demand and supply volatilities, through 2023,” Goldman Sachs said.

As a result of these fundamentals, the bank’s Brent spot forecast is for $105 in 2023 and $96 a barrel in 2022.

Goldman Sachs sees Brent Crude prices at $90 a barrel this quarter, $95 in the second quarter, and $100 a barrel in the third and fourth quarters this year.

On Tuesday, Brent Crude prices hit their highest level since October 2014, trading at over $87.90 at one point early in the day, as the geopolitical risk premium rose with the Houthi attacks on the UAE and the Russia-Ukraine issue, all this amid a tight physical market for crude.

Last month, Goldman Sachs predicted that oil prices could hit $100 in 2023 as demand growth outpaces supply growth. "

Edited January 18, 2022 by Ecocharger

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

Yep I looked at Volvos VNR electrics a few months ago.......Top of the line engineering and the price is quite competitive to a diesel.

Will they be competitive on long haul routes, in your opinion. I cannot see how they can haul the battery weight and be competitive. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

Musk is going to be buried alive by the electric Ford Trucks.  The Musk dream truck looks like a cardboard box put together by 5 year olds.

I have been thinking exactly the same thing. I cannot even order a Maverick right now. "The order book is closed". By waiting I will end up with a 2023 model most likely. They really need to expand their factories because they are making the Bronco, and another vehicle at the same one. The demand will be too great. The hybrid is a great value if you don't go heavy on the options. If my wife decides she can endure the pain of getting in and out of my NV3500 we may just keep it but it will probably cost us $1,000 a year more in gasoline. In exchange we get a lot more safety, room for up to 12 people, more towing power, which we really don't need. The Maverick doesn't even have any crash ratings yet! I don't know how they get away with that! The back seat room is limited if you have tall people in the front seats. We like to be offer a ride to our friends and relatives sometimes. Some of them are tall. I have driven it, it rides nicely and has plenty of power in the ecoboost, which I would not buy, I want fuel economy which the hybrid has. 

[Eric Gagen + 712]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The UK is heavily dependent on gas powegen as well as gas for heating.

Usually gas generation makes up 40-45% of the UK's demand. However when the nuc's all shut which they are already doing and coal shuts by 2024 we will be left with gas, wind and a little bit of pumped hydro, biomass and interconnectors. This is a disaster if the wind doesnt blow as it wont be enough. The energy mix is all wrong and hugely reliant on gas and wind. Our gas generating capacity is 32GW, we need to find another 15GW from somewhere or we are in big trouble. Why there isnt massive investment in battery back up when it is windy is beyond me.

Scotland has just announced £700M worth of wind projects giving 25GW but this is still putting all your eggs in 1 basket territory.

If I understand the Scottish plan, it is to have much more wind energy than they need for domestic purposes, and sell the rest to the European grid.  Given that it's excess will be very intermittent,  it will be interesting to see how it goes.  The interconnect to Norway should help a lot - basically use the excess to refill pumped storage when there is no immediate demand for sales.  That said, the interconnect isn't that big. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,229]

26 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I have been thinking exactly the same thing. I cannot even order a Maverick right now. "The order book is closed". By waiting I will end up with a 2023 model most likely. They really need to expand their factories because they are making the Bronco, and another vehicle at the same one. The demand will be too great. The hybrid is a great value if you don't go heavy on the options. If my wife decides she can endure the pain of getting in and out of my NV3500 we may just keep it but it will probably cost us $1,000 a year more in gasoline. In exchange we get a lot more safety, room for up to 12 people, more towing power, which we really don't need. The Maverick doesn't even have any crash ratings yet! I don't know how they get away with that! The back seat room is limited if you have tall people in the front seats. We like to be offer a ride to our friends and relatives sometimes. Some of them are tall. I have driven it, it rides nicely and has plenty of power in the ecoboost, which I would not buy, I want fuel economy which the hybrid has. 

It takes yrs for any standing stock on dealership lots...at least two. Ecboost engines are a major leap forward in design. So much a mass disinformation campaign was used to cast a shadow on them.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It takes yrs for any standing stock on dealership lots...at least two. Ecboost engines are a major leap forward in design. So much a mass disinformation campaign was used to cast a shadow on them.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It takes yrs for any standing stock on dealership lots...at least two. Ecboost engines are a major leap forward in design. So much a mass disinformation campaign was used to cast a shadow on them.

 

I have heard underwhelming reviews on the Ecoboost engines and think that they may have been too weak for the Ford Transit vans and the RVs depending on them. You may be right but I have not done due diligence in research. I don't want one because of the mpg. I think it is fine for sedans and small or intermediate trucks though. The hybrid comes with a larger engine, which seems fine with me. 2.5 liter versus a boost sounds better to me. 

You probably know a lot more about engines than I do, so please inform me.

[Eric Gagen + 712]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

I have heard underwhelming reviews on the Ecoboost engines and think that they may have been too weak for the Ford Transit vans and the RVs depending on them. You may be right but I have not done due diligence in research. I don't want one because of the mpg. I think it is fine for sedans and small or intermediate trucks though. The hybrid comes with a larger engine, which seems fine with me. 2.5 liter versus a boost sounds better to me. 

You probably know a lot more about engines than I do, so please inform me.

I used to work at a place where we bought F150's as company fleet trucks.  In the expert opinions of our mechanics, the ecoboost engines are amazing.  The only reason we got the 5.0 liter V8's is because we were doing a lot of work in very remote areas, and they were a little worried about parts availability, and had some potential concerns about reliability of some parts.  That was in 2016.  Fast forward to now, and they are 100% A-OK with the ecoboost engines.  I will say this though - if you bought one for heavy towing (or an RV, which I assume is heavy) study the RPM/torque/fuel economy curves carefully  Depending on exactly what you are doing, and what the routes you like look like (flat versus hilly) you may be better off with a lower RPM big displacement engine than the equivalent torque/RPM output ecoboost. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,229]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

I have heard underwhelming reviews on the Ecoboost engines and think that they may have been too weak for the Ford Transit vans and the RVs depending on them. You may be right but I have not done due diligence in research. I don't want one because of the mpg. I think it is fine for sedans and small or intermediate trucks though. The hybrid comes with a larger engine, which seems fine with me. 2.5 liter versus a boost sounds better to me. 

You probably know a lot more about engines than I do, so please inform me.

It's been many yrs, so I ask you this. The transit has a v6? That translates to 275 up and ft lbs of tourqe. For a reference those numbers represents very muc the same numbers used to power f250/350's 30 ft rv's 25 ft boats, also known as 460/454 engines.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Thanks for that info. We do mountains a great deal of the time on vacation, so I do like the hybrid idea better. We also may tow up to 2,000 pounds. The Ecoboost does 4,000 pounds. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It's been many yrs, so I ask you this. The transit has a v6? That translates to 275 up and ft lbs of tourqe. For a reference those numbers represents very muc the same numbers used to power f250/350's 30 ft rv's 25 ft boats, also known as 460/454 engines.

Eric Gagen is concerned about using the Ecoboost with heavy loads in the mountains. That is what we need to consider, plus the mpg. The mpg is not comparable with the Ecoboost. 

I inherently wonder if the smaller engine and the boosting system is as long lasting. May just be my ignorance of engines though. I am also a big fan of the continuously variable transmission although I know there are all kinds of great transmissions. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/15/2022 at 9:58 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

 I'm reporting the numbers, no hypocrisy in that. I'm in it for the economics.

Hypocrisy is claiming that coal is the great enemy and then voting and supporting governments hell bent on supporting the coal industry.

I assume you are talking about China, India and other Asian countries primarily?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,229]

26 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

I used to work at a place where we bought F150's as company fleet trucks.  In the expert opinions of our mechanics, the ecoboost engines are amazing.  The only reason we got the 5.0 liter V8's is because we were doing a lot of work in very remote areas, and they were a little worried about parts availability, and had some potential concerns about reliability of some parts.  That was in 2016.  Fast forward to now, and they are 100% A-OK with the ecoboost engines.  I will say this though - if you bought one for heavy towing (or an RV, which I assume is heavy) study the RPM/torque/fuel economy curves carefully  Depending on exactly what you are doing, and what the routes you like look like (flat versus hilly) you may be better off with a lower RPM big displacement engine than the equivalent torque/RPM output ecoboost. 

A bit of history, Ecoboost was developed on the Ford/Cosgsworth engine design meaning extremely well balanced and very tight tolerances.

Fast forward to say 94? The Ford coyote v8 was finally ready for release. Both Ecoboost and the v8 were released at the same time. The coyote team was enraged, that little v6 just handed them their lunch.

What they didn't realize Ecoboost tech could be implemented on the v8 design, think 700hp and 800 ft lbs of tourqe in a 5.0.

All made possible by variable cam timing and direct injection....By the way it also put a end to Ford's hybrid/EV tech...Another shit storm.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,229]

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Eric Gagen is concerned about using the Ecoboost with heavy loads in the mountains. That is what we need to consider, plus the mpg. The mpg is not comparable with the Ecoboost. 

I inherently wonder if the smaller engine and the boosting system is as long lasting. May just be my ignorance of engines though. I am also a big fan of the continuously variable transmission although I know there are all kinds of great transmissions. 

You have no worries, it's going to the marine industry, severe heavy duty cycle engines. Think 3500/6000 rpm all day long. Under constant high loads and varying throttle load. Marine engines take more abuse than any mass transit car or truck made...and a 4 cylinder. Try that with any other 4 cylinder made.

https://www.indmar.com/ecoboost/

[Eric Gagen + 712]

18 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Eric Gagen is concerned about using the Ecoboost with heavy loads in the mountains. That is what we need to consider, plus the mpg. The mpg is not comparable with the Ecoboost. 

I inherently wonder if the smaller engine and the boosting system is as long lasting. May just be my ignorance of engines though. I am also a big fan of the continuously variable transmission although I know there are all kinds of great transmissions. 

The CVT's are so far as I have been able to tell fantastic.  

So far as I understand fuel economy is the kicker.  A smaller engine at high RPM's, under high load (heavy towing) It seems that they hold up OK, but they actually burn a LOT of fuel under those conditions. Of course they are more economical under 'normal' conditions than a larger displacement engine, so the choice comes down to how you expect to use it more.

 

 One other thing to consider - the eco boost's are pretty reliable, but on average parts and repairs will cost more than you might expect, because the engines are physically complex - there is a lot to assemble and disassemble, and the parts tend to be made of high quality alloys (which are expensive) but they do seem to be pretty reliable, so speaking for myself I don't know if that's a major issue or not.  

[Eric Gagen + 712]

10 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You have no worries, it's going to the marine industry, severe heavy duty cycle engines. Think 3500/6000 rpm all day long. Under constant high loads and varying throttle load. Marine engines take more abuse than any mass transit car or truck made...and a 4 cylinder. Try that with any other 4 cylinder made.

https://www.indmar.com/ecoboost/

I posted while you were making this economy - it's more fuel economy than wear.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I doubt their are many inboard boats that put a lot of hours on any engine. Most are used recreationally. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,229]

Just now, Eric Gagen said:

I posted while you were making this economy - it's more fuel economy than wear.  

Well that's the magic of ecboost, keep your Damm foot out of the Turbo it will preform to astonishing levels of mpg.

Now with being said 98% of people respond with huh? Where's the fun in that!

Never forget a 6000 lb truck can outaccelerate most any 4000 lb car on the road. One word actually a few more..

Two aircraft quality turbos on demand.

 

[Eric Gagen + 712]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well that's the magic of ecboost, keep your Damm foot out of the Turbo it will preform to astonishing levels of mpg.

Now with being said 98% of people respond with huh? Where's the fun in that!

Never forget a 6000 lb truck can outaccelerate most any 4000 lb car on the road. One word actually a few more..

Two aircraft quality turbos on demand.

 

That's workable under normal conditions.  If you are pulling a heavy load, then the turbo (and the rest of the engine) are working just to maintain a constant speed, and fuel economy does suffer.  I was assuming that the driver was already attempting to achieve maximum fuel economy, since Ron doesn't strike me as someone who is going to go hotrodding while pulling his home away from home around with him.  

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,229]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I doubt their are many inboard boats that put a lot of hours on any engine. Most are used recreationally. 

Lmao Ron you live a sheltered life, think in the millions. And millions, one generally expects about 1000 hours on a engine. Ingmar marine is a discriminating mfg

Now Cali is not a good example of marine life...between mooring cost and marine gas/diesel (15/20 a gallon) most boats there just sit there and look good.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Lmao Ron you live a sheltered life, think in the millions. And millions, one generally expects about 1000 hours on a engine. Ingmar marine is a discriminating mfg

Now Cali is not a good example of marine life...between mooring cost and marine gas/diesel (15/20 a gallon) most boats there just sit there and look good.

 

I wish I had the time and the money to be out on a nice boat. My idea would be a nice quiet electric engine though, with a big lithium battery to cruise around our ten mile long lake and local lakes. I am in central Illinois within two miles of Lake Decatur and 45 minutes from several others. I am actually a kayak guy.

[Paul-S + 4]

On 4/23/2021 at 1:06 PM, RichieRich216 said:

The “Green New Deal” will go down as the largest PONZI SCAM on a global scale! A select few Multi National’s are behind this with the likes of Bill Gates and his cunt wife along side of Mark and his cunt wife! Just see who shows at DAVOS and there are the Worls Greatest Thieves! 

The Trump ownership of that title will not be beat for a long time, though maybe equaled by the oil industry.