Someone explain this to me

You really need to move into this century.
Already here. My time machine is busted. :D
Even without subsidies solar and wind power have cheaper LCOE (Longterm cost of energy) than any power plant including combined cycle gas plants.
Lie.
Nope. Natural gas is among the cheapest of fuels. It can produce quite a lot of energy using a plant that covers only a few acres. It is also a renewable fuel and easily obtained. Power plants powered by natural gas are designed to produce some 600MW.
A typical solar farm requires about 25 acres of solar panels (expensive!) to produce a whopping 5MW under good conditions. It produces no power at night.
A typical wind farm requires even more acreage, ranging up to 1000 acres, to produce a whopping 30MW under ideal conditions. It produces less to no power if wind conditions aren't ideal.

Natural gas in particular is a very clean burning fuel, producing primarily water and carbon dioxide as waste product. Both are good for plants life.
In 2020, the cost for Solar and wind is less than for any power plant being built.
...deleted Holy Link...
A lie. False authority fallacy. Using a government statistic as a prediction is a math error as well. Statistical math is not a fortune teller or capable of predicting anything. It does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers. Further math errors in this report fail to publish any data, refer to data not yet collected, and are a biased prediction. Report summarily discarded.
By 2025, the cost of solar and wind is still projected to be less than gas fueled combined cycle power plants.
You are guessing. You are not a prophet or seer. Put away your Holy Entrails.
 
You really need to get into this decade.
I could drive a Tesla 2000 miles cross country. It might require me taking a half hour break every 300 miles while the car charges but I would take those breaks even with a gasoline powered car.
https://www.tesla.com/supercharger

Okay. Let's compare.

A Subaru Forester (a smaller gasoline car) has a range of approx 480 miles on a single tank of fuel. It takes about 5 minutes to refuel. Thus, to drive 2000 miles, the Subaru will require 25 minutes of refueling time total. I can drive it literally anywhere there's a road and cross open deserts without having to refuel.

A Tesla model 3 has a range of approx 250 miles on a single charge of 80%. Because there are few recharging stations of the SuperCharger type, a safe range is approx 150 miles. Recharging this car back to 80% requires approx 20 minutes assuming this range. To drive the 2000 miles, the Tesla will require 5 hours of charging time total. There is some controversy surrounding treating the battery this way and its longevity. Replacing the battery is very expensive. As the battery deteriorates, range is reduced. The battery begins to deteriorate even before you buy the car new. Tesla warranties their batteries for eight years, which means the battery will perform at 7/10ths of it's capacity when new. The Tesla is limited to popular routes for using the SuperCharger stations.

In the Subaru, I have plenty of heat and air conditioning while I drive, charging ports for my phone and game consoles such as the Nintendo Switch or Nintendo 3DS, nice bright headlights, driver assist technology, and can carry 5 passengers plus baggage and even tow a small trailer. There are Subaru cars that have been on the road for over 15 years with no appreciable loss of performance.

In the Tesla model 3, using HVAC reduces your range significantly. So does using charging ports. So do the headlights. It also has driver assist and can seat 5. There is no towing capability in the Tesla (except in Europe) unless you add an aftermarket tow hitch. Towing severely reduces range on a Tesla. The towing capacity is comparable to a Subaru Forester.

The Forester costs $25k new with these features. The Tesla costs $46 new with these features.

Standard charging time of a Tesla is 8-10 hours.

I'll take the Subaru.
 
Oil replaced horses, and the economy improved. Replacing oil could reasonably be predicted to greatly improve the economy. Your demand we hold on to old technologies will not improve the economy.

Oil does not replace horses. Horses are still raised, eat grass and hay, and are a pleasant way to spend an afternoon riding. They're not fast, and their exhaust can be rather slippery to step in. They have the advantage in that they can just keep trottin' along, as long as they get grass and water.

Cars using oil products are faster, put out primarily carbon dioxide and water as exhaust (good for plant life!), and don't leave poo everywhere. There is huge economy surrounding cars, including manufacturing them, maintaining them, fueling them, building roads for them, cleaning them, and recycling them. Trucking also is a big economy. They carry everything from corn to new cars. Without them, you'd be wiping your butt with your hand. Trucks make Amazon possible and make everything in your local grocery store available to you.

Electric cars also have an economy. Because the electric car has limited range and is expensive, they are not used that often for long distance driving.

The modern locomotive is a diesel engine. These babies can haul a fully loaded 2 mile train up a mountain pass with only 4 units. There is no more efficient way to move a LOT of freight.
The modern jet engine is a kerosene fueled machine. These can haul a planeload of 200 passengers thousands of miles, including all their baggage, in the space of a few hours. There is no more efficient engine built than the modern jet engine.
The modern ship uses oil for fuel, typically a type of diesel oil or low grade 'bunker' fuel. These things can ply the seven seas with their holds and decks stacked full of cargo, including oil.
The modern tractor is what makes huge farms capable of growing the huge amount of food we eat possible. They build the roads, grade lots for houses, install power, water, sewer, and other utilities. They make modern mining possible, including the strip mining used to get the lithium ore needed to make lithium oxide batteries. They use diesel fuel.

Now...do you want to repeat how oil is old technology not worth a fart?
 
Germany is a mess? In what way? I see they have similar GDP growth to the US for the last decade. They have reduced energy consumption during that same period and moved to more renewables.

You need to be more specific as to how they are a mess because it isn't in their economic data.

Germany still uses primarily coal, oil, and natural gas for their energy needs. Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Reducing energy consumption means less of an economy. Since implementing energy cutbacks, Germany's GDP has only increased about $500 million. Their economy is stalling.
 

hey here's the dick head sailor....he's a real fuk up that thinks he knows what he's talking about...when in reality
he lives in moms basement...typing his ass off...HEY WHEN YOU GOING TO GET BACK IN SCHOOL...HUH

Arn't you tired of beating it off to the internet porn sites...huh how old were the girls in these naked pictures huh


trumputin con man liar murderer
 
Germany still uses primarily coal, oil, and natural gas for their energy needs. Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Reducing energy consumption means less of an economy. Since implementing energy cutbacks, Germany's GDP has only increased about $500 million. Their economy is stalling.

Where would Germany be without natural gas from Russia[!!!] lol?
 

hey here's the dick head sailor....he's a real fuk up that thinks he knows what he's talking about...when in reality
he lives in moms basement...typing his ass off...HEY WHEN YOU GOING TO GET BACK IN SCHOOL...HUH

Arn't you tired of beating it off to the internet porn sites...huh how old were the girls in these naked pictures huh


trumputin con man liar murderer

Translation: I just got my ass kicked with my own stupidity and bullshitting. Now I will whine like a bitch. By the way Zippy, you might want to change that last sentence. Now would be good.
 
Coal is so unprofitable because it's high-risk, low-reward.

They can't mine it safely anymore. They literally have to rip off the top of mountains.

Coal is cheap and reliable. That's why it's still in use. Coal mines do not have to rip tops off of mountains, though that can be a way to get at it. Don't worry. They own the mountain.
 
Ummm...that article actually says its wreaking havoc because it's producing a surplus of energy.

So it's "threatening" energy companies because it's producing a surplus, which lowers the cost, which hurts those companies.

[/QUOTE]
Lie. Germany's problems are caused by a multitude or reasons, all related to excessive regulations and taxes.
 
Much of it goes around to power plants in the United States, and a good amount of it is shipped to overseas markets.
 
Oil does not replace horses.

Sorry, stopped reading when you claimed that fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines have not replaced horses in the modern economy. My reality is they have been almost entirely replaced. I have never ridden a horse to work, and have never had any goods delivered to me by horse.

Night lives in a different reality. In his reality, there are no viral pneumonia, almost all economic statistics are lies, and Congress passes super secret laws telling the Fed what to do. We end up bogged down in debate where he will accept no evidence from any source that disproves him, nor will provide any evidence of his claims.
 
Germany still uses primarily coal, oil, and natural gas for their energy needs.

That is just not true. Germany creates 52% of its electricity through renewable fuels, and only 41% through fossil fuels. The only major country that beats it is Denmark. For a reference, the USA is 14% reusable, and 70% fossil fuels.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels.

Night is almost entirely wrong. There are some rarely used way to generate oil and natural gas renewably, and over hundreds of millions of years new oil and natural gas can form. But even ethanol is not an oil, so Night is 99.999% wrong.

Since implementing energy cutbacks, Germany's GDP has only increased about $500 million. Their economy is stalling.

Germany has a $4 trillion economy with regular over 2% growth, which means their GDP grows by about $100 BILLION or about 200 times higher than you claim.
 
Where would Germany be without natural gas from Russia[!!!] lol?

Germany imports from Norway, Netherlands, and Russia, and has enough capacity that it does not need to import from Russia. Russia could drive up the price a little by shutting its pipeline, but Germany is a rich economy, and would be fine. Many Eastern European counties are not so fortunate.
 
Germany imports from Norway, Netherlands, and Russia, and has enough capacity that it does not need to import from Russia. Russia could drive up the price a little by shutting its pipeline, but Germany is a rich economy, and would be fine. Many Eastern European counties are not so fortunate.

North Sea deposits are winding down....but you dont know that much do YA sport....

SO SAD
 
Back
Top