• 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!

The TRUTH about the Climate Change MYTH

Renewables don't work and I used the example of the country with the most comprehensive experience using them to make my point.

Take it up with the Danes if you don't like the implications their recent decisions have for your idealism . I'm just the messenger

Well, your example doesn't actually prove the point that 'renewables don't work", but whatever. I'll just note the person who is scientifically illiterate keeps posting data and evidence and all you AGW doubters can do in response is make baseless assertions backed by nothing....
 
Last edited:
OK, consider this.

You have no other means of power. No coal, no nuclear, no hydro, etc. You only have wind and solar.

What do you do at night when the wind stops blowing?

Without these other sources filling in the gaps for solar and wind, how much more would wind and solar cost, if you had to maintain batteries or some other storage methods?

Hydro, coal, oil, etc. are controlled by us as to how much we generate any given moment.

That is what the figures I linked to at Wiki estimate..... I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I'll also add that the notion that I think we can ELIMINATE coal or gas or hydro or even nuclear is a straw man. I've not said that, and in fact acknowledged to flogger that we cannot do that with current technology. But we CAN reduce our use of fossil fuels, and we very likely CAN eliminate plants, and if not entire plants, take units/burners in those plants off line more or less permanently, and we can definitely see our energy use go up without having to build new plants, since the additional energy is supplied by renewables.

I'm not claiming there is a silver bullet and in 5 years we've reached energy nirvana, just that we're at the early stages of a energy revolution according to many people and a transition from 18th century technology (burning stuff in a fire to make steam) to 21st century technology. It will happen with or without AGW or whatever because the economics will come in line soon enough. My only dog in the fight is I support speeding that along.

Wind is losing money in my state. Sure, it would be OK if we used all that was generated, but when the wind energy is blowing, to maintain cost effectiveness, it needs to be used. However, you can only slow down the generation of hydro power so much before the water reaches the tops of the spillways, then that resource is wasted instead. Here in Oregon, we generate more power than we use, even after sending much of it to Los Angeles!

Well, as I said above, there are a lot of questions still to be answered. This all started with me pushing back on a simple point which was that renewables are not even close to being cost effective. That was true probably even 10 years ago but no longer is. Where they make sense, they are already CHEAPER than many of our options, and the costs keep dropping....
 
Well, your example doesn't actually prove the point that 'renewables don't work", but whatever. I'll just note the person who is scientifically illiterate keeps posting data and evidence and all you AGW doubters can do in response is make baseless assertions backed by nothing....

The Danes have the greatest experience with these technologies and their own government ministers are now claiming that subsidising such projects was no longer viable.

You could perhaps send an nasty email telling them how wrong they are and that you have a solution for them that will change their minds

Good luck with that :)
 
The Danes have the greatest experience with these technologies and their own government ministers are now claiming that subsidising such projects was no longer viable.

You could perhaps send an nasty email telling them how wrong they are and that you have a solution for them that will change their minds

Good luck with that :)

So if the subsidies no longer pay off that means the underlying energy technology doesn't work? Sort of like how it works with oil and gas, right? That we no longer explicitly subsidize gasoline means "gasoline doesn't work." Like that?

And your point appears to be that since wind doesn't 'work' in Denmark, although they get 40% of their electricity from wind so I'm not sure that's actually a sound conclusion, then it doesn't work anywhere, and neither does solar? How do you connect those dots?

You don't or can't, which is the point....
 
So if the subsidies no longer pay off that means the underlying energy technology doesn't work? Sort of like how it works with oil and gas, right? That we no longer explicitly subsidize gasoline means "gasoline doesn't work." Like that?

When the renewable subsidies cost more than the value of the power being generated then it is clearly the economics of the mad house

And your point appears to be that since wind doesn't 'work' in Denmark, although they get 40% of their electricity from wind so I'm not sure that's actually a sound conclusion, then it doesn't work anywhere, and neither does solar? How do you connect those dots?

Take your complaint up with the Danish government then. You should send them your figures outlining just how wrong they are
 
When the renewable subsidies cost more than the value of the power being generated then it is clearly the economics of the mad house

Well, surprise, surprise, another baseless assertion backed by nothing!! It's a pattern on this thread.

Can you cite something that indicates the subsidy exceeded the value of the power generated. It's a straightforward dollars to dollars comparison, so can we have a cite to some evidence please?

Take your complaint up with the Danish government then. You should send them your figures outlining just how wrong they are

And a straw man! You're on a role.

Did I say they were wrong? No, I'm sure I did not. Nice try, though!

I'll just note I see Jack weighed in with a "like" for a baseless assertion followed by a transparent straw man....:roll:
 
And a straw man! You're on a role.

I'd go and look up the meaning of that word if I were you

Did I say they were wrong? No, I'm sure I did not. Nice try, though!

But if you say renewables work despite the Danes giving up on them up after 35 years of trying to make them work then thats exactly what you are saying

Denmark is one of the most affluent countries per capita in the world so there aren't many that could afford such an expensive experiment over such a lengthy period and afford to have it fail
 
I'd go and look up the meaning of that word if I were you

Ok, good idea:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

Your suggestion was for me to tell the government how wrong they were, but I never said ending the subsidies was wrong. I don't know anything about their subsidy program, so am agnostic on the issue.

But if you say renewables work despite the Danes giving up on them up after 35 years of trying to make them work then thats exactly what you are saying

They're not giving up on renewables - they get 40% of electricity from wind. Unless you have some evidence they are going to dismantle all their wind turbines, the change was to end subsidies, which is ENTIRELY different than giving up on renewables.

Plus, it should seem glaringly obvious, but if renewable energy can stand on its own, then subsidies are not needed. So without some data one way or another, the end of a subsidy, at a point when the subsidized activity represents 40% of your energy, is as likely to be a sign that renewables do work and no longer need to be subsidized.

Denmark is one of the most affluent countries per capita in the world so there aren't many that could afford such an expensive experiment over such a lengthy period and afford to have it fail

I guess you are incapable of backing up anything you say with any data. So here's the same link I posted earlier. The cost of energy in Denmark is right in line with the rest of the EU. You want to keep adding taxes to that, but the tax levels have nothing to do with the cost of energy. They are independent figures. So you can't even demonstrate that the program failed in any way. It's certainly not a sign of failure that they have this large renewable energy program, for 35 years, and are still "one of the most affluent countries per capita in the world."
 
They're not giving up on renewables - they get 40% of electricity from wind. Unless you have some evidence they are going to dismantle all their wind turbines, the change was to end subsidies, which is ENTIRELY different than giving up on renewables.
Given it is absolutely impossible for renewables to survive in the open market without huge subsidy then thats exactly what they have done.

Plus, it should seem glaringly obvious, but if renewable energy can stand on its own, then subsidies are not needed. So without some data one way or another, the end of a subsidy, at a point when the subsidized activity represents 40% of your energy, is as likely to be a sign that renewables do work and no longer need to be subsidized.

Please provide an example of any renewable where less than 50% of its entire manufacturing/operating/production costs weren't subsidised ?

I guess you are incapable of backing up anything you say with any data. So here's the same link I posted earlier. The cost of energy in Denmark is right in line with the rest of the EU. You want to keep adding taxes to that, but the tax levels have nothing to do with the cost of energy. They are independent figures. So you can't even demonstrate that the program failed in any way. It's certainly not a sign of failure that they have this large renewable energy program, for 35 years, and are still "one of the most affluent countries per capita in the world."

And as I showed you the Danish government have recently been forced to reverse themselves on that because it regards continuing subsidising these as being no longer fiscally viable. Take it up with them if they are upsetting your green dreams

They aren't the only ones though. Here in the UK the subsidies to green energy companies are spirally completely out of control

Green energy subsidies spiral out of control - Telegraph

The extent of such subsidies is always grossly underestimated when green utopianism rears its ugly head
 
Last edited:
Given it is absolutely impossible for renewables to survive in the open market without huge subsidy then thats exactly what they have done.

It's one baseless statement after another with you. On what basis do you claim that "renewables" can't survive in the open market without huge subsidies? And what actions by Denmark indicate they are "giving up" on wind energy? How many turbines are they taking off line?

Please provide an example of any renewable where less than 50% of its entire manufacturing/operating/production costs weren't subsidised ?

Well, that's a neat trick. You can't provide a shred of evidence for your own claims, so move the burden to me? LMMFAO.

And as I showed you the Danish government have recently been forced to reverse themselves on that because it regards continuing subsidising these as being no longer fiscally viable. Take it up with them if they are upsetting your green dreams

They reversed themselves on SUBSIDIES. My "green dreams" are your imagination, but whatever you have made up, they actually don't involve continuous subsidies for wind/solar/geothermal, etc.

They aren't the only ones though. Here in the UK the subsidies to green energy companies are spirally completely out of control

Green energy subsidies spiral out of control - Telegraph

This is a great quote that shows the awful failure of these programs and how renewables have no future...

The huge excess spending is thought to be a result of higher-than-expected numbers of rooftop solar panels being fitted on houses, falling wholesale energy prices, and offshore wind farms proving more productive than anticipated.

LOL. Terrible failure. Too many solar panels and wind turbines that are too efficient have caused wholesale prices for energy to FALL!! It's a disaster!! What can be done to reverse that awful trend???!!!

I'm just curious, the subsidies will reach $170 per year at the end of the decade. Do you have any idea what the drop in wholesale prices is per household? Seems to me that's something we might want to know, and the factors causing the drop in price. If it's because of renewables, isn't that sort of the point, at least the long term goal?

But the overall point is you really have nothing. You can't produce the cost per unit of energy for renewables, haven't compared that per unit cost to traditional sources, don't apparently realize the prices have been dropping like a rock in recent years, haven't even linked to an analysis that goes beyond editorial hand wringing, and have made an argument that consists almost entirely in repeating talking points and assertions you cannot back up with anything. It's to be expected from denier types, and appreciated. I wade into these discussions every now and then to see if I'm missing something and so far haven't found it. It appears the fact based scientific community is still who I should trust on these matters.
 
It's one baseless statement after another with you. On what basis do you claim that "renewables" can't survive in the open market without huge subsidies? And what actions by Denmark indicate they are "giving up" on wind energy? How many turbines are they taking off line?

That remains to be seen given they only made this statement during the recent COP21

Well, that's a neat trick. You can't provide a shred of evidence for your own claims, so move the burden to me? LMMFAO.

A simple 'no I cannot provide any such example' would have served you better there

They reversed themselves on SUBSIDIES. My "green dreams" are your imagination, but whatever you have made up, they actually don't involve continuous subsidies for wind/solar/geothermal, etc.

And without those subsidies their green energy programme is finished. Remember you heard it here first

This is a great quote that shows the awful failure of these programs and how renewables have no future...

As is paying £9 Billion we wouldnt have had to pay were it not for these useless renewables

LOL. Terrible failure. Too many solar panels and wind turbines that are too efficient have caused wholesale prices for energy to FALL!! It's a disaster!! What can be done to reverse that awful trend???!!!

Wholesale prices are currently falling because of plummetting fossil fuel wholesale costs certainly not the economy of renewables ! :lol:

Officials admitted that so-called “green” energy schemes will require a staggering £9 billion a year in subsidies - paid for by customers - by 2020. This is £1.5 billion more than the maximum limit the coalition had originally planned.

Official figures showed that environmental levies added £68 to the average household bill last year. By 2020 this had been expected to rise to £141. But the latest DECC figures suggest the true figure will be closer to £170 as costs continue to mount.

I'm just curious, the subsidies will reach $170 per year at the end of the decade. Do you have any idea what the drop in wholesale prices is per household? Seems to me that's something we might want to know, and the factors causing the drop in price. If it's because of renewables, isn't that sort of the point, at least the long term goal?

You should also note that this is pounds not dollars

But the overall point is you really have nothing. You can't produce the cost per unit of energy for renewables, haven't compared that per unit cost to traditional sources, don't apparently realize the prices have been dropping like a rock in recent years, haven't even linked to an analysis that goes beyond editorial hand wringing, and have made an argument that consists almost entirely in repeating talking points and assertions you cannot back up with anything. It's to be expected from denier types, and appreciated. I wade into these discussions every now and then to see if I'm missing something and so far haven't found it. It appears the fact based scientific community is still who I should trust on these matters.

Or perhaps trusting the figures would serve you better

ED-AP639_1energ_NS_20120817170303.webp

I doubt you are very keen to pay three times more for your energy but you seem to be very keen that the rest of us should. I'm sorry but I do not share your green guilt and am certainly not prepared to be penalised by it
 
That remains to be seen given they only made this statement during the recent COP21

OK, so there's nothing. You're making it up. Got it.

A simple 'no I cannot provide any such example' would have served you better there

Well, if that's the proper response to a request for data, you should be able to type it in your sleep. I've asked for evidence a dozen times or more - nothing.

And without those subsidies their green energy programme is finished. Remember you heard it here first

Baseless assertion #187 by flogger.

As is paying £9 Billion we wouldnt have had to pay were it not for these useless renewables

You haven't shown them to be useless. Baseless assertion #188.

Wholesale prices are currently falling because of plummetting fossil fuel wholesale costs certainly not the economy of renewables ! :lol:

#189.

Officials admitted that so-called “green” energy schemes will require a staggering £9 billion a year in subsidies - paid for by customers - by 2020. This is £1.5 billion more than the maximum limit the coalition had originally planned.

Official figures showed that environmental levies added £68 to the average household bill last year. By 2020 this had been expected to rise to £141. But the latest DECC figures suggest the true figure will be closer to £170 as costs continue to mount.


Right, I read it and stating the number doesn't actually represent any kind of analysis of the results.

You should also note that this is pounds not dollars

OK, but I don't have pounds on my U.S. keyboard. So roughly $250. Should have converted to dollars.

Or perhaps trusting the figures would serve you better

I'm not going to reproduce your table because it looks suspiciously like chain email BS. The author couldn't even be bothered to spell "Research" correctly. And I know what the EIA estimates to be the cost per Mwh for solar and it's about $125, so current subsidies totaling 6 times the cost is absurd. No one would build anything but a solar panel farm. Furthermore, the link I provided earlier pegs current solar subsidies at $10 per MwH, which is a little different than $775.

So you'll have to at least cite a source that can spell "research" correctly before I'll take it seriously.

I doubt you are very keen to pay three times more for your energy but you seem to be very keen that the rest of us should. I'm sorry but I do not share your green guilt and am certainly not prepared to penalised by it

Three times more for your energy.... #190.
 
OK, so there's nothing. You're making it up. Got it.

Eh ? Making what up ?

Well, if that's the proper response to a request for data, you should be able to type it in your sleep. I've asked for evidence a dozen times or more - nothing.

Well its your burden of proof to establish not mine. I've already highlighted a graphic example of renewable failure

Baseless assertion #187 by flogger.

Only time will tell once the subsidies stop. But they certainly won't last very long
You haven't shown them to be useless. Baseless assertion #188.

So why is my country paying £9 billion it needent pay for an increase household energy bills at a time of the lowest wholesale fossil fuel costs in years ?


Are you claiming I am wrong and that wholesale fossil fuel prices have not dramatically fallen ? If so what is your evidence for this ?

Right, I read it and stating the number doesn't actually represent any kind of analysis of the results.
I'm just the messenger I can't make you read the message

I'm not going to reproduce your table because it looks suspiciously like chain email BS. The author couldn't even be bothered to spell "Research" correctly. And I know what the EIA estimates to be the cost per Mwh for solar and it's about $125, so current subsidies totaling 6 times the cost is absurd. No one would build anything but a solar panel farm. Furthermore, the link I provided earlier pegs current solar subsidies at $10 per MwH, which is a little different than $775.

Ditto my earlier response

Three times more for your energy.... #190.

Thats right as you have been shown twice already in separate international comparison graphs
 
Eh ? Making what up ?

That Denmark is "giving up" on wind energy.

Well its your burden of proof to establish not mine. I've already highlighted a graphic example of renewable failure

Which one? The one that includes taxes and adds that to the cost of energy or the BS graph so sloppy the originator couldn't spell "research" correctly?

Only time will tell once the subsidies stop. But they certainly won't last very long

So, you're guessing, aka have no evidence. #191

So why is my country paying £9 billion it needent pay for an increase household energy bills at a time of the lowest wholesale fossil fuel costs in years ?

You're confused I think about this whole "evidence" thing. You say the subsidies were "useless" then support your assertion with some evidence. Sorry, but your baseless assertions aren't persuading me.

Are you claiming I am wrong and that wholesale fossil fuel prices have not dramatically fallen ? If so what is your evidence for this ?

No, I'm asking you for some evidence about....well, ANYTHING. One possibility is the increased use of renewables has driven down demand, which would drive down the selling price. It's Econ 101 - shift the demand curve to the left (and permanently replacing fossil fuel based production with renewables is a shift in the curve), and the equilibrium price with the same supply must drop. I have no idea if that's the cause or not, but you're making assertions about the failure of renewables but cannot offer ONE piece of evidence to back it up. And it's child's play to offer alternative explanations.
I'm just the messenger I can't make you read the message

Your message is "Garble, garble, garble, bleh, liberals, greenies ==> renewables are a failure!!!" I got that much, but I'm interested in evidence based support for that position. If I want to hear the talking points, Rush Limbaugh comes on in about 20 minutes....

Ditto my earlier response

When picking out BS chain email graphs, you really should pick one that bothers to spell the word "research" correctly. It's a red flag. Not that the figures are believable, but the whole game was over before we even got to the figures.

Thats right as you have been shown twice already in separate international comparison graphs

OK, this is getting boring. I address your "graphs" repeatedly and you ignore the points, then bring up the same crap graphs again...

But as I said earlier, this is always a good thing to do from time to time. Try to have an honest debate with a denier type to see if they've got some evidence based points I haven't considered. I can't speak for the group, but you're sure doing a good job convincing me that I can keep disregarding the skeptic side and concentrate on the fact based scientific crowd in the "liberal" media.
 
But as I said earlier, this is always a good thing to do from time to time. Try to have an honest debate with a denier type to see if they've got some evidence based points I haven't considered. I can't speak for the group, but you're sure doing a good job convincing me that I can keep disregarding the skeptic side and concentrate on the fact based scientific crowd in the "liberal" media.

I agree. Just over the last week with both flogger and bubba, I pull out all kinds of information and post it in response to their 'demands' and 'dares' and get told that its either not the relevant information (despite the fact that its EXACTLY what they asked for, and more) or that gossipy, decade old emails are more relevant than current published literature. (I guess they ARE 'truthier', though)

And throughout this, I'm repeatedly told that I dont post any links or evidence, and that I 'dont know how science works', despite the fact that I am a working scientist.

Its pretty clear the deniers have little to nothing of substance, and the recycled talking points are getting stale. I think anyone who reads all these exchanges will be able to see that clearly.
 
That Denmark is "giving up" on wind energy.

They cannot exist without massive state subsidy. Take it up with their government if you don't like it

Which one? The one that includes taxes and adds that to the cost of energy or the BS graph so sloppy the originator couldn't spell "research" correctly?

So that is stlll a ' no I can't then

So, you're guessing, aka have no evidence. #191
Time will tell as I said earlier

You're confused I think about this whole "evidence" thing. You say the subsidies were "useless" then support your assertion with some evidence. Sorry, but your baseless assertions aren't persuading me.

What baseless assertions ? I cited the figures in the article

No, I'm asking you for some evidence about....well, ANYTHING. One possibility is the increased use of renewables has driven down demand, which would drive down the selling price. It's Econ 101 - shift the demand curve to the left (and permanently replacing fossil fuel based production with renewables is a shift in the curve), and the equilibrium price with the same supply must drop. I have no idea if that's the cause or not, but you're making assertions about the failure of renewables but cannot offer ONE piece of evidence to back it up. And it's child's play to offer alternative explanations.

Wholesale prices have fallen due to an oil glut in the market and cheap US gas fracking depressing the market still further

30cf60d3bd8082a62f2514f3cf74d480.webp

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the 11% of the worlds energy currently generated by renewables is somehow the reason ? :lol:

Your message is "Garble, garble, garble, bleh, liberals, greenies ==> renewables are a failure!!!" I got that much, but I'm interested in evidence based support for that position. If I want to hear the talking points, Rush Limbaugh comes on in about 20 minutes....
I'm British so why would I care what your commentators think ?

When picking out BS chain email graphs, you really should pick one that bothers to spell the word "research" correctly. It's a red flag. Not that the figures are believable, but the whole game was over before we even got to the figures.

No the whole game was over when you chose to ignore them :roll:

OK, this is getting boring. I address your "graphs" repeatedly and you ignore the points, then bring up the same crap graphs again...

Prove that they are 'crap' then ?

But as I said earlier, this is always a good thing to do from time to time. Try to have an honest debate with a denier type to see if they've got some evidence based points I haven't considered. I can't speak for the group, but you're sure doing a good job convincing me that I can keep disregarding the skeptic side and concentrate on the fact based scientific crowd in the "liberal" media.

You've been given a reality check on your utopian view on the economic utility of renewables. Sorry you didn't like it but thems the breaks
 
And throughout this, I'm repeatedly told that I dont post any links or evidence, and that I 'dont know how science works', despite the fact that I am a working scientist.

Yes and this week I'm an ASTRONAUT .... :liar2

I think I might be a race car driver next week but I haven't decided yet .... :lamo
 
Yes and this week I'm an ASTRONAUT .... :liar2

I think I might be a race car driver next week but I haven't decided yet .... :lamo

I'm a Rocket scientist when I play KSP.
 
They cannot exist without massive state subsidy. Take it up with their government if you don't like it

I'm not going to address all your points because it's the same thing for every one of them. You say, "They cannot exist..." and your only evidence is your worthless (to me) opinion. I've cited the data for the U.S. which indicates that wind is already price competitive with all our other options, without subsidies, and that the cost of solar is dropping like a rock. So I've got a choice - I can go with the evidence or I can go with your worthless (to me) opinion, and I'll stick with the evidence.

What baseless assertions ? I cited the figures in the article

You cited figures for subsidies. That's a nice start but the claim was those subsidies were "worthless." I don't know if they did any good or not, since I haven't studied the energy program in the UK and so won't pretend to make a claim one way or the other. But your own article concluded part of the problem was too MANY installed solar panels, wind turbines that were too EFFICIENT, and falling wholesale energy prices. None of those are indicators of failure - at face value, they indicate a rousing success. You claim the opposite based on.....nothing.

Wholesale prices have fallen due to an oil glut in the market and cheap US gas fracking depressing the market still further

Let's take the first reason. The oil glut didn't just happen. Either demand fell or supply rose. The fact is supply is increasing at about the rate is has for decades, but demand growth has slowed to almost zero. Why?

imrs.php


And you live across the big pond - the U.S. exports a trivial amount of natural gas outside of N. America and Canada, since it's run through pipelines. We export a tiny amount of LNG. So that doesn't explain natural gas prices in Europe. What might is nat. gas getting crowded out by renewables...

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14591

main.webp

Huh, amazing. GDP is growing, population is growing, natural gas use is declining. So is oil BTW, I can post that graph if you want. So use of natural gas and oil in Europe is falling, which might explain the drop in price. And it's possible demand for fossil fuels is falling because energy through renewables is rising!!

It would take more than a few minutes on Google to prove the link between renewables and falling fossil fuel prices in a world with rising GDP and population, but that's what an actual analysis would start with. All you can do is whine and repeat talking points.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the 11% of the worlds energy currently generated by renewables is somehow the reason ? :lol:

What is your explanation?

No the whole game was over when you chose to ignore them :roll:

I ignore made up graphs that can't be bothered to get the spelling of "research" correct. Seems rational to me.

Prove that they are 'crap' then ?

Done. Read my prior posts.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to address all your points because it's the same thing for every one of them. You say, "They cannot exist..." and your only evidence is your worthless (to me) opinion. I've cited the data for the U.S. which indicates that wind is already price competitive with all our other options, without subsidies, and that the cost of solar is dropping like a rock. So I've got a choice - I can go with the evidence or I can go with your worthless (to me) opinion, and I'll stick with the evidence.

And I'm very happy you want to pay the subsequent inflated energy bills. I suspect the rest of your countrymen will be a darned sight less happy about paying for your green guilt

You cited figures for subsidies. That's a nice start but the claim was those subsidies were "worthless." I don't know if they did any good or not, since I haven't studied the energy program in the UK and so won't pretend to make a claim one way or the other. But your own article concluded part of the problem was too MANY installed solar panels, wind turbines that were too EFFICIENT, and falling wholesale energy prices. None of those are indicators of failure - at face value, they indicate a rousing success. You claim the opposite based on.....nothing.
Why is paying a lot more for my energy when I do not need to a good thing ?

Let's take the first reason. The oil glut didn't just happen. Either demand fell or supply rose. The fact is supply is increasing at about the rate is has for decades, but demand growth has slowed to almost zero. Why?

That Oil is currently around $35 per barrel tells its own story

And you live across the big pond - the U.S. exports a trivial amount of natural gas outside of N. America and Canada, since it's run through pipelines. We export a tiny amount of LNG. So that doesn't explain natural gas prices in Europe. What might is nat. gas getting crowded out by renewables...

High energy prices in Europe are a consequence of far greater committment to renewables and the high renewable subsidies required to sustain the unsustainable

Huh, amazing. GDP is growing, population is growing, natural gas use is declining. So is oil BTW, I can post that graph if you want. So use of natural gas and oil in Europe is falling, which might explain the drop in price. And it's possible demand for fossil fuels is falling because energy through renewables is rising!!

As are our energy prices thanks to misguided committments to renewables

It would take more than a few minutes on Google to prove the link between renewables and falling fossil fuel prices in a world with rising GDP and population, but that's what an actual analysis would start with. All you can do is whine and repeat talking points.

This is extreme wishful thinking on your part

What is your explanation?

Cheaper wholesale oil and gas prices . You seem to be having comprehension problems because I already illustrated this point

I ignore made up graphs that can't be bothered to get the spelling of "research" correct. Seems rational to me.

No based on my experience you just ignore what you don't want to see
 
And I'm very happy you want to pay the subsequent inflated energy bills. I suspect the rest of your countrymen will be a darned sight less happy about paying for your green guilt

Straw man.

Why is paying a lot more for my energy when I do not need to a good thing ?

Baseless assertion #192

That Oil is currently around $35 per barrel tells its own story

Actually, there is a reason for that, it didn't just happen - prices for commodities move for fairly predictable reasons - and you have not one damn clue what that reason is apparently.

High energy prices in Europe are a consequence of far greater committment to renewables and the high renewable subsidies required to sustain the unsustainable

#193 and #194.

As are our energy prices thanks to misguided committments to renewables

#195

This is total nonsense

#196

Cheaper wholesale oil and gas prices . You seem to be having comprehension problems because I already illustrated this point

Cheaper wholesale prices are why there are cheaper wholesale prices? Interesting theory.

No based on my experience you just ignore what you don't want to see

Well, actually, no. I responded to all your points with substantive reasons why I dispute the figures or your baseless assertions. This comment was about graphs, and the graph creator not being able to spell "research" correctly is reason enough to reject that one BS graph, but I even explained why the obviously made up numbers made no sense. I'm surprised you're so gullible, but not surprised you won't admit it I guess.
 
Straw man

You still have no idea what this means

Baseless assertion #192

And I don't live here and pay these skyrocketing bills so what would I know right ?

Actually, there is a reason for that, it didn't just happen - prices for commodities move for fairly predictable reasons - and you have not one damn clue what that reason is apparently.
Overproduction most likely as a consequence of the US turning the cheaper gas fracking in recent years.

#193 and #194.

As you were shown already and more than once


Ditto


Yes it is total wishful thinking on your part

Cheaper wholesale prices are why there are cheaper wholesale prices? Interesting theory.

You seem to be having those comprehension issues again

Well, actually, no. I responded to all your points with substantive reasons why I dispute the figures or your baseless assertions. This comment was about graphs, and the graph creator not being able to spell "research" correctly is reason enough to reject that one BS graph, but I even explained why the obviously made up numbers made no sense. I'm surprised you're so gullible, but not surprised you won't admit it I guess.

I'm no fan of this guy thats for sure but he does make a pretty telling comment on this issue

Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy

James Hansen PhD

For once I'm in complete agreement with the inventor of the modern AGW scam
 
You still have no idea what this means

I posted the definition. You're creating positions that I don't hold and attributing them to me. In the passage above, it was this: "you want to pay the subsequent inflated energy bills." No, that's not my position, actually. I don't want to pay higher bills.

If you have a better term for dishonestly making up your opponent's position, and arguing against your made up position, what is it?

And I don't live here and pay these skyrocketing bills so what would I know right ?

You haven't even TRIED to demonstrate that green subsidies have caused you to pay higher bills. Where is the analysis?

Overproduction most likely as a consequence of the US turning the cheaper gas fracking in recent years.

Production growth has been steady, so the price has collapsed because of the demand side, and oil use is down in Europe, so is use of natural gas. That has nothing to do with fracking in the U.S. https://aleklett.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/european-energy-horizons-2014/

energy_use_in_europe.jpg


I explained this with graphs. I guess I should stick to one liners.

I'm no fan of this guy thats for sure but he does make a pretty telling comment on this issue

Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy

James Hansen PhD

Right, you didn't provide a link to the discussion so I will. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ses-the-climate-case-for-nuclear-energy/?_r=0

First of all, as I've said many times to YOU, I recognize that we'll have to rely on fossil fuels for energy for the foreseeable future. So I'm not sure really what your point is with the quote. Second, he's making the case for nuclear energy, and it's one I agree with. Expanding nuclear power will require massive and ongoing taxpayer subsidies like it does today because nuclear isn't cost effective, not on any kind of full cost basis. And in part that's why I'm also on board with subsidies for other non-fossil fuels like solar, wind, geothermal. We subsidize fossil fuels by allowing producers to offload onto the public the environmental costs - pollution and all the health related costs as a result of that pollution. And any kind of honest look at oil would add in a few $trillions in defense costs for protecting our oil supplies over the years, through today. Nuclear would not exist without massive state subsidies. So subsidies for alternatives like solar and wind are required to at least somewhat level the playing field.
 
Back
Top Bottom