The beginning of the end for green energy?

Often times when you create a crisis market where there is no crisis that market cannot sustain itself.

1 Like

And, why is that? Why would anyone invest in something that isn’t feasible, unless there is gobs of government money in it. Research is one thing, private investment is another, but when the government forces, or tries to force an issue that isn’t feasible, then that’s what you get . . . Failure. Obama did it and just made millionaires out of some supporters. You cannot force change beyond its natural boundaries, which is Technology and economics. As technology advances we make changes. No one forces us to do it. But, technology can out pace the economy. There is just so much money available at any particular time. Don’t get the cart before the horse. It will happen as long as the government stays out of it.

1 Like

Yeah!..sorta like the government stays out of the fossil fuel business?

1 Like

Gov. Greg Abbott and a group of his fellow Republicans in the state legislature launched a campaign to prop up fossil fuels and penalize renewables. One law, which was approved by voters in November, set up the $10 billion Texas Energy Fund, which sets aside $7.2 billion for low-interest loans and grants for gas, coal, and nuclear.

Slowing down renewable energy could cost Texas in the long term, both economically and socially. Billions of dollars of public and private investment are pouring into low-carbon industries. Last year, the state generated about 30% of its power from wind and solar.

1 Like

It’s really important not to confuse the failure of projects and bankruptcy of green energy start-up companies as a pronouncement of the long-term non-viability of the sector:

“Renewable energy companies are realizing their projects are “just not feasible” amid plummeting stock valuation and inflationary costs…”

This happens EVERY TIIME a new technology launches. I give you a chart and a description of trading action in 1930 for “Radio” AKA Radio Corporation of America (RCA). Radio was and still is the most impactful innovation since fire.The emergence of this technology launched a huge speculative bubble.

RCA 1920 1930

The speculative bubbles draw in BS artists and scheisters (shysters… how do you spell it?). They are not in the business of making money… they are in the business of GETTING money from venture capitalists, and starting SPACs with lockups where you have no way to get your money out, and they sell their “businesses” to hedge funds, and they cream off impressive fees, and they move on to the next con.

Eventually they get found out, and the BS projects collapse, the BS companies go Chapter 7 and go away, and the sector consolidates. The same thing happened with Internet 1.0 ! I’m sure many people said after the Tech Bubble that the Internet was BS and would never amount to anything. But patience!

At one point, Amazon lost more than 90% of its value. But long-term investors still got rich.

We are in the early-days of renewable energy, and it will be very impactful. It had better be, because oil and gas fields deplete at 5% per year, and shale every faster, and all of that compounded loss year-after-years means that we’re going to be in permanent supply deficit at some point, and prices will go up and not go back down. The world keeps demanding more and more and more hydrocarbons. The producers cannot keep delivering more and more and more. I have worked my entire career since 1986 as an earth scientist at Amoco Production Company and Schlumberger, now with a small Oil & Gas IT firm, that’s my credential. If renewable energy helps with the climate, I consider that a side benefit. The primary benefit is that is keeps our world humming.

That said, I’m not buying an EV. The charging infrastructure isn’t there to suit my needs. Maybe by 2030. I’m just waiting. I don’t care if I’m a late adopter, I have a car which runs which was paid for in cash in 2015. I’m not going to let it go.

I have a 2008 Toyota with 64K miles. It will out live me.

Trading in a solid-running, paid for, combustion engine vehicle that gets decent mileage – near 30 mpg or better – for an EV makes little sense on a personal economic basis or as a tribute to saving the planet. It might even increase your carbon footprint by a 1/2 size or more when all factors are included.

Exchanging a gas-gobbling semi-monster PU or SUV that’s used mostly to drive to and from the shopping center, work, etc., with one passenger on board probably would make sense from a personal financial perspective. But, the gas-guzzler you rid yourself of would likely get adopted by another driver who might use it in a manner that’s even more damaging to the climate.

So holding onto your current ride until it’s fit only for the recycling bin might be the most responsible measure a car owner could take reducing one’s impact on the climate was the main consideration.

I agree! People are strange creatures who trade in symbols and social status (“virtue signaling”) and not in facts. My car is also a four-banger, you almost can’t find a smaller engine on the road.

Ours is a 4-banger Outback, vintage 2014. Clocks near 30mpg consistently. Yes EVs, or some alternative to fossil fuel are the future, but for our immediate future, pretty good is good enough. At my age Sue-baru cold be my forever ride, or bride… whatever.

I’ve owned cars that can’t get out of their own way (1974 Peugot 504 diesel) to cars that can do a quarter of a mile in the 10-second range (a 1965 Valiant w/souped-up street racer) to a high-performance sports car (1982 Porsche 911-S).

In the end, a car is just a car. Some are fun to drive, some are boring, and some are just a pain to own and drive.

I’ve never looked at cars as a status symbol or anything other than as a potential of experiential entertainment and a method to get me from one place to another.

I owned a '70 PU 504 when living in Colorado. A 4-cylinder gas model that was a joy to drive on the open road but seriously underpowered in mountain driving.

I owned a * 504 GLD saloon, 2.1 diesel that got all of 62 HP. The thing had superb suspension and smoothed out bumps like nothing else except maybe a big Citroen. It got 35 mpg on 30-cent diesel fuel. The weak points were acceleration and the electrics which were Lucas and it was a homely looking little thing.