'ABC forgets' documentary which ‘absolutely skewers the renewable energy industry’

Oh sorry, here's the link and source.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx

The source is the World Nuclear Association website (yep, that bunch of left wing, pro-renewable, green ideologues).

So now it does have standing. Problem solved.

 

Not necessarily. I agree that barring some miraculous discovery in the near future no-one is going to be jumping on a battery powered Boeing airliner for a trip from New York to Paris. And the same probably apples to commercial shipping as well. But it is definitely possible to have carbon neutral sea and air travel just by substituting manufactured carbon neutral fuels for fossil fuel. There's already existing tech that can extract CO2 from the air and convert it into fuel on an industrial scale. That being the case so long as the energy used to produce that fuel is 'green' so is the fuel.

Yep, but the fact you were responding to the 'other guy' doesn't change the fact you said it (made the claim) and based on the evidence I presented the statement is simply not correct. Or is that not so?

OMG.. talk about clutching at straws. You do realize don't you that we won't be here to see the sun when its 'used up'. Our sun has an estimated life span of about 10 billion years! Its reached middle age but still has a good 5 billion years or so left in it. By the time it gets to the point where it is 'used up' as you put it human beings (or their descendants) will have either gone extinct or moved on to other systems because by then the Earth will have become uninhabitable for mundane homo sapiens (and all life as we know it now).

So it terms of the entirety of human existence solar power is renewable. It was available before life on Earth even started and will be here after long after it ends, by which time we will have (A) died out or (B) moved on. It doesn't get any more 'renewable' than that.

 

Thank you. Their bias is clear now.
World Nuclear Association - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › World_Nuclear_Assoc...

World Nuclear Association is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry.

 

And your point is?

Lets be clear there's association that promotes coal or energy purposes, another for oil and gas, one for wind turbines, one for solar etc etc etc. In short ALL potential sources of power in the energy sector have a group representing them. And to be clear beyond that sector ALL industries, power related or not have slimier peak bodies formed for the express purpose of furthering their sectors economic interests, both with government and with the general public. That's an indisputable fact of life.

For all I know somewhere out there in the world there's international association promoting hamsters in treadmills as a potential solution to Earths Energy problems. The point is if it's perfectly legitimate for the fossil fuel industry to have a peak body/bodies publishing information/research on behalf of its membership then it must by default be OK for everyone else to do the same. Or do you disagree with that principal?

It also follows then that the fact you don't like certain information provided by one such association (presumably because it contradicts what you already believe) doesn't make it incorrect. If the WNA is 'biased' then the same exact claim can be made about the fossil fuel sector by anyone who wants to do so. Or if you prefer what makes info you collect from that sector more accurate that the info collected form other players in the energy sector?

That aside, you think the information I quoted is 'biased', even though it listed listed subsidies and concessions for all sectors? Fine prove it!

Alternately you can just keep on doing what you seem to have done in this case - reject it outright because you don't like what it says, regardless of whether its true or not. Your choice.

 

I personally support nuclear power. I think turning away from nuclear was a great error. Nonetheless it's clear that an organization founded to promote nuclear power will strive to show the advantages conferred on other power sources in order to support its claim that nuclear should be treated more generously.
I don't dispute anyone's figures, but I think every interest group can tweak categories and definitions to make its case.

 

Fair enough, that was the jist of my post re figures provided by any peak body in any industry. That said I still believe the point has been made that while all sectors of the energy industry might be guilty of 'guilding the lily" when it comes to their own stats it's pretty clear coal, oil and gas were the beneficiaries of significant government support (at least in the past if not now). Green power is just the next cab in the rank.

 

As you said, fair enough. The difference being that coal, oil and gas also generate significant tax revenue, both corporately and via their employees' incomes.

 

This getting a bit convoluted.

The subject is whether we'll see all vehicles electric in US/Europe as early as 2035. I say it's simply not a believable possibility & u say what? Your changing the subject suggested to me that you were (begrudgingly?) willing to admit how stupid the idea was but now you seem to be sliding around w/ ships & planes etc.. We really need to focus here.

 

Identifying which vehicles to discuss is adding focus, not dodging.

I don't believe 100% of anything we do is going to change.

But, there is no reason to doubt that electric cars are going to be a HUGE deal well before 2035.

 

Not really, remember I only posted in the first place in order to respond to your comment about renewables being heavily subsidized while non renewables were heavily taxed. That was my point of interest, not whether or not all transport was going to be electrified by 2040 as someone had claimed. I didn't agree with your claim and subsequently produced evidence showing that it was wrong i.e. figures clearly show that non-renewables have been the beneficiaries of generous subsidies for decades - at least until quite recently. That being the case the only difference between non-renewables and 'green' energy is that the latter are simply newcomers to the subsidy game and no different to non-renewables.

I commented on the electrification of transport by 2040 thing just in passing by simply noting that it would be quite possible to 'green' transport (i.e. every type of transport ) without having to electrify all of it. To which end, (as WillReadMore pointed out above) I drew a distinction between electric ground transport and sea and air transport, both of which would be much harder electrify, at least by 2040 anyway.

IMO it would certainly be possible to electrify the vast majority, of if not all ground transport by 2040. Certainly all cars and light trucks/vans could easily be electrified by then with significant improvements in air quality resulting. Long distance trucking could be as well, at least in part with possible exceptions being made for remote and rural areas etc where trucks run on carbon neutral 'green' fuels might still be required. So even if the transition is not 100% complete* by 2040 (it might take a little longer) we can still have net zero carbon transport by 2040 or close to that date - with 90% of ground transport being electric and all other forms running on carbon neutral fuels.

 

All that stuff is really interesting & I'd love to get into it w/ y'all as soon as we all agree that the original statement that started this convo is redictulous:

Sure, the post is an embarrassment but let's clean house & be clear on what is and what is not. The comment's bogus. When we're all in agreement then we can go on to what, subsidies?

 

You demand that your opinion be accepted by all before you are willing to contribute?

Interesting tactic!!

 

It will be interesting to see how electric generation increases to meet demand.

Right now, the rate of growth of renewable sources is the same as the rate of growth of electricity demand. Natural gas is growing even more rapidly, but only enough to offset the rapid reduction in coal, meaning that the fossil fuel sector as a whole is pretty much constant.

We're going to need to generate more electricity. I just don't see some other possibility.

Growth of wind energy:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generation-from-wind.php

 

--and my bet is that electrical capacity in the U.S. won't be able to meet the demand caused by "outlawing" so-called fossil fuels. It's simply not possible. We're talking about huge outages, crashing demand, chaos.

Ain't gonna happen. What most probably will happen is that the left will continue to say we're all gonna die in ten years & they'll continue that song'n'dance into the indefinite future.

 

Fair enough. How about the idea that all of us agreeing is one of many good outcomes. Another possibility could be that we agree to disagree. Another is that we improve our mode of consulting.

This is becoming tedious, this is borne of your constant attacks on me to avoid what's on topic. Off hand that by itself would make u a dickweed and I hope I'm missing something, but that's all off topic. Please let me know when ur ready to get back to this goofy idea that the world will be electric cars in 15 years.

 

I don't believe that climate change is the only reason people like electric cars.

Electric cars are a solution to air pollution in our more significant cities.

They are cleaner in people's garages.

At least today, the cost of powering a car with electricity is less than powering cars with gas in many regions.

Electric cars have better acceleration, are quiet, allow people fuel their car at home instead of going to gas stations.
j
Electric cars have far lower maintenance requirements.

Every auto manufacturer is betting on going electric.

 

On person made what that person now says was a misstatement.

And, you are STILL having a tough time living with that.

 

So, what you've got for actual thought is ad hom.

If discussing US energy policy is just too much for you, then you know what to do.

Or, you can apologize.

 

--or you could stop whining about what u accuse me of and begin engaging on topic. not holding my breath here, looks like it's about time to look for that "ignore" switch...

 

No, you should apologize for your disgusting ad hom.

That doesn't belong in any discussion.

If you can't refrain from ad hom, then please do go away.

 

So we can assume from ur reply that you will never return to topic.

cheers

 

The US nuclear industry got slowed for actual reasons - safety, economics and no solution for disposal of radioactive material being three. The nuclear industry lost the confidence of the general public.

One can look at the history of WPPSS (which changed its name to Energy Northwest hoping to change its image), 3 mile island (where there was monumental communication failure and economic losses to citizens that didn't even need to happen), the failure to find a disposal solution, etc.

As a resident of Seattle, I continued to pay for WPPSS in my power bill for a couple decades, and of course WPPSS never created one watthour of electricity.

One can't just write off the hesitancy to support nuclear energy as a "mistake". Nuclear energy still has the power to cause huge damage, and until the public is convinced that the nuclear industry has real solutions AND can be trusted there will continue to be hesitancy.

Done well, I'm sure nuclear energy will be important. But, not if the real issues don't get faced directly and publicly.