Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

The ramping up of net zero targets to 2045 is also 'almost obvious' too, since RE and RE + storage is already about to take the lead economically (as well as cleaner and greener), and the Paris Accord promises were always expected to be ramped up as we moved forward.

If wind/solar are cheaper why does global fossil fuel use continues to grow?
And this is despite the benefit of higher efficiency appliances and lighting etc and a huge deployment of hydropower

If the alternatives are better (cleaner, greener, cheaper) and in the case of RE, more labour intensive, then if anything we should be sniggering at the Lib Dems for saying/doing the obvious.

How can something be cheaper and more labor intensive?

I appreciate that you may think or say that I'm being overly optimistic, but I'd refer you to this decade, specifically the cost reductions in RE from the start, when it was horrific, to the middle when it looked good, to now, when it looks best. That's a remarkable change in an unbelievably short period of time (in terms of energy production economics).

This is a trick. New tech does get cheaper but not to the level as when first invented

Solar prices may have gone down 90% over a decade (or whatever) from say £40k to £4k this does not mean they will go down another 90% to £400

It would be better to look at recent price changes for mature industries like solar PV
What was the price of a 4KW PV kit fully installed in mid 2016 Vs mid 2019 ??

Take that forward another decade, and FF/nuclear will need support to stay operational

They already need support because the market is broken

In the UK we have/had capacity payments and these capacity payments will have to go up to allow CCGTs to survive with ever falling annual utilisation. The alternative is the system will close down thermal stations so during times of high demand (winter windless peaks) the prices will go so high as to allow a few hours of operation to cover months of idleness

Then as we enter the 2030's, we will simply be demanding RE/BEV's on economic grounds, so the issue will be one of supply limitation, not demand.

Electricity 15p retail
Gas 3p retail

While wind power is okay at replacing electricity needs it's going to be much harder replacing natural gas heating which costs 1/5th what electricity costs.

I mean this, quite seriously, I think anyone, or any political party, would really need to struggle to find a way to argue that FF/nuclear/ICEV's will be economically viable by 2040? At that point green will win, and by green, I mean dollars.

If AI arrives then everything is 'free' and we will opt for 'green'

If AI does not arrive then you will find fossil fuels actually cost much less to extract and use than you imagine. Remember everyone was saying sub $100 oil would bankrupt shale and other oil sites but that didn't happen

The cost of extracting fossil fuels is much lower than the price
So much so that whole nations are kept afloat off the back of fossil fuels
If the price is $60 a barrel the cost in Saudi might only be $10
So oil will keep flowing at lower and lower prices

Alternatives would make fossil fuels cheaper
Shale made coal cheaper
Shale made oil cheaper
Shale made gas cheaper

If nuclear or wind power become successful rapidly it would make gas and coal cheaper
If BEave became successful rapidly it would make oil cheaper

Existing fossil fuel infrastructure is really cheap
Powering an existing coal plant with an existing coal mine nothing is cheaper nor could it be
Just like keeping your old car is the cheapest per mile option

So what is more likely is if a successful alternative is found wind solar nuclear or something new
The result will be a slow chipping away. It would still take 25+ years to do a bulk (80-90%+ transition) and of course right now there is no cheaper alternative so instead of global fossil fuel useage falling 2-3% per year it is increasing

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

If alternatives are as simple and economic as you say, why did CO2 emmissions increase 2% last year?

To remind you, your claim was:

But the green lobby seem to forget it's not all about electricity generation
Transport heating agriculture and bulk manufacturing (steel cement) are also heavily dependent on fossil fuels. These things are a lot more difficult to solve than electricity

And I was pointing out that, that claim is untrue. Obviously it's untrue as those of us that care about AGW, and aren't just on this board to troll, talk about all the ideas, technology, advances etc.

But, I seem to be getting a deja vu vibe here. I'm pretty sure you've posted this claim many times, over many years, over many profiles - and the answer remains the same - the 'green lobby' have forgotten nothing, your claim is false, was false, and will remain false next time you repeat it.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

If wind/solar are cheaper why does global fossil fuel use continues to grow?
And this is despite the benefit of higher efficiency appliances and lighting etc and a huge deployment of hydropower

Growing world population. Growing middle classes in highly populated parts of Asia.

GreatApe wrote: »

How can something be cheaper and more labor intensive?

Firstly, it is, so no point arguing. GIYF.

Secondly, because the fuel is free, so whilst CAPEX is high, and labour is greater, OPEX is lower.

GreatApe wrote: »

This is a trick. New tech does get cheaper but not to the level as when first invented

Solar prices may have gone down 90% over a decade (or whatever) from say £40k to £4k this does not mean they will go down another 90% to £400

Strawman argument - PV is already the cheapest form of leccy generation in the World, and costs are still falling.

Silicon/Perovskite is expected to get well into the 30% efficiency figures, and whilst the cost per Wp won't be lower, the impact on cost of generation will be massive as around 50% less land will be needed, and less frames, less labour to install, transport costs etc.

GreatApe wrote: »

It would be better to look at recent price changes for mature industries like solar PV
What was the price of a 4KW PV kit fully installed in mid 2016 Vs mid 2019 ??

GIYF - However, everyone else will be aware that PV contracts around the World continue to fall, and set new low records.

GreatApe wrote: »

They already need support because the market is broken

In the UK we have/had capacity payments and these capacity payments will have to go up to allow CCGTs to survive with ever falling annual utilisation. The alternative is the system will close down thermal stations so during times of high demand (winter windless peaks) the prices will go so high as to allow a few hours of operation to cover months of idleness

The market has always been broken as FF's have never paid for their externality costs, so are too cheap. Despite this, FF's and nuclear are now struggling to compete against cheaper, cleaner, greener RE.

Capacity payments are not new, they've always been paid to keep excess generation ready to step in faster than it otherwise would.

Storage solves this, and storage is already starting to be deployed.

GreatApe wrote: »

While wind power is okay at replacing electricity needs it's going to be much harder replacing natural gas heating which costs 1/5th what electricity costs.

Nat gas doesn't account for its externality costs.
Nat gas is less efficient than leccy.
Nat gas is less efficient than heat pumps.
If bio-gas can be produced at the cost of nat gas + externalities, then that avenue will open up too.

Nothing new here, I believe this has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.

GreatApe wrote: »

The cost of extracting fossil fuels is much lower than the price
So much so that whole nations are kept afloat off the back of fossil fuels
If the price is $60 a barrel the cost in Saudi might only be $10
So oil will keep flowing at lower and lower prices

If the cost was more, it wouldn't happen. Did this need pointing out?

Yes, Saudi can extract oil at $10-$20 a barrel, but it costs more elsewhere. As the price falls, the profits fall, and many sources become uneconomical.

GreatApe wrote: »

Alternatives would make fossil fuels cheaper
Shale made coal cheaper
Shale made oil cheaper
Shale made gas cheaper

Only to the point that extraction becomes un-economic. Shale oil and tar sands oil are already struggling. The US frack industry has lost $100's of billions already, and the consensus of the Dems running for Presidential nomination is to end the industry.

You point to coal getting cheaper - and what has been the impact on the industry ....... mass bankruptcies.

GreatApe wrote: »

If nuclear or wind power become successful rapidly it would make gas and coal cheaper
If BEave became successful rapidly it would make oil cheaper

Wind has become successful rapidly. Nuclear is now a 'dead industry walking', unable to compete today, unable to compete in 10yrs when commissioned.

Assuming you mean BEV's, yes oil will get cheaper, and profits will fall. I refer you back to US coal.

GreatApe wrote: »

Existing fossil fuel infrastructure is really cheap
Powering an existing coal plant with an existing coal mine nothing is cheaper nor could it be
Just like keeping your old car is the cheapest per mile option

If we ignore the externality costs. But (aside from yourself) nobody on here is ignoring the externality costs.

When costs are compared fairly, the coal generation is the most expensive solution possible short of burning polar bears as fuel.

GreatApe wrote: »

So what is more likely is if a successful alternative is found wind solar nuclear or something new
The result will be a slow chipping away. It would still take 25+ years to do a bulk (80-90%+ transition) and of course right now there is no cheaper alternative so instead of global fossil fuel useage falling 2-3% per year it is increasing

Did you think it was going to happen tomorrow?:shocked:



To be clear, all of your arguments are simply a denial of reality. We know what we need to do, and we are going to head in that direction.

Since you don't agree with any of the science, can I suggest, once again, that you take your views and opinions to an appropriate site where science denial is appreciated, and leave the G&E boards alone.

Thank you.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Growing world population. Growing middle classes in highly populated parts of Asia.

But you keep trumpeting wind/pv are now cheaper if so why aren't growing populations doing predominantly wind/solar?

Firstly, it is, so no point arguing. GIYF.

Yeh it doesn't add up

The only way alternative can be cheaper AND more labour intensive is if you pay the alternator producers less. So sure I can accept for instance solar PV could be cheaper and more labour intensive than coal (not saying it is but I could accept the possibility) if you argue for instance Germany is replacing German coal miners paid 5,000 euro per month with Chinese near slave factory workers at 500 euro a month

Excluding this arbitrage of wages it's not realistic to accept that an alternative can be cheaper and more labor intensive at the same time. I'm not talking just electricity but anything

Secondly, because the fuel is free, so whilst CAPEX is high, and labour is greater, OPEX is lower.

The cost of anything is a very large chain of wages and capital return
Even a hamburger
It's a chain of hundreds of differen workers
From the farmer to the vet who looked after the cows to the builder who built the barn to a huge number of different steps
The £5 you pay breaks down to perhaps £3.50 of wages and £1.50 of capital return (which in itself is indirect wages or the rent of the store is par for the £5 burger but the rent is effectively paying the builders of the store for their labor etc

So I don't buy any argument that says something can be cheaper and employ more people
Unless you want to say these more employed people are paid substantially less than the alternative

Strawman argument - PV is already the cheapest form of leccy generation in the World, and costs are still falling.

Just because you claim so or some study says so doesn't make it true
The true test is subsidy free expansion

If I say shale gas is cheap and productivity I don't need to point to a study or calculation
I can point to its massive expansion

You say solar PV is the cheapest so why isn't it expanding like mad?
And when subsidy is removed why do you object?

Silicon/Perovskite is expected to get well into the 30% efficiency figures, and whilst the cost per Wp won't be lower, the impact on cost of generation will be massive as around 50% less land will be needed, and less frames, less labour to install, transport costs etc.

Great I hope solar actually becomes cheaper than fossil fuel infrastructure so it can expand by itself rapidly and help chip away at FF demand

Although I'm not holding my breath
These improvements will probably allow States to reduce the PV subsidies not for PV to actually become cheaper than existing FF infrastructure.

GIYF - However, everyone else will be aware that PV contracts around the World continue to fall, and set new low records.

At the same time everyone is aware fossil fuel consumption increased last year

How can you claim solar is the cheapest when fossil fuel infrastructure is growing?
Is the world stupid or is Marty wrong when he claims solar is too cheap to compare?

The market has always been broken as FF's have never paid for their externality costs, so are too cheap. Despite this, FF's and nuclear are now struggling to compete against cheaper, cleaner, greener RE.

More empty claims
Worldwide Fossil fuel used increased in 2018 it didn't decrease

Storage solves this, and storage is already starting to be deployed.

Batteries partially solve the problem but at additional cost
So far very few PV and wind farms also employ significant battery storage because despite your protests they are uneconomical

Nat gas doesn't account for its externality costs.
Nat gas is less efficient than leccy.
Nat gas is less efficient than heat pumps.
If bio-gas can be produced at the cost of nat gas + externalities, then that avenue will open up too.

Externalitiy costs of natural gas are mostly imaginary (negligible)
Even if you disagree with this there is the fact that people are ok even happy to pay for stuff with their health rather than their wallets. Why do people buy cheaper less safe cars? They are happy to pay for the additional risk with their lives rather than pay for the additional safety with cold hard cash.

Yes, Saudi can extract oil at $10-$20 a barrel, but it costs more elsewhere. As the price falls, the profits fall, and many sources become uneconomical.

I think you underestimate how cheap fossil fuel extraction actual is or could be
Recall oil fell to about $30 did production crash? No

Only to the point that extraction becomes un-economic. Shale oil and tar sands oil are already struggling. The US frack industry has lost $100's of billions already, and the consensus of the Dems running for Presidential nomination is to end the industry.

This shows how deep the confirmation bias is on your news sources
Shale oil has been expanding
Iirc 2018 USA oil production increase was the most in ant country in the history of mankind
Shale isn't struggling it is booming
Only held back by demand and pipeline infrastructure

The democrats won't ban shale because to do so would cause economic blight, concentrated economic blight. It would cause less tax receipts, it would crash the dollar, its as realistic as the democrats banning farming

You point to coal getting cheaper - and what has been the impact on the industry ....... mass bankruptcies.

In the USA yes
But a truly cheaper alternative was found and deployed
Domestic shale gas run through existing CCGTs
The same more or less happened on the dash for gas in the UK during the 1990s

Wind has become successful rapidly. Nuclear is now a 'dead industry walking', unable to compete today, unable to compete in 10yrs when commissioned.

I agree wind power has done well but it's still not economic Vs existing FF infrastructure

Assuming you mean BEV's, yes oil will get cheaper, and profits will fall. I refer you back to US coal.

Yes but much more slowly because global wind/PV isn't and probably can't expand as fast as shale gas on the USA has

If we ignore the externality costs. But (aside from yourself) nobody on here is ignoring the externality costs.

I don't ignore externality costs o just assign a value of close to zero to them

When costs are compared fairly, the coal generation is the most expensive solution possible short of burning polar bears as fuel.

You mean when you set the externality costs
When governments/citizens do it they are happy with the costs involved
Either they are stupid or your assumptions are wrong
I'd go with the latter

To be clear, all of your arguments are simply a denial of reality. We know what we need to do, and we are going to head in that direction.

Since you don't agree with any of the science, can I suggest, once again, that you take your views and opinions to an appropriate site where science denial is appreciated, and leave the G&E boards alone.

Thank you.

Still claiming to be the arbiter of truth science justice and all things wholesome
Despite not being a scientist yourself
Interesting....

silverwhistle

Can I suggest that those of you who think coal is the future put their savings into appropriate shares. Peabody, anybody?


https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-can-renewable-energy-power-the-world/

Martyn1981

I'll just pick out a few fun points:

The majority of new capacity is RE, and much new FF capacity is replacement for old retirements.

New demand for energy (I mentioned growing middle classes) is still outstriping RE deployments, that's one of the reasons why this issue is so big and important. China, India (and others) under the Paris Accord are actually to grow their GHG emissions till around 2030(ish), as they expand energy, but per capita are well below the Western World, and always will be.


Personally, I'm always fascinated by the consternation caused when I point out that RE is cheaper but also has a higher labour intensity.

the reason I'm so fascinated is because 1. it's a simple fact, we can look at contracts issued for generation, and also to industry staffing levels. But 2. I'm mainly fascinated because I can't comprehend how people (like you) can argue against the basic facts, will also claiming to have some (any) understanding? If you aren't aware of the simple facts and truths, then how do you feel qualified enough to disagree.


When you say I or some study say RE is cheaper, that's yet another example of your denial - the contracts say so, the issued contracts for leccy say so. Do you understand that? the prices are lower.


Yes you can point to a huge expansion in shale gas (almost a side effect of shale oil production), and yes it's cheap, in fact much of it is sold at a loss when transportation is taken into account. That's why the US fracking industry has lost $100's of billions over the last decade - it's now no better than a Ponzi scheme.


You seem obsessed with the (now) low RE subsidies and support, yet you have always denied the FF subsidies estimated to be around $5tn per year. You choose to obsess about small RE subsidies, but simply deny the $5tn annual cost of Ff externalities. Weird.


Both the wind and solar industries have stated that batteries will be added as they become economical. Some are already doing this. There is no penalty for adding them later. Please don't deny the start of intra-day battery storage deployment around the World, as the list of your denials is now getting hard to keep up with.


Externality costs of nat-gas (and fugitive methane emissions) are AGW.


If shale oil and gas production costs were lower, then they wouldn't be losing so much money already.


I refer you back, the shale industry is now a Ponzi scheme, to maintain revenue the companies have to employ a 'drill, baby drill' practice to increase supply, but that also undermines profits / expands losses further by depressing the price [recent bombing in Saudi aside].

Ending an un-economic industry will not crash the US. And BEV's can solve the problem of purchasing foreign oil.


Assigning a value of zero to externality costs is actually the same as ignoring them, just via your usual route of complete and total denial.


So to recap - every one of your claims, arguments, positions etc is entirely based on you denying facts, science and costs. The moment we introduce facts, everything you say collapses.

Now, you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts! And for the point of proving to Ken (and possibly Nick) I have engaged with you, but you have not added anything new, only remained entirely in full denial.

If you want to deny AGW, RE etc, then you can of course do so, but you should do it on an appropriate site. This site is based on facts, this board is based on green and ethical (truth not lies) issues, this thread is for those interested in G&E issues, not for you to promote failed lies and anti-science diatribe.

So once again, I would ask that you respect everyone else and stop what you are doing.

[I won't engage you in these silly discussions any further, however I will point out your falsehoods when you post old and failed arguments/articles.]

PS I note Cardevv has thanked you - I'm glad I stood up to his endless posts in the past as support for your anti-science post is, I believe, full validation of my past (and present) position.

GreatApe wrote: »

But you keep trumpeting wind/pv are now cheaper if so why aren't growing populations doing predominantly wind/solar?



Yeh it doesn't add up

The only way alternative can be cheaper AND more labour intensive is if you pay the alternator producers less. So sure I can accept for instance solar PV could be cheaper and more labour intensive than coal (not saying it is but I could accept the possibility) if you argue for instance Germany is replacing German coal miners paid 5,000 euro per month with Chinese near slave factory workers at 500 euro a month

Excluding this arbitrage of wages it's not realistic to accept that an alternative can be cheaper and more labor intensive at the same time. I'm not talking just electricity but anything



The cost of anything is a very large chain of wages and capital return
Even a hamburger
It's a chain of hundreds of differen workers
From the farmer to the vet who looked after the cows to the builder who built the barn to a huge number of different steps
The £5 you pay breaks down to perhaps £3.50 of wages and £1.50 of capital return (which in itself is indirect wages or the rent of the store is par for the £5 burger but the rent is effectively paying the builders of the store for their labor etc

So I don't buy any argument that says something can be cheaper and employ more people
Unless you want to say these more employed people are paid substantially less than the alternative



Just because you claim so or some study says so doesn't make it true
The true test is subsidy free expansion

If I say shale gas is cheap and productivity I don't need to point to a study or calculation
I can point to its massive expansion

You say solar PV is the cheapest so why isn't it expanding like mad?
And when subsidy is removed why do you object?



Great I hope solar actually becomes cheaper than fossil fuel infrastructure so it can expand by itself rapidly and help chip away at FF demand

Although I'm not holding my breath
These improvements will probably allow States to reduce the PV subsidies not for PV to actually become cheaper than existing FF infrastructure.



At the same time everyone is aware fossil fuel consumption increased last year

How can you claim solar is the cheapest when fossil fuel infrastructure is growing?
Is the world stupid or is Marty wrong when he claims solar is too cheap to compare?



More empty claims
Worldwide Fossil fuel used increased in 2018 it didn't decrease



Batteries partially solve the problem but at additional cost
So far very few PV and wind farms also employ significant battery storage because despite your protests they are uneconomical



Externalitiy costs of natural gas are mostly imaginary (negligible)
Even if you disagree with this there is the fact that people are ok even happy to pay for stuff with their health rather than their wallets. Why do people buy cheaper less safe cars? They are happy to pay for the additional risk with their lives rather than pay for the additional safety with cold hard cash.




I think you underestimate how cheap fossil fuel extraction actual is or could be
Recall oil fell to about $30 did production crash? No



This shows how deep the confirmation bias is on your news sources
Shale oil has been expanding
Iirc 2018 USA oil production increase was the most in ant country in the history of mankind
Shale isn't struggling it is booming
Only held back by demand and pipeline infrastructure

The democrats won't ban shale because to do so would cause economic blight, concentrated economic blight. It would cause less tax receipts, it would crash the dollar, its as realistic as the democrats banning farming



In the USA yes
But a truly cheaper alternative was found and deployed
Domestic shale gas run through existing CCGTs
The same more or less happened on the dash for gas in the UK during the 1990s



I agree wind power has done well but it's still not economic Vs existing FF infrastructure



Yes but much more slowly because global wind/PV isn't and probably can't expand as fast as shale gas on the USA has



I don't ignore externality costs o just assign a value of close to zero to them



You mean when you set the externality costs
When governments/citizens do it they are happy with the costs involved
Either they are stupid or your assumptions are wrong
I'd go with the latter



Still claiming to be the arbiter of truth science justice and all things wholesome
Despite not being a scientist yourself
Interesting....

Martyn1981

Timely article with info on what China is doing.

The first graph (one I've mentioned in the past in response to Nick) is interesting, it shows that China is still far behind the US in cumulative emissions despite having over a billion people, and India hasn't even caught us up .... yet, and probably never will on a per capita basis.


Make no mistake, as a country, China is the biggest 'problem' but they are also one of the most serious actors too - and of course, per capita is a fairer comparison, and by that measure they are doing well.

China Is Doing A Lot Better On Climate Action Than Most People Realize

And, of course, China, unlike the US, is signatory to the Paris Accord and is on track to vastly exceed its 2030 pledge, and meet or exceed its 2020 pledge. Of course, those pledges are inadequate to curb global warming, but China is likely to increase its targets radically, just as it is expected to double its solar and potentially wind generation targets for 2030. And it’s very worth pointing out that while China’s emissions rose 2.3% in 2018, the US’ emissions rose by 3.4% in the same year. And China has done more to address fossil fuel subsidies than the US has as well. In other words, as US politicians point fingers at China, the US is actually going in the wrong direction faster and doing less to bend the curve in the right direction.

While a lot of fingers are being pointed at China by people committed to both inaction and action in North America, the actual climate story in China is much different than most people realize. It should be looked to for inspiration in the fight on global warming and encouraged in its effort, not attacked and definitely not used as an excuse for inaction.

Martyn1981

Bit of a sensitive one this, so I'll try to caveat it by saying I'm looking at the economics not the politics. But an interesting G&E side effect.

This article talks about the end of oil wars, thanks to RE, and it reminded me of what one of the candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination mentioned when asked how he would fund his suggested expansion of RE, BEV's etc - one of the funding routes was the significant savings of US defence spending on international oil production and transportation - policing oil (and the cost of wars, when policing doesn't work).

Here’s Another Argument For Renewable Energy: No More Wars For Oil

All that money and all those emissions do not take into account the human toll on the members of the military who have died or been injured while fighting these wars or the burden placed on millions of civilians who have been displaced as a result of them.

Switching to renewable energy is about more than lowering carbon emissions. It’s about dismantling the current geopolitical constructs that support the notion that access to oil must be maintained at all costs.

Oil grossly distorts international relations. Access to oil was one of the primary factors that drove Japan to invade its neighbors prior to World War II. It has been a leading cause of European adventurism in the Middle East. It’s what caused Iraq to invade Kuwait and the US to invade Iraq in turn.

Renewable energy can re-balance the economic structure of the world. No more would nations eye the natural resources of their neighbors and plot to capture them for themselves. No more would despots rule their countries as feudal fiefdoms propped up by staggering fortunes based on oil. Not only can renewable energy lower carbon emissions but it can potentially eliminate one of the primary causes of conflict between nations. How do you put a price tag on that?

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This article talks about the end of oil wars, thanks to RE,

Water may well be the cause of the next large conflict. What would Egypt do if countries upstream started using more/all of the Nile's water?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'll just pick out a few fun points:

The majority of new capacity is RE, and much new FF capacity is replacement for old retirements.

New demand for energy (I mentioned growing middle classes) is still outstriping RE deployments, that's one of the reasons why this issue is so big and important. China, India (and others) under the Paris Accord are actually to grow their GHG emissions till around 2030(ish), as they expand energy, but per capita are well below the Western World, and always will be.


Personally, I'm always fascinated by the consternation caused when I point out that RE is cheaper but also has a higher labour intensity.

the reason I'm so fascinated is because 1. it's a simple fact, we can look at contracts issued for generation, and also to industry staffing levels. But 2. I'm mainly fascinated because I can't comprehend how people (like you) can argue against the basic facts, will also claiming to have some (any) understanding? If you aren't aware of the simple facts and truths, then how do you feel qualified enough to disagree.


When you say I or some study say RE is cheaper, that's yet another example of your denial - the contracts say so, the issued contracts for leccy say so. Do you understand that? the prices are lower.


Yes you can point to a huge expansion in shale gas (almost a side effect of shale oil production), and yes it's cheap, in fact much of it is sold at a loss when transportation is taken into account. That's why the US fracking industry has lost $100's of billions over the last decade - it's now no better than a Ponzi scheme.


You seem obsessed with the (now) low RE subsidies and support, yet you have always denied the FF subsidies estimated to be around $5tn per year. You choose to obsess about small RE subsidies, but simply deny the $5tn annual cost of Ff externalities. Weird.


Both the wind and solar industries have stated that batteries will be added as they become economical. Some are already doing this. There is no penalty for adding them later. Please don't deny the start of intra-day battery storage deployment around the World, as the list of your denials is now getting hard to keep up with.


Externality costs of nat-gas (and fugitive methane emissions) are AGW.


If shale oil and gas production costs were lower, then they wouldn't be losing so much money already.


I refer you back, the shale industry is now a Ponzi scheme, to maintain revenue the companies have to employ a 'drill, baby drill' practice to increase supply, but that also undermines profits / expands losses further by depressing the price [recent bombing in Saudi aside].

Ending an un-economic industry will not crash the US. And BEV's can solve the problem of purchasing foreign oil.


Assigning a value of zero to externality costs is actually the same as ignoring them, just via your usual route of complete and total denial.


So to recap - every one of your claims, arguments, positions etc is entirely based on you denying facts, science and costs. The moment we introduce facts, everything you say collapses.

Now, you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts! And for the point of proving to Ken (and possibly Nick) I have engaged with you, but you have not added anything new, only remained entirely in full denial.

If you want to deny AGW, RE etc, then you can of course do so, but you should do it on an appropriate site. This site is based on facts, this board is based on green and ethical (truth not lies) issues, this thread is for those interested in G&E issues, not for you to promote failed lies and anti-science diatribe.

So once again, I would ask that you respect everyone else and stop what you are doing.

[I won't engage you in these silly discussions any further, however I will point out your falsehoods when you post old and failed arguments/articles.]

PS I note Cardevv has thanked you - I'm glad I stood up to his endless posts in the past as support for your anti-science post is, I believe, full validation of my past (and present) position.

So shale is a scam Ponzi
Everyone on green cheerleaders dot com knows this to be a fact
You can have your own options but not your own facts
Facts that are determined by green cheerleaders dot com
:rotfl:

Shale is not a Ponzi
Shale is a productive business
Accounting tricks can't grow to be $250 billion a year industries

You are in such deep confirmation bias it's amusing to read