More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[flacaltenn]

What is the cost comparison between fossil fuels and sustainable energy when fossil fuels are gone?

High cost energy in the future is bad.

We must protect ourselves from high cost energy in the future by making energy expensive now!!!

Democrat progress, gotta love it.......

The motto is that the Nega-watters want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE.
Society NEEDS energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.


And don't bother arguing about the "RARE" part.. Any set of policies that concentrates so heavily on CONSERVATION (instead of increased capacity) is pushing for RARE...

 

[PMZ]

What is the cost comparison between fossil fuels and sustainable energy when fossil fuels are gone?

High cost energy in the future is bad.

We must protect ourselves from high cost energy in the future by making energy expensive now!!!

Democrat progress, gotta love it.......

The motto is that the Nega-watters want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE.
Society NEEDS energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.


And don't bother arguing about the "RARE" part.. Any set of policies that concentrates so heavily on CONSERVATION (instead of increased capacity) is pushing for RARE...

Nobody here has said that they want energy to be rare. Energy has and will cost what it costs.

What will come forever increasingly rare are fossil fuels. That will make them expensive. Also adapting to the new climate they are creating. That will be very expensive.

 

[flacaltenn]

High cost energy in the future is bad.

We must protect ourselves from high cost energy in the future by making energy expensive now!!!

Democrat progress, gotta love it.......

The motto is that the Nega-watters want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE.
Society NEEDS energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.


And don't bother arguing about the "RARE" part.. Any set of policies that concentrates so heavily on CONSERVATION (instead of increased capacity) is pushing for RARE...

Nobody here has said that they want energy to be rare. Energy has and will cost what it costs.

What will come forever increasingly rare are fossil fuels. That will make them expensive. Also adapting to the new climate they are creating. That will be very expensive.

So you ignored the warning in the last line of my post.. Explain to me how MASSIVE CAMPAIGNS to CONSERVE the last watt of your phone charger --- is not a POLICY to make energy rare.. With NARY A PEEP about increasing capacity or providing bigger MARGINS of service on demand..

A focus SOLELY on Conservation IS ---- an attempt to make it RARE... To continue to operate at the margins of capacity..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the cost comparison between fossil fuels and sustainable energy when fossil fuels are gone?

High cost energy in the future is bad.

We must protect ourselves from high cost energy in the future by making energy expensive now!!!

Democrat progress, gotta love it.......

Conservative non-thinking, gotta love it.

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

Can anyone imagine that working for any enterprise, from family to business to church to education to government?

If there is one thing that separates man from monkeys as well as liberals and conservatives it is the ability to envision, plan, and execute towards an advantageous future.

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project.

Listen to the liberals, their plan is cheapest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

High cost energy in the future is bad.

We must protect ourselves from high cost energy in the future by making energy expensive now!!!

Democrat progress, gotta love it.......

The motto is that the Nega-watters want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE.
Society NEEDS energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.


And don't bother arguing about the "RARE" part.. Any set of policies that concentrates so heavily on CONSERVATION (instead of increased capacity) is pushing for RARE...

Nobody here has said that they want energy to be rare. Energy has and will cost what it costs.

What will come forever increasingly rare are fossil fuels. That will make them expensive. Also adapting to the new climate they are creating. That will be very expensive.

Energy has and will cost what it costs.

Unless the libs are in charge, then it can cost over 8 times what it's worth.

 

[PMZ]

The motto is that the Nega-watters want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE.
Society NEEDS energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.


And don't bother arguing about the "RARE" part.. Any set of policies that concentrates so heavily on CONSERVATION (instead of increased capacity) is pushing for RARE...

Nobody here has said that they want energy to be rare. Energy has and will cost what it costs.

What will come forever increasingly rare are fossil fuels. That will make them expensive. Also adapting to the new climate they are creating. That will be very expensive.

Energy has and will cost what it costs.

Unless the libs are in charge, then it can cost over 8 times what it's worth.

Private enterprise prices energy as determined by supply and demand. Nobody is in charge of pricing.

 

[PMZ]

High cost energy in the future is bad.

We must protect ourselves from high cost energy in the future by making energy expensive now!!!

Democrat progress, gotta love it.......

Conservative non-thinking, gotta love it.

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

Can anyone imagine that working for any enterprise, from family to business to church to education to government?

If there is one thing that separates man from monkeys as well as liberals and conservatives it is the ability to envision, plan, and execute towards an advantageous future.

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project.

Listen to the liberals, their plan is cheapest.

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels? Wars, adaptation to changed climate, sea level rise, extreme weather recovery, fires and explosions, environmental cleanup from spills, mining disasters, water pollution, destruction of habitat, smog, etc?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody here has said that they want energy to be rare. Energy has and will cost what it costs.

What will come forever increasingly rare are fossil fuels. That will make them expensive. Also adapting to the new climate they are creating. That will be very expensive.

Energy has and will cost what it costs.

Unless the libs are in charge, then it can cost over 8 times what it's worth.

Private enterprise prices energy as determined by supply and demand. Nobody is in charge of pricing.

Nobody......unless the government makes it more expensive with silly green mandates....like in Germany!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservative non-thinking, gotta love it.

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

Can anyone imagine that working for any enterprise, from family to business to church to education to government?

If there is one thing that separates man from monkeys as well as liberals and conservatives it is the ability to envision, plan, and execute towards an advantageous future.

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project.

Listen to the liberals, their plan is cheapest.

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels? Wars, adaptation to changed climate, sea level rise, extreme weather recovery, fires and explosions, environmental cleanup from spills, mining disasters, water pollution, destruction of habitat, smog, etc?

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels?

No, it's the collateral cost of liberal, green, idiocy.

 

[PMZ]

Energy has and will cost what it costs.

Unless the libs are in charge, then it can cost over 8 times what it's worth.

Private enterprise prices energy as determined by supply and demand. Nobody is in charge of pricing.

Nobody......unless the government makes it more expensive with silly green mandates....like in Germany!

While we are trying to catch up, they'll be sitting pretty.

 

[PMZ]

The cheapest path to the future is ignoring the problems of today.

This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project.

Listen to the liberals, their plan is cheapest.

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels? Wars, adaptation to changed climate, sea level rise, extreme weather recovery, fires and explosions, environmental cleanup from spills, mining disasters, water pollution, destruction of habitat, smog, etc?

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels?

No, it's the collateral cost of liberal, green, idiocy.

All of those fossil fuel collateral costs are good, but sustainable energy collateral costs are idiocy. Your ability to debate is pathetic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Private enterprise prices energy as determined by supply and demand. Nobody is in charge of pricing.

Nobody......unless the government makes it more expensive with silly green mandates....like in Germany!

While we are trying to catch up, they'll be sitting pretty.

Yes! Paying 8 times the market rate = sitting pretty, to liberals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels? Wars, adaptation to changed climate, sea level rise, extreme weather recovery, fires and explosions, environmental cleanup from spills, mining disasters, water pollution, destruction of habitat, smog, etc?

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels?

No, it's the collateral cost of liberal, green, idiocy.

All of those fossil fuel collateral costs are good, but sustainable energy collateral costs are idiocy. Your ability to debate is pathetic.

Don't they understand, green energy is efficient.
No fuel in, energy out. And no waste disposal costs.
It should be cheaper than fossil fuels, not 8 times as expensive.

You need to go over there and explain what they're doing wrong.
You could make big bucks as a consultant.

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this part >>>>

 

[skookerasbil]

Oooooooooooooooops

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk.....yuk.........

What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express

 

[skookerasbil]

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels? Wars, adaptation to changed climate, sea level rise, extreme weather recovery, fires and explosions, environmental cleanup from spills, mining disasters, water pollution, destruction of habitat, smog, etc?

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels?

No, it's the collateral cost of liberal, green, idiocy.

All of those fossil fuel collateral costs are good, but sustainable energy collateral costs are idiocy. Your ability to debate is pathetic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Energy | Ecotrope

10 predictions for the world's energy future

Ecotrope | Sept. 19, 2011 11:35 p.m. | Updated: Feb. 19, 2013 1:35 p.m.



The U.S. Energy Information Administration released 2011 Energy Outlook yesterday, with new projections for world energy use in 2035. The agency predicts:


1. A lot more energy use worldwide: World energy consumption will grow by 53 percent from 2008 to 2035, and half of that growth will come from China and India.

2.China will outpace the U.S.: China will use 68 percent more energy than the U.S. by 2035. And a lot of it will come from coal. China will account for 76 percent of the increase in world coal use.


3.China and India will lead energy growth: in 2008 the two countries made up 21 percent of world energy consumption. In 2035, it will be 31 percent.


4.Fossil fuels will still dominate: They will account for 78 percent of world energy use in 2035. Coal consumption will grow by 1.5 percent a year.


5.Renewable energy will double: Consumption will increase by 2.8 percent a year, and its share of total energy use will grow from 10 percent in 2008 to 15 percent in 2035. That is, if current laws and policies remain in place. Renewables will be the fastest growing source of new electricity generation, increasing by 3.0 percent and outpacing the average annual increases for natural gas (2.6 percent), nuclear power (2.4 percent), and coal (1.9 percent).


6.More fracked natural gas: Natural gas will be the fastest-growing fossil fuel, thanks in large part to new extraction methods (such as fracking) for gas in tight rock formations, shale, and coal beds. World natural gas consumption will increase 1.6 percent per year, from 111 trillion cubic feet in 2008 to 169 trillion cubic feet in 2035. Supplies from the U.S., Canada and China will increase.


7.Gas prices stay high: A barrel of light sweet crude oil will reach $125 per barrel (they’re around $90 a barrel today). However, the EIA reports, depending on supply and demand, and economic growth in developing countries, the price of oil could be as high as $200 a barrel by 2035 or as low as $50 a barrel.


8.Oil consumption keeps growing: The world’s petroleum other liquid fuels usage will increase by 36.9 million barrels a day from 2008 to 2035.


9.More gas from biofuels and oil sands: Less than half the growth in fuel consumption will come from conventional crude production. Production of unconventional sources including biofuels, oil sands, extra heavy oil, coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids will grow from 3.9 million barrels a day in 2088 to 13.1 million barrels a day in 2035.


10.Carbon emissions will rise: Energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions rise by 43 percent – from 30.2 billion metric tons in 2008 to 43.2 billion metric tons in 2035. Much of the increase will come from developing countries, especially Asia


10 predictions for the world's energy future » News » OPB

 

[polarbear]

Is that like the collateral costs of fossil fuels?

No, it's the collateral cost of liberal, green, idiocy.

All of those fossil fuel collateral costs are good, but sustainable energy collateral costs are idiocy. Your ability to debate is pathetic.

Don't they understand, green energy is efficient.
No fuel in, energy out. And no waste disposal costs.
It should be cheaper than fossil fuels, not 8 times as expensive.

You need to go over there and explain what they're doing wrong.
You could make big bucks as a consultant.

When you are talking to PMZ you are talking to a fence post.
"no fuel in energy out"
Fuel costs in an oil gas or coal fired plant are just a part of the operating budget and are well within the margins.
With wind and solar to make it usable as a stand alone power on demand grid you have to keep burning money as if it was fuel.
"no waste disposal cost"
What kind of a price should we but on entire mountain ranges being (WASTED as in being ) stripped, excavated and adorned with a forest of hydro masts and wires?
If it were possible to supply power on demand with just wind and solar then Siemens engineers would have done so and there would be no need for phase#2, these pumped basins.
A state of the art (Siemens) wind turbine generator has to run at a constant 1500 rpm to put out power at 50 Hz ( or 60 Hz over here)
So if the load increases the only available means to compensate is to decrease the prop pitch to more shallow.
And when you do that you better have a high enough wind speed so that you still got enough torque. But the wind is what it is and that`s why wind or solar cannot run in a stand alone mode and need conventional power plants to compensate for load demand changes.
Germany is now committed to produce power on demand with wind and solar. Until there are many more mountain tops converted to pumped basins which incorporate hydro electric plants they will not have a fully functional power grid and have to rely on coal and gas...end of story.
I thought the likes of PMZ are in league with the Sierra Club, Greenpeace etc etc...well they are all over there protesting this pumped basin insanity, getting tear-gassed, clubbed and drenched by police water canons.

 

[PMZ]

All of those fossil fuel collateral costs are good, but sustainable energy collateral costs are idiocy. Your ability to debate is pathetic.

Don't they understand, green energy is efficient.
No fuel in, energy out. And no waste disposal costs.
It should be cheaper than fossil fuels, not 8 times as expensive.

You need to go over there and explain what they're doing wrong.
You could make big bucks as a consultant.

When you are talking to PMZ you are talking to a fence post.
"no fuel in energy out"
Fuel costs in an oil gas or coal fired plant are just a part of the operating budget and are well within the margins.
With wind and solar to make it usable as a stand alone power on demand grid you have to keep burning money as if it was fuel.
"no waste disposal cost"
What kind of a price should we but on entire mountain ranges being stripped, excavated and adorned with a forest of hydro masts and wires?
If it were possible to supply power on demand with just wind and solar then Siemens engineers would have done so and there would be no need for phase#2, these pumped basins.
A state of the art (Siemens) wind turbine generator has to run at a constant 1500 rpm to put out power at 50 Hz ( or 60 Hz over here)
So if the load increases the only available means to compensate is to decrease the prop pitch to more shallow.
And when you do that you better have a high enough wind speed so that you still got enough torque. But the wind is what it is and that`s why wind or solar cannot run in a stand alone mode and need conventional power plants to compensate for load demand changes.
Germany is now committed to produce power on demand with wind and solar. Until there are many more mountain tops converted to pumped basins which incorporate hydro electric plants they will not have a fully functional power grid and have to rely on coal and gas...end of story.
I thought the likes of PMZ are in league with the Sierra Club, Greenpeace etc etc...well they are all over there protesting this pumped basin insanity, getting tear-gassed, clubbed and drenched by police water canons.

Intelligent folks will notice what's not given in pontifications like this.

Alternatives.

Burn fossil fuels until they're gone then return to the caves is not an alternative except to conservatives and lower primates who think that cave living was the ultimate in progress.

So, we ignore them. We keep them out of office and separated from responsibility.

While they loudly proclaim that they want to go backwards in time to when their ideas were relevant, we just move forward. Leave them here or whatever.

They are not our problem.