# Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)



## ScienceRocks

*Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan* 






> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.






Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.


----------



## hadit

Matthew said:


> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
Click to expand...


Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hadit said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.
Click to expand...


Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.


----------



## hadit

Derideo_Te said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
Click to expand...


How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?


----------



## Derideo_Te

hadit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
Click to expand...


Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check



*In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)



Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies. 

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.


----------



## Old Rocks

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. *Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.*

*Without subsidies, wind comes in at about half of the cost of dirty coal, and solar only about a half cent a kilowatt more than dirty coal. And the price of solar is falling as we post.

The switch to renewables is going to be made on the basis of economics, not politics. Although, one might note that President Obama has won his bet on the his support of renewables.*


----------



## hadit

Derideo_Te said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
Click to expand...


Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Matthew said:


> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
Click to expand...


  Not sure what else you'd expect when dems have pretty much banned the building of any other kind of power plant.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hadit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.
Click to expand...


It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too. 

We have a power *GRID *for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.


----------



## hadit

Derideo_Te said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coal is a loooong way from dead.  Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.
> 
> We have a power *GRID *for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.
Click to expand...


Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind.  You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hadit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.
> 
> We have a power *GRID *for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind.  You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.
Click to expand...


There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables. 

Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog

Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.

Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.


----------



## BullKurtz

Derideo_Te said:


> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.



Total CRAP.....coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil and oil is not a source for electric power generation.  Solar is dependent on environmentally destructive batteries and is dropping like a stone in new investment capital.  It's a joke same as you, punk..  Find your MOS yet?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Things only get better for solar!

*US PV Installations Predicted To Pass 8 GW, Say GTM & SEIA*
*US PV Installations Predicted To Pass 8 GW Says GTM SEIA*
March 11th, 2015 by *Joshua S Hill* 


> GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association are predicting another strong year for the US PV market in 2015, with installations expected to reach over 8 GW.
> 
> Concluding their _US Solar Market Insight, 2014 Year-in-Review_ report, the authors from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) predict that installations will increase 31% in 2015, reaching 8.1 GW by the end of the year, with fastest growth coming from the residential sector. Non-residential solar will fit in second, with utility PV expected to be the grow the slowest compared to 2014, but still accounting for 59% of all installations brought online throughout 2015.
> 
> 2015 and 2016 are the last years set to take advantage of the 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC), which is scheduled to drop to 10% for commercial projects under section 48 of the tax code, while the credit will expire entirely for individuals under section 25d. “Businesses across the solar energy industry have begun preparing for the worst while hoping for the best,” write the authors of the report.
> 
> Subsequently, 2015 and 2016 are predicted to be big, with solar business trying “to bring as much capacity online as possible before the scheduled stepdown.”


----------



## Derideo_Te

BullKurtz said:


> *coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil*








Fossil fuel Define Fossil fuel at Dictionary.com

*fossil fuel*
*noun, Energy.*
*1.*
*any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.*

What an ignorant buffoon!


----------



## Statistikhengst

BullKurtz said:


> Total CRAP.....*coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil and oil is not a source for electric power generation.*  Solar is dependent on environmentally destructive batteries and is dropping like a stone in new investment capital.  It's a joke same as you, punk..  Find your MOS yet?




Coal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*"Coal* (from the Old English term _col_, which has meant "mineral of fossilized carbon" since the 13th century)[1] is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock usually occurring inrock strata in layers or veins called *coal beds* or *coal seams*. The harder forms, such asanthracite coal, can be regarded as metamorphic rock because of later exposure to elevated temperature and pressure. Coal is composed primarily of carbon along with variable quantities of other elements, chiefly hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.[2]

Throughout history, coal has been used as an energy resource, primarily burned for the production of electricity and/or heat, and is also used for industrial purposes, such as refining metals. *A fossil fuel, *coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, which in turn is converted into lignite, then sub-bituminous coal, after that bituminous coal, and lastly anthracite. This involves biological and geological processes that take place over a long period. TheEnergy Information Administration estimates coal reserves at 948×109 short tons (860 Gt).[3]One estimate for resources is 18 000 Gt.[4]

Coal is the largest source of energy for the generation of electricity worldwide, as well as one of the largest worldwide anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide releases. ..."


Petroleum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*"Petroleum* (L. _petroleum_, from early 15c. "petroleum, rock oil" (mid-14c. in Anglo-French), from Medieval Latin petroleum, from Latin: _petra_: "rock" + _oleum_: "oil".[1][2][3]) is a naturally occurring, yellow-to-blackliquid found in geological formations beneath the Earth's surface, which is commonly refined into various types of fuels.

It consists of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and otherorganic compounds.[4] The name _petroleum_ covers both naturally occurring unprocessed *crude oil* and petroleum products that are made up of refined crude oil. *A fossil fuel, *petroleum is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to intense heat and pressure."


----------



## BullKurtz

Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells.  As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet.  Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.


----------



## westwall

Derideo_Te said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.
> 
> We have a power *GRID *for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind.  You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.
> 
> Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog
> 
> Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.
> 
> Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.
Click to expand...









Did you bother to look at the SOURCE for all that renewable energy?  Overwhelmingly hydroelectric.


----------



## Old Rocks

BullKurtz said:


> Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells.  As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet.  Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.


Then why are we not getting billion barrel resovoirs in the basement rock? The Gold Hypothesis is, at very best, a very minor source of hydrocarbons. Care to flaunt your ignorance further?


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.
> 
> We have a power *GRID *for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind.  You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.
> 
> Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog
> 
> Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.
> 
> Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to look at the SOURCE for all that renewable energy?  Overwhelmingly hydroelectric.
Click to expand...

OK. For 2014, 258,749 thousands of megawatt hours. For wind, 181,791, Wind increase about 8% from the prior year, hydro decreased about 4%.

Total renewable sources, excluding hydro, 281,060, up by about 10%

A scientist looks at the data before making a stupid statement.

EIA - Electricity Data


----------



## hadit

Derideo_Te said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.
> 
> Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check
> 
> 
> 
> *In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments.*  (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
> To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
> 
> 
> 
> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. *The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.* Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. *The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total,* largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.​The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.
> 
> Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet.  Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.
> 
> We have a power *GRID *for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind.  You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.
> 
> Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog
> 
> Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.
> 
> Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.
Click to expand...


Renewable in general, or wind and solar?  It's very unlikely that the eco-freaks will allow any new major dams to be built in this country to generate hydro-electric power.  Like I said, anything that looks to replace coal and oil as sources of energy has to be reliable, or energy storage has to become a whole lot more efficient.


----------



## BullKurtz

Old Rocks said:


> Then why are we not getting billion barrel resovoirs in the basement rock? The Gold Hypothesis is, at very best, a very minor source of hydrocarbons. Care to flaunt your ignorance further?



"resovoirs"?  I own a piece of 6 wells in the Permian Basis, asswipe.  All went dormant for a period of 11 years, but instead of pulling the rigs we waited and sure enough we're now back to early 80's production levels.   That's all the evidence you need to know the abiotic nature of crude oil.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Maybe for you, but geologists posit a very differant source for that oil.


----------



## BullKurtz

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Maybe for you, but geologists posit a very differant source for that oil.



The oil companies are more than glad to contribute to the "peak oil" MYTH with you green yoyos.   Keeps their price high and them laughing all the way to the bank.  In February of 2017 we'll have a president who will go after all the crude we can get our hands on and your "geologists" will sing a different tune when their grants dry up.


----------



## HenryBHough

Wind and Solar.

Words that go together nearly as well as:

Fools and their Money!


----------



## BullKurtz

HenryBHough said:


> Wind and Solar.
> 
> Words that go together nearly as well as:
> 
> Fools and their Money!



Solar got so big here in Phoenix that Arizona Public Service decided to up the rates on those using it....BIG STINK but they have shareholders to satisfy and only so much storage capacity.  Wind turbines kill hundreds of hawks and eagles each year and the big solar farms actually incinerate birds flying over them.   We have more oil than the rest of the world combined.  We have more hydro opportunities than the rest of the world combined when river current and ocean tides are included....anything that can spin a wheel without storage batteries should be on the table.


----------



## Derideo_Te

BullKurtz said:


> Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells.  As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet.  Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.



In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?

Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?

If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.


----------



## BullKurtz

Derideo_Te said:


> In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
> 
> Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
> 
> If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.



"on mountain tops"?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Once again you gurgling turd:


----------



## Derideo_Te

BullKurtz said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
> 
> Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
> 
> If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "on mountain tops"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you gurgling turd:
Click to expand...



If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.

The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.

Abiotic oil - RationalWiki

*No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory* and it is generally considered *pseudoscience* on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and *it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union.* Having largely passed with the USSR, *it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements*,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] *Russian creationists also favour it.*​
However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.


----------



## Andylusion

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)*
> March 10th, 2015 by *Zachary Shahan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from _CleanTechnica_, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
> 
> The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
> 
> Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
> 
> For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
> 
> Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
> 
> 
> Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
> The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what else you'd expect when dems have pretty much banned the building of any other kind of power plant.
Click to expand...



Actually I was thinking it was more obvious than that.

Nuclear, Gas and Coal, all take years and years to build.     Further, the smallest, least productive coal plant in Ohio currently, is 600 Mega Watts, with the next one buying one Giga Watt.

Alternatively, the Ohio Wyandot Solar Facility only required 7 months to build, and only produces 12 Mega Watts of power (and an estimated cost of $60 Million, no one knows for sure because the state government helped fund it, and both the state and the company refuse to release total figures).

Point being, it's a takes a fraction of the time to build one of these tiny plants, and generates a fraction of the power.   So it takes 50 of these little green-plants to equal *ONE* coal plant, and they are being built all the time.


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
> 
> Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
> 
> If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "on mountain tops"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you gurgling turd:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.
> 
> The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.
> 
> Abiotic oil - RationalWiki
> 
> *No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory* and it is generally considered *pseudoscience* on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and *it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union.* Having largely passed with the USSR, *it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements*,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] *Russian creationists also favour it.*​
> However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.
Click to expand...


It's always amazing to me to watch people who claim to believe in science, engage in anti-scientific arguments.

Abiotic oil has not be "debunked".   It was never proven.  There's a difference.   Science is the act of questioning and testing.   
The fact that RationalWiki is your sole source for claiming it was debunked, while your source itself attacks people who dare to question, is the most un-scientific action a person can take.

A rational person considers all the theories, not just those that fit their orthodox dogma.

Galileo was killed because he dared to question the leaders of the conventional wisdom of the day.   Here you are attacking people because they dare to question the conventional wisdom of today.  Which side of science are you and your rationalwiki friends really on?

Here's the facts.   Abiotic oil has not been proven, and tests thus far have come up false.  However, biogenic origins has also not been proved.   The evidence collected thus far to date, does indicate a biogenic origin.

It is entirely possible that at some point, it will be proven that oil has biogenic orgins, and that abiotic oil does not exist.

Of course, that involves actual science, not some dogmatic religious nuts, accusing anyone who dares question the origins of oil, a heretic in the name of "rationality".


----------



## Old Rocks

From the evidence I have seen, there is a good chance that a small amount of oil is abiotic. However, the evidence also points to 99%+ being of biotic origin. Abiotic or biotic, the result of burning it in the atmosphere is the same, a warming atmosphere from the creation of 
GHG's.


----------



## HenryBHough

And still they don't put the SUVs up on blocks and walk to the Global Warming protest meetings!


----------



## BullKurtz

Old Rocks said:


> From the evidence I have seen, there is a good chance that a small amount of oil is abiotic. However, the evidence also points to 99%+ being of biotic origin. Abiotic or biotic, the result of burning it in the atmosphere is the same, a warming atmosphere from the creation of
> GHG's.



Organic oil was last pumped in the 1950's on Jed Clampett's farm.


----------



## Old Rocks

I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.



Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days.   All the orthodox text books said the world was flat.   Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.

Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.

A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis.   That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.

"I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science.   Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
> 
> Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
> 
> If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "on mountain tops"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you gurgling turd:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.
> 
> The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.
> 
> Abiotic oil - RationalWiki
> 
> *No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory* and it is generally considered *pseudoscience* on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and *it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union.* Having largely passed with the USSR, *it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements*,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] *Russian creationists also favour it.*​
> However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always amazing to me to watch people who claim to believe in science, engage in anti-scientific arguments.
> 
> Abiotic oil has not be "debunked".   It was never proven.  There's a difference.   Science is the act of questioning and testing.
> The fact that RationalWiki is your sole source for claiming it was debunked, while your source itself attacks people who dare to question, is the most un-scientific action a person can take.
> 
> A rational person considers all the theories, not just those that fit their orthodox dogma.
> 
> Galileo was killed because he dared to question the leaders of the conventional wisdom of the day.   Here you are attacking people because they dare to question the conventional wisdom of today.  Which side of science are you and your rationalwiki friends really on?
> 
> Here's the facts.   Abiotic oil has not been proven, and tests thus far have come up false.  However, biogenic origins has also not been proved.   The evidence collected thus far to date, does indicate a biogenic origin.
> 
> It is entirely possible that at some point, it will be proven that oil has biogenic orgins, and that abiotic oil does not exist.
> 
> Of course, that involves actual science, not some dogmatic religious nuts, accusing anyone who dares question the origins of oil, a heretic in the name of "rationality".
Click to expand...




The onus is on those who make the claim about abiosis to prove that it is valid when called upon.

Furthermore I find it ironic that you admitted that abiosis was nothing more than baseless theory and then proceeded to attack me while decrying attacking people.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days.   All the orthodox text books said the world was flat.   Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
> 
> Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
> 
> A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis.   That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
> 
> "I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science.   Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
Click to expand...


No one "killed Galileo". 

Strike 1!

"A person really interested in science" would actually do their homework and would know that the theory has been around for almost 140 years without ever finding a single oil well or producing any actual oil even after a century of time and who knows how many billions spent on commercial oil exploration. 

Strike 2!

"Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on" is ironic given that you have just placed yourself on the crackpot side.

Strike 3!


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days.   All the orthodox text books said the world was flat.   Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
> 
> Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
> 
> A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis.   That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
> 
> "I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science.   Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one "killed Galileo".
> 
> Strike 1!
> 
> "A person really interested in science" would actually do their homework and would know that the theory has been around for almost 140 years without ever finding a single oil well or producing any actual oil even after a century of time and who knows how many billions spent on commercial oil exploration.
> 
> Strike 2!
> 
> "Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on" is ironic given that you have just placed yourself on the crackpot side.
> 
> Strike 3!
Click to expand...


True.  He was only held under house arrest until he died.  But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

For centuries people said flying couldn't be done.   The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly.    Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane.  Heretics.

False.  I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not.  We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.

See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know.   *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma.   You are the anti-science person here, not me.   Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us.   You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
> 
> Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
> 
> If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "on mountain tops"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you gurgling turd:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.
> 
> The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.
> 
> Abiotic oil - RationalWiki
> 
> *No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory* and it is generally considered *pseudoscience* on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and *it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union.* Having largely passed with the USSR, *it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements*,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] *Russian creationists also favour it.*​
> However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always amazing to me to watch people who claim to believe in science, engage in anti-scientific arguments.
> 
> Abiotic oil has not be "debunked".   It was never proven.  There's a difference.   Science is the act of questioning and testing.
> The fact that RationalWiki is your sole source for claiming it was debunked, while your source itself attacks people who dare to question, is the most un-scientific action a person can take.
> 
> A rational person considers all the theories, not just those that fit their orthodox dogma.
> 
> Galileo was killed because he dared to question the leaders of the conventional wisdom of the day.   Here you are attacking people because they dare to question the conventional wisdom of today.  Which side of science are you and your rationalwiki friends really on?
> 
> Here's the facts.   Abiotic oil has not been proven, and tests thus far have come up false.  However, biogenic origins has also not been proved.   The evidence collected thus far to date, does indicate a biogenic origin.
> 
> It is entirely possible that at some point, it will be proven that oil has biogenic orgins, and that abiotic oil does not exist.
> 
> Of course, that involves actual science, not some dogmatic religious nuts, accusing anyone who dares question the origins of oil, a heretic in the name of "rationality".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on those who make the claim about abiosis to prove that it is valid when called upon.
> 
> Furthermore I find it ironic that you admitted that abiosis was nothing more than baseless theory and then proceeded to attack me while decrying attacking people.
Click to expand...


I'm not attacking anyone.  I pointing out the reality of your posts.   If the shoe fits, that's your problem, not mine.

The "everyone who questions my dogma is an idiot" is a religious and anti-science position.  That's a fact, whether you admit it, or agree to it, or not.  If that describes you personally, that is also your issue, not mine.


----------



## BullKurtz

These mutts have to follow the leftist dogma that there's a finite supply of petroleum, that petroleum is bad, and that we can power our vehicles and electrical grid on sunshine and warm breezes.   They live in a fantasy land.....they have no grasp of economics or geo-politics.  Yet they believe they're elite and smarter than all of us, when in reality progs are some of the dumbest people in the history of Earth.


----------



## Andylusion

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days.   All the orthodox text books said the world was flat.   Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
> 
> Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
> 
> A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis.   That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
> 
> "I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science.   Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one "killed Galileo".
> 
> Strike 1!
> 
> "A person really interested in science" would actually do their homework and would know that the theory has been around for almost 140 years without ever finding a single oil well or producing any actual oil even after a century of time and who knows how many billions spent on commercial oil exploration.
> 
> Strike 2!
> 
> "Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on" is ironic given that you have just placed yourself on the crackpot side.
> 
> Strike 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  He was only held under house arrest until he died.  But no one directly murdered the man.
> 
> Doesn't really change what I said.
> 
> True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.
> 
> In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?
> 
> For centuries people said flying couldn't be done.   The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly.    Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane.  Heretics.
> 
> False.  I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not.  We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.
> 
> See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know.   *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma.   You are the anti-science person here, not me.   Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us.   You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.
Click to expand...





Andylusion said:


> True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.
> 
> Doesn't really change what I said.



You falsely accused someone of being no different to a killer. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong says volumes. 



Andylusion said:


> True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.
> 
> In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?



Anyone who knows anything at all about science knows that the process is to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis against the verifiable facts. The vast majority of hypothesis turn out to be wrong when tested against the facts. The abiosis theory of oil has failed every single test and never yielded a single verifiable positive result.

Every genuine scientist knows that the hypothesis is a failure. 

Only a fool ignores the verifiable facts.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> For centuries people said flying couldn't be done. The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly. Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane. Heretics.



Another falsehood! 

Mankind was trying to emulate bird flight without understanding the science of power to weight. in 1680 they did the math and figured out that human muscle cannot develop the necessary power. The Montgolier brothers took the first step in the right direction with their hot air balloon back in 1783 after they observed laundry drying over a fire. In 1852 Henri Giffard flew the first steam powered dirigible. In the 1890's gliders were being successfully flown. Sam Langley managed to get steam powered models to successfully fly but he only lacked the horsepower to carry a pilot. 

The Wright brothers were the beneficiaries of all that came before them and only someone dishonest would claim that they were ignorant of everything that came before. It was their own father who showed them a toy helicopter that worked with a rubber band when they were just 11 and 7.

Your ignorance is palpable.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.
> 
> When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.
> 
> Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).
> 
> Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.



None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days.   All the orthodox text books said the world was flat.   Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
> 
> Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
> 
> A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis.   That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
> 
> "I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science.   Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one "killed Galileo".
> 
> Strike 1!
> 
> "A person really interested in science" would actually do their homework and would know that the theory has been around for almost 140 years without ever finding a single oil well or producing any actual oil even after a century of time and who knows how many billions spent on commercial oil exploration.
> 
> Strike 2!
> 
> "Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on" is ironic given that you have just placed yourself on the crackpot side.
> 
> Strike 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  He was only held under house arrest until he died.  But no one directly murdered the man.
> 
> Doesn't really change what I said.
> 
> True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.
> 
> In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?
> 
> For centuries people said flying couldn't be done.   The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly.    Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane.  Heretics.
> 
> False.  I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not.  We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.
> 
> See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know.   *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma.   You are the anti-science person here, not me.   Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us.   You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.
> 
> Doesn't really change what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You falsely accused someone of being no different to a killer. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong says volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.
> 
> In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who knows anything at all about science knows that the process is to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis against the verifiable facts. The vast majority of hypothesis turn out to be wrong when tested against the facts. The abiosis theory of oil has failed every single test and never yielded a single verifiable positive result.
> 
> Every genuine scientist knows that the hypothesis is a failure.
> 
> Only a fool ignores the verifiable facts.
Click to expand...


You must have me confused with someone who cares what you think of me.  Nothing you said at any point contradicted my statements.   All you did was make accusations about me... and I couldn't care less what you think.  Never have, never will.

Every "Genuine Scientist"?  Every single one?  You checked and verified that every single "Genuine Scientist" on the face of this planet all agree?   Engaging in hyperbole substitution as fact lately?

I assume you are done here.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days.   All the orthodox text books said the world was flat.   Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
> 
> Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
> 
> A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis.   That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
> 
> "I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science.   Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one "killed Galileo".
> 
> Strike 1!
> 
> "A person really interested in science" would actually do their homework and would know that the theory has been around for almost 140 years without ever finding a single oil well or producing any actual oil even after a century of time and who knows how many billions spent on commercial oil exploration.
> 
> Strike 2!
> 
> "Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on" is ironic given that you have just placed yourself on the crackpot side.
> 
> Strike 3!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  He was only held under house arrest until he died.  But no one directly murdered the man.
> 
> Doesn't really change what I said.
> 
> True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.
> 
> In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?
> 
> For centuries people said flying couldn't be done.   The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly.    Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane.  Heretics.
> 
> False.  I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not.  We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.
> 
> See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know.   *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma.   You are the anti-science person here, not me.   Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us.   You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.
> 
> Doesn't really change what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You falsely accused someone of being no different to a killer. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong says volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.
> 
> In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who knows anything at all about science knows that the process is to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis against the verifiable facts. The vast majority of hypothesis turn out to be wrong when tested against the facts. The abiosis theory of oil has failed every single test and never yielded a single verifiable positive result.
> 
> Every genuine scientist knows that the hypothesis is a failure.
> 
> Only a fool ignores the verifiable facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have me confused with someone who cares what you think of me.  Nothing you said at any point contradicted my statements.   All you did was make accusations about me... and I couldn't care less what you think.  Never have, never will.
> 
> Every "Genuine Scientist"?  Every single one?  You checked and verified that every single "Genuine Scientist" on the face of this planet all agree?   Engaging in hyperbole substitution as fact lately?
> 
> I assume you are done here.  Thanks for stopping by.
Click to expand...


Ironic!


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.
> 
> When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.
> 
> Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).
> 
> Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.
> 
> It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.
Click to expand...


Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.
> 
> When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.
> 
> Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).
> 
> Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.
> 
> It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
Click to expand...


Let's start with the very basics instead.











Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.
> 
> When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.
> 
> Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).
> 
> Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.
> 
> It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal. 

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.
> 
> When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.
> 
> Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).
> 
> Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.
> 
> It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.
> 
> I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.
> 
> You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.
> 
> You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.
> 
> Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.
Click to expand...


Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too. 

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil. 

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.


----------



## eagle1462010

The EPA backdoor regulations are taking out Coal Burners and under this environment of course you will not see new production of Coal plants because the EPA is trying to put them out of business...............

I recall that we've lost 15% of production of coal over the last 6 years or so..............down to nearly 40% of the overall production of the United States....................

I also read that from the Dept of Energy that utility prices will double in about a decade................aka if you have a $200 dollar electric bill today you will be paying $400 for it 10 years down the road................

Riddle me this.................how much power does a 5000 watt solar system produce in kwh per year.........aka the one's you put on the roof tops.......................and how much does it cost to buy and install....please discount the Federal Credits.............use your math skills for your current cost per Kwh..............then tell me how much you save.............................and then...............................

Tell me how many years for the cost to equal out...................Have fun with it.


----------



## eagle1462010

While you are looking that up............look at your hook up licenses and fees for going to the grid................depending on your state you may be giving the power you pay to produce back to the utility companies....................

Again, enjoy................


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.
> 
> When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry.  Magically they all had oil.
> 
> Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow.    There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil.    Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it.  They're just happy they are making money again.   I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is.  (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).
> 
> Who knows.  But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.
> 
> It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.
> 
> I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.
> 
> You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.
> 
> You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.
> 
> Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.
> 
> The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.
> 
> So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.
> 
> You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.
Click to expand...


Fail again.

Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."

Claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"

"Uh.....  its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....

No....  *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.

I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere.  In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.

YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.

Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong.   Again, that's not the scientific method.

Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?

Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected.  The left is not for science at all.  This is just more inquisition tactics than science.   You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong.  Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.

No, it's your job to support your own claim.  You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.
> 
> It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.
> 
> I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.
> 
> You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.
> 
> You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.
> 
> Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.
> 
> The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.
> 
> So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.
> 
> You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."
> 
> Claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"
> 
> "Uh.....  its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....
> 
> No....  *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
> Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.
> 
> I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere.  In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.
> 
> YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong.   Again, that's not the scientific method.
> 
> Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?
> 
> Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected.  The left is not for science at all.  This is just more inquisition tactics than science.   You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong.  Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.
> 
> No, it's your job to support your own claim.  You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.
Click to expand...


Your semantic squirming is risible. 

And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.
> 
> I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.
> 
> You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.
> 
> You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.
> 
> Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.
> 
> The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.
> 
> So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.
> 
> You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."
> 
> Claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"
> 
> "Uh.....  its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....
> 
> No....  *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
> Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.
> 
> I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere.  In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.
> 
> YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong.   Again, that's not the scientific method.
> 
> Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?
> 
> Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected.  The left is not for science at all.  This is just more inquisition tactics than science.   You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong.  Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.
> 
> No, it's your job to support your own claim.  You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your semantic squirming is risible.
> 
> And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Semantic?   You made a claim... you can't back your claim... when asked to provide evidence to support your claim, you told me that I have to prove my claim.

I didn't make a claim.   You made a claim.  If you don't know English, that's not my fault.  

I don't have a position that needs proved.   You do.  You made the claim.   Listen... I've been very generous with you.   I've played your little games up to this point.

From here on.... you either put up or shut up.  And I will shut you up.  It's called the ignore feature.  It makes you cease to exist.    When I put you on ignore, I'll never even know you are still on this forum.

If that's what you want, then keep being an idiot.   Now if you want to debate.... then debate.  YOU made a claim.  Back your claim.  This is absolutely your last chance to provide the slightest hint of intelligence.  You fail this... I mute you, and you never exist again.   Deal?   Ok.  

Provide evidence that proves the oil from the ohio wells was absolutely not from abiotic origins.

I'm waiting.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.
> 
> I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.
> 
> You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.
> 
> You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.
> 
> Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.
> 
> The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.
> 
> So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.
> 
> You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."
> 
> Claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"
> 
> "Uh.....  its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....
> 
> No....  *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
> Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.
> 
> I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere.  In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.
> 
> YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong.   Again, that's not the scientific method.
> 
> Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?
> 
> Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected.  The left is not for science at all.  This is just more inquisition tactics than science.   You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong.  Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.
> 
> No, it's your job to support your own claim.  You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your semantic squirming is risible.
> 
> And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantic?   You made a claim... you can't back your claim... when asked to provide evidence to support your claim, you told me that I have to prove my claim.
> 
> I didn't make a claim.   You made a claim.  If you don't know English, that's not my fault.
> 
> I don't have a position that needs proved.   You do.  You made the claim.   Listen... I've been very generous with you.   I've played your little games up to this point.
> 
> From here on.... you either put up or shut up.  And I will shut you up.  It's called the ignore feature.  It makes you cease to exist.    When I put you on ignore, I'll never even know you are still on this forum.
> 
> If that's what you want, then keep being an idiot.   Now if you want to debate.... then debate.  YOU made a claim.  Back your claim.  This is absolutely your last chance to provide the slightest hint of intelligence.  You fail this... I mute you, and you never exist again.   Deal?   Ok.
> 
> Provide evidence that proves the oil from the ohio wells was absolutely not from abiotic origins.
> 
> I'm waiting.
Click to expand...







Resorting to mindless insults is always a tacit admission of failure on your part!

Feel free to put me on ignore. It won't stop me mocking your ignorance and failures in the future. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Andylusion

Derideo_Te said:


> Feel free to put me on ignore.



Done.  You have decided to prove to everyone you are incapable of rational intelligent discussion of the topics, and are therefore no longer worthy to have any contact or communication with me.

Congrats!  You will never see me respond to you again, and I won't miss you.   If you can't grasp that you have to back your own claims, before making demands of others, than you have no value to anyone for anything.  Have a nice life. I know I will without wasting my time with you again.   Good bye troll.


----------



## ScienceRocks

If it is so dumb...Why is it being the installion of choice for such a high percentage of energy needs. Reality says you're wrong.


----------



## eagle1462010

Matthew said:


> If it is so dumb...Why is it being the installion of choice for such a high percentage of energy needs. Reality says you're wrong.


The Reality is that the EPA is killing Coal, just as Obama said he would................Not through Congress but through the back door.

Our Congress shot down Kyoto..............shot down Cap and Trade.........even with a super Majority of Dems...............and yet they still push to kill all fossil fuels......................It's not supply and demand pushing it............It's the Gov't pushing it.............while killing Coal which used to provide 55% of America's power........now down to 40% and dropping.

You care to take a stab at my previous questions........tell me the KWH output for the question...........and how long it will take to save enough to get the investment back...............If your smart you'll remain silent on that one.


----------



## Andylusion

Matthew said:


> If it is so dumb...Why is it being the installion of choice for such a high percentage of energy needs. Reality says you're wrong.



Because it's funded by government.   The method by which you can tell that any given economic activity is profitable and desirable in the market, is when you have a completely level, unbiased market, and people still choose to purchase the given item.

The moment you fundamentally change the market, you can no longer assume anything from the outcomes.

Take a theoretical example.   Say the government decided to subsidize the BMW X3 SUV.  The cost is $44K, and they subsidize $40K.   The suv now costs $4,000.     I would assume we both can agree that Everyone, everywhere, would be buying BMW X3s.  Old people, young people, lower class, upper class, everyone would be buying a BMW X3.

Well obviously it's the best car that has ever existed.  Everyone is buying it.  Clearly the market has spoken.

No, actually, that's not true.   The market is distorted by government policy.

The reason why solar panels, or wind mills, are being built at all, is specifically, and exclusively because the government is paying them to do it.   That's all there is to it.

The government is taxing *YOU* and taking your money, and giving it to BP, to make solar panels.

Solar panel company pocketing govt subsidy cash intended for homeowners Hot Air

Take a look at this....  






This is Lyndon Rive, in his high end luxury sports car.   He'd like to thank you. 

Lyndon R. Rive Executive Profile Biography - Businessweek

Lyndon Rive collects ONLY... $276K dollars a year in cash.   And his net worth, is ONLY $107 Million dollars in stock.

Stock in his company SolarCity.

But there is an interesting factoid about SolarCity.   SolarCity, to this day, has a negative profit margin.

SCTY Key Statistics SolarCity Corporation Stock - Yahoo Finance

How can this be?   How can this CEO, have a $107 Million networth, in stock in a $5 Billion dollar company....... and yet not make a profit?

Well Matthew.....  Rive would like to let you know, it's all because of you... yes, you and those like you, and all the tax payers who are forced to pay taxes to fund the green-energy policies you support.

That's right Mr Matthew..... we are subsidizing Mr Rive.

Solar panel company pocketing govt subsidy cash intended for homeowners Hot Air

See, even though they are losing money on the leases of solar panels, the government through green-energy subsidies, is paying SolarCity for every single solar panel out there.   While Mr Rive is driving his luxury sports car, while the company is losing quite literally millions of dollars every single month, the tax payer.... YOU Matthew, are keeping his company subsidized with money.

Of course I love the idea of greeny-leftists paying super wealthy millionaires to drive around in their sports cars.  The only problem is, the damage you people do, effects all of us.  So unfortunately... all of us are paying Rive to drive his luxury sports car, thanks to your idiotic governmental policies.

I really do want a public referendum.   The referendum, would be that only those who support subsidies to the rich, would pay the taxes to fund those subsidies, and the rest of us would be exempt.   But typical leftist view.... they can't just screw themselves over, they have to screw everyone with them.


----------



## Derideo_Te

The government has provided funding subsidies for nuclear power since it's inception and still does to this day.

So it is a fallacy to claim that government intervention is not a legitimate market force.

The role of government in developing new markets is essential to their success. The shipping canals where publicly funded. The hydroelectric dams were publicly funded. The interstate highways were publicly funded. Schools, libraries, parks, etc, etc are all part of how we operate as a society and the government plays an essential role in keeping it all regulated and moving forward.

Funding for the next generation of energy is a legitimate role for government.


----------



## mamooth

The free market is not optimistic about fossil fuel electricity.

Barclays Downgrades Electric Utility Bonds Sees Viable Solar Competition - Income Investing - Barrons.com
---
*Barclays* this week downgrades the entire electric sector of the U.S. high-grade corporate bond market to underweight, saying it sees long-term challenges to electric utilities from solar energy, and that the electric sector of the bond market isn’t pricing in these challenges right now.
---


----------



## mamooth

Andylusion said:


> I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.



First, give us DIRECT PROOF the oil absolutely wasn't placed there by faeries.

You don't have such proof? That shows faerie-created oil is a distinct possibility, and that anyone who says otherwise is incapable of rational intelligent discussion.

Now, it would be possible to test the oil, to show it lacks the traces of pixie dust found in faerie-created oil. But nobody will bother with something so pointless and absurd, just as no one will bother with testing oil to show it's not abiotic.


----------



## Andylusion

mamooth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, give us DIRECT PROOF the oil absolutely wasn't placed there by faeries.
> 
> You don't have such proof? That shows faerie-created oil is a distinct possibility, and that anyone who says otherwise is incapable of rational intelligent discussion.
> 
> Now, it would be possible to test the oil, to show it lacks the traces of pixie dust found in faerie-created oil. But nobody will bother with something so pointless and absurd, just as no one will bother with testing oil to show it's not abiotic.
Click to expand...


So in your world, erecting a red herring of 'faeries', is a valid argument?


----------



## Andylusion

mamooth said:


> The free market is not optimistic about fossil fuel electricity.
> 
> Barclays Downgrades Electric Utility Bonds Sees Viable Solar Competition - Income Investing - Barrons.com
> ---
> *Barclays* this week downgrades the entire electric sector of the U.S. high-grade corporate bond market to underweight, saying it sees long-term challenges to electric utilities from solar energy, and that the electric sector of the bond market isn’t pricing in these challenges right now.
> ---



Ironically, your own article says the very opposite of what you just claimed.

Barclays says bond risk premiums for the electricity sector indicate investors are ignoring these risks for now:​So, apparently the free market is optimistic.   Only Barclays is not.

Interestingly, it would also appear that even in their own assessment, they have an issue because of government.

We believe that sector spreads should be wider to compensate for the potential risk of regulator missteps and/or a permanent change in the utility business model.​What are they saying?   Government could screw it up.

Well of course.   Government can screw up anything, and usually does.  Give government a chance, and they can cause rolling blackouts across California.


----------



## mamooth

Andylusion said:


> So in your world, erecting a red herring of 'faeries', is a valid argument?



No amount of abiotic oil beyond a trace has ever been found anywhere on planet earth.

Faerie-created oil is just as common as abiotic oil. That is, there's none of either.

Therefore, it's a valid comparison, not a red herring, and it showed how your "Can you prove it's not abiotic oil huh huh?" argument was so freakin' stupid.


----------



## Andylusion

mamooth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world, erecting a red herring of 'faeries', is a valid argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of abiotic oil beyond a trace has ever been found anywhere on planet earth.
> 
> Faerie-created oil is just as common as abiotic oil. That is, there's none of either.
> 
> Therefore, it's a valid comparison, not a red herring, and it showed how your "Can you prove it's not abiotic oil huh huh?" argument was so freakin' stupid.
Click to expand...


That was not my argument.  The prior poster claimed he knew for a fact, that oil found in oil wells that had run dry, was not of abiotic sources.

His argument.  His claim.  Not mine.

My asking him to provide the evidence to support his claim.

Can you do that or not?


----------



## mamooth

And we're back to asking you if you can prove faeries didn't create the oil.

The point is that your question is a dishonest red herring.

If it's not a red herring, please inform everyone directly of the point you're trying to make here with your dumb question. Nobody anywhere on planet earth tests oil to prove it's not abiotic. Why are you insisting that it be done in this one single special case?


----------



## Andylusion

mamooth said:


> And we're back to asking you if you can prove faeries didn't create the oil.
> 
> The point is that your question is a dishonest red herring.
> 
> If it's not a red herring, please inform everyone directly of the point you're trying to make here with your dumb question. Nobody anywhere on planet earth tests oil to prove it's not abiotic. Why are you insisting that it be done in this one single special case?



I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either.  You know that right?  

So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?


----------



## BULLDOG

BullKurtz said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total CRAP.....coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil and oil is not a source for electric power generation.  Solar is dependent on environmentally destructive batteries and is dropping like a stone in new investment capital.  It's a joke same as you, punk..  Find your MOS yet?
Click to expand...



Neither oil or coal are fossil fuels? Did you learn that when you were in the fake special forces?


----------



## JoeMoma

Derideo_Te said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells.  As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet.  Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
> 
> Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
> 
> If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
Click to expand...


----------



## mamooth

Andylusion said:


> I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either.  You know that right?



No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.



> So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?



As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.


----------



## Andylusion

mamooth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either.  You know that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.
Click to expand...


Really??   So the scientific journals that I have read from indicating it is still a theory, they are wrong, and you Mr. Internet Forum poster, know that it has been proven.

So because we don't have another theory.... that automatically means "it's proven".

*sigh*.

Clearly if this is your idea of how science works, then there's no point in us debating anything any further.    Good luck with that.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Andylusion said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either.  You know that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??   So the scientific journals that I have read from indicating it is still a theory, they are wrong, and you Mr. Internet Forum poster, know that it has been proven.
> 
> So because we don't have another theory.... that automatically means "it's proven".
> 
> *sigh*.
> 
> Clearly if this is your idea of how science works, then there's no point in us debating anything any further.    Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Oil comes from plants. Peanut oil, olive oil, sunflower oil, coconut oil, flax seed oil, etc, etc.

Algae to crude oil Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have created a continuous process that produces useful crude oil minutes after harvested algae is introduced. This new process does not require drying out the algae, which grows in water, saving time and energy that would be otherwise wasted. The final product can be refined into aviation fuel, diesel, or gasoline.
The process mimics some of the conditions that originally turned prehistoric plant material into fossil fuel deep within the earth – high pressures and temperatures.

Algae, an aquatic plant, has long been considered as a biofuel source, but the steps needed to turn a wet, green plant into clear, burnable fuel have been both expensive and time-consuming. The algae had to be processed in a series of steps, one of which involved drying it out and removing all the water, which might be 80 percent of the biomass. Then solvents were used to extract energy-rich hydrocarbons from the dried material.

The PNNL team created a continuous process that starts with the wet algae and subjects the entire mass – water, algae, and all – to high temperatures and pressures, in this case, 350ºC (662ºF) and 3,000 psi.

"It's a bit like using a pressure cooker, only the pressures and temperatures we use are much higher," said Laboratory Fellow Douglas Elliott, the leader of the research team. "In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We're just doing it much, much faster."

The products of the process include crude oil, which can be further refined into aviation fuel, gasoline, or diesel fuel (in tests, the process achieved between 50 and 70 percent conversion of the algae’s carbon into fuel); ​
Looks like scientists just proved that oil comes from plants...again!


----------



## Old Rocks

Andylusion said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either.  You know that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??   So the scientific journals that I have read from indicating it is still a theory, they are wrong, and you Mr. Internet Forum poster, know that it has been proven.
> 
> So because we don't have another theory.... that automatically means "it's proven".
> 
> *sigh*.
> 
> Clearly if this is your idea of how science works, then there's no point in us debating anything any further.    Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Look, fellow, look up what theory means to a scientist. It most certainly does not mean a guess, as it does to people like yourself.


----------



## Political Junky

Derideo_Te said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....  I'm open to your claims.  Show me the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with the very basics instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny those processes actually happened?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.
> 
> I made a statement:  Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.
> 
> You made a claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.
> 
> You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin.  I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.
> 
> Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not?   This is how science works.   Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof".    Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.
> 
> Do you have that or not?  Yes or no.   If 'yes', then provide that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.
> 
> The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.
> 
> So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.
> 
> You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."
> 
> Claim:  "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"
> 
> Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"
> 
> "Uh.....  its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....
> 
> No....  *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
> Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.
> 
> I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere.  In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.
> 
> YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong.   Again, that's not the scientific method.
> 
> Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?
> 
> Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected.  The left is not for science at all.  This is just more inquisition tactics than science.   You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong.  Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.
> 
> No, it's your job to support your own claim.  You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your semantic squirming is risible.
> 
> And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Conservatives would have stopped at kerosene or even whale oil.


----------

