You keep ignoring the fact that energy companies are investing in RE instead of carbon based fuels! Do you think that they are doing it to be nice or to make the most profit?
The cost of infrastructure is anecdotal? The cost of a dam is anecdotal? The cost of such things are not facts? You see, this is why I tend to get bored with such debates in here. I really do not have a strong opinion one way or another, but the irrationality and almost religious passions that others have puzzles me. I simply stick to facts, and just watch as others become unhinged. Trying to say I am saying something other than what I am, or blasting me because they do not agree. The interesting thing is, nowhere have I said it was a bad idea. Nowhere do you see me saying we should not follow these technologies. I simply recognize that they will never replace other technologies, and they are not a panacea that will cure all the issues. You are so obsessed with wind everywhere I guess, that you do not like being told of the downsides, and why it will never be the "final solution" to our energy problems. But go ahead, and wonder why more moderate people like myself who look at things objectively move away from such fanaticism.
They have been doing so for over a century. Big deal. And this is hardly new. Where I grew up 40 years ago, over 80% of the power came from renewable energy. And that state still gets over 80% of it's power from renewable sources. The only problem I have is in the blind race to only 2 sources, and people trying to make everybody believe those are the only 2 sources available. It is like doctors trying to push some new wonder drug, when it is not really needed. This is yet another of the amazing conversations I have in here. Where somebody is so busy trying to bash what I say, that they are not even really reading what I say. But think on this. There are a lot of renewable energy systems out there, many are over 50-100 years old. We also have nuclear, which produces a huge amount of power, with almost no greenhouse gasses. Myself, I believe solar should be expanded even more, but not in the "massive solar farm" style most seem to envision. Small scale, with individuals and businesses installing it as a way to reduce their power consumption. And why are power companies investing in wind and solar? Well, we will know the answer to that next year, as it is expected that construction on new wind plants grinds to a halt. You see, all those subsidies the government has been giving them ($5 billion a year) ends at the end of this year. And the subsidies for solar have been shrinking for years. They get into it for PR. They get into it for the tax benefits and subsidies. And in some areas it is simply a good business decision. But everybody is obsessing on the NOW, and not looking at long range trends. By 2025, most of the solar construction will slow down, as those subsidy programs run out. And the area of greatest expansion, will continue to be natural gas. As it is now, as it will be in 15, 25, or 45 years from now. The biggest area of growth for solar now and then will continue to be the small scale installation of solar on homes and businesses. Not the giant money pits that are massive solar farms. We have been playing with those for decades, and they have never paid off. Most of those have failed spectacularly, the cost of maintenance simply eating away any potential profit. And I can guarantee, that unless the wind subsidy that is expiring at the end of 2020 is renewed, you will see few new wind farms being built, or current ones being expanded. Unless it just happens to be in an area that has the need and conditions for it. And interestingly enough, as much as you talk about "Corporations", what are government power companies doing? Well, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is such an organization, and has been pushing solar for over a decade to homeowners to reduce the load on the system. But their power comes almost entirely from gas, hydro, and nuclear. Being a government entity they do not get the subsidies that companies get, so never went the wind and solar route as a way to produce their own power. And that is the entity that provides power to most of LA.
I'm pointing out that capitalism requires corporations to do serious analysis My evidence vs your concerns IS the behavior of these corporations who are investing in wind energy. In my opinion, the discussion is about your concerns vs the analysis being done by those with skin in the game. Unless you doubt that capitalism is what's happening here, I think my argument is solid. Capitalism might NOT be what's happening, of course. Maybe you can show that various governments are actually screwing up capitalism in this case - by subsidies (like we do with oil and gas) or whatever. I don't believe that's what's happening, though.
The United States leads the world in the amount of electricity generated with geothermal energy. In 2018, there were geothermal power plants in seven states, which produced about 16.7 billion kilowatthours (kWh), equal to 0.4% of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation. In 2016, about 23 countries, including the United States, generated a total of about 77 billion kWh of electricity from geothermal energy. The Philippines was the second-largest geothermal electricity producer after the United States, at about 11 billion kWh of electricity, which equaled approximately 13% of the Philippines' total electricity generation. Kenya was the eighth-largest producer of electricity from geothermal energy at about 4.2 billion kWh, but it had the largest share of its total electricity generation from geothermal energy at about 44%. Really, geothermal!! Just think how much more geothermal energy can be tapped if we didn't have naysayers! IMO it's a huge win to have geothermal energy generated because it offsets fossil fuel power generation...a huge win! Where I live in northern CA geothermal generates enough power for 725,000 homes!
You seem to be making assumptions that are at variance with reality And blaming “the government” when over and over you have been told this is market driven
Failure to defend your anecdotal position duly noted and asinine strawman BS ignored for obvious reasons.
Interesting thing about people is how they tend to think the world began when their lives began and form opinions based on that false premise. Our lives are not even a blink of earths eye and trying to judge whats "normal" for earth based on our lifetime is like trying to find whats normal in your life based on what occurred a second ago.
Normal??? The issue is the change and the cost of adapting to that change - in lives, dollars, national security and standard of living. Luckily, humans are the cause of the change. That means WE can do something about it - rather than just pay the cost in lives and wealth.
Scientists are well aware of climate change history. Right now, climatologists note that we ARE controlling climate - at least in that we are driving up the average temperature of Earth. What would it take for you to believe what climatologists the world over have long concluded?
Unfortunately your position is based on a false premise so I can't really respond to it in a way you would like.
No one is suggesting that man can control the temperature on Earth like a thermostat but man is causing a CO2 rise through many venues like burning coal.and deforestation. Like too many bacteria on a petri dish something has to give.
To assert earth is substantially warmer due to man and to assert that man can reduce earths average temperature by controlling his C02 output is indeed to assert man controls the climate and can turn the thermostat up or down as we see fit simply by adjusting our C02 output.
So now your position is if man stops contributing C02 temperature will stop rising and stay there but will never go down? We can turn the thermostat up but not down? Either way you are saying man controls climate and no other factors will effect it one way or the other. We are in charge. lol
