The Lemon Fool

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Back when I worked in the markets we had a saying: "A long term investment is a short term investment that went wrong".

But of course your point presupposes that people agree about what is reality, and they do not. It is just opinions.

Reality doesn't do 'consultations' or take 'opinion polls'. Doesn't need to 'invest', get a 'return on investment', or do politics.

I was just hoping to become a better investor by understanding your superior sense of what constitutes "reality". I imagine with an inside track on reality, your investment results must be very impressive.

Your further mistake is in assuming it is all about my real or imagined 'superior sense of what constitutes "reality" '. Rather it's more a case of reality doesn't care about anyone's opinions, it just does its thing. We pure humans can but attempt to try and understand what that is.

Now, there are human activities concerned with exploring and investigating the nature of reality. But I didn't invent them either, or even imagine that I did.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:Reality doesn't do 'consultations' or take 'opinion polls'. Doesn't need to 'invest', get a 'return on investment', or do politics.

I was just hoping to become a better investor by understanding your superior sense of what constitutes "reality". I imagine with an inside track on reality, your investment results must be very impressive.

reality doesn't care about anyone's opinions

No doubt. But you must have a view of what that reality is. And given that, what does reality imply for the future performance of energy shares? This is the board for discussing energy companies as investments after all.

The OP believes that we will have fossil fuel around for decades as do I. That implies energy shares should continue to do well. How does reality help you assess that claim?

Lootman wrote:The OP believes that we will have fossil fuel around for decades as do I. That implies energy shares should continue to do well. How does reality help you assess that claim?

I already answered that at the end of my first post here.

XFool wrote:

Sorcery wrote:My guess is that we are going to have to continue to use fossil fuels until technology can save us.

In other words it's a transition, not a Blitzkreig?

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:The OP believes that we will have fossil fuel around for decades as do I. That implies energy shares should continue to do well. How does reality help you assess that claim?

I already answered that at the end of my first post here.

Do you mean when you said that long term the (energy) market cannot buck reality?

But what does that mean in terms of investment performance? Do you believe that energy shares will go to zero? Or is "reality" already baked into energy share prices, which could easily mean they will continue to go up from here.

What is your prediction?

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:The OP believes that we will have fossil fuel around for decades as do I. That implies energy shares should continue to do well. How does reality help you assess that claim?

I already answered that at the end of my first post here.

Do you mean when you said that long term the (energy) market cannot buck reality?

Insofar as the "energy market" not bucking reality corresponds to the realities of fossil fuels/CO2/global warming/climate change then yes, obviously.
But what will constitute "the energy market" in the future? Do you know?

Lootman wrote:But what does that mean in terms of investment performance?

Short term? Medium term? Long term?

I'll save you the trouble - I've no idea!

Lootman wrote:Do you believe that energy shares will go to zero? Or is "reality" already baked into energy share prices, which could easily mean they will continue to go up from here.

Or could stay the same from here? Or could go down from here? And what if perceived reality changes in the future?

Lootman wrote:What is your prediction?

That the energy market will fluctuate.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:But what does that mean in terms of investment performance?

I've no idea!

OK.

..."A man's got to know his limitations" - C. Eastwood

murraypaul wrote:This also isn't the first time we've used coal recently, as you can see from the historic graphs here:
https://gridwatch.co.uk/coal
We started to use coal at about the same time last year.

Feels more like a headline than an actual news story.

According to https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent, no coal has been used since 21st September.
So yes, a headline rather than a story.

murraypaul wrote:

murraypaul wrote:This also isn't the first time we've used coal recently, as you can see from the historic graphs here:
https://gridwatch.co.uk/coal
We started to use coal at about the same time last year.

Feels more like a headline than an actual news story.

According to https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent, no coal has been used since 21st September.
So yes, a headline rather than a story.

Gridwatch says coal providing 2% of UK electricity today.

Nimrod103 wrote:

murraypaul wrote:

murraypaul wrote:This also isn't the first time we've used coal recently, as you can see from the historic graphs here:
https://gridwatch.co.uk/coal
We started to use coal at about the same time last year.

Feels more like a headline than an actual news story.

According to https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent, no coal has been used since 21st September.
So yes, a headline rather than a story.

Gridwatch says coal providing 2% of UK electricity today.

Perhaps the problem is that the groovy euphemism for coal these days is "biomass", which somehow seems so much more green and cuddly.

Lootman wrote:Perhaps the problem is that the groovy euphemism for coal these days is "biomass", which somehow seems so much more green and cuddly.

Biomass is renewable - basically wood and other plant/animal material. It's not a synonym for coal or other fossil fuels. Whether it's truly 'clean' is another matter, but it is specifically renewable.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/

NotSure wrote:

Lootman wrote:Perhaps the problem is that the groovy euphemism for coal these days is "biomass", which somehow seems so much more green and cuddly.

Biomass is renewable - basically wood and other plant/animal material. It's not a synonym for coal or other fossil fuels. Whether it's truly 'clean' is another matter, but it is specifically renewable.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/

Well all i know is that I saw Drax (of all people) claiming to be a "biomass energy provider" and of course in Yorkshire they run the biggest coal plant in the UK which (at least at times) provides 7% of UK energy.

Lootman wrote:Well all i know is that I saw Drax (of all people) claiming to be a "biomass energy provider" and of course in Yorkshire they run the biggest coal plant in the UK which (at least at times) provides 7% of UK energy.

They (DRAX) are getting there: https://www.drax.com/investors/end-of-coal-generation-at-drax-power-station/

Following a comprehensive review of operations and discussions with National Grid, Ofgem and the UK Government, the Board of Drax has determined to end commercial coal generation at Drax Power Station in 2021 – ahead of the UK’s 2025 deadline.

Commercial coal generation is expected to end in March 2021, with formal closure of the coal units in September 2022 at the end of existing Capacity Market obligations......

NotSure wrote:

Lootman wrote:Well all i know is that I saw Drax (of all people) claiming to be a "biomass energy provider" and of course in Yorkshire they run the biggest coal plant in the UK which (at least at times) provides 7% of UK energy.

They (DRAX) are getting there: https://www.drax.com/investors/end-of-coal-generation-at-drax-power-station/

Following a comprehensive review of operations and discussions with National Grid, Ofgem and the UK Government, the Board of Drax has determined to end commercial coal generation at Drax Power Station in 2021 – ahead of the UK’s 2025 deadline.

Commercial coal generation is expected to end in March 2021, with formal closure of the coal units in September 2022 at the end of existing Capacity Market obligations......

Fair enough. The final nail in Scargill's coffin. Perhaps Thatcher was ahead of her time and had impeccable green credentials?

Lootman wrote:Fair enough. The final nail in Scargill's coffin. Perhaps Thatcher was ahead of her time and had impeccable green credentials?

I think Johnson beat you to it on that one

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/05/johnson-makes-unbelievably-crass-joke-about-thatcher-closing-coal-mines
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/05/margaret-thatcher-gave-uk-early-start-going-green-closing-coal/

NotSure wrote:

Lootman wrote:Fair enough. The final nail in Scargill's coffin. Perhaps Thatcher was ahead of her time and had impeccable green credentials?

I think Johnson beat you to it on that one

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/05/johnson-makes-unbelievably-crass-joke-about-thatcher-closing-coal-mines
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/05/margaret-thatcher-gave-uk-early-start-going-green-closing-coal/

Damn. Nice example of how the Guardian and Telegraph see things differently. The Guardian claims the observation was "crass" whilst the Telegraph instead suggests that the Scots are too sensitive.

Lootman wrote:Fair enough. The final nail in Scargill's coffin. Perhaps Thatcher was ahead of her time and had impeccable green credentials?

Not sure where 'perhaps' comes into it.

Her "Climate change" speech to the UN, in 1989:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDt ... nel=JonDee

Mike4 wrote:

Lootman wrote:Fair enough. The final nail in Scargill's coffin. Perhaps Thatcher was ahead of her time and had impeccable green credentials?

Not sure where 'perhaps' comes into it.

Her "Climate change" speech to the UN, in 1989:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDt ... nel=JonDee

Will watch that but Margerat Thatcher was not omnipotent, omniescent, (there's another in that series) which kind of describes our desire for what God looks like. I thought she was pretty good at the time but not that good.

Just catching up after attending a fairly glorious wedding, UK-Spain relations are now tip-top.

Anyway oil&gas. Have almost doubled down on the wreckage of the UK O&G industry post covid. 2035 for zero-free Boris, you are having a laugh. shock:
Unfit imho. Where the heck are the engineers in government?

Nimrod103 wrote:

murraypaul wrote:

murraypaul wrote:This also isn't the first time we've used coal recently, as you can see from the historic graphs here:
https://gridwatch.co.uk/coal
We started to use coal at about the same time last year.
Feels more like a headline than an actual news story.

According to https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand/percent, no coal has been used since 21st September.
So yes, a headline rather than a story.

Gridwatch says coal providing 2% of UK electricity today.

I'm not seeing any coal usage in the 10 minutes samples from yesterday, although I might be missing something.
The point is that occasionally using coal in autumn and winter is not unusual, we did the same thing last year.
It was hyped up as though it was something unheard of. It isn't.

Sorcery wrote:Where the heck are the engineers in government?

Engineers... too factual... politically inconvenient.

Govt fills the country with green crap but no means of storing the power.
Leaves coal in the ground.
No gas storage.
Deletes incinerator emissions from our C02 figures.
Blue hydrogen b...x.
The Alice in Wonderland energy price cap.
Drax imports wood pellets from the US in gallons-per-mile ships. The very embodiment of greenwash.
Pfft.

V8 (voted for the govt, faut de mieux)