COMMENTS ON "GREEN" TOPICS (English)
The Value of Solar Energy Oct. 09, 2020
In case of your private solar installation I assume that you were clever enough not to cut the grid connection.
In Europe a normal employee wakes up at 06:30 prepares a coffee, uses some light, having a fluctuating electricity consumption of 0.1 - 3 Kw. There is no solar energy generation at that time. He will return home at 18:00 when there is no solar energy anymore. He will use his stove to cook a meal, use the washing machine, computer, TV, dishwasher, having a fluctuating consumption of 0.1 - 15 Kw. He can only use some of the self produced solar electricity at the weekend if he is going out. But anyway without a battery he cannot use it at all as the demand fluctuates between 0.1 and about 15 KW and on the other hand generation follows the sun.
In the grid demand and supply needs to be equal at any moment. Solar energy is generated acc. to daytime, season and the coincidences of the weather. The grid stability is provided by modern power plants that cover the max. demand. Power plants are required in cold, warm or hot (fueled) stand-by or running in a load following modus to provide grid stability despite of the fluctuations. The value of dirty wind and solar is at best the value of the avoided fuel, about 1c/Kwh. If you take in account the costs to adapt the grid to it the requirement of control energy the value of wind and solar electricity might fall below 0 as for ex. in Germany.
Big Oil Move to "Renewable Energies" Sept. 30th,2020
A worldwide (corona) panic that reduced oil/gas consumption by xx% and reduced prices as well is indeed a existential challenge for most businesses including major oil. That has nothing to do with "renewable energies". I hope that poeple calm down sooner or later and most of the global economies will prosper again.
The shift of RDS and BP to "renewable energies" is caused by institutional investors (investing other poeples money) that pressed weak managments* in favor of a destructive believe at the expense of their own clients.
RDS and BP are gigantic companies with structures, organization and know how optimized to handle multi billion $ multi decade projects. "Renewable energies" depend completly on regulation & subsidy schemes** of local and national politicians that change regularly according to elections and other political events. From my point of view smaller more flexible companies with close ties to politics are by far better suited to work in this field than the giants RDS and BP.
I`m not aware of any local or national subsidy scheme....
Popular schemes in favor of "renewable energies" are:
- Preferred infeed in the grid
- Compensation for non infeed due to oversupply by "renewable energies"
- A governmental regulated price
- Tax credits
- Governmental subsidized loans
- Government guarranteed loans
- Companies controlled by the government acting acc. to ideologic targets.
- Government representatives in the boards of utilities with an ideologic mission.
- Foreign aid for developing countries used for ideologic missions.
*Top mangers are usually very career oriented characters with a flexible moral focusing on their power.
**"Renewable energies" as solar and wind producing electricity acc. to the coincidences of weather, daytime & season. In most grids this electricity is of low or 0 value.
Climate Related Shareholder Resolutions Sept. 03.2020
Someone would expect that investors holding shares of coal mines, oil companies believe in a modern future based on such energies. Someone who believe in acid rain, "climate change" or other green dogma will not buy or have such shares. In the 70ies green NGO bought a few shares of nuclear operators and forwarded petitions that were regularly very clearly rejected.
Today there is the phenomen that shareholders of energy companies forward shareholder petitions against the business purpose of the company in favor of the green dogma of "climate change". These petitions getting more and more and getting more and more votes.
I assume that these petitions and votes are usually supported by institutional investors. That means investor that invest other poeples money. The managers of these funds are proud of their green believe. Instead of living acc. to their dogma avoid motor vehicles, ac, heating, electricity, air travel, computers, they live their believe on the costs of their customers. Many of the final beneficiaries of pension funds don`t have a choice others most probably does not know what these managers are doing with their money. According to my opinion it is betrayal of the customers.
"Climate Change" Religious Dogma vs. Scientific Hypothesis 03.08.2020
There are some differences between a religious dogma and natural science.
A major feature of natural science is the scientific discussion. The theory of relativity was and is attacked 1000 times in the last century. It was completed, improved....
A discussion about the "climate change" is suppressed since it was taken over by green NGO in the 90ies. Beside its general weakness (an insignificant emission of CO2 is assumed to increase the CO2 level of the atmosphere and this for the radiation balance insignificant gas is assumed to heat up the atmosphere) there are plenty of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and mistakes in the hypothesis which would be improved in case it would be discussed like a scientific hypothesis.
That`s a reason I call the "climate change" a religious dogma rather than a scientific hypothesis.
Identify a Non Performing Management 30.07.2020
A simple way to identify an unsuccessful management is to read their media releases. If you read more about gender, diversity and green nonsense than about their core business
its bingo!!! a non performing management.
RDS invests about 2 bn$ annually out of a total capex of 25 bn in green nonsense puts a lot of efforts on "carbon targets". Compared with OMV (a 6 x smaller Austrian oil company) OMV managed the challenges of the last couple of years much better. Most media releases are about Borealis, Baltic sea pipeline, buying in new oil assets only a few about green nonsense.
The reason seems to me that the non performing management tries to please big investors (investing other poeples money) with such ideologic nonsense to deflect them from their deficiencies.
Big Oil`s Carbon Emission Targets July 23rd,2020
It makes me furious that the management of big oil has nothing better to do than to put their efforts on green nonsense.
From my point of view the oil companies are facing serious challenges in their core business. They sell valuable cash generating assets, cut dividends as RDS, replace only a fraction of the depletion of their reserves with new findings. Thus I would expect them to put all attention on fixing their core business.
The reason are Blackrock, pension funds that act with other poeples money and feel well if they press companies in favor of their communist green religion against the key interest of their investors, other investors, employees and other stakeholders.
The "climate change" is a green communist dogma based on a poor hypothesis that is communicated very well by NGO with plenty of cash given to them by left billionaires.
The Left Movement in the USA June 9,2020
For me as a foreigner it is difficult to evaluate how strong the extreme left is in the USA. I know from my son who spent some time in a University in North America that the extreme left is dominant in the universities. It is as well the question if it gets its strength by a generous funding from Soros and his buddies. Is it grass root or astro turf?
The next question is what would happen if the extreme left is taking power in communities, states, the federal government. Will it work on the real challenges of the US system as the education system that creates a few high qualified and many very low qualified poeple. Will it tackle such challenges as high university costs, extreme high health care costs compared to Europe? Will it tackle the legal system that is a challenge for companies and is perhaps one of the reasons for deindustrialization in the US.
From experience with such systems is seems likely that a left wing administration will increase spending like hell until the USD will collapse, will implement quotas against white males (left racism), will enjoy the climate fraud until the system collapses. When the collapse begin it will accuse everyone to be guilty for its failing and will try to suppress critical voices and democracy. At the end a new right wing politician has to clear the damage and as well the few good things implemented.
The Future of GE Energy 30.04.2020
Wind energy is generated acc. to the coincidences of the weather. In a grid such electricity is as valuable as an X-mas tree on dec. 29. In a grid usually coal or gas fired units provide the grid stability. Thus the max. value of wind energy is that of the avoided fuel costs. All wind mills in the grid depend completly on subsidies or favorable government regulation.
Thus wind energy depends completly on politicians willing to spend tax- or rate payers money for such green nonsense. If the corona panic is gone and the societies have to pay for the rampage of the politicians It seems to me very unlikely that the poeple are in the mood to spend a lot of money on green nonsense.
The main challenge of nuclear energy is an extreme excess regulation (licence costs, certifications, testing, documentation) that killed the economics of this ideal energy source. The SMR is the latest idea of the nuclear industry to get tax payers money for some deveolopment and prototypes. From a manufacturing point of view it is by far less expensive to make one nuke with 1000 MWe rather than 3 x 300 MWe. My car has 1 engine with 150hp and not 3 with 50 each. The costs for licensing, certifications, testing and documentation are much higher for 3 units rather than 1 unit.
That`s why I would suggest that the gas and coal fired power plants will be the most promising business. During the recession following the corona panic electricity demand is reduced but it might increase again in a few years.
Green Leaders does not live their believe exemplary 13.03.2020
The green communist religion differentiates from many other religions that their leaders does not live their believe exemplary.
Pachauri, former head of the IPCC and Noble laureate took a break during a seminar and flew for a day to a cricket match in India before flying back. A Greenpeace Top manager shuttled by plane
between his home in Luxemburg and his office in Amsterdam. The noble winner Al Gore`s home energy use surges up to 34-fold the average US electricity consumption despite of costly green
renovations. Al Gore said 2006 that in 15 – 20 years „Even Manhattan would be in deep water“, bought an ocean front property in 2010.
Does a warm weather prove a Climate Change 04.03.2020
A climate change to a warmer climate would be a blessing for the vegetation and our civilization a colder climate a challenge.
Earth climate depends on a lot of factors as sun activity, earth orbit variation, magnetic.. aerosols and ir active gasses - substantially H2O. I read plenty of scientific articles about that and it seems that serious science still does not understand a lot about the earth climate.
Green NGO took over a very poor hypothesis telling that the insignificant emission of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuel increase the CO2 share of the earth atmosphere significantly. This seems unlikely. They further claim that the higher CO2 level will warm up the atmosphere in a dramatic way. The atmosphere, the heat transport to the higher atmosphere and the ir emission from earth is very complex. It would require a lot of efforts to get a somehow realistic estimate of how much a minor ir active gas could warm the planet. Thus these guys do some "modelling" or take the warming since the Little Ice Age and do some calculation with it. The hypothesis is proven by the hypothesis.
The structural Crisis of the middle class in the USA 04.05.2020
Socialism is an illusion and not a solution. It did not work in the > 100 countries practiced.
The green religion with such dogma like “climate Change”, “renewable energy” and the vision of a middle age life for the vast majority is not helpful either.
It is to dig deeper from the symptoms as:
- Extremly expensive health system
- Extemly expensive university education
- High debt burden
to solutions as…
- implement an affordable after school eduction for the majority that provide medium level skills as the dual system does in the German speaking countries (3 years school plus on the job training in a company)
- Reformation of the extremly destructive and expensive juristical system that is a burden for industry and as well the health system.
- Slash the regulations. Most of them have a good reason as health, environment…. But added together they are a burden for the society.
Mini Nuclear Power Plants 04.03.2020
The main challenge for nuclear energy beside of green religion is the cost of new builds. The EPR in Finnland, UK and France exceeds 10bn €. It is similar in the US.
The nuke Biblis A was built in 1974 for 1 Mrd. DM in todays money 2 bn€. In China a dozen of CPR nukes were built a few years ago for 2bn$ each.
The main reason for the excessive blown up costs are excessive regulations, certifications and documentation requirements.
As licences for nukes are separated in a site approval and a design approval smaller units are not helpful in reducing costs.
My car has 1 motor of 150 hp and not 5 of them with 30 hp each. The reason is that the costs of components does not grow linear with their performance but underproportional. It requires the same controls if a plant has 150 or 1500 MW. That means from a technical point of view the mini nuke is more expensive per MW.
As far as I got it the main motivation for mini reactors is the greed for taxpayers money for new projects.
It would appreciate it if nuclear promoters would have the bravery to discuss the overregulation as the main issue rather then promoting climate fraud or unrealistic concepts to grab for taxpayers money.
Glencore turning away from Coal 02.03.2020
Our modern civilization is based on oil, gas and coal. It provides us heat, power and thus our life. This is a thorn in the flesh of green communists that wish to develop the earth back to middle age.
Glencore is a big coal producer. It is the most profitable product of Glencore. Most of its coal assets are situated in Australia a safe jurisdication.
On the other hand a significant part of the copper production and the cobalt production - hyped by green communist media - is situated in the Congo. Since Glen had to abandon the cooperation with Gertler as a door opener to comply with western compliance rules the business is running bumpy and is not profitable.
From the logic point of view it would be favorable to offload the Congo business to chinese miners that can better deal with african business habits and invest the cash in the Australian coal business.
It would be a blessing for all Glencore stakeholders, shareholders, employees and the manhood if the Glencore management would have the courage to withstand the pressure from green communists from institutional investors (that invest other poeples money) and act according to the business logic.
Behavior of European Oil Companies 14.02.2020
If someone jumps from a cliff or some big European oil companies bite the hand that feeds them it is for sure not a way to follow. It shows the management is incompetent.
There are 7.5 bn poeple on earth. 1/2 bn believes in the green religion and its dogma as the climate hoax and wants to develop back to middle age. Several bn poeple on earth wants or wish to live like the US middle class with car, heated/air conditioned home, electricity. If the Europeans does not want to buy oil and gas anymore there will be enough paying customers for it in the future.
Green energy is valueless and get its yield by regulation and subsidies. In Europe there are plenty of government owned or controlled companies in the business that does have different approach on prfitability. As far as I understand the RDS (Shell) numbers they spent 2 digit billions on green nonsense and generate a negative cash flow of 1/2 bn out of it. It is negative for all stakeholders, shareholders, employees, tax payers and population.
The "climate change" is based on a poor hypothesis that is communicated excellent by green NGO and
taken over by left politicians in many countries.
Religious Charcter of the "Climate Change" 14.02.2020
Religions regularly claim to tell the unquestionable truth. The modern ones claim to be "scientific".
The "climate change" is based on a very poor hypothesis. There are a couple of characteristics that indicate the "climate change" as a religion.
- The claim to have the unquestionable truth.
- The denial of any scientific discussion. Critics are attacked as person not as critics of a hypothesis.
- Wordings as deniers used for critics
Insurance of Nuclear Power Plants 06.02.2020
I`m living as a shareholder and had stocks of insurance- and reinsurance companies. In this function I hate the insurance of a nuke.
Motor vehicle, life insurances, health insurances generate a steady flow of damages and revenues and thus provide a steady profit. The insurance of big risks as hurricanes require the deployment of plenty of capital and generate unsteady difficult to calculate results.
In case of a nuke accident as Fukushima there is the big risk of a panic in politics. Politicians wants to be strong and show activities to the potential voters thus tend to erroneous actions as large scale evacuations, the cleaning of very low contaminated soil. In Fukushima perhaps >95% of the damage was caused by this panic. If it is not paid by the tax payer but anonymous international insurances these politicians would tend even more to overacting.
In Germany/Switzerland a nuke generates 3-digit million revenues/yr and pay 2-digit million taxes/yr. It make sense if the tax payer that gets many 10s of millions of taxes covers as well the risk of a nuclear accident like that of dams, bridges and other infratructure.
Coal, Nuclear Death Jan. 13, 2020
In nuclear there are 10000s of studies about the effects of radiation. The effects above a dose of 100 mSv/yr are proven by statistics. Below 100 mSv/yr. there is no statistical significance as the general risks of life are dominant.
The knowledge about chemical substances is usually very low. Sometimes there are studies made with very high doses that provide significance. Others are estimated acc. to chemical similarities to better known substances. For the very low doses emitted by modern equipment there are quite often ideologic assumptions only.
I would appreciate it very much if politicians would have the bravery to give life a price tag. Today the situation is determined by distortion.
- A nuclear victim seems to be at least 100 times more valuable than a wind victim, or traffic victim.
- Old poeple with an age of > 85 gets medical surgery for x 100.000$, get nursing care for 5000 $/month (Switzerland) while there is no money left for young families and kids. This is perhaps a reason for low birth rates.
Climate Models Dec. 10. 2019
As long as the underlying system is not understood it doesn`t matter how many climate models are produced.
All these models provide a result based on the input of formulas and data. Thanks to electronic computing they provide an absolutly correct result based on the input...or to say it easier shit in - shit out.
Modeling has the advantage that you can adjust the data and formulas according to your expectations untill you receive the result expected.
Climate Change and Civilisation Aug. 22nd. 2019
Aside from green religion and the climate hoax the earth climate is very complex and till today only partially understood. Thus it is unknown what kind of changes will happen in the future. Manhood has to adapt to it. The more developed a civilisation is the more it can reduce its dependency from nature. It makes sense to use energy as coal, oil, gas and nuclear to power our world and make us less dependent on weather and climate.
Radioactive Waste in the Future 17.09.2019
It can be assumed that if manhood does not develop back to a green stone age the radioactivity dacays....After several hundred years radioactive waste deposits will become deposits of precious materials as plutonium, uranium,...Tc99, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, silver and many more. I would not be astonished if there will be initiatives digging for such treasures.
RDS and the Climate Hoax
The climate hoax hypothesis or green religion demands from its followers to abandon the use of fossile energy and thus live a life similar to the middle age.
The leaders like the climate noble prize winners Pachauri/Gore had flown to India for a cricket playvor using a private jet for their pleasure. It is a feudalistic society model.
This religion is very popular in Western Europe and parts of North America but is not popular in other regions where the poeple desire to live like the US middle class. All in about 400 mio. poeple in the world would like to go back to middle age, about 6 bn poeple would like to live the life of the US middle class.
For RDS and BP it would be ideal to stay with its profitable oil & gas business and if the Western Europeans does not want to buy oil anymore sell it to India, China or whoever wants to live a modern life.
Further it would make sense to support campaigns to disclose the facts about the climate hoax.
The preferential treatment of Renewable Energies is worse than the subsidies 17.08.2019
Wind power is produced acc. to the coincidences of the weather. The value is similar to an airline ticket of a flight you don`t know when the plane is going. If you have the choice you will pay more and get a plane that is flying acc. to your time schedule and get rid of the valueless ticket. But utilities have to take it preferentially.
In the electricity grid it is even worse. Electricty demand and generation needs to be equal at any moment. It is to have power plants in hot, warm, cold stand by or a nuclear plant has to run on 60% load while there is not a significant cost difference letting it run at 98%.
If preferential treatment would end up many wind mills might become disconnetcted and green believers can pray in front of it.
Hydrogen as Medium for Energy 05.09.2018
Hydrogen is one of the worst energy mediums. It has the lowest density of all materials that makes storage and pumping complex and expensive. It diffuses thru all gaskets which mean it requires Ex- Zones for safety reasons. Due to the low boiling point it needs an awful lot of energy to liquify hydrogen. All in all there are much better mediums to get energy to the consumer as diesel, electricity, methane, LNG and many others.
Hydrogen is usually generated by a chemical process from natural gas. The conversion requires plants and costs efficiency and makes hydrogen a very expensive medium of energy. Alternatives as producing H2 from nuclear heat are far away from realization.
Shell investment in "renewable energies" 14.01.2019
As a shareholder of RDS it is indeed not in my interest if RDS waste capex for green ideologic nonsense.
1. Many companies in the "renewable energy" business are influenced by politics and profits are quite often not the focus of these companies. Thus the margins of "renewable energies" are significant below that of oil&gas.
2. RDS does not replace the depletion of its reserves. The production is declining slightly. It would be better to allocate the capex in the oil&gas core business.
3. The profitability of "renewable energies" is provided by government subsidies or regulation. Political changes (elections) quite often let a new government slash these subsidies. The political risk is high.
4. It is not my moral to produce a product without any value (the electricity from Solar/Wind is produced according to the coincidences of weather, daytime & season and not according to demand) and sell it to sometimes poor poeple.
97% Consensus of Climate Change
The 97% consensus is a hoax as well. The results are got by evaluating the abstracts of scientific articles. Many of the publications evaluated does not publish critical articles at all.
The climate is a complex multi - science topic. Physicists, meterologists, botanics, ocean & atmosphere scientists, chemists, engineers each are working on a bit of the information needed to understand the climate. If an engineer develops measuring equipment and standards for CO2 measurements he is a part of this complex system but does not need to understand the whole thing.
I would suggest that there is a minority of such scientists that believe in the climate hoax, another strong minority that does not care and a very strong minority that is more or less sceptical but keeps the mouth shut.
Investments in Wind Energy
Beside of the moral question (cheating the poeple) wind farms provide by far lower profit margins than investments in oil and gas.
Wind generates electricity by the coincidences of the weather. In the grid electricity demand and generation needs to be in balance at any moment. Thus its value is close to 0.
Any revenues of windfarms are achieved by subsidies or governmental regulations. After elections many countries stopped these subsidies...sometimes with backwardation.
98% of Scientists believe in the Climate Hoax
The 98% of climate scientist that appreciate the climate hoax is a hoax itself.
The number was generatd by a lady that analyzed the abstracts of a scientific journal that does not publish critical articles
Most scientists working in the fields relevant for the climate hoax hypothesis working on a small sector and does not have an overview on the whole hypothesis.
When I have a look on phyisists, chemists, engineers there are
- Some that believe in the climate hoax and tell it everyone.
- Many that does not care
- Many that does not believe but keep their mouth shut.
- A very few that have the courage to critizise it openly.
The value of Solar & Wind Energy in the GridApril 5, 2019
In reality in the grid demand and power generation needs to be equal at any moment or the grid collapse. Neither solar nor wind contribute to grid stability.
In Germany the grid operators paid 2016 for 188 TWh electricity from "Renewables" 24.9 bn. € (about 30bn$) and achieved revenues of 1.2 Mrd. € (about 1.4bn$). That means 95% are lost subsidies.
The average value of 1 kWh "Renewables" is 0,6 c/kWh (0,7.c$)
If you take out the electricity from water 10.9 TWh & bio mass 28 TWh that is produced regularly. The revenues from wind & solar is slightly above 0.
If you consider the costs for control energy the necessary grid expansion, power plants in warm or hot stand by (not mentioned above) the value of solar & wind power is below 0.
Dirty Windmills 08.12.2019
A windmill consists of some hundred yards of access road, 2000to concrete (foundation) 200 tons steel, glas fiber reinforced polyester, or carbon fibre reinforced epoxy (wings), copper (generator)...
If it generates useless electricity acc. to the coincidences of the weather...there is a huge environmental burden not compensated by a useful product as electricity...Thus it is by far worse than a coal plant. That is why I speak about dirty wind mills.
Investing in Utilities 2018
I was living a couple of years in the middle east and other non developed non asian countries. In these countries the climate hoax* and "renewable energies" are not really popular. Only a few US/European educated poeple care about it. What many poeple really care about are energy prices and most of them make the governments responsible for it. That means there is always the latent risk of pleasing potential voters at the cost of utilities. This risk varies with the political situation. Acc. to my personal assumption it is high in Brasil, risky in Argentine with the next election and lower in Chile that is more stable and poeple are less emotional. "Renewable Energies" are installed if there is an external sponsor.
The risk in Western Europe is in the green religion with such phantasy stories as the climate hoax. It is hard to make a profit if there is 1500h/year a low or negative price caused by subsidized dirty wind, or solar energy.
New built nuclear, 10 bn GBP (EPR GB), 9 bn € (France), 8 bn (AP1000 US) is far away from any competitivness. Compared with 2bn $ (CPR 1000 China) or 4 bn (VVER Russia) shows that the extreme documentation, testing and certifications in the west as a result of perceived risks makes nuclear to a non competitive alternative. Poeple in the western countries needs to get away from phantasy stories about nuclear dangers.
*The climate hoax or "climate change" is a very poor once scientific hypothesis that is marketed by green organizations similar to a brain wash.
"Science Based "Climate Change"" 16.09.2019
the climate hoax is without question communicated as "science based" as most modern religions. It is as well without question that you will find in the established media only rarly critical articles/reports. Sometimes you will find results that are definitly against this hypothesis but not mentioned as such.
In an environment of selective information and fraud a plausibilty check is sometimes very helpful. It is the same as reading stock analysis or company reports careful...check numbers, add the missing negative informations by yourself.
if you have a close look on the IPCC reports put together by IPCC key persons with close ties to Green NGO* you will find out that the usually published figures and pictures are clear. If you read the report it is not that clear at all. If you have a look in the references the picture is different. If you have a look on alternative media and platforms your picture might change.
Subsidies for Fossil Fuel
Subsidies for fossil fuel have usually a different purpose than that of dirty wind & solar.
Many of the subsidies are designed to share the wealth of a country with the poeple. For ex. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the king let the poeple participate in the wealth of the country by low gasolene and diesel prices.
Many of these subsidies are designed as social welfare as the LPG prices in Egypt to provide social wellfare in a country with a dysfunctional administration.
Value of Wind Energy in the Grid (Washington State)