The stupidity of bringing back big Coal

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by jbander, Aug 29, 2017.

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I stand by the quotes from the article I provided;

    Regardless, a recent analysis by the consulting firm Eclareon found that solar power has reached grid parity in Germany, meaning once all of the costs are accounted for, the price of commercial solar power is now equal to retail electricity rates.

    And while much is made of rising industrial electricity prices, Lovins points out that in fact, “giant German firms enjoy Germany’s low and falling wholesale electricity prices, getting the benefit of renewables’ near-zero operating cost but exempted from paying for them.”

    And as for the impact on the consumer, “the FIT surcharge raised households’ retail price of electricity seven percent but renewables lowered big industries’ wholesale price 18 percent. As long-term contracts expire, the past few years’ sharply lower wholesale prices could finally reach retail customers and start sending households’ total electricity prices back down.”
     
  2. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where I live many of us cook and/heat burning wood and bamboo. It's free and grows faster than we can consume it. We produce our own charcoal burning rice shells, also abundant and free.
     
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    of course if that was true it would be taking over the market all over the world and govts would have to keep the solar industry on welfare.
     
  4. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Good - keep using an outdated and expensive method of electricity generation and let the rest of the world out compete you in trade

    America is leading itself into economic ruin
     
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Which is still a hell of a lot cheaper than the current subsidies and tax havens that big oil and coal enjoy
     
  7. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there's a market for coal, we should then be producing it and selling it.
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As percent of energy produced wind and solar get the most subsidies.
     
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see how the discussion can be about fossil fuels and alternative energy being forced to compete for market share? If this is all you can think about then you must disagree with all the scientific information we have today that says unequivocally that burning fossil fuels is not in the best interest of mankind and Earth. Those who prefer cleaner energy emissions and a cleaner Earth know the priority must be on converting more and more from burning fossil fuels to other cleaner energy sources. Those who don't give a rip about dirty energy emissions and a dirty Earth will fight to burn fossil fuels. This is where mankind has an impasse! This impasse is created by arrogance and ignorance and politics! Where most all of our questions should be how can we do better, what's in the best interest of the US and Earth, instead we are at an impasse based on who cares if we do better, and what's in it for me?
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't kid yourself that green energy is 'clean'. There are 4 year olds mining cobalt for battery production. Most of the precious metals are not mined in the US but in other countries. Battery production is very dirty so they handle that by building higher smokestacks.

    If you care about poor people, you don't increase their energy costs for something that is not viable without subsidies.
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you would have read my post instead of just spewing your diatribe, you might note that I use the word 'cleaner' which if you don't understand the word you can check a dictionary. There is no energy source that is net 100% clean! But the ignorance here is you believing 400 million vehicles on US roads today have the same 'emissions' no matter if they burn fossil fuels or use alternative energies? And that you believe burning coal for energy has the same emissions as solar energy? How can you not understand the difference?

    Excerpt;

    Let's say the gas-powered car is actually something similar to a Tesla Model S P100D, which would use the battery in question. Let's say we're talking about the Audi A8 4.0, another quick AWD sedan. According to the EPA, that car emits 6.2 metric tons of CO2 per year, given 15,000 miles of annual driving. And since A8s don't automatically percolate their own 93-octane, the EPA also calculates an additional 1.1 tons of upstream carbon to get those ancient dinosaur innards coursing through your fuel pump. Math aficionados will note that 17.5 (battery production) divided by 7.3 (total annual A8 emissions) equals 2.4. As in, apples to apples, the battery's carbon footprint is zeroed out in less than three years.

    There's also the fact that you can power your Tesla with rooftop solar, and repurpose former car batteries for home power storage, as BMW's already doing. Basically, this eight years thing is bupkis—one more example of nonsense people love to share on Facebook.
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tesla model S, 150 miles and a two hour charge. It is funny that they compare a Tesla with an Audi A8, both of which most people cannot afford.
     
  13. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doesn't make much difference which cars are compared; fact is the carbon foot print on an electric car can be zeroed out in about three years while the carbon foot print on a fossil fuel car will continue for the life of the vehicle. Whether it's YOUR 4 year olds making battery stuff or other 4 year olds working in car factories around the world, about the same emissions are required to make both the fossil and electric car. But one stops fossil fuel emissions in three years while the other continues fossil fuel emissions for the life of the car...and multiply this by the hundreds of millions of vehicles across the world...
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most electric cars are fueled by fossil fuel electrical plants.
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those would be called hybrids and even though they burn fossil fuels they have low output compared to our fossil fuel vehicles...
     
  16. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If renewables are the same price or cheaper than coal, then renewables. If not, coal.

    No sense wasting it.
     
  17. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have misunderstood him.
    An electric car is 100% electric, but the power station that it recharges it's battery from is typically fossil fuelled.
    You are still fossil fuelled even if those fossil fuels are burnt remotely in a power station and not locally in your car.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2017
  18. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you take a joke seriously, the laugh is on you.
     
  19. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Try reading; https://www.revisionenergy.com/solar-power-for-your-home/electric-vehicle-charging/ We can do better than fossil fuels...
     
  20. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you can, why haven't you?

    When you have done better than fossil fuels, I will be paying attention to you.
    All it takes is for you to prove your words with your actions and others will follow.
     

Share This Page