Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
If we are paying taxes to subsidize all this supposed free energy then I should start seeing a lower electric bill, but it hasn't happened. Also we are closer to being energy independent thanks to fracking, not solar power, or wind or whatever. Also like how that study conveniently stops right when the clean energy hype started. Why does it matter how many subsidies went to oil and gas at a time when oil and gas were the only forms of energy? Find me a more recent study like one from within the last year, otherwise it is irrelevant.
Last edited by Speaker; 2017-06-04 at 08:03 AM.
A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP. If you had bothered to look at the page I posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...05750X16304867 It all depends on what you consider to be a subsidy. Not charging for negative externalities could be a subsidy (ie: letting a power plant pollute for free) or just not collecting taxes on foreign profits could also be a subsidy. If you want to understand things it takes more than a quick glance at a forum post.
Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.
There is no such thing as free energy. Fracking is a big boost towards energy independence. In total energy, the U.S. was over 61% self-sufficient in 2013. There is a long ways to go. Fracking won't fill the rest because the price of wind and solar is dropping too fast and it's to difficult to get permits to frack in peoples back yards. It's short sighted to demand instant results and point to old technologies as a solution to new problems. Fracking is a band aid fix to a larger problem that will be solved by renewable energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...y_independence
Because there ain't money in green energy for the politicians.
At least part of the hard on people have for coal and oil comes down to nostalgia for the good old days and the critical role these fuel sources played in making America great the first time. The point they're missing though, is that it's not the specific form of energy that mattered, but the willingness of Americans to take risks and embrace what was at that time cutting edge technology rather than just going with what they knew.
And that (which isn't true, btw) has little to do with the argument about efficiency that was being made. I bet a wind turbine gets a hell of a lot more kWh per unit of coal input, though.
The point I was making it's meaningless to compare efficiency of two different energy conversion technologies unless they have the same input and the same output.
- - - Updated - - -
Did you know that iron for steelmaking can be made without coal or coke? Some (~5%) already is.
Last edited by Osmeric; 2017-06-04 at 01:45 PM.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
If you mean the good old days before the 1950s then I don't know if black lung, non-existent regulations and putting production over safety since it was cheaper to lose men than miss quota are things people should be that excited about. I'd hazard a guess and say that two of those three are still widely prevalent in the industry with black lung still being a common health risk.
Last edited by Triggered Fridgekin; 2017-06-04 at 01:53 PM.
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.
It is not bad. Its just a lie that it is viable and more cost efficient than coal (and other such energy).
Who needs signatures anyway?
Well, it must be a really REALLY widespread lie, given all the installations that are being made around the world.
Do you think Dubai is installing PV arrays because they had a sudden outbreak of stupid? Or are they being subsidized by the Illuminati?
India is canceling new coal projects at a stunning rate, going to PV instead.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7751916.html
“For the first time solar is cheaper than coal in India and the implications this has for transforming global energy markets is profound,” Mr Buckley said.
Last edited by Osmeric; 2017-06-04 at 02:00 PM.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
I saw someone insulting someone else over how "clean energy" can be stored for later use.
Which is weird, because I remember hearing that energy cannot ever be stored, or hoarded. It has to be produced for use.
Which makes me think about how any time someone talks about storing energy, like solar energy, they're really saying "We have a giant battery of Acidic Material, and we were able to charge it with this Solar Adapter." and that's stored energy, BUT its on a medium that isn't very environmentally friendly or reproductive.
So anyone who talks about "Solar energy is easy to harvest" seems to conveniently forget that it all has to be kept on a physical battery storage unit. The same kind as a car battery, only probably significantly larger, much more massive, and composed of components, in a factory, in a way and manner that's very harmful to the entire environment as a whole in expenditure. The processing of all those heavy and sensitive metals and alkaline and more chemicals...
And compared to this, you can just sump up and the store Natural Gas or Oil, or Coal. And burn that at leisure.
So yah. When I saw someone say "We want to maintain a healthy relationship with natural gas, oil, and coal" and then someone else says "Fucking we can store solar energy, it's all clean, unquestionably clean, you're an idiot" I often think that the person talking about solar energy is not to be trusted without question.
Clean energy isn't clean, and it's worse than normal because its founded on delusions. That's why clean energy is bad.
I don't think that number is accurate. The other thing is I don't think you are as knowledgeable about this subject as you claim to be. We don't use that much coal for energy today anyway, if we stopped using coal all together it would be disastrous for the economy. Are you stupid?
The 5% number? Look up "Direct Reduced Iron". This is iron produced by direct solid state reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron using reducing gases (mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). While some of this H2/CO comes from coal (primarily in India), most DRI is made with H2/CO derived from natural gas. The output of DRI is well suited for use in electric arc furnace minimills, of the kind Nucor had such success with in the US.
BTW: it takes a wind turbine about 10 months to offset the coal used in its construction, if you assume the steel and concrete were made using coal:
https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...-wind-turbine/
Last edited by Osmeric; 2017-06-04 at 02:11 PM.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
it angers people who see oil/coal as manly jobs.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"