Member Info for OreInspiring

I really thought my previous post would be my last on this subject :) , but I've just seen this post:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/11/10/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-the-clean-energy-transition

It has a summary at the end which sums up the problem (much to our advantage). :)

Even if we didn't have NET Zero, we would still want battery powered cars, etc, but it would be a natural evolution that would be an obtainable goal, without being bankrupted, and the mining industry would still be very profitable, and our main concern would be the Geology, which is what it ought to be.

"It would be easier to get to net zero if we used less energy."

Yes we could all drive cars that do 50 mpg instead of 30 mpg and gradually introduce the nuclear generation of Electricity without needing to use the latest technology and having to spend £3b on new infrastructure. We could also turn down the central heating and wear jumpers, in offices and shops as well as at home. But it would be politically unexciting.

I have seen reports that a third of homes that have cavity wall insulation after they were built suffer from problems like dampness or condensation as they need to 'breathe'. These sort of problems appear and surprise the NET Zero enthusiasts, who expect others to look after the consequences. And has this important report appeared on the BBC?
https://notrickszone.com/2021/11/07/e-vehicle-woes-german-cities-remove-e-buses-from-service-after-bursting-in-flames-fire-hazard

And how are we going to retain and develop our industries when, usually, the price of Energy is such a large fraction of the cost, and so few other countries are going to do it? And most 'renewable' energy sources are intermittent at best and unreliable.

The Scientific basis for Climate Change has its roots on the last century, yet critical analysis in the media has been banned, and now the costs are being revealed to the public, it ought to be revisited. Solar forcing, including X-rays and Gamma-rays, Particle forcing, Electromagnetic coupling as well as Vulcanism and Cosmic Rays appears to greatly influence the Earth's climate, yet a refusal by the Climate Change 'Carbon Dioxide is the control knob for global temperatures' crowd mean that this cannot be tested:
(It's Part 2, but it has a link to Part 1)
https://youtu.be/8_rb98g0jwU

It's not that this hypothesis is correct, (though I think it is a better theory), it is that it is being ignored because they think "The Science is Settled" and we are stuck with a Government, that is devoid of influential Scientists and Engineers, pursuing an impossible goal, while Russia and China look on in disbelief!

The sites of the first link above and the one in my previous post are two good sources of evidence that the "Engineering isn't Settled" either. There is even a mention, somewhere, that the demand for Copper and other materials cannot be met in their timeframe. :) We have a shortage anyway.

Susan Crockford (polar bears) and Peter Ridd (Great Barrier Reef) are two more that have been penalised for being good Scientists. Science is, foremost, a mode of inquiry, not a body of knowledge: Nullius in Verba.

The UK does not have an overall plan for NET Zero, so there has been no competent review to determine whether it will work: the National Grid capacity will need to quadruple to power all those battery cars and homes that have their gas boilers removed. It's like building a mine without a plan, except that the cost will be £3 trillion+.

And Carbon Capture and Storage isn't going too well either:
Problems At Chevron’s £3bn CCS Project
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/07/29/problems-at-chevrons-3bn-ccs-project

It's needed as gas powered electricity generation is required to cope with demand and supply fluctuations.

Luckily, minerals will be needed without NET Zero as Nuclear and Electrification is the natural solution for many energy needs, just not ALL of them. :)

Hargreaves Lansdown have told me (ISA & SIPP) that I don't need to fill out a form.

Quady, I'm not a climate denier as it is obvious the climate exists and changes. We therefore need to continue to have an inquiring mind and investigate it as the Science is never settled, especially when we know so little about it.
After 50 years study, it has recently been discovered that Jupiter's atmosphere is heated by the Sun's violent electromagnetic storms being funnelled towards Jupiter's magnetic poles. What if the same thing happened to the Earth? Unfortunately, at the moment, there is little interest as it is contrary to the CO2 crowd, which is a shame. It just isn't Science as we used to know it, and the extra heat could be added to the climate computer models.
The IPCC reports are fairly sound but their Executive Reports are something else. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so it's driven by governments, not Science. Again, if the Legacy Media quoted reports, not the executive reports, the public would be better informed.
I, and Dr John Constable, want the government to avoid spending a lot of money, especially when we are in so much debt, and ending up worse off and disrupting industry unexpectedly, like the fertilizer factory closures causing food shortages.
I'm signing off on this subject, for a while at least, but wanted to present the other side of the discussion. The Daily Telegraph's Andrew Evans-Pritchard, up to recently a very keen NET Zero supporter, has seen that there are many unanswered questions and, like building a mine, need to be answered before any construction starts:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/aep-finally-wakes-up-to-the-green-nightmare

As he says, "It’s terribly depressing."

seanhunter - thank you for your last post, especially paragraph 2. With the BBC's aggressive stance that it is an Emergency, and the schools pushing the narrative, rather than teaching basic Physics and Chemistry, it is looking like it is a case of, 'You can't tell the people, you have to show them'.

In the video, Dr John Constable does say that we need a credible plan, that may work, not one that certainly won't work. At least I have sufficient wealth, I think, to minimise the probable disruptions ahead. It's always the poor that suffer most.

If anyone dares to venture onto conservativehomecom and sees the posts under any article promoting NET Zero, usually by a government backbencher wishing to be noticed and having not a clue about the Science, Engineering or Economic demands required, you will see posts from those who have had a solid career in such Technologies: and they aren't very supportive! :). There's usually one or two every week, and the posters have very varied backgrounds.

Fortunately, in mining, there are professional bodies of long standing, so reports are credible, yet too many Climate Change reports are just politics, with the IPCC Executive Reports being a 'good' example, and the Legacy Media just exacerbate the misinformation.

We have food disruption because two fertilizer factories have shut down due to fuel costs, including green taxes, so the CO2 they produce as a byproduct and is used in food processing is not available. A complete surprise to me, but then, with the government we have, it shouldn't be.

"A new State of the Climate report confirmed that 2019 was among the three warmest years in records dating to the mid-1800s ..."

Well, it would be, as we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age for the last 150 years. This followed the Medieval Warm Period, something that Michael Mann managed to obliterate in his Hockey Stick graph (as it was warmer than today). This graph is based on dendrochronology, something that tells you more about rainfall than temperature. The BBC, against their charter, only present one side of the discussion, and the Legacy Media just follow, so you need to delve into the academic papers that provide a more balanced view.
The important point is that no matter WHY temperatures have slightly risen, the current response of NET Zero is bound to fail.

The UK does not have an overall plan, so it hasn't been reviewed by anyone with the responsibility of ensuring it works.  For example, the windmill constructors will make wonderful windmills to generate electricity, but who has the responsibility of ensuring continuity of supply when the wind stops, so the food in our freezers remains frozen?
Britain 'let go' its gas reserve facilities (as gas, Methane, has Carbon which burns to Carbon Dioxide) a few years ago, but Britain has recently had light winds, so there is a shortfall of 'Windmill Electricity', and Russia has only been delivering the gas  that has been contracted, so gas prices have soared in Europe! Britain has been stopped from exploiting its own Coal, frackable gas, and North Sea Oil, and developing new nuclear reactors and has been destroying its existing coal-fired power stations! As it takes about the same length of time to build a power station as a Copper mine, we and Europe have a problem, and Putin is sitting pretty!  The problem is that professional Engineers have been excluded from the whole process. The cost to Britain of NET Zero is estimated to be over £3 Trillion, and will result in a lower standard of living.

Even though this video is over an hour in length, it is the best I have seen to explain the problem.

John Constable - evidence to the HoL's Costs of Net Zero Inquiry
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ana39417SUU

Grimbergen: I have spent many years following the Climate Enthusiasts and very few show ANY knowledge of Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Business or even how to run a project. For example, I have yet to see any of them consider the effect of their proposals on the supply or price of Copper, Molybdenum, Lithium, :) :) or anything else, like skilled workers to do all the conversions! One of the early investigators was a retired mining engineer, Steve McIntyre, who showed the weakness of their climate theories and data analysis. Many more have followed, but we have moved on and are now cringing at their Implementation!
Remember DieselGate? Remember the Grenfell Tower fire, where extra cladding to 'Save the Planet' did so much harm? It looks like groupthink, and it didn't need a PhD to stop the calamities.

The websites of two of the references that I mentioned have hundreds of examples of disagreement with the Government's climate policies that the BBC promote, without any balance, which is required by their statutes, and by what Science stands for: Nullius in Verba. I was tempted to say nothing on the subject, because I knew it would end up being a saga and a half, but to see people thinking Government Climate Policy is part of Reality needed some sort of 'Outside the Box' response. :)

If you want to pursue these issues, both sites I mentioned have comment sections, with well informed posters willing to share information!

To me, it looks like the industry is held up by government grants and subsidies, and many posting on those two websites can't see it being financially self-supporting, ever, especially as over 600 coal-fired power stations are being built in the Far East, as coal is so cheap, and easy to use.

It's the Blue Hydrogen manufacture that requires Carbon Capture and Storage in order to meet the overall objectives of having ZERO Carbon Dioxide Emissions.
As the article states:
"He [AEP] seems to think it is a sensible idea to take natural gas and convert it [to Hydrogen gas] in a highly expensive process, while at the same time wasting a quarter of the energy input. But this process produces massive amounts of carbon dioxide, so you then have to spend more money and waste more natural gas in an attempt to capture some (not all) of those emissions [for ever? :) ], in a process that does not even exist at a commercially viable scale.
...
He [AEP] whittles on about the cost of blue hydrogen, $2.50/kg, but forgets to tell his readers that the cost of natural gas is a quarter of that. To be fair though, at least he does point out how ridiculous the green hydrogen option is."
Here's another explanation:
https://theconversation.com/blue-hydrogen-what-is-it-and-should-it-replace-natural-gas-166053

The British Government does NOT have an overall plan for NET Zero Emissions and the Germany's position is even more precarious:
https://notrickszone.com/2021/03/31/explosive-german-government-audit-report-energiewende-has-become-a-danger-for-all-of-germany

Just because 'That is the Science' there is, unfortunately, no reason why Germany or Britain will change course because of that.

Hydrogen isn't a fuel as it has to be manufactured, which consumes a vast amount of energy that needs to be 'NET Zero CO2' so will need Carbon Capture and Storage, which has yet to be implemented successfully, or generated from electricity which isn't guaranteed to be available and which isn't very efficient
As well as reading this article, see stewgreen's post at 3:19 pm about Blue Hydrogen. The Government, NHS and BBC are only responding to one side of the argument, as will any supplier to the industry:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/26/blue-hydrogen-has-larger-ghg-footprint-than-natural-gas

Success, bought a few more than 1,000 just to round up the numbers! :)

I can't even buy 1,000 SOLG shares on HL.

Not unheard of, but when the share price is down ...

.. and on the company website. :)

They are on ADVFN