God will save us from climate change

[bloodyminded]

I see no difference between this guy and Al Gore or any other CAWG doom peddler. Both are religious fanatics. However, this guy deserves some credit for acknowledging his views are purely based on religious belief system. Al Gore and other CAGW doom peddlers insist on pretending that their views have some connection to rational thought.

No. Those who believe in religion at this level do think their "religious belief system" is fact-based and rational.

[dre]

I see no difference between this guy and Al Gore or any other CAWG doom peddler. Both are religious fanatics.

I see no difference between those guys and you.

[TimG]

Well Xcel Energy disagrees

Take a way the subsidies and renewable mandates I guarantee he would change his tune.

From your own link:

Once Xcel executives began to come to terms with the new rules, they discovered that federal tax credits made wind power affordable.

The fact is milking the rate payers is extremely profitable if you can find politicians that are willing to collude with you.

Edited November 13, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Take a way the subsidies and renewable mandates I guarantee he would change his tune.

From your own link:

The fact is milking the rate payers is extremely profitable if you can find politicians that are willing to collude with you.

The fact is renewable energy companies are not the only ones milking the rate payers.

[TimG]

I see no difference between those guys and you.

Pretty rich for some one who would happily piss trillions down the drain because it *might* accidently result is some technology that *might* be useful in the future. Nothing rational about that logic. Edited November 13, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

The fact is renewable energy companies are not the only ones milking the rate payers.

Renewable energy companies are the only companies where consumers are forced to by their product at several times the market rate.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Take a way the subsidies and renewable mandates I guarantee he would change his tune.

From your own link:

The fact is milking the rate payers is extremely profitable if you can find politicians that are willing to collude with you.

Take away the subsidies from oil and natural gas companies and the same would happen. Cut subsidies for both and I guarantee you renewables will come out ahead because oil companies get more subsidies than renewables.

My link

Renewable energy companies are the only companies where consumers are forced to by their product at several times the market rate.

You are full of crap.

In any event I'll take subsidies on wind farms and the like over fossil fuels because wind farms don't have the potential to ruin the local economy.

Edited November 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[CANADIEN]

No way! Really??

God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative

Well it's a damned good thing this Republican got in, now isn't it? Good thing it wasn't some crazy person.

Let's do whatever we want and Divine Providence will take care of us anyway. Yeah right. Reminds me of a story: a priest is writing a sermon about Divine Providence when the dam above his village bursts. Three times people pass by his house and beg him to climb on their boat but he refuses because Divine Provicence will save him. He drowns. In Heaven, he demands to know why God did nothing and God responds: "Shut up you idiot. I sent you three boats".

In other words, a believer believes that God will save him/her. A fool believes that God will save him/her from himself/herself.

[Who's Doing What?]

Just who the heck is this GOD person everyone keeps talkng about?

HE got a facebook page or twitter account or something?

[CANADIEN]

Just who the heck is this GOD person everyone keeps talkng about?

HE got a facebook page or twitter account or something?

He doesn't. Which right there is proof of his infinite wisdom

[TimG]

Take away the subsidies from oil and natural gas companies and the same would happen. Cut subsidies for both and I guarantee you renewables will come out ahead because oil companies get more subsidies than renewables.

To are so uninformed it is scary. No wonder you buy into this renewable garbage.

It is meaningless to compare the total value of subsidies because renewables are a TINY fraction of the power we consume. To compare subsidies you must compare the subsidy per BTU per KWh.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/11/phasing_out_fossil_fuel_subsid.shtml

If renewables account for a 7% share of global energy energy demand, and receive $57 billion in subsidies, that's $8.14 billion for each percentage share of global demand.

In contrast, fossil fuels supply about 83% of the global energy mix (nuclear accounts for the remaining 6%, according to the IEA) and receive $312 billion in subsidies according to the IEA, for $3.76 billion per percentage share of global energy supplied.

In other words renewables receive more than double the subsidy rate per unit of energy supplied as fossil fuels.

When you consider that hydropower and biomass, which rarely require or receive subsidy, account for the vast share of global renewable energy production, the relative subsidy rate for wind, solar and other renewables per unit of energy produced is much higher.

Note that the op I linked is more optimistic that I am about the prospects for renewables in the long term.

In any event I'll take subsidies on wind farms and the like over fossil fuels because wind farms don't have the potential to ruin the local economy.

Wind farms supported by high taxes and/or high electricty bills will ruin the local economy as important industries move to places where there the politicians are not so brain dead stupid. Edited November 14, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

To are so uninformed it is scary. No wonder you buy into this renewable garbage.

It is meaningless to compare the total value of subsidies because renewables are a TINY fraction of the power we consume. To compare subsidies you must compare the subsidy per BTU per KWh.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/11/phasing_out_fossil_fuel_subsid.shtml

Note that the op I linked is more optimistic that I am about the prospects for renewables in the long term.

The numbers that that articles uses don't agree with the numbers I have for subsidies given to renewables or fossil fuels. Interesting.

And the numbers I've got here puts renewables at 10% of all electricity.

Maybe I should find something that compares specific ways of generating electricity, like wind and oil, rather than generic renewable and non-renewable.

Wind farms supported by high taxes and/or high electricty bills will ruin the local economy as important industries move to places where there the politicians are not so brain dead stupid.

Denmark has a lot of renewables and is considered one of the best places in the world to do business.

[dre]

Pretty rich for some one who would happily piss trillions down the drain because it *might* accidently result is some technology that *might* be useful in the future. Nothing rational about that logic.

You would have said the exact same thing about investing in electronic math machines, nuclear technology, or the space program.

And claiming tha tI want to "piss trillions down the drain because it *might* accidently result is some technology" is just a dumb-ass straw man anyways.

[Bonam]

You could say the exact same thing about nuclear energy or virtually any source.

Wind and solar are in their R&D and proof of concept phase which is exactly when a technology SHOULD be subsidized.

That's not really true. Both wind and solar are well-developed technologies. Though research continues to make improvements in efficiency in solar energy, the concept has long since been proven. As for wind, it is a fully developed technology, there is not much to setting up a big fan that spins due to wind and causes a dynamo to rotate and produce electricity. Efficiencies of wind turbines can only increase very very marginally from where they are now, and costs will shrink only due to the effects of economies of scale, not due to technical refinement and simplification.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

Just who the heck is this GOD person everyone keeps talkng about?

HE got a facebook page or twitter account or something?

Try his blog - Obama.com

The planet is beginning to heal and the nation is being fundamentally transformed. Amen.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Pliny

[Guest TrueMetis]

That's not really true. Both wind and solar are well-developed technologies. Though research continues to make improvements in efficiency in solar energy, the concept has long since been proven. As for wind, it is a fully developed technology, there is not much to setting up a big fan that spins due to wind and causes a dynamo to rotate and produce electricity. Efficiencies of wind turbines can only increase very very marginally from where they are now, and costs will shrink only due to the effects of economies of scale, not due to technical refinement and simplification.

Well with a better transmission structure the efficiency of wind (and all energy sources) should increase a lot.

[TimG]

You would have said the exact same thing about investing in electronic math machines, nuclear technology, or the space program.

I am no problems with subsidies for R&D or for limited scope things like the space program. I draw the line at subsidies for production/consumption because such subsidies distort the economy and are not scalable.

"piss trillions down the drain because it *might* accidently result is some technology"

It is your argument for CO2 regulations. You have made it clear that you will put up with any amount waste, abuse or nonsense done under the name of "CO2 reductions" because it might have some postive side effect. If you disagree then explain what anti-CO2 reduction policies you oppose.

[TimG]

Well with a better transmission structure the efficiency of wind (and all energy sources) should increase a lot.

Dream on. What is need is mass storage like the hydro dams in Sweden which Denmark depends on. The trouble is there is only so much low cost storage capacity and that imposes an upper limit on how much unreliable wind a grid can absorb.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Dream on. What is need is mass storage like the hydro dams in Sweden which Denmark depends on. The trouble is there is only so much low cost storage capacity and that imposes an upper limit on how much unreliable wind a grid can absorb.

Yes I will dream about not having a faulty 100 year old electrical grid. As for storage there are many options, one potential one I found intriguing involves electric cars.

[Pliny]

It is meaningless to compare the total value of subsidies because renewables are a TINY fraction of the power we consume. To compare subsidies you must compare the subsidy per BTU per KWh.

Wind farms supported by high taxes and/or high electricty bills will ruin the local economy as important industries move to places where there the politicians are not so brain dead stupid.

Taxation is what should be considered I think. Non-renewable energy sources are heavily taxed so are not about to disappear overnight without replacing lost revenues.

Oil companies basically pay for their own subsidies. Their subsidies should be considered to be more as tax reductions than subsidies. They are not subsidies to "subsidize" their sustainability as is the case with wind or solar companies.

[dre]

That's not really true. Both wind and solar are well-developed technologies. Though research continues to make improvements in efficiency in solar energy, the concept has long since been proven. As for wind, it is a fully developed technology, there is not much to setting up a big fan that spins due to wind and causes a dynamo to rotate and produce electricity. Efficiencies of wind turbines can only increase very very marginally from where they are now, and costs will shrink only due to the effects of economies of scale, not due to technical refinement and simplification.

The concepts have been proven but in terms of capital investment these technologies are very much in their infancy and R&D stage.

As for wind, it is a fully developed technology, there is not much to setting up a big fan that spins due to wind and causes a dynamo to rotate and produce electricity. Efficiencies of wind turbines can only increase very very marginally from where they are now, and costs will shrink only due to the effects of economies of scale, not due to technical refinement and simplification.

Haha not even close. The cost of wind energy has come down nearly 10 fold in the last 15 years or so, as a result of capital investment and r&d. Ongoing research includes everything from the types of materials used, increasing the size and output of turbines, building them offshore, and builing offshore turbines that float (and many many other things). Theres also lots of research being done on grid intertie systems and storage capacity that will allow power systems to operate using fluctuating energy sources.

and costs will shrink only due to the effects of economies of scale, not due to technical refinement and simplification.

Initial subsidies and pilot programs are an essential part of creating economies of scale, and as I said capital investment is rapidly bringing down prices. But research on the technology itself has also brought down costs and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

[dre]

I am no problems with subsidies for R&D or for limited scope things like the space program. I draw the line at subsidies for production/consumption because such subsidies distort the economy and are not scalable.

It is your argument for CO2 regulations. You have made it clear that you will put up with any amount waste, abuse or nonsense done under the name of "CO2 reductions" because it might have some postive side effect. If you disagree then explain what anti-CO2 reduction policies you oppose.

I draw the line at subsidies for production/consumption because such subsidies distort the economy and are not scalable.

Subsidies on those things early on are just part of how we have developed technology for many decades. I dont mind as long theres some sort of sunset clause on them... and the reality is that other energy sources still receive subsidies to this day. Even though some of them have been around for almost a hundred years.

You have made it clear that you will put up with any amount waste, abuse or nonsense done under the name of "CO2 reductions" because it might have some postive side effect.

Why dont you show me where I said that or admit youre lying through your teeth? Theres a RECORD of what people say on here you know... you cant make stuff up. And you know full well that isnt my position at all.

[Bonam]

The concepts have been proven but in terms of capital investment these technologies are very much in their infancy and R&D stage.

What you mean to say is that they have not yet capitalized on the available market, that is, more capital investment in the future is likely. This has nothing to do with being in their "infancy" in terms of R&D.

Haha not even close. The cost of wind energy has come down nearly 10 fold in the last 15 years or so, as a result of capital investment and r&d. Ongoing research includes everything from the types of materials used, increasing the size and output of turbines, building them offshore, and builing offshore turbines that float (and many many other things). Theres also lots of research being done on grid intertie systems and storage capacity that will allow power systems to operate using fluctuating energy sources.

Look of course as technology in general improves, all our varous ways of generating energy will improve. Better materials mean improvements across the board in all kinds of technologies. Bigger size also means bigger cost. Offshore building is already being carried out, this is not research. Energy storage is another technology that is constantly improving and in R&D and will also bring many benefits as it continues to improve, its applications to wind energy just one of them. Wind power itself is as mature a technology as any other power source. Coal and oil power, too, can continue to benefit from technological advance, but that doesn't mean they are not mature technologies.

Initial subsidies and pilot programs are an essential part of creating economies of scale, and as I said capital investment is rapidly bringing down prices. But research on the technology itself has also brought down costs and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

I agree, investment will help to create economies of scale and lower the price. The question is whether there is any point to trying to create such economies for wind. From my point of view, we'd be much better off spending all that money on more nuclear power. Wind power is a far bigger blot on the environment, marring the natural beauty of mountain ridges, coastlines, and other areas where wind can be reliably found, among its other environmental impacts. Not to mention that it will be impractical to ever supply a large fraction of our energy needs using wind. Nuclear, on the other hand, could easily provide all the world's electrical energy needs. And that is a technology that really can benefit hugely from continued research and development, not just in terms of general things like power grids and materials, but the reactor technology itself. We have not tapped even a tiny fraction of the potential of nuclear energy.

[dre]

I am no problems with subsidies for R&D or for limited scope things like the space program. I draw the line at subsidies for production/consumption because such subsidies distort the economy and are not scalable.

It is your argument for CO2 regulations. You have made it clear that you will put up with any amount waste, abuse or nonsense done under the name of "CO2 reductions" because it might have some postive side effect. If you disagree then explain what anti-CO2 reduction policies you oppose.

If you disagree then explain what anti-CO2 reduction policies you oppose.

Thats a bait and switch. You claim I "argue for c02 regulations" then attempt to prove that point by asking which ones I oppose? That kind of logical fallacy doesnt warrant a response. Besides Iv made my position on this clear over and over again. In general I dont think the policies thus far are very good, and I dont think the world has taken the issue very seriously. But... whats happened so far has resulted in a massive increase in energy research not only in new technology but in energy technology in general and has opened peoples minds to things like nuclear energy, clean coal, wind, solar, etc. So Ill take it... whether or not I feel the individual policies are the best course of action or not.

Id personally rather see the ALL-IN type of public/private partnership that won us WW2 and the coldwar. As opposed to pissing around with things like c&t. But I dont write policy...

[Guest TrueMetis]

I agree, investment will help to create economies of scale and lower the price. The question is whether there is any point to trying to create such economies for wind. From my point of view, we'd be much better off spending all that money on more nuclear power. Wind power is a far bigger blot on the environment, marring the natural beauty of mountain ridges, coastlines, and other areas where wind can be reliably found, among its other environmental impacts. Not to mention that it will be impractical to ever supply a large fraction of our energy needs using wind. Nuclear, on the other hand, could easily provide all the world's electrical energy needs. And that is a technology that really can benefit hugely from continued research and development, not just in terms of general things like power grids and materials, but the reactor technology itself. We have not tapped even a tiny fraction of the potential of nuclear energy.

Bonam the effect of "marred natural beauty" is subjective I happen to think that Wind generators have their own beauty. And the environmental impact is tiny (I assume your talking about birds and bats running into the blades. While more Nuclear should be built it takes years for a new nuclear reactor to be built, and if something tiny goes wrong even if it can be fixed there's a large chance the whole thing will be scrapped. (which speaks to a certain amount of bureaucracy that needs to be dealt with) We should be building multiple sources for our energy demands, focusing to much on one source is what got us in this problem in the first place.