More Green failure, corruption, and tax payer waste.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Rush reads report he doesn't agree with.

Q. Do I agree with this report.
A. No

Wow, didn't I do a great job questioning this report and not just simply disregarding it. So proud of myself, I deserve a treat.

[rushmc 23]

Your so lost

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

You're

[billvon 2,998]

>Talk to me when wind and solar pass coal for electricity generation.

Renewables are already past nuclear - and are still growing.

> According to your article coal is still #1.

You didn't read the article did you. "In April 2015 electricity generation from natural gas surpassed generation from coal in the US for the first time."

Natural gas is now #1 in the US; coal will continue to decline. More dirty power failure and taxpayer waste!

[billvon 2,998]

> And they use governments, non elected bureaucrats and the courts to push their
>shit through because the public at large does not by into the bull shit .

Gallup poll, March 2016:
Which is more important, protection of the environment or development of US energy supplies?
Environment 59%
US energy supplies 34%
Both 2%
Neither 1%
No 3%

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 18-22, 2015:
"In order to help reduce global warming, would you be willing or not willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy?"
Willing 55%
Not willing 43%
Unsure 3%

Pew Research Center. Nov. 6-9, 2014:
"Do you favor or oppose setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change?"
Favor 64%
Oppose 31%
Unsure 5%

Sounds like the government is listening to the voice of the people.

[brenthutch 444]

gowlerk

Quote

And for you call me a deadender makes me happy!Laugh
Name calling usually signals the end of the debate.

You are correct, the debate is over. The change to renewables is unstoppable. The deadenders will keep on whining to the grave though.!

LOL, the change to renewables will grind to a halt the moment it is removed from the government teat. While, like it or not, fossil fuels will continue to power our economy and our prosperity beyond this century.

"Most renewable energy industries are heavily dependent on government subsidies, and without constant taxpayer support, many renewable energy industries cannot survive. Both American and British renewable energy companies have failed when policymakers decrease subsidies. Most wind and solar installations are not cost-effective on the open market, necessitating a never-ending cycle of subsidies. Without the crutch of guaranteed profit from the government, renewable energy industries will have to innovate so that renewables are reliable, efficient and cost-effective. As long as subsidies exist, taxpayers have to support industries that aren't economically viable on their own."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/263214-the-hard-truths-about-renewable-energy-and-subsidies

[billvon 2,998]

>LOL, the change to renewables will grind to a halt the moment it is removed from
>the government teat.

It would certainly slow its growth. But since large scale PV is now cheaper than coal power, it will certainly not stop it.

On the other hand, how much gasoline do you think we'd use if people were removed from the government teat known as "roads?"

[brenthutch 444]

Reductio ad Absurdum, I expect better from you.

[gowlerk 2,205]

brenthutch

***

Quote

And for you call me a deadender makes me happy!Laugh
Name calling usually signals the end of the debate.

You are correct, the debate is over. The change to renewables is unstoppable. The deadenders will keep on whining to the grave though.!

LOL, the change to renewables will grind to a halt the moment it is removed from the government teat. While, like it or not, fossil fuels will continue to power our economy and our prosperity beyond this century.

"Most renewable energy industries are heavily dependent on government subsidies, and without constant taxpayer support, many renewable energy industries cannot survive. Both American and British renewable energy companies have failed when policymakers decrease subsidies. Most wind and solar installations are not cost-effective on the open market, necessitating a never-ending cycle of subsidies. Without the crutch of guaranteed profit from the government, renewable energy industries will have to innovate so that renewables are reliable, efficient and cost-effective. As long as subsidies exist, taxpayers have to support industries that aren't economically viable on their own."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/263214-the-hard-truths-about-renewable-energy-and-subsidies


Those things are true. But they fail to take into account that the decision to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable has been made. The fact that the change over will require policies that go against pure capitalist ideology is irrelevant. The key decisions have been made, the wheel is in motion, and you can not stop it.

You are making the error of confusing short term costs with long term investments. The money we put into renewables now will contribute to our future success. Deadenders don't like that, but they can't stop it.

All you can do is complain about it online, and vote for fellow deadenders. Neither strategy will have much effect on the future of policy.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 803]

What exactly is his "so lost"? I've never heard of anyone having one of those before. You didn't even finish the sentence!

WTF does that even mean?

[billvon 2,998]

>Reductio ad Absurdum, I expect better from you.

Ha! Financing solar development is "corruption and taxpayer waste" - but not funding roads would be unthinkable, and any such comparison is "absurd."

About what I expected. Continue to support coal and oppose renewable energy sources; let's see what that gets you in ten years.

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

Talk to me when wind and solar pass coal for electricity generation. According to your article coal is still #1.

Growth rates are a far more meaningful metric for comparison.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

SkyDekker

***Your so lost

You're

I'm pretty sure he was just trying to return your lost emoticons!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,499]

brenthutch

Yes at least at the end of the day we will have a plane. The same things were said about the Abrams tank and Apache helicopter, and they turned out to be great kit.

Yes, the Abrams is a great tank, and thanks to it the US has been able to... invade Iraq twice. So that was a good use of sixty billion dollars.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 444]

In ten years fossil fuels will still produce more energy than wind and solar, and you are not so dense to believe otherwise.

[brenthutch 444]

Saddle up your unicorn and don your rose colored glasses Pollyanna! There is just one thing between you and your green utopia...math.

[brenthutch 444]

jcd11235

***Talk to me when wind and solar pass coal for electricity generation. According to your article coal is still #1.

Growth rates are a far more meaningful metric for comparison.

Only if those growth rates are sustainable, and it has been demonstrated that they are not.

[Phil1111 1,149]

gowlerk

***No I do not think any good will ever come out of it. I think the never ending failures and corruption will continue until rational heads prevail and put a stop to the nonsense.

Now that's what I mean when I talk about deadenders. A complete lack of vision and inability to acknowledge obvious change coming down the track. Like a coal powered locomotive, it's coming straight at you. The switch to diesel electric power was resisted by some. Especially fire tenders. You can rail on and on about the change being forced on you. But here it comes, get out of the way. The times they are a changing.

I think you mean a Luddite.

[Phil1111 1,149]

"Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

1 June 2016
Investments in renewables during the year were more than double the amount spent on new coal and gas-fired power plants, the Renewables Global Status Report found.

For the first time, emerging economies spent more than the rich on renewable power and fuels.

Over 8 million people are now working in renewable energy worldwide.

For a number of years, the global spend on renewables has been increasing and 2015 saw that arrive at a new peak according to the report.
Falling costs key

About 147 gigawatts (GW) of capacity was added in 2015, roughly equivalent to Africa's generating capacity from all sources. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36420750

[winsor 236]

brenthutch

******Talk to me when wind and solar pass coal for electricity generation. According to your article coal is still #1.

Growth rates are a far more meaningful metric for comparison.

Only if those growth rates are sustainable, and it has been demonstrated that they are not.

Okay, let's ignore the whole climate change thing or, better yet, assume that burning fossil fuels will result in the climate being just the way we like it. It keeps my air conditioner and heater going, ant any rate.

The problem is that these resources are finite. I know they appear limitless to the uninitiated, but they are not.

For the past couple of centuries we have become better and better at chasing down deposits of these fossil fuels, and doing all sorts of marvelous things with them ("Plastics!"), but the reality is that we are using them up.

There will always be some fossil fuels, simply because the last vestiges of oil, gas and coal will be beyond economical recovery, but even rising prices making more and more reserves economically accessible does not change the fact that we are running out.

We are with energy like a junkie sitting on top of a large quantity of narcotics, who is thus convinced that he is set for life (such as it is). Telling him that his continued chemical bliss involves planting poppies and going through the process of extracting opium, extracting base morphine and so forth does not sit well with our junkie friend, and our continued energy bliss is similarly dependent on looking at supplanting our large but finite energy stash.

The reality is that whatever energy sources prevail in the foreseeable future, they will not be identical to the energy sources upon which we have relied so far.

Then again, what do I know - I am but a lowly Thermodynamicist.


BSBD,

Winsor

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

Only if those growth rates are sustainable, and it has been demonstrated that they are not.

In which case we look at higher derivatives, not current values.

Current usage rates of fossil fuels are also not sustainable, which is why it's a matter of when, not if, the world's energy needs are met by green/sustainable/renewable resources.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[brenthutch 444]

I agree, however that will be well into the next century, to place bets on today's technology would be misguided and wasteful.

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

I agree, however that will be well into the next century, to place bets on today's technology would be misguided and wasteful.

Fossil fuels will cease being an economically viable option long before the next century. Failure to invest in sustainable alternatives now is folly.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[brenthutch 444]

jcd11235

***I agree, however that will be well into the next century, to place bets on today's technology would be misguided and wasteful.

Fossil fuels will cease being an economically viable option long before the next century. Failure to invest in sustainable alternatives now is folly.

That is simply not true, with regard to coal we have centuries of power still left in the ground.

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

***Fossil fuels will cease being an economically viable option long before the next century. Failure to invest in sustainable alternatives now is folly.

That is simply not true, with regard to coal we have centuries of power still left in the ground.

Too many of coal's costs are hidden, subsidized by taxpayers. Without these subsidies, coal is not a cost effective source of energy compared to sustainable alternatives.

For example:
The impacts of coal combustion can be described in economic terms, and several papers have attempted to estimate the cost of using coal by assigning value to the environmental and public health damage caused during each stage of coal’s extraction, transportation, combustion, and disposal.One such study by Epstein et al. estimated that the external costs of coal-fired electricity in the U.S. add an extra 17.8 cents to each kWh of electricity produced; an amount that would triple its cost to consumers. Another U.S. report by Machol et al. estimates 45 cents per kWh as the cost of the health burden and environmental damages from coal combustion. Source

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!