GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

That means two thirds accepted.  The remainder just wanted more information on the progress of the coal phaseout.

"The shareholders are looking for additional clarification on how Glencore will reach its emissions goals, and have backed a resolution that would have the company disclose more on how it's coming with cutting back on its thermal coal production."

They want to get off coal, not complaining for more coal.

"Glencore mines battery metals copper, nickel, and cobalt – key minerals for the future green transition and ramp up of electric cars."

"Glencore has plans to close all its thermal coal mines by 2040, with 12 due to close by 2035, but shareholders could be looking for mid-point targets."

You guys never read the articles do you?  This one yet again says they are transitioning to green and you try to use it as pro-fossil fuel news when it's not.

 

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

Mr Magoos' eyes may be wide open, however he is still blind as a bat and is unable to read anything except massively oversized headlines

Pay attention here..Board monitoring does require...well you decide.

"A third"... of Glencore's shareholders failed to accept the company's climate progress report at today's meeting, demanding additional information. 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

43 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

 

Pay attention here..Board monitoring does require...well you decide.

"A third"... of Glencore's shareholders failed to accept the company's climate progress report at today's meeting, demanding additional information. 

They want more information on the progress of getting rid of coal.  They are not complaining about policy, but lack of information on progress.

Read it for petes sake.  You are just making yourself look more foolish than normal, if that is possible.

Edited May 26, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

They want more information on the progress of getting rid of coal.  They are not complaining about policy, but lack of information on progress.

Read it for petes sake.  You are just making yourself look more foolish than normal, if that is possible.

A third of Glencore's shareholders FAILED TO ACCEPT  the company's climate progress report at today's meeting, DEMANDING ADDITIONAL  information.

 

This, after Glencore ANNOUNCED in February a MASSIVE $7 BILLION in DIVIDENDS

LARGELY on the BACK of its "THERMAL COAL" ......."SUCCESS".

The shareholders are looking for additional clarification.

on how Glencore will reach its emissions goals,

and have BACKED A RESOLUTION that would have the COMPANY DISCLOSE  more on how it's coming with CUTTING BACK on its thermal coal production.

I might suggest you find another translation program...the one you are now using SUCKS.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

=

and have BACKED A RESOLUTION that would have the COMPANY DISCLOSE  more on how it's coming with CUTTING BACK on its thermal coal production.

I might suggest you find another translation program...the one you are now using SUCKS.

They still plan to eliminate coal. They are upset about not getting enough information on the progress thereof.

Once again, they are Not Complaining about their Climate Policy or the long-term vision!  They are requesting intermediate checkpoints to make sure the phaseout is occurring.   They don't want to be a coal company anymore.

Yes, they made money off coal, but that is not their vision of the future.

Edited May 27, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ron Wagner + 714]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/electric-trucks-are-worse-than-diesel-trucks/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=first

 

THE CORNERREGULATORY POLICY

Electric Trucks Are Worse than Diesel Trucks

Tesla unveils its new electric semi truck at a presentation in Hawthorne, Calif., in 2017.(Alexandria Sage/Reuters)

Share

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• 96

By DOMINIC PINO

•  

May 25, 2023 6:28 PM

Listen to article

The purpose of trucks is to move stuff. By just about every measure, electric trucks are worse at moving stuff than diesel trucks are.

That’s the takeaway from today’s newsletter by Rachel Premack for FreightWaves. She’s writing about a California regulation that will require all new drayage trucks (trucks that operate near ports) to be zero-emissions, starting next year. The entire drayage fleet is required to be zero-emissions by 2035. And people in the trucking industry and in the utility industry aren’t quite sure how that’s going to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP FINANCIAL STORIES

Hanke’s 2022 Misery Index

The Student Debt ‘Crisis’ Doesn’t Actually Exist

Germany: A Recession after All

It’s a classic case of California regulatory policy: over-ambition in goals combined with underperformance in governance. Electric-truck technology simply isn’t ready to fully replace diesel trucks yet, but the climate alarmists demand action now. The various parts of California’s state government and the public utilities don’t seem to be able to install sufficient charging infrastructure to keep up with the demand that the state’s own regulations will create.

 

Top StoriesREAD MOREThe Student Debt ‘Crisis’ Doesn’tActually Exist

California regulatory debacles aren’t surprising; it would be more newsworthy if a California initiative succeeded. Shippers have noticed California’s mistakes and are increasingly sending their freight elsewhere.

What’s stunning is how bad electric trucks are. Premack reports several important details:

1. Price. An electric drayage vehicle costs $185,000. Diesel trucks are about half that.
2. Refueling. Filling up a diesel truck takes about 15 minutes. Recharging an electric truck takes hours.
3. Infrastructure. California needs 11.5 gigawatts of new electric capacity by 2026 to meet the needs from its electrification mandates, which is difficult to accomplish because of the state’s other environmental regulations.
4. Weight. Electric trucks are heavier than diesel trucks.
5. Capacity. As a consequence of being heavier, electric trucks can’t carry as much freight as diesel trucks. The head of the trade association for California drayage truckers said that companies will need to double the size of their fleets just to haul the same amount of freight they currently do.
6. Costs. As a result of being worse at moving stuff, electric trucks will impose higher costs throughout the supply chain than diesel trucks do, which could raise consumer prices.

The state government and private companies are going to spend gobs of money to buy electric trucks for which there aren’t yet charging stations or electric capacity, so that they can move less freight at higher cost. Brilliant transportation policy.

NEXT POSTHelper of the Homeless

BACK TO THE CORNER

DOMINIC PINO is the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at National Review Institute.

96

[Ron Wagner + 714]

On 5/24/2023 at 4:03 AM, NickW said:

I wouldn't purposely go out in a force 7. In the North Sea it gets very choppy as its very shallow where we are

If out in that double reefed main and the Genoa rolled in about 2/3rds. Need to keep your hand on the main sheet to slacken the mainsail to avoid being overpowered by gusts. 

 

I was actually asking about the handling amidst the wind turbines but thanks for the other info. I am no sailor aside from sheltered areas in good weather. 

[Ron Wagner + 714]

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/05/26/no-grazie-italy-leads-revolt-against-e-u-drive-for-electric-vehicles/

No, Grazie: Italy Leads Revolt Against E.U. Drive for Electric Vehicles

103 Alessia Pierdomenico/Bloomberg/Getty

SIMON KENT

26 May 2023203

3:51

Italy is leading the revolt against European Union plans to tighten emission limits and push drivers into electric vehicles (EVs) with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni vowing to defend automotive industry jobs.

Meloni’s coalition gained power last October and immediately tried to thwart E.U. efforts to ban the sale of new cars running on fossil fuels by 2035, which her predecessor Mario Draghi had supported.

Italy argued that the E.U. should not mandate a total switch to electric cars but should also allow the sale of vehicles running on biofuels as well as other traditional sources.

The pushback failed and the E.U. moved ahead with the crackdown in March even as Meloni said it was “not reasonable” to ban new combustion engines.

Now Meloni is trying a different tack in an effort to support Italy’s nearly 270,000 direct or indirect employees in the automotive sector, which accounted for 5.2 percent of GDP in 2022.

The European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) has warned switching to all electric cars could lead to more than 60,000 job losses in Italy by 2035 for automobile suppliers alone.

AFP reports the Italian government this week shifted its fight to directly oppose the planned “Euro 7” standards on pollutants, joining seven other E.U. member states — including France and Poland — to demand Brussels scrap the new limits.

“Italy is showing the way, our positions are more and more widely shared,” said Enterprise Minister Adolfo Urso, a fervent defender of national industry in the face of what he has called an “ideological vision” of climate change.

The E.U. plan “is clearly wrong and not even useful from an environmental point of view,” added Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, of the League party which shares power with Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, the AFP report set out.

U.S. automotive workers have already expressed their dismay at the push to totally dump internal combustion engines in the name of green ideology.

Drivers in Italy appear to agree given the paucity of infrastructure available to support electric vehicles.

The country has just 36,000 electric charging stations, compared to 90,000 for the Netherlands, a country a fraction of the size of Italy.

“There is no enthusiasm for electric cars in Italy,” Felipe Munoz, an analyst with the automotive data company Jato Dynamics, told AFP. “The offer is meagre, with just one model manufactured by national carmaker Fiat.”

Electric cars charge at a hub in downtown Milan on March 23, 2023. Italy has just has just 36,000 electric charging stations, compared to 90,000 for the Netherlands, a country a fraction of the size. (GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP via Getty Images)

For its part, legendary Italian car maker Ferrari has no intention of phasing out combustion engines and going fully electric or hybrid anytime soon.

As Breitbart News reported, it has already promised to keep making the eight and 12-cylinder engines it has made its trademark at least until the end of the 2030s.

The chief of the Italian manufacturer, Benedetto Vigna, told the BBC in an interview it would be “arrogant” to dictate to customers what they can buy while at the same time walking away from the company’s heritage.

Ferrari instead wants to honor its history of high performance cars using traditional methods of propulsion.

Benedetto Vigna, chief executive officer of Ferrari NV, said “I don’t want to be arrogant and impose a choice on our client,”  as he explained why the legendary manufacturer will continue making models driven by internal combustion engines over “green” alternatives. (Francesca Volpi/Bloomberg via Getty)

Vigna pointed to this decision as a sign that technology was evolving, and denied doing so would undermine the company’s environmental credentials.

“I don’t want to be arrogant and impose a choice on our client,” he said.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

25 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

 

Italy is leading the revolt against European Union plans to tighten emission limits and push drivers into electric vehicles (EVs) with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni vowing to defend automotive industry jobs.

 

Those automotive industries could adapt.  Electric vehicles are still automotives...

Clinging onto old technology when they clearly know the way the market is shifting is stupid.

 

 

 

[specinho + 475]

On 5/25/2023 at 4:24 PM, NickW said:

A study of the Nissan Leaf found that typical loss over 5 years was 15%. So if that is industry typical its 2.85% per year however the Nissans don't have active cooling (they rely on passive I recall) so this may hasten their decline. 

I accept 1-2% is too optimistic but >10% is unrealistic. 

Not sure if you know the method used?

For example, if a battery takes 1.5 to 2 hours to be charged fully initially but takes 4 hours or more after a few months or a year, then the decline is 50 to 100% per period.

Or, if the distance covered is 250 km initially but reduced to 200 km before needing a charge, then the decline is (250- 200) / 250 * 100 = 20%.

P/s: Japan has overall very high quality of products which last a long time ( sustainable) back then. Products of this country might be exceptional.... 

Edited May 27, 2023 by specinho

[specinho + 475]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

They still plan to eliminate coal. They are upset about not getting enough information on the progress thereof.

Once again, they are Not Complaining about their Climate Policy or the long-term vision!  They are requesting intermediate checkpoints to make sure the phaseout is occurring.   They don't want to be a coal company anymore.

Yes, they made money off coal, but that is not their vision of the future.

Not sure if this is correct:

Quote:" shareholders are looking for additional clarification on how Glencore will reach its emissions goals, and have BACKED A RESOLUTION that would have the COMPANY DISCLOSE  more on how it's coming with CUTTING BACK on its thermal coal production."

1. They want to know more about how Glencore will reach its emission goals

2. They back a suggestion to have the company disclose more on how is it going with cutting back coal production. ( E. G. If it works or not working, why, etc)

Those two questions are likely friendly enquiry, not hostile or firm demand.

What was the argument about, please? '-'

 

[notsonice + 1,266]

The Death of Coal ...one solar panel at a time Enjoy the Transition

 

ELECTREK

 

https://electrek.co/2023/05/25/us-wind-solar-q1-2023/

US wind and solar combined produced more electricity than coal in Q1 2023

Michelle Lewis | May 25 2023 - 2:42 pm PT

15 Comments

US wind and solar together produced more electricity than coal in Q1 2023, according to a review by the SUN DAY Campaign of data just released by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The latest issue of EIA’s “Electric Power Monthly” report (with data through March 31, 2023) reveals that in the first quarter of 2023, electrical generation by solar (including small-scale distributed systems) grew by 7.8%, compared to the same period in 2022. This was driven in large part by growth in “estimated” small-scale (e.g., rooftop) solar PV, which increased in output by 24.0% – faster than any other energy source – and accounted for nearly one-third (32.8%) of total solar production.

The mix of utility-scale and small-scale solar PV plus utility-scale solar thermal provided 4.4% of the US’s electrical output during the first quarter of 2023.

At the same time, electrical generation by wind increased by 5.3% compared to the same period a year ago and provided 12.5% of total US electrical generation.

Together, wind and solar provided 16.9% of the US’s electrical output in Q1 2023.

However, electrical generation by coal plummeted by 28.6% and provided just 15.6% of total US electrical generation during the quarter. In March alone, US wind turbines produced almost as much electricity (44,355 gigawatt-hours) as coal (49,863 GWh).

When generation by all renewable energy sources (including biomass, geothermal, and hydropower) is considered, renewables accounted for 24.9% of total generation in the first three months of this year. That’s higher than their share (24.2%) in the first quarter of 2022, notwithstanding declines in production by hydropower (down 15.5%), wood + biomass (down 6.2% ), and geothermal (down 3.6%).

Thus, electricity generated by the full mix of renewable energy sources exceeded that of coal by 59.5%.

SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director Ken Bossong said:

Renewables have been outproducing coal … for some time now, with the combination of just wind and solar already ahead of coal this year …

Renewables also seem well-positioned to provide over a quarter of the nation’s electrical generation in 2023.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by notsonice

[bloodman33 + 22]

One true statement: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/energy/norway-wealth-fund-chevron-exxonmobil-climate/index.html

Ecoeruption: Make me laugh.

Other than the nutters, this thread is a parody of right wing ignorance that 99% of the people reading it back out and never come back, except for me... LOL

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, specinho said:

Not sure if you know the method used?

For example, if a battery takes 1.5 to 2 hours to be charged fully initially but takes 4 hours or more after a few months or a year, then the decline is 50 to 100% per period.

Or, if the distance covered is 250 km initially but reduced to 200 km before needing a charge, then the decline is (250- 200) / 250 * 100 = 20%.

P/s: Japan has overall very high quality of products which last a long time ( sustainable) back then. Products of this country might be exceptional.... 

The decline is based on the reduction in kwh held by the battery and nothing to do with charge rates. 

The process will be older EV's will end up as local runabouts. You see similar trends with older ICE vehicles. 

When the Vehicle is crapped the battery will have a resale value as a stationary storage battery. 

My wifes car has an 86 KWH battery. If it loses 75% of capacity it will still hold 21 Kwh which would be an extremely useful domestic or commercial storage bank. 

[turbguy + 1,556]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

The decline is based on the reduction in kwh held by the battery and nothing to do with charge rates. 

The process will be older EV's will end up as local runabouts. You see similar trends with older ICE vehicles. 

When the Vehicle is crapped the battery will have a resale value as a stationary storage battery. 

My wifes car has an 86 KWH battery. If it loses 75% of capacity it will still hold 21 Kwh which would be an extremely useful domestic or commercial storage bank. 

Management of any rechargeable battery is also VERY important.

Should you charge your lithium-ion cell phone battery to, say, 80% of capacity, and recharge back to that level at say, 20% of capacity, said battery will provide MANY more cycles of use before deterioration requires replacement.

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

On 5/26/2023 at 4:39 AM, NickW said:

 

They seem to sell well in Europe. 

As for batteries I said second life for EV batteries as stationary storage. 

Used Nissan EV Batteries Now Provide Grid Scale Storage |Vehicle to Grid UK (v2g.co.uk)

Relectrify - repurposed EV batteries to reduce tech costs | energy.gov.au

EV sales globally this year will be around 13 million. At some point thats a lot of still functional batteries being available for storage projects at anywhere from single battery domestic level to utility level facilities for frequency response and once enough available peaking services.  

You would have to try and resuscitate the old batteries, which are no longer usable for EVs, because there is essentially zero market for recycled EVs or used EVs, which shortens the lifespan of an EV drastically.

The transportation market remains dominated by fossil fuel vehicles, railroad engines, aircraft.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Those automotive industries could adapt.  Electric vehicles are still automotives...

Clinging onto old technology when they clearly know the way the market is shifting is stupid.

 

 

 

There is no need to "shift" anywhere. The predicted trends ahead for global temperature change are related to solar variables, not CO2.

Why would anyone allow themselves to be swayed by Green panic nonsense?

Italy is not following the herd of lemmings over the cliff.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Ecocharger

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

Management of any rechargeable battery is also VERY important.

Should you charge your lithium-ion cell phone battery to, say, 80% of capacity, and recharge back to that level at say, 20% of capacity, said battery will provide MANY more cycles of use before deterioration requires replacement.

I recall reading that lower speed charging helps with battery life. Better to stick with 2.3KW and 7KW chargers whenever possible. 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

There is no need to "shift" anywhere. The predicted trends ahead for global temperature change are related to solar variables, not CO2.

Why would anyone allow themselves to be swayed by Green panic nonsense?

Italy is not following the herd of lemmings over the cliff.

The shift to ev's is happening whether climate change is real or not.  It's already happening, their industry needs to adapt or get eliminated; which they recognize themselves in the article is going to happen. Ferrari is not representative of the market, and you know that.

Secondly, you do know that there are things in tailpipe emissions other than CO2 right?  EV's are quieter and produce less local* pollution which makes for nicer cities.

*(Even if you make the electricity with gas, it is at least outside the city.)

Then there there is the matter of all those pesky oil spills...  You will never get an environmental disaster on the scale of deep-water horizon etc. from a solar panel.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

11 hours ago, specinho said:

Not sure if this is correct:

Quote:" shareholders are looking for additional clarification on how Glencore will reach its emissions goals, and have BACKED A RESOLUTION that would have the COMPANY DISCLOSE  more on how it's coming with CUTTING BACK on its thermal coal production."

1. They want to know more about how Glencore will reach its emission goals

2. They back a suggestion to have the company disclose more on how is it going with cutting back coal production. ( E. G. If it works or not working, why, etc)

Those two questions are likely friendly enquiry, not hostile or firm demand.

What was the argument about, please? '-'

 

There is no argument; EWO is just illiterate.

 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

56 minutes ago, NickW said:

I recall reading that lower speed charging helps with battery life. Better to stick with 2.3KW and 7KW chargers whenever possible. 

The system handles that in modern chargers by monitoring temperature, voltage etc.  My laptop and phone already do it.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,486]

5 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The shift to ev's is happening whether climate change is real or not.  It's already happening, their industry needs to adapt or get eliminated; which they recognize themselves in the article is going to happen. Ferrari is not representative of the market, and you know that.

Secondly, you do know that there are things in tailpipe emissions other than CO2 right?  EV's are quieter and produce less local* pollution which makes for nicer cities.

*(Even if you make the electricity with gas, it is at least outside the city.)

Then there there is the matter of all those pesky oil spills...  You will never get an environmental disaster on the scale of deep-water horizon etc. from a solar panel.

 

 

No, the fuel for the EV trend is strictly related to climate panic based on faulty science.

That will change in a very short time and EVs will become an historical curiosity.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the fuel for the EV trend is strictly related to climate panic based on faulty science.

That will change in a very short time and EVs will become an historical curiosity.

Nobody in the industry believes it is faulty science.  Even if some groundbreaking papers emerge showing that climate change is not real the industries have already set their paths, there is not going to be some quick abandonment of their long-term EV plans. They have already geared up for the EV transition - sunk costs.

People buy what the industries tell them to buy.  Marketing a car is much easier than convincing people climate change isn't real. 

Do not confuse what should be done with what will be done.

 

[specinho + 475]

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The shift to ev's is happening whether climate change is real or not.  It's already happening, their industry needs to adapt or get eliminated; which they recognize themselves in the article is going to happen. Ferrari is not representative of the market, and you know that.

Secondly, you do know that there are things in tailpipe emissions other than CO2 right?  EV's are quieter and produce less local* pollution which makes for nicer cities.

*(Even if you make the electricity with gas, it is at least outside the city.)

Then there there is the matter of all those pesky oil spills...  You will never get an environmental disaster on the scale of deep-water horizon etc. from a solar panel.

 

 

Not sure if you notice a comment mentioned an experiment about co2, humidity and formation of cloud?

Can not remember exactly the whole thing but it basically said " pollutants in a smoke are necessary in the formation of cloud"...

In other words, when the air gets too clean, cloud can not be formed. No cloud, no rain. Climate change. 

In addition, when the engines get too quiet, it could endanger pedestrians and other road users. Imagine

a) you are walking on a street and a bike approaching without a sound. You are about to cross the road, turn your head and the bike is 5 cm from you.

b) you are driving, about to make a left turn. Car or bike  approaching without a sound to your blind spot....

Moderation, hence, is the key. The number ought to be reduced and controlled. Mixture of types would be great.

Deep water horizon was probably affected by movement of tectonic plates. Unexpected pressure during natural calamity was not trained in routine maintenance and safety check, no? This could be once in centuries or decades? 

Mentioned somewhere about the possibility of climate change affected by large scale solar farm. Imagine you are seeing a sea of black solar panels. They are absorbing heat ( ~1%?) and releasing excessive heat that can not be used. That area would become hotter in its localized climate.

If there is a cold front wind from somewhere, cyclone or typhoon would form at ease. The greater the differences in temperature, the stronger the cyclone or typhoon, the greater the damages and after math. 

This could happen daily, per season or rather frequently. 

Solar is good. But since the possible unintended consequences have been  raised, there is a need to investigate further how to do it properly by minimizing negative impact. Not rushing blindly because there is big money that the governments do not care to splash.. money of others... 

 

[specinho + 475]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

I recall reading that lower speed charging helps with battery life. Better to stick with 2.3KW and 7KW chargers whenever possible. 

I raised a question the other day over an experiment trying to create inverter at home from a 1.5V battery to power home appliance. Roughly place it here:

1. Battery is dc, electrical appliances are dc, why do they need inverter? 

P/s: if so, can we recharge handphone using lower voltage dc car battery directly? 

2. If appliances require dc 15V to function, why can't we supply dc of this voltage from local station? 

The existing flow is 

- high voltage from generator

- stepped down according to needs of industrial and residential.

- residential- 240 V ac. Stepped down and invertex to 15V dc. Much heat generated and energy wasted.

If there is a station to do that before supplying dc to households, would we be using less fuel or energy at generator? Future generation would have much of those left? 'o' '-' 🤗

 

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The system handles that in modern chargers by monitoring temperature, voltage etc.  My laptop and phone already do it.

 

I assume thats why fast chargers (+22KW) only go to 80%. If you want to go to 100% you use a 7KW or 2.3KW charger (240v AC system)