Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
In the middle of reading The Prize by Daniel Yergin. It's not as if oil didn't get subsidised in its early days. Then it continued to get them right until the present.
Which generic manufacturers would you not use?
- Thread starter Feldspar
- Start date
In the middle of reading The Prize by Daniel Yergin. It's not as if oil didn't get subsidised in its early days. Then it continued to get them right until the present.
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
i dont think any amount of subs will finish the internal combustion engine by 2040
Like AD plants- electric transport will in effect be subbed twice
Last edited:
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
a self fulfilling bet!
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
not saying its a good thing, but it will happen
Tesla have to be the most ridiculously overvalued company in history
ollie989898
Member
As I have mentioned in the past the world of agrochemicals is far more complex than meets the eye and the companies are often heavily involved with another for various reasons. Some even own or part own each other. Others agree to sell their actives or IP through actual competitors. No idea how any of that works but business is business as they say.
If all you have is a can, box and label then in reality you don't have much to go on.
I will give an example. A Japanese company who do nothing all day but innovate new chemicals, Hokkiado chemicals, develops an active and patents it. They then agree to sell the IP for that active through a long term arrangement to a large multinational in based in North America, AgroNation. AgroNation do some development work, and register the product for use in Europe, after electing to get Local Friendly Chemical Concern In Shanghai to manufacture it in quantity. They then form an agreement to market the product with AgriSupply PLC who then distribute it in Europe.
Now, there is utterly no reason that the manufacture, formulation, packaging or labelling could not be done at all or some of those points in the chain.
My point is thus, saying: 'I will not use use product from brand or company X' is fine, but you have utterly no idea who makes their product, where or who packaged etc or whose product it actually is. In reality something with a generic label could in fact be made by a big name brand or could be made in the exact same Chinese/Indian/German/American factory that big name brand chemistry is. There are not gazillions of factories worldwide who are involved in the production of this stuff for obvious reasons.
Whilst I could recommend you just stick with big name brands who heavily advertise there is obviously natural interest in the lower priced generic or parallel products. Most people I know use a bit of both, depending on the product and the application. I would say, stick to using products you have used before and been happy with, you should also continue to use product from companies who give good technical backup and whom are driving the R and D in the industry forward. There is a limited amount of money to spend by all companies regardless of their size and if they do not sell enough of active X or Y (or make enough money from it), they just won't bother to support it in registration when it inevitably has time called on it.
Whilst I am now vehemently anti-EU and their peculiar fixation with agrochemical regulation, I am under no illusions- even if actives remain approved for use in the UK, it is doubtful companies will bother to continue manufacturing it if it is not approved for use in Europe, the quantities involved will not be justifiable.
If all you have is a can, box and label then in reality you don't have much to go on.
I will give an example. A Japanese company who do nothing all day but innovate new chemicals, Hokkiado chemicals, develops an active and patents it. They then agree to sell the IP for that active through a long term arrangement to a large multinational in based in North America, AgroNation. AgroNation do some development work, and register the product for use in Europe, after electing to get Local Friendly Chemical Concern In Shanghai to manufacture it in quantity. They then form an agreement to market the product with AgriSupply PLC who then distribute it in Europe.
Now, there is utterly no reason that the manufacture, formulation, packaging or labelling could not be done at all or some of those points in the chain.
My point is thus, saying: 'I will not use use product from brand or company X' is fine, but you have utterly no idea who makes their product, where or who packaged etc or whose product it actually is. In reality something with a generic label could in fact be made by a big name brand or could be made in the exact same Chinese/Indian/German/American factory that big name brand chemistry is. There are not gazillions of factories worldwide who are involved in the production of this stuff for obvious reasons.
Whilst I could recommend you just stick with big name brands who heavily advertise there is obviously natural interest in the lower priced generic or parallel products. Most people I know use a bit of both, depending on the product and the application. I would say, stick to using products you have used before and been happy with, you should also continue to use product from companies who give good technical backup and whom are driving the R and D in the industry forward. There is a limited amount of money to spend by all companies regardless of their size and if they do not sell enough of active X or Y (or make enough money from it), they just won't bother to support it in registration when it inevitably has time called on it.
Whilst I am now vehemently anti-EU and their peculiar fixation with agrochemical regulation, I am under no illusions- even if actives remain approved for use in the UK, it is doubtful companies will bother to continue manufacturing it if it is not approved for use in Europe, the quantities involved will not be justifiable.
ollie989898
Member
Your article is written by a guy whom is a bit peculiar. He has a fixation on natural gas for making electricity, which I agree is a bad idea.
50% transmission loss on power lines? Seriously. I think he is getting the physics a bit messed up. The US Energy administration estimate their losses in the entire continental United States as less than 5%.
Charging a lithium-ion battery is about 80-90% efficient. Transforming that into motion via an electric motor, is about 90% efficient.
Now try the same stunt with petrol or diesel.
Now add in the environmental grief oil exploration and refining cause, and that's before the stuff is combusted.
Lithium production, is relatively simple and environmentally benign compared to oil or fossil fuel production. It is also easy to recover and recycle from consumer products.
Yes batteries weigh a lot, but the so do engines, unless you want to go making them from aluminium and magnesium which take some serious grief to extract from the earth and form into an engine block.
The only people who have anything to fear from electric vehicles are oil companies.
a lot of renewable power is current wasted as production is not aligned with demand
battery tech is going develop rapidly and stuff like electric cars actually offer storage capacity to help balance supply and demand as they could feed into the grid as well as take from it. I have a friend who is involved in a big global renewable company who tells me some of the ideas for how to manage this isn the future will be game changers as the tech evolves
interesting times
battery tech is going develop rapidly and stuff like electric cars actually offer storage capacity to help balance supply and demand as they could feed into the grid as well as take from it. I have a friend who is involved in a big global renewable company who tells me some of the ideas for how to manage this isn the future will be game changers as the tech evolves
interesting times
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
How am I able to put red diesel in a genny, generate electric for a similar price to the grid, and harvest the majority of the remaining (60%) calorific value as heat effectively for free.
It's hard to ignore natural gas with it being the UKs main generating source.
And as we see first hand, many renewables are heavily dependent on a fossil fuel base....
I agree high voltage AC power losses are lower than quoted , but unsure on transformer losses.
We know most calories go through the cooling towers ...
Last edited:
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
I bet there will come a time that the grid and our power points will be able to communicate. You plug your car in at 6pm when you return home, but the charger "waits" until it receives a signal from the grid to say there is sufficient spare power to start charging, which may be midnight, and then is still ready to leave for work at 7am when you need to. My car might charge at midnight, my neighbour's might charge at 2am....all told to start charging to balance the supply and demand on the grid. Intelligent Economy 7 as such.
Plenty of things we charge don't need charging the second we plug them in....but we don't have a way to manage this yet.
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
Not just that......but if Agrochemical Ltd make a product called Herbicide 1, it may or may not be made by the same person year on year. It could be put out to tender. Saying avoid this product, or brand range won't necessarily help. It's the factory behind the scenes that cause the problem...and you'll never know who they were. But....you won't need to either as the company will switch the contract to another firm if the first don't meet the required terms, quality etc. We don't need to know everything ourselves.
Intesringly is the ability for your car to feed in any spare power at 6pm when home from work when demand is peak
One car insignificant but combined effect of millions of cars all doing so and it starts to make sense
Reality is once cars are driverless why would many people own one or want it parked at their house ? The streets could be cleared if parked cars could all go back to depots when not required.
When you need one you simply ask one to come
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
I would rather have 2 tanks in my car. One without road duty .
Get home, car in garage (boiler room). Connect alternator to house wiring. Use heat from radiator and clean exhaust for central heating. Your car as your power plant.
Basically free heat
circuitreeenergyfarms
New Member
- Location
- Nationwide
Hi Steve, you make a very timely point. The likes of Tesla have outlined a smart grid vision which will effectively create potential grid capacity from the EV vehicles on the road (yet to be proven if UK grid is viable) . In the short term though, this interconnectivity between supplier and grid is already happening on farm scale commercial applications which provide services to the National Grid. For more information, head over to our website or send me a PM. Happy to talk about the role of batteries in modern farming. Regards, Matt
ollie989898
Member
Software can be written to charge the car at night, when demand is less than half what it is in the day time. Peak demand is only for a few hours in the evening when it would be just as cheap if not simpler to buy it from France or put it down a waterfall or pipe for a few hours.
I don't see what need there is for mass energy storage, however, you can store energy very very readily by stealing some tech they use in the real solar power industry- you melt nitrate salts into a liquid, store them and then run them through a heat exchanger as required.
I don't see what need there is for mass energy storage, however, you can store energy very very readily by stealing some tech they use in the real solar power industry- you melt nitrate salts into a liquid, store them and then run them through a heat exchanger as required.