3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And really, even if I made the mistake conflating it (and I didn't, you just misunderstood what I said), 

“But renewable energy will actually win out eventually - like electric cars“

Let me type slowly so you may understand.....”renewable energy...like electric cars”

No misunderstanding, you said what you meant and you meant what you said.  You were just wrong.  However I expect you are man enough to fess up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“But renewable energy will actually win out eventually - like electric cars“

Let me type slowly so you may understand.....”renewable energy...like electric cars”

No misunderstanding, you said what you meant and you meant what you said.  You were just wrong.  However I expect you are man enough to fess up to it.

Again, even IF I was wrong, you then pretty much followed off the cliff like a lemming.

But if I thought electric cars were renewable energy, why would I be the one to call out your confusion on it?

Getting back on topic, do you think renewable energy companies make a loss and are completely dependent on subsidies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, olofscience said:

Again, even IF I was wrong, you then pretty much followed off the cliff like a lemming.

Your knowledge of lemmings is only unsurpassed by your understanding of green energy 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
41 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nice try avoiding the topic.

To address your point, I don’t believe that renewable power companies rely 100% on government handouts.  However, if they were truly  profitable, private capital would flood in and finance their efforts.  But they are not and that is why they need governmental backstops in the form of direct subsidies, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs and mandates.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

But they are not and that is why they need governmental backstops in the form of direct subsidies, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs and mandates.

Which the fossil fuel industry is getting in much greater numbers and has been getting for decades. Haven't you figured out yet this part of your argument is stupid?

Never mind that tax policy has been used for centuries to shape and guide society, weird to only use it here as reasoning the industry is not viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

However, if they were truly  profitable, private capital would flood in and finance their efforts.  But they are not

So...is this your final answer? That they are not truly profitable?

What if I post a set of GAAP or IFRS accounts of renewable energy companies, which contains the details of the subsidies, subtract those, then surely they won't be profitable?

Otherwise, you'll have to eat your hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Let’s hop in the way-back machine.  I said renewable energy was not economically viable, you said “ using that logic neither is oil” after a bit I posted an article laying out how oil and gas companies did not NEED subsidies, (unlike renewables ) The fact that they get them is not germane to the argument.

(I was replying to SkyDekker)

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So...is this your final answer? That they are not truly profitable?

What if I post a set of GAAP or IFRS accounts of renewable energy companies, which contains the details of the subsidies, subtract those, then surely they won't be profitable?

Otherwise, you'll have to eat your hat.

I didn’t say any particular company.  You giving an example of one company losing money and declaring the whole sector unviable, would be like me using the example of Trump loosing money on the Taj Mahal as proof that casinos are unprofitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let’s hop in the way-back machine.  I said renewable energy was not economically viable, you said “ using that logic neither is oil” after a bit I posted an article laying out how oil and gas companies did not NEED subsidies, (unlike renewables ) The fact that they get them is not germane to the argument.

(I was replying to SkyDekker)

After decades and decades of subsidies they now not need them, yet continue to get them in various forms. You somehow think that is a straight comparison to the renewable energy industry. And then you somehow conflate that with subsidies given to Tesla......

Never mind that you stated that currently the fossil fuel industry net net net does not get subsidies. You still haven't explained that one, even though you keep saying how simple that is going to be......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I didn’t say any particular company

Your statement had 2 parts:

  • that renewable energy companies aren't profitable and survive only through subsidies
  • that renewable energy companies don't get private capital

Both would be so easy to disprove, that now you're retreating into "I didn't say any particular company" excuse. But we can even apply this analysis to the sector as a whole. Numbers can settle the debate.

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

giving an example of one company losing money and declaring the whole sector unviable, would be like me using the example of Trump loosing money on the Taj Mahal as proof that casinos are unprofitable.

But don't you realise that by declaring the entire renewable energy sector financially unviable, you're pretty much doing the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I didn’t say any particular company.  You giving an example of one company losing money and declaring the whole sector unviable, would be like me using the example of Trump loosing money on the Taj Mahal as proof that casinos are unprofitable.

Since casinos clearly ARE very profitable it seems more like proof that Trump is an incompetent fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

But don't you realise that by declaring the entire renewable energy sector financially unviable, you're pretty much doing the same thing?

OK, I will take #4 off the table, that leaves us with:


1.  Climate changes, it always has and always will, it has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age.

2.  Climate related deaths have dropped dramatically during the last hundred years and the elevated CO2 levels have resulted in a literal greening of the planet and have contributed to record food production.

3.  Fossil fuels have an energy density unmatched by renewables and we have a centuries+ worth in recoverable reserves.
 

5.  Wind and Solar are not ecologically benign and require heavy industrial and mining processes for their production and have to be replaced every twenty to thirty years.

6.  Wind and solar are unreliable and lead to skyrocketing energyprices where their adoption is widespread ($.30+kWh in Germany and Denmark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Have you been to Germany or Denmark? Everything is expensive. It's not because of renewables.

Yes, I lived in Germany for three years and the cost of living is lower than: Switzerland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, France, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Italy, and the U.K.; yet they pay less for electricity than Germany.
Yes, Germany’s electricity is expensive because of renewables.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 4:58 PM, olofscience said:

If all fossil fuel AND green energy subsidies were removed, both would survive. But renewable energy will actually win out eventually - like electric cars, there's plenty of other reasons to buy them even though Brent thinks upfront cost is everything and that everyone should just buy a Honda like him.

Eventually isn't even in this century though.

I agree - but what is the fix right NOW?

I still say to let the chips fall where they may.  Use those subsidies toward Social Security Debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
23 hours ago, kallend said:

I'm good with that, just so long as ALL the costs associated with fossil fuels are included.  That would include the costs of remediation and cleanup currently borne by taxpayers or ignored altogether.

We do agree on some things  . . . ALL - each and every one of its drill sites.

But that also means that Green energy needs to foot its own bill for clean up and remediation in ALL of its material gathering and Mining sites.

Side Note: I bet you didn't know I was an avid believer in the clean water act and think it stopped short, did you?

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
22 hours ago, mistercwood said:

Almost. For a true level playing field you'd strip the subsidies from fossil fuels completely now, but continue providing them to green energy for about another century, so that they've each had roughly the same support overall.

This is my *massive* bugbear with Brent's constant crying about subsidies and how big oil doesn't need them - he never, ever, ever acknowledges that the fact they're viable now without them is also a product of how long they've had them in the past.

 

Its not a zero sum game.

Its a what can we afford now game.

If that's the case we would need to roll back the dollar amounts and adjust for inflation.

Plus - we would then need to take innovation, technology, and invention into account, if you wanted it to be fair.

All of those three were a substantial. and VITAL part of the ability to create the batteries we have now.

So - I say lets call it even and just drop the subsidies.

Quote

It's the equivalent of a trust fund kid whose parents bought their way into Harvard, complaining that their poorer classmate shouldn't be allowed in if they're using any scholarship funds.

While that scholarship fund kid has been given all the answers to the test before he even had to study for it. 

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

To address your point, I don’t believe that renewable power companies rely 100% on government handouts.  However, if they were truly  profitable, private capital would flood in and finance their efforts.  But they are not and that is why they need governmental backstops in the form of direct subsidies, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs and mandates.

They could be profitable, but the cant be Affordable, and profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Its not a zero sum game.

Its a what can we afford now game.

If that's the case we would need to roll back the dollar amounts and adjust for inflation.

Plus - we would then need to take innovation, technology, and invention into account, if you wanted it to be fair.

All of those three were a substantial. and VITAL part of the ability to create the batteries we have now.

So - I say lets call it even and just drop the subsidies.

While that scholarship fund kid has been given all the answers to the test before he even had to study for it. 

I feel like you're overcomplicating things when my point was a lot more straightforward - don't make arguments from the stance of free markets and eradicating subsidies, if your preferred industry reached its position due substantially to a century of subsidies (that you would categorically deny to the other industry).

I don't think some massive flip in funding is actually viable politically, I'm just pointing out the overwhelming hypocrisy Brent either hasn't recognised for himself, or otherwise seems to think people will overlook.

Lastly I have no idea what you're trying to do with my trust-fund scholarship analogy but it doesn't look legal. Step away. Bad Turtle! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I feel like you're overcomplicating things when my point was a lot more straightforward - don't make arguments from the stance of free markets and eradicating subsidies, if your preferred industry reached its position due substantially to a century of subsidies (that you would categorically deny to the other industry).

Yeah - It's probably not the best practice to just dump all the subsidies all at once.

I really wish they would consider a defunding them on, say, a 10 year schedule.

8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I don't think some massive flip in funding is actually viable politically, I'm just pointing out the overwhelming hypocrisy Brent either hasn't recognised for himself, or otherwise seems to think people will overlook.

It's a give and take.

I can see his point, and his view. 

I also see the resistance you provide him, which fuels his love of arguing the subject.

8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Lastly I have no idea what you're trying to do with my trust-fund scholarship analogy but it doesn't look legal. Step away. Bad Turtle! :P

:tongue:Yeah - I could have worded that better.  Basically - Green energy wouldn't be where it is without the oil and gas industry making advances in tech and making the ability to advance the tech as it has. 

That, then making use of those advances in the way of forwarding the ability to create the solar, wind, and other green energy even as efficiently as they are made today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

 

While that scholarship fund kid has been given all the answers to the test before he even had to study for it. 

Looks like yet another one of your unproven conjectures to offset known facts.

BTW I was a scholarship fund boy (to Cambridge, the REAL Cambridge) and no-one gave me any answers.  I went on to earn a "double first"** and get a PhD there, all on scholarship.

 

**https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double first

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Looks like yet another one of your unproven conjectures to offset known facts.

BTW I was a scholarship fund boy (to Cambridge, the REAL Cambridge) and no-one gave me any answers.  I went on to earn a "double first"** and get a PhD there, all on scholarship.

 

**https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double first

 

Since when are imaginary scenarios provable by fact and NOT conjecture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Since when are imaginary scenarios provable by fact and NOT conjecture?

We know for a fact that wealthy donors buy their kids' ways into top colleges.  Proven in courts, even.

Colleges don't even deny "legacy admissions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3