Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

It's backed up by science.

Since you are making an "assertion of fact", I feel quite free to call upon you to provide links to reputable, verifiable, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that validate your "assertion of fact".

Please do so.

PS - Lesson 10 from "The Big Little Golden Book of Biblical Myths and Bizarre Russian Theories" as published by good ol' Rev. Billy-Bob (the Cliff's Notes version) simply won't hack it.

[Expected response - "crickets"]

 

[poweRob]

Since you are making an "assertion of fact", I feel quite free to call upon you to provide links to reputable, verifiable, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that validate your "assertion of fact".

Please do so.

PS - Lesson 10 from "The Big Little Golden Book of Biblical Myths and Bizarre Russian Theories" as published by good ol' Rev. Billy-Bob (the Cliff's Notes version) simply won't hack it.

[Expected response - "crickets"]

He's ignoring the definition of words. It helps him make his false case seem real to him.

 

[gfm7175]

Since you are making an "assertion of fact",

Not what a fact is... facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs.

I feel quite free to call upon you to provide links

False Authority Fallacy... no 'holy link' can overrule the authority of science...

to reputable,

science is reputable.

verifiable,

it has been verified.

peer-reviewed,

no elite group of people can further legitimize science in any way.

scientific studies that validate your "assertion of fact".

science can't verify (prove) anything. It can only falsify.

Please do so.

PS - Lesson 10 from "The Big Little Golden Book of Biblical Myths and Bizarre Russian Theories" as published by good ol' Rev. Billy-Bob (the Cliff's Notes version) simply won't hack it.

[Expected response - "crickets"]

I did.

 

[gfm7175]

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?

I'm not interested in your bigotry, TU... not every Christian is a young earther...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The economic case for fossil fuels is crumbling.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

You have positive example from around the world. That Scotland already got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

While Denmark that got 43 percent of their electricity from renewables in 2017 and plan to get half of all their energy consumption from renewables by 2030.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20180111/denmark-set-wind-power-record-in-2017-ministry

That even Republican coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He's ignoring the definition of words. It helps him make his false case seem real to him.

I'm actually a bit more comfortable with people who "ignore" the meaning of commonly used words that are being used as they are normally used than I am with people who simply don't know what the words mean.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not what a fact is... facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs.

Did you know that a "non-responsive rambling over irrelevancies" is NOT the same thing as an "answer"?

You do now.

Please provide an actual answer.

While I do appreciate the fact that you might even honestly believe that you have provided links to reputable, verifiable, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that validate your "assertion of fact" - that "assertion of fact" being that oil is being constantly created in nature - your "I did" isn't quite the same thing as actually providing the links (which you obviously have saved) when asked to do so again. Now, if you had responded with "I did - see Post xxx in xxxxxx" that would be a sufficiency.

So rather than waste my time on your (in translation "I'm not gonna - you go and find them for yourself and if they aren't the same ones that I already have I won't accept them.", I'll politely ask you again to provide links to reputable, verifiable, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that validate your "assertion of fact".

PS - I still expect that your response will be the equivalent of "crickets".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm not interested in your bigotry, TU... not every Christian is a young earther...

True, but it's also true that not every "Christian" is a total denier of reality and/or science who simply doesn't know what technical terms mean and believes that he can use any word to mean anything that they want it to mean.

 

[jimbo]

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.

Just the bolded headline.

I drive a dozen times a year to a small city some 265 miles from my home. So two eight minute fill ups as opposed to one fully filled tank for 400 miles in two minutes prior to my leaving. (and halfway home)

I don't think we'll be closing gas stations by 2020.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There are also strong benefits with a tranistion away from fossil fuels. For example that even federal reports published during Trump’s presidency warns about climate changes from fossil fuels and its negative effects.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

While 93 percent of the world’s children under the age of 15 years breathe air that is so polluted it puts their health and development at serious risk.

More than 90% of the world?s children breathe toxic air every day

 

[Arby]

The economic case for fossil fuels is crumbling.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

You have positive example from around the world. That Scotland already got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

While Denmark that got 43 percent of their electricity from renewables in 2017 and plan to get half of all their energy consumption from renewables by 2030.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20180111/denmark-set-wind-power-record-in-2017-ministry

That even Republican coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/

This is all good. It means hi-test will become cheaper and it won't cost me $80 to fill up. 10 mpg at $3.59 is costly.

 

[rickc]

This is all good. It means hi-test will become cheaper and it won't cost me $80 to fill up. 10 mpg at $3.59 is costly.

that is a good one. more prius leaves more fuel for my f250

the best is when we no longer need their oil we will no longer have to send our young men and women to the middle east to fight and die protecting our access to that oil. We can just let them kill each other off.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There are also strong benefits with a tranistion away from fossil fuels.

Quite correct. However there are also costs that the proponents of "Dump Fossil Fuel Now" refuse to consider. (If you don't believe me, ask one of them the next time you see them driving up to the site of the latest demonstration and getting out of their gas powered cars wearing clothing derived from petrochemical products that are produced in factories powered by fossil fuels and then transported to market in fossil fuelled vehicles.)

For example that even federal reports published during Trump’s presidency warns about climate changes from fossil fuels and its negative effects.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

While 93 percent of the world’s children under the age of 15 years breathe air that is so polluted it puts their health and development at serious risk.

More than 90% of the world?s children breathe toxic air every day

You appear to misunderstand the position of the "Anti Climate Change Nuts". Their position is "Since you cannot prove that the fact that human civilization is tossing millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere on a daily basis is the SOLE CAUSE of that so-called 'Global Warming' (which I refuse to admit even exists), that means that tossing millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere on a daily basis is totally harmless.".

Based on that premise, it is quite understandable (and logical) to resist spending billions of dollars to "fight" a "problem" that simply doesn't exist - right?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Quite correct. However there are also costs that the proponents of "Dump Fossil Fuel Now" refuse to consider. (If you don't believe me, ask one of them the next time you see them driving up to the site of the latest demonstration and getting out of their gas powered cars wearing clothing derived from petrochemical products that are produced in factories powered by fossil fuels and then transported to market in fossil fuelled vehicles.)



You appear to misunderstand the position of the "Anti Climate Change Nuts". Their position is "Since you cannot prove that the fact that human civilization is tossing millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere on a daily basis is the SOLE CAUSE of that so-called 'Global Warming' (which I refuse to admit even exists), that means that tossing millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere on a daily basis is totally harmless.".

Based on that premise, it is quite understandable (and logical) to resist spending billions of dollars to "fight" a "problem" that simply doesn't exist - right?

No, you deliberately mis-portray the position of the Skeptics.

It is (mostly) that there appears to be no bad thing to fear from a slightly warmer world and that the evidence that humans are responsible for the observed warming so far is very shakey. So why are we killing millions currently by making food twice as expensive as it should be?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, you deliberately mis-portray the position of the Skeptics.

It is (mostly) that there appears to be no bad thing to fear from a slightly warmer world and that the evidence that humans are responsible for the observed warming so far is very shakey.

I don't have any problem with those who take the position that "There is some evidence, but not enough to be 100% sure either way."

However the "Skeptics" adamantly deny that anything whatsoever is happening (and insist that the whole thing is a devious **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** plot).

So why are we killing millions currently by making food twice as expensive as it should be?

Because there is one whole lot of money to be made by doing so.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I don't have any problem with those who take the position that "There is some evidence, but not enough to be 100% sure either way."

However the "Skeptics" adamantly deny that anything whatsoever is happening (and insist that the whole thing is a devious **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** plot).



Because there is one whole lot of money to be made by doing so.

Nobody sane claims that the world has not warmed a bit.

Nobody sane claims that the CO2 we create has not caused a build up of it in the air.

Neither of these things are at all bad.

The plot is not a socialist one it is a class war one with the rich land owners getting more money from the poor via inflating the food price, via shifting the burden of tax onto fuel, via reducing the freedom of individuals.

That the usual crowd of uesful idiots have been co-opted into it is simply because they are traitor personality types. They just want whatever makes the word bad for humanity.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nobody sane claims that the world has not warmed a bit.

Mr. Trump and his supporters do.

Nobody sane claims that the CO2 we create has not caused a build up of it in the air.

Mr. Trump and his supporters do.

Neither of these things are at all bad

I do hope that you intended to write "Neither of these things are ALL bad." (emphasis added) because what you wrote is simply incorrect.

The plot is not a socialist one ...

Mr. Trump and his supporter will tell you differently.

... it is a class war one ...

Mr. Trump and his supporters will tell you that that cannot possibly be the case because there are no "classes" in the United States of America.

... with the rich land owners getting more money from the poor via inflating the food price, ...

That, as Mr. Trump and his supporters will tell you, is simply being "smart" because that is the way that the unfettered, free market, capitalist economy that make America great operates AND if you don't like it then you are probably some sort of convert **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** who is out to destroy the America that is so great that a person like Donald Trump - who was born without a dime - could rise to the position of President of the United States of America."

... via shifting the burden of tax onto fuel, via reducing the freedom of individuals.

You lost me there.

That the usual crowd of uesful idiots have been co-opted into it is simply because they are traitor personality types. They just want whatever makes the word bad for humanity.

To paraphrase the position of one of Mr. Trump's most ardent supporters "So what? It isn't illegal and if it isn't illegal then the ONLY thing that counts is 'The Law' and any consideration of ethics or morality is irrelevant." - which I believe was Lesson 1 at Trump University.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Quite correct. However there are also costs that the proponents of "Dump Fossil Fuel Now" refuse to consider. (If you don't believe me, ask one of them the next time you see them driving up to the site of the latest demonstration and getting out of their gas powered cars wearing clothing derived from petrochemical products that are produced in factories powered by fossil fuels and then transported to market in fossil fuelled vehicles.)



You appear to misunderstand the position of the "Anti Climate Change Nuts". Their position is "Since you cannot prove that the fact that human civilization is tossing millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere on a daily basis is the SOLE CAUSE of that so-called 'Global Warming' (which I refuse to admit even exists), that means that tossing millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere on a daily basis is totally harmless.".

Based on that premise, it is quite understandable (and logical) to resist spending billions of dollars to "fight" a "problem" that simply doesn't exist - right?

There are great benefits to reducing C02 emissions.

'“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health, and well-being,” said Priyardarshi Shukla, Chair of the Global Centre for Environment and Energy at Ahmedabad University in India and co-author of the Special Report, in a statement. Such impacts include stronger storms, more erratic weather, dangerous heat waves, rising seas, and largescale disruption to infrastructure and migration patterns.'

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ort-climate-change-impacts-forests-emissions/

There you even have federal reports under Donald Trump that show the great benefits of reducing C02 emissions like this report.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

You can also look at Forbes best country for business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

There on fourth place you have Sweden that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995 and is one of the world's most sustainable countries,.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

Sweden also past bipartisan legislation to be carbon neutral by 2045.

https://unfccc.int/news/sweden-plans-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2045

On seventh place you have Denmark that got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to get 80 percent of their electriciy from renewable energy by 2020 is on seventh place.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/

While a big reason for that it's debate about climate change is because of decades of massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

 

[Tim the plumber]

Mr. Trump and his supporters do.



Mr. Trump and his supporters do.



I do hope that you intended to write "Neither of these things are ALL bad." (emphasis added) because what you wrote is simply incorrect.



Mr. Trump and his supporter will tell you differently.



Mr. Trump and his supporters will tell you that that cannot possibly be the case because there are no "classes" in the United States of America.



That, as Mr. Trump and his supporters will tell you, is simply being "smart" because that is the way that the unfettered, free market, capitalist economy that make America great operates AND if you don't like it then you are probably some sort of convert **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** who is out to destroy the America that is so great that a person like Donald Trump - who was born without a dime - could rise to the position of President of the United States of America."



You lost me there.



To paraphrase the position of one of Mr. Trump's most ardent supporters "So what? It isn't illegal and if it isn't illegal then the ONLY thing that counts is 'The Law' and any consideration of ethics or morality is irrelevant." - which I believe was Lesson 1 at Trump University.

1, I don't care what Trump says. I don't especially count him as sane.

2, If you can show any bad thing that is likely to happen due to the warming as predicted by the IPCC in any given local authority in the world, that has traffic lights, that will cost that local authority more than its' traffic light budget then I will accept that there may be some cause for concearn.

I will need you to explain how this is going to happen, the mechanism between the warming and the bad thing, and link to some sort of science so we can see how much of it will happen.

So far nobody has managed this at all. Closes is that the Maple syrup industry has moved North a bit.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There are great benefits to reducing C02 emissions.

I don't think that I actually said that I thought otherwise.

Those benefits might be as simple as reducing the amount of poisonous gases released into the atmosphere and they might be as complex as preventing the natural flux of climate change reaching a tipping point (with consequences that we cannot determine) or them might be anywhere in the middle - BUT there are still benefits.

While a big reason for that it's debate about climate change is because of decades of massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry.

Another thing that I never disputed. Of course I can understand (which does NOT mean the same thing as "agree with") the actions of those who stand to lose financially should the entire energy production/use structure change in such a way that the source of their income dries up.

After all, buggy whip manufacturers weren't all that keen on the introduction of the "horseless carriage" were they?

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos[/QUOTE]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

1, I don't care what Trump says. I don't especially count him as sane.

I suspect that Mr. Trump could well be in "The Psychiatric Grey Zone". That's the area of sanity where, IF you are "inside" THEN they won't let you out, BUT IF you are "outside" THEN they won't put you in.

2, If you can show any bad thing that is likely to happen due to the warming as predicted by the IPCC in any given local authority in the world, that has traffic lights, that will cost that local authority more than its' traffic light budget then I will accept that there may be some cause for concearn.

It does appear that the shift in the Earth's climate has rendered the colds colder and the hots hotter. One example of this is an increase in snowfall to the point where (I suspect [I don't actually follow municipal budgets for hundreds of cities and towns) the increase in the cost of snow removal exceeds their annual "traffic light" budget. Another example of this is an increase in the severity (and possibly frequency [and I'm not about to spend hours tracking down the data needed to prove or disprove that point, so I'll leave it at "possibly"]) of wild fires where that increases the costs of fire fighting by an amount that exceeds their annual "traffic light" budget.

I will need you to explain how this is going to happen, the mechanism between the warming and the bad thing, and link to some sort of science so we can see how much of it will happen.

Your question is better addressed to a fully qualified and currently practicing climatologist - which neither you nor I are.

So far nobody has managed this at all. Closes is that the Maple syrup industry has moved North a bit.

Did you know that no one had managed to "prove" that the Germans were defeated in WWII prior to May 7, 1945? A lot of people were pretty sure that that was the case, but no one could "prove" that it had happened until it actually happened.

Based on all of the available evidence those people had concluded that it was (at least) "more likely than not" that Germany was defeated and planned on that basis. They MIGHT have been wrong with disastrous consequences. The situation with respect to the changes to global climate are in the same category as far as those who want to make their plans based on "There is no chance that any adverse effects will accrue if we continue on our present course of action.".

 

[poweRob]

Just the bolded headline.

I drive a dozen times a year to a small city some 265 miles from my home. So two eight minute fill ups as opposed to one fully filled tank for 400 miles in two minutes prior to my leaving. (and halfway home)

I don't think we'll be closing gas stations by 2020.

Yeah I never said they would be soooo.....

 

[longview]

There are great benefits to reducing C02 emissions.

There is great benefit is finding viable sources of energy from sustainable sources,
If reducing CO2 levels is any benefit, it is a side effect.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem.
We cannot solve our energy problem with natural hydrocarbons for long.
Solving our real problem of energy will address CO2 as a side effect.
Any monies or efforts spent directly addressing CO2 as the issue, are mostly wasted, as it is not addressing the actual problem.

 

[Obscurity]

There is great benefit is finding viable sources of energy from sustainable sources,
If reducing CO2 levels is any benefit, it is a side effect.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem.
We cannot solve our energy problem with natural hydrocarbons for long.
Solving our real problem of energy will address CO2 as a side effect.
Any monies or efforts spent directly addressing CO2 as the issue, are mostly wasted, as it is not addressing the actual problem.

So what is the problem?

Energy consumption?

Tell that to the conservatives that block initiatives for mass transit across this nation.

Tell that to liberals who refuse to accept a modicum of centrist thinking.

At the end of the day, the issue with CO2 emissions is disastrous when coupled with the massive deforestation globalism and capitalism has wrought.

Ignoring climate change is a disaster. The republicans and their constituency are principally at fault here. Peddling fake science and clinging to fringe articles won't save them. It simply misleads the majority of people with male bovine excrement.

 

[longview]

So what is the problem?

Energy consumption?

Tell that to the conservatives that block initiatives for mass transit across this nation.

Tell that to liberals who refuse to accept a modicum of centrist thinking.

At the end of the day, the issue with CO2 emissions is disastrous when coupled with the massive deforestation globalism and capitalism has wrought.

Ignoring climate change is a disaster. The republicans and their constituency are principally at fault here. Peddling fake science and clinging to fringe articles won't save them. It simply misleads the majority of people with male bovine excrement.

Your assumption is that energy consumption is the problem, the problem is that there is not enough naturally stored hydrocarbon energy to allow
the entire current population to live a first world lifestyle.
The answer is not to lower the lifestyle of the first world, but to find a solution to allow all to participate.
While there is room to improve, said improvement should not be at the cost of a reduced lifestyle, and that include the freedom to move about
independent of public transportation.