• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

longview said:
What you are ignoring, is that real companies cannot take calculated benefits to the bank to offset costs.
They may be real benefits, but if they do not result in real dollars being moved from the cost to the profit column, they do not count.
Click to expand...

This sums up the primary lack of understanding the left has regarding green energy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
This sums up the primary lack of understanding the left has regarding green energy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But, But,, it feels like it is the right thing to do!
 
Tim the plumber said:
Mostly that is because gas fired power stations produce 50% of the CO2 for the same power output.
Click to expand...

Coal power plants replaced with gas power plant is one of the reason for the reduction in C02. While at the same time the investment in renewable energy is many times more than investments in gas power plants.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

Also, gas power plant still leads to C02 emission and have a lot of other issues from the negative effects of fracking to European countries being dependent on gas from Russia.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Coal power plants replaced with gas power plant is one of the reason for the reduction in C02. While at the same time the investment in renewable energy is many times more than investments in gas power plants.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

Also, gas power plant still leads to C02 emission and have a lot of other issues from the negative effects of fracking to European countries being dependent on gas from Russia.
Click to expand...

The investment in gas is small compared to the output. The fuel is the expensive part with gas. The investment in renewables is only possible due to government subsidy. At least today.
 
Tim the plumber said:

The investment in gas is small compared to the output. The fuel is the expensive part with gas. The investment in renewables is only possible due to government subsidy. At least today.
Click to expand...

If you look at the link you can see that it's capacity not cost.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Germany to abandon climate target[/h]Posted on 08 Jan 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 4 Comments
According to Reuters and Spiegel, the Grand Coalition of the CDU and SPD currently being formed in Germany is abandoning the emissions target of a reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. It had been obvious for some time that the target was not going to be met. This is a big humiliation for …
Click to expand...

Germany have been able to reduce it's C02 emissions since 1990 even if they have closed nuclear plants and have a strong economic growth. Still they could of course have done more ecpecially when it comes to the transport sector.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

You can of course also discusse if it was a good idea to cloese nuclear plants. Still it can be good to remember that many countries like Germany lack a solution for how to store the nuclear waste.

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-dump-nuclear-waste-for-good-but-where/a-19380548

This is also true for the USA.

http://time.com/4908330/john-oliver-nuclear-waste-last-week-tonight/



So how can you know the correct cost of nuclear power if you don't know how and to what cost you will store the nuclear waste? This is just one of many example that nuclear power isn't a free market solution. You also have the fact that the goverment have spend a lot of money supporting nuclear power and still does. While at the same time no privat insurance can or will cover the total cost of a nuclear accident.

Fossil fuel have also never been a free market solution. Just think of the costly wars western countries have fought to protect the flow of cheap oil from Middle East. Or how American taxpayer pay for military bases in brutal and fundamentalist dicatorships like Saudi Arabia.

Or how German coal power use the power of the goverment to force thousands of people to leave their own when entire villages is destroy for giving way to coal mines.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...ts-in-brown-coal-mining-dispute-a-903642.html

Also fossil fuel companies continue to get a lot of subsies from goverments all around the world.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energy...global-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies.html

While net gain of having fossil fuel companies starting to pay the cost of their pollution would be more than a trillion dollar a year.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Bergslagstroll View Post
Coal power plants replaced with gas power plant is one of the reason for the reduction in C02. While at the same time the investment in renewable energy is many times more than investments in gas power plants.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

Also, gas power plant still leads to C02 emission and have a lot of other issues from the negative effects of fracking to European countries being dependent on gas from Russia
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

The investment in gas is small compared to the output. The fuel is the expensive part with gas. The investment in renewables is only possible due to government subsidy. At least today.
Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:
If you look at the link you can see that it's capacity not cost.
Click to expand...

That renewables are quoted in terms of capacity rather than the actual power they manage to produce just makes my point much stronger. It is silly to compare investment in gas to that into renewables that don't really work.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Germany have been able to reduce it's C02 emissions since 1990 even if they have closed nuclear plants and have a strong economic growth. Still they could of course have done more ecpecially when it comes to the transport sector.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

You can of course also discusse if it was a good idea to cloese nuclear plants. Still it can be good to remember that many countries like Germany lack a solution for how to store the nuclear waste.

Germany to dump nuclear waste for good - but where? | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 05.07.2016

This is also true for the USA.

John Oliver Targets Nuclear Waste on '''Last Week Tonight''' | Time



So how can you know the correct cost of nuclear power if you don't know how and to what cost you will store the nuclear waste? This is just one of many example that nuclear power isn't a free market solution. You also have the fact that the goverment have spend a lot of money supporting nuclear power and still does. While at the same time no privat insurance can or will cover the total cost of a nuclear accident.

Fossil fuel have also never been a free market solution. Just think of the costly wars western countries have fought to protect the flow of cheap oil from Middle East. Or how American taxpayer pay for military bases in brutal and fundamentalist dicatorships like Saudi Arabia.

Or how German coal power use the power of the goverment to force thousands of people to leave their own when entire villages is destroy for giving way to coal mines.

German Court to Rule on Property Rights in Brown Coal Mining Dispute - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Also fossil fuel companies continue to get a lot of subsies from goverments all around the world.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energy...global-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies.html

While net gain of having fossil fuel companies starting to pay the cost of their pollution would be more than a trillion dollar a year.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
Click to expand...


Fossil fuel companies are among the greatest producers of human progress and economic development in history. They have paid for themselves many times over.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fossil fuel companies are among the greatest producers of human progress and economic development in history. They have paid for themselves many times over.
Click to expand...

Horses faithfully served mankind for thousands of years and still was replaced with better technology. So of course, could and should fossil fuels be replaced with better technologies.

That even the fossil fuel companies acknowledge man made global warming and the negative effects of C02.

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

Our position | ExxonMobil

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

While renewables energy continues to become more and more competitive and cheap.

IEA says renewable energy costs falling - Business Insider

There are also different ways to match electric power supply with demand.

In that study, it was found that matching large differences between high electrical demand and low renewable supply could be realized largely by using a combination of either (1) substantial CSP storage plus batteries with zero change in existing hydropower annual energy output or peak power discharge rate, (2) modest CSP storage with no batteries and zero change in the existing hydropower annual energy output but a substantial increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate, (3) increases in CSP-storage, batteries, and heat pumps, but no thermal energy storage and no increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate or annual energy output, or (4) a combination of (1), (2), and (3). Thus, there were multiple solutions for matching peak demand with supply 100% of the time for 5 years without bioenergy, nuclear, power, fossil fuels with carbon capture, or natural gas.
Click to expand...

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf Page 9

Another important factor is energy savings and increased energy efficiency. That this is a big reason for that Sweden have been able to halve its C02 emissions per capita since 1980 and having C02 emission per capita that is less than a third of USA’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Also for becoming one of the world’s most sustainable countries.

https://sweden.se/nature/7-examples-of-sustainability-in-sweden/

http://info.esg.adec-innovations.co...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

While at same time Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/
 
Bergslagstroll said:
If you look at the link you can see that it's capacity not cost.
Click to expand...

Wow, it's hard work....

Capacity is not the same as production. Production is better than capacity.

Having the capacity to produce power when the wind blows in the right way is not as useful as having the ability to produce power whenever you want to. The cost of building the wind power turbine is lots more than the gas fired generator. So investment in is not a useful measure of power out.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Horses faithfully served mankind for thousands of years and still was replaced with better technology. So of course, could and should fossil fuels be replaced with better technologies.

That even the fossil fuel companies acknowledge man made global warming and the negative effects of C02.

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

Our position | ExxonMobil

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

While renewables energy continues to become more and more competitive and cheap.

IEA says renewable energy costs falling - Business Insider

There are also different ways to match electric power supply with demand.



https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf Page 9

Another important factor is energy savings and increased energy efficiency. That this is a big reason for that Sweden have been able to halve its C02 emissions per capita since 1980 and having C02 emission per capita that is less than a third of USA’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Also for becoming one of the world’s most sustainable countries.

https://sweden.se/nature/7-examples-of-sustainability-in-sweden/

http://info.esg.adec-innovations.co...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

While at same time Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/
Click to expand...

I really don't care at all about what companies say about global warming. That has as much (at least) to do with their lawyers' advice as it does with their views of the science.
Renewables will not replace fossil fuels as primary power sources in our lifetimes.
Personally, I don't think emissions matter much because I don't think CO2 is a primary driver of climate.
 

[h=1]EUSSR Vows to Overcome Nation State Objections to their New Climate Target[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall European Parliament politicians have vowed to overcome objections from governments of member nations to the imposition of their new 35% renewable energy target. European Parliament push for clean energy package faces resistance MEPs agree to increase EU’s renewable and energy efficiency goals but that’s not going to sit well with…
Continue reading →
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wow, it's hard work....

Capacity is not the same as production. Production is better than capacity.

Having the capacity to produce power when the wind blows in the right way is not as useful as having the ability to produce power whenever you want to. The cost of building the wind power turbine is lots more than the gas fired generator. So investment in is not a useful measure of power out.
Click to expand...

Do you have any relevant links regarding power output?

Also, as I wrote in earlier posts, you for example have off shore wind power that give a much more stable output of electricity. While solar power produce electricity during daytime when it’s greatest demand for electricity.

Also, investments in renewable energy and energy-smart technologies reached $333.5 billion in 2017. While at same time the investment in renewable energy becomes more and more cost effective, for example that a typical utility-scale PV system were roughly 25 percent cheaper per megawatt last year compared to two years earlier.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/runaway...global-clean-energy-investment-ahead-in-2017/
 
Jack Hays said:
I really don't care at all about what companies say about global warming. That has as much (at least) to do with their lawyers' advice as it does with their views of the science.
Renewables will not replace fossil fuels as primary power sources in our lifetimes.
Personally, I don't think emissions matter much because I don't think CO2 is a primary driver of climate.
Click to expand...

The fossil fuel companies have great economic incentive to disprove man made global warming. There have also have had a long time to accomplish it. For example, that the American Petroleum Institute was warned that the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet as early as 1968 in a report from Stanford Research Institute.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

Fossil fuel companies also have waste amount resources to try to disprove manmade global warming because fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

So, that the fossil companies instead acknowledge manmade global warming and the negative effects on C02 show the strength of the scientific evidence for manmade global warming and it’s negative effects.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The fossil fuel companies have great economic incentive to disprove man made global warming. There have also have had a long time to accomplish it. For example, that the American Petroleum Institute was warned that the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet as early as 1968 in a report from Stanford Research Institute.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

Fossil fuel companies also have waste amount resources to try to disprove manmade global warming because fossil fuel companies are amongst the biggest companies in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

So, that the fossil companies instead acknowledge manmade global warming and the negative effects on C02 show the strength of the scientific evidence for manmade global warming and it’s negative effects.
Click to expand...

It shows the strength of legal due diligence in corporate risk mitigation. Colloquially: hedging their bets.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The fossil fuel companies have great economic incentive to disprove man made global warming. There have also have had a long time to accomplish it. For example, that the American Petroleum Institute was warned that the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet as early as 1968 in a report from Stanford Research Institute.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

Fossil fuel companies also have waste amount resources to try to disprove manmade global warming because fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

So, that the fossil companies instead acknowledge manmade global warming and the negative effects on C02 show the strength of the scientific evidence for manmade global warming and it’s negative effects.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? If taxed more, they have more reason to bump up their profis, and hid them within the costs.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
Click to expand...

Most of the world could eat grub worms and huddle in caves, its just not what we would rather do.

Creating new jobs is the destruction of wealth, wealth creation is what economic development is all about.

If we mandated that all freight be carried on the heads of bearers think of all the new jobs that would create?

If everybody smashed at least one window a day, how much would that add to the economy?

Think of all those glaziers that could be employed, masters degrees could be conferred in puttying.

Student loans for as much as a million dollars could be granted to secure a career in puttying; the economy would roar.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
It shows the strength of legal due diligence in corporate risk mitigation. Colloquially: hedging their bets.
Click to expand...

It shows that the fossil fuel companies have after several decades found so little evidence against man made global warming that they are forced to acknowledge it on their webpages. That if they had found any real evidence after so much time no legal due diligence would be needed.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you kidding? If taxed more, they have more reason to bump up their profis, and hid them within the costs.
Click to expand...

More expensive fossil fuel will lead to that the alternatives will become even more competitive. Thereby increasing the speed of the transition away from fossil fuel companies. While at the same time it could be great benefits to the global economy having the fossil fuel companies paying the cost of their pollution.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
 
Bergslagstroll said:
It shows that the fossil fuel companies have after several decades found so little evidence against man made global warming that they hare forced to acknowledge it on their webpages. That if they had found any real evidence after so much time no legal due diligence would be needed.
Click to expand...

Well, no. To "acknowledge" AGW costs them nothing, has no effect on their profitability and establishes legal defense against law suits. This is all about lawyers, not science.
 
SirGareth said:
Most of the world could eat grub worms and huddle in caves, its just not what we would rather do.

Creating new jobs is the destruction of wealth, wealth creation is what economic development is all about.

If we mandated that all freight be carried on the heads of bearers think of all the new jobs that would create?

If everybody smashed at least one window a day, how much would that add to the economy?

Think of all those glaziers that could be employed, masters degrees could be conferred in puttying.

Student loans for as much as a million dollars could be granted to secure a career in puttying; the economy would roar.
Click to expand...

Labor costs is just one of many costs that affects the total cost of products and services. There renewables are getting more and more competitive and cheap. That already you have new installations of renewable energy that are cheaper than fossil fuel and nuclear power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/domini...ost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#164c128f4ff2

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

My county Sweden have already been able to halve its C02 emissions per capita since 1980 and having C02 emission per capita that is less than a third of USA’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

While at same time being one of the world’s most prosperous countries.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

https://sweden.se/society/10-things-that-make-sweden-family-friendly/
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. To "acknowledge" AGW costs them nothing, has no effect on their profitability and establishes legal defense against law suits. This is all about lawyers, not science.
Click to expand...

Atlest it weakens the claim of the people that still denies man made global warming. Because the fossil fuel companies with their strong economic incentive, decades of times and huge amount of resources havn't been able to disprove manmade global warming.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Atlest it weakens the claim of the people that still denies man made global warming. Because the fossil fuel companies with their strong economic incentive, decades of times and huge amount of resources havn't been able to disprove manmade global warming.
Click to expand...

The revolution in climate science has already been started by Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
It shows that the fossil fuel companies have after several decades found so little evidence against man made global warming that they are forced to acknowledge it on their webpages. That if they had found any real evidence after so much time no legal due diligence would be needed.
Click to expand...

One would think global warming (socialist) elites would eschew their own prodigious consumption of petroleum but all there is is the sounds of silence from their quarter.

What can your explanation be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom