Fossil Fuel industry trying to shut down electric vehicles

Europe is a real economic powerhouse ?? And China is laughing at us for stifling our economy whilst theirs continues to grow at least 3X the rate of the US economy.

 

Because it isn't economy boosting when you lead the pack in GDP and it is cheaper to let them sort it out first. Why do you ignore that the only way to reduce CO2 output is to make the nation poorer? Why do you ignore the lessons that Germany is learning right now--that over-reliance on alternative power can destabilize the electric grid on high production days while driving traditional power suppliers to the brink of bankruptcy in having to cover all their overhead in fewer KWhrs? Why do you ignore that the "boost" people see only exists as long as they are free-riders on the backs of traditional power suppliers? Why do you ignore that the government is focused on keeping consumers tethered to utility companies in which they have a vested interest in seeing prices go up for consumers, not down? Why do you not see that even if America reduced its CO2 output, CO2 would continue to rise? Why do you ignore that we have already passed the point of no return in the studies that concluded we are the drivers in CO2 rises (which we are not)?

 

Why do you repeat such drivel and BS?

 

I see you have no answers. While that was pretty obvious from the get go, at least now you are owning up to it by your retreat to personal insults devoid of fact. Perhaps you can google up some info on the problems in Germany and get back to us with something resembling an educated response. I am sure there is something out there you can cut and paste.

 

Oh, I have answers! But I won't be grilled by you on a list of "gotchya" questions.

 

Sure you do. Anything that contradicts your DNC supplied reality is a "gotcha" question. Your inability to respond with any facts whatsoever proves you have been gotten. Dismissed.

 

Is it a tax credit for renewables? Well, that's not a subsidy as it doesn't de-risk the capital investment.

Hang on a minute, it is a tax credit for the provider company or a tax credit for the power consumer?

 

That is a good point.

These wonderfully long carbon chains are unique to planets that have organic life, which totals 1 so far in our known universe. They are incredibly rare stuff and the fact that were are lighting them up and burning them to push our lazy, cottage-cheese asses to the supermarket is an absolute crime.

The irony is that we can burn the shorter chains like methane which is everywhere. We actually have to crack the oil chains in order to make the stuff we burn. Its a disgrace.

 

there is a hidden tax for fossil fuels which is in the reduced air quality and potential economic effects of environmental degradation.

I'm sure he meant electricity from mixed sources....

This is a useful guide of MPG equivalent emissions for electric cars, depending on energy source. France which is mostly nuclear has excellent MPG equivalent. Australia and South Africa are worst because they rely on coal so much. However, domestic off-grid solar and wind are highly viable in those countries identified as having high on-grid coal use.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green

 

For most people, there is no Free Market for energy. I suppose, if you buy propane, you have your choice of providers. But most people are tied to public systems, and are subject to the cost increases, fixed-fee increases, and also surcharges for Netmetering. I paid extra for Netmetering, when I got my service. My Fixed Fees have gone up from $9.95 per month, to $34.95 per month, over only 5 years; while the usage fees have stayed flat. Although the Utility companies claim to be pro-renewables, they play these games, to fight homeowner renewables.

I mention this just to point out that the laws, subsidies (as shown in my earlier post), policies, etc are all in favor of fossil fuels. It's a stacked deck, and the rich and powerful energy barons are in control. Are you one of them?

 

We have had all the air and water quality regulations that we need since the 1970's. The economic effects of regulations that do not provide benefits but increase costs are negative on the economic growth of the US.

 

Agreed but forcing tax payers to pay for solar and wind installation with no practical effect on global warming is clearly anti free market and harms the US economy.

 

No practical effect? Please explain.

 

What will be the effect on global average temperature of global solar and wind electrical generation in the year 2100 ?? "Zero".

 

Is this your definition of "practical effect"? There are many other aspects , besides climate change considerations (even though ZERO effect is impossible). I mentioned solar's contribution to peak load, which prevents the need for new power plants, holding electrical rates down. A good thing. Somebody else mentioned jobs associated with solar. A good thing. Less burning of fossil fuels improves local air quality.

 

While the unfortunate attacks on anthropocentric climate change protecting the profits and destruction of the fossil fuel industry.

 

The trade off with today's wind and solar is to justify the economic damage of higher energy prices with a reduction in global average temperature. There is no reduction in global average temperature. As energy demand increases due to population growth the capacity must be provided by energy generation plants available 24/7/365. Wind and solar are only useful to provide energy when it is windy and sunny. There is no reduction in the need for new fossil fueled (or nuclear) power plants.

 

And yet, you ignore solar's contribution to peak load. Also, latest data shows that wind provides 7% of the US demand for electricity (and in areas, where employed, it's almost always windy). I think your information is outdated.

 

I'm ignoring nothing. Fossil fuel fired generation capacity has to equal peak demand. That investment must be made. Doubling the investment for the wind and solar results in higher energy costs and for no benefit in terms of global average temperature.

 

Not completely true. Many Utilities use hydroelectric, which is much better at handling peak load that any fire-driven system, such as coal. Pumped water storage is utilized by Utilities, and is very promising, combined with solar and wind.

Peak loads occur during summertime afternoon hours, primarily the result of air conditioning. These peak loads are highest when the sun is unobstructed, leading to more AC demand. This is the exact time that solar is producing at it's highest.

 

Except when the sun is not shining. 24/7/365 capacity must be equal to maximum demand. The extra generation from solar and wind is added cost that is not needed and produces no benefit. The economic damage is real as the price of electricity is higher than it would be without solar and wind generation.

 

Gee, if the sun isn't shining, there is not as much AC demand, and no peak load threat. More rhetoric, with no backup. You sound like a coal industry lobbyist. Here's my link, with backup.

The California Power Authority (CPA) is committed to increasing the use of renewable energy supplies—such as photovoltaics and wind—as a hedge against price fluctuations of electricity and natural gas.
...
However, photovoltaics (PV)—or solar electricity—has great value as a source of firm, reliable power during extreme peak loads. But this value has not been made clear and has been drastically underestimated by most energy planners.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/31179.pdf

 

It's simple economics based on the time value of money. Where is the economic analysis in the paper you cite that indicates that solar is more economical than natural gas ??

 

It's not worth discussing this with you any more. You do no research, and just blurt things out. Not worth my time.

 

I've read extensively about the economic damage done by gov subsidized wind and solar power power. Germany and Spain are prime examples of this.