- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 45,404
- Reaction score
- 11,746
- Location
- Olympia Wa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I'm sorry that you listen to Chicken Little. Please grow up.
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
[FONT="][/FONT]
[h=1]Where The Texas Winds Blow[/h][FONT="]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]
It's very misleading to compare annual generation with cumulative subsidies. But then misleading is, of course, your intention, isn't it?
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.
Yes, I know that your point is to mislead. We all know that.
OK,we were taking of Indiana, right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Illinois#Coal
I'm sorry that you listen to Chicken Little. Please grow up.
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
It's very misleading to compare annual generation with cumulative subsidies. But then misleading is, of course, your intention, isn't it?
For the Utility, that point comes when they have to have other investments at the ready for when they
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?
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!
Yes, I know that your point is to mislead. We all know that.
No, again. The point was precisely to match annual energy to cumulative cost.
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.
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.
No, it is simply senseless to compare an annual figure with a cumulative figure. If an accountant did that, they'd be sacked.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
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.
We are talking about Northern Indiana Public Service Co. in Indiana and you provided a link for power stations in Illinois.
https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy
All you have explained is your prejudice. Cumulative cost vs annual output is the point.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?