GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:35 AM, Rob Plant said:

Its quite windy today in the UK which means its cheap powergen and low emissions!

Not a cost-effective energy source.

[notsonice + 1,255]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Not a cost-effective energy source.

and once again your are wrong...are you ever right......are you like a broken clock......twice a day your clock has the right time and that is it.............

 

Carbon Brief

Analysis: UK renewables still cheaper than gas, despite auction setback for offshore wind

Wind and solar remain the cheapest way to generate electricity in the UK as gas prices are around 100% higher than before the global energy...

.

Sep 8, 2023

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Not a cost-effective energy source.

Well if you decide to have ZERO manufacturing and industry, returning your country to the stone age then that hopeless graph is just fine... Since Texas data is easy to get hold of: Texas by itself with less than half the population used on average ~ 42GW over the last week.  Texas peak demand is 75GW  Wind varied between 2GW and 24GW over the same week... and moving residential market electricity prices averaged $0.16/kWh.  Fixed price residential is around ~$0.14($140/MWh).  Industrial is much lower and no data since on fixed contract generally speaking.  Uk moving price the UK hides by forcing one to download a file which.... for obvious reasons I refuse to do.  The idiots stated GBP28/MWh in said graph is pure fantasy.  Most data show residential prices of at minimum $250/MWh as trying to find prices per kWh in the UK is near impossible due to price fixing where they bureau of statistics tries stating things in cost/month where subsidies etc get included.   Or more likely my Google Kungfu is lacking this morning.  😄

Edited March 24 by footeab@yahoo.com

[turbguy + 1,540]

A "Canary in a Coal Mine"?  Less nat gas burned to heat homes.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/heat-pumps/heat-pumps-outsold-gas-furnaces-again-last-year-and-the-gap-is-growing

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:43 AM, Ecocharger said:

Not a cost-effective energy source.

Eco when the wind doesnt blow and we predominantly use NG for powergen the cost is approx £100/MWh so you couldnt be more wrong

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The idiots stated GBP28/MWh in said graph is pure fantasy.

God youre thick

These are actual real time costs! They show the "balancing price" which is updated every 30 minutes

have a look and see , the majority of the figures on the chart are automatically updated every 5 minutes

National Grid: Live (iamkate.com)

This is the price per MWh for the past 12 years and you can see the effect of the hike in NG prices following the Russia v Ukraine war

Edited March 25 by Rob Plant

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Eco when the wind doesnt blow and we predominantly use NG for powergen the cost is approx £100/MWh so you couldnt be more wrong

You have to look at the total social cost not just the immediate figures.

[TailingsPond + 874]

51 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You have to look at the total social cost not just the immediate figures.

Absolutely.  Do you factor in the externalities in your fossil fuel burning analysis?  No, you do not. 

Factor in the increase in hospital visits next time you mention the price of oil or coal. 

What is the value of clean drinking water? Factor that in every time oil pollutes a waterway.  Yes, economists have done this, but you ignore them.

How about an bird killed from a spill? Please put a price on that, think bald eagle not pigeon (yes they have much different valuations).

You think polluting the world is free - it is not.

 

Edited March 25 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,540]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

You have to look at the total social cost not just the immediate figures.

Are you SURE you want to consider "externalities", such as social cost? 

That opens up a whole host of arguments that don't treat fossil fuels very favorably.

Tread lightly.

As for renewable costs, how can any fossil energy source provide "fuel" for free?  Heck, you cannot even transport fossil fuels to the point of use for free.

Edited March 25 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

That opens up a whole host of arguments that don't treat fossil fuels very favorably.

Ya Don't Say. Interestingly enough civilization as we know it would end without fossil fuels...along with green energy manufacturing. Within months billions would die from starvation, lack of health care...food transportation and environmental exposure.Ahh yes no more tik-took...The sheer magnitude is hardly within human grasp.

Environmental activism future has finally arrived. Tread quite carefully comes to mind.

Edited March 25 by Eyes Wide Open

[TailingsPond + 874]

33 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ya Don't Say. Interestingly enough civilization as we know it would end without fossil fuels.

Consider that perhaps civilization as we know it should end.  A civilization only requires energy, it can come from other sources besides fossil fuels.  Conservatives always think the past was better, even when it clearly wasn't... 

The USA will end as you know it if trump gets elected.  We know that as he says it himself; no constitutional rules, total immunity.  Perhaps you should fear the ending of your democracy a bit more than where the energy comes from.

P.S. that picture is funny.  The stupid gun nuts lead the alt-right.  Sane people feel no need to own a handgun to point at their face.

Edited March 25 by TailingsPond

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

55 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Consider that perhaps civilization as we know it should end. 

There ya go big E. A societal anarchist.

[TailingsPond + 874]

It is called a thought experiment. 

Humans have progressed through various stages / ages, why should we stop now other than fear of change?  We have plenty of reasons to change now - and quickly.

We had the stone age, bronze age, iron age, all the way up to the modern industrial age.  History tells us that technology will allow us to do things unimaginable in the past, including reducing fossil fuel usage.  Take note, stones and bronze still exist, so it's not like we have to give up anything entirely, we just stop using it predominately because we found something better. 

[TailingsPond + 874]

41 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A societal anarchist.

You are the traitor who supports the end of democracy in the USA, slanders the POTUS, and has empathy for those who attempted a coup.  

[turbguy + 1,540]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ahh yes no more tik-took...The sheer magnitude is hardly within human grasp.

Environmental activism future has finally arrived. Tread quite carefully comes to mind.

That's one way of indicating that electric power is highly addicting.  The withdrawal symptoms can be quite upsetting.

You don't need fossil fuels to generate electric power, until you demand more than those "alternative" sources can provide (which is 24 x 7 in the USA).

Fossil resources are required for other important uses.

Edited March 26 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

17 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

God youre thick

These are actual real time costs! They show the "balancing price" which is updated every 30 minutes

have a look and see , the majority of the figures on the chart are automatically updated every 5 minutes

National Grid: Live (iamkate.com)

This is the price per MWh for the past 12 years and you can see the effect of the hike in NG prices following the Russia v Ukraine war

I know you are a "salesman" but even a COMPETENT salesman should know the difference between RESIDENTIAL cost and a claimed(never verified) Industrial baseload cost.  The two parallel each other and unless you find ACTUAL prices paid by industrial sector and residential sector instead of that SINGULAR moron graph you posted --> You have nothing. 

Normal salesmen can figure basic comparative shit out that even 8 year old kids understand.  A few other special cases--> can't.

[TailingsPond + 874]

12 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I know you are a "salesman" but even a COMPETENT salesman should know the difference between RESIDENTIAL cost and a claimed(never verified) Industrial baseload cost.  The two parallel each other and unless you find ACTUAL prices paid by industrial sector and residential sector instead of that SINGULAR moron graph you posted --> You have nothing. 

Normal salesmen can figure basic comparative shit out that even 8 year old kids understand.  A few other special cases--> can't.

Just a tip; your writing would be more powerful if you didn't use all caps, insults, or "-->" whatever that is.

You clearly have some knowledge, but it's hard to take you seriously when your writing style appears emotional and childish.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Just a tip; your writing would be more powerful if you didn't use all caps, insults, or "-->" whatever that is.

You clearly have some knowledge, but it's hard to take you seriously when your writing style appears emotional and childish.

Yes i agree, he seems to have plenty of knowledge on tunnels

I actually think he might be a giant mole in disguise.

Regarding his repeated insults, I actually find them amusing as he shows he has already lost the argument, so please keep them coming Footeab and use as many capitals as you can to emphasise your opinion backed up as usual with no facts or articles whatsoever.

Edited March 26 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I know you are a "salesman" but even a COMPETENT salesman should know the difference between RESIDENTIAL cost and a claimed(never verified) Industrial baseload cost.  The two parallel each other and unless you find ACTUAL prices paid by industrial sector and residential sector instead of that SINGULAR moron graph you posted --> You have nothing. 

Normal salesmen can figure basic comparative shit out that even 8 year old kids understand.  A few other special cases--> can't.

Yes you continue to make yourself look silly dont you.

I was referring to powergen cost, in simple terms for you, how much it costs to produce electricity, not what the consumer gets charged as there are multiple providers for that who all charge different rates as you should know.

When you say verified costs, this is the National grid live costs and live data for all forms of powergen, what other "verification" is there???

What has residential cost got to do with the discussion at all??? I was comparing the cost of renewable power generation to FF cost of powergen and demonstrating how cheap renewables are in comparison.

I was NOT comparing residential costs of electricity to the cost of generation, you were for reasons only known to yourself.

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

It looks like Big Brother has lost another round in court, this is a setback for the forces of totalitarian control of market forces and some clear indication that government by dictatorial fiat without legislative support is severely circumscribed.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Bullish-Sentiment-Brings-90-Oil-Within-Reach.html

"Court Suspends US Climate Disclosure Mandate. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has approved a request from oilfield services firm Liberty Energy to halt enforcement of the climate disclosure mandate encompassing GHG emissions and risks, agreeing that the SEC overstepped its remit with the rule."

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

EVs are apparently headed for the scrap heap of history, as the wild and foolish plans to force people to buy these misbegotten dreams are falling apart.

Even Norway is showing that EVs are something to be avoided.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Goehring-and-Rozencwajg-EVs-May-Never-Achieve-Widespread-Adoption.html

"The investment community’s belief that EVs will displace the internal combustion engine remains as strong as ever.

Goehring and Rozencwajg research shows that EVs will struggle to achieve widespread adoption despite massive subsidies and the growing threat of outright ICE bans.

Conclusively: EVs are less energy efficient than internal combustion engine automobiles. As a result, they will fail to gain widespread adoption."

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion

"Mitigating carbon emissions is central to the case for electric vehicles. Advocates argue that displacing fossil fuels is essential to curbing global warming. We disagree.   Replacing  ICEs with  EVs will materially increase carbon emissions and may worsen the problem. Manufacturing an electric vehicle consumes far more energy than an ICE. Most of this additional energy is spent mining the materials for and manufacturing an EV’s giant lithium-ion battery. Mining companies use energy-intensive trucks, crushers, and mills to extract each battery’s nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper. The manufacturing process consumes vast amounts of energy as well. Many analysts eagerly tout the carbon savings from displaced fossil fuels without adequately accounting for the battery’s increased energy consumption. Once these adjustments are made, most, if not all, of the EV’s carbon advantage disappears."

"At nearly $4 billion annually, Norway spends as much on EV subsidies as on total highway and public infrastructure maintenance. "

"Despite 20% of all vehicles on the road now being electric, Norway’s gasoline and diesel demand fell by a mere 4%."

"Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically."

In other words, if you  think that it is important to reduce CO2 levels, the plan would be to eliminate EVs. 

You don't have to be an Einstein to see this.

Edited March 26 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

On 3/25/2024 at 3:12 PM, TailingsPond said:

Absolutely.  Do you factor in the externalities in your fossil fuel burning analysis?  No, you do not. 

Factor in the increase in hospital visits next time you mention the price of oil or coal. 

What is the value of clean drinking water? Factor that in every time oil pollutes a waterway.  Yes, economists have done this, but you ignore them.

How about an bird killed from a spill? Please put a price on that, think bald eagle not pigeon (yes they have much different valuations).

You think polluting the world is free - it is not.

 

Complete nonsense, EVs are less energy efficient and increase CO2 levels. Your analysis (?) is working with outmoded ideas.

[TailingsPond + 874]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Complete nonsense, EVs are less energy efficient and increase CO2 levels. Your analysis (?) is working with outmoded ideas.

I'm not talking CO2.

Just look at the smog, you don't need a mathematical model to see it.  Do not deny that fossil fuel pollution exists.

How much is a pretty skyline worth? Hint, a lot. The loss of beauty is an externality placed on others. 

Edited March 26 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 874]

See the connection? Use your eyes.

[TailingsPond + 874]

How pretty!  Such fresh air!