Coal, the comeback kid?

[The Hundredth Monkey 5]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Ah, when facts don't agree with your ramblings you just dismiss them. I am so surprised. Didn't you equate it to Stockholm Syndrome when you discard facts to hold on to lunacy conspiracy theories?

There is no lunacy, you are merely incapable of comprehension.

Your ad hominem is not going to work, it is only a projection of your failures...

I concisely and eloquently explained my supposition, you have al the right to disagree, but to refuse to understand and reply accordingly, only reiterates your incapacity.

I want to be wrong about this, more than you want me to be... If you could eloquently prove me wrong, you would. instead you resort to ad hominem, which can be fun, but we learn nothing about the subject at hand.

I'm not going to fool myself in order to make you feel better about yourself, that would be weak as piss and the very reason we get into this mess.

$10 a gallon gas anyone? or just turn on the pipelines again?

Let's go Brandon!

 

[SkyDekker 781]

20 minutes ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

$10 a gallon gas anyone?

UK has that, and has higher median wealth per adult than the US.

Pretty much all countries that have higher median wealth per adult than the US have higher gasoline and diesel costs than the US, they pretty much all have higher energy costs all around. You can dismiss that all as "theatre" whatever that means, but the facts remain.

 

[JerryBaumchen 750]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

UK has that, and has higher median wealth per adult than the US.

Pretty much all countries that have higher median wealth per adult than the US have higher gasoline and diesel costs than the US, they pretty much all have higher energy costs all around. You can dismiss that all as "theatre" whatever that means, but the facts remain.

 

Hi Sky,

That is the trouble with facts; they are so factual.

Jerry Baumchen

[mistercwood 256]

3 hours ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

I concisely and eloquently explained my supposition

lol

3 hours ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

I want to be wrong about this, more than you want me to be.

LOL

[brenthutch 348]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

UK has that, and has higher median wealth per adult than the US.

Pretty much all countries that have higher median wealth per adult than the US have higher gasoline and diesel costs than the US, they pretty much all have higher energy costs all around. You can dismiss that all as "theatre" whatever that means, but the facts remain.

 

It’s not the cost, it is the delta.  Other economies have already adjusted to higher petroleum costs. The US will as well but not without a lot pain (which will largely be suffered by the Democrats this fall)

[billvon 1,670]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

UK has that . . .

How is anyone still alive there, then?  And how did Biden raise their prices, too?

[wolfriverjoe 933]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

How is anyone still alive there, then?  And how did Biden raise their prices, too?

You have to remember that Biden is senile.

AND an evil genius.

So he's so smart and powerful that he controls the prices of commodities all over the world.

He just forgot which country he was trying to destroy.
(we really need a 'sarcasm' font)

[SkyDekker 781]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s not the cost, it is the delta.  Other economies have already adjusted to higher petroleum costs.

That isn't the argument that was presented (and you liked). It was that expensive energy makes people poor. Lots of countries with higher median wealth and much higher energy costs. The premise is bullshit, but it is a nice soundbite.

And I agree that the Republicans will win big in the mid-terms. You have frequently demonstrated why.

[billvon 1,670]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It’s not the cost, it is the delta.

You make an excelllent argument as to why climate change is such a big issue.

[brenthutch 348]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

You make an excelllent argument as to why climate change is such a big issue.

If gas prices rose at the same rate as global temperatures we would still have sub $3.00 gas

[wmw999 1,564]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

If gas prices rose at the same rate as global temperatures we would still have sub $3.00 gas

Boy, now there’s a convincing argument!

Wendy P. 

[billvon 1,670]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If gas prices rose at the same rate as global temperatures we would still have sub $3.00 gas

And by your arguments, gas prices would therefore not be rising!  You have a new thing to deny.

[gowlerk 1,437]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Boy, now there’s a convincing argument!

Wendy P. 

If wishes were horses beggars would have three dollar a gallon gas

[brenthutch 348]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

And by your arguments, gas prices would therefore not be rising!  You have a new thing to deny.

You still haven’t explained why India and China are building hundreds of coal fired power plants when wind and solar are cheaper.

[brenthutch 348]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You still haven’t explained why India and China are building hundreds of coal fired power plants when wind and solar are cheaper.

No, really, I want to know.  You make a compelling argument for wind and solar, I just want to know why China, India and much of the rest of the world are not on board?

[JoeWeber 1,571]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No, really, I want to know.  You make a compelling argument for wind and solar, I just want to know why China, India and much of the rest of the world are not on board?

Because they have lot's of coal and don't give a rats ass about anything but themselves, you know, like nearly half of America. Maybe if, like cigarette packs, pictures of flooding in Bangladesh were required to be displayed on boxes of Bisquick you'd get the picture.

[brenthutch 348]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Because they have lot's of coal and don't give a rats ass about anything but themselves, you know, like nearly half of America. Maybe if, like cigarette packs, pictures of flooding in Bangladesh were required to be displayed on boxes of Bisquick you'd get the picture.

But deaths from flooding are much less than they used to be, including in Bangladesh.  Things have gotten better not worse. That said, if wind and solar were truly cheaper the self serving option would be wind and solar, not coal.

Edited June 17, 2022 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 348]

“At Greece's largest coal mine, controlled explosions and the roar of giant excavators scooping up blasted rock have once again become routine. Coal production has been ramped up at the site near the northern Greek city of Kozani as the war in Ukraine forced many European nations to rethink their energy supplies. 

Coal, long treated as a legacy fuel in Europe, is now helping the continent safeguard its power supply and cope with the dramatic rise in natural gas prices caused by the war. 

Electricity generated by coal in the European Union jumped by 19% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year earlier, according to the EU’s energy directorate, faster than any other source of power “

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/greece-ap-european-union-electricity-ukraine-b2102251.html

19% increase BEFORE the Ukraine war, imagine how fast coal use is growing now.

Someone needs to tell the EU that wind and solar are cheaper and more scalable.  Olof, BillV where are you?

Edited June 17, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 265]

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Someone needs to tell the EU that wind and solar are cheaper and more scalable.  Olof, BillV where are you?

Yes, pretty easy to answer actually.

Wind and solar are cheaper, but they take time to build up. Russia's action in Ukraine means they've had not much time to cobble together a replacement quickly.

The coal plants are already there, Germany is just delaying their retirement.

 

So...is your new argument that the IEA report was wrong?

  

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

19% increase BEFORE the Ukraine war, imagine how fast coal use is growing now.

The increase was due to the tensions because of Russia's troop buildup. It's right there in your source link!

Quote

jumped by 19% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year earlier...as tension spiked between Russia and Ukraine and ahead of the invasion in late February.

This increase was ENTIRELY due to Russian aggression, nothing else.

Edited June 17, 2022 by olofscience

[brenthutch 348]

7 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Yes, pretty easy to answer actually.

Wind and solar are cheaper, but they take time to build up. Russia's action in Ukraine means they've had not much time to cobble together a replacement quickly.

 

Except coal use rose 19% BEFORE Russia’s actions in Ukraine.  

Edited June 17, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 265]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Except coal use rose 19% BEFORE Russia’s actions in Ukraine.  

Again...read your source link!

Quote

Electricity generated by coal in the European Union jumped by 19% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year earlier, according to the EU’s energy directorate, faster than any other source of power, as tension spiked between Russia and Ukraine and ahead of the invasion in late February.

It's like you just post on this forum to get assistance reading articles...

I did a quick google search here to help you:

 

[wmw999 1,564]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's like you just post on this forum to get assistance reading articles...

You are too easily goaded

Wendy P. 

[olofscience 265]

21 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You are too easily goaded

Wendy P. 

It's a scorching hot day here, way too hot to be teaching an adult how to read  Thanks.

[kallend 1,190]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

You are too easily goaded

Wendy P. 

Forum rules prohibit trolling.  You know this.

[brenthutch 348]

“global power generation from coal is expected to jump by 9% in 2021 to an all-time high of 10,350 terawatt-hours, according to the IEA’s Coal 2021 report.”

https://electrek.co/2021/12/17/coal-production-will-rise-to-its-highest-ever-levels-in-2022-says-iea/