Every green initiative has been a disaster

Althea said:
Climate/Pollution issues are only one aspect of wind/solar energy. Since the first 'gas crisis' in the 70's, we see massive price fluctuations due to market manipulation by the producers, or the sellers of fossil fuels. Attention to alternatives typically peaks when it's too late, and we're paying $1000/month to heat our homes.
Click to expand...

Yes and fracking has put paid to that for the most part.
 
Althea said:
Can you rephrase this? :)
Click to expand...
Why, seems clear enough to me? Fracking has resulted in an abundance of cheap gas, indeed the main reason that the US has dropped its CO2 emissions so spectacularly is because so much electricity is now being produced by CCGT power stations.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
Yes and fracking has put paid to that for the most part.
Click to expand...

Althea said:
Can you rephrase this? :)
Click to expand...

Milagro said:
Why, seems clear enough to me? Fracking has resulted in an abundance of cheap gas, indeed the main reason that the US has dropped its CO2 emissions so spectacularly is because so much electricity is now being produced by CCGT power stations.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
Well, you Brits sure have screwed up the English language.
 
Milagro said:
Why, seems clear enough to me? Fracking has resulted in an abundance of cheap gas, indeed the main reason that the US has dropped its CO2 emissions so spectacularly is because so much electricity is now being produced by CCGT power stations.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
The issues isn't the end product. The issue is the subsidies that you seem to criticize. There is no form of energy that hasn't been, or isn't now subsidized by the govt.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorens...-feds-really-help-with-fracking/#1090a72c3edf

In all the hoopla, Steward’s point has gotten lost. He is quick to acknowledge that fracking's success came through the hard work of people at Mitchell Energy, building on the advances of others. Fracking technology has existed for more than a century, and the first commercial fracking job was done in 1947. His comment that “the DOE started it” refers to the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a research effort in the Appalachia Basin from 1979 that proved shale rock was rich in natural gas. The DOE-supported project tested the use of nitrogen foam to fracture shale formations, and its analysis led to a deeper understanding of natural shale fractures.
George Mitchell’s team studied those results while developing the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, the first modern fracking play. The company relied on research from the Sandia National Laboratory to use micro-seismic technology to map the shale fractures in wells, and Mitchell also benefited from federal tax credits for unconventional drilling, which helped underwrite the cost of developing hydraulic fracturing.
Steward doesn’t deny any of these contributions, and in fact, he was trying to acknowledge them in his interview with the Breakthrough Institute. In hearing the president’s speech, though, he was annoyed that Obama seemed to give the government most of the credit, without mentioning Mitchell. It was, after all, Mitchell’s perseverance and funding that unleashed a new era of American energy and created the jobs Obama touted.
Click to expand...
 
Althea said:
The issues isn't the end product. The issue is the subsidies that you seem to criticize. There is no form of energy that hasn't been, or isn't now subsidized by the govt.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorens...-feds-really-help-with-fracking/#1090a72c3edf
Click to expand...

Bloody hell you really are clutching at straws now. You should read the whole of that article. Pump priming and some initial research is hardly the same as wide scale subsidies. If the subsidies were removed then wind power industries would just close down virtually overnight.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
Bloody hell you really are clutching at straws now. You should read the whole of that article. Pump priming and some initial research is hardly the same as wide scale subsidies. If the subsidies were removed then wind power industries would just close down virtually overnight.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

Post Brexit, the UK will remove subsidies and EU imposed targets from wind power generation as it seriously distorts the proper functioning of the energy market. Why should the poor have to suffer because of political correctness?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/792341/Britain-to-scrap-EU-s-green-targets-post-Brexit

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
Well I've already told you that Germany has found out the hard way that wind and solar power actually result in more CO2 not less, so how is that exactly helping? I have absolutely nothing against renewables, if they work and don't cost the Earth.

Of course I don't subscribe to the alarmist view of catastrophic AGW, so I don't feel the need to run around shouting the sky is falling as so many idiots on here seem to do. How can anyone believe what the likes of NOAA were doing with temperatures? Last year was declared the hottest by a huge 0.01C which is well inside the margin for error. The two satellite datasets UAH and RSS both show that 1998 and 2016, both extreme El Nino years, tied for that title. Hence it is true to say that there has been no warming in the past 18 years.

Let me ask you a question, when do you think a viable cheap storage system will become available, I would guess at least another 15 years or more, what say you?

http://www.thegwpf.com/fritz-vahrenholt-germany-faces-an-energy-political-fiasco/
Click to expand...
Then how do account for the developmental success of alternative energy sources in the US? You also evaded my question on your bias towards fossil fuels that is nearly knee jerk. As for developing electrical storage capacity I have no idea as there are a lot of forces, mostly market, involved and at best on could only guess.

If your opposition to developing alternative to fossil fuels is based on your opposition to the consensus on ACC isn't that illogical given the potential advantages vs fossil fuels?
 
Althea said:
Those who criticize subsidies for 20th/21st century energy investment typically ignore the fact that all forms of energy are, or have been heavily subsidized throughout history.
Click to expand...

That applies to all primary material industries as well. Particularly when those industries are in the developmental phase in a society. A fact free market fundamentalist would rather ignore.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Then how do account for the developmental success of alternative energy sources in the US? You also evaded my question on your bias towards fossil fuels that is nearly knee jerk. As for developing electrical storage capacity I have no idea as there are a lot of forces, mostly market, involved and at best on could only guess.

If your opposition to developing alternative to fossil fuels is based on your opposition to the consensus on ACC isn't that illogical given the potential advantages vs fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

He knee jerk bias to fossil fuels is due to having argued it for so long his ego is tethered to his position like a snarling dog guarding a bone.:rolleyes:

Thomas Milgram here is not a climate scientist any more than you are so his opinions are only as good as the peer reviewed scholarship of REAL climate scientists published in high impact journals are in forwarding an anti-ACC published conclusion. The quantity of that is exceedingly low.
He cherry picks facts supporting the heterodoxy/ minority position.
Almost all climate scientists think ACC is a scientific fact and is deleterious to humans.
Some percentage of those believe a policy response is necessary to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Some also believe that the window of opportunity is dwindling for a policy response to even work since we've been dithering and dawdling despite the state of the art conclusions of and warnings by all experts in unison for 15 years.

Just look at the thread title. It's laughable.:palm:
 
Althea said:
The issues isn't the end product. The issue is the subsidies that you seem to criticize. There is no form of energy that hasn't been, or isn't now subsidized by the govt.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorens...-feds-really-help-with-fracking/#1090a72c3edf
Click to expand...
Exactly. Back in the 90s when I was doing reasearch at OSU on recycling waste one of the products we helped develop were propants for fracking that were chemically inert to strong acids. All of which were paid for by those evil government grants and subsidies.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And yet fracking will probably only be a transitional technology.
Click to expand...
I have already said that if you go back in the thread. CCGT power stations have resulted in the US reducing their CO2 emissions well below the limits set out in the Kyoto Treaty. You'd think to listen to some of the cretins on here that the exact opposite was true.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then how do account for the developmental success of alternative energy sources in the US? You also evaded my question on your bias towards fossil fuels that is nearly knee jerk. As for developing electrical storage capacity I have no idea as there are a lot of forces, mostly market, involved and at best on could only guess.

If your opposition to developing alternative to fossil fuels is based on your opposition to the consensus on ACC isn't that illogical given the potential advantages vs fossil fuels?
Click to expand...
I don't have a bias towards fossil fuels, I have a bias to what works. If the current generation of renewables like wind turbines are so wonderful then why are the UK and Germany planning to remove the subsidies in 2019?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Exactly. Back in the 90s when I was doing reasearch at OSU on recycling waste one of the products we helped develop were propants for fracking that were chemically inert to strong acids. All of which were paid for by those evil government grants and subsidies.
Click to expand...

Trump wants to gut all government funding of research except the kind you did. That and bomb research.
 
Milagro said:
Bloody hell you really are clutching at straws now. You should read the whole of that article. Pump priming and some initial research is hardly the same as wide scale subsidies. If the subsidies were removed then wind power industries would just close down virtually overnight.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
Oh nonsense. Most wind turbines in the US, for example, produce energy profitability and without much in the way of subsidies.

I really don't understand you opposition to developing alternative forms of energy given the huge economic advantages for those who successfully develop them. You would have to have a reactionary degree of short sightedness not to subsidize their development.

For example a substantial amount of subsidies were invested in shale bed fracking technologies in the US and look at the advantages we are now reaping. We'd have to be idiots not to continue investing in the development of alternative energy sources that are cheaper amad less wasteful that don't have the pollution issues of fossil fuels or the dangers of nuclear power.
 
Milagro said:
Post Brexit, the UK will remove subsidies and EU imposed targets from wind power generation as it seriously distorts the proper functioning of the energy market. Why should the poor have to suffer because of political correctness?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/792341/Britain-to-scrap-EU-s-green-targets-post-Brexit

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
So you're going to condemn an entire developing technologies cause Euros couldn't lead a duck to water? That's rational. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top