Comments
DannyBlind t1_ixlaiuf wrote
Ethanol is a good replacement for fossil fuels since it has a high energy density, keeps long and it burns cleaner. However, as you said, it is still garbage compared to alternatives. Cover every roof, nay, replace every roof with solar panels. Make offshore windfarms and build nuclear thorium reactors for a proper baseline.
How ethanol got labeled the same as solar- or windpower is still beyond me
Lightning_Lance t1_ixm5v5x wrote
Because lobbying ofc.. It's also made from corn iirc and those farms are not sustainable. But tbh I don't fully remember what I've read about it, I just remember the general sense of ethanol being a bad idea.
FantasmaNaranja t1_ixm76vc wrote
well if they arent sustainable then why does the US goverment subsidize so much of it thus making the problem far worse! surely the goverment wouldnt fuck up the enviroment for the sake of profitability right? /s
[deleted] t1_ixnzqth wrote
[removed]
genasugelan t1_ixm6y36 wrote
Same way natural gas got labelled green in the EU.
tuc-eert t1_ixmtlsm wrote
To be fair, natural gas is quite green emissions wise if you stop all the methane leakages.
Able-Fun2874 t1_iy5r5bq wrote
See that if is unfortunately the big issue. We won't.
MaximilianCrichton t1_iy788ln wrote
Your comment could do with apostrophes around the 'if', I had to read this quite a few times
_Wyrm_ t1_ixno8cw wrote
The primary argument I hear against nuclear is always waste disposal i.e gotta put the spent fuel somewhere...
But the footprint for storage is smaller than most other shit, considering the power density and relative efficiency of nuclear to begin with
DannyBlind t1_ixqgfru wrote
Thats why I specified thorium reactors. The fuel gets depleted to such an extend that waste is practically a non issue as it is exponentially less than conventional nuclear
[deleted] t1_ixmbrob wrote
Renewables are absolutely better than ethanol and fossil fuels, and I think the final step to sustainability is dramatically scaling back consumption (from the production side i.e. out with planned obsolescence, the mass marketing and creation of unnecessary goods etc)
Unfortunately solar panels have a productive lifespan of 25-30 years, and require a lot of destructive mining to procure the necessary metals. Every renewable has its environmental downside (still better than the status quo), meaning a truly sustainable baseline can only be achieved by cutting back on our habits that call for such high energy needs (mostly in manufacturing).
I think we can do it. :)
DannyBlind t1_ixqk81i wrote
Disclaimer: i kind of went off on a rant there, but in my excuse, im passionate about this shit because I've been active into environmentalism for the last 20 years. Strap in, it's going to be a long one. Also please don't take anything i say personally, that is not my intention.
>(...) require a lot of destructive mining to procure the necessary metals.
I always hear the argument from bad faith actors, not that you are one but please double check your info and their sources. This argument gets tauted for batteries aswell.
Now I don't argue that the mining and refinement process is not polluting, on the contrary, it's pretty damn destructive.
HOWEVER, are people really arguing that extracting the nessecary minerals from litteral rock and dirt is more cost effective than taking the worn materials (ie: solar panels or batteries) and refine those back into useable minerals?
In addition we have the alternatives: oil/coal/gas. Burning these produces a shitton of pollutants other than CO2! A buddy of mine worked as a safety council in regards to nuclear waste. His work was making sure that all materials salvaged from a decommissioned nuclear reactor didnt exceed a certain radiation threshold. They had to stop multiple times because the coal powerplant, a bit xurther away, caused so much extra background radiation that it would exceed the thresholds by over 10x!
Also, that is just burning the garbage. Now lets talk about the procurement of said fossil fuels. Sure mining cobalt is pretty bad, but how many oil spills happened in recent memory? How big was the scale of the affected area and how bad were their repercussions?
Thats just oil, what about the coal mines? The workers have a massive increase in risk of cancer, if the don't die of blacklung that is. Also what do we do with depleted mines? We abandon them. We cant fill them with water due to risk of contamination of the water table (heavy metals like mercury, lead or arsenic/the chemicals that might've been used during extraction). We might use them for storage, but that costs too much money so we leave them as is.
Now we can talk about natural gas. Sure it burns cleaner, but storage and transport is a massive issue. In addition it is more cost effective to not fix leaks and just pay the fines due to massive lobbying. This releases multiple metric fucktons of raw methane into the air. If memory serves me right, methane is roughly 32x worse than CO2. But it degrades, no worries! Into CO2...
Individuals cutting back on their consumerism is a fraction of a drop in an ocean. For example what dafuq does it matter if I half my waste output, for 2 garbage bags a week to 1, while an average mcdonalds produces a container of garbage per day? What difference does it make if i take a bike to work instead of my car while international shipping starts burning bunker oil (that is such dirty fuel that it needs to be preheated to 40C before its even liquid!) as soon as they touch international waters? Why does it matter if i take shorter showers while the argicultural sector uses over 40% of all potable water that they pollute after use because of massive over fertilisation?
Now people will argue: "but all these problems exist because of peoples consumerism!" No it doesn't. The individual gets the choice between a bad option and a worse option. The only real short term solutions is a carbon tax, sweeping legislation and a massive clamp down on political corruption and industries across the board while improving international relationships so everybody starts getting their shit together!
[deleted] t1_ixqmsz1 wrote
We agree with each other.
I guess I'm using the word consumerism less as an individual practice, and more as a culturally accepted state of the world. To me, that state of the world of course implicates the companies you listed such as McDonalds, and the idea that we need all of that international shipping you mentioned. While i think it's naïve to remove individual humans from sustainability, after all, our consumption habits in the Global North will in fact have to change for a more sustainable future. We also though indeed don't individually have the power to change it, it must be initiated far earlier in the chain. Environmentalists have been traumatized by "consumerism" being weaponized by highly-polluting companies to shift blame to individuals, and that's disingenuous of companies, but removed from that political context we must be sober-minded about how we are a part of consumerism. I find it equally disingenuous when people paint a picture of companies making changes, our lives (in rich countries) being largely unaffected, and the world subsequently healing. Our lives will be affected because if the planet consumed the way the US does, we'd have already run out of planet.
You pose the harms of mining against the harms of fossil fuels, but that's not what was happening in my head. The harms of fossil fuels are a given and out of the question. I think about the harms of mining vs not mining (as much as possible) and not burning fossil fuels.
World A: Status quo - very bad
World B: Consumption and energy needs stay the same, but we use renewable energy - bad
World C: Consumption and energy needs go way down, and we use renewables for what's left that is required - good.
Note on refining metals from used products back into usable materials, that's so good, but still not ideal if paired with current consumption and energy needs. Not having to mine more for a new solar panel would be cool, but that solar panel would still fuck with the environment the way solar panels, and wind, and hydroelectric, and geothermal, currently do. That's why less all around is preferable. I really fuck with Degrowth as an economic policy, rather than "Green Growth." I recommend Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis as excellent scholars that have written a lot of super accessible and persuasive stuff on the subject.
Edit: Formatting on mobile
DannyBlind t1_ixrrimp wrote
Refreshing to see a constructive argument on reddit these days.
I agree with your points however i am more cynical as a person. In my eyes your arguments are too idealistic. Humans are greedy. It will be extremely hard to shift an entire society to consuming to such a less extend that your vision becomes reality.
That is to say that my vision is also verly idealistic but I think better achievable. I see the mining more as a bad investment that makes up for it in the long run as the pollution is more localised and therefore easier to deal with. In addition it puts less emphasis on the production of fossil fuels.
We already see this with the recent mass adoption of electric cars and covid. Fossil fuel prices went down across the board making it less tempting to upscale production. On the contrary, it helped downscale production. I think continuing this trend is the key
96vette t1_ixmhx3m wrote
Nuclear fusion is the answer.
DannyBlind t1_ixql3zd wrote
No it's not. Nuclear fusion, as it stands, is a pipedream. Nuclear fusion has been 20 years away from being successful for the last 60 years! We need answers now! They might not be as great as the, theoretical, nuclear fusion but we need a solution 20 years ago. Second best time is now
96vette t1_ixr38u3 wrote
Nuclear fission reactors should have been replacing coal fired power plants 30 years ago. Instead we got “no nukes” and global warming. Currently billions of dollars are being invested in fusion development by private equity and wealthy individuals. This is a good sign that fusion power is going to happen, sooner than you think. In the meantime, solar and wind are a good stepping stone to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
DannyBlind t1_ixs6vry wrote
I am a relatively pessimistic person, so i want a solution now, while we wait for fusion to be realistic. I have to say, i hope i am wrong and you are right
96vette t1_ixwmh62 wrote
There is no adequate solution right now.
[deleted] t1_ixmqkw2 wrote
[removed]
Artistic_Leg2872 t1_ixptu8h wrote
But at least ethanol binds some CO2 as well
DannyBlind t1_ixqg99f wrote
But if you burn it, it doesn't do much in the end...
SantiJamesF t1_ixn0y09 wrote
Covering every rooth with solar panels is quite literally impossible. Wind energy is also horrible for the environment as when ever it gets too windy, it has to be shut off or it's motor will combust. That ain't even the main issue, it's the fact it's killing thousands of endangered birds every year, and tens of thousands of non endangered birds. Solar has also been killing birds that fly over the solar farms, getting fried by the intensified sunlight reflected off of panels.
_Wyrm_ t1_ixnpkzh wrote
>Solar has also been killing birds that fly over the solar farms, getting fried by the intensified sunlight reflected off of panels.
Solar farms work differently than solar panels. Farms reflect light to a collection point (which means these alleged birds would need to fly into the focal area), whereas panels turn light directly into energy.
In addition, solar farms are typically in barren sections of land. Birds would not typically land or even fly low enough in these areas to put themselves in harm's way. Even if they did, the very small area they'd need to pass through to be instantly taken out of the air is so close to the collection site there's not really any point talking about it.
>Covering every rooth with solar panels is quite literally impossible.
Says who? Big Coal?
>Wind energy is also horrible for the environment as when ever it gets too windy, it has to be shut off or it's motor will combust.
...And that's horrible for the environment how exactly? It's a built-in automatic safety in like every windmill that's out there. Why do you think shutting down a windmill in high wind is bad for the environment? Are you high?
>That ain't even the main issue, it's the fact it's killing thousands of endangered birds every year, and tens of thousands of non endangered birds.
Wind turbines account for less than 1 in 4000 bird deaths. You can give flat numbers, but the statistics don't lie. Though I can't find a comparable figure, I would bet money that planes account for a much larger share than windmills... But I don't see you saying planes bad (which they are, but that's about carbon footprint and efficiency of travel).
It seems to me like you don't use the grey matter god gave you.
Tobias_Atwood t1_ixnf437 wrote
You sound like you get your alternative facts from fox news. You should correct that >.>
>Covering every rooth with solar panels is quite literally impossible.
How is it "literally impossible"? At most it would be a massive financial and structural investment that would take years to do. Difficult, but not impossible in the least.
>Wind energy is also horrible for the environment as when ever it gets too windy, it has to be shut off or it's motor will combust.
How does shutting down a power generating turbine due to inclement weather make it horrible for the environment?
>That ain't even the main issue, it's the fact it's killing thousands of endangered birds every year, and tens of thousands of non endangered birds.
If you actually did research instead of listening to rightwing pundits spin yarns about imaginary bogeymen you'd know that the amount of birds killed by wind turbines is so few as to be almost a complete non issue. Coal and natural gas plants actually kill many dozens of times more birds per megawatt generated than wind or solar. If you want to protect birds, build more wind and solar.
>Solar has also been killing birds that fly over the solar farms, getting fried by the intensified sunlight reflected off of panels.
You're thinking of water heated sunlight reflection solar. It uses a vast collection of mirrors that reflect sunlight onto a water tower to boil the water and use the steam to turn a turbine. Photovoltaic solar panels installed nowadays absorb sunlight by turning it into electricity directly.
No one is putting mirrors on their roof to boil water for steam turbines. PV panels are way more efficient now. And PV panels certainly don't emit high intensity beams of energy capable of frying birds.
Maybe go read about the stuff you're trying to discredit before you go spout such a massive wall of lies and falsehoods.
sampjennings t1_ixl0x5f wrote
To my knowledge there is no ethanol fired power plant in the US
LuckyHedgehog t1_ixmjvn3 wrote
The article clearly defines what forms of renewables are projected to overtake coal and nuclear though. I'm not sure how you started talking about ethanol
>The government energy tracker predicts that wind, solar and hydro will generate 22 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of this year. That is more than coal at 20 percent and nuclear at 19 percent.
96vette t1_ixmmxrc wrote
You’re right! I skipped over the subheading stating wind, solar and hydro power are the renewables they are talking about. Ethanol is considered a renewable by the government. It is blended with gasoline to reduce dependence on oil. Ethanol is a less efficient fuel than gas and is corrosive, so not a great ICE fuel.
Our conversion away from fossil fuels encouraging. There is more than just changing fuel sources though. For example, the small manufacturing plant where I worked had four gas fired heat treating furnaces with a cost of $5 million each. These will need to be replaced with electric furnaces, a significant capital investment.
Cinnamon_BrewWitch t1_ixnqnzn wrote
It took me a second, but my first thought was "I don't want to drive a nuclear-powered car."
96vette t1_ixo1zye wrote
You wouldn’t have to be concerned about range. Start driving and only have to stop for food and potty.
SilverNicktail t1_ixry9a4 wrote
Ethanol is a little over 1% of electricity generation in the US, and that needle has barely moved. I don't think this is a real concern compared to the displacement of coal and gas.
[deleted] t1_ixlx9mg wrote
[removed]
ApizzaApizza t1_ixndjin wrote
Nuclear is pointlessly expensive. Solar/offshore wind.
We have a fucking fusion reactor in the sky, come on.
96vette t1_ixnfkfs wrote
Fission reactors would have had a great positive impact on climate change. The anti nuke crowd bears some responsibility for the climate problems we now face.
Small fusion reactors will be developed that can safely power heavy equipment, trains, trucks and possible aircraft. Larger fusion reactors will provide clean, reliable power for cities. Wind and solar are a good stepping stone to this future. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
ApizzaApizza t1_ixokmvy wrote
>Fission reactors would have had a great positive impact on climate change.
Indeed, but they were plagued with problems…were expensive as fuck to build, and take for fuckin ever.
96vette t1_ixpc2gp wrote
Problems that would have been resolved if the technology had been allowed to develop.
Soruze t1_ixltupi wrote
Nuclear should be running out front. This is stupid.
gu_doc t1_ixm5xmn wrote
Sell me some cheap solar panels. I’m ready for it
BM09 t1_ixkyac8 wrote
Oh I do hope so
xQuizate87 t1_ixmf60h wrote
Nuclear is good actually we just do it inefficiently.
raresanevoice t1_ixlkksl wrote
American energy independence win, right here.
powersv2 t1_ixm1a13 wrote
Time to get started on making nuclear pass renewables so we can get more salt water snd brackish water desalination plants up and running.
faithispoison t1_ixn3xcr wrote
Can't nuclear be a really great choice?
DamonFields t1_ixn4uxn wrote
Not if Republicans have anything to say about it!
AutoModerator t1_ixkvwda wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_ixlphca wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixm1qi8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixm6rzl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixmuag9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixp6wsg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixu22uy wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iy5dgmu wrote
[removed]
Comprehensive-Leg752 t1_ixmh8fd wrote
One of these things is being kneecapped by the Feds. The other is getting subsidized to the high heavens. This is a forced outcome.
tkyjonathan t1_ixngrvv wrote
Probably and so will blackouts and super high energy bills.
SilverNicktail t1_ixrzm70 wrote
You think that electricity bills are going to be higher because it costs......less to generate energy? That's an...interesting outlook.
Wind and solar *are* cheaper, by the way. Lower LCOE than any fossil fuel, and nuclear on top of that.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
I'd quit listening to people who promote FUD about this stuff. They're often taking cash from the fossil fuel industry.
​
Ah....literally your entire post history is a....bizarrely energetic defence of the rich and powerful. Whilst railing against the existence of governance. I'm sure you are blissfully unaware of the irony.
tkyjonathan t1_ixs42ha wrote
Ah goodie. I always like it when people smear and name call in the conversation. That way you know their argument is weak.
LCOE fails to factor a lot of the additional costs of unreliable energy sources that is the burdened onto the grid. The fact of the matter is that any large scale installation of unreliable energy sources increases the overall price of energy. For example, (even before 2022) Germany, Denmark and California.
SilverNicktail t1_ixsah7s wrote
> Ah goodie. I always like it when people smear and name call inconversation. That way you know their argument is weak.
Didn't do either of those things - literally didn't call you any names at all, and your comment history is very consistent and very public - but sneering about it is a good way to try and deflect ain't it?
> LCOE fails to factor a lot of the additional costs of unreliable energy sources that is the burdened onto the grid.
And do you have any figures showing that costs outside LCOE are higher enough for renewables that it offsets the higher costs of fossil fuel generation?
Meanwhile, electricity costs in Texas have skyrocketed because of the increased cost of gas...
You know what doesn't need unreliable fuel supply from hostile nations? The sun.
Every anti-renewable FUD-spreader points at the same small number of places with higher prices and says "renewables did that", ignoring anything that doesn't agree with them - like PG&E in Cali going broke because of climate-induced wildfires, ironically.
Should we factor climate damage into the total cost of non-renewable energy sources? (Actually, we totally should.) I don't think it'll end well for them.
tkyjonathan t1_ixsdaj4 wrote
> Didn't do either of those things
You did it in your last comment and even in this comment. You don't even notice that you are smearing? You are basically just making an argument from intimidation.
> And do you have any figures showing that costs outside LCOE are higher enough for renewables that it offsets the higher costs of fossil fuel generation?
Yes, I gave you 3 countries with large unreliable infrastructure as a point of reference to high energy costs. If you want to compare, take any eastern european country that still largely runs on coal and compare energy costs.
> You know what doesn't need unreliable fuel supply from hostile nations? The sun.
Except the concrete, nickel, copper, lithium and a variety of rare earth minerals. All mined in China. Where solar panels are almost exclusively made, because the process is so toxic, it fails western standards. That then needs to be connected to the grid through new lines running through people's back yards or forested areas. That then need 100% backup power when the sun isnt shining - so double the costs just on the backup. And if you want batteries, then the cost is already x3-4 higher than fossil fuels. Not to mention that large batteries catch on fire when over heated... etc... etc.. etc..
SilverNicktail t1_ixsnzge wrote
>You are basically just making an argument from intimidation.
Hahaha, holy shit.
"Your public comment history consists of defences of capitalism."
"THIS IS INTIMIDATION!!!!!!!1!!11!1!"
You're fucking hilarious, mate. Do another one.
> Yes, I gave you 3 countries with large unreliable infrastructure as a point of reference to high energy costs.
Source: trust me, bro.
> Except the concrete, nickel, copper, lithium and a variety of rare earth minerals. All mined in China.
Concrete's mined in China, is it? lol
The vast majority of copper comes from the Americas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264626/copper-production-by-country/
Nickel is incredibly common but the largest exporters are Indonesia and Australia. https://nickelinstitute.org/en/about-nickel-and-its-applications/
The largest producer of lithium is Australia, by quite some distance. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metals-facts/lithium-facts/24009
I know that some folks - not that I would want to "smear" anyone, lol - think that countries outside the US consist of "Europe" and "Chy-na", but it turns out that's not actually how things work.
See those links, by the way? Those are called "sources". They're what happens when your opinions are evidence-based.
> Where solar panels are almost exclusively made, because the process is so toxic, it fails western standards.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be any solar manufacturing in North America, would there? Except that there is.
Glad to hear you're against environmentally damaging resource extraction though. With that in mind, you're gonna flip your fuckin' lid when you learn where coal, gas and oil come from.
> That then needs to be connected to the grid through new lines running through people's back yards or forested areas.
My god, he's done it, people. The Achilles' heel of renewable energy production that somehow everyone else in the world missed, but this brave, noble soul has found for us - electricity goes down CABLES!
Who knew??
And this only affects renewables! Trust him on that!
Man, you're just so very well-informed and extremely clever. We should definitely be listening to someone who thinks you mine concrete.
EDIT - I can't respond to this chucklefuck's latest blah-blah for some reason, Reddit's fucking up.
tkyjonathan t1_ixu0fgd wrote
> You're fucking hilarious, mate. Do another one.
You must be mentally challenged. All your arguments are smears about me working for or helping rich and powerful companies. This is an argument from intimidation, plain and simple.
Some links for you, because you seem to like to find "counter narrative" facts to reality:
China to dominate 95% of solar panel supply chain https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/energy/china-to-dominate-95-of-solar-panel-supply-chain-83651#:~:text=China%20currently%20manufactures%20and%20supplies,Agency%20(IEA)%20has%20said.&text=Based%20on%20the%20current%20expansion,entire%20manufacturing%20process%20by%202025.
Denmark and Germany have the highest energy prices in Europe (graph included) http://www.keanegruending.com/climate-policy/denmarks-race-to-renewable-electricity-how-costly-and-environmentally-efficient/
Renewables use NG as a backup for when the sun doesnt shine and the wind doesnt blow, making dependence on it higher. This is a key driving factor for energy poverty (and inflation) in Europe.
https://www.statsjamie.co.uk/high-energy-prices/
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/why-cant-renewable-energy-sources-keep-uk-energy-prices-down/
https://greenworld.org.uk/article/energy-crisis-why-are-renewable-prices-rising-too
European Windfarm and Solar companies are going out of business, because renewables are too expensive and unprofitable. https://stopthesethings.com/2022/04/24/transition-to-bankruptcy-europes-wind-turbine-makers-face-massive-financial-collapse/
As you can see, a large part of inflation in europe is energy related and I already mentioned dependance on NG partially due to renewables. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/prices-ppp/statistical-insights-why-is-inflation-so-high-now-in-the-largest-oecd-economies-a-statistical-analysis.htm
SilverNicktail t1_ixvdtrh wrote
Reddit's not letting me respond in full for some reason, so let's try this in chunks.
> You must be mentally challenged. All your arguments are smears about me working for or helping rich and powerful companies. This is an argument from intimidation, plain and simple.
Didn't say you worked for anyone. Seriously, I didn't, go back and look. You're really really bad at reading and comprehension.
> This is an argument from intimidation, plain and simple.
ROFL
Also, some guy said this, can't remember who:
> I always like it when people smear and name call in conversation. That way you know their argument is weak.
Cough
> Some links for you, because you seem to like to find "counter narrative" facts to reality:
Which things I wrote or quoted are counter to reality? You've not managed to contradict them. In fact, it's really fucking obvious that you just threw something like "expensive renewable energy" into Google and pasted me whatever results came up. Let's go through your bullshit here:
> China to dominate 95% of solar panel supply chain
It's always a sign of someone being really honest when they move the goalposts. Here's the stupid thing you actually said:
> Except the concrete, nickel, copper, lithium and a variety of rare earth minerals. All mined in China. Where solar panels are almost exclusively made, because the process is so toxic, it fails western standards.
Which I refuted because that's not where stuff's mined, the part about western standards is bullshit, and you don't mine concrete, lol. An honest person would admit they were incorrect, whereas a dishonest person would move the goalposts and double-down on the one thing nobody argued with. Guess which one you are.
You also completely failed to address that your argument about mining being destructive applies far more to fossil fuels than it does renewables, but let's be honest, we all expected that. Introspection is for thinkers.
> Denmark and Germany have the highest energy prices in Europe (graph included) http://www.keanegruending.com/climate-policy/denmarks-race-to-renewable-electricity-how-costly-and-environmentally-efficient/
You didn't read this particular blog post, did you? 'Cos it says this:
> So if electricity in Denmark is inexpensive to produce, why the high cost for end users? It has to be some sort of expensive subsidy towards renewables, right? Not so fast. Taxes are actually the primary constituent of Denmark’s electricity costs. 56% of the consumer cost of electricity goes towards taxes that support the Danish welfare state.
Fuckin' WHOOPS. I'll forgive you, though. You're new to this whole "evidence" thing. You didn't realise that you have to actually read and understand your sources. Next!
SilverNicktail t1_ixve5q1 wrote
> https://www.statsjamie.co.uk/high-energy-prices/
This one blames the rise in energy costs entirely on gas, and the shortfall in generation in not rolling out enough generation to replace the elimination of coal. That's two sources you've not read.Next!
> https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/why-cant-renewable-energy-sources-keep-uk-energy-prices-down/
Literally the same thing again, lol. This time you didn't even read as far as the fucking byline:
> Huge increases in gas prices have sent UK energy bills skyrocketing. Renewable energy has been unable to help but there are other solutions.
Energy costs in the UK right now are entirely caused by the profiteering of fossil fuel companies, and a conservative government that refuses to stop them. Again, the issue here is that the UK doesn't have enough renewable generation and storage, not that renewables increased the price of generation. You're VERY BAD at this.
This one is LITERALLY IN THE URL ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND??
Four in a fucking row, holy shit. Every single one of these links says that the price of gas is the problem and you're twisting reality to blame renewables for the price gouging of gas companies.
Damn, one of the links you copy-pasted without reading it was actually half-decent, though even this makes it clear that some of the cost issues of renewables are part and parcel of the transition - teething issues in changing generation types. Producers have rolled out generation, but need to be putting more effort into storage so that fossil fuel plants covering variability and shortfalls - whose margins get much worse when they're used as backup rather than primary generation - can be retired altogether. Ironically, the argument being made at the end of the article about the need for the business model of generation to change is really an argument for the nationalisation of utilities, but I'm sure that both an American writing in Forbes and a hypercapitalist like yourself both completely failed to realise that.
In short, in some cases renewable rollouts have pushed prices, but they don't have to, and it isn't a permanent thing.
Sigh Aaaaand we're back to yet another article you didn't read from the UK's energy crisis that makes it extremely clear that the problem is THE PRICE OF GAS.
> https://greenworld.org.uk/article/energy-crisis-why-are-renewable-prices-rising-too
And again. Holy shit, my guy. The dead giveaway that you didn't read any of these - other than them proving you wrong - is that they all (apart from Forbes) say the same thing, and you wouldn't need six of them to say one thing.
> European Windfarm and Solar companies are going out of business, because renewables are too expensive and unprofitable. https://stopthesethings.com/2022/04/24/transition-to-bankruptcy-europes-wind-turbine-makers-face-massive-financial-collapse/
......Where do I even start? Question: do you think that a blog site dedicated to the destruction of the wind turbine industry might be biased in any way? The actual ReCharge article blames the current high inflationary rates and a large hike in the price of raw materials for the bulk of the industry's current woes. I'm sure non-renewable sources don't need things like.....steel..........They're also calling for shifts in government policy to make the industry more sustainable, because of the current auction system and a focus on minimal cost that results in reliance on outsourcing instead of domestic production. If you've managed to make that "renewables are unprofitable" whilst ignoring - oh, I dunno - everywhere and everything else on Earth, then you're honestly a bit weird.
Paywalled, but I'm guessing given how obvious it is that you haven't read these articles you don't know what's in it either. Judging by the byline, a single solar company went bust, and this is supposed to mean something to the wider market?
It's a good thing no gas suppliers have gone bust during the energy crisis or this point would look really stupid.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58732683
> As you can see, a large part of inflation in europe is energy related and I already mentioned dependance on NG partially due to renewables.
Bitch, you can't even spell "dependence". It's also pretty dumb to admit that the rise in energy prices is because of gas, and then blame renewables for it.
Wait, is that what you've been going for this entire time? That gas usage is the fault of renewables?? Countries didn't switch to gas because of renewables, lol. They switched to gas to get away from coal. Your own fucking sources show that! Remember this??
> https://www.statsjamie.co.uk/high-energy-prices/
Actually, you don't remember this because you didn't read any of this shit, but bear with me. Can you see when the "gas" bit is largest? Yeah, and you see how that's before the mass rollout of renewables? And you understand that time is a linear concept, yeah? Causality? At this point I'm wondering if you have basic fuckin' object permanence.
Natural gas was brought in because it's cheaper and cleaner than coal (not the same as being clean), which is why it's now the primary generation source in a lot of countries, and somewhat naturally the source that covers shortfall in variable renewable generation because it's already there.
Was that actually your argument in this comment? That electricity prices have gone up because of pre-existing gas generation in the grid, and that's the fault of renewables because....there...aren't yet enough renewables to not use it?
Congrats, that's the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in quite some time. Amazing.
I cannot believe how much of my Saturday morning I just let you waste blaming renewables for the price of gas. I've got my shift at the concrete mine to get to!
tkyjonathan t1_ixvnitl wrote
> Fuckin' WHOOPS. I'll forgive you, though. You're new to this whole "evidence" thing. You didn't realise that you have to actually read and understand your sources. Next!
I forgot I was talking to someone with no understanding of energy economics.
Energy is very much tied to GDP. While Denmark and Germany do tax energy sources and use them the reinvest in renewables (your preference for energy policies), it does result in "energy poverty" and that is extremely harmful to the people who have to make decisions between heat and food.
Why is this important to price of renewables? Well, they have failed to replace baseline energy sources and germany is closing business sectors due to high energy costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-07/german-aluminum-smelter-halves-output-on-soaring-energy-costs
As a result, germany is actually closing down wind farms and opening coal mines
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/wind-farm-in-germany-is-being-dismantled-to-expand-coal-mine/
So in general, yeah, you can make your population suffer while you follow green energy policies that hurt that population some more. Its a political and ideological decision.
[deleted] t1_ixvdsdf wrote
[deleted]
96vette t1_ixl0ifk wrote
Doesn’t say if ethanol is included in the articles renewable energy. Ethanol is a renewable fuel with a high carbon footprint. We need to eliminate ethanol and increase nuclear.