GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[specinho + 470]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html

“It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote."

These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

A reporter once wrote in his report for a paper (roughly):" As usual, not much conclusive decision made. See you again next year..." 

 

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Still referencing oilprice for your analysis? Sad. 

COP will continue; just watch.

That dumb article does self-referencing.  Them writing an article is not a "sign" they can reference for anything. 

"And there were signs this might be the case...recall, just days ago we wrote that climate summits were "no longer fit for purpose"."

They do not know what to do exactly.

They just want change and trying to enforce change with

a) vague policies e.g. achieve net zero by 2025, carbon tax etc. It means " this is what we want to achieve, do anything and everything you know for it". So, they copy one another. They fail together with gaiety, when money is provided. 

b) discussion on repeated content, policy that they did not do last year, previous 4 or 10 years. It's called resolution, right? Solve it again what you did not complete last year, this year... 'o' '-'

c) create more policies that no one could keep up with.

Climate summits indeed no longer fit the purpose of solving problems. On the contrary, they might be creating more problems to be solved unconsciously.

COP may continue. But action takers, with money, might no longer be attending. They can keep their expert circle on policies and talks year in year out in vain. 

Saw a drawing on LinkedIn. It says (roughly):" Experts zoom in. They are into detail of an issue or problem. The vision gets narrower as they approach epic position of expertise.

Generalists zoom out. They have wide perspectives that experts most likely missed out."

Therefore, to solve problems with functional efficiency, experts are probably no longer the choice. It's generalists and barehand entrepreneurs or pioneers who will be more of game changers shall empowered.

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

46 minutes ago, specinho said:

Saw a documentary on how poor agricultural soil generally has become despite chemical fertilizer used. Yield reportedly decreased over time.

Recalling when i was young, we rented next door space to a furniture making company. Much saw dust was produced and it created blackish top soil (likely called humous soil) which was very fertile. Any seed thrown in would grow by itself and fruit without much care.

Over the decades, rain water washed away the top soil gradually. The loss is especially obvious when someone uses trick to occupy swamp next to the planting space used to belong to my grandfather. Add on houses construction affects our drainage system and also our soil.

We sometimes use remaining mixture of organic matter and ash  from burnt pile of tree braches, leaves after rain to spread around trees. 

From this observation, shall ash from coal can be mixed with water, filtered out whatever not desired that possibly there, and sprayed over agricultural soil, it can possibly replenish carbon, the basic building block of living things.

Carbon is probably overlooked by most of us as major nutrient required by soil. We spray chemical fertilizer which usually consists of trace elements nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur. 

In addition , remnant from harvest, shall can be pulverized, mixed with nutrients shall deficient, and spray with water over soil, could probably be more helpful than chemical fertilizer alone. This would reduce problems of handling coal ash and poor agri soil. Two birds one stone?

Coal ash is full of poison you do not want on your fields / food.

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

5 minutes ago, specinho said:

Therefore, to solve problems with functional efficiency, experts are probably no longer the choice. It's generalists and barehand entrepreneurs or pioneers who will be more of game changers shall empowered.

Alright, tell me when some bare hand entrepreneur makes a semiconductor computer processor chip.

You need the experts. 

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

It appears that Tesla will benefit from some regulatory changes being brought in by the new administration.

QFT

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You just posted the new administration will help Tesla.

"Help"? That is a broad term, perhaps help in terms of regulatory rulings on self-drive, but scrapping the tax incentives, which will hurt.

Edited Wednesday at 09:12 AM by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Year over year is not long enough for you?

46.9% gain over last year.

Compare that to WTI Down 0.8% over last year.

What is better +46.9% or -0.8%?

No, one year is not enough.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Coal ash is full of poison you do not want on your fields / food.

You have noticed a problem?

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

The oil majors are now turning away from the Green future.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Why-Big-Oil-Is-Scaling-Back-Renewables-Investment.html

"Big Oil’s returns in the renewables business were slim, at best, even before the 2022 energy and inflation shocks.

To shore up share prices and close that gap with the U.S. giants, BP and Shell changed tack and returned to their roots.

While the majors aren’t abandoning all the renewable projects they embarked on in 2020 and 2021, they have started to scale back investments."

Edited Wednesday at 09:16 AM by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,543]

12 hours ago, specinho said:

Saw a documentary on how poor agricultural soil generally has become despite chemical fertilizer used. Yield reportedly decreased over time.

Recalling when i was young, we rented next door space to a furniture making company. Much saw dust was produced and it created blackish top soil (likely called humous soil) which was very fertile. Any seed thrown in would grow by itself and fruit without much care.

Over the decades, rain water washed away the top soil gradually. The loss is especially obvious when someone uses trick to occupy swamp next to the planting space used to belong to my grandfather. Add on houses construction affects our drainage system and also our soil.

We sometimes use remaining mixture of organic matter and ash  from burnt pile of tree braches, leaves after rain to spread around trees. 

From this observation, shall ash from coal can be mixed with water, filtered out whatever not desired that possibly there, and sprayed over agricultural soil, it can possibly replenish carbon, the basic building block of living things.

Carbon is probably overlooked by most of us as major nutrient required by soil. We spray chemical fertilizer which usually consists of trace elements nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur. 

t stone?

I have no idea how coal's bottom ash would act as a "soil betterment".  Should that actually work, it would be used for that purpose here in the USA.  Bottom ash contains anything that doesn't burn, including heavy metal compounds and other toxins.  Growing crops in fly ash, even with unacceptable levels of carbon, would result in VERY firm, cement-like soil.  

The boiler operator's intention is to achieve complete combustion of carbon (and other hydrocarbons) in the fuel.  Throwing away unburned carbon (fuel) is a detriment to efficient operation. 

Bottom ash consists primarily of silica, alumina, and iron oxides, along with smaller amounts of calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and other compounds. These are highly dependent on the coal used, and its treatments.  Not much fertilization "stuff" there.

 

Edited Wednesday at 06:19 PM by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You have noticed a problem?

Well cancer is very prevalent, so yeah I have noticed a problem with releasing carcinogens.

As for putting coal ash on fields that is not a problem because anyone with half a brain would never suggest contaminating crops with that stuff.

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

"Help"? That is a broad term, perhaps help in terms of regulatory rulings on self-drive, but scrapping the tax incentives, which will hurt.

You said "will benefit." 

If you actually read the articles you would know Elon wants the tax incentives removed so he can crush the competition and gain market share. 

Tesla is now so rich they do not need the incentives.  Time to starve the competition out.

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, one year is not enough.

So when will you be right and potentially profit from your ideas - well after you are dead?

Do you want to compare 5 year performance?  I doubt you do.

Tesla 5 year performance is a whopping +1,430%

WTI 5 years ago was $58.60.  It is now $68.95.  +17% over 5 years, barely more than inflation.

What is better?  +1,430% or +17%.  Try to downplay those performance numbers and time-frames.

Edited Wednesday at 09:17 PM by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The oil majors are now turning away from the Green future.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Why-Big-Oil-Is-Scaling-Back-Renewables-Investment.html

 

Still can't use your own words?

You know there is no reason to re-post front page oilprice articles in the forum?  We can see them too.    Try not to pretend those has-been writers represent your own thoughts and analysis.   Furthermore, has Tsvetana Paraskova even studied economics?

Do you think any industry experts actually write for this website? Of course not!  They make big money working for the oil companies not as a writer for a semi-obscure website thats biggest draw is Google searchable oil prices.

Edited Wednesday at 10:14 PM by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

You can see the poison in the outdoor air.  Yet some here deny the negative health effects of outdoor air pollution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH2BMTC4UuA

 

[specinho + 470]

14 hours ago, turbguy said:

I have no idea how coal's bottom ash would act as a "soil betterment".  Should that actually work, it would be used for that purpose here in the USA.  Bottom ash contains anything that doesn't burn, including heavy metal compounds and other toxins.  Growing crops in fly ash, even with unacceptable levels of carbon, would result in VERY firm, cement-like soil.  

The boiler operator's intention is to achieve complete combustion of carbon (and other hydrocarbons) in the fuel.  Throwing away unburned carbon (fuel) is a detriment to efficient operation. 

Bottom ash consists primarily of silica, alumina, and iron oxides, along with smaller amounts of calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and other compounds. These are highly dependent on the coal used, and its treatments.  Not much fertilization "stuff" there.

 

I'm confused by contents of coal. 

If the assumption is: coal was formed millions of years ago by mainly fallen plants/ trees, the event must be a massive natural disaster like earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc. If they are found along the line of oil and gas, then they could be formed in about the same era, in the same event??

Next, they were covered quickly by magma and/ or lava and treated under high heat and pressure. Charcoal formed. Is there no unpolluted charcoal when coal is mined?

2. If assumption is made again. Charcoal was sealed with magma and lava. Anything that could be found in the liquid layer of earth content, could be found in coal. E.g. silica, alumina, minerals, trace elements and heavy metals. While coal is mined, those come out with it.

Not sure how is the situation? Magma and lava are likely very hard layer. They could be rocky, sandy or glassy? Could this layer be differentiated from much softer charcoal or coal beneath it?

Can any separation or refinement be done on this stage? If yes, instead of having 10 - 50% of coal, they could have more?

Coal tunnels in developing countries could collapse. Is there any possibility to change how coal is mined if separation could be done? For example, cut into chunk size the way rocks are cut, then separate hard lava layer from charcoal/coal, instead of pulverized coal before sending out.

Pulverized coal might have one disadvantage: the small size is cutting the air off when burnt in large quantity? Could this be the reason rocks, silica/ sand are not removed to increase space among powdered carbon particles?

Compound of heavy metal usually sink because they are heavy, right? When coal ash is dissolved in water, could adding EDTA efficient enough to clear potential toxic metal e.g. plumbum, arsenic, etc?

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by specinho

[specinho + 470]

On 11/20/2024 at 2:53 PM, TailingsPond said:

Alright, tell me when some bare hand entrepreneur makes a semiconductor computer processor chip.

You need the experts. 

 

Processor chips are made by machines with precision, not by hands.

But the business owner might have started the business with his own hands beginning with drawing or programming what was needed, refining it with help etc.

The key that you might have missed while trying to crack a joke is " to solve problems with functional efficiency"...

The illustration, roughly:

 a)    / \.            b) \                  /

        /   \.                   \          /

       /       \.                   \    /

a) View of Experts/ professional gets narrower when they dwell into detail. Eventually, they would be trappped at the tip of a horn...

b) view of generalists or bare hand pioneers gets more wholistic, the more they know...

 

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

15 hours ago, specinho said:

 

a) View of Experts/ professional gets narrower when they dwell into detail. Eventually, they would be trappped at the tip of a horn...

b) view of generalists or bare hand pioneers gets more wholistic, the more they know...

 

Several logical failures there. 

First off just because you are an expert one subject that doesn't mean you have to be ignorant about everything else.  Your learning is never trapped.

Secondly, a generalist may know of many things but they can't do anything well.  Knowing about the existence of semiconductor chips and roughly how they work does not get you any processor chips - you need an expert.

 

 

[Ron Wagner + 706]

Yes, fossil fuel production is expected to continue rising in the foreseeable future. Despite growing awareness of the environmental impact of fossil fuels, global demand remains high, particularly in developing countries. Additionally, advancements in technology have made it easier and more cost-effective to extract fossil fuels, further driving production. However, there are efforts to shift towards renewable energy sources, which could potentially slow down the growth of fossil fuel production in the long term.