Should LEGO cut ties with Shell?

[Lind Whisperer]

You got to love how no one seems to have told Greenpeace(or 'certain other parties'), that if a polar bear is floating off on an ice-berg, it's probably so that he* can take some time off from the wife and kids.

Seeing as how polar bears can swim up to 62 miles, and all.

But, you can't really blame them - you just can't get the same effect by saying "Polar bears might have to take a few extra laps than normal to reach their new ice floe"...**

*Or she.

**This is the end of that thought. Any comments should be within the boundaries of the end of that thought.

[Meatman]

I watched the video on YouTube and as you would expect there were comments like "stop picking on an innocent toy". Greenpeace reply was something like "Our campaign is not against LEGO, its against Shell". If thats the case, why bring LEGO into it?

They know that it is the #1 toy, so they figure they can get some sympathy support from a small % of the millions of people that buy Lego.

[CrazyDalton777]

They know that it is the #1 toy, so they figure they can get some sympathy support from a small % of the millions of people that buy Lego.

That plan kinda backfired on them, they now have more hate than if they had left LEGO alone, nobody would have minded.

[antp]

promo sets from 2012 now available in Germany:

http://brickset.com/article/12023

was it the best moment for releasing that?

(thought that it was probably planned since some time...)

[Boxerlego]

Erm, a magnet is not a source of energy - I hope you have not been taken in by any of those phoney perpetual motion machines!!

Magnets are like LEGO bricks, Magnets holds together a force, collapse the force there's a source of energy. Now understand that the battery goes through a chemical breakdown which in turns produces a low voltage with high current; However, on the magnet end it behaves the opposite, the magnet can make more voltage but not much current. There are several thing to do and take in to consideration to get more voltage/current out of a battery or to get more voltage/current out of a magnet. Now to boil everything down and focuses on niche areas that can relate to each other, it can be viewed that it depends on how it is connected most of the time just like LEGO bricks. In electrical theology Voltage would be presented in terms of height and Current is presented in term of flow, put the two terms together can be described as a waterfall. Now the idea that perpetual motion don't exist could results from the fact that there is erosion in the environment and some day either the waterfalls dries up or just stops working due to the several events of erosion. What I'm taken in by is efficiency or making the most with what you have.

[antp]

Even if you exclude the erosion, the waterfall isn't perpetual: its power source is the sun (which isn't perpetual, it is just a very long life).

The water that is at the top comes from rain/snow, which comes from clouds, themselves resulting of the evaporation of water from the lower levels. That evaporation is due to the sun.

(and I do not see what you tried to explain with magnets, but as said in the quoted posts, it is not a source of energy)

[Heppeng]

Magnets are like LEGO bricks, Magnets holds together a force, collapse the force there's a source of energy. Now understand that the battery goes through a chemical breakdown which in turns produces a low voltage with high current; However, on the magnet end it behaves the opposite, the magnet can make more voltage but not much current. There are several thing to do and take in to consideration to get more voltage/current out of a battery or to get more voltage/current out of a magnet. Now to boil everything down and focuses on niche areas that can relate to each other, it can be viewed that it depends on how it is connected most of the time just like LEGO bricks. In electrical theology Voltage would be presented in terms of height and Current is presented in term of flow, put the two terms together can be described as a waterfall. Now the idea that perpetual motion don't exist could results from the fact that there is erosion in the environment and some day either the waterfalls dries up or just stops working due to the several events of erosion. What I'm taken in by is efficiency or making the most with what you have.

A simple 'yes I have been taken in by these phoney perpetual motion machines ' would have sufficed...

Edited August 28, 2014 by Heppeng

[Boxerlego]

Even if you exclude the erosion, the waterfall isn't perpetual: its power source is the sun (which isn't perpetual, it is just a very long life).

The water that is at the top comes from rain/snow, which comes from clouds, themselves resulting of the evaporation of water from the lower levels. That evaporation is due to the sun.

(and I do not see what you tried to explain with magnets, but as said in the quoted posts, it is not a source of energy)

Good analogies for magnets and batteries is that magnets are working like a water pump and batteries are working as water reservoir to hold the water that the water pump pumps. Understand that there is erosion events going on in the battery, so you cant really exclude erosion with something that going to involves batteries. Everything about magnets and batteries will make sense when you understand that Capacitors resits change in Voltage and Inductors resits change in Current.

A simple 'yes I have' would have sufficed...

Now it just not that simple as a yes or no answer dealing with perceptual perpetual motion. Besides science has already establish a phenomena know as Persistent Current. This persistent current is regarded as an electrical current that doesn't stop in the wire due to the zero resistance in the wire created by specific temperatures.

A simple "I want you to know the magnet stores energy in the form of the Magnetic Field" would have been nice . Don't mislead yourself into thinking the stuff I say involving magnets something as perceptual perpetual motion when its not.

Edit:

@Heppeng That was a typo and never was it aimed at to get anyone confused here. Just a simple typing mistake with spell check where pereptual turned in to perceptual.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Boxerlego

[ShaydDeGrai]

Magnets are already at the heart of power generation (pretty much all power generation except solar panels, piesio-electrics and fuel cells) from wind turbines and hydro-electric dams to fossil fuel based plants and atomic reactors. Sometimes they use static magnets (like rare earth dipoles), sometimes they use electro-magnets (where electricity is used to induce a temporary magnetic field in a coil of conducting medium (the more common case for large scale energy production). The problem is, a magnet by itself does very little _work_ - yes it might attract a nearby ferrous object or repel a like pole from another magnet, but such a system rapidly reaches steady state and once that state is achieved no work is done - which is to say no energy is transduced into another usable form.

For a magnet to be a "source" of energy it needs to be in motion. Passing a wire through a _rapidly changing_ magnetic field DOES induce an electrical current (the world would be a much darker place if this were not the case) and the simplest way to make that magnetic field change is to move the magnet. This is the core principle behind all turbine-based electrical generation from windmills and waterwheels to steam engines (and really oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear plants are really just big boilers to generate steam to power the turbines). The problem is, it takes energy to move the magnet in the first place.

This is where the three laws of thermo-dynamics rise up to bite you in the butt. Simply put the laws state:

1) You can't win

2) You can't break even

3) You can't stop playing (Okay, so maybe I spent too much time at a card table instead of a classroom at some point, but you get the idea…)

While the total mass-energy of any closed system is constant, the amount of _usable_ energy we can extract from that system is bounded by its efficiency; and this is really where we have traditionally dropped the ball and is our best hope for a "greener" future. We _know_ that a variable magnetic field will induce an electric current and the base equation for this would make it seem like magnets should be a source of "free" energy. To tap that potential, however, we need to expend energy to move the magnet, and every system we've come up with to date to do _that_ job has expended more energy than the magnetic field/wire interaction produced.

This is because the transduction isn't pure. We're not turing the stored chemical energy of oil directly into electricity; we're turning it into heat, with some of that energy going into producing chemical by-products. Then we're using the heat to boil water and create pressure (another form of potential energy) with some of that heat being used to heat (and deform) the pipes and tanks the water flows through, the air outside those pipes, etc. The pressure is then used as mechanical energy to turn a turbine where more energy is lost to brownian motion of the air particles themselves, friction, overcoming gravity and the magnetic field interactions of the magnets on the turbine, etc. Excess pressure is bled off from the system and exhaust gases carry away even more heat and kinetic energy on the "outflow" side of the turbine. Finally the magnet moves and induces a current in the wire, where Maxwell's Equations kick in and immediately start bleeding off electrical energy from the system in the form of heat, more magnetic fields and (at a nano-scopic level) electron depletion and metal fatigue.

I used oil as an example as this thread started with Shell, but _any_ turbine based system is going to face similar issues. Nuclear cores lose energy to atomic decay and radiation (in addition to all of the "classic inefficient tea pot" issues mentioned above. Hydro-electric systems avoid the problems of making stream, but lose energy to excess kinetic energy on the outflow and to friction which causes heat and metal fatigue and the (non-trivial) energy costs of fabricating and replacing high wear and tear elements must be considered as well. With current technologies, over the life of a power plant, roughly two-thirds of the energy expended to extract electricity from moving magnets is wasted before it ever gets to your home.

Think about that for a second, for every Watt of power we use, two Watts of power were wasted either wearing out parts, polluting (physically or thermally) the environment or both. If Greenpeace wants to protest something, why don't they start with the rampant waste inherent in the system. Then again I guess you just don't make the same sort of headlines waving signs like "Frictionless Bearings NOW!" as you do with meaningless grandstanding against brand names like Shell and LEGO...

Getting back to the off-topic topic, I suppose the good news is that when you start at an efficiency rating in the low 30's it gives you a lot of room for improvement. Traditional systems can reduce friction and air resistance by using electro-magnetic bearings in a vacuum. Better insulating materials and heat exchange technologies can reduce (but never eliminate) thermal loses. Modern materials (ceramics, carbon fiber nano-fabrication, etc.) can extend the life of parts. New technologies (fuel cells, thermocouples, photovoltaics, thin-film transducers, etc) are exploring more direct means of converting various forms of potential energy to electricity more efficiently than we do today. Better conductors for power-lines and more efficient appliances can reduce losses on the transmission and consumption sides. The bottom line hasn't changed though, you always have to put more energy into a system than you can hope to get out of it.

So, unfortunately, magnetism isn't going to solve the world's energy problems. It plays, and will likely continue to play, a major role in the basic principles of power generation, but tapping into that potential is where we keep falling short.

Edited August 28, 2014 by ShaydDeGrai

[Heppeng]

Very well put and informative.

However, if this is aimed at someone who gets confused with the difference between perceptual and perpetual, then I perceive (see what I did there?) the only thing perpetual will be his attempts to justify his views, irrespective of how well the laws of physics are explained...

[Robert8]

It happened: Lego ended the partnership with Shell

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/lego-ends-shell-partnership-following-greenpeace-campaign

[gratefulnat]

The LEGO press release concerning their partnership with Shell and the Greenpeace campaign:

http://aboutus.lego....-the-lego-brand

[Missing Brick]

That's a very sad capitulation from TLG. But regrettably understandable: The Greenpeace campaign, however ill-informed and unjustified, was an unwanted headache for a company that just wants to get on with selling its toys (made from oil ) in peace. But it may turn out to be short sighted: The environmental extremists won't stop there. How long before they start targeting Lego directly - along with other companies that rely heavily on oil to make their products?

Maybe this will be a lesson for Shell who have gone to great lengths to flatter and bow to the extremist environmental movement - even helping to fund them. Time to wake up guys: they want to shut you down. Time to stop grovelling and apologising. Time to start fighting! Shell should be getting out there and publicising all the many benefits of fossil fuels; how they provide billions of people around the world with essential heat, light, power, transport, fertiliser, plastic feedstocks, semiconductors etc etc. Time to stop apologising for creating our modern world and time to start celebrating it and taking credit for it.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Missing Brick

[legoman19892]

It happened: Lego ended the partnership with Shell.

Incorrect.

According to the article and Jorgen's statement it appears that LEGO will honor the contract in full.

Edited October 9, 2014 by legoman19892

[antp]

Yes, they only say that will not renew it when it will end.

They mention a long-term contract started in 2011... maybe it is a 10-year contract, they don't say

[lightningtiger]

They don't want to break a contract with a company with more cash, etc., than Lego.....right ?

[Roger_Smith]

Yes, they only say that will not renew it when it will end.

They mention a long-term contract started in 2011... maybe it is a 10-year contract, they don't say

It will end in 18 months.

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/lego-beendet-spielzeug-aktion-mit-shell-nach-greenpeace-kritik-a-996299.html (in german, relevant bit: "Nach Greenpeace-Informationen endet der Vertrag in 18 Monaten, er soll einen Wert von umgerechnet rund 81 Millionen Euro haben.", so it's Greenpeace that released this information. However, I don't see why they would claim it will end sooner than it really will)

[MAB]

It happened: Lego ended the partnership with Shell

http://www.theguardi...npeace-campaign

Incorrect.

According to the article and Jorgen's statement it appears that LEGO will honor the contract in full.

The brand consultant (Mark Borkowski) that "wondered why Lego with such a strong brand and such dominance would get into bed with Shell" and thought that "Greenpeace have done an outstanding job, to apply the pressure" just happens to be employed by Greenpeace. Although it seems The Guardian forgot to mention that.

[Mr. Cube]

One thing is that Shell is not an environmental-friendly company. You may make your own research what this company did with local nature and people in some countries...terrible things. Another thing is that the Greenpeace should IMHO care much more about devastation of rainforests and water pollution than about global warming/cooling/climate change...because that is some kind of science-religion, bussiness and nanny state thing.

[LOTRfan]

I'm not going to get caught up in the environmental argument, but won't this mean that the review copies and the quick buyers will be able to sell them for crazy money?

[legoman19892]

I'm not going to get caught up in the environmental argument, but won't this mean that the review copies and the quick buyers will be able to sell them for crazy money?

LEGO isn't ending the partnership. They aren't going to renew it according to sources.

It will be just like any other short lived theme like Lone Ranger, Speed Racer, etc.

[Off the wall]

I'll buy more Shell products and less Lego. My discretionary income level and my age allow me to buy more Lego than what I really need. Both for myself and others. I don't respect companies that cave in to this type of blackmail. Unfortunately, most do......

[dr_spock]

I'm not going to get caught up in the environmental argument, but won't this mean that the review copies and the quick buyers will be able to sell them for crazy money?

Depends on how collectible they are and are collectors willing to pay crazy money for them.

They don't want to break a contract with a company with more cash, etc., than Lego.....right ?

More cash is not an issue if both parties mutually agree to terminate the contract. The problem arises when only one party wants to break or can't meet their contractual obligations. Then you can have the lawsuits.

Others may not want to do business with you if you have a reputation of breaking contracts or agreements.

I'll buy more Shell products and less Lego. My discretionary income level and my age allow me to buy more Lego than what I really need. Both for myself and others. I don't respect companies that cave in to this type of blackmail. Unfortunately, most do......

Or you could stick Shell stickers on all MOCs to protest.

[anton1678]

Greenpeace targets the rich and targets the well known to get attention

It strategically targets things that [some/most people] have alternatives for or don't use:

Shell

Lego

Kit-Kat

Whale meat

iPhone

It just tries to get money, and people end up either loving or hating it. It puts you on their side or their enemies side.

A good idea for a protest against Greenpeace involvement would be a Shell contest, where we have to try and build something related to Shell e.g. Shell drilling rig, Shell station, Shell truck, Shell oil tower, etc.

[Off the wall]

A good idea for a protest against Greenpeace involvement would be a Shell contest, where we have to try and build something related to Shell e.g. Shell drilling rig, Shell station, Shell truck, Shell oil tower, etc.

Put 14 gallons of Shell in my car yesterday. Then walked through the Lego store and didn't buy anything.