Let’s Investigate Alleged EU Environmental and Climate Change Progress

JackWebb

1 year ago

Hmm. So we now have a diversity of fuels, but the “progressives” want only one. Idiots.

0

Reply

Dutoit

1 year ago

Probably the “Greens” in Germany are the same as in France: the name “Green” is a fraud, ecology is a minor concern for them. They are much more russophobic than worried by climate change. This is why for them there will be no problem to use massive amounts of coal.

0

Reply

kansasdude

1 year ago

If this is another example of ‘exciting transition’ per Mr. Ice Cream, id like to keep my boring existence as it is thanks.

0

Reply

Cocoa

1 year ago

Small, safe nukes. Bill Gates invests in these companies:

link to nuscalepower.com

0

Reply

Cocoa

1 year ago

The sad thing is, smaller Nuke plants are safe and do not need all the severe 3 mile island safeguards. You could have a nuclear plant run a neighborhood and if you turn it off it’s small enough to cool on it’s own. The threat of nuclear accidents is based on 1974 technology and nuclear power plants do NOT need to power a city. They can be decentralized and smaller and safer.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to Cocoa

We could put them in schools and use the same security guards. Educational and cost saving at the same time.

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

So they load up with coal to get them over the present crisis. If the Greens are ok with what they see as a temporary measure that would help them overcome an existential threat then what some would see as hypocritical they would see as eminently practical and frankly I am glad to see some good sense creep into the Greens’ collective heads. It’s about time.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to Doug78

I, too, fear ‘existential threats’… if only I knew what makes them ‘existential.’ An ‘existential threat’ is when the existence of something is in danger’, as opposed to threats that are…metaphysical, unobserved, theoretical, hypothetical, speculative, theoretic, unproven, conjectural, unsubstantiated…

Is a real and present danger the same as ‘existential’? For example, Biden?

0

Reply

Dutoit

1 year ago

For rich people no problems. You can have a completely insulated house (passive house) with a Solar Roof of Tesla. You will not need any energy from outside, you will even be able to send some, and also provide the energy for your (Tesla) electric car.

I think that almost all of our politicians think that only the poor are responsible of global warming.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to Dutoit

Works great except when the sun doesn’t shine for a couple of days, or you live in mid-highrise… Meanwhile, China races ahead to overwhelm your economy

0

Reply

Zardoz

1 year ago

Reply to Dutoit

It’s a question of numbers, and there are a LOT more poors.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to Dutoit

Silly, this is not a problem. Winter in Spain, or Italy, or Greece where you don’t need much heating. You need to think like a Minister of Somethingorother.

0

Reply

TexasTim65

1 year ago

Building new homes all electrical is a nice headline but essentially meaningless unless the EU is building a lot of new homes.

More importantly, what does the EU plan to do with existing homes? Furnaces, water heaters, dryers etc don’t last forever. So when they need to be replaced are they grandfathered in to be able to replace with gas? If not, once consumers see the cost of being forced to switch, all hell is going to break loose. My parents switched the other way (electric to gas) in the 90’s and it was quite expensive and going the other way is going to be much worse because you’ll have to entirely rewire the home including the breaker box to handle the higher loads for a furnace, water heater, dryer, washer etc. Probably on the order of 20K or more added expense when all you want to do is replace a hot water heater or a dryer or furnace.

Also, electric is no where near as efficient as gas for hot water or cooking. You probably use more CO2 over all because it takes longer for the stove and water to reach desired temperatures when using electric since that electricity is created using fossil fuels.

0

Reply

jhrodd

1 year ago

Reply to TexasTim65

That’s not true at all. I have an all electric house with ductless mini-split heating/cooling -20 amp circuit, heat pump water heater -30 amp circuit, induction cooktop -40 amp circuit (which is faster and more controllable than gas). The power is all hydroelectric and solar (community). My highest power bill last January when it got down to 11F was $185 my current bill (June) is $52. My 2000 sq.ft. new construction house cost less than $8000 for an excellent electrical contractor to wire with all materials including the cans and fans. This is on a fairly remote but ferry served island in the Salish Sea.

0

Reply

Siliconguy

1 year ago

Reply to jhrodd

The Salish sea is a very gentle climate. And the hydro power saved your butt.

I would be interested in knowing if you have those big temperature inversions we get in Eastern WA. We had a 8 day run of heavy overcast and dead calm. Wind power was zero, and the solar panel had 1/14 of its rated power output. The electric demand for that period was 60 kWh per day. And you know how short the winter days are this far north.

There is no natural gas service where I live, and I even have a mini-split heat pump. Still waiting for the first day warm enough to need to switch it to AC mode.

0

Reply

worleyeoe

1 year ago

Reply to jhrodd

Electric heating of your actual home in zones 4 & above with a mini split in the USA IS NOT more efficient than a modern 2 stage 98% AFUE furnace. That’s BS! Now, with FJB in office running up natural gas prices to obscene rates, then that equation changes. But, that’s their whole goal. We’d be much better off just mandating that all NG/LP furnaces have to be 96% AFUE or above. The cost differential is maybe $500 and that would drop in half quickly once the new requirement was fully in effect. And us selling so much LNG abroad is crazy! Like everything we should be making sure we meet our domestic consumption needs first at reasonable market prices before selling something like LNG abroad.

THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST EXAMPLE OF FJB NOT DOING HIS JOB AND NEEDING TO BE IMPEACHED. HE HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN BUT DOESN’T BECAUSE HE’S OWNED BY CHINA AND THE FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVES. AND THE AVERAGE AMERCIA & FAMILY ARE PAYING THE PRICE.

However, I’ll agree most everyone heating their water with NG would benefit from switching over to an electric hybrid water heater in terms of annual operating costs. Unfortunately, these units start out at $1,800 and would require at least $500 extra to pay an electrician to install a 30-amp breaker to the HWH.

The reality is that this enormous push to go green is destined to racially push up energy prices for decades. And, for example, the mining industry who has an enormous financial incentive to see the economy go green is now telling everyone to hold on. They won’t be able to meet demand. And FJB is owned by the Chinese who will soon control 95% of parts of the solar panels production. And most importantly, China controls about 90% of the worlds rare earth metals production.

SOMEONE had better sit down and outline a real strategy for going green ASAP. Otherwise, we’re screwed. FJB has the ability to go meet with the Dept of Energy and executives from NuScale & TerraPower and say what do we need to do to safely fast track your SMR’s and get them tested and a handful of them online in the next few years? But he doesn’t. See same answer above: he’s owned.

China has developed a thorium, molten salt-based reactor that will be absolutely game changing. The first one is going to be built in the Gobi Desert by 2030, because it doesn’t require copious water supply. Thorium isn’t even on our radar.

Sorry for the rant, but I disagree to a certain extent with your point about mini-splits. They are great in a lot of scenarios but far from all, especially when you start talking about retrofitting.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to worleyeoe

We use a propane-fired on-demand tankless water heater. A long time ago, I looked into electric tankless, and recall that they required a big upgrade in electric service because of how much surge power they use.

0

Reply

worleyeoe

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

A Whole house electric tankless uses 3 x 40 amp breakers. As you well know, that’s just jaw dropping amount of amps. A modern 50G hybrid electric water heater, Richmond for example, can be purchased with a standard 15-amp breaker instead of the usual 30-amp version. While it’s first hour rating would, of course, be less than the 30-amp version, it only costs about $110 annually to operate.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to worleyeoe

I forgot the details. I only remembered: a whole lot of juice. What’s the voltage on those breakers, 120 or 240?

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to jhrodd

You can hook up a couple of orcas to a circular track and generate electricity that way too. They can even be used to grind flour or whatever grain grows up there.

0

Reply

TexasTim65

1 year ago

Reply to jhrodd

The key word here is ‘new house’. In other words all the wiring was put in and done BEFORE the walls were put in as is done with new construction.

Now try going back to an already completed home and do the same thing. They have to rip out all the walls to run the wiring and rip out the gas pipes and connections etc. They have to throw out the existing breaker boxes and replace and so on.

It’s going to be a lot close to 20K than you imagine.

P.S. Your electric bill is higher there than mine in Florida that mostly uses gas to generate electric power. I pay quite a bit more (350ish in Florida summer, about 110 in the winter) but my home is also 4400 sq ft so more than double the size of yours and it’s a lot older of a home.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to TexasTim65

Electric ovens are superior in use because the heat is more evenly distributed inside. That’s why the best combo is dual fuel. Gas for the range, electric for the oven.

0

Reply

astroboy

1 year ago

There’s a serious amount of stupidity in eliminating natural gas for cooking and heating, at least at this stage of the game. There’s this physics/entropy thing called the Carnot cycle which tells you the theoretical maximum amount of ‘work’ you can get from a (more or less) chemical reaction: in this case, burning something and generating electricity. Unless you have an extremely hot burn (nuke) you’re going to produce only about 25% as much electricity as the heat you get from burning, a great of which is going to be lost in transmission lines. So, pretty inefficient = a lot of CO2 for a small return, ~25% efficiency (this doesn’t apply to hydroelectric or nuclear energy or solar, but we’re talking gas here). On the other hand, if all you’re interested in is heat, guess what, burning gas or coal or wood is really really really efficient. So, a lot less CO2 emitted.

It would be interesting to know how much heat goes into the atmosphere from electric power line resistance. It might be significant…..

Also, I’ve cooked on gas and electric. I converted to the True Religion. I’m waiting for the electric stove in the house I built to stop working…. You never saw Julia Childs cooking with anything but gas.

0

Reply

jhrodd

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Julia Child died like 20 years ago. I love my induction cooktop…….

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Electric and gas are old tech. I replaced my gas cooktop with an induction unit.

link to en.m.wikipedia.org

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Ever cook with heavy copper cookware?

Now that you have induction you’ll never know.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Lisa_Hooker

Nope. And I don’t care. My wife does most of the cooking and she is much happier with her induction cookware than anything she used on gas. That’s all I care about. Happy wife, happy life.

0

Reply

Maximus_Minimus

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

The electricity transmission is one source of loss, but at both ends there is up/down transformation which is another source of loss. Modern transformers use superconducting, but have to be kept cool at liquid nitrogen temperature.

Gas has versatility, and oil has superior energy density where coal has neither.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to Maximus_Minimus

Max, would you please direct me to some manufacturers of superconducting transformers for our current electrical system. I have been laboring under the notion that the weight and power consumption of the required cryogenic systems consume more than the transformer’s savings. Thanks.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

In addition, gas stoves are a source fo occasionally serious indoor air pollution

link to rmi.org

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Thanks for the cult site. LOL. Rocky Mountain Institute, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Mothers Out Front, Sierra Club

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

You’re welcome. Here is another.

link to cbc.ca

Though I have no idea what sites offend people like you.

And I don’t really care.

The link was meant for astro.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

The only thing I trust out of Canada is maple syrup. LOL

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

I really like Canadian small and mid cap oil stocks. They trade at ridiculously low prices. And with their high volatility, they are a traders dream.

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

My house outside Paris is all electric and that electricity is powered by nuclear reactors so I guess that makes it officially green by EU regulations voted last Wednesday. Unfortunately that means I can’t hire Julia Childs’ ghost to cook for me.

0

Reply

Carl_R

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Having cooked with both, yes, gas is more controllable. Yet, gas is also a major source of indoor pollution, so keep that in mind.

As far as banning gas for home cooking and heating in Europe being foolish, I have to disagree. If they have no gas, and a person buys a home with gas heat and a gas stove, that person has no heat and can’t cook, and won’t be very happy. Banning gas in the US, where gas is actually available is an entirely different question, and yes, it would be foolish.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Carl_R

Ordinarily, gas is much cheaper, especially in Europe where electricity rates are so high.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Carl_R

Anyone worried about indoor air pollution from a gas cooktop can use a handy-dandy invention called a range hood. Ours is so powerful it could suck up the family dog. LOL

0

Reply

worleyeoe

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

I read where people who’ve built super tight houses without adding one of those fresh air mixers have problems with breaking their p-traps’ ability to keep septic fumes from enter their house, if they run their mondo fans too high.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to worleyeoe

What is a “mondo fan?”

0

Reply

Siliconguy

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Natural gas combined cycle plants can reach 50% efficiency. Those use the exhaust from a gas turbine to heat a more normal boiler and steam plant system. A coal fired supercritical boiler can get a bit over 40% efficiency. Supercritical steam plants are a bit bitchy as they run at over 4000 psi.

Otherwise, if all you want is heat you are right, burning the gas directly is the sensible thing to do. Heat pumps do complicate that a bit as all they do is use one unit of energy to relocate 3 units of energy, whether it’s going in or out. But the bigger the difference between source and sink the less efficient a heat pump becomes. This is a bigger problem in winter as a 70 F difference between in and out is much higher than a summertime 30 F difference. Add to that all the times the outside unit frosts over and trips out in the winter and you still need backup.

0

Reply

Carl_R

1 year ago

Reply to Siliconguy

Excellent post, thank you. You probably should add that the most common heat pumps are air to air, and that is where you run into the high temperature differentials that reduce efficiency dramatically. By the time you get to a 40 degree temperature differential with the outside, you are going to need a backup source of heat, and the most common is inefficient resistance heating. Air-to-air is not the only type of heat pump, however. There are also ground source heat pumps. There you are pumping from a near constant temperature ground at, say, 50 degrees, giving you a 20 degree temperature differential, well into the range where the heat pump is very efficient. Ground source heat pumps are much, much more efficient in most climates, but are much more expensive to install.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Carl_R

Ground-source heat pumps have numerous problems in use. I know this because I studied those things, and then took a second look as we were building a house. Nothing like the prospect of writing those checks to focus your mind.

1. The heat exchanging equipment costs roughly double, and tends to be somewhat finicky, or that’s the reputation.

2. The typical configuration is to run antifreeze through PVC pipes buried about five or six feet down. One issue is that, as the soil settles, gaps tend to form and reduce heat transfer. Another issue goes a bit in the opposite direction. If the soil is carefully packed around the PVC pipes, the soil can freeze in winter, negating the heat transfer. Same in reverse if you live in a really hot climate, i.e., the Southwest.

3. Another way to do it is to run a pipe down a well and bring the water up with a pump, then extract the heat in the exchanger. The water then is returned underground. The volumes are large, and so too must the pump be. When I checked into it for our place in the countryside, it was clear that this would be highly impractical.

4. Ground source should work very well if someone has a year-round creek on their property, and can run the glycol through it, or just pump water in and out. That might or might not be acceptable to state-level regulators. We don’t have a creek, so it was a non-starter for us.

All in all, it’s an expensive solution. A backyard tinkerer could probably find a workaround, but I’m not that either. So we went with an air-source heat pump that works down to about freezing, at which point a backup propane furnace kicks in. Air source heat pumps can work far below freezing, but they have to be much bigger.

The other issue with heat pumps (and I’m sure this would apply to both air- and ground-source) is that the heated air coming off the exchanger isn’t very warm. It’s somewhere in the 80-degrees range. Feels cool out of the registers, and if you went on vacation and turned it down to 50 degrees while you were gone, it takes a long time (measured in hours) to get it back into the 70s.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Siliconguy

Combined cycle units have thermal efficiency > 60% the last time I looked.

0

Reply

db_

1 year ago

Reply to Siliconguy

You’re right about the lower efficiency in winter but wrong about the cause. The bigger the difference in temperature between the source and the sink, the greater the efficiency. The problem is the source (outdoor ambient air) and the refrigerant’s (the refrigerant is not the ‘sink’ or ‘source’ in a heat pump cycle, just the mode of heat transmission between sink and source) boiling temperature has a lower difference in the winter; hence the lower efficiency. The sink is the space (i.e your home) where you’re dumping the heat energy. The sink and source locations reverse when you’re cooling your home. This problem is mitigated somewhat by the use of a refrigerant with a lower boiling point but generally well below freezing temperatures require the addition of heating elements to mitigate the lower efficiency of heat pumps. The more stable ground temperatures are why geothermal can be outstanding from an efficiency perspective; they’re higher installation and maintenance costs over life-cycle.

0

Reply

Maximus_Minimus

1 year ago

I haven’t heard that Russia threatened to cut off gas to Europe. In fact, they were bewildered when EU sanctioned herself out of Russian gas.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Maximus_Minimus

The next few months, and maybe less than that, will tell the story. It’s an equation with many terms. I’d love to be a fly on the wall, but I am too large, and lack the wings.

0

Reply

Carl_R

1 year ago

Reply to Maximus_Minimus

You are right that Russia didn’t threaten to cut off gas. They simply cut the gas off, or reduced the flow. First they cut off Poland and Bulgaria. Next came Finland. Then they cut off Denmark and the Netherlands. Germany, France and Italy have not been cut off completely, but they have had their flow reduced, and flow has been substantially reduced to Slovakia, Austria, and the Czech Republic. It seems clear that any country in Europe would be unwise to base their planning on expectations of getting gas from Russia.

0

Reply

Maximus_Minimus

1 year ago

Reply to Carl_R

Have you heard about paying in rubles? Which is the result of freezing or confiscating Russian assets in Euro accounts.

Yes, it is unwise if you join the US neocon’s war on Russia, but try to think from their perspective, sometimes.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to Carl_R

Funny how some folks selling a commodity to make a living get touchy about not getting payments they can use.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Lisa_Hooker

I laugh at the descriptions of Russia being an unreliable gas supplier. Excuse me, but “the West” just stole the proceeds of prior sales. They turned Russia’s dollars into monopoly money. If I were Putin, I’d want to shut it off and keep it off. But that’s a strategic issue, with lots of moving parts. Putin and his people are thugs, but they’re smart thugs. We shall see. It’s hard to overstate the implications of the sanctions. Looks to me like “the West” pointed the bazooka at their own foot and pulled the trigger.

0

Reply

Jojo

1 year ago

Reply to Carl_R

Russia desperately needs revenue to buy materials to support their current invasion of Ukraine. The few people/countries willing to sell to them have escalated their sell prices significantly. Cutting off their main revenue sources is called shooting yourself in the feet.

Putin’s “special operation” is in dire straits. Russians are leaving the country or refusing to accept conscription. Putin is offering up to $5000/month to those willing to sign on.

This reality has caused Putin to recently proclaim “We have not yet begun to fight!” [lol]

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

I’ve long since learned that there’s no point in discussing the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis online, or even in person. The reason is that it’s not a hypothesis, but a religion. “Progressives” have thrown off the shackles of Christianity, but human beings are driven to believe in something without question, so now it’s AGW. It would take a much better cult deprogrammer than me to rescue them.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

Agree. AGW is a scientific fact. There is no point trying to argue science with the cult members who refuse to understand that fact. Might as well try to convince the flat earth folks that the world is not flat. You can’t fight stupidity. I don’t even try.

Of course, I also understand that global warming is going to get a lot worse because we are going to keep burning fossil fuels for a long time.

At least I can try to make money from it by investing in those fossil fuel companies.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

It’s not a “scientific fact.” Anyone who pukes that out doesn’t understand the basics of the scientific method. It’s faith, supported by nothing. Keep praying.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

I’m not going to argue against your cult beliefs. As I already said, there is no point.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Nor will I try to deprogram you from your New Religion.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

Never even attempt to reason with someone who’s logic is grounded on faith.

Some folks desperately need to learn the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and the validity that can be expected them.

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is considered to derive a general principle. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. -Wikipedia

0

Reply

Maximus_Minimus

1 year ago

Reply to Lisa_Hooker

I am not sure if I care to decipher it, but I also not sure if the masses uses reasoning over emotions at all.

Otherwise, a certain faith wouldn’t be able to hijack European civilization for some two thousand years.

BTW, I use the Sherlock Holmes method.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Maximus_Minimus

Human beings are hard-wired to have faith. I think it’s best to channel faith into areas that facts and logic can’t enter. The AGW hypothesis is not one of those areas, but today’s “progressives” cling bitterly to their New Religion.

0

Reply

effendi

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Let’s say AGW is a fact. So what is the factual proof of what the correct temperature for the earth is? Is it the current temperature or that of the pre Bronze Age or that of the Jurassic?

Perhaps the correct temperature for the earth is warmer than now as for 99% of the past billion years the CO2 levels were higher than now (much higher).

So to get this planet back to its correct temperature we need to return all that carbon locked up in coal back to the atmosphere (you do know that all coal came about in the space of 50 million years from the time that trees with lignin evolved until the time that bacteria that could consume lignin in dead trees evolved).

Plus we are heading for another ice age, AGW will be to our descendants advantage.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to effendi

You don’t get it. I don’t care about your opinion unless I can take advantage of it.

The opinions I care about are from the people who make the big decisions. Like the executives that run the oil and gas companies.

And they (like the vast majority of decision makers in the world today) are convinced that AGW is a scientific fact, which means they are reducing capex, which means restricted supply going forward.

As I keep saying: I can’t do anything about AGW except to recognize that it is real. And I can’t do anything about cult idiots who are determined to believe it isn’t.

If you want to discuss investment ideas, I’m wide open. But I’m not going to debate your misinformed cult beliefs.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Papa, I thought I’d simplify.

I see that you said: “I don’t care about you unless I can take advantage of you.”

Just one person’s philosophy of life.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Lisa_Hooker

Good try. But you know that wasn’t what I said. I want to take advantage of investment opportunities based on what is going to be happening in the future. I am not trying to take advantage of any individual.

And if an individual cannot provide me with reliable info on which to make my investment decisions, then I simply don’t care whatever the f*ck political horse sh*t they want to me believe.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to effendi

To Papa Dave, the non-critical thinker par excellence, effendi’s comment is actually a valid hypothesis. It could be that a frozen wasteland and deserts are indicators of a dying planet.

0

Reply

Jojo

1 year ago

Reply to effendi

The correct temp is whatever is most beneficial to humans and the civilization that humans live in.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to effendi

It’s true, we’re right near the end of the interglacial. Fortunately for all of us here, these things move at a glacial pace. LOL

0

Reply

prumbly

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

There is no scientific evidence that the 4% of CO2 emissions caused by Man cause any global warming at all – it’s all surmise based on mathematical models know to be extremely faulty. And if Man is contributing to the slight warming we’ve seen over the last 150 years since the end of the Little Ice Age, so what? Is a warmer planet worse for life? Is it worse for Man? No, it is not – common sense and the geological record tell us that.

Almost all the human population of Earth lives within 30 degrees of the Equator – why? Because human life thrives in a warmer climate.

0

Reply

Scooot

1 year ago

Reply to prumbly

I think it’s the build up of Co2 in the atmosphere over time that’s the problem. Venus is a good example, I don’t think it was always like it is today.

An extract from Sky Safari

“Further observations from Earth and by spacecraft revealed that the Venusian atmosphere is very dense, and made up mostly of carbon dioxide. At the surface of Venus, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times that on Earth – similar to the pressure a depth of 1000 meters below the surface of our oceans. Venus’s atmosphere is also very hot, with a surface temperature of about 870°F (470°C). That is hotter than any household oven, and hot enough to melt lead. The thick atmosphere spreads heat evenly across the planet, with only a few degrees of temperature difference between the day and night sides, or from equator to pole. Venus’s clouds are not composed of water droplets, like Earth’s; but rather of sulfuric acid. The hot, dense, and poisonous atmosphere makes Venus completely uninhabitable to life as we know it.”

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to Scooot

Could it be that Venus is emerging as a planet for future life forms? That Mars once had life forms? That those scientific truths in Sky Safari are mere conjecture based on limited observations?

0

Reply

Scooot

1 year ago

Reply to Captain Ahab

If you’re referring to Venus’s current atmosphere I don’t think there’s any conjecture regarding that. As for life on other planets, past, present or future, no one knows yet so that would indeed be conjecture. 🙂

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to Scooot

I think you may be right.

If we move Earth to an orbit the same distance from the sun as Venus I believe that CO2 may become a problem.

0

Reply

Jojo

1 year ago

Reply to Lisa_Hooker

What if we were able to move Venus to the same orbit as Earth, just 180° off? Replace the excess CO2 with O2 and voila! we have a new planet for humans to expand to and live comfortably on. Although one potential problem is the lack of planet generated magnetic fields on Venus, unlike Earth.

link to jhuapl.edu

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to Scooot

Venus?! LOL

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to prumbly

I am not going to argue science with you. I can’t be bothered to waste my time in a useless pursuit. I am here for the investment ideas.

Read my reply to effendi above. I also can’t be bothered to copy and paste it here.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Wise move to not argue something you don’t begin to understand.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

I’m a Climate Denier, and proud of it. That said, IMHO the planet is way overpopulated by marginal humans.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Captain Ahab

Good for you. Now tell me why I should care. Do you have some appropriate investment advice that goes along with your statement.

Otherwise you could reduce the number of marginal humans by “1” and help solve your problem.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Keeping in mind that everything has costs and benefits, we can consider a person as an investment. Some people have an IRR of 30%. The average IRR is 2%-4%. Too many people have a negative IRR.

As you no doubt know, too many negative/low IRR projects drag down a company. Eventually, it will go bankrupt.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Captain Ahab

Then I hope you are retired.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Science has few facts. Science has hypotheses supported by data. As better data become available, hypotheses change.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Captain Ahab

I am not sure how many times I am going to have to tell you that I don’t care about your misinformed scientific opinion, before you get it. You seem particularly slow on this.

I care about what the decision makers believe. And the vast majority of the decision makers on this planet accept the fact of AGW.

And I base my investment decisions on that. Nothing you say is going to change that. Unless, of course you are suddenly put in charge as the world’s decision maker.

Until then, stop wasting my time with your nonsense.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Seeing as you insist on personalizing… Your hypocrisy would be amusing if it wasn’t so laughable.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Captain Ahab

Wow! You ARE slow.

Let me know when you have something worthwhile to say that I can base my investment decisions on.

0

Reply

astroboy

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

I’m a physicist. Around 1810 the great scientist Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect. In his spare time he invented a branch of mathematics called boundary value problems which allowed the human race to figure out electricity and enabled the develop of things like FM radio and the internet. Smart guy. So, it’s not like the greenhouse effect is a new discovery.

The basic science is irrefutable, unless there’s some major joker in the deck we don’t know about more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is going to heat the planet up. I would say, if someone claims that fossil fuels running CO2 up from 300 to 410 ppm in the past century isn’t going to cause global warming then I say, fine, but the burden of proof is on you since all the current science indicates otherwise. I already have a religion, I don’t need AGW.

I can say without any doubt that the climate of where I live (Washington DC, Michigan, Wisconsin) has gotten significantly warmer in the last 30 years.

Even if you don’t buy into humans causing global warming, the bottom line is that does the West really benefit from shipping $$$ to the Middle East and other countries who aren’t exactly our pals? I’m not saying that wind or solar replacing fossil fuels is viable, but France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear, no reason the rest of the planet can’t do the same. Fossil fuels are better used for things like airplanes where you absolutely need energy dense fuels. I have big doubts about electric cars. 1) unless you’re getting your electrons from nukes or solar or wind, I’m not sure the savings in carbon emissions is all that great. 2) does anyone think the electric grid can handle 200 million cars changing up overnight? I expect fuel cells (hydrogen and oxygen) are going to be the way to go for cars.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

You’re wasting your time. There is no point arguing science with crazy cultists.

0

Reply

Maximus_Minimus

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Nuclear has some disadvantages related to public sensitivity, and once unimagined terrorist threats, not to say war etc…

I like the idea of gas turbines where gas directly turns the shaft of the magnet rather than generate steam.

If it produces CO2 so be it, everything is risky.

Global warming is not the worst threat out there, it is one where the finger is pointed for the idiots, but the risk is that the idiots then don’t see the forest for the tree.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Thanks for the religion! LOL

0

Reply

Jojo

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Hydrogen & fusion is the future savior of the human race. Lots of $$ going into these areas.

First plasma propels Zap Energy’s plans for garage-sized fusion reactors

June 22, 2022

link to newatlas.com

German start-up aims to generate unlimited clean fusion energy with lasers

WED, MAR 16 2022

KEY POINTS

– Billions of dollars of private funding is going into companies chasing fusion, the way the sun and stars makes energy.

– Marvel Fusion, which has raised $65.9 million (60 million euros) since its founding in 2019, is pursuing an innovative approach that uses lasers.

– The current funding round is to test out Marvel Fusion’s theoretical model, but it will need to raise billions of dollars to build a prototype.

link to cnbc.com

Claiming a landmark in fusion energy, TAE Technologies sees commercialization by 2030

The company has raised nearly $1 billion to harness the power of the sun

April 8, 2021

link to techcrunch.com

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Keep in mind the underlying assumption of climate change–that change is bad–which is odd coming from progressives. Now, we know that the Earth’s climate has changed dramatically over the eons, and it will change in the future. Yet, suddenly, the rise of a degree or two over many decades is suddenly disaster that will destroy the planet? And only man is responsible–not the SUN! Further, the primary support for stopping the ‘change’ comes largely from the progressive left. Seriously?

Here’s the problem. When ANY issue becomes politicized, critical thinking stops.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

Good post.

Just curious. Has the growing season gotten longer in Michigan and Wisconsin? Crop yields better?

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to astroboy

In use, at the U.S. national average of fuels used to generate electricity, an EV emits about 40% less CO2 than a gasser. Obviously, this varies within the country because the fuels vary. Not that I think it matters, because I think AGW is religion and not science and has not been even established as a theory.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

The global warming hypothesis has been been replaced by the climate change hypothesis. One might think the planet is no longer warming,; however, IMHO the hypothesis change occurred because ‘change’ is readily observable and therefore more marketable–EVERY climate event becomes ‘proof’ to the marginally intelligent masses. It doesn’t matter that the event is an outlier in the statistical distribution. Four hot days in a row will qualify, a drought in Australia, sandstorms in Africa, ice in Florida…

Having made the hypothesis into a religion, the next step is to end debate, hence Climate deniers? Phase two will be to punish non-believers.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

The decades long transition from fossil fuels to renewables is not going well. There are many reasons, but chief among them is increasing demand from an energy hungry world. And there isn’t anything that you or I can do about this. Other than take advantage of it with strategic investments.

We are building a lot of renewables, but not enough to meet the growing demand.

And the fossil fuel industry has been deliberately reducing capex in the expectation that we didn’t need to keep finding more reserves. Capex has been dropping for the last decade from the traditional 100+% of cash flow to 40% today.

The result is the current shortfall in supply vs demand and declining global inventories of fossil fuels. Which has led to higher prices.

Higher prices boost the cash flow of oil and gas companies. And since less of that cash flow is going to capex, the rest is going to reduce debt, buy back shares, and increase dividends.

At $100 WTI, many of these companies can pay off all their debt AND buy back all their shares in 1 to 3 years. And since many of them have 10-40 years of reserve life left, they can reward shareholders for a long time (assuming they don’t go private).

As individuals, there are a lot of things we have no control over. And many of us tend to waste our time complaining about these thing.

Rather than complain, I prefer to look for ways to take advantage. In this case, I am benefiting by owning oil and gas stocks.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Thing is, the U.S. is stuffed with oil. Shale to be specific. If the idiots in Washington, D.C. ever get desperate enough, they’ll beg the oil companies. Of course, the Alzheimer’s patient now in the White House prefers to beg Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran for oil. If I were them, I’d laugh in Senile Grandpa Joe’s face and tell him: “You have been replaced by China and India.”

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

The US companies have already committed to their lenders and shareholders that they will not expand production. As a shareholder, I would be upset if they break their promise.

They get a far better return on their investment by buying back their ridiculously low priced shares instead of expanding production.

0

Reply

JackWebb

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

You are positing the elimination of the oil industry. Not now, but time passes. We shall see.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to JackWebb

Not at all. It is merely an industry in decline. And it is going to make a crap load of money for shareholders.

0

Reply

Siliconguy

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

As a shareholder I would be more offended if they pass up a chance for easy money. I like dividends. I would prefer dividends to share buybacks, as once I sell a share to but groceries that is the end of the income stream. Dividends repeat. The difference between 15 and 22% tax rates isn’t all that significant especially since half those dividends are qualified dividends anyway.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Siliconguy

I agree with you. But it isn’t my call. I am not a big enough investor to be able to influence oil executives.

But Eric Nuttall is. I have mentioned him here before. He runs the largest oil and gas fund in Canada and I follow him on twitter. He was also mentioned here some time ago by both Eddie and Realist. Boy, I miss those guys. They really knew what they were talking about.

He has been influencing oil executives for the last two years and it is paying off with a lot of them. Many of them have now committed to paying shareholders 50%, 75%, and even 100% of free cash flow once they reach targeted debt levels. Eric is asking for regular dividend payments of 10% to 20%. He prefers that over “special” dividends, but some companies will do specials as well; like Tourmaline. He doesn’t mind share buybacks because as a fund manager, he is happy either way.

Quite a few companies have now reached those very low debt levels (or paid off all debt completely) and many more will reach their targets over the remainder of this year.

I mentioned Crescent Point as an example yesterday. They reached their target debt level of 1.3 billion at the end of June. They increased their regular dividend by 40% in May and another 24% this week. And they have committed to paying all their remaining free cash flow as special dividends or share buybacks going forward.

This is going to become the norm for these companies now, provided oil stays above $70. According to Eric, the stocks he follows will generate 19% FCF at $70. At $100 it is over 30%. I like the idea of receiving that kind of return with stocks that have anywhere from 10 to 40 years of reserves.

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

And the ‘Hypocrite of the First Order’ award goes to…

This ANNUAL award is based on behaviors are revealed here: link to powerofpositivity.com

At least, you’re honest about it.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Captain Ahab

Although I consider myself to be an honest individual, my investment decisions are not based on honesty. They are based on reality. If oil companies are cutting capex because global warming is a reality, then that is all that matters to me. I cannot change the facts, but I can take advantage of them.

Let me know when the companies you run are making decisions based on your misinformed nonsense.

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

So you separate your investment decisions from your moral decisions. Do you draw the line somewhere or is that a firm rule for you?

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Doug78

Not at all. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I do not consider it immoral to invest in oil companies that are producing an incredibly valuable resource that the world is currently begging for. The fact that mankinds burning of oil is a huge contributor to global warming is something I recognize as a problem. A problem that I can’t do anything of significance about.

I also chose to have children. Every one of them contributes to global warming as well. How about you?

Though I am aware that many climate scientists and other knowledgeable people are actually choosing to not have children in the current environment because they are aware of the world that they are going to be growing up in.

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

“How did you arrive at that conclusion?” By your words. I myself don’t have a problem with oil and gas and I have a bunch of kids and grandkids. However there are some things I will not invest in or do business with for moral reasons and I was wondering where your red lines are if any because you talk as if you don’t care as long as it makes you money.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Doug78

Everyone has a line somewhere.

I won’t do anything illegal, immoral, or dishonest. Though those are all subject to interpretation.

It takes a lifetime to build a reputation. I would prefer to die poor, rather than ashamed and embarrassed.

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Would you invest in companies that do illegal, immoral, or dishonest things? That is what I am asking. Since few companies are squeaky clean there is a point where your moral compass kicks in. Where is that point?

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Doug78

You first. I need an example to understand what you are saying.

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Certainly you can come up with a situation where you would refuse to invest on moral grounds unless you truly do not understand. That would be very worrying.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Doug78

Why can’t you give me an example? What are you afraid of?

0

Reply

Doug78

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

You are being childish now.

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Doug78

I know you are, but what am I?

Lol!

0

Reply

Captain Ahab

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Let’s cut to the chase. You say oil companies are underpriced. Frankly, I doubt it, but I will assume you are right. NOW, why do you think oil companies are underpriced, when oil prices are so high?

One possibility may be that the majority of other investors incorporate a ‘moral sense’ in making their investment decisions, avoiding purchasing oil company stock, and inducing lower share prices. BTW, that would constitute a Moral-Market Hypothesis replacing the Efficient-Market Hypothesis (where stock prices incorporate all currently available information). If MMH is in effect, the conclusion must be that you are immoral.

Another possibility is that you have access to better/more information (aka insider trading) or that you draw different conclusions from the information.

I suspect Madam Market knows better than you, and that current oil prices are transitory. That is, the share price = expected (as mean) present value of future ‘benefits’. A lower share price might also reflect a high level of risk.

0

Reply

Lisa_Hooker

1 year ago

Reply to PapaDave

Gee PapaDave, which oil and gas stocks?

0

Reply

PapaDave

1 year ago

Reply to Lisa_Hooker

I posted this a few days ago. The info came from one of Eric Nuttall’s charts on twitter.

How fast can these oil companies pay off ALL debt and buyback ALL shares using cash flow from $100 oil?

Athabasca : 1.2 years

Crescent Point: 1.8

Vermillion: 2

Baytex: 2

Surge Energy: 2

Enerplus: 2

Whitecap: 2.2

Gear: 2.2

Nuvista: 2.3

Tamarack: 2.7

0

Reply

shamrock

1 year ago

Off topic, I saw this guy running at Churchill Downs a few days ago. Any relation? link to horseracingnation.com

0

Reply

Zardoz

1 year ago

Clean, beautiful coal…

0

Reply

Let’s Investigate Alleged EU Environmental and Climate Change Progress

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

Let’s Investigate Alleged EU Environmental and Climate Change Progress

Share this:

Recommended Articles

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk