O/T Frack me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

Businesses that can't smell change on the wind and adjust their operations accordingly don't do very well. Ask Kodak.

If your point was that the interests of utility company shareholders was blocking solar/battery, you still haven't really explained how so. Utility companies aren't the only organizations with R&D budgets. If there were a viable market there would be plenty of players wanting a stake in it.

---

It's not just oil companies that have an interest historically in blocking electric cars... electric cars contain something like 14 moving parts compared to over 2,000 in a gasoline engine. Consequently the lifespan of an electric car is likely to exceed 500,000 miles with minimal maintenance.

It's not a massive conspiracy theory to think the electric car has been suppressed before. GM experimented with them in the 1990s, and produced the EV1 which was hugely popular with owners (who were only allowed to lease). As soon as the Republicans were elected and a Californian law requiring manufacturers to produce zero emission vehicles effectively died, all the cars were taken back and crushed.

There is compelling reason to think we could have had the electric car revolution almost 2 decades earlier with NIMH battery technology.

Unfortunately the patents for NIMH were quickly sold and ended up with Chevron oil company. After the success of the EV1, rival car manufacturers tried to create NIMH powered cars, most notably the Toyota RAV4-EV.

Chevron sued Toyota to block them selling the car as it owned the patents. Toyota had to stop selling the car, agreed a payment to settle, and instead could only get the rights to smaller NIMH batteries for the hybrid Toyota Prius.

This is not conspiracy, this is all verifiable. It's only the advent of Lithium ion batteries that is bringing back the viability of the electric car... and that's achieved by having lots of small batteries bundled together, the same cells we've been using in laptops for a long time so much harder to kill through patents. Not only that it took the creation and success of Tesla, an electric only company that made other car manufacturers have to take the threat to electric seriously since they no longer had the power to collectively suppress it and it became a risk to them.

There's an interesting documentary called 'who killed the electric car' that's worth a watch.

Interesting article here about Capitalism and the environment

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...m-tony-juniper

The way forward is not through capitalism. Unfortunately for the world, it could be we realise this too late.

I haven't read through the whole thread yet so forgive me if I'm missing something but to me the elephant in the room is us, people, populace, the masses, whatever you call them. The idea that capitalism subverts the better aspirations of a potentially socially responsible and generous population is almost certainly putting the cart before the horse; capitalism is successful because it panders to the greed, fear and vanity that basically drive human society.
History is also full of examples of individuals, groups, societies, nations and empires that preferred cosy myth to any reality that might be difficult. Let us suppose a paladin did emerge - politician, party, movement or whatever - and told us that we had to SACRIFICE certain pleasures to save the planet. What would happen is that another politician, party or movement would rise up and exploit short term success by telling us we did not have to sacrifice these pleasures. They and us might even know this was a lie but it wouldn't matter; concern for the future always comes a bad second to enjoyment in the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashbang

The snow flakes don't want fracking . Wind turbines. Nuclear. Fossil fuels.
Just where do they want their leccy from?

---

A top scientist doesnt rate fracking crashbang. Is is right or a snowflake?

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e_iOSApp_Other

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty_rhodes

I haven't read through the whole thread yet so forgive me if I'm missing something but to me the elephant in the room is us, people, populace, the masses, whatever you call them. The idea that capitalism subverts the better aspirations of a potentially socially responsible and generous population is almost certainly putting the cart before the horse; capitalism is successful because it panders to the greed, fear and vanity that basically drive human society.
History is also full of examples of individuals, groups, societies, nations and empires that preferred cosy myth to any reality that might be difficult. Let us suppose a paladin did emerge - politician, party, movement or whatever - and told us that we had to SACRIFICE certain pleasures to save the planet. What would happen is that another politician, party or movement would rise up and exploit short term success by telling us we did not have to sacrifice these pleasures. They and us might even know this was a lie but it wouldn't matter; concern for the future always comes a bad second to enjoyment in the present.

---

Reasonable points Monts and probably why we are up sh it creek. If it is true we need to be all singing off the same hymn sheet (which could be our last resort literally!) 12 years, if that is the magical number, is not a long time to rehearse properly. The lack of foresight you mention could also come back to haunt us. We should have been starting to tackle these problems when we first started noticing them maybe 30/ 40 years ago but as you say we chose to ignore them because it wasn't deemed as urgent and the here and now mattered most. The problem is even if we got together magically now even today with some sort of educated plan as a species to try and tackle the problem it could very well be too late. We can hope that the scientists are wrong of course and they are exaggerating the timescale of events but this can work 2 ways; it could be that they have underestimated how quickly this is going to happen as well. They are already saying the Earth's temperature is rising faster than they thought. It ain't good.

In a way, I'm a bit pissed off because I will probably be gone before finding out what happens! Did Humans survive or didn't they? Its like watching a thrilling movie and missing the end because you have to dash to the bog! Still I might have an idea of the result if we are 4-0 down when I snuff if with 5 minutes left.

By the way Crashbang, you shouldn't have started this thread, I'm totally depressed now! Somebody tell me a joke!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller

I just checked...

'...A 2012 US study found that the average mobile phone draws around 3.68 watts when charging, and around 2.24 watts when plugged in and fully charged.

Energy company NPower claims this equates to a cost of around £3.50 per year to keep a mobile phone charged...'

I use mine much more now than I ever did in 2012 and charge it twice a day. I know battery technology has improved.

This throws your calculation out by some considerable amount - I wont go into the stats!!

---

The 91c comes from a 2018 independent study. I know electricity is cheaper in the US and your figure explains why my daughter in the UK switched from nPower after 1 bill. That 3.50 probably includes a 3.25 service charge XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rolymiller

By the way Crashbang, you shouldn't have started this thread, I'm totally depressed now! Somebody tell me a joke!:)

---

"...I asked her for some happy news. But she just smiled and turned away..." Roly, my new pal, do not worry about how it turns out because it turns out badly. Berlin, April 1945, the bunker, is the clue. Armaggedon a street away and people squabbling over who would inherit the fuhrer's mantle. As the last ice melts and the sea laps at their door some PR oik will still be typing out an article on how global warming is all a myth.

...think that PR oik might be greatfire...

...but yes my new mucker ... "all is over. I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of all things, Sam". (Frodo Baggins/ Lord of the Rings).

...but then Gwaihir the Windlord and Landroval his brother the greatest of all the Eagles of the North arrived and bob's yer uncle!

Nah... that's not the ending is it?

Don't ya think its also a bit Hitch hikers guide to the galaxyish this situation as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rolymiller

Kerr you appear to be very scared that the solution to environmental crisis is socialism. I'm afraid old boy that some sort of environmental socialism IS the only answer. Capitalism will not solve it and you know it. So all you righties out there take your medicine like men and accept it. In fact, even without a serious problem such as this socialism has always been the answer for a better fairer world. You are just in denial. If we do get out of this mess it will be down to socialist policies or at least variants of them. Capitalist policies will take us over the cliff. You know it and I know it but it is too bitter a pill for you to swallow.

---

What I'm scared of is the complacency of people who flaunt their belief in their own moral superiority with comments like :

'I suspect by the way that my carbon footprint is a lot smaller than yours even if it is too big.

and

I have a lot less to give up and am quite wiling to do it if it protects future generations. Whether I am living a minimalistic lifestyle or not now is an aside, the fact is I could live one in the future without much bother

whilst doing, on the face of it, diddly squat.

If you happily live without meat why aren't you doing so? At what point in our spiral towards catastrophic climate change are you planning to act?

Perhaps when you are sitting in Monty's bunker someone will ask what you did to try to stop the rot. Listing what you could have done 'without much bother' probably won't cut it. Nor will proclaiming that you used electricity to argue with gf and write drivel about becoming insectivorous.

Socialism is yet to be shown to be the answer to anything - ask the Venezuelans. If you mean that a solution will require increasingly autocratic government to curtail individual liberty and freedom of choice, you may be on to something. Maybe if people who could happily live without meat won't do so there needs to be an element of coercion. Is that what you have in mind?