Enough of the fossil fuels!

[Peter]

Oh...now you are going to cry about a term I've used. Too ****ing bad. If that stops you from debating, then bye-bye.


Inflation stayed low during the entire Trump term in the WH. It started skyrocketing the day Biden was installed in the WH.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand why.

Oh wow, Biden has control of global oil prices now?
Inflation is a problem everywhere, did Biden also cause that?

Yes, I'm complaining that you use childish insults even though you claim to be an adult.

 

[Mycroft]

Oh wow, Biden has control of global oil prices now?

There you go again...moving your goal posts.

 

[Peter]

There you go again...moving your goal posts.

My point is prices are going up everywhere, it isn't just a US problem.
That will affect the US no matter what BIden does.

 

[Mycroft]

My point is prices are going up everywhere, it isn't just a US problem.
That will affect the US no matter what BIden does.

Wrong.

The fact that other countries are following the WEF's strategy doesn't mean the US has to and the US is strong enough that, if we DON'T follow that strategy, we won't have the same problem.

Seriously...you should research the WEF's program...Build Back Better...and look at the countries that support it...including the UK. THESE are the first world countries that are suffering unnecessary inflation.

Just because your country wants that inflation, doesn't mean the US has to have it.

 

[stevecanuck]

From here; How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:


The problem is typical of the US (and other developed countries). Nobody wants to touch fossil-fuels because they are responsible for making a great many people very, very rich.

Fossil fuels power the world. Without them the entire world comes to a stand-still and we all starve (unless it's winter in the northern hemisphere, in which case hundreds of millions would freeze to death before they could starve).

Let's make a deal. How about if we keep fossil fuels until they've actually been replaced. Btw, you can kiss the countless by-products goodbye as well.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

From here; How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:


The problem is typical of the US (and other developed countries). Nobody wants to touch fossil-fuels because they are responsible for making a great many people very, very rich.

So, until we-the-sheeple can get beyond this simple fact nothing will be done to exit fossil-fuel usage and get us on our way to alternatives. Which are a great many ... just sitting there waiting to bring about what is actually a simple solution.

Clean-energy is neither magical nor it is a "gift" of Mother Earth. But it takes a public-will to move on to a more effective, useful and not as dangerous fuel with which to propel us.

That public-will is not lacking. But neither is it making itself known in a fashion that wakes-up the sleeping and effectuates definitive change in the manner we-the-sheeple live our lives. It's high-time, for instance, that we all move to electric motor-vehicles and junk petrol-engines ...

Electric motor engines requires fossil fuels and are worse for the environment

 

[Bodi]

The problem is typical of the US (and other developed countries). Nobody wants to touch fossil-fuels because they are responsible for making a great many people very, very rich.

It is difficult... but nah. Just like Tesla makes gas free cars that kick ass. It is a matter of technology and innovation from ultra-rich entrepreneurs.

...And like @Peter says, there are windfarms and/or windfarm rich locations all over the place. For the USA it means... gasp!!! perhaps not building a couple of billion dollar stealth fighters and building a bunch of wind farms... solar power, etc.

 

[Bodi]

How can you even try and back that statment as anything but pure conjecture?
Why would the world be poorer simply because of a change in how we generate power?

Dude, that guy posts stupid shit like it is going out of style...

 

[Bodi]

Nobody wants to touch fossil-fuels because nobody wants their standard of living to go down the toilet.

Did not using hair spray and not washing cars during water shortages and such decrease standard of living? How about turning off the AC more or the lights...? Driving less and not getting monster trucks reduces standard of living?

 

[Bodi]

The poorest can't afford electric cars...not even used electric cars.

Failed logic.

Nobody could afford... cars, until Henry Ford made them affordable with the Model T.

 

[jaypatriot]

Nobody wants to touch fossil-fuels because they are responsible for making a great many people very, very rich.

How about 'fossil fuels will be with us for a long time' because the countries that have major industries are not going to give up fossil fuels which are the life blood of those regions, (i.e. North and South America, the European Union, China, Japan, S, Korea).
Renewable energies will never supplant natural gas and fuel oils which drive major industries, airlines, and shipping lines.

 

[Mycroft]

Failed logic.

Nobody could afford... cars, until Henry Ford made them affordable with the Model T.

There is no comparison between low tech Model T's and modern electric cars...especially in price.

 

[Bodi]

There is no comparison between low tech Model T's and modern electric cars...especially in price.

As it is right now. Not even that really as we see Tesla and the Leaf and others growing in increasing numbers. At the time it was impossible that Ford could make (what at that times was state of the art tech) for low cost... but he did it.

 

[Mycroft]

As it is right now. Not even that really as we see Tesla and the Leaf and others growing in increasing numbers. At the time it was impossible that Ford could make (what at that times was state of the art tech) for low cost... but he did it.

We won't see anything like that regarding EV's for a long time.

And yet, the people want fossil fuels ended now.

Stupid.

 

[Lafayette]

Fossil fuels power the world. Without them the entire world comes to a stand-still and we all starve (unless it's winter in the northern hemisphere, in which case hundreds of millions would freeze to death before they could starve).

Let's make a deal. How about if we keep fossil fuels until they've actually been replaced. Btw, you can kiss the countless by-products goodbye as well.

That is what is happening anyway today!

There is no Countrywide Movement in the US (or elsewhere amongst developed countries) to change from employing fossil-fuels as the main product for generating heat/electrical power. Coal and gas are the two major suppliers (at 60% of electric-generation in the US) - see below:

Frankly, that 40% that is doing the replacing is the easy part. It will become progressively more difficult to change the remaining 70% of coal and natural gas ...

 

[Lafayette]

I don't understand how the US being more self reliant on energy supply with more renewables is a bad thing?

Being at the mercy of OPEC is better because?

Because they have Uncle Sam by the you-know-whats if price ever came to shove! Right now the price of oil (the major generator looks like this:



"Total global electricity-energy" is presently from Oil-Coal-Gas and is at 84% .... !

 

[Lafayette]

Frankly, that 40% that is doing the replacing is the easy part. It will become progressively more difficult to change the remaining 70% of coal and natural gas ...

Oil,, Coal and Gas are the major suppliers of Total Energy (84%!)

The effort-cost of replacing them is ENORMOUS - which is why nobody-but-nobody wants to take the political responsibility.

When push-comes-to-shove in America over energy supplies each American should have his shotgun ready! (Because THAT is what it is going to take to get gas ... ! ;^)

 

[holbritter]

From here; How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:


The problem is typical of the US (and other developed countries). Nobody wants to touch fossil-fuels because they are responsible for making a great many people very, very rich.

So, until we-the-sheeple can get beyond this simple fact nothing will be done to exit fossil-fuel usage and get us on our way to alternatives. Which are a great many ... just sitting there waiting to bring about what is actually a simple solution.

Clean-energy is neither magical nor it is a "gift" of Mother Earth. But it takes a public-will to move on to a more effective, useful and not as dangerous fuel with which to propel us.

That public-will is not lacking. But neither is it making itself known in a fashion that wakes-up the sleeping and effectuates definitive change in the manner we-the-sheeple live our lives. It's high-time, for instance, that we all move to electric motor-vehicles and junk petrol-engines ...

Fosil fuels will eventually stop being used no matter what happens as cheaper alternatives will be used.
The UK is in the middle of an offshore windfarm building boom that will see then worlds largest farms opening up in the next 5 years or so.
That and a couple of new nuclear power stations should mean the use of fossil fuels for power tumbles in the UK which is a good thing.

The UK is fortunate to have extremely windy but shallow seas all around us which is perfect for wind generation and we also have some of the strongest tidal surges on the planet so that's a bonus as well.

Sometimes having depressing weather is a good thing.

I don't understand why anyone thinks we'll stop using fossil fuels.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf

 

[Lafayette]

ARE WE FOOLS TO TAKE "RENEWABLE ENERGY" AS A FOREVER "GIVEN"?

I don't understand how the US being more self reliant on energy supply with more renewables is a bad thing?

Being at the mercy of OPEC is better because?

Look up the word "renewable". Which goes like this product-wise: Yes, the product is renewable today but perhaps not tomorrow! It all depends upon the evolution of"Supply" and "Demand"!

And when is "tomorrow"? Try this on for size: Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security

Excerpt:

Renewables 2022​

The current global energy crisis brings both new opportunities and new challenges for renewable energy. Renewables-2022 provides analysis on the new policies introduced in response to the energy crisis.

WE GOT AN E-N-E-R-G-Y CRISIS AS REGARDS RENEWABLES?

You betcha !!!!! And that crisis - though not "there today" will be "there" in the future. Meaning it must be treated in terms of "the way we live". Because "renewables" are not only renewed but they are consumed definitively!

Meaning what? Meaning their consumption is definitive and their "renewability" does NOT last forever! (You got it - this simple argument?)

If not, you'd best make an effort to "get it"! Because renewable-energies are key to the future existence of ANY ECONOMY on earth!

Meaning pertinently - the crisis is not necessarily happening "tomorrow". But there is a definitive future-limit to the availability of energy-renewables worldwide ... !

 

[longview]

How can you even try and back that statment as anything but pure conjecture?
Why would the world be poorer simply because of a change in how we generate power?

The current alternatives (Wind and Solar) actually cost more if you count the energy storage devices needed
to get them to cover a 24/7 demand cycle.
One aspect of something's value, is how available it is.
I remember a conversation I had with a friend who owned a steak house.
I was surprised he paid more for steaks than I was paying at the grocery store on sale.
The difference he said was his expensive steak would always be available, whereas mine was dependent on the sale.
A kWh produced when there is no demand, has little value, but the demand for a kWh, when there is little supply, has great value.

 

[eohrnberger]

The current alternatives (Wind and Solar) actually cost more if you count the energy storage devices needed
to get them to cover a 24/7 demand cycle.
One aspect of something's value, is how available it is.
I remember a conversation I had with a friend who owned a steak house.
I was surprised he paid more for steaks than I was paying at the grocery store on sale.
The difference he said was his expensive steak would always be available, whereas mine was dependent on the sale.
A kWh produced when there is no demand, has little value, but the demand for a kWh, when there is little supply, has great value.

That sure sounds like the economic principal of scarcity, in this case, the scarcity of electricity.

Prematurely ending fossil fuel in electrical generation would produce a scarcity of electricity, and it's price increase, that which is scarce costs more.

How about adding cost competitive renewables to existing electrical sources before winding down fossil fuel in electrical generation?
Or does that make too much sense for 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists?

Scarce electricity is going to harm a great many people, more so at the bottom 1/2 of the economic scale than anyone else, oddly enough, those are the same that the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists, usually liberal progressive, keep professing some sort of care, nurturing 'a better deal' for, or is that all simply thrown under the bus in favor or 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremism?

 

[longview]

That sure sounds like the economic principal of scarcity, in this case, the scarcity of electricity.

Prematurely ending fossil fuel in electrical generation would produce a scarcity of electricity, and it's price increase, that which is scarce costs more.

How about adding cost competitive renewables to existing electrical sources before winding down fossil fuel in electrical generation?
Or does that make too much sense for 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists?

Scarce electricity is going to harm a great many people, more so at the bottom 1/2 of the economic scale than anyone else, oddly enough, those are the same that the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists, usually liberal progressive, keep professing some sort of care, nurturing 'a better deal' for, or is that all simply thrown under the bus in favor or 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremism?

The great harm is already happening in the UK and other places, the price of electricity has gone up quickly.
Anyone with any accounting courses could tell you that if they give Solar homeowners a retail value credit for each
Surplus kWh, it will increase the cost of goods sold for everything.

 

[eohrnberger]

The great harm is already happening in the UK and other places, the price of electricity has gone up quickly.
Anyone with any accounting courses could tell you that if they give Solar homeowners a retail value credit for each
Surplus kWh, it will increase the cost of goods sold for everything.

If the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists are already so entrenched in the UK, in positions of power, there's very little that we here in the US can do other than watch the UK circle the drain and go down.

That doesn't mean we have to accept such idiotic public policy and downright nonsense here.

For ****s stake! China and India are responsible for the largest amount of Green House gas emissions, why not start with them, where you can make the greatest impact quickly? (neither will do it, and will tell the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists just go **** off, frankly, the US should do the same).

 

[longview]

If the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists are already so entrenched in the UK, in positions of power, there's very little that we here in the US can do other than watch the UK circle the drain and go down.

That doesn't mean we have to accept such idiotic public policy and downright nonsense here.

For ****s stake! China and India are responsible for the largest amount of Green House gas emissions, why not start with them, where you can make the greatest impact quickly? (neither will do it, and will tell the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists just go **** off, frankly, the US should do the same).

The science can only be denied for so long, the predictions have not manifested themselves.
The data will win in the end.

 

[eohrnberger]

The science can only be denied for so long, the predictions have not manifested themselves.
The data will win in the end.

I sure hope so. Religious extremists, such as the 'Green New Deal', climate change religious extremists have shown themselves to be immune from science and data, trumped by their ideology.