3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

(edited)
5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

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

 

4 hours ago, kallend said:I guess the best way to explain is by example.  In Alaska each citizen gets dividend of as much as $2000+ because of the bounty provided by the oil and gas industry and the Saudis get even more than that.   Notice that oil and gas are SUBSIDIZING the citizens not the other way around.  In California and Germany the citizens are paying more for their electricity to SUBSIDIZE renewables.  I just don’t understand why folks are unable to grasp the difference.
Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the best way to illustrate my point is by way of example.  Citizens of Alaska receive an annual dividend of as much as $2000+, Saudis get even more from the bounty provided by the oil and gas industries.  In other words, oil and gas are SUBSIDIZING the citizens not the other way around.  Juxtapose that to the situation in California and Germany where citizens are paying sky high electricity prices to SUBSIDIZE renewables.  I really don’t get why folks are having such a hard time wrapping their brain around this simple reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 6:37 PM, 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

 

And yet here you are arguing on an internet forum. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54242055

 

In a dramatic reversal, one of the world's biggest makers of coal-fired power plants is to exit the market and focus on greener alternatives.

US industrial giant General Electric said it would shut or sell sites as it prioritised its renewable energy and power generation businesses.

 

GE has said in the past it would focus less on fossil fuels, reflecting the growing acceptance of cleaner energy sources in US power grids.

But just five years ago, it struck its biggest ever deal - paying almost £10bn for a business that produced coal-fuelled turbines.

In a statement, the firm suggested the decision had been motivated by economics.

Russell Stokes, GE's senior vice president, said: "With the continued transformation of GE, we are focused on power generation businesses that have attractive economics and a growth trajectory.

"As we pursue this exit from the new build coal power market, we will continue to support our customers, helping them to keep their existing plants running in a cost-effective and efficient way with best-in-class technology and service expertise."

Share this post


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

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54242055

 

In a dramatic reversal, one of the world's biggest makers of coal-fired power plants is to exit the market and focus on greener alternatives.

In a statement, the firm suggested the decision had been motivated by economics.

AKA natural gas.  Hardly dramatic, everyone is doing it... because .....economics.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 9/18/2020 at 7:34 PM, 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.

They did not need them in the past either.  If you took away every subsidy the oil and gas industry ever had, what do you think would happen?  People would go back to riding horses?  Was there another substance that could compete with oil and gas?  Oh yeah, wood and coal.  There was no other more economical energy source to take its place. The fact that they received subsidies was so politicians could get donations in return.  Just like Solindra.( except Solindra was not economically viable....obviously )

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, billvon said:

"GE has said in the past it would focus less on fossil fuels, reflecting the growing acceptance of cleaner energy sources in US power grids."

It’s called Greenwashing.  Throw a sparkly solar panel in front of the sheep, while the real business gets done, via fossil fuels.

 

Edited by brenthutch

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