Comments on: Why Do We Hold Renewable Energy to a Different Standard than Fossil Fuels & Nuclear Energy

By: Andrew Diamond

Andrew Diamond — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:12:00 +0000

The fact that they are bullish on coal, means they are picking winners and losers.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:16:00 +0000

So many costs ignored…

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:39:00 +0000

No one seems to talk about the 20+GW of pump-up hydro storage we built in order to incorporate nuclear onto the US grid. Reactors can’t be turned off at night when demand drops so the extra power had to be stored for peak hour use.

That cost is also ignored.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:33:00 +0000

Completely, completely ridiculous… (as you write on the internet and a computer, which came about through government research).

Please refrain from trolling this site and have a nice day.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:33:00 +0000

exactly.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:32:00 +0000

the free market is an illusion. if you don’t get that, there’s no helping you. there are several key assumptions to a ‘free market’ that are pure fantasy. so you’re starting from fantasy land. no wonder we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

really, please just go sit in on some college-level economics courses.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:30:00 +0000

To skip over key purposes of subsidies and mention irrelevant industries is pure nonsense, and a clear sign that you can’t address the issue at hand.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:29:00 +0000

it’s as simple as you want to make it, or as comprehensive as you want to make it. simple math doesn’t necessarily equal good math (and certainly not in this case!).

“A refusal to accept the truth does not alter the truth.”
-ditto.

more and more extreme? no idea what you’re talking about.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:27:00 +0000

not sure where this is coming from, been awhile since i checked in, but there’s a difference between accommodating change within your industry and being resistant to overall change in the energy industry as a whole that boots you out.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 15:20:00 +0000

Your BS needs to go to some anti-factual site….

By: thesafesurfer

thesafesurfer — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 15:09:00 +0000

Government and central planning are synonymous. The premise that government is crucial to basic research is totally false. The only role that government plays in basic research is to take money from private sector taxpayers and transfer it to politically connected special interests in the private sector is the way that government carries out basic research.
Government makes every single process it touches less efficient and more costly.
The subsidies to wind and solar are a perfect example. 12 wind and solar companies receiving $6.5 Billion going bankrupt is an example of the waste of government funding by special interests.

This article promoted falsehoods about the subsidies to wind and solar throughout.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 05:26:00 +0000

I agree that the free market will often solve problems. On the other hand, basic research – the building blocks on which our knowledge is based is not carried out by free market/private enterprise. This is something that we do at the government sponsored level.

Now I guess you’re moving on to central planning because it’s starting to sink in that our subsidies for renewables are paying off and our subsidies for fossil fuels aren’t.

But you know what? I find it a waste of time to argue with you. You’re all pumped through with libertarian/right wing talking points and you’re slow to understand facts when someone hits you in the face with them.

This is a site about renewable energy and clean tech. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about right wing beliefs, please take it elsewhere.

Have a nice day….

By: thesafesurfer

thesafesurfer — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 05:10:00 +0000

The free market always has and always will solve problems better than any form of central planning has or ever will because the free market draws on the collective brain power of everyone involved in the market while central planning draws on the thinking of a much smaller group that invariably is involved in government, but not intimately in the market they plan for.

Invariably champions of central planning and government intervention that determines winners and losers can’t live up to the standard they demand of the free market.

The central planners demand that the free market solve all problems without suffering, an intentionally impossible standard.

The choice is which system solves problems better and the evidence is clear and overwhelming, the free market employing the collective actions of millions of participants invariably finds solutions through the process of creative destruction that has moved mankind forward and a previously unheard of pace for the last three hundred years while central planning has visited more suffering on more human beings around that globe than is truly impossible to grasp.

Arguments that champion small groups of bureaucrats in control are always easily banished to the pile of utter nonsense.

By: thesafesurfer

thesafesurfer — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 05:02:00 +0000

The idea that energy companies are resistant to change is preposterous. Energy companies constantly try to find new ways to accomplish their mission with more efficiency and better cost containment because that increases their profit and value. They have massive incentives not to stand still.

How do fools think that innovations in fracking and horizontal drilling were made. By the energy companies themselves investing in research and development driven by competition in the market place.

Every energy company in America knows that to become entrenched and incapable of rapid change is a recipe for disaster and bankruptcy.

The truth is that wind and solar companies are the ones going bankrupt in the first place.

By: thesafesurfer

thesafesurfer — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 04:57:00 +0000

The math is simple, straightforward and totally undeniable. For the amount of energy produced the subsidies given to wind and solar were 82 times that given to fossil fuels.

A refusal to accept the truth does not alter the truth. The inescapable fact is that solar and wind cannot produce cheap, reliable energy no matter the wants and desires of their supporters.

The fact that the defenses of these failed energy systems become more and more extreme indicates the emotion and passion invested by their supporters instead of logic and reasoning.

By: thesafesurfer

thesafesurfer — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 04:53:00 +0000

No, actually there are no direct subsidies to candy makers, pencil manufacturers, software developers, and on and on and on.

The truth is exactly the opposite. The idea that subsidies are mandatory and and unavoidable part of life is idealistic and completely disconnected from the truth.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:31:00 +0000

this is complete nonsense, i’m sorry.

for one, you continue to ignore the fact that externalities are a form of subsidy, and a huge one. that military protection of overseas oil is a subsidy, a big one. and that, yes, 100+ years of subsidies equals an uneven playing field that needs to be leveled.

the idea that there should be no subsidies is completely idealistic and unrealistic. it’s simplistic thinking that would lead this country to total ruin if it were followed.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:26:00 +0000

“Solar and Wind are unreliable by their nature.
The subsidies given to them for the power they produced was 82 times that given to fossil fuel. ”

Wrong.

solar & wind are intermittent. they are quite predictable.

the subsidies given to them in one short timeframe? seriously? cherry picking is cherry picking, no matter who does it.

The Obama part: bs. over a year of witch hunting has come up with nothing. it’s total bs. please stop with that nonsense if you want to be taken half-seriously.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:00:00 +0000

you’ve really skipped over a whole ton of important here, and repeatedly.
and the claim that all these companies are just tied in to politicians is complete bunk. no proof, and a tremendous amount of assumptions here.

wind and solar only generate electricity when they do. coal and nuclear the same. countries are now hitting really high percentages of wind and solar with no problem. in fact, they’ve driven down the cost of electricity.
but currently, entire electricity industries are used to one thing and hesitant to change, even if the change is better for everyone in the world. hence, a little hand-holding needs to be done.

studies have also found that payback on renewable energy subsidies is greater than the subsidies themselves. that’s a rather important thing to skip over.

lastly, for now, you continue to skip the fact that fossil fuels benefit from tremendous subsidies (externalities) that won’t go away without government intervention.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:50:00 +0000

there’s also the fact that we have HUGE externalities that need corrected for. unless we properly price GHG emissions, we must subsidize cleantech to correct for that.

that’s really not complicated, but is very popular for one side of the debate to ignore.