olofscience

Members
  • Content

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Feedback

    N/A
  • Country

    United Kingdom

olofscience last won the day on April 8

olofscience had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

31 Neutral

Gear

Jump Profile

  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    No
  • Pro Rating
    No
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And really, even if I made the mistake conflating it (and I didn't, you just misunderstood what I said), why did you then follow into mixing it up? Anyway, lots of renewable electricity companies are public companies and their accounts are available for all to see. How much are you willing to bet that they're not profitable and only being propped up by taxpayer subsidies?
  2. I made an analogy. Let me rephrase: "They'll win out eventually, because of other reasons besides up-front cost, similar to how electric cars are taking market share from ICE cars". Clear enough? Someone asked if renewable energy was economically sustainable and you offered cars as proof it wasn't. Is english your first language? Because you really have issues with reading comprehension.
  3. I hate to point out the obvious, but electric car subsidies are not renewable energy subsidies, because electric cars are not renewable energy. They're cars.
  4. 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.
  5. No they don't. As you can read in the Vestas report, they're actually quite profitable. Bullshit. You only complain against one.
  6. And...reading is also not your strong point. You do know this article is campaigning against oil and gas subsidies right? In fact, a nice tidbit from your link: and another: And you fell for it. Typical.
  7. If Vestas' tax bill was smaller than what they got in subsidies, then why did they pay 189 million euros in tax after deducting the tax credits? Numbers aren't your strong point are they?
  8. Vestas paid EUR 189 million (about 224 million US dollars) as corporate tax in 2019, to Denmark. That's after the tax credits have been deducted. Source: https://www.vestas.com/~/media/vestas/investor/investor pdf/financial reports/2019/q4/2019_annual_report.pdf. Not to mention they're just one of many companies there in the wind power industry. Scotland is another country where wind power is an increasing part of revenues. That's because you actively deny and ignore any information that disagrees with your narrative.
  9. Well several glaciers and some tundra has definitely become greener due to the increasing temperature. The NASA link said nothing about food production though. Also, the co-author of the paper said: The temperate countries might have a small benefit with crops due to warming, but this is offset by crops being at their temperature limit in the tropics. But climate deniers lapping up the benefits of warming in temperate countries, while dehumanising immigrants from the tropics and trying to keep them out, that's just another level of being an arsehole. Nothing new to them though.
  10. Go and publish a paper on it then, I'm sure the academic world will be thrilled to know everything's fine.
  11. What, you trust models now? You were pretty against them before. This paper is from 1983! It also has quite a big flaw that it assumed a massive increase in CO2 concentration (doubling) while only assuming a 0.25 C increase in global temperature. As of 2020 we're already at around 1.1C so they're already very wrong. Keep up.
  12. So...you got anything to contribute to the discussion? I didn't say I was smarter, I said I knew more about how the oil industry worked, having worked there myself. But if you think his quick googling and multiple mistakes are equally credible, then that just says more about you. One more thing: I didn't just make that statement without evidence - my previous discussions with him, his long posting history already reveals the depth of his ignorance and inability to read and understand technical details. Or even read the most basic things about the stuff he posts (like the titles).
  13. Excuses, excuses. You worded your statement as if CO2 was the major factor. It wasn't. If it had any effect at all it would be fractions of a percent.
  14. <facepalm> The bottleneck for food production wasn't CO2. It's fixed nitrogen. The invention of the Haber-Bosch process in 1909 made the massive increase in food production in the 20th Century possible. And oil and gas installations don't need any replacement or maintenance? You see, I used to work for an oil company. I'm not some hippy lefty. I know far more than you do on how the industry works. Could you also please learn some engineering? I feel stupider already for even replying to you...
  15. Only if brenthutch spends a bit more time actually reading the articles that he posts, and actually puts effort into educating himself. I've got better things to do with my time. If you want a history of his posts, it pretty much goes: climate change isn't happening once that becomes undeniable, he switches to "yes it's happening, but we can't stop it, it's actually good for us" fossil fuels are the best and renewables will never work! every now and then he'll find an article saying "climate change isn't happening", he forgets what he said in (2) and cheerfully repeats like a broken record assorted other attacks against electric cars, renewables, etc. without any engineering knowledge whatsoever So I won't waste my time on him. But Turtle, if you summarise the points in the video to me, I can answer your questions and engage in a hopefully more productive discussion.