• 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!

41 Inconvenient Truths on the "New Energy Economy"

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,470
Reaction score
32,300
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,000
Reaction score
38,793
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

The source is an actual engineering one, without the media hype.
The left's assertions about alternative energy sources are not factually based? Color me shocked.
The Green New Deal ideology always did seem more like a set of religious like beliefs rather than anything based in reality or facts.
 

Overitall

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
29,677
Reaction score
17,402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

The source is an actual engineering one, without the media hype.
The other day I was sitting in the parking lot of a local Giant Eagle which has those charging stations for EV (free to use). I observed four cars hooking up to charge (two staying in their cars). Got me thinking about how this would work for people who live in apartment complexes. Would the owners of them be forced to provide charging stations for each of their residents? How about if there is a couple with two cars - one for each or a double unit? People are having trouble purchasing even a used car these days. An EV is much more expensive than your standard gas powered SUV. Someone isn't thinking this one through. Is it important to shift to alternate energy? Sure, but you don't sabotage the fossil fuel industry before having everything in place for "clean" energy. Maybe the solution is to figure how to make fossil fuel more environmentally friendly.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,000
Reaction score
38,793
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The other day I was sitting in the parking lot of a local Giant Eagle which has those charging stations for EV (free to use). I observed four cars hooking up to charge (two staying in their cars). Got me thinking about how this would work for people who live in apartment complexes. Would the owners of them be forced to provide charging stations for each of their residents? How about if there is a couple with two cars - one for each or a double unit?
From my experience around here, apartment complexes have 2 assigned parking spots for each apartment, more often than not under some sort of roof or cover, always fairly close to the apartment's front door, with additional unassigned parking available a little further away. It'd be a matter of wiring and installing charge stations for every parking spot, or nearly every one. You'd have to design the electrical system to support a worst case where every spot has an EV plugged in, which would be a huge electrical load, and, yes, I think the apartment complex would need to provide charging stations for their tenants.

Are you thinking that there are apartment complexes which do not have parking spaces? Forcing their tenants to park out on the street?

People are having trouble purchasing even a used car these days. An EV is much more expensive than your standard gas powered SUV. Someone isn't thinking this one through. Is it important to shift to alternate energy? Sure, but you don't sabotage the fossil fuel industry before having everything in place for "clean" energy.
Color me completely unsurprised that a public policy that the left is pushing for hasn't been completely thought through, it seems they never are, they never get to the first 'And then what?' question, and at least 3 levels deep of those questions should be a requirement.

Maybe the solution is to figure how to make fossil fuel more environmentally friendly.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The left's assertions about alternative energy sources are not factually based? Color me shocked.
The Green New Deal ideology always did seem more like a set of religious like beliefs rather than anything based in reality or facts.
Which assertion are you claiming is false?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The other day I was sitting in the parking lot of a local Giant Eagle which has those charging stations for EV (free to use). I observed four cars hooking up to charge (two staying in their cars). Got me thinking about how this would work for people who live in apartment complexes. Would the owners of them be forced to provide charging stations for each of their residents? How about if there is a couple with two cars - one for each or a double unit? People are having trouble purchasing even a used car these days. An EV is much more expensive than your standard gas powered SUV. Someone isn't thinking this one through. Is it important to shift to alternate energy? Sure, but you don't sabotage the fossil fuel industry before having everything in place for "clean" energy. Maybe the solution is to figure how to make fossil fuel more environmentally friendly.
Fossil fuels are not being "sabotaged," oil companies are making more money than ever.
 

Overitall

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
29,677
Reaction score
17,402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From my experience around here, apartment complexes have 2 assigned parking spots for each apartment, more often than not under some sort of roof or cover, always fairly close to the apartment's front door, with additional unassigned parking available a little further away. It'd be a matter of wiring and installing charge stations for every parking spot, or nearly every one. You'd have to design the electrical system to support a worst case where every spot has an EV plugged in, which would be a huge electrical load, and, yes, I think the apartment complex would need to provide charging stations for their tenants.

Are you thinking that there are apartment complexes which do not have parking spaces?
I use to live in one. There are many in my city alone (I estimate at least 20). In most of them there are no assigned parking, but then you also have the issue of your guests. Where do they park and should they have access to a charging station? You have a birthday party and invite 10 guests over. Where do they charge their vehicles to make sure they can get home?
Forcing their tenants to park out on the street?


Color me completely unsurprised that a public policy that the left is pushing for hasn't been completely thought through, it seems they never are, they never get to the first 'And then what?' question, and at least 3 levels deep of those questions should be a requirement.
 

Overitall

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
29,677
Reaction score
17,402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,000
Reaction score
38,793
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Fossil fuels are not being "sabotaged," oil companies are making more money than ever.
You are not informed on this topic. The fact is that the Biden administration is in fact sabotaging the petroleum industry.
And they are doing it through backdoor workarounds, like the OSHA vaccine mandate.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is poised to unleash rules mandating that public companies tell their shareholders and the federal government how they affect the climate
Under the proposed rules, publicly traded companies will be required to explain in their regular disclosures to investors how certain climate-related risks can affect their finances. Potential risks include the rising frequency of severe weather, the potential costs of shifting away from fossil fuels and a company’s own efforts to limit its carbon footprint. Companies will be required to calculate these potential costs from data they already compile for regular disclosures to investors.​
Companies will also be required to disclose their “Scope 1” emissions — the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they directly produce through their own business operations, such as manufacturing or mining — along with their “Scope 2” emissions, which come from the energy they purchase to keep their business running.​
Companies would also be required to report their “Scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions, which include emissions from the goods and services purchased by the firm, if they have set public emissions reduction targets or if those emissions pose a direct financial risk to the business. Firms required to report Scope 3 emissions, however, will not face penalties if they come forward with mistakes or miscalculations in those figures.​
The cost of compliance will be enormous and have a bearing on the price of purchasing goods. The hours, resources, and energy required to complete these forms will be staggering and hinder companies from transitioning to being publicly-traded entities.​
But then again, there are other stock exchanges in the world. I am sure India might be open to companies conducting trades on its exchange without this flaming regulatory hoop.​
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are not informed on this topic. The fact is that the Biden administration is in fact sabotaging the petroleum industry.
And they are doing it through backdoor workarounds, like the OSHA vaccine mandate.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is poised to unleash rules mandating that public companies tell their shareholders and the federal government how they affect the climate
Under the proposed rules, publicly traded companies will be required to explain in their regular disclosures to investors how certain climate-related risks can affect their finances. Potential risks include the rising frequency of severe weather, the potential costs of shifting away from fossil fuels and a company’s own efforts to limit its carbon footprint. Companies will be required to calculate these potential costs from data they already compile for regular disclosures to investors.​
Companies will also be required to disclose their “Scope 1” emissions — the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they directly produce through their own business operations, such as manufacturing or mining — along with their “Scope 2” emissions, which come from the energy they purchase to keep their business running.​
Companies would also be required to report their “Scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions, which include emissions from the goods and services purchased by the firm, if they have set public emissions reduction targets or if those emissions pose a direct financial risk to the business. Firms required to report Scope 3 emissions, however, will not face penalties if they come forward with mistakes or miscalculations in those figures.​
The cost of compliance will be enormous and have a bearing on the price of purchasing goods. The hours, resources, and energy required to complete these forms will be staggering and hinder companies from transitioning to being publicly-traded entities.​
But then again, there are other stock exchanges in the world. I am sure India might be open to companies conducting trades on its exchange without this flaming regulatory hoop.​
Regulation is not sabotage. Promoting another industry is not sabotage.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,000
Reaction score
38,793
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Regulation is not sabotage.
It is if it makes for an impossible set of business conditions, which is exactly the intent of that regulation.

Promoting another industry is not sabotage.
This would be the federal government, in this case the executive branch, distorting the market business conditions so badly that it's clearly choosing one industry for success and the other for extinction, as per Biden's previous statements which were quote earlier in this thread.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,900
Reaction score
13,425
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The problem is that the scale of the infrastructure would take decades to affect emissions.
I see a better path, as have the refineries store surplus electricity from carbon free sources as
carbon neutral transport fuels. This path would allow all existing IC vehicles, Heavy Trucks, Jets, and Ships, to become
carbon neutral, and could happen as soon as market conditions make the man made fuel the most profitable choice.
Exxon Baytown is already setting up the first unit, but it will only be reduced carbon as the source of hydrogen will be natural gas.
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
19,957
Reaction score
6,153
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Joe said that we should all buy electric cars and save $80 a month. You mean there is more to it than that?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is if it makes for an impossible set of business conditions, which is exactly the intent of that regulation.
Their profits are as high as ever, so you're going to have to substantiate this "impossible" regulatory environment.

This would be the federal government, in this case the executive branch, distorting the market business conditions so badly that it's clearly choosing one industry for success and the other for extinction, as per Biden's previous statements which were quote earlier in this thread.
That's an entirely different argument and not an interesting ones. Fossil fuels are destructive and we should make active effort to shift off of them.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Joe said that we should all buy electric cars and save $80 a month. You mean there is more to it than that?
Yes, there is. Link the statement you are whining about.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
20,098
Reaction score
8,722
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The left's assertions about alternative energy sources are not factually based? Color me shocked.
The Green New Deal ideology always did seem more like a set of religious like beliefs rather than anything based in reality or facts.
A friend gave me a book in 2008, Energy Keepers Energy Killers The New Civil Rights Battle by Roy Innis. It's an analysis of energy sources and efficiency and what the future looks like. I refer back to this book often and see it had the information pretty on point back then. When the promises of wind and solar powering our energy needs come up almost daily and the critics provide new data and studies that refute the climate change alarmist claims that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels, I find it's all political and we've known it's not going to work, ever.
This piece by Mark Mills just shows again the farce that Wind/Solar is the answer to the global energy needs. It cannot realistically provide the energy needed and even if it could the storage components would cover the earth with unsightly batteries, windmills and solar panels.

Here's just a few examples of why this will never work.
1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.
2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.
4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.
12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.
17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.
24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.
34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
20,098
Reaction score
8,722
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A friend gave me a book in 2008, Energy Keepers Energy Killers The New Civil Rights Battle by Roy Innis. It's an analysis of energy sources and efficiency and what the future looks like. I refer back to this book often and see it had the information pretty on point back then. When the promises of wind and solar powering our energy needs come up almost daily and the critics provide new data and studies that refute the climate change alarmist claims that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels, I find it's all political and we've known it's not going to work, ever.
This piece by Mark Mills just shows again the farce that Wind/Solar is the answer to the global energy needs. It cannot realistically provide the energy needed and even if it could the storage components would cover the earth with unsightly batteries, windmills and solar panels.

Here's just a few examples of why this will never work.
1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.
2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.
4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.
12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.
17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.
24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.
34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.
A prudent plan would replace the energy gap before it started crippling the fossil fuel industry with harmful penalties promoted as "lifestyle changes" and "protections for the global climate". The current plans by the left climate alarmist do nothing to replace the loss of fossil fuels before they kill the industry. Joe Biden, said he was getting rid of fossil fuels and yet he hasn't replaced them.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,000
Reaction score
38,793
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Their profits are as high as ever, so you're going to have to substantiate this "impossible" regulatory environment.
Already did: #9. You chose to ignore the citations. 🤷‍♂️

That's an entirely different argument and not an interesting ones.

Fossil fuels are destructive
Yes, I do believe you take that as an article of faith. Are you sure you aren't ignoring the environmental damage which results from the production of the needed batteries for your non-petroleum future?

and we should make active effort to shift off of them.
When those alternatives are ready for prime time, I'm sure they will, and the market will move all on it's own, without the government coercion you seem to be in such favor of.
 

beefheart

Ice Cream for Crow?
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
51,861
Reaction score
47,409
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Joe said that we should all buy electric cars and save $80 a month. You mean there is more to it than that?
Buy a hybrid. I regularly get over 60 mpg on mine. And the best part is when all the douchbags in Dodges fly past me on the road, and I then meet up with them at the stoplight as its turning green...over and over and over.

I also have an electric bike, its good fun and I can use it for mundane trips, and its fun to ride to the bar.
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
31,209
Reaction score
11,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I dont think we will be able to transition without nuclear power.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Already did: #9. You chose to ignore the citations. 🤷‍♂️




Yes, I do believe you take that as an article of faith. Are you sure you aren't ignoring the environmental damage which results from the production of the needed batteries for your non-petroleum future?
I am aware of that environmental damage, yes.

When those alternatives are ready for prime time, I'm sure they will, and the market will move all on it's own, without the government coercion you seem to be in such favor of.
The market is slow and concerned only with profit. Destructive will be chosen if it is the cheaper option. The idea that environmental protection can be handled by "the market" is absurd.
 

rahl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2020
Messages
14,797
Reaction score
5,387
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Top Bottom