The products are here and more are coming. The market is adapting, just takes time. But it would take too long on its own if it wasn’t actively forced. I don’t think it’s because the products aren’t good, I think it’s because change is too expensive for the industry.
To use your words, “Just because you do like them, doesnt mean they’re good…”
If change has to be forced, it’s because a majority of consumers disagree with your opinion about those products. When the products have become good enough, that change will happen all on it’s own.
5 Likes
From previous crawfishing experience, I’ll ask this before proceeding. Are you saying the market has failed because garbage cleanup is never included in the costs?
ETA: If garbage cleanup was included would you, or any liberal, be happy?
1 Like
All he’s saying is that if you include the Superfund-style remediation costs for the environmental damage being caused, the oil industry would be far more expensive, far less lucrative, and never would’ve become so mainstream. Making alternate green energy the relatively inexpensive option. (I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth, @scripta ?)
I can understand this point, I just disagree with it. There’s way too many guesses, estimations, and assumptions needed to arrive at that conclusion for that conclusion to be anything but hypothetical conjecture.
3 Likes
Yikes! If that’s his accepted explanation … well, I’ll wait until he confirms that’s his meaning/excuse.
This “active forcing” by the government, always neglects the environmental cost of so-called green technology.
They ignore
greenhouse gas emissions (and toxic air pollution) from mining, minerals processing and manufacturing to make the wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, grid-scale backup batteries, transformers and transmission lines required for a “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy future;
The litigants and courts will also encounter the bitter reality that the “fundamental transformation” they so earnestly seek means covering the planet with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines … and the quarries and mines to build them. America already lacks sufficient EV charging stations and step-up and step-down transformers for new homes and a functional grid. Millions more will be needed in short order to reach Net Zero – which means thousands of new mines, quarries, processing plants and factories.
Toyota Motor Corp. calculates that “more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035.” That’s essentially just for new EVs, and getting them approved and developed would likely take decades. A US energy transformation – to say nothing of a global transformation – would require thousands of mines, and thousands of processing facilities.
It’s not a guess that dirty business would cost more. It may not necessary make green energy relatively cheaper, but at least we’d have money to pay for the cleanup. If oceans and air were cleaner, maybe there’d be less or no warming and we wouldn’t even wonder about green energy, or anything else “green”.
Confirmed. Thank you for waiting.
Well, I’m sure you’ve based that opinion on more than a guess. Where’s the beef data? Please use apples to apples comparisons.
Apples to apples would be comparing the current model (D), which does not include cleanup costs (C), with an updated model, which is the old model plus cleanup costs As long as C > 0, then D + C > D, obviously.
Cleanup costs for oil should include removing car exhaust from the atmosphere. Cleanup costs for rubber and plastic made from oil should include cleaning up the ocean garbage patches. Etcetera.
Presuming that you came up with quantifiable numbers for those costs, what would you compare them to in the green energy universe? What known costs are there in the green world?
Let’s clarify something – I confirmed the part you quoted from glitch99’s post – the first sentence. I do not know for a fact if the non-green costs would exceed green costs, I only know that they would be higher than they are now. I eluded to this just above:
I may not be able to prove to you that the external costs of fossil fuels will exceed the cost of green energy, but it is obvious to me, because global warming is anthropogenic, so the costs include not only the cost to do carbon sequestration and ocean cleanup, but also the increased cost of natural disasters, which are no longer “natural”, and other human costs, like displacement from rising sea level, healthcare like asthma and cancer associated with dirty fuels, etc. I realize that mining for all the rare minerals for batteries and building all the solar cells is also a dirty business, but I don’t think it’s that dirty. I could generate most of my power needs for 30 years with a dozen solar panels and a battery or three (hopefully one lasts 10 years). That couldn’t possibly compare to the amount of fossils that would have to burn up over the same period to provide the same power (let’s not forget the 20-50% transmission loss).
I’m familiar with your tactics, so let’s not leave room for doubt/obfuscation/crawfishing/re-wording and let’s actually clarify something. State what it is that you’re confirming.
ETA: I realize that what I’ve asked is an anathema to liberals. However, it’s the only way to actually have a discussion without wildly expansive defintions/ideas/comments.
1 Like
You refuted my claim that it’s full of "if"s and "maybe"s, by using more "if"s and "maybe"s…
Here
Definitely.
I don’t know about that, too many variables to consider.
Most likely.
Please don’t forget to include the cost of jacking up the sky that is falling. 
Sweden sees the light
“We need more electricity production. We need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system,” Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament.
Observers said the decision implicitly acknowledges the low quality of unstable wind and solar. It shows a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries.
2 Likes
Poor economics never stops the climatistas. And I bet they are not including the cost of backup systems.
A surge in supply chain costs has pushed up the price of wind turbines, while increases in global interest rates have raised refinancing costs substantially.
It has made several projects unviable just a year after they won government subsidy contracts – leading to fears from industry insiders that Britain’s future is in jeopardy as the “Saudi Arabia of wind”.
Inch Cape, a 50:50 joint venture between Ireland’s ESB and China’s Red Rock Power to develop a project located 15km off the east coast of Scotland, is understood to be at risk, with the Irish side refusing to proceed with a so-called final investment decision (FID) after balking at the economics of the project.
One source said: “People won’t invest if it doesn’t give you a decent return on equity. And presently, it’s hard to see how it can.”
2 Likes
Then we must boycott … lemme see Ikea, Saab, the Swedish Bikini Team, and possibly Absolut.
1 Like
“Green energy” fails Texas again. See this from Reuters, who are not “climate deniers” whatever that means
However, even with those increases in (wind power) capacity, recent wind power generation totals have slumped from year-ago levels as wind speeds dropped around the southern United States.
In May, the total amount of wind power generated in the ERCOT system was just under 310,000 megawatts (MW), which is down 40% from the nearly 520,000 MW generated in May 2022, data compiled by Refinitiv of ERCOT generation statistics shows.
In the first 19 days of June, around 185,000 MW of wind power was generated, which is down 45% from the 336,000 MW generated in the same period in 2022.
1 Like
Wind power is Texas’ second largest source of electricity behind natural gas, so any prolonged drop in wind generation may leave the ERCOT system under strain just as the peak demand season kicks off.
I haven’t lived in TX since the early 80’s, but what the heck happened? They were full of braggadocia then, but they at least had some smarts to backstop their pride. Wind being second to natural gas is nuts, even if the wind farms are in Austin.
ETA:
A rebound in wind generation levels due to new capacity and greater wind speeds will provide a major boost to ERCOT
And frogs may fly due to new wings and longer takeoff ramps. Where’s the MORON emoji?
I’m truly shocked. TX is run, mainly, by Republicans. How could they possibly let wind “energy” become the second largest source of energy? I don’t care how tiny the percentage, the fact that it is next to the top of the totem pole is embarrassing at best, and disastrous at worst.
Any Texans care to comment?
2 Likes