• 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 (4 Viewers)

~ I submit that natural gas is a renewable energy with an unlimited supply emitting front Capitol Hill, Washington D.C.
Lots of wind there too ! :lol:
 
Bergslagstroll said:
We are starting to running out of time in limiting the devastating effects of manmade global warming.

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...fossil-fuels-greenhouse-gas-co2-a8574731.html

So you can still need subsides to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels and spur innovation.

Subsidies to fossil fuels also continue to be much bigger than subsidies to renewables.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html
Click to expand...

Do you have any memory at all?

I keep asking you and all the rest to look at any place on the earth and we can discuss exactly what will be bad about a slightly warmer world.

Given you inability to do this you know you are talking a load of drivel.
 
I've just noticed that UK wind generation is currently providing almost twice as much power as the country's nuclear fleet, which means that coal and gas generation can be throttled back despite this being a time of high demand. That's pretty impressive, I think!

G. B. National Grid status
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Where The Texas Winds Blow[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach There’s a typically hyper, deceptive, and Pollyanna article in the Houston Chronicle with the headline “Texas has enough sun and wind to quit coal, Rice researchers say“. You gotta watch out for these folks, it’s the old bait and switch. Because sure enough, as they say, there’s more sun and…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

It's very misleading to compare annual generation with cumulative subsidies. But then misleading is, of course, your intention, isn't it?
 
Surface Detail said:
It's very misleading to compare annual generation with cumulative subsidies. But then misleading is, of course, your intention, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but cumulative subsidies to produce annual generation is the point. Like they said in the Facebook scandal: It's not a bug; it's a feature.
 
Surface Detail said:
I've just noticed that UK wind generation is currently providing almost twice as much power as the country's nuclear fleet, which means that coal and gas generation can be throttled back despite this being a time of high demand. That's pretty impressive, I think!

G. B. National Grid status
Click to expand...

Even more impressive is the Scottish part of UK that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html
 
Surface Detail said:
It's very misleading to compare annual generation with cumulative subsidies. But then misleading is, of course, your intention, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes at first glance, but;

Given that the argument that is put forward to support the subsidising of wind power etc. is that it is an investment that will pay off in the future than it is far more reasonable.

At what point do we say it was a bad investment?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Yes at first glance, but;

Given that the argument that is put forward to support the subsidising of wind power etc. is that it is an investment that will pay off in the future than it is far more reasonable.

At what point do we say it was a bad investment?
Click to expand...
For the Utility, that point comes when they have to have other investments at the ready for when they
know the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine.
It cost real dollars (or pounds) to keep other energy plants at the ready to pick up the slack when it comes.
And it always comes!
 
longview said:
For the Utility, that point comes when they have to have other investments at the ready for when they
know the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine.
It cost real dollars (or pounds) to keep other energy plants at the ready to pick up the slack when it comes.
And it always comes!
Click to expand...

Yep. To get real grid level economic benefits of wind power something like 4c/kWhr for at least 50% of the time is needed as a breakeven point.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, again. The point was precisely to match annual energy to cumulative cost.
Click to expand...

Why would you do that though, other than to deceive? It's meaningless, like comparing apples and oranges.

If you were to match annual energy from coal in the UK (now relatively small) with the cumulative cost of coal (an enormous amount over the last couple of centuries), you'd get a similarly meaningless figure. A more useful figure would be a comparison of annual energy output with annual cost.
 
Surface Detail said:
Why would you do that though, other than to deceive? It's meaningless, like comparing apples and oranges.

If you were to match annual energy from coal in the UK (now relatively small) with the cumulative cost of coal (an enormous amount over the last couple of centuries), you'd get a similarly meaningless figure. A more useful figure would be a comparison of annual energy output with annual cost.
Click to expand...

No, again. The cost of fossil fuels (including coal) has long since been amortized to a low annual cost. It's a fair point to compare to the high cost of recent renewables investments.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, again. The cost of fossil fuels (including coal) has long since been amortized to a low annual cost. It's a fair point to compare to the high cost of recent renewables investments.
Click to expand...

No, it is simply senseless to compare an annual figure with a cumulative figure. If an accountant did that, they'd be sacked.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong, and I have explained why you are wrong. There is simply no reasonable rationale for comparing cumulative costs with annual output. It makes no sense at all to do so. The only reason anyone would do so is to deceive.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, you are wrong, and I have explained why you are wrong. There is simply no reasonable rationale for comparing cumulative costs with annual output. It makes no sense at all to do so. The only reason anyone would do so is to deceive.
Click to expand...

All you have explained is your prejudice. Cumulative cost vs annual output is the point.
 
Jack Hays said:
All you have explained is your prejudice. Cumulative cost vs annual output is the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am prejudiced (if that's what you want to call it) in favour of rational argument and meaningful statistics. Comparing cumulative cost with annual output is neither rational nor meaningful.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, I am prejudiced (if that's what you want to call it) in favour of rational argument and meaningful statistics. Comparing cumulative cost with annual output is neither rational nor meaningful.
Click to expand...

You are free to make any point you wish. You are not free to dictate what points can be made by others.
 
[FONT=&quot]Common sense[/FONT]
[h=1]U.S. Carbon Emissions Skyrocketed in 2018![/h][FONT=&quot]Guest “EXCELLENT!” by David Middleton U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed By Brad Plumer Jan. 8, 2019 WASHINGTON — America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday. […] Under the Paris climate agreement, the United States…
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top Bottom