Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020

[TU Curmudgeon]

It doesn't need it now and it's working just fine.

That's because the supply of "non-renewable" resource produced electricity is sufficient to take up the slack.

Think of the situation as being akin to an elliptical spring with a capacity that greatly exceeds the stress requirements you put on it. You can shorten the spring a bit and (probably) never notice the difference. However every time you shorten the spring by the same amount the odds that you will "bottom out" increase. At some point, the spring becomes incapable of doing anything EXCEPT "bottom out" more than 50% of the time. And, if you keep on shortening the spring at some point it will ALWAYS be "bottomed out".

Perhaps if 100% of our energy were derived from solar and wind but that's not the argument at this point.

Unfortunately that is exactly the point because some people are arguing that (see above analogy) we eliminate the elliptical spring entirely.

The grid is handling 12% renewable energy right now and delivering it to pretty much everyone. It can be improve to better smart grid tech but the grid is there already and doing it's job.

Just for fun, I'll give you that the existing grid would continue to function as efficiently and uninterruptedly as it does now with the current draw if 100% of the non-renewable sources of power generation were replaced with wind/solar/tidal/whatever sources of power.

Now, I'm going to add in "the existing grid also has to handle the additional load arising from the complete elimination of all non-nonrenewable sourced power used in transportation.

Guess what happens?

So other than those 8 drives... the rest of your life is within short distance right?

Yep, I could quite nicely survive with an all electric car that has a 200km range - most of the time.

Of course, the difference in price (about $8,000) between one of those and the gas-guzzling monster that I currently drive is greater than the amount that I currently pay for gasoline (about $15.00 per week) minus the amount that I would pay for the electricity to run the electric vehicle (about $12.00 per week) over the life of the vehicle (roughly 10 years) by about $6,500 - AND the electric car wouldn't let me take my road trips.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Do those costs include infrastructure, facilities and distribution networks. Are building and startup costs amortized into those figures as well?

Good heavens, of course not.

That would skew the data in a way that might make it look impractical to do what everyone knows should be done in order to achieve what everyone knows should be achieved in the manner that everyone knows it should be achieved.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Alright.. not THAT is ****ing hilarious. Don't you use chickens to make chicken wire?

If you raise the issue of Girl Guide Cookies, you are going to be in one hell of a lot of trouble.

 

[poweRob]

That's because the supply of "non-renewable" resource produced electricity is sufficient to take up the slack.

Think of the situation as being akin to an elliptical spring with a capacity that greatly exceeds the stress requirements you put on it. You can shorten the spring a bit and (probably) never notice the difference. However every time you shorten the spring by the same amount the odds that you will "bottom out" increase. At some point, the spring becomes incapable of doing anything EXCEPT "bottom out" more than 50% of the time. And, if you keep on shortening the spring at some point it will ALWAYS be "bottomed out".



Unfortunately that is exactly the point because some people are arguing that (see above analogy) we eliminate the elliptical spring entirely.



Just for fun, I'll give you that the existing grid would continue to function as efficiently and uninterruptedly as it does now with the current draw if 100% of the non-renewable sources of power generation were replaced with wind/solar/tidal/whatever sources of power.

Now, I'm going to add in "the existing grid also has to handle the additional load arising from the complete elimination of all non-nonrenewable sourced power used in transportation.

Guess what happens?



Yep, I could quite nicely survive with an all electric car that has a 200km range - most of the time.

Of course, the difference in price (about $8,000) between one of those and the gas-guzzling monster that I currently drive is greater than the amount that I currently pay for gasoline (about $15.00 per week) minus the amount that I would pay for the electricity to run the electric vehicle (about $12.00 per week) over the life of the vehicle (roughly 10 years) by about $6,500 - AND the electric car wouldn't let me take my road trips.

Just face it. I'm right and you are wrong!

 

[Bullseye]

Good heavens, of course not.

That would skew the data in a way that might make it look impractical to do what everyone knows should be done in order to achieve what everyone knows should be achieved in the manner that everyone knows it should be achieved.

Who's this "everyone" you speak of?

 

[Lovebug]

Oh, hello folks...about the topic. It is all good. Alternative fuels/renewable energy will eventually become affordable for all. It should be in everyone's interest. More independence, cleaner air, more choices. It will happen. What we can't do is force out fossil fuels until we are good and ready and everyone has a chance to catch up.

 

[Bullseye]

https://www.dw.com/en/can-we-live-in-a-world-without-fossil-fuels/a-41318600

I know enough about Excel to make pretty pie charts, too. Doesn't prove anything, nor answer my questions.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who's this "everyone" you speak of?

Why everyone knows who everyone is. Only those who aren't right-thinkers try to pretend otherwise.

 

[longview]

The reality is that without some type of energy storage (Massive storage) the current leaders in alternate energy,
Solar and Wind, lack the duty cycle and density to provide the energy for our on demand world.
I remember reading that India was deploying solar to villages that had never had electricity.
This is a good application, because they will start out knowing that they will only have limited power at night.
Off grid can work if you understand the requirements, and have some backup power.
For a remote village , having running water, and refrigeration, is a vast improvement.

 

[gfm7175]

Given the known amount of oil, did you know that that would mean that if it was being created then it was being created at around 6,000 barrels of (usable) oil PER YEAR. This works out to approximately 0.0001% of the DAILY oil consumption in the US.

You're using random numbers... Argument by RandU Fallacy...

The possibility of being able to recharge you electric vehicle in about the same time that it takes to fill up your gas tank now is there, so is the increase in range.

The OP of that post acted like that technology was already abundant and in regular use today... He didn't read his own article...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The reality is that without some type of energy storage (Massive storage) the current leaders in alternate energy,
Solar and Wind, lack the duty cycle and density to provide the energy for our on demand world.
I remember reading that India was deploying solar to villages that had never had electricity.
This is a good application, because they will start out knowing that they will only have limited power at night.
Off grid can work if you understand the requirements, and have some backup power.
For a remote village , having running water, and refrigeration, is a vast improvement.

You are not allowed to mention those factors.

The ONLY assumption that you are allowed to make with regard to solar power is that the Sun is always shining at 100% and the ONLY assumption that you are allowed to make with regard to wind power is that the wind is always blowing.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You're using random numbers... Argument by RandU Fallacy...

Since you didn't bother to investigate, the 6,000 Bbl/d figure is derived from dividing the known amount of oil over the length of estimated existence of the world. That is NOT a "random" number.

Even if your "theory" that oil is being continuously produced in nature (which is different that producing it artificially), the rate of production simply isn't sufficient to come anywhere near replacing current usage (and that's just using the US consumption figures).

The OP of that post acted like that technology was already abundant and in regular use today... He didn't read his own article...

So what? How does that change "The possibility of being able to recharge you electric vehicle in about the same time that it takes to fill up your gas tank now is there, so is the increase in range." from true to false?

PS - If you think that people not actually having read the materials that the provide in support of their position is unusual, you haven't been on the Internet for very long.

 

[gfm7175]

Since you didn't bother to investigate,

There was no need to me to do so.

the 6,000 Bbl/d figure is derived from dividing the known amount of oil

There is no "known amount of oil"... We have no idea just how much oil there is. We have no way to measure it all, so this is pure guesswork...

over the length of estimated existence of the world.

We have no idea how old Earth is. There are no functional time machines in existence to find that out. This is pure guesswork as well.

That is NOT a "random" number.

Pure guesswork + pure guesswork = pure guesswork. We simply do not know...

Even if your "theory" that oil is being continuously produced in nature

It is.

(which is different that producing it artificially),

We synthesize it in a way similar to how it forms naturally...

the rate of production simply isn't sufficient to come anywhere near replacing current usage

There will always be plenty of oil for us to make use of...

(and that's just using the US consumption figures).

And putting random guesswork up against random guesswork... Meaningless.

So what?

So, the OP of that link had no clue what he was talking about. He did a quick google search without using any reasoning skills on his part. That's what technology does to people; it takes away their ability to think for themselves...

How does that change "The possibility of being able to recharge you electric vehicle in about the same time that it takes to fill up your gas tank now is there, so is the increase in range." from true to false?

It's not even close to the same amount of time OR the same result... It would still take about 8 times longer at that rate, and that would still only yield about 3/8 of the total distance that a full tank of gas would yield... Let's be real, here...

That's not even factoring in how much more expensive a car with that type of technology (IF obtainable) would be compared to a typical gasoline vehicle...

PS - If you think that people not actually having read the materials that the provide in support of their position is unusual, you haven't been on the Internet for very long.

I know it's a very common thing that people do, but it's intellectual laziness, and I'm going to call it out every time I see it.

 

[poweRob]

There was no need to me to do so.


There is no "known amount of oil"... We have no idea just how much oil there is. We have no way to measure it all, so this is pure guesswork...


We have no idea how old Earth is. There are no functional time machines in existence to find that out. This is pure guesswork as well.


Pure guesswork + pure guesswork = pure guesswork. We simply do not know...


It is.


We synthesize it in a way similar to how it forms naturally...


There will always be plenty of oil for us to make use of...


And putting random guesswork up against random guesswork... Meaningless.


So, the OP of that link had no clue what he was talking about. He did a quick google search without using any reasoning skills on his part. That's what technology does to people; it takes away their ability to think for themselves...


It's not even close to the same amount of time OR the same result... It would still take about 8 times longer at that rate, and that would still only yield about 3/8 of the total distance that a full tank of gas would yield... Let's be real, here...

That's not even factoring in how much more expensive a car with that type of technology (IF obtainable) would be compared to a typical gasoline vehicle...


I know it's a very common thing that people do, but it's intellectual laziness, and I'm going to call it out every time I see it.

Then call yourself out for it.

Your position in this post of yours is basically to deny science and play dumb then call everyone else intellectually lazy in the same breath.

There's no "known" amount of oil? Really? Oil companies don't know where to drill or the approximation of how much is where they are drilling? :lol:

Scientists don't have a clue as to how old the Earth is? Their theories are just guesswork you say? :lol:

 

[gfm7175]

Then call yourself out for it.

Inversion Fallacy.

Your position in this post of yours is basically to deny science

Inversion Fallacy.

and play dumb then call everyone else intellectually lazy in the same breath.

Strawman Fallacy. I said that argumentation via google search is intellectually lazy, not that everyone else is intellectually lazy.

There's no "known" amount of oil?

Nope.

Really?

Yup.

Oil companies don't know where to drill

They know where to drill. They could drill literally anywhere and come up with oil, it's just a matter of how deep they are willing and/or able to drill. However, drilling near moving plates in the Earth's crust (such as in Texas, California, and Alaska for example) are typically the best places to drill for oil...

or the approximation of how much is where they are drilling? :lol:

Sure, they can guess...

Scientists don't have a clue as to how old the Earth is?

Nope.

Their theories are just guesswork you say? :lol:

Yup.

 

[poweRob]

Inversion Fallacy.


Inversion Fallacy.


Strawman Fallacy. I said that argumentation via google search is intellectually lazy, not that everyone else is intellectually lazy.


Nope.


Yup.


They know where to drill. They could drill literally anywhere and come up with oil, it's just a matter of how deep they are willing and/or able to drill. However, drilling near moving plates in the Earth's crust (such as in Texas, California, and Alaska for example) are typically the best places to drill for oil...


Sure, they can guess...


Nope.


Yup.

You literally haven't a clue as to what you are talking about so you play the fallacy game instead of engaging in debate and backing up your claims.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Of course it will be. Thanks to our a hole politicians and republicans who eat up oil and gas propaganda, China and Europe will be the leaders of the industry and will benefit the most from green energy.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

the omg.... :facepalm#1:

Fossil Fuels: a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.​

The omg.... :facepalm#2:

Renewable energy: Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.​

World’s fastest EV charger gives drivers 120 miles in 8 minutes

You have to be the most uninformed poster on this topic I've ever seen.

My guess, intentionally posting dumb stuff to troll. But you never know, there are a lot of really dumb people in this world

 

[poweRob]

My guess, intentionally posting dumb stuff to troll. But you never know, there are a lot of really dumb people in this world

Yup. He basically thinks

1. Geologists don't know how much oil they've found
2. Scientists don't have a clue as to the age of the earth
3. Fossil fuels only come from fossils
4. Fossil fuels are also "renewable" energy

And if you ask him to bother backing it up with something more than his imagination, he runs away screaming "FALLACY!!!!1!11!!!"

 

[azgreg]

I know enough about Excel to make pretty pie charts, too. Doesn't prove anything, nor answer my questions.

One of my favorite pie charts.

 

[gfm7175]

You literally haven't a clue as to what you are talking about

Care to provide a counterargument?

so you play the fallacy game instead of engaging in debate and backing up your claims.

Stop making fallacious arguments then...

 

[Bullseye]

One of my favorite pie charts.

This is great! LOL

 

[gfm7175]

[*]Geologists don't know how much oil they've found

Strawman... Never argued that. I argued that they don't know how much is currently in the Earth...

[*]Scientists don't have a clue as to the age of the earth

Correct. They don't. Their guess is as good as anyone else's... Any theory about the beginning of the Earth/beginning of the universe is a religious theory. It is unfalsifiable, thus not a theory of science.

[*]Fossil fuels only come from fossils

I argued that nobody uses fossils as fuel. We use oil, coal, and natural gas.

[*]Fossil fuels are also "renewable" energy

Oil and natural gas are both renewable. They form naturally...

And if you ask him to bother backing it up with something more than his imagination,

It's backed up by science.

he runs away screaming "FALLACY!!!!1!11!!!"

I don't run away from anybody... I only "scream" fallacy when people make them... Stop making them and I will stop calling them out...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There was no need to me to do so.

Quite right the "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." position is quite common in these sort of debates.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Then call yourself out for it.

Your position in this post of yours is basically to deny science and play dumb then call everyone else intellectually lazy in the same breath.

There's no "known" amount of oil? Really? Oil companies don't know where to drill or the approximation of how much is where they are drilling? :lol:

Scientists don't have a clue as to how old the Earth is? Their theories are just guesswork you say? :lol:

It is a known fact that the Earth was created at 0700 GMT on Wednesday the 12th of April in 4004BC.

Well, doesn't everyone know that?