🌲 Green investing 🌲

There have been green investment funds around since at least the 1980s. There’s much more green wash now though to jump on the ethical bandwagon.
Check out The Ethical Consumer magazine for features on green investments and products.


Here’s one that could be of interest.

I mean what’s greener than plastic?


I have like the following ‘green’ companies…

  • Thredup… secondhand clothes
  • HydrogenOne…
  • Power Plug… hydrogen power
  • Wall box…power sockets for cars
  • Fluence Energy… storage of power
  • Oxford Nanopore… excited by this company for the last few years as they evolved, I love some of the non covid applications around pest control and crops.

I guess my bias is a love for science and tech!


Is that a auto spellcheck error or actually Covid related? And welcome to the community :beers:

Edit - I see what you mean now as in not Covid related, I read it as something stopping Covid :rofl: My error totally!

Well…it made you laugh…cheers for the welcome.


One of the most popular ETF’s over the last week was

Focused on battery tech with a threshold for ESG compliance it was brought 91 time for everyone 1 sale. Available on Freetrade Plus it looks like a good way to gain exposure to a mix of battery tech companies.


I think with green investments the sell is the easy bit. Tesla’s history being a poster child of course***

The hard bit from there is a combination of expectation management (some years will be spectacular, some will be decidedly dicey), and that I wouldn’t describe green investing as the easiest sector within which to learn. All that being said, I think it’s among the most lucrative sectors of all, I strongly encourage everyone to give it a serious look on financial grounds alone. It’s just a challenging sector to navigate, so a huge thanks to @Big-g for seeking to do something about that.

*** Emphasis from me on history. I wouldn’t personally recommend Tesla at this precise moment, as this would imply that I think a valuation equal to Toyota, VW, Daimler, GM, Ford, Lucid, Nio, BMW, Ferrari and a couple of Chinese makers of similar market cap that I haven’t heard of - combined - represents a bargain.


I agree with everything you’ve said about Tesla, however I’ve thought the same thing for a few years meanwhile it has carried on marching upwards. I think it’s totally irrational but I’m now trying my best not to tell people not to invest because who knows how long it can stay irrational? :laughing:


As John Maynard Keynes famously said: “The stock market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent”


thanks for mentioning my thread, and for a fantastic list of ETFs and shares.

Btw, I published a weekly email on clean energy investing!

I recently bought Fluence Energy… and think UK based ITM Power will go places in the green hydrogen space.

PS, My clean energy shares have done way better than any other segment (other than bitcoin miners). Especially the INRG ETF


Dude, this video is filled with so much disinformation and utter nonsense I’m not even going to bother taking it apart - there are so many it would take me hours. If anyone wants to debate, post the most important point that you think is correct from this video and we can discuss. Otherwise you can safely ignore the entire thing from first word to last.


I saw the headline and thought “clickbait” and it reminded me of an old Top Gear claim from the Clarkson days. :rofl: I assumed snippets of truth bent and twisted to suit a narrative.

So delete the video? This isn’t the BBC newsdesk - it doesn’t deserve absolutely equal prominence just because it’s the opposite viewpoint. Sometimes wrong things are just wrong.

The three fallacies here are investing 101 = (1) Thinking that the stock price is telling you something useful, (2) falling to distinguish between a great company and a great stock, and (3) not recognising the powerful effect of emotion that drive an upwards curve.

As for the first, in the words of my hero Warren Buffett: “The market is there to serve you, not instruct you”. The stock-market says nothing to you that useful. It’s an expression of what short-term traders are doing and speculators reacting to headlines and God-knows what. The critical issue is the value; and that comes from some kind of assessment as to earnings and performance you expect the company to generate in the future. The movement of price is probably the least important factor. For me, I’ve more-or-less internalised this now; and I really hate overpaying for stock. Buying a fabulous company means virtually nothing if you buy it expensively. It creates an awful drag on performance that has a high opportunity cost. Not to mention the friction of transactions. Freetrade is fabulous because they’ve cut out transactional fees which used to be £10 or so per order!

The trick I’ve always done is to ask people what they would do if their stock (usually AMC & GME on reddit) hits $1M ? If they’re part of the HODL-crowd morons; then make it $1B? It doesn’t make sense to hold it at those absurd prices? So, at least at some level, most people can intuitively sense that there is some connection between price and value. Then, its a case of reeling them in … like a fisherman!! :sweat_smile:

As for the second, there’s no way of knowing for sure; but I always suspect that people buy Tesla stock (and the like) because they like Elon Musk, they love EV technology, they like electric-cars and electric-cars feels like a new frontier of humanity. That’s all good – but it says nothing about the stock. People buy stock - like they would support a charity or political party. Like a show of solidarity. At least, that’s my perception?

Thirdly, the incredible force of human emotion really does drive markets. If you ever look at the market curve cycle, you can see hysteria and euphoria drive the upwards graph. And there’s no reason why it cannot go on for years. If you know anything about the Dutch Tulip Mania and other similar bubbles, then you understand that irrationality is a visecral aspect of human behaviour. The only solution here is to avoid getting taken in with the madness of crowds. Just watch how people behave on Black Friday when they think they’re getting a bargain. Or when covid struck and idiots went to buy up almost all the toilet paper in shops. Just total irrationality. That’s the force that drives valuations on heightened light-hearted optimism – all you can do is stay away.


Video originally posted on YouTube on 29 October 2021. I am unaware of the date of recording. Posting a link to said video a few posts above received the following reaction:

Well then. Let’s read a selection of quotes from the video (Warning: the punctuation is mine; it may be wrong; unintentionally):

In the United States we have almost completely displaced coal from our fuel mix with natural gas because, as cheap as coal is, it’s not free. So it’s about 50% of our power now. That’s really the source of our emissions reductions as well.

True or False? Fact or disinformation?

… my solar panels work great. However, that’s not how it works for most people. Now, what this map does is it shows solar radiation per year on average. Any place that’s in red is a zone where solar panels make great economic sense, great environmental sense, that’s good. Orange starts to fall off, no longer makes economic sense at all. You’ll probably, it’ll probably be a wash for you but no better than that. By the time you move into green, you will never generate enough electricity to pay down the carbon debt that it took to build the panels in the first place. So red good, green bad. That’s solar.
Same basic concept here for wind. Red good, green bad. Here we combine them. The blue is good wind, the green is good solar, the dark green is good for both. […] If you live more than a thousand miles from where the power is generated the load loss from the transmission basically makes the entire exercise pointless. If you have solar panels over a corn field you’re not growing corn. If you have wind turbines above about 3000 meters the density of air is not enough to turn them. […] This removes over 90 percent of the world’s land surface. So that’s problem one. The technologies, as we have them right now, just don’t work very well.

Is the information on the maps True or False? Fact or disinformation?

When transporting energy over large distances, from the point of production to the point of consumption, there’s a loss of energy. Is this True or False? Fact or disinformation?

If you have solar panels over a corn field you’re not growing corn. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

If you have wind turbines above about 3000 meters the density of air is not enough to turn them. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

The technologies, as we have them right now, just don’t work very well. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

Problem two […] it’s finance. This is the cost structure for the entire life cycle of a natural gas plant. And as you can see, about three-quarters of the cost of the plant is fuel. And only about a fifth of the cost of the plant is actually up front. In this environment, the financial world we’re going trough, is normal, it works. Because you’re paying for it as you go. But that doesn’t work for green tech. In the case of wind specifically, two-thirds of the cost is construction. On solar panels it’s closer to three-quarters, which means you have to finance it up front.

True or False? Fact or disinformation?

If you want to spend money on an energy transition, I strongly encourage you to do the math first. Most environmentalists don’t do that. […] And so… you put solar panels in Toronto or New York, and you’re actually making the problem worse.

True or False? Fact or disinformation?

Now, there’s a material science question coming through that might change this in a few years. Not today, not tomorrow, but in a few years. And that’s with batteries. We know that lithium is not energy dense enough. And we know that the process of making lithium batteries is so carbon intensive that it’s actually contributing to the problem. If you’re driving an ev anywhere, except for where you’ve got your grid fully powered by hydro, you’re actually increasing your carbon footprint locally. If we can crack the code on batteries then this map changes. Because right now we can’t store. Now, California, our greenest state, our most pro-green political system, only has one minute of energy storage right now. Los Angeles is the american metro that is furthest along with plans to install grid storage. They hope by 2045 to have one hour. And until you can get to three hours you can’t even smooth out the day night cycle. So, I mean, we’re nowhere close. But if we can get a better battery, the math changes and all of a sudden all the orange zones make a lot of sense. […] if you want to make a net zero goal, we can’t even pretend to make that math work until we have a better battery system.

Lithium is not energy dense enough. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

The process of making lithium batteries is so carbon intensive that it’s actually contributing to the problem. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

If we can crack the code on batteries then this map changes. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

Battery systems are not good enough yet if we want a to achieve a net zero goal. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

Renewables aren’t ready. You’re not going to crack that code and get it ready to go in two years, so I would put that one to the side. That doesn’t mean you can’t do green tech in general for things like energy conservation.

Renewables aren’t ready. True or False? Fact or disinformation?

Personal note: I want energy to be cheap, sustainable and clean.

Quite simply - misinformation :rofl: Renewables are not the entire answer but part of it. It doesn’t have to be black or white but same as most things it is grey. For example Nuclear is an important part of the energy sector to reduce carbon but many green people hate it.

In many areas the renewables are sourced locally and help reduce carbon and demand from old sources. This is the problem with misinformation as they, the spreader, take parts of the argument and stack them high to make a convincing case, ignoring other parts, but when broken down they don’t actually match up.

Renewables are ready 100% but if some idiots use them in the wrong ways then of course they won’t be great, same with anything.

Not sure that 90% of land is above 3000 meters as if it was then surely sea levels wouldn’t be an issue. :rofl: And lots is literally on the sea level at sea.

What is the average land elevation on Earth?

The average elevation of the land is 800m ,

Why use a corn field? There is plenty of land that is not being used that could be used instead.

This is true but my solar panels mean I now have cheaper living costs for the next 20+ years so not sure how that is bad thing and huge savings in the long run.

And finally the battery thing, yes it may be harder on a bigger scale but see Elon for it being possible and again on a house level I already have storage and below are the options.

Solar Panel Battery Storage - Which?

Elon Musk’s New Battery Farm in Australia - 300-Megawatt Battery (popularmechanics.com)

There are elements of truth, no doubt, but it definitely reeks of some exaggerations possibly.

This I am sure we all agree on :+1:

Actually, I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s misinformation nor disinformation.

Solar and wind are intermittent sources for energy production. The sun shines 24/7/365. Do solar/ photovoltaic panels harness the sun’s energy 24/7/365? No. They only do it during day time. Does the wind blow at constant speeds 24/7/365 on every corner of the planet? No. Sometimes we have wind. Sometimes we don’t. Then, there’s the ability to store the energy produced. Energy must be consumed as it is produced or it gets lost. There are countries with a substantial number of wind farms. There are cases where, when the wind blows during the night, the energy produced gets lost or sold for zero. Because there’s no sustainable way to store it. Batteries are not good enough yet. I wish they were, and I hope we continue to invest in the development of battery technology and in other technologies so that, one day, we can ditch fossil fuels based energy production. And since batteries are not good enough yet, we, unfortunately, still need to use coal, gas and nuclear in order to guarantee the supply of energy at all times for consumers. Solar and wind may be ready in a sense, but the breakthrough we need to rely 100% on renewables depends on batteries.

Precisely. They are not ready yet to be the answer we all want it to be. But they can be part of a mix. A mix that includes coal, gas and nuclear.

The video does not claim

The claim from the video is, if I understand it correctly, that combining the information on the maps for solar and wind, 90% of the world’s land is useless for production of renewable energy in an economic point of view.

Good on you.

I want a battery that lasts for a week. The size of the Mona Lisa’s frame. Willing to pay £1000 for it.

1 Like

Brilliant. It’s already happening and on its way :grinning:


OK, cool that is me misreading it :+1: I still think it uses extremes to make a point when in reality renewables are ready but ready doesn’t mean they will do it all. We as a country are nearly coal free for energy already so the energy works but needs more infrastructure built.

The points about lost energy etc are irrelevant if it is free then we could lose 90% if it is still enough supply from wind or solar etc. The problem is the carbon energy sectors pushing the bad points so people are reluctant to invest in the infrastructure needed. It will happen though 100% and the tech now could do it but that will only improve massively and in a short time now funds are going into it big time.

On the misinformation bit maybe it is a matter of different interpretation. To me misinformation is when you either lie or bend the truth to suit your narrative but maybe others don’t see it that way. :stuck_out_tongue: Using things like the corn field bend an argument that isn’t really the issue as you don’t need to build it in a corn field. This to me is misinformation.

Anyhow not arguing with you but just debating :stuck_out_tongue: :+1:

1 Like