Heatwave and Climate Change Puts Pressure on Thailand

[placeholder]

21 hours ago, sidneybear said:

That's the direction it's heading, yes. Investment funds are divesting fossil fuel assets to satisfy the green creed. Larry Fink was well known for shareholder activism, insisting that ESG was an integral part of board decisions in exchange for shareholder cash. 

First you tell us that dictionaries are woke. Now it's that fossil fuel companies are powerless against the onslaught of Big Green.  Are you some kind of would-be comedian?

[grain]

On 5/3/2024 at 8:38 AM, twizzian said:

Will Thailand introduce an extreme hot weather tax for tourists

That will follow after they become a hub of heatwaves.

[Robert Paulson]

Maybe we’re living in a giant <deleted>

[charleskerins]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

When scientists and engineers come up with miracles of modern technology, such as passenger aircraft, PET scans, and smartphones, everyone applauds.

When they come up with unpopular information which indicates we are $h!tting in our own nest, many don't want to know.

Besides the trend amongst skeptics, the study also found that conservative white men who self-report a high understanding of global warming -- dubbed "confident" conservative males -- are even more likely to express climate change denial.

McCright's study, "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States," was published online in July and printed in the October 2011 issue of Global Environmental Change, which ranks first out of 77 journals on environmental studies.

[sidneybear]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

First you tell us that dictionaries are woke. Now it's that fossil fuel companies are powerless against the onslaught of Big Green.  Are you some kind of would-be comedian?

Aside from your usual childish jeering, you didn't address the point I made about Larry Fink, the Blackrock chief, channelling investment into ESG related businesses and away from fossil fuels, rebutting your assertion that "banks" aren't showing favouritism.

[sidneybear]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

To slightly modify an old proverb, you can lead a horse to evidence but you cannot make it think. I provided evidence with links concerning coal, gas, and nuclear energy. Coal and gas had huge spikes in prices not long ago and nuclear energy has had huge cost overruns. Do I really have to spell out for what that means for power rates?  In addition, maybe you should consider that fact that renewables, while dominating as a percentage of new power plants being built, are still a fraction of the world's total installed base.

As for how batteries will provide energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, if you actually are interested in learning something, here's a link to an article that explains an MIT report about getting to 100%.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

The report stipulates that the cost of a storage device should be about "$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs"

The report projected that wouldn't happen until 2030 at the earliest. But, as has consistently been the case, battery technology has consistently outrun predictions:

 

Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid

https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing

 

Power when the sun doesn’t shine

https://dmse.mit.edu/news/power-when-the-sun-doesnt-shine/

     

 

 

Consumers are being driven into poverty because there's not enough investment in fossil fuels. The gigantic price increases at the onset if the Ukraine war, when gas exports from Russia were reduced, shows just how effective these windmills are:

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9491/#:~:text=Trends in prices up to 2021&text=They started to increase towards,%2C a 36% real increase.

 

In Australia too, consumer electricity prices have increased substantially, while power shortages loom because of the Nut Zero zealots closing all the coal fired power stations. 

 

You'll dig out this or that link from one or another green industry sympathetic academic, but real people are feeling severe financial pressure because of the green religion. 

[sidneybear]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

To slightly modify an old proverb, you can lead a horse to evidence but you cannot make it think. I provided evidence with links concerning coal, gas, and nuclear energy. Coal and gas had huge spikes in prices not long ago and nuclear energy has had huge cost overruns. Do I really have to spell out for what that means for power rates?  In addition, maybe you should consider that fact that renewables, while dominating as a percentage of new power plants being built, are still a fraction of the world's total installed base.

As for how batteries will provide energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, if you actually are interested in learning something, here's a link to an article that explains an MIT report about getting to 100%.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

The report stipulates that the cost of a storage device should be about "$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs"

The report projected that wouldn't happen until 2030 at the earliest. But, as has consistently been the case, battery technology has consistently outrun predictions:

 

Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid

https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing

 

Power when the sun doesn’t shine

https://dmse.mit.edu/news/power-when-the-sun-doesnt-shine/

     

 

 

You’ve just put forward a nonexistent solution to power storage. 

 

MIT research that you posted showcases iron air batteries that doesn't yet exist, might never commercially, and as such won't solve real world problems of today.

 

Try to focus on the real world, rather than the academic one. Batteries don't exist that will power cities when the wind stops blowing and the sun sets. 

Edited May 5 by sidneybear

[puck2]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:24 PM, digger70 said:

The scientist say whatever what the people who Pay there research what they want them to say.

 

 

Who payed for EINSTEIN ? Who payed for all those Nobel prize winners?

I guess nearly all of these extremely intelligent prize winners have been independend scientists.

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Consumers are being driven into poverty because there's not enough investment in fossil fuels. The gigantic price increases at the onset if the Ukraine war, when gas exports from Russia were reduced, shows just how effective these windmills are:

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9491/#:~:text=Trends in prices up to 2021&text=They started to increase towards,%2C a 36% real increase.

 

In Australia too, consumer electricity prices have increased substantially, while power shortages loom because of the Nut Zero zealots closing all the coal fired power stations. 

 

You'll dig out this or that link from one or another green industry sympathetic academic, but real people are feeling severe financial pressure because of the green religion. 

I have to ask are you familiar with even basic economics? How are renewable responsible for the sharp rise in price of natural gas? If there were more power plants in Germany relying on natural gas and less reliance on renewables, would that have made the situation better or worse? It's not a trick question. I'll even give you a hint: look up the law of supply and demand.

And maybe, do ya think that the high cost of power in Australia might have something to do with the high cost of coal and natural gas? Most of Australia's power still comes from those 2 sources. Do you think building more power plants relying on coal and natural gas would lower or increase the cost of these fossil fuels? What has happened in Australia is that coal power plants are aging out and not enough new renewable plants are being built. That's a result of bad planning. Not inherently a fault of renewables.

[placeholder]

34 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

You’ve just put forward a nonexistent solution to power storage. 

 

MIT research that you posted showcases iron air batteries that doesn't yet exist, might never commercially, and as such won't solve real world problems of today.

 

Try to focus on the real world, rather than the academic one. Batteries don't exist that will power cities when the wind stops blowing and the sun sets. 

Had you bothered to read the articles you would know that Form already has successfully created battery storage for power plants using this technology. Now they're scaling it up with a massive factory.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, sidneybear said:

Aside from your usual childish jeering, you didn't address the point I made about Larry Fink, the Blackrock chief, channelling investment into ESG related businesses and away from fossil fuels, rebutting your assertion that "banks" aren't showing favouritism.

What's Larry Fink got to do with the analyses of 3 other financial firms. And as for channeling investments away from fossil fuels, once again you don't seem to understand how capitalism works. You think that fossil fuel companies should get first dibs on investments?

As for my childish jeering, pretty much all I have to say is that you made a claim, and when I noted that dictionaries universally disagreed with you, you asserted that they were woke. You pretty much made fun of yourself with comments like that.

[sidneybear]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Had you bothered to read the articles you would know that Form already has successfully created battery storage for power plants using this technology. Now they're scaling it up with a massive factory.

No. All you did was put your faith in the past speed of technological advances, extrapolating forward to tell me that iron air batteries will solve the storage problem, just because some boffin at MIT says so. In the real world, lots of research falls by the wayside, and research teams milk funding as much as they can, while they can, by publishing hyped up forecasts. 

 

I'm not rudely jeering at you, but you'll have to put up more than pie in the sky research articles to power the cities of today. Without storage, renewables are useless. 

[sidneybear]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have to ask are you familiar with even basic economics? How are renewable responsible for the sharp rise in price of natural gas? If there were more power plants in Germany relying on natural gas and less reliance on renewables, would that have made the situation better or worse? It's not a trick question. I'll even give you a hint: look up the law of supply and demand.

And maybe, do ya think that the high cost of power in Australia might have something to do with the high cost of coal and natural gas? Most of Australia's power still comes from those 2 sources. Do you think building more power plants relying on coal and natural gas would lower or increase the cost of these fossil fuels? What has happened in Australia is that coal power plants are aging out and not enough new renewable plants are being built. That's a result of bad planning. Not inherently a fault of renewables.

Read my post again. Renewables couldn't fill the shortfall caused by the Ukraine war. Entire countries are short of energy, and are being put out of business and deindustrialising. Meanwhile, China adds more coal fired (not windmills) electricity generating capacity in a year than the entire UK uses.

 

Windmills and your non existent batteries won't keep the lights on or keep people warm in winter. 

[sidneybear]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

dictionaries universally disagreed with you

I was surprised that the dictionary you quoted didn't use as an example the most common original usage of the word "denier". Holocaust denier was in popular use way before the word was appropriateld by the warmist cult to smear its opponents. Why would a dictionary omit such a thing?

 

Edited May 5 by sidneybear

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

No. All you did was put your faith in the past speed of technological advances, extrapolating forward to tell me that iron air batteries will solve the storage problem, just because some boffin at MIT says so. In the real world, lots of research falls by the wayside, and research teams milk funding as much as they can, while they can, by publishing hyped up forecasts. 

 

I'm not rudely jeering at you, but you'll have to put up more than pie in the sky research articles to power the cities of today. Without storage, renewables are useless. 

What pie in the sky? They exist. They have batteries in operation at power plants. Their new 765 milllion dollar plant is about to open. Their batteries are being successfully used. It's headed by Mateo Jaramillo, the former head of the battery division of Tesla. And it's not just this company. There are lots more. For example:

Natron Energy starts manufacturing ‘50,000+ cycle-life’ sodium-ion batteries at Michigan factory

Natron Energy has started commercial-scale operations at its sodium-ion battery manufacturing plant in Michigan, US, and elaborated on how its technology compares to lithium-ion in answers provided to Energy-Storage.news.

At full capacity the facility will produce 600MW of Natron’s ‘Prussian Blue’ electrode batteries primarily for the stationary energy storage system (ESS) market annually. At first it will mainly ship products to data centres starting in June, before expanding to industrial mobility, EV fast charging and telecommunications, among others.

https://www.energy-storage.news/natron-energy-starts-manufacturing-50000-cycle-life-sodium-ion-batteries-at-michigan-factory/

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

I was surprised that the dictionary you quoted didn't use as an example the most common original usage of the word "denier". Holocaust denier was in popular use way before the word was hijacked by the warmist culture. Why would a dictionary ignore such a thing?

I got news for you. Languages change over time. That includes connotations. Not surprising to find fossilized thinking in a fan of fossil fuel.

[sidneybear]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I got news for you. Languages change over time. That includes connotations. Not surprising to find fossilized thinking in a fan of fossil fuel.

A more likely scenario is that the lexicographer was too young to recall the origin of the term, or was politically aligned with the warmist movement. 

 

Can't you debate anything without jeering at your opponents? It makes you come across as unsure of yourself and overly defensive, which is hardly surprising given that your arguments rely on solutions that are commercially and technically unproven. 

Edited May 5 by sidneybear

[placeholder]

Just now, sidneybear said:

Can't you debate anything without jeering at your opponents? It makes you come across as unsure of yourself and overly defensive, which is hardly surprising given that your arguments rely on solutions that are commercially and technically unproven. 

It's hard to resist jeering at someone who repeatedly tells the same falsehood: the 2 companies I cited as examples are manufacturing real batteries for real use in the real world. What don't you understand about that?

[sidneybear]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's hard to resist jeering at someone who repeatedly tells the same falsehood: the 2 companies I cited as examples are manufacturing real batteries for real use in the real world. What don't you understand about that?

The link you posted is behind a paywall, so I was unable to read it. Can you please paraphrase it? I also noted that you've switched this battery technology panacea from iron air to sodium ion. The part of the article I got access to mentioned 600MW, but not for how long, at what cost, and at what environmental and human impact to produce the batteries in the first place (hint: lithium ion).

Edited May 5 by sidneybear

[sidneybear]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What's Larry Fink got to do with the analyses of 3 other financial firms. And as for channeling investments away from fossil fuels, once again you don't seem to understand how capitalism works. You think that fossil fuel companies should get first dibs on investments?

As for my childish jeering, pretty much all I have to say is that you made a claim, and when I noted that dictionaries universally disagreed with you, you asserted that they were woke. You pretty much made fun of yourself with comments like that.

You've obviously never heard of Blackrock's use of activist shareholders to enforce Larry Fink's green and ESG beliefs in company boards. It's well known in management circles, so just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it untrue. 

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

The link you posted is behind a paywall, so I was unable to read it. Can you please paraphrase it? I also noted that you've switched this battery technology panacea from iron air to sodium ion. The part of the article I got access to mentioned 600MW, but not for how long, at what cost, and at what environmental and human impact to produce the batteries in the first place (hint: lithium ion).

They weren't behind paywalls  for me. I don't subscribe to them. And it's pretty bizarre that you repeatedly made unfounded statements without having actually read the texts. But here are links I created using archive.ph. The first is to the Vox article that explains what it would take for renewables to power 100% of the U.S. grid.

https://archive.ph/45Grt

https://archive.ph/C3j8x

https://archive.ph/pVVRv

https://archive.ph/izGU7

[placeholder]

 

38 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

You've obviously never heard of Blackrock's use of activist shareholders to enforce Larry Fink's green and ESG beliefs in company boards. It's well known in management circles, so just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it untrue. 

 

No, I've heard and read of the right wing hysteria about Black Rock. But before I get to that, as I noted previously, Larry Fink is CEO of Blackrock. The sources I cited were McKenzie Woods, Lazard, and Ernst & Young.

As for Blackrock, I've got news for you, they aren't boycotting fossil fuels as the loons in states like Texas maintain.

Even BlackRock Funds Buying Oil Stocks Are Banned by Texas ESG Fight

 Texas bars its public pensions from investing in 350 funds run by asset-management giants such as BlackRock Inc. and Invesco Ltd. because a key Republican state official says they “boycott” the oil and gas industries.

But a Bloomberg News analysis found that the 72 BlackRock funds on the prohibited list have invested more than $2 billion in the oil industry, while an Invesco fund allocates about 20% to oil and natural gas companies, some of which are also Texas-based. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/even-blackrock-funds-buying-oil-stocks-are-banned-by-texas-esg-fight-1.2020179

 

Or is Bloomberg lying, too?

[sidneybear]

19 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

 

No, I've heard and read of the right wing hysteria about Black Rock. But before I get to that, as I noted previously, Larry Fink is CEO of Blackrock. The sources I cited were McKenzie Woods, Lazard, and Ernst & Young.

As for Blackrock, I've got news for you, they aren't boycotting fossil fuels as the loons in states like Texas maintain.

Even BlackRock Funds Buying Oil Stocks Are Banned by Texas ESG Fight

 Texas bars its public pensions from investing in 350 funds run by asset-management giants such as BlackRock Inc. and Invesco Ltd. because a key Republican state official says they “boycott” the oil and gas industries.

But a Bloomberg News analysis found that the 72 BlackRock funds on the prohibited list have invested more than $2 billion in the oil industry, while an Invesco fund allocates about 20% to oil and natural gas companies, some of which are also Texas-based. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/even-blackrock-funds-buying-oil-stocks-are-banned-by-texas-esg-fight-1.2020179

 

Or is Bloomberg lying, too?

You talk in links, rather than from your own knowledge. I studied the Blackrock case as part of my MBA. What I told you is well known in management circles. Suffice to say that Larry Fink has since started walking back his enthusiasm in ESG and all things green, such are the colossal financial losses associated with fads like these.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

You talk in links, rather than from your own knowledge. I studied the Blackrock case as part of my MBA. What I told you is well known in management circles. Suffice to say that Larry Fink has since started walking back his enthusiasm in ESG and all things green, such are the colossal financial losses associated with fads like these.

You're an anonymous poster. Your claims about your qualifications are unproveable. Which leaves us with evidence. I offered actual evidence.  If you have evidence to counter what I offered from Bloomberg about Blackrock's investment portfolio, share it with us.

And, of course, as I repeatedly pointed out, the person who raised the Blackrock issue did so irrelevantly. I cited research only from Lazard, Ernst & Young, and McKenzie Woods. He countered with that dubious info about Larry Fink and Blackrock.

[sidneybear]

Just now, placeholder said:

You're an anonymous poster. Your claims about your qualifications are unproveable. Which leaves us with evidence. I offered actual evidence.  If you have evidence to counter what I offered from Bloomberg about Blackrock's investment portfolio, share it with us.

And, of course, as I repeatedly pointed out, the person who raised the Blackrock issue did so irrelevantly. I cited research only from Lazard, Ernst & Young, and McKenzie Woods. He countered with that dubious info about Larry Fink and Blackrock.

The point I'm making is that you don't overlay your own insights,  opinions, or knowledge onto anything. You just post links all the time.

 

Did you find a solution to the storage problem yet? One that exists and is feasible in the real world, rather than the academic world?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

The point I'm making is that you don't overlay your own insights,  opinions, or knowledge onto anything. You just post links all the time.

 

Did you find a solution to the storage problem yet? One that exists and is feasible in the real world, rather than the academic world?

No, I back up my arguments with evidence or use it to show that the arguments advanced by others are false. 

As for the storage issue. I already posted evidence of a company that has produced low cost iron-air batteries that cost $20 per kwh of capacity. They have almost completed their 3/4 of a billion dollar manufacturing plant to put the finished product into large scale use. It's called Form Energy.

And there are plenty of other contenders including companies manufacturing zinc-based storage batteries. Also, Natron, is now manufacturing sodium based batteries which are cheaper than lithium, charge faster, and have a wider range of temperature tolerance. I can only post this information. I can't help it if you don't read it.

[mogandave]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No, I back up my arguments with evidence or use it to show that the arguments advanced by others are false. 

As for the storage issue. I already posted evidence of a company that has produced low cost iron-air batteries that cost $20 per kwh of capacity. They have almost completed their 3/4 of a billion dollar manufacturing plant to put the finished product into large scale use. It's called Form Energy.

And there are plenty of other contenders including companies manufacturing zinc-based storage batteries. Also, Natron, is now manufacturing sodium based batteries which are cheaper than lithium, charge faster, and have a wider range of temperature tolerance. I can only post this information. I can't help it if you don't read it.

This must be why the cost of electricity has plummeted…

[placeholder]

Just now, mogandave said:

This must be why the cost of electricity has plummeted…

As I pointed out previously with evidence to back it up, the cost of coal and LNG rose sharply. And nuclear power plants have had huge cost overruns. What's more, while solar and wind power are now dominating in the construction of new power plant capacity, they still compose a fraction of the installed power base.

[sidneybear]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

No, I back up my arguments with evidence or use it to show that the arguments advanced by others are false. 

As for the storage issue. I already posted evidence of a company that has produced low cost iron-air batteries that cost $20 per kwh of capacity. They have almost completed their 3/4 of a billion dollar manufacturing plant to put the finished product into large scale use. It's called Form Energy.

And there are plenty of other contenders including companies manufacturing zinc-based storage batteries. Also, Natron, is now manufacturing sodium based batteries which are cheaper than lithium, charge faster, and have a wider range of temperature tolerance. I can only post this information. I can't help it if you don't read it.

I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations.

 

In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.

[placeholder]

Just now, sidneybear said:

I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations.

 

In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.

 Assertions without evidence are empty. Why should I care what you would rather read? Why should I spend time paraphrasing when I offer brief, clear  quotes that support my arguments? What purpose would that serve?  And I don't see why I should, given that those quotes are accompanied by links to sources that do an admirable job of explaining of these complex issues.

It seems to me that you prefer what are colloquially referred to as B.S. sessions. Sessions where you can claim without offering any independent evidence that climatologists are publishing false results in order to serve their paymasters . Or you  characterize authoritative sources as liars without your offering any independent evidence. You have clearly demonstrated that when your assertions are countered with evidence you resort to unsupported slurs or empty denials. It's you who need to change your method of discourse. Not me.