• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020

Bergslagstroll said:
Even federal reports published during Trump’s presidency warns about the devastating effects from climate caused by fossil fuels.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Also Trump's support of dirty coal plants also risk leading to more toxic pollutions.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/31/epa-trump-pollution-clean-power-plan-states

EPA under Trump also for example risk scewing reviews of air quality standards in the favor of fossil fuel interstests.

'Jeremy Sarnat, another former member of the panel, who is an associate professor of environmental health at Emory University, called the move "depressing."

"What the new and previous EPA administrators have done is dismantle a process which has, over many years, proven itself to be highly successful and effective," Sarnat said in an email. The new process, he added, now consolidates input "to a small, and in some cases unqualified, group of individuals, and ultimately opens EPA up to the charge that it is politics, not science, that is driving this new policy."'

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/trump-s-epa-scraps-air-pollution-science-review-panels
Click to expand...

You do understand that none of what you posted counter what I said?
"Hyperbole doe not make facts, the Obama additions were related to CO2 emissions, not the aerosols that were removed in earlier regulations, those will not be affected."
 
longview said:
You do understand that none of what you posted counter what I said?
"Hyperbole doe not make facts, the Obama additions were related to CO2 emissions, not the aerosols that were removed in earlier regulations, those will not be affected."
Click to expand...

The decline of coal plants have helped to reduce toxic air pollution in the USA there Trump now instead want to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also for example wants to see new regulation that makes it possible for cars to emit more pollution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
 

Thread: Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020


When subsidies and clean up are taken into consideration is already is.
 
tecoyah said:

Thread: Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020


When subsidies and clean up are taken into consideration is already is.
Click to expand...

Yes take for example that global subsidies to fossil fuel are much bigger. than the subsidies to renewable energy.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

Also the enormous cost of climate change and toxic pollutants from fossil fuels. There meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...igh-the-costs-of-meeting-climate-change-goals
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The decline of coal plants have helped to reduce toxic air pollution in the USA there Trump now instead want to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also for example wants to see new regulation that makes it possible for cars to emit more pollution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
Click to expand...

And that still does not mean that Trump is changing the clean air and clean water act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
And that still does not mean that Trump is changing the clean air and clean water act.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I written in this thread the Trump administration have made a lot of other decisions that worsening both climate change and toxic pollutants. There the ten worst climate-linked disasters in 2018 caused at least $84.8 billion worth of damage.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...018-caused-85-billion-in-damage-idUSKCN1OQ11T

There we now also are starting to run 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 we don’t need politicians like Donald Trump that wants to spend billions of dollars propping up coal plans instead of taking action to combat manmade global warming.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants
 
Bergslagstroll said:
As I written in this thread the Trump administration have made a lot of other decisions that worsening both climate change and toxic pollutants. There the ten worst climate-linked disasters in 2018 caused at least $84.8 billion worth of damage.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...018-caused-85-billion-in-damage-idUSKCN1OQ11T

There we now also are starting to run 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 we don’t need politicians like Donald Trump that wants to spend billions of dollars propping up coal plans instead of taking action to combat manmade global warming.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants
Click to expand...
You still cannot separate the idea that what Trump is doing is limiting Obama CO2 rules, not lowering the clean air standards from earlier.
You disdain for Trump is blurring your vision.
 
According to FRED, the number of coal mining jobs in the US has increased by 2,500 since Mr. Trump took office.

This is an increase of 4.93% over the 50,700 coal mining jobs in January of 2017
 
longview said:
You still cannot separate the idea that what Trump is doing is limiting Obama CO2 rules, not lowering the clean air standards from earlier.
You disdain for Trump is blurring your vision.
Click to expand...

The Trump administration have made a lot of other decisions that worsening both climate change and toxic pollutants. There they now also say that limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plant are unnecessary.

'“The policy (Acting EPA Administrator) Andrew Wheeler and (President) Donald Trump proposed today means more pregnant women, young children, and the elderly will be exposed to deadly neurotoxins and poisons, just so wealthy coal and oil barons can make a few extra bucks,” Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign Director Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement. Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist.

“Virtually every coal plant in the U.S. has already met this lifesaving standard, and now Trump is recklessly trying to roll it back,” she said.

A study published this month by Harvard University’s School of Public Health said coal-fired power plants are the top source of mercury in the United States, accounting for nearly half of mercury emissions in 2015. It said the standards have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.'

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-from-coal-plants-not-necessary-idUSKCN1OR1BU
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
The Trump administration have made a lot of other decisions that worsening both climate change and toxic pollutants. There they now also say that limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plant are unnecessary.

'“The policy (Acting EPA Administrator) Andrew Wheeler and (President) Donald Trump proposed today means more pregnant women, young children, and the elderly will be exposed to deadly neurotoxins and poisons, just so wealthy coal and oil barons can make a few extra bucks,” Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign Director Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement. Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist.

“Virtually every coal plant in the U.S. has already met this lifesaving standard, and now Trump is recklessly trying to roll it back,” she said.

A study published this month by Harvard University’s School of Public Health said coal-fired power plants are the top source of mercury in the United States, accounting for nearly half of mercury emissions in 2015. It said the standards have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.'

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-from-coal-plants-not-necessary-idUSKCN1OR1BU
Click to expand...

Those sunny "Dont worry people, America is helping to save the planet even with Trump destroying Washington" so-called journalism pieces have mostly become a thing of the past......
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Those sunny "Dont worry people, America is helping to save the planet even with Trump destroying Washington" so-called journalism pieces have mostly become a thing of the past......
Click to expand...

You have a lot of Americans that see the benefits in renewable energy and taking action to combat climate change.

Like for example that a coalition of U.S. cities, states, companies and universities still plan on meeting the commitments of the Paris climate accord.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...gn-pledge-to-abide-by-paris-agreement-even-if

While 150 of the world’s most influential companies, many of them Americans, have committed to source 100 percent renewable electricity.

Exxon knows renewables are cheaper, even if Trump doesn't

Even Republican politicians are on a local level starting to see the benefits of renewable energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7

While two thirds of Americans give priority to developing renewables over fossil fuel. It was also two thirds of Americans that wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Still it of course have a huge negative impact that US have a president beholden to his wealthy donors in the fossil fuel industry.
 
poweRob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Crap. I’ve been burning fossils for nothing.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The Trump administration have made a lot of other decisions that worsening both climate change and toxic pollutants. There they now also say that limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plant are unnecessary.

'“The policy (Acting EPA Administrator) Andrew Wheeler and (President) Donald Trump proposed today means more pregnant women, young children, and the elderly will be exposed to deadly neurotoxins and poisons, just so wealthy coal and oil barons can make a few extra bucks,” Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign Director Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement. Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist.

“Virtually every coal plant in the U.S. has already met this lifesaving standard, and now Trump is recklessly trying to roll it back,” she said.

A study published this month by Harvard University’s School of Public Health said coal-fired power plants are the top source of mercury in the United States, accounting for nearly half of mercury emissions in 2015. It said the standards have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.'

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-from-coal-plants-not-necessary-idUSKCN1OR1BU
Click to expand...
Do you read the stuff you cite?
Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury,
which can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems.
Click to expand...
Again rules added under Obama, not part of the original clean air requirements.
I do not like coal for lots of reasons, but what Trump is changing is what Obama put in place.
Were Obama's rules extreme or unnecessary? I really do not know, but that would fit.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Over 150 of the world’s most influential companies have committed to source 100 percent renewable electricity. While the price of renewables have dropped so much that even oil companies invests in renewable energy.

Exxon knows renewables are cheaper, even if Trump doesn't
Click to expand...
Do you understand that if Exxon supports an idea, it is because their is a profit path in it for them?
Renewable s are not currently cheaper energy than those from naturally stored hydrocarbons, but that is because of duty cycle and density.
At some point soon the economic viability lines will cross, and renewable energy will be stored as hydrocarbon fuels,
because that is where the greater profit will be.
The oil companies set up to make the switch will stay in business, those that are not, will get consumed.
 
longview said:
Do you read the stuff you cite?

Again rules added under Obama, not part of the original clean air requirements.
I do not like coal for lots of reasons, but what Trump is changing is what Obama put in place.
Were Obama's rules extreme or unnecessary? I really do not know, but that would fit.
Click to expand...

There are huge benefits to the regulations of mercury for coal plants that Trump wants to abolish.

“By contrast, the Obama administration had calculated an additional $80 billion in health benefits because particulate matter and other toxic pollutants are also reduced when utilities limit mercury. It said those "co-benefits" included preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths each year.

"What has changed now is the administration's attitude towards public health," said Clean Air Task Force Legal Director Ann Weeks in a statement. Weeks called the EPA's estimates outdated and said more recent research finds billions of dollars in public health benefits from reducing mercury emissions alone.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/6791...imits-on-coal-plants-too-costly-not-necessary
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Isn't Spain one of those Socialist Monarchies? Your local "Conservative" want's to know.

Doesn't that mean that nothing that Spain does is in the least bit relevant to the United States of America? Your local "Conservative" wants to know.
Click to expand...

Of course US could and should learn from other countries just like other countries can learn from US.

While if you for some reason don’t like Spain you for example have UK and Denmark that both have a right wing government and also rank high on Forbes best country list.

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

There Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to meet 50 percent of all their energy needs with renewable energy by 2030

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0111/932573-denmark-wind-farm/

While UK that have drastically reduced it's coal consumption and will close its last coal plant in 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025

If you still for some reason doesn’t like European countries you have Republican states like Indiana that will replace coal plants with renewable energy.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ev...are-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants/540242/
 
Bergslagstroll said:
There are huge benefits to the regulations of mercury for coal plants that Trump wants to abolish.

“By contrast, the Obama administration had calculated an additional $80 billion in health benefits because particulate matter and other toxic pollutants are also reduced when utilities limit mercury. It said those "co-benefits" included preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths each year.

"What has changed now is the administration's attitude towards public health," said Clean Air Task Force Legal Director Ann Weeks in a statement. Weeks called the EPA's estimates outdated and said more recent research finds billions of dollars in public health benefits from reducing mercury emissions alone.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/6791...imits-on-coal-plants-too-costly-not-necessary
Click to expand...
There may or may not be benefits to the Obama regulations, but there are also cost.
I Think many of the rules have not become active ...yet, but are scheduled.
It would be possible if the Obama administration wanted to eliminate coal as a power source to create regulations so tight that coal plants could not exists.
I really do not know what the limits of the new regulations are, as that data seems thin.
The 2012 changes gave plants up to 4 years to comply, but were the new rules realistic?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Of course US could and should learn from other countries just like other countries can learn from US.

While if you for some reason don’t like Spain you for example have UK and Denmark that both have a right wing government and also rank high on Forbes best country list.

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

There Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to meet 50 percent of all their energy needs with renewable energy by 2030

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0111/932573-denmark-wind-farm/

While UK that have drastically reduced it's coal consumption and will close its last coal plant in 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025

If you still for some reason doesn’t like European countries you have Republican states like Indiana that will replace coal plants with renewable energy.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ev...are-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants/540242/
Click to expand...

I know you like to regurgitate this list often, but there are costs to increasing renewable energy the way the EU does it.
https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/
You list the UK, which has seen electricity increase from $.14 to $.18 since 2010.
Or Denmark $.27 to $.30.
Prices are up across Europe.
 
longview said:
There may or may not be benefits to the Obama regulations, but there are also cost.
I Think many of the rules have not become active ...yet, but are scheduled.
It would be possible if the Obama administration wanted to eliminate coal as a power source to create regulations so tight that coal plants could not exists.
I really do not know what the limits of the new regulations are, as that data seems thin.
The 2012 changes gave plants up to 4 years to comply, but were the new rules realistic?
Click to expand...

Aren't the people pushing for the elimination/downgrading of the EPA regulations the same people who are supporting "Right To Life" movements?

Shouldn't those people be thinking that, possibly, someone who has actually been born has a "Right To Life" which is threatened by breathing in the toxic chemicals that the elimination/downgrading of the EPA regulations will produce?

Or it that simply another case of "That's DIFFERENT!!!"?
 
longview said:
I know you like to regurgitate this list often, but there are costs to increasing renewable energy the way the EU does it.
https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/
You list the UK, which has seen electricity increase from $.14 to $.18 since 2010.
Or Denmark $.27 to $.30.
Prices are up across Europe.
Click to expand...

The AVERAGE price is $0.115 per kWh in Canada and $0.1356 per kWh in the US.

Canada uses a lot more electricity produced from renewable sources than the US does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom