Someone explain this to me

[Into the Night]

Norway is not decreasing production, and still has major natural gas reserves. Russia has bigger natural gas reserves, but does not have the money/stability to invest in infrastructure to get it to market. Remember Putin is confiscating foreign investments, which tends to make people less willing to invest.

On top of which, Germany has a huge investment in liquified natural gas terminals that it barely uses.

Then why is Germany importing natural gas and oil from Russia?

 

[Into the Night]

What happened to the old conservatives who could debate policy based on facts? They have been replaced by Alt Right lunatics like "Hawkeye" who claim every fact they do not like is a lie.

Not facts. Random numbers. You are just making up numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

Wasn't meant to be a rebuttal there is nothing to rebut

You said it was a rebuttal. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

glad you are willing to admit your guy is a fuck up

Not my guy. I don't own Biden, and I am not voting for him.

 

[Into the Night]

When has trickle down economics ever worked??????????????????

No such thing. You're going to have to come up with a new buzzword to attack.

 

[Into the Night]

So.. let me get this straight. You think your claim without any support is more valid than my claim supported by scientists and a government produced study of actual costs.

There is no government study of actual costs. I used the current commodity markets and the KW energy for different technologies, normalized into kWh.

As I have pointed out before about your style of "argument" you simply resort to calling any facts you don't like fallacies, the fallacy fallacy.

Denial of logic.

Since the government uses actual costs

No, they didn't.

to tell us what the costs of power is how can you claim it is a prediction?

The report is a prediction. It is guessing. The future cost of any fuel or energy source is unknown.

It seems you are simply throw out terms without regard to the actual underlying facts.

A random number is not a fact.

I pointed to cost per KWH per source

No, you didn't. You pointed to a prediction made by the U.S. government, using numbers made up out of thick air.

and you responded by pointing out land area needed which is not the cost of production.

Yes it is.

Land is often a minor cost.

Remember that next time you buy land.

For instance in the case of wind farms, the land is used for other purposes so the total land needed is not relevant for the cost.

Nope. Wind mills are too dangerous. Large wind mills can throw a blade a good 2 miles away when they fail. It's like a spear. They cannot operate in freezing temperatures. They cannot operate unless the wind speed is within the correct range.
Farmers use smaller windmills to pump water, but not to generate power. Even then, no one is allowed near the thing when it's operating.

You provided no source disputing the EIA numbers.

No need to. EIA numbers are made up numbers.

Simply claiming they are wrong is a fallacy.

They are random numbers. You cannot predict with statistical math. You cannot use the future price of any energy source as a given fact.

I'll let you figure out which fallacy that is.

None. Denial of logic.

YOU are attempting an argument from randU fallacy and a false authority fallacy.

 

[Walt]

None. Fossils don't burn.

Fossil fuels are from the Latin fossil (meaning something you dig up) and fuel(something you can burn), so yes, fossil fuels are burnable. Sadly Night does not understand English.

All oil and natural gas is renewable fuel.

Then why do fields run out? Where do they renew from?

No, fossil fuels take hundreds of millions of years to be replaced, so are not considered renewable fuel.

 

[Walt]

Then why is it importing natural gas and oil from Russia?

Germany imports from where ever is cheapest. Most months importing from Russia makes sense, but some months they import nothing from Russia.

 

[Walt]

Not facts. Random numbers. You are just making up numbers.

I gave links to where I got the numbers. You have been caught repeatedly lying.

 

[Into the Night]

Nice cherry picking of data after you move the goalposts.

I have done neither. Fallacy fallacy.

Tesla currently has cars that have a range of 400 miles. I know of no one that drives 400 miles without stopping for coffee and to eat and go to the bathroom.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. That does not mean there are people who do.

I don't know that I have driven 250 miles without stopping.

So you take your time getting anywhere. Understood. Me? I like to get there.

As to your Forester claim, you aren't driving it 480 miles between fuel ups unless you want to risk running out of gas.

As to your Tesla claim, you aren't driving it 400 miles between charges unless you want to risk running out of charge.

You are free to choose the Forester. I would recommend one since I have owned one. (410 miles per tank was the average car's estimate on fill up.)

At least you like Subarus.

Of course you have failed to count the fact that for most normal driving the Tesla would actually save you time and money.

No. I have already demonstrated why.

You park your car in the garage and it takes 30 seconds to plug it in vs the 5 minutes to fill up.

I don't need to plug it in.

My car is typically in my garage for 10-12 hours each day.

So?

If I am driving cross country I am in a hotel for 8-10 hours.

I don't need to spend so much time in hotels. I can travel further in a single day.

You seem to be implying that people drive their cars 24 hours a day.

Nope. But now that you mention it, the extra hotel costs because you are slower at progressing your 2000 miles is a significant cost factor.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

None. Fossils don't burn.

Equivocation fallacy - fossil fuels are not fossils and no one other than you is claiming they are.

All oil and natural gas is renewable fuel.

Equivocation fallacy - changing the meaning of renewable to mean millions of year instead of in the immediate future. No one other than you is claiming fossil fuels are renewable.

 

[Into the Night]

wind farms are killing birds of prey / public resistance is slowing down permits.

They still have to use coal and wood pellets. wood pellets acidify and rank out the air. coal you know.
They have a lot of diesels.

Spiegle -read for yourself
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html
Germany's Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures. The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures "are in extreme disproportion to the results," Federal Court of Auditors President Kay Scheller said last fall, although his assessment went largely unheard in the political arena. Scheller is even concerned that voters could soon lose all faith in the government because of this massive failure.

Surveys document the transformation of this grand idea into an even grander frustration. Despite being hugely accepting initially, Germans now see it as being too expensive, too chaotic and too unfair.

Birds of prey kill birds of prey. I've known some hawks to be pretty stupid. Not as stupid as a lot of birds, but some can be pretty stupid.
I've seen both hawks and eagles fry themselves on an 800kv power line. One flew up between the wires approaching his nest in a tower, and the lines arced from wingtip to wingtip. There was nothing left but burnt feathers floating out of the sky. It was like watching a Warner Bros Road Runner film.

I've hit a hawk with my car. I've hit pigeons, seagulls, finches, etc. The hawk at the time was focused on hunting a mouse and didn't see the car approaching. His head turned at the last second to look at me, and he tried to dodge, but it was too late. They concentrate on their prey like cats. They aren't always aware of whats around them.

Hawks, eagles, and buzzards like to use the updraft coming off of windmills. They often misjudge just how fast one of those blades is moving. They look slow, but the tip speed on those things is quite fast.

 

[Into the Night]

renewable energy implicated in rolling blackouts during California heat wave
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...ated-rolling-blackouts-during-california-heat

A region that prides itself on producing the latest in high tech, and they can't even keep the lights on.

 

[Into the Night]

Fossil fuels are from the Latin fossil (meaning something you dig up)

Now you are trying to redefine 'fossil'. A fossil is an image of a plant or animal that has been mineralized, or the image of one cast in stone. Fossils do not burn.

and fuel(something you can burn),

Fossils do not burn.

so yes, fossil fuels are burnable.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils do not burn.

Sadly Night does not understand English.

No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.

Then why do fields run out?

We pump them faster than they can reproduce. If you cap the well and wait awhile, you can pump again.

Where do they renew from?

Natural carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the Earth, the presence of iron, and high heat and pressure.

No, fossil fuels take hundreds of millions of years to be replaced, so are not considered renewable fuel.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn. Oil is a renewable fuel. Natural gas is a renewable fuel. Coal is unknown, but there is plenty of it.

You are just denying chemistry.

 

[Into the Night]

Germany imports from where ever is cheapest. Most months importing from Russia makes sense, but some months they import nothing from Russia.

You're just trying to weasel out of your lame arguments through special pleading fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

I gave links to where I got the numbers. You have been caught repeatedly lying.

Lie. You gave a link to a U.S. government report that is a prediction of future energy prices. It's random numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

Equivocation fallacy - fossil fuels are not fossils and no one other than you is claiming they are.

I am not claiming fossils are fuel. Never did. Pay attention.

Equivocation fallacy - changing the meaning of renewable to mean millions of year instead of in the immediate future.

I never did that either. Pay attention.

No one other than you is claiming fossil fuels are renewable.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn.

 

[Walt]

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Fossil fuels are not made of fossils.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes. You did move the goalposts. Your original claim was this:

Far from the truth. Electric cars require a long time to refuel, and provide no better range than a typical gasoline car on a full tank of gasoline. A gasoline car can be refueled in minutes at any convenient gas station, while the electric car requires 8-10 hours to recharge it's battery sufficient for another such performance.

Now that I pointed out that it doesn't take 8-10 hours to refuel you have moved the goal posts. Pretty simple to see.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am not claiming fossils are fuel. Never did. Pay attention.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn.

And there it is for all to see. Equivocation fallacy. You are claiming fossils are fossil fuels and then use your equivocation to claim fossils don't burn.

Fossil fuels are not fossils and no one other than you is claiming they are.