Why are we worried about oil prices?

[Teri]

Thousands of windmills were built on both sides of the Columbia River. When driving along ithe river it would be a big surprise to see even half of them turning. They are tied into the real producers of electricity the Dams, and they are always producing. they use the same power lines and windmills have no way to "store" power, so depend on the Dams, when they are not working. Dams also use "renewable" energy to produce...water.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Lost in all the heated debates about Russia and its oil is the fact that solar and wind power are now cheaper than fossil fuels (oil and coal) Maybe it's time for the USA to drag itself into the 21st century, build its energy needs around clean, renewable solar and wind power and tell Russia, the Saudi's, oil companies, and the coal Barrons to go F-- themselves!

Has renewable energy become cheaper than fossil fuel?

One of the big arguments opponents of renewable energy sources like to toss up is that fossil fuels like coal and gas are cheaper alternatives. The other

www.energymatters.com.au

Then I suggest you remove the engine from your car, install a sail or solar panel, and let us all know how it goes!

 

[OKTexas]

I’m doing just fine the way things are. Super in fact…thanks for asking.

I guess you don't have a 401K. Enjoy if you do.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuels also have a big tax boost and subsidy from government.

You're lying.

 

[Hellbilly]

I guess you don't have a 401K.

I have a few sources of income.

 

[OKTexas]

I have a few sources of income.

What besides picking cans out of the trash?

.

 

[Hellbilly]

What besides picking cans out of the trash?

.

Well, let’s see. My regular job, royalties from my original bands albums money from playing 12 shows every month and teaching students the electric bass.
Don’t have much time for collecting cans.

 

[Donald H]

Well good thing I'm not here to enhance Canadians understanding of Texas energy tax policy.

In terms of success, Texas generates twice as much electricity from wind power as it does from burning coal. But half as much as it does from burning natural gas.

What's success or lack of, got to do with it. You've just shown that you're ignorant by not answering to the relevant questions.

First, there's no dollar figure.
Then there's no total expenditure figure and how that has to relate to a percentage in tax breaks.
And then too, it could be referring to an equal dollar figure?

Get back to me when your brain isn't so full.

 

[BluesLegend]

Demoquacks really can't grasp it's the economy


Parents struggling to find infant formula to feed children? WTF?

Bbbuut solar and windmills!!!!!!

Democrats brains are not capable of rational thought. This is why they are convinced none of their stupid policies that wreck the economy are responsible for wrecking the economy.

 

[BlindBoo]

What's success or lack of, got to do with it. You've just shown that you're ignorant by not answering to the relevant questions.



Get back to me when your brain isn't so full.

If those questions are relevant to you, look it up. In looking up the windfarms in Texas I happened upon a tidbit that said the reason Texas is leading the Nation in Wind energy generation is that that it give the same incentives to the Green energy producers and it does to the energy producers who use fossil fuel. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Clipper]

Electric cars use the equivalent of fossil energy as a car getting 29 mpg.
So electric cars do NOT pollute less, but more than all the cars like VW and Honda, that get closer to 40 mpg.

Not using mass transit over covid was stupid.
Since covid has a mortality risk as low as flu, we should actually have wanted it to spread quickly so we could have achieved herd immunity in the first month, and save 700.000 lives that we deliberately killed by making it last for years instead.

What they should do, is just make mass transit free by making every one subsidize it in their taxes.

It was estimated that 2 million people would have died TRYING to achieve herd immunity.

That sounds really deliberate.

 

[Donald H]

If those questions are relevant to you, look it up. In looking up the windfarms in Texas I happened upon a tidbit that said the reason Texas is leading the Nation in Wind energy generation is that that it give the same incentives to the Green energy producers and it does to the energy producers who use fossil fuel. Take it with a grain of salt.

There's still nothing you've said that I need to take with a grain of salt. Why not STFU until you can answer?

 

[BlindBoo]

There's still nothing you've said that I need to take with a grain of salt. Why not STFU until you can answer?

I'm not your answer machine. You want to know something, look it up yourself.

 

[Rigby5]

Fossil fuels also have a big tax boost and subsidy from government. The truth is in the details, that haven't been established here. Secondary to the debate but perhaps becoming the primary deciding factor.

I doubt you're speaking from an engineering POV. There is energy conversion to factor in with fossil fuels, as well as several other factors that don't apply to solar/wind. There is loss to consider with converting solar/wind to electrical energy. Computing 'loss' for fossil as compared to solar/wind hasn't even been addressed by you. You referring to converting electric through solar/wind, back to kinetic energy is fictional and irrelevant in this conversation. That's an example of you trying to talk below my pay grade. When the power gets to the meter there's no distinction!

So consider this if you're serious about the discussion: Compute the 'loss' for all three energy sources, starting with in the ground for all three and report back with facts. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
{yes, I mean 'in the ground' for solar and wind too) Solar panels and wind generators aren't free.

I could agree with caution. But that's taking it to a whole new level above the computations I've challenged you to produce, because you're making assumptions on supply and demand.

One thing we can agree upon is the fact that solar/wind can't yet replace fossile fuel energy. If there's anything else we can agree upon, you can let me know. But you're going to have to stop making uneducated assumptions on the costs of energy conversions factors.

No, you are wrong.
I have degrees in engineering and physics.

First of all you are wrong that fossil fuels have tax boosts and subsidies from the government.
It is the exact opposite, with fossil fuels being heavily taxed, like fuel road tax and coal power plant emissions taxes.
While solar and wind are the ones with all the tax breaks and subsidies.

Any engineer will tell you electric is extremely inefficient, with huge losses in conversion to create electricity from mechanical energy, transmission, storage, and conversion back to mechanical.
I don't want to bother getting into details, but anyone who ever owned a home will tell you that electric heat or electric hot water heaters will cost you over twice as much as combustion furnaces or hot water heaters.
Batteries only add more inefficient layers even, to what originally was extremely inefficient.

And even as far as emissions, the main source of energy for electricity is still coal, and will likely always remain coal, as oil and gas rapidly run out. (We have less than 50 years of gas/oil, while 500 years worth of coal.)
Any ICE car getting over 29 mpg is polluting less than an electric car.

 

[Rigby5]

I believe Texas gives the same type tax breaks to all energy producers in the state. We lead in Fossil fuel and Wind energy.

Not at all true.
Fossil energy producers get additional taxes, not tax breaks.
Only solar and wind get tax breaks.
You might be getting confused over the amount fossil fuel companies are allowed to write off for exploration, or that they are sold mineral rights on federal land, at absurdly low rates?

 

[Rigby5]

It was estimated that 2 million people would have died TRYING to achieve herd immunity.

That sounds really deliberate.

Actually Fauci claimed the lethality rate was around 2%, so would have required 2.4 million deaths.
There are many reasons he was wrong.
One is that most infected were asymptomatic, so did not get tested or counted.
Another is that those over 70 were 400 times more likely to die then those under 40, so deliberately infecting those under 40 while quarantining those over 70, would have ended it in a month, with a factor of 400 fewer deaths than Fauci claimed.
To achieve herd immunity, you need 70% of 330 million to get infected.
That results in 231 million infected.
The lethality is actually much lower than 1%, but even if you divide the 231 million by 100, you get 2.31 million dead.
But if you take age into account and only allow those under 40 to get infected, then you divide by 400, and get less than 6,000 dead.

I would not let Fauci held a kid with his high school story problems.

 

[Donald H]

No, you are wrong.
I have degrees in engineering and physics.

We'll see what I'm wrong about.

First of all you are wrong that fossil fuels have tax boosts and subsidies from the government.
It is the exact opposite, with fossil fuels being heavily taxed, like fuel road tax and coal power plant emissions taxes.
While solar and wind are the ones with all the tax breaks and subsidies.

I'm surprised you would challenge this.

Unpacking Canada’s Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Fossil fuel subsidies hold us back and incentivize pollution. How much do Canada's governments subsidize fossil fuels, and why does it matter?

www.iisd.org

I'm a bit pressed for time so that's for Canada. The US later if you still insist. Green is also subsidized.

Any engineer will tell you electric is extremely inefficient, with huge losses in conversion to create electricity from mechanical energy, transmission, storage, and conversion back to mechanical.

You're missing the point. Electric energy produced by all three is the same. The 'losses' getting there are the question. And so wind/solar cost from the 'ground' up must be considered. (metal mining and material cost. As applies to fossil fuels. If you're the engineer, you can do the calculations. And of course all the other considerations that I shouldn't need to inform an engineer about. As I told you, once it's at the meter it's the same.

I don't want to bother getting into details, but anyone who ever owned a home will tell you that electric heat or electric hot water heaters will cost you over twice as much as combustion furnaces or hot water heaters.

First off, the POV of the consumer is not the measure, simply because of rates being applied.
No, not exactly true, and mostly false. I heat my house with an electric heat pump. You did say you were an engineer? What engineer would be limited to baseboard heaters as an example?

Batteries only add more inefficient layers even, to what originally was extremely inefficient.

Batteries pros and cons are only partially applicable to this discussion. If you're an engineer you don't need to be told why. But if you reply, you better bloody well get it right. You really blew it with the electric heat example!

And even as far as emissions, the main source of energy for electricity is still coal, and will likely always remain coal, as oil and gas rapidly run out. (We have less than 50 years of gas/oil, while 500 years worth of coal.)

Wrong. In the US other energy sources will take over the majority of the demand and in Canada Hydro energy has. It's a moot point not worth including in this discussion IMO.

Any ICE car getting over 29 mpg is polluting less than an electric car.

I'll accept that with caution. A lot of caution, but I can't dig into it and give it justice with thorough research right now.

Glad to have the chance to discuss the issues with you. It's turned out for me that I only see the rest as ignorant and arrogant fuks. (with very few exceptions. I'm going to get down to business!

 

[Clipper]

Actually Fauci claimed the lethality rate was around 2%, so would have required 2.4 million deaths.
There are many reasons he was wrong.
One is that most infected were asymptomatic, so did not get tested or counted.
Another is that those over 70 were 400 times more likely to die then those under 40, so deliberately infecting those under 40 while quarantining those over 70, would have ended it in a month, with a factor of 400 fewer deaths than Fauci claimed.
To achieve herd immunity, you need 70% of 330 million to get infected.
That results in 231 million infected.
The lethality is actually much lower than 1%, but even if you divide the 231 million by 100, you get 2.31 million dead.
But if you take age into account and only allow those under 40 to get infected, then you divide by 400, and get less than 6,000 dead.

I would not let Fauci held a kid with his high school story problems.

Nice try. For one thing if one factor in your equation doesn't pan out all hell breaks loose. It is impossible to predict with any certainty how many people would be infected.

And what makes you think that those under 40 would line up to be deliberately infected? You'd be lucky to see anyone under 40 give up their seat on a bus to a 90 year old woman holding on for dear life.

 

[Rigby5]

We'll see what I'm wrong about.

I'm surprised you would challenge this.

Unpacking Canada’s Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Fossil fuel subsidies hold us back and incentivize pollution. How much do Canada's governments subsidize fossil fuels, and why does it matter?

www.iisd.org

I'm a bit pressed for time so that's for Canada. The US later if you still insist. Green is also subsidized.

You're missing the point. Electric energy produced by all three is the same. The 'losses' getting there are the question. And so wind/solar cost from the 'ground' up must be considered. (metal mining and material cost. As applies to fossil fuels. If you're the engineer, you can do the calculations. And of course all the other considerations that I shouldn't need to inform an engineer about. As I told you, once it's at the meter it's the same.

First off, the POV of the consumer is not the measure, simply because of rates being applied.
No, not exactly true, and mostly false. I heat my house with an electric heat pump. You did say you were an engineer? What engineer would be limited to baseboard heaters as an example?


Batteries pros and cons are only partially applicable to this discussion. If you're an engineer you don't need to be told why. But if you reply, you better bloody well get it right. You really blew it with the electric heat example!

Wrong. In the US other energy sources will take over the majority of the demand and in Canada Hydro energy has. It's a moot point not worth including in this discussion IMO.

I'll accept that with caution. A lot of caution, but I can't dig into it and give it justice with thorough research right now.

Glad to have the chance to discuss the issues with you. It's turned out for me that I only see the rest as ignorant and arrogant fuks. (with very few exceptions. I'm going to get down to business!

You are wrong.
Your link is to a propaganda piece in my opinion, and it is falsely claiming tax write offs are subsidies.
{...That includes measures like special tax deductions and direct cash transfers that governments provide to fossil fuel companies. ...}
Those "special tax deductions" are essential to any oil company, because they pay for all the millions spent looking for oil, when the results are negative. That is NOT a subsidy, but a normal write off for the cost of doing business.
And the government does NOT give any oil company any "direct cash transfer".
What happens is actually the other way around, in that the oil companies give the government cash for leasing oil land, and the subsidy is the reduction in how much the oil company is forced to pay.

And "once it is at the meter" has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with anything.
The POINT is that ICE is over 3 times more efficient and about 30% cleaner than EV.
Electric is NOT at all efficient or good, for almost anything.
Fossil fuel is the way to go whenever possible.
For example, do NOT heat your home, heat your water, or run your stove on electricity.
That is incredibly wasteful.
Burning fossil fuel is half the price, more efficient, and cleaner than using electricity.
You are never going to see electric planes, trains, ships, or even large trucks, because electric is just so incredibly inefficient.

Heatpumps are good, but require a source of heat and cooling that is not supplied by electricity.
So they do not always work everywhere, are expensive, and are much more complex to install.
They work best when near a body of water.
Heat pumps do not use electricity for the heating and cooling energy.
They just use electricity to move the existing heat around.

And you totally have it wrong.
If you can use hydro to provide enough electricity when wind and solar do not work, then there is ZERO point in bothering with solar or wind.
The only point in doing solar and wind if you have fossil fuel electrical production, then you can save a little bit on fuel costs. You still need enough fossil fuel electrical production for the worst case scenario, which is no wind, at night.
So you can not decommission any fossil fuel power plants because of solar or wind.

 

[Rigby5]

Nice try. For one thing if one factor in your equation doesn't pan out all hell breaks loose. It is impossible to predict with any certainty how many people would be infected.

And what makes you think that those under 40 would line up to be deliberately infected? You'd be lucky to see anyone under 40 give up their seat on a bus to a 90 year old woman holding on for dear life.

Wrong.
This is how all pathogen epidemic though out hundreds of millions of years of evolution, have come and gone with minimal effect.
What Fauci did, flattening the curve, was to prevent herd immunity and thus amplify the number of dead by at least a factor of 10. And in fact Fauci is now talking about there being a need for annual covid-19 shots.

The under 40 year old's all wanted to get infected deliberately.
That is why they wanted to go out and party, and the police had to use force in order to prevent them.

Read up on how General Washington prevented a Smallpox outbreak in 1777.
What he did was deliberate infection of the entirely Continental Army.
{...
In February 1777, Washington told Continental Congress president John Hancock that he saw no other way to prevent the spread of the disease than to inoculate the whole army. By the end of the year, variolation had been performed on about 40,000 soldiers, and infection rates plummeted from 20 percent to a measly 1 percent.
...}

One Vaccination, Under God: When George Washington Kept a Smallpox Epidemic From Costing Him the American Revolution

Smallpox vaccination was banned in America during the Revolutionary War, but George Washington was determined to protect his army no matter what.

www.mentalfloss.com

Vaccines had not been invented yet, for another 20 years or so, and variolation means deliberate infection with Smallpox.