Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative

Originally posted by humy
I said: “Already [b]some parts of the world have cost effectively made their electric production renewable “.
How on earth do you conclude that I must be referring to just one particular country from “some parts”? I wasn't.[/b]

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information?

Are you really that lazy you can't google something for yourself? I found this in about 1 minute:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/germany-1-world-energy-efficiency/

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you really that lazy you can't google something for yourself? I found this in about 1 minute:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/germany-1-world-energy-efficiency/

I have been saying efficiency is the way to go and I said so on this thread. Aside from the fact I asked for humy's source of information you gave the wrong source of info. Humy was talking about renewables.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have been saying efficiency is the way to go and I said so on this thread. Aside from the fact I asked for humy's source of information you gave the wrong source of info. Humy was talking about renewables.

If you want to know about renewables and how much the various countries implements them, Google it yourself. I am sure you can go tediously through each and every country at a time. I won't do it for you.
Do you deny that renewables can be made to be such as to make it cost effective to go 100% renewable?
If not, whatever point you are trying to make, and I have no idea what that point may be, it is irrelevant.
Not that you would care a dam, but, I, with very little effort i.e. doing a very quick Google search, found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/

If you want more, tough! FIND IT YOURSELF.

Originally posted by humy
If you want to know about renewables and how much the various countries implements them, Google it yourself. I am sure you can go tediously through each and every country at a time. I won't do it for you.
Do you deny that renewables can be made to be such as to make it cost effective to go 100% renewable?
If not, whatever point you are trying to make, and I h ...[text shortened]... 2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/

If you want more, tough! FIND IT YOURSELF.

"Do you deny that renewables can be made to be such as to make it cost effective to go 100% renewable?"

At this time, yes. It is not cost effective.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Do you deny that renewables can be made to be such as to make it cost effective to go 100% renewable?"

At this time, yes. It is not cost effective.

Well, if it is not 'cost effective' as in competes with fossil fuels, that might just be the price of survival.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, if it is not 'cost effective' as in competes with fossil fuels, that might just be the price of survival.

Survival? You are a major league idiot. You believe climate models are still reliable even after I showed you how they have failed to predict the pause (slowdown of warming) and the different models predict temps that do not agree with each other. So the IPCC calculated the average predictions of all models and had the hubris to assert that could be relied on as well. It is junk science at it's worst. The scientific community should be ashamed of such a hack job. It is truly pathetic!

Originally posted by Metal Brain


At this time, yes. It is not cost effective.

http://www.earthday.org/blog/2015/02/02/are-renewables-cost-effective-fossil-fuels

"...A new report by IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) this month asserts renewable energy generation is now cost-competitive with fossil fuels, despite falling oil prices...."

As usual, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Even where and when it doesn't 'compete' with fossil fuels i.e. isn't cheaper than fossil fuels, that doesn't mean it isn't economically affordable.

Some solar panels in some parts of the world, taking into account all costs including installation and manufacturing costs, are now paying for themselves in less than a years! So, over the first year, in what sense are they not "cost-effective"?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Survival?

Yes, survival. Not my personal survival; Not your personal survival; Not even the survival of the whole human species
(I only mention that to preempt the usual stupid straw man ), but the survival of thousands if not millions of people in future generations that would be worst effected by man made global warming. It is the case of just for once stop selfishly thinking just about yourself and just for once think about others that are/will be less fortunate than yourself. Do you understand the concept of 'morality'?

Originally posted by humy
http://www.earthday.org/blog/2015/02/02/are-renewables-cost-effective-fossil-fuels

"...A new report by IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) this month asserts renewable energy generation is now cost-competitive with fossil fuels, despite falling oil prices...."

As usual, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Even where and when it ...[text shortened]... lves in less than a years! So, over the first year, in what sense are they not "cost-effective"?

There will always be certain places where there is a lot of solar potential or wind potential that can compete, but those certain places are not plentiful. On average solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels. Where I live there is very little solar and wind potential. It would not be worth the investment and that is true most regions.

If renewables were so promising as your eco link says why no investment? Do people not like a good investment opportunity to make more money? Did Kevin O'Leary invest in renewables? How about Mark Cuban? He has a crap load of money. Did he invest in any renewables?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There will always be certain places where there is a lot of solar potential or wind potential that can compete, but those certain places are not plentiful. On average solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels. Where I live there is very little solar and wind potential. It would not be worth the investment and that is true most regions.

If renew ...[text shortened]... renewables? How about Mark Cuban? He has a crap load of money. Did he invest in any renewables?

I thought you didn't watch sat tv, those dudes are from the Shark Tank TV show. They are not the kind of dudes you would expect to go into renewable's and why would you think they would? They fund small businesses on their show, a guy with a better chair or a woman with a nice new idea in pillows.

You seriously think they would give 2 minutes to a dude coming in saying he had a way to cheaply make perovskite solar cells and all he needs is 250 million to start producing? Come on, those dudes have some money but they are not billionaires.

That kind of funding has to come from the Warren Buffets or Bill Gates level of dude not some guy who we in the lower class would consider super rich but by their standards they would be considered putzes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought you didn't watch sat tv, those dudes are from the Shark Tank TV show. They are not the kind of dudes you would expect to go into renewable's and why would you think they would? They fund small businesses on their show, a guy with a better chair or a woman with a nice new idea in pillows.

You seriously think they would give 2 minutes to a dude c ...[text shortened]... he lower class would consider super rich but by their standards they would be considered putzes.

"Come on, those dudes have some money but they are not billionaires."

Mark Cuban is a billionaire.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Come on, those dudes have some money but they are not billionaires."

Mark Cuban is a billionaire.

I didn't look him up till you mentioned that. He foresaw the dot com bubble burst which is why he is a billionaire today, 2.7 bil. He sold his shares in Yahoo just in time, at 163 bucks a share, it dumped down to 8 bucks a share.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
On average solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels.

How would you know this? You don't. So you deny the assertions from all the real experts on this that know vastly more than you or I know about it? Show us your source of this information that "On average solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels" ....make sure it is up to date to take account the latest improvement in the cost effectiveness in solar and wind over fossil fuels.

Even if, hypothetically, the assertion "On average solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels." is true, it would be pretty much irrelevant for several reasons:

1, Since cost is NOT the only thing to rationally consider when deciding the best energy source, why would renewables have to "compete" with fossil fuels?
Why can't renewables be both perfectly affordable and NOT compete with fossil fuels on price?
The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Why ignore any environmental considerations when deciding which energy source to use? Certainly, if the more expensive energy source has the least harmful effect on the environment, it should still be considered and not instantly rejected without a second thought purely because it is the more expensive option. What if it is only slightly more expensive but vastly cleaner? Couldn't it possible ever be worth paying a small extra price for clean energy?

2, why would it matter whether "on average" renewables can compete with fossil fuels? Suppose they cannot compete on price on average; what objection would you have to them where and when they CAN compete?


3, why only include solar and wind rather than all renewables in your comparison? Are you afraid of making a comparison with hydroelectric? Hydroelectric is renewable, right?


4, the cost effectiveness of various renewables compared with fossil fuels is improving all the time and will continue to do so. Obviously, it is just a matter of time before solar and wind will become cost competitive with fossil fuels in virtually all parts of the world even those parts that are less favorable for sun and wind than most places. After all, exactly what part of the inhabited surface of the Earth never gets any sun nor wind? -nowhere! And it will be just a matter of time before it will become cost effective for the least favorable inhabited place on Earth for solar and wind (wherever that is ).

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There will always be certain places where there is a lot of solar potential or wind potential that can compete, but those certain places are not plentiful. On average solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels. Where I live there is very little solar and wind potential. It would not be worth the investment and that is true most regions.

If renew ...[text shortened]... renewables? How about Mark Cuban? He has a crap load of money. Did he invest in any renewables?

If renewables were so promising as your eco link says why no investment?

1, in many places, there IS investment.

2, in places where there is lack of investment despite the economics now favouring renewables, it is because of morons like you.