ADVERTISEMENT

So as you libs were told

Look at the article objectively and try and dispute what it says.

I wonder if he sees the irony in his question/comment? I'm guessing he does not.

Ftr re-re...I was telling people exactly this long before Biden announced that he was running. The only way to make many of these green energy sources viable is to manipulate the costs of other energy sources while simultaneously subsidizing green energy like offshore wind farming.
 
I wonder if he sees the irony in his question/comment? I'm guessing he does not.

Ftr re-re...I was telling people exactly this long before Biden announced that he was running. The only way to make many of these green energy sources viable is to manipulate the costs of other energy sources while simultaneously subsidizing green energy like offshore wind farming.
It’s simple cause and effect. Take oil supply away, lose jobs, price of petroleum goes up, petroleum base products go up, environmental morons are happy. As long as the burden of the cost is paid for by the people, the governing body will continue to constrict. Cause and effect 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
This article is blatant propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

It begins with a kernel of truth by referencing a relatively objective Reuters article that states the Biden administration announced that they were going to restart an offshore wind turbine project. Fine.

The problem is that it quotes what it describes as "experts." The "experts" are hacks who have careers writing spin for fossil-fuel industry think tanks. The bulk of the article is an unfocused whirlwind of hypotheticals and suppositions intended to scare people into opposing wind turbines.

As far as I can tell, neither of the "experts" quoted have expertise on this subject. One has a BA in what he describes as a "combination of Philosophy and Computer Science" while the other has a BFA. Did he gain his expertise in Climatology and Geology while memorizing his lines for "Waiting for Godot"?
 
This article is blatant propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

It begins with a kernel of truth by referencing a relatively objective Reuters article that states the Biden administration announced that they were going to restart an offshore wind turbine project. Fine.

The problem is that it quotes what it describes as "experts." The "experts" are hacks who have careers writing spin for fossil-fuel industry think tanks. The bulk of the article is an unfocused whirlwind of hypotheticals and suppositions intended to scare people into opposing wind turbines.

As far as I can tell, neither of the "experts" quoted have expertise on this subject. One has a BA in what he describes as a "combination of Philosophy and Computer Science" while the other has a BFA. Did he gain his expertise in Climatology and Geology while memorizing his lines for "Waiting for Godot"?

Great...dispute the subject matter then.

Yes or no....will the green movement raise energy prices? If yes, by how much?

Is it false that Germany saw massive increases in energy costs as described in the article? Some were covered by subsidies but subsidies aren't free...agree?

Is Germany the only example that I could provide that would paint a similar picture? Might I be able to show you another Scandinavian country that had similar results?

And that Scandinavian country is one of the windiest places on earth FTR.
 
Great...dispute the subject matter then.

Yes or no....will the green movement raise energy prices? If yes, by how much?

Is it false that Germany saw massive increases in energy costs as described in the article? Some were covered by subsidies but subsidies aren't free...agree?

Is Germany the only example that I could provide that would paint a similar picture? Might I be able to show you another Scandinavian country that had similar results?

And that Scandinavian country is one of the windiest places on earth FTR.
Wind farm in general are a horrible and expensive renewable energy. Why anyone would think wind would generate enough energy at a reduced cost is stupid. Nuclear is the way of the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsumc
Wind farm in general are a horrible and expensive renewable energy. Why anyone would think wind would generate enough energy at a reduced cost is stupid. Nuclear is the way of the future.

Wind energy as it stands today, agree. Maybe it can be viable. And by viable I mean honestly viable...not carbon tax plus wind farm subsidy viable.

I'm all for it...if it makes sense and doesn't double energy costs. I don't understand how liberals are ok with doing this to the poor. It will hurt them much more than it will the middle class. And the middle class will be WAY more affected than the wealthy.

Isn't the left the champion of the poor and downtrodden? I'm certain that I've heard that somewhere before.
 
This is what I thought. Liberals love how this stuff makes them feel but so far I've seen zero evidence that any of you understand the practical nature of what this feel good story means for actual human beings.

Freaking fascinating.
 
The price of being responsible humans and a responsible society ain’t cheap...all worth every penny though...
This is BS plain and simple. Spend your own d@mn money and leave mine alone. I will be doing my best NOT to participate in your hectoring Utopian society.

Life liberty and pursuit of happiness does not need a nanny state society.
 
This article is blatant propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

It begins with a kernel of truth by referencing a relatively objective Reuters article that states the Biden administration announced that they were going to restart an offshore wind turbine project. Fine.

The problem is that it quotes what it describes as "experts." The "experts" are hacks who have careers writing spin for fossil-fuel industry think tanks. The bulk of the article is an unfocused whirlwind of hypotheticals and suppositions intended to scare people into opposing wind turbines.

As far as I can tell, neither of the "experts" quoted have expertise on this subject. One has a BA in what he describes as a "combination of Philosophy and Computer Science" while the other has a BFA. Did he gain his expertise in Climatology and Geology while memorizing his lines for "Waiting for Godot"?

They got their climatology experience from the same place Bill Nye and Greta did
 
I just provided substance you dolt...while you did no such thing.

Western Journal is substance now?

Anything posted that agrees with your preconceived notions is automatically great, any thing that disagrees is fake news.

Love the open minds.
 
Here's the lefts genius plan to fix mother earth.

Remember, you voted for this. But at least he doesn't tweet mean crap, right?

Obozo started this downhill slide. The left loves them some poor downtrodden proletariat to
preside over.


.
when-they-say-green-new-deal-they-mean-we-are-taking-more-of-your-green-and-you-have-to-deal-with-it.jpg
 
Last edited:
Great...dispute the subject matter then.

Yes or no....will the green movement raise energy prices? If yes, by how much?

Is it false that Germany saw massive increases in energy costs as described in the article? Some were covered by subsidies but subsidies aren't free...agree?

Is Germany the only example that I could provide that would paint a similar picture? Might I be able to show you another Scandinavian country that had similar results?

And that Scandinavian country is one of the windiest places on earth FTR.

Yes, it's false. Here's Germany's electricity cost over the past 10years. As you can see, while the share of renewable grew from the low teens in the mid 2010's to now 30+%, electricity price has stayed constant. The only hike was in the 2011-2013 time period, and it was a ~20% hike. A one time hike does not correlate well with the constant growth of renewables.


The issue with the article is that it was all opinions and little substance. I'd like to see some links supporting the claims made by some of the folks interviewed.
 
The price of being responsible humans and a responsible society ain’t cheap...all worth every penny though...
The problem with your feel-good sentiment? US industry is already doing the right thing because consumers are asking for it. And we're doing it at a rate that is far outpacing the rest of the world. It is possible that free market capitalism responded to consumer's demands faster than the gov't could mandate it? The company I work at strives everyday to reduce our carbon footprint partially because it's important to our consumers.

The bottom line is we're not the offenders. It would be nice if the rest of the world was as responsible as we are, even under Orange Man Bad, Bad Orange Man's leadership. But at least Twitter is a nicer place to be...

The United States is a world leader in protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From 2005 to 2018, total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 12%.

In contrast, global energy-related emissions increased nearly 24% from 2005 to 2018.


...preliminary energy data available now for 2019 from EIA projects that fossil fuel-CO2 emissions decreased by approximately 3% from 2018 to 2019.

.
 
Yes, it's false. Here's Germany's electricity cost over the past 7 years. As you can see, while the share of renewable grew from the low teens to now 30+%, electricity price has stayed constant.


The issue with the article is that it was all opinions and little substance. I'd like to see some links supporting the claims made by some of the folks interviewed.
ummmm...did you read what you posted?

And "constant" only applies for less than half that graph. Chart the trendline since 2010 and it's constantly increasing.

How's this for "substance"? Maybe it's not exploding because they are already hammering their people with some of the highest burdens for energy in the world?
"Germany is one of the most expensive countries worldwide for electricity supply."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaFan1137
ummmm...did you read what you posted?

And "constant" only applies for less than half that graph. Chart the trendline since 2010 and it's constantly increasing.

how's this for "substance"?
"Germany is one of the most expensive countries worldwide for electricity supply."

Again, if you're blaming it on renewables, why hasn't the price increased when the share of renewables increased from ~10% share to 30+% share from 2014 onward?
 
Again, if you're blaming it on renewables, why hasn't the price increased when the share of renewables increased from ~10% share to 30+% share from 2014 onward?
I am not able to corroborate your data easily, but the metric I'm using is described a bit differently.

According to Germany's Federal Ministry for Energy and Economic Affairs the % of renewable energy consumed has increased from 3% in 2000 to about 13% in 2017.

The growth of renewable energy consumption slowed from 2014 to 2017, corresponding with pricing becoming more stable. It only increased 1.6% during that time period.

 
I am not able to corroborate your data easily, but the metric I'm using is described a bit differently.

According to Germany's Federal Ministry for Energy and Economic Affairs the % of renewable energy consumed has increased from 3% in 2000 to about 13% in 2017.

The growth of renewable energy consumption slowed from 2014 to 2017, corresponding with pricing becoming more stable. It only increased 1.6% during that time period.


I'm seeing some different numbers as well, some say it's even over 40% now (article below), which would correlate well with the statement in the OP's article claiming 33% solar/wind use (presumably the rest is mainly hydroelectric and some geothermal). I wonder if some are counting only electricity use versus overall energy use (e.g. including heating, vehicles, etc.). In your wiki link though, it does state the percentage is 39% as of 2019 if I'm reading it correctly.


Anyhow, I won't dismiss any point of view at this point, but I'd like to see a more data-driven analysis than opinion pieces, and that goes for both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatman76
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT