JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

11 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Ummm, actually EWO, the European oil majors are doing just that. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of RWE and E.on become takeover targets within a decade.

Good for them, yet based off both past and present failures of green energy these oil companies need to be removed from govt funding and be made to compete with conventional tech. 

 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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."

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

 
bp-pulse-car.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&w=1600
 

Oil giant BP claims the use of its BP pulse electric vehicle chargers is “on the cusp” of being more profitable for the company than filling up an internal combustion-powered car with gas. Once that happens, it could mark a major turning point for EVs and “big oil”.

The business of EV charging – filling up a car with electrons rather than petroleum-based gas or diesel – has always been a loss leader for oil companies like Shell and BP, who are seemingly being dragged into the electric future kicking and screaming. That may be about to change, however, as BP’s latest numbers show that, on a margin basis, its UK-based “BP pulse” network of fast battery charging stations, is nearing the levels of profitability they see from filling up with petrol. And the division could be profitable on its own by 2025.

“If I think about a tank of fuel versus a fast charge, we are nearing a place where the business fundamentals on the fast charge are better than they are on the (fossil) fuel,” BP head of customers and products, Emma Delaney, told Reuters.

Delaney did not disclose precisely when BP expects EV charging profits to eclipse traditional fuel profits, but the company did report that its electricity sales for EV charging grew 45% from Q2 to Q3 of 2021, alone. “Overall, we see a huge opportunity in fast charging for consumers and businesses, as well as fleet services more generally,” explains Delaney. “That’s where we see the growth, and where we see the margins.”

https://electrek.co/2022/01/16/bp-claims-ev-charging-stations-on-the-cusp-of-being-more-profitable-than-gas-pumps/

"Sales grew 45%"...again, these are miniscule numbers.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 1/17/2022 at 2:06 PM, 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.

Musk does a lot more than trucks.  Spaceships, etc...

Even Tesla will be just fine - they also do more than trucks.

Edited by TailingsPond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 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.

Elon Musk will eventually sell his electric vehicle plants and shares. He is no match for the Big 3 here in the states. I suspect that is why he has been selling off 15 billion dollar increments this last year. Alot of folks credit him as the inventor of electric powered vehicles but he wasn't even born when this man was building before ww2.

Overland train - Wikipedia

LeTourneau was a true genius but money wasn't his gig, he liked building monster electric vehicles and heavy equipment.

Edited by Old-Ruffneck
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Here is what is happening, let's see if I have this right...global warming is causing a rash of frigid cold weather which will push up the price of fossil fuels, which in turn causes all that deep cold global warming/freezing...is that right? Something like that.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Arctic-Cold-Snap-Could-Push-US-Natural-Gas-Prices-Higher.html

"Forecasters are predicting a cold snap over the next two weeks.

United States natural gas prices could climb even higher if the Arctic blasts materialize.

If the U.S. experiences a near-repeat of the 2014 polar vortex winter, natural gas prices could test the $6.526/ MMBtu mark once again."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Good for them, yet based off both past and present failures of green energy these oil companies need to be removed from govt funding and be made to compete with conventional tech. 

 

Point taken. But these oil/energy companies intend to take control of the electrical grid and they DO expect the taxpayer to fund it via a massive carbon tax so they can also bury the carbon from their blue hydrogen projects. I hear they have a lot of money for lobbying in the USA? This song comes to mind...

https://youtu.be/hFDcoX7s6rE

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Elon Musk will eventually sell his electric vehicle plants and shares. He is no match for the Big 3 here in the states. I suspect that is why he has been selling off 15 billion dollar increments this last year. Alot of folks credit him as the inventor of electric powered vehicles but he wasn't even born when this man was building before ww2.

Overland train - Wikipedia

LeTourneau was a true genius but money wasn't his gig, he liked building monster electric vehicles and heavy equipment.

And all of LeTourneau's vehicles failed. Not to mention that they were diesel electric not battery electric. Inventing something is less valuable than making it a success in the market.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And all of LeTourneau's vehicles failed. Not to mention that they were diesel electric not battery electric. Inventing something is less valuable than making it a success in the market.

And all of LeTourneau's vehicles failed.

Wrong again!! Many worked, just times caught up with his projects. Some are still working, do a little research before ya hit the keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Old-Ruffneck said:

And all of LeTourneau's vehicles failed.

Wrong again!! Many worked, just times caught up with his projects. Some are still working, do a little research before ya hit the keyboard.

Still working in a museum is irrelevant. They all failed in the market place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Biden & Co. have failed to halt the rise of oil prices, and most Biden supporters are reliant on low gasoline prices to maintain their standard of living...this is a political quandary with potentially disastrous consequences for the current guy in office.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/White-House-Helpless-As-Oil-Prices-Climb-Higher.html

"Morgan Stanley expects Brent crude to reach $90 per barrel later this year. This is also the price forecast of Goldman. JP Morgan recently said that crude could reach and exceed $100 this year, noting the decline in OPEC spare production capacity. The latest to join the bullish choir is Vitol, whose head for Asian operations told Bloomberg last week that oil had further up to go because of tight supply.

What this means for the Biden administration and its efforts to keep gasoline affordable for voters ahead of the midterms is nothing good. Perhaps more SPR releases could be organized, but that would have little more effective than the first announcement: like plenty of analysts has explained, oil prices are influenced by global rather than local factors, even a major oil-producing country such as the United States.

"Assuming China doesn't suffer a sharp slowdown, that Omicron actually becomes Omi-gone, and with OPEC+'s ability to raise production clearly limited, I see no reason why Brent crude cannot move towards $100 in Q1, possibly sooner," OANDA senior market analyst Jeffrey Halley told Reuters last week.

If Brent moves towards $100, West Texas Intermediate will not be far behind, even with rising U.S. production. The problem, from a Washington perspective, is that even with rising U.S. production, global supply remains short of demand, ironically because of OPEC, which Biden personally pleaded with to raise oil production so U.S. prices at the pump would ease.

"OPEC+ remain steadfast in adding 400,000 bpd back to the market each month, but our data suggests that monthly additions tally closer to 250,000 bpd," said RBC Capital Markets commodity strategist Mike Tran in a note, as quoted by Reuters."

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Still working in a museum

You're not that old Jay!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.