Six ways renewables increase your electricity bill

[wmw999 2,452]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Until you actually read what I post,I have no time for you. 
You are dismissed.

I have read it. Will you provide actual commentary that shows you’ve read it, or just say “see it proves my point you stupid liberal fuckers.” 
Now will you answer the moderator’s question about whether you were trolling with your comment about the hook being set?

It must really suck to have a female moderator 

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I have read it. Will you provide actual commentary that shows you’ve read it, or just say “see it proves my point you stupid liberal fuckers.” 
Now will you answer the moderator’s question about whether you were trolling with your comment about the hook being set?

It must really suck to have a female moderator 

Wendy P. 

 Yes Wendy, I read them. Both articles, one from a “denier” source and one from an alarmist source.  Both articles support what I have been saying for more than a decade. I simply made a statement of fact and supported it with multiple sources. At no time did I characterize the deniers of this simple reality as “stupid liberal fuckers”. Instead of engaging on the substance of what I shared, we got what we typically get, a screed of personal attacks, red herrings and straw man arguments. As far as the “hook being set” it is merely an observation. With respect to moderators…let’s just say, it is curious to have a moderator “triggered” by the words “accurate, lightweight, modular and affordable”

[olofscience 480]

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Both articles from dubious sources support what I have been saying for more than a decade.

Well if you do a google search for what you're looking for, you will find articles like that. But I'm pretty sure you have no idea what 'confirmation bias' is.

46 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

one from a “denier” source and one from an opinion piece from a random masters' student.

Fixed it for you. Stop pretending you're even trying to be unbiased.

 

So why aren't you posting from the NOAA and the IEA anymore? Getting more difficult to cherry pick isn't it? Hence you're back to the deniers and the obscure opinion articles.

[olofscience 480]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Instead of engaging on the substance of what I shared

You didn't share any substance.

You linked an article, then challenged people "rebut this multi-page article" without actually posting how the article arrived at its conclusions (which strangely just coincided with your conclusions /s).

 

So...where's the substance? 

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

my two articles demonstrating the increasing costs

I'll help you out, could you post here HOW the articles say they increase the costs?

Edited October 1, 2023 by olofscience

[brenthutch 444]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

So why aren't you posting from the IEA anymore?

Because….

“The IEA works with governments and industry to shape a secure and sustainable energy future for all”

The IEA is an advocacy group for wind and solar energy.  They are hardly non biased. Looking to them for anything critical of renewables would be like looking for advice on duck hunting from the Audubon Society.

 

[olofscience 480]

45 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The IEA is an advocacy group for wind and solar energy.

"The IEA was founded on November 18, 1974, after the 1973 oil crisis, to avoid future shocks by helping to ensure reliable energy supplies, promote energy efficiency, ensure energy security and encourage technological research and innovation."

45 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

They are hardly non biased.

"The IEA operates autonomously, with its own budget and governance structure. The organization began with 16 founding member countries and has since expanded to 31, with the latest addition being Lithuania in 2022. Full members of the IEA must also be members of the OECD and are required to hold 90 days worth of oil imports as emergency stocks. These emergency stocks can be released to stabilize oil markets worldwide"

 

 

And didn't you quote them before? Soon you'll be saying something similar about the NOAA when it gets too difficult for you to do your mental gymnastics.

Edited October 1, 2023 by olofscience

[brenthutch 444]

Not only do ratepayers get hammered by renewables, taxpayers do as well.

“According to the EIA report, while renewable energy sources like wind and solar power account for about 21% of domestic electricity production, such sources received a staggering $83.8 billion in subsidies, by far the largest share compared to any other category.”

https://climatechangedispatch.com/biden-wh-quietly-released-study-showing-green-energy-gets-far-more-subsidies-than-fossil-fuels/
 

I can hear it now, someone will try to make the argument that the Biden administration didn’t actually release that study because FOX news reported on it.

[billvon 2,995]

On 10/1/2023 at 5:30 AM, olofscience said:

Soon you'll be saying something similar about the NOAA when it gets too difficult for you to do your mental gymnastics.

Both the IEA and NOAA have a well-known liberal bias in that they are based in science and support their arguments with facts, both of which are totally loser lib things to do.

[brenthutch 444]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Both the IEA and NOAA have a well-known liberal bias in that they are based in science and support their arguments with facts, both of which are totally loser lib things to do.

What are you talking about Bill?  I just cited NOAA, showing Arctic sea ice is still stubbornly still here and EIA (another government source) showing how massively subsidized renewables are. (Putting to rest the argument of what sector receives more subsidies, fossil fuels or renewables. Looks like I was right again)

Edited October 3, 2023 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 444]

For those members who can’t/won’t read a link, I am posting a graphical representation of just how much renewables cost the taxpayer.

[lippy 918]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

For those members who can’t/won’t read a link, I am posting a graphical representation of just how much renewables cost the taxpayer.

WOW, a CHART?!?!?! You really knocked it out of the park this time Brent!  

I guess the URL pasted at the bottom is supposed to make you think this data came straight from the EIA.  I looked through the actual EIA report that's linked there (here it is, FYI) and I don't see any of these numbers mentioned there.  I'm not sure if they did some weird manipulation to make those numbers from the report, or if they just pulled them out of thin air, confident that people like you would run with it without checking anything.  Which is it?

[billvon 2,995]

10 minutes ago, lippy said:

I'm not sure if they did some weird manipulation to make those numbers from the report, or if they just pulled them out of thin air, confident that people like you would run with it without checking anything. 

So I did do the math. (Sorry Brent!)

From the report, $16 billion went to "Renewable-related energy-specific subsidies and support" in 2022.  This includes solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, everything.  Let's assume that 90% of it went to renewable ELECTRICAL energy; the rest went to biofuels, industrial heat sources and other non-electrical projects.

We generated 950 billion kilowatt-hours (or 950 million megawatt-hours) of renewable energy in 2022.  

That means that there was a $15.15 per megawatt subsidy for ALL renewable electrical energy - wind, biomass, geothermal AND solar.  The chart above claims that the subsidy is $121.18 for all of them added together.

So only off by about a factor of 10.

[JoeWeber 2,721]

46 minutes ago, lippy said:

WOW, a CHART?!?!?! You really knocked it out of the park this time Brent!  

I guess the URL pasted at the bottom is supposed to make you think this data came straight from the EIA.  I looked through the actual EIA report that's linked there (here it is, FYI) and I don't see any of these numbers mentioned there.  I'm not sure if they did some weird manipulation to make those numbers from the report, or if they just pulled them out of thin air, confident that people like you would run with it without checking anything.  Which is it?

It’s a very pretty graph. What exactly do you want?

[gowlerk 2,198]

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

So I did do the math. (Sorry Brent!)

 

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

So only off by about a factor of 10.

Don't be sorry. I'm sure there are always "alternative facts" to fall back on.

[billvon 2,995]

13 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

It’s a very pretty graph. What exactly do you want?

I know!  There are even wind turbines behind it so you know it's for real.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

So I did do the math. (Sorry Brent!)

From the report, $16 billion went to "Renewable-related energy-specific subsidies and support" in 2022.  This includes solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, everything.  Let's assume that 90% of it went to renewable ELECTRICAL energy; the rest went to biofuels, industrial heat sources and other non-electrical projects.

We generated 950 billion kilowatt-hours (or 950 million megawatt-hours) of renewable energy in 2022.  

That means that there was a $15.15 per megawatt subsidy for ALL renewable electrical energy - wind, biomass, geothermal AND solar.  The chart above claims that the subsidy is $121.18 for all of them added together.

So only off by about a factor of 10.

Thanks for your diligence. I wonder if Brent reports his DZ income to the IRS using the same math as trump does? Or the same as that in SC?

[Phil1111 1,149]

46 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

 

Don't be sorry. I'm sure there are always "alternative facts" to fall back on.

I'm surprised that republicans aren't trying to get in on those subsidies using shell companies.

[brenthutch 444]

The fact that the whole “fossil fuel vs renewables subsidies” question has been laid to rest, will cause a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. The hours delay in response to my sharing of the WH report represented the denial phase, after I posted a graph we entered the anger phase, soon we will get to bargaining “well it might be more expensive, but we have to save the planet”. We will blow right past depression and sadly we will never get to acceptance. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

...So only off by about a factor of 10.

Gotta say that that's better than normal for him.

[lippy 918]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

after I posted a graph we entered the anger phase

After you posted a graph that was showing made-up numbers while trying to appear to be from a legit source, we entered the “Brent’s still at it with this BS” phase. I don’t think anyone was angry. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 minute ago, lippy said:

After you posted a graph that was showing made-up numbers while trying to appear to be from a legit source, we entered the “Brent’s still at it with this BS” phase. I don’t think anyone was angry. 

Why get angry at a Zebra? It can't change its stripes. Just like Brent can't understand math.

[billvon 2,995]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

after I posted a graph we entered the anger phase

Sorry about that.  I know how angry math makes conservatives.

[brenthutch 444]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Sorry about that.  I know how angry math makes conservatives.

Here is your math

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies-in-fy-2022/#:~:text=From FY 2016 to FY 2022%2C nearly half (46 percent,%2415.6 billion in FY 2022.

[olofscience 480]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Here is your math

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewable-energy-still-dominates-energy-subsidies-in-fy-2022/#:~:text=From FY 2016 to FY 2022%2C nearly half (46 percent,%2415.6 billion in FY 2022.

Still pretending you can do maths 

Quote

IER is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry. It was initially formed by Charles Koch, receives donations from many large companies like Exxon, and publishes a stream of reports and position papers opposing any efforts to control greenhouse gasses.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by olofscience