Green Panic

[olofscience 422]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Only businesses that support his political agenda should get any subsidies at all, of course!  I mean, that's Troll 101.

That was a quick turnaround from "subsidies are eye-watering expensive, they shouldn't give them", to "fossil fuel companies should be given MORE subsidies because they generate more energy!"

 

His lying can't be more obvious...

[brenthutch 383]

14 minutes ago, olofscience said:

That was a quick turnaround from "subsidies are eye-watering expensive, they shouldn't give them", to "fossil fuel companies should be given MORE subsidies because they generate more energy!"

 

His lying can't be more obvious...

I wasn’t advocating for subsidies, I was exposing the faulty logic behind the “fossil fuels get more subsidies than renewables” myth 

[olofscience 422]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I wasn’t advocating for subsidies, I was exposing the faulty logic behind the “fossil fuels get more subsidies than renewables” myth 

it's not a myth. Did you see the Guardian link?

[CygnusX-1 42]

16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

it's not a myth. Did you see the Guardian link?

Oh, come on. The Guardian was talking about UK subsidies. Those people are not even part of this world. Don't you know that the earth ends at the borders of the continental US? Just remember his argument about F150 sales and only willing to look at US sales and not world-wide sales of vehicles.

[wmw999 2,122]

21 minutes ago, olofscience said:

it's not a myth. Did you see the Guardian link?

I think that the goalposts are now “subsidy per BTU or equivalent.”

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I think that the goalposts are now “subsidy per BTU or equivalent.”

Wendy P. 

Next up: ATU or equivalent.

[olofscience 422]

14 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I think that the goalposts are now “subsidy per BTU or equivalent.”

Wendy P. 

He'll be moving goalposts so often that he won't remember where they are.

 

Brent was so convinced that the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia had subsidies and wouldn't survive even though it had none (and was very profitable).

 

He didn't have to check. It was built by Tesla. It used lithium batteries. That was enough to get him to attack it.

[billvon 2,400]

57 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Brent was so convinced that the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia had subsidies and wouldn't survive even though it had none (and was very profitable).  He didn't have to check. It was built by Tesla. It used lithium batteries. That was enough to get him to attack it.

Keep in mind that the right wing disinformation machine is so powerful that all you have to do is google "hornsdale power reserve failure" and you'll get dozens of bits of disinformation/out of context information/plain lies that you can use to make any argument you want.

[brenthutch 383]

It is the correct way to analyze subsidies.
 

If I give a million dollars to two different car companies and one produces 40 cars and the other produces one, which car is more subsidized?

Edited November 3, 2023 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,123]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is the correct way to analyze subsidies.
 

If I give a million dollars to two different car companies and one produces 40 cars and the other produces one, which car is more subsidized?

It is only the correct way if the goal of the subsidy is to get more cars produced. If the goal is to get cars with different technology produced, then just basing it on total cars is nonsense.

[olofscience 422]

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is the correct way to analyze subsidies.

But you didn't say that. You didn't say "they should have subsidies proportional to the amount of energy they produce". You just said, and I quote: 

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The problem I have, is the massive amount taxpayer dollars being wasted on them

When I pointed out fossil fuels have MORE dollars being wasted on them, you moved the goalpost.

 

You also don't get that renewable subsidies are investments in increasing generation capacity rather than just reducing the per-MWh cost like how fossil fuels get.

 

No, you didn't do any analysis at all. Not that you can...

Edited November 3, 2023 by olofscience

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

It is only the correct way if the goal of the subsidy is to get more cars produced. If the goal is to get cars with different technology produced, then just basing it on total cars is nonsense.

The goal would be “provide transportation”. If you don’t like that,
change from car manufacturers to electricity producers and re-run the thought experiment and see if you still think it is nonsense 

Edited November 3, 2023 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The goal would be “provide transportation”. If you don’t like that,
change from car manufacturers to electricity producers and re-run the thought experiment and see if you still think it is nonsense 

Then if the 40 vehicles can transport 40 people and the 1 vehicle can transport 50 people it would change the assessment of the subsidies. Basically, you don't know what the goal is and are just throwing shit against the wall. 

Same with electricity subsidies. Are they meant to increase production, are they meant to try and move production to different sources?

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Then if the 40 vehicles can transport 40 people and the 1 vehicle can transport 50 people it would change the assessment of the subsidies. Basically, you don't know what the goal is and are just throwing shit against the wall. 

Same with electricity subsidies. Are they meant to increase production, are they meant to try and move production to different sources?

The goal is transportation, the vehicle is car (not bus).  You seem to believe a novel transportation system or energy source is the end goal.

”hey I have this new vehicle, it has a much shorter range, it weighs a lot more, takes up to 24 hours to refuel and is more expensive…but it is newwww technology”

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Then if the 40 vehicles can transport 40 people and the 1 vehicle can transport 50 people it would change the assessment of the subsidies. Basically, you don't know what the goal is and are just throwing shit against the wall. 

Yep.  I've said this several times.

I would be fine with no subsidies - and the same regulatory limits for everyone.  Coal power plant emitting too much CO2?  Find a way to capture and sequester it, then knock yourself out.  Oh, and coal ash?  That's toxic radioactive waste and has to be handled accordingly.

Or continue with what we have now, with subsidies going to technologies that benefit the US as a whole and make us more competitive.

[brenthutch 383]

40 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  I've said this several times.

I would be fine with no subsidies - and the same regulatory limits for everyone.  Coal power plant emitting too much CO2?  Find a way to capture and sequester it, then knock yourself out.  Oh, and coal ash?  That's toxic radioactive waste and has to be handled accordingly.

Or continue with what we have now, with subsidies going to technologies that benefit the US as a whole and make us more competitive.

Except there is no evidence that CO2 is anything but beneficial and you seem to be unaware of the externalities involved with EVs and renewables.

[brenthutch 383]

Climate cabal collapses…

https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-real-world-crises-to-beset-cop28-climate-confab

[brenthutch 383]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  I've said this several times.

I would be fine with no subsidies - and the same regulatory limits for everyone.  Coal power plant emitting too much CO2?  Find a way to capture and sequester it, then knock yourself out.  Oh, and coal ash?  That's toxic radioactive waste and has to be handled accordingly.

Or continue with what we have now, with subsidies going to technologies that benefit the US as a whole and make us more competitive.

A recent report on ZDF German public television explains that currently there’s no plan in place on what to do with the turbine blades, which weigh up to 15 tonnes each. There’s no way to recycle them to use as raw material for new blades. 

Currently the old blades are being shredded and the chips mixed in with concrete. “You need too much energy and power to shred them,” says Hans-Dieter Wilcken, the operator of a German recycling company. Burning them is also not an option.

Hazardous waste

The problem with chopping them up is that dangerous carbon fibre particles are produced and pose a threat to human health. Used wind turbine blades have been designated hazardous waste and no one knows how to deal with them.

The pro-solar website EnergySage writes:

There are some chemicals used in the manufacturing process to prepare silicon and make the wafers for monocrystalline and polycrystalline panels. One of the most toxic chemicals created as a byproduct of this process is silicon tetrachloride. This chemical, if not handled and disposed of properly, can lead to burns on your skin, harmful air pollutants that increase lung disease, and if exposed to water can release hydrochloric acid, which is a corrosive substance bad for human and environmental health.

For any user of solar panels, this is not an immediate risk as it only affects manufacturers and recyclers. More disconcerting, however, is the environmental impact of these chemicals. Based on installed capacity and power-related weight, we can estimate that by 2016, photovoltaics had spread about 11,000 tons of lead and about 800 tons of cadmium. A hazard summary of cadmium compounds produced by the EPA points out that exposure to cadmium can lead to serious lung irritation and long-lasting impairment of pulmonary functions. Exposure to lead hardly needs further explanation.

Looks like powering the world with rainbows and unicorn farts come with their own set of problems.

 

[olofscience 422]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like powering the world with rainbows and unicorn farts come with their own set of problems.

Looks like you're just repeating fake news and FUD.

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

One of the most toxic chemicals created as a byproduct of this process is silicon tetrachloride.

SiCl4 is NOT a byproduct, it's an intermediate product. It gets used up to make silicon. That the Chinese are spilling it around their manufacturing sites is just carelessness.

 

 

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Based on installed capacity and power-related weight, we can estimate that by 2016, photovoltaics had spread about 11,000 tons of lead and about 800 tons of cadmium.

This is very outdated, even it mentions 2016 as being in the future. Photovoltaics don't use cadmium or lead.

 

So not only does Brent fail maths, he also fails chemistry.

[gowlerk 1,914]

41 minutes ago, olofscience said:

43 minutes ago, olofscience said:

This is very outdated, even it mentions 2016 as being in the future. Photovoltaics don't use cadmium or lead.

 

I wonder what lead acid batteries are made from? I wonder what parachute hardware is coated with?

[brenthutch 383]

39 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Looks like you're just repeating fake news and FUD.

SiCl4 is NOT a byproduct, it's an intermediate product. It gets used up to make silicon. That the Chinese are spilling it around their manufacturing sites is just carelessness.

 

 

This is very outdated, even it mentions 2016 as being in the future. Photovoltaics don't use cadmium or lead.

 

So not only does Brent fail maths, he also fails chemistry.

You fail reading comprehension, that information is from EnergySage, a pro-solar organization.

This from the EPA

“Federal solid and hazardous waste regulations (i.e., the RCRA requirements) apply to solar panels when they are discarded. When a solar panel reaches the end of its usable life or is otherwise discarded, it becomes solid waste. Solid waste is regulated federally under RCRA Subtitle D and through state and local government programs.

The discarded solar panel, which is now considered solid waste, may then also be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C as hazardous waste if it is determined to be hazardous. The most common reason that solar panels would be determined to be hazardous waste would be by meeting the characteristic of toxicity. Heavy metals like lead and cadmium may be leachable at such concentrations that waste panels would fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)”

[olofscience 422]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You fail reading comprehension, that information is from EnergySage, a pro-solar organization.

It doesn't matter where it's from, it's wrong.

Again, you're pretty crap at chemistry.

[olofscience 422]

12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I wonder what parachute hardware is coated with?

That would be chromium, not cadmium.

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I wonder what lead acid batteries are made from?

Lead acid batteries are huge, heavy, and pretty easy to isolate for disposal and they usually don't spread lead contamination everywhere.

[gowlerk 1,914]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

That would be chromium, not cadmium.

You haven't been skydiving for very long have you? Stainless steel hardware is actually an option that most people choose over the standard cadmium plating. Used in many aerospace applications as well.

[billvon 2,400]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

Looks like you're just repeating fake news and FUD.

Anti-solar people regularly clutch their pearls and whine piteously about all the environmental damage that PVs (and wind turbines, and batteries) cause.  They think they are "owning the libs" because they figure liberals are all environuts who can't accept any pollution at all.

Then, of course, they get into their big truck, drive into the woods, and put a few pounds of lead into a target somewhere.  But that's OK because it's them.

I just find it funny at this point.  They are the Luddites of today, afraid of new technology that's going to change the status quo.