Reality check

[brenthutch 444]

https://sovereignnations.com/2019/08/06/41-inconvenient-truths-new-energy-economy/
 

No Green New Deal, no Build Back Better, and this is why.

[winsor 236]

As usual, you have people who more or less identify a problem (which is more often than not a symptom of something else) and then postulate a set of changes that is anything but a solution.

'Twas ever thus.

I refer back to my fundamental thesis that our only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[CygnusX-1 43]

I very rarely feed trolls, but hey I read these posts just for entertainment. So keep them coming...

I don't have the will or time to debunk all 41 points, so I'll just choose the easiest one.

Quote

38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

So what the author is saying here is that the break even point between oil and batteries is cycle number 100 on the battery. And we all know that battery life is much greater than 100 cycles. Therefore, I don't think the author really has thought through his arguments very well. This is not an inconvenient truth of new energy, it is actually a reason to switch over to batteries. It seems more likely that he is trying to convince people who only look at big number vs little number without even the slightest bit of cognitive thought.

[JoeWeber 2,829]

4 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

I very rarely feed trolls, but hey I read these posts just for entertainment. So keep them coming...

I don't have the will or time to debunk all 41 points, so I'll just choose the easiest one.

So what the author is saying here is that the break even point between oil and batteries is cycle number 100 on the battery. And we all know that battery life is much greater than 100 cycles. Therefore, I don't think the author really has thought through his arguments very well. This is not an inconvenient truth of new energy, it is actually a reason to switch over to batteries. It seems more likely that he is trying to convince people who only look at big number vs little number without even the slightest bit of cognitive thought.

Seems to me that we've unlocked most of the energy from a barrel of oil with vastly greater improvements to come from batteries. So there's that, too.

[winsor 236]

2 hours ago, CygnusX-1 said:

I very rarely feed trolls, but hey I read these posts just for entertainment. So keep them coming...

I don't have the will or time to debunk all 41 points, so I'll just choose the easiest one.

So what the author is saying here is that the break even point between oil and batteries is cycle number 100 on the battery. And we all know that battery life is much greater than 100 cycles. Therefore, I don't think the author really has thought through his arguments very well. This is not an inconvenient truth of new energy, it is actually a reason to switch over to batteries. It seems more likely that he is trying to convince people who only look at big number vs little number without even the slightest bit of cognitive thought.

This would be true if electricity was free.  Last time I checked, it isn't.

[brenthutch 444]

56 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

 

58 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

I very rarely feed trolls, but hey I read these posts just for entertainment. So keep them coming...

I don't have the will or time to debunk all 41 points, so I'll just choose the easiest one.

So what the author is saying here is that the break even point between oil and batteries is cycle number 100 on the battery. And we all know that battery life is much greater than 100 cycles. Therefore, I don't think the author really has thought through his arguments very well. This is not an inconvenient truth of new energy, it is actually a reason to switch over to batteries. It seems more likely that he is trying to convince people who only look at big number vs little number without even the slightest bit of cognitive thought.

 

So you concede you are unable to address the remaining 40. I’ll that that!  97.5% is an A+ in anybody’s book.

[billvon 3,072]

2 hours ago, CygnusX-1 said:

So what the author is saying here is that the break even point between oil and batteries is cycle number 100 on the battery. And we all know that battery life is much greater than 100 cycles. Therefore, I don't think the author really has thought through his arguments very well.

Yep.

I also get a kick out of the people who complain about solar for the same reason.  "It can take two years to recover the energy you spent building the panel!"

How long will it take them to recover the amount of energy in the gasoline their car burned?

[brenthutch 444]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.

I also get a kick out of the people who complain about solar for the same reason.  "It can take two years to recover the energy you spent building the panel!"

 

Or eight years 

https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-panel-payback-period-2655204475.html

[olofscience 489]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll that that!  97.5% is an A+ in anybody’s book.

But you didn't write that article...and you're taking credit for stuff that people don't have the time to answer?

This dubious claim for an A+ makes you look like you've never gotten one. Not surprised though.

[JoeWeber 2,829]

26 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But you didn't write that article...and you're taking credit for stuff that people don't have the time to answer?

This dubious claim for an A+ makes you look like you've never gotten one. Not surprised though.

I disagree. We've given him 100% here as often as not.

[metalslug 36]

I'm left disappointed that there's no meaningful mention of nuclear energy in there.

[brenthutch 444]

16 hours ago, olofscience said:

But you didn't write that article...and you're taking credit for stuff that people don't have the time to answer?

This dubious claim for an A+ makes you look like you've never gotten one. Not surprised though.

I was referring to the article.  Personally, I would be happy with a C+.  
OTOH your keen scientific mind should be able to rebut all 41 points in short order.  
Eagerly awaiting your contribution.

[olofscience 489]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Eagerly awaiting your contribution.

Nice try. You didn't write those 41 points, why should I spend the time rebutting them?

I'll contribute on my terms, thank you. Now the question is, have you actually contributed anything to the discussion? You don't really have thoughts of your own and need to rely on articles other people write for you.

[brenthutch 444]

27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nice try. You didn't write those 41 points, why should I spend the time rebutting them?

I'll contribute on my terms, thank you. Now the question is, have you actually contributed anything to the discussion? You don't really have thoughts of your own and need to rely on articles other people write for you.

My thoughts have been well established on this forum for the last 19 years.  Any articles I link to are just confirmation of what I have been saying for nearly two decades.  

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Virtually every item on that list could just as well apply to "why automobiles will never replace horses" if written in the early 1800s.  "You would have to drill hundreds of thousands of oil wells, and build hundreds of refineries, plus we don't even know how to process oil into gasoline, and there's no way to get the gas to where it can be accessed by automobiles, and besides that all the roads are just mud so automobiles just get stuck.  Right now we already have plenty of pastures and hay fields, plus horses don't get stuck in muddy roads, and anyway horses are beautiful and automobiles are noisy, smelly, hard to crank-start, and they are always breaking down.  Only an idiot would think automobiles will ever replace horses."

Edited April 12, 2022 by GeorgiaDon

[billvon 3,072]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Virtually every item on that list could just as well apply to "why automobiles will never replace horses" if written in the early 1800s.  "You would have to drill hundreds of thousands of oil wells, and build hundreds of refineries, plus we don't even know how to process oil into gasoline, and there's no way to get the gas to where it can be accessed by automobiles, and besides that all the roads are just mud so automobiles just get stuck.  Right now we already have plenty of pastures and hay fields, plus horses don't get stuck in muddy roads, and anyway horses are beautiful and automobiles are noisy, smelly, hard to crank-start, and they are always breaking down.  Only an idiot would think automobiles will ever replace horses."

"And not only that - gasoline EXPLODES!  That's how it WORKS, stupid!  You are really going to want your kids sitting over an EXPLOSIVE BOMB?  And what if you want a new one, huh?  Are you going to get your neighbor to stud his car, and get a new car in six months?  How stupid are you car-lovers, anyway?  Besides, I heard of this thing called thermodynamics that states that car engines can't actually work.  Saw it on a bulletin board.  And what are you going to fuel them up with?  Unicorn farts?  You progressives are as dumb as dirt."

[JoeWeber 2,829]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

My thoughts have been well established on this forum for the last 19 years.  Any articles I link to are just confirmation of what I have been saying for nearly two decades.  

As ever, erring on the side of greatness and close enough is as good as a fact for Brent Hutchings. You're close to 6 weeks short of 19 years, love.

[billvon 3,072]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

My thoughts have been well established on this forum for the last 19 years.  Any articles I link to are just confirmation of what I have been saying for nearly two decades.  

Well, often they are not, because you fail to read them.  Indeed they often say the opposite of what you claim.  But you take them as confirmation of your erroneous claims anyway.

Perhaps that's why you have so many problems understanding science?

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Well, often they are not, because you fail to read them.  Indeed they often say the opposite of what you claim.  But you take them as confirmation of your erroneous claims anyway.

Perhaps that's why you have so many problems understanding science?

I understand there will be no green new deal, I understand increasing levels of CO2 will not result in catastrophe, I understand the notion of peek oil is a myth, I understand renewables will not overtake fossil fuels, I understand that over reliance on renewables makes energy more expensive not less, I understand internal combustion vehicles will remain the dominant form of road transportation.  What am I missing?

Edited April 13, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 489]

41 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I understand there will be no green new deal, I understand increasing levels of CO2 will not result in catastrophe, I understand the notion of peek oil is a myth, I understand renewables will not overtake fossil fuels, I understand that over reliance on renewables makes energy more expensive not less, I understand internal combustion vehicles will remain the dominant form of road transportation.  What am I missing?

If all of your knowledge fits in under 100 words...you know that's not a thing to be proud about, right?

[Phil1111 1,149]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I understand there will be no green new deal, I understand increasing levels of CO2 will not result in catastrophe, I understand the notion of peek oil is a myth, I understand renewables will not overtake fossil fuels, I understand that over reliance on renewables makes energy more expensive not less, I understand internal combustion vehicles will remain the dominant form of road transportation.  What am I missing?

After 19 years we all know you won't haul organic arugula home in a Prius. In 1811 the British parliament passed a law making the breaking of machinery a capital offense. Rising living costs. New ideas, Job training for heavens sake. The wrecking of knitting machines was like the current day attacks on gays and Disney. When people feel their entire existence is under relentless attack. They rebel and defer to tradition.

Be brave Brent. Hang in there.

[brenthutch 444]

18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

If all of your knowledge fits in under 100 words...you know that's not a thing to be proud about, right?

[brenthutch 444]

16 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

After 19 years we all know you won't haul organic arugula home in a Prius. In 1811 the British parliament passed a law making the breaking of machinery a capital offense. Rising living costs. New ideas, Job training for heavens sake. The wrecking of knitting machines was like the current day attacks on gays and Disney. When people feel their entire existence is under relentless attack. They rebel and defer to tradition.

Be brave Brent. Hang in there.

Non sequitur much?

[billvon 3,072]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

If all of your knowledge fits in under 100 words...you know that's not a thing to be proud about, right?

If it can't fit in a Tweet, it's too complex for many right wingers.

[sfzombie13 324]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

My thoughts have been well established on this forum for the last 19 years.  Any articles I link to are just confirmation of what I have been saying for nearly two decades.  

anyone who can claim to have not changed their way of thinking, or their opinions on anything, for 19 years is in one hell of a shape.  not a good one, but by all means, wear this a badge of pride.  it is an achievement alright, just not in the way you think it is.  i'll try to say another prayer for you.  i do hate wasting my breath though.