Quote:In his recent address, President Joe Biden claimed that “wind and solar are already significantly cheaper than coal and oil.” This is flat-out wrong. There are many arguments that can be made for Biden’s claim. However, not only can they all be refuted, but they have all already been refuted.

Quote:These “significantly cheaper” sources only manage to be so when we’re paying indirectly for subsidies to make them cheaper. On top of that, this fact merely discusses the ways in which the prices of energy are otherwise distorted through various laws and incentives. The United States Department of Energy lists 1,854 different laws and incentives currently on the books. There are so many various government interruptions in the market that when I first attempted to download the dataset to look at the laws currently in place, it crashed my computer. Energy is one of the most highly regulated markets in existence, all to create the appearance that wind and solar energy are cheaper than fossil fuels.

From here, Epstein answers the question: Why do supposed alternative energies need so much subsidization if they are so much cheaper? This leads to the second fact that is often ignored in this discourse: “Contrary to claims of lower costs, the places that use the most solar and wind on their grid tend to have the highest electricity costs.”

This is the case because even if one were to concede that wind and solar are cheaper than coal and oil (they are not) and if one were to concede that this is happening on a free market (it is not), it would still be missing part of the picture. Even if wind and solar somehow were to have lower money costs, they make up for it in the cost of their diluteness and their intermittency.

Quote:President Biden and other adversaries of fossil fuels will always try to make claims such as “wind and solar are significantly cheaper than coal and oil,” but the reality is that it is simply not true. Wind and solar are not cheaper than coal and oil. They require massive subsidization to even compete, and on the back of that massive subsidization, they are still too diluted and require the support of fossil fuels in order to remain reliable.

https://mises.org/wire/wind-and-solar-ar...al-and-oil

If it was cheaper people would be knocking each other doing it

If its is free or the pay you to do it. There is a reason

One of the articles I saw talking about how much cheaper it was only accounted for the fuel costs. Which lol of course it's cheaper as solar or wind don't have any. The only fair way to compare is total cost though. Absolutely including everything such as when the sun isn't shining and you have to use backup power usually natural gas.

Without much better battery tech it won't be cheaper till fossil fuels truly do start completely running dry.

I think space based solar panels might be the thing that eventually does become cheaper though. Putting the panels where they will get sun 24/7 and wont need to be cleaned off. It's expensive to get them up there, but once you do you're good.

You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

(07-19-2023 06:39 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  One of the articles I saw talking about how much cheaper it was only accounted for the fuel costs. Which lol of course it's cheaper as solar or wind don't have any. The only fair way to compare is total cost though. Absolutely including everything such as when the sun isn't shining and you have to use backup power usually natural gas.

Without much better battery tech it won't be cheaper till fossil fuels truly do start completely running dry.

I think space based solar panels might be the thing that eventually does become cheaper though. Putting the panels where they will get sun 24/7 and wont need to be cleaned off. It's expensive to get them up there, but once you do you're good.

My battery recently went out in my truck and while looking for a replacement I started thinking... how much have car batteries changed over the years? One change was the old batteries, you had to add water to them. Then they changed to sealed batteries. But, not knowing anything about batteries, I was thinking, other than that, the batteries I used in my 1970s cars were about the same size, same connections, and most importantly, lasted about the same amount of time. In 50 years we havent designed batteries that last 10x as long as the battery used 50 years ago?

There is more environmental damage done to make the batteries for these solar and wind farms than coal, oil and natural gas could ever do.

These are the same people that say we can have free healthcare. If they say something is free or cheaper they're lying.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(07-19-2023 08:46 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 06:39 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  One of the articles I saw talking about how much cheaper it was only accounted for the fuel costs. Which lol of course it's cheaper as solar or wind don't have any. The only fair way to compare is total cost though. Absolutely including everything such as when the sun isn't shining and you have to use backup power usually natural gas.

Without much better battery tech it won't be cheaper till fossil fuels truly do start completely running dry.

I think space based solar panels might be the thing that eventually does become cheaper though. Putting the panels where they will get sun 24/7 and wont need to be cleaned off. It's expensive to get them up there, but once you do you're good.

My battery recently went out in my truck and while looking for a replacement I started thinking... how much have car batteries changed over the years? One change was the old batteries, you had to add water to them. Then they changed to sealed batteries. But, not knowing anything about batteries, I was thinking, other than that, the batteries I used in my 1970s cars were about the same size, same connections, and most importantly, lasted about the same amount of time. In 50 years we havent designed batteries that last 10x as long as the battery used 50 years ago?

Actually car batteries have changed in composition over the years. The chemical make up is no longer just lead acid batteries. I could go into it but it but the changes are mostly in the amount of lead along with other chemical compounds and the makeup of the battery acid.

Not sure who ever came up with the idea of adding distilled water to batteries to extend the life but once any part of the battery cell gets dry it is no longer good thus the water mixed with the acid would only weaken the remaining cells by diluting the battery acid.

The sealed battery was just a way for battery to fail faster. Notice any sealed battery still had vents to release heat and evaporate. if it evaporates it would need more battery acid to maintain and since its sealed thats not happening.

Battery technology has changed making them more green and more expensive but they dont last any longer than their predecessors.

If your battery doesnt produce any white deposits around the posts that means it vents properly and is a quality product. Most batteries are sub quality and can ruin your battery cables by oxidation

Forget cost for a minute. Wind and Solar are just not dependable especially in extreme environment situations. There is a company sending one of their engineers from Sweden because a solar pump they manufacture to be able to pump water will not keep up. They built a system with NO BATTERY BANK or CAPACITOR to store excess amperage thus the system solely depends on the solar panels being able to produce more amperage than the pump pulls. I told the bigwig this is fool's gold and continue to experience down time until this is resolved.

Reminds me of another time when this European company built a $4 Million Earth Mover with a 140 amp fuse box and stuck a 70 amp alternator on it and the end user couldnt keep the equipment working past 1 in the afternoon because the batteries were dead. System was pulling more amperage than the alternator could or would produce. To top it off a 70 amp alternator doesnt produce 70 amps but for a very short period and charges most likely at 50 amps. Eventually got them a 175 amp alternator and system worked fine.

(07-19-2023 09:46 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Forget cost for a minute. Wind and Solar are just not dependable especially in extreme environment situations. There is a company sending one of their engineers from Sweden because a solar pump they manufacture to be able to pump water will not keep up. They built a system with NO BATTERY BANK or CAPACITOR to store excess amperage thus the system solely depends on the solar panels being able to produce more amperage than the pump pulls. I told the bigwig this is fool's gold and continue to experience down time until this is resolved.

Reminds me of another time when this European company built a $4 Million Earth Mover with a 140 amp fuse box and stuck a 70 amp alternator on it and the end user couldnt keep the equipment working past 1 in the afternoon because the batteries were dead. System was pulling more amperage than the alternator could or would produce. To top it off a 70 amp alternator doesnt produce 70 amps but for a very short period and charges most likely at 50 amps. Eventually got them a 175 amp alternator and system worked fine.

Did anyone eith an iq over 80 really think all the "green" shite is cheaper?

Leftys blowing in the wind...

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

The government began subsidizing the oil industry because it is a strategic resource (tanks, warplanes, and trucks need oil products to function) and because they wanted a greater say in regulation of the internal and international trade of the products.

Wind and solar are not strategic resources, nor are they a major factor in international trade.

(07-20-2023 07:46 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

The government began subsidizing the oil industry because it is a strategic resource (tanks, warplanes, and trucks need oil products to function) and because they wanted a greater say in regulation of the internal and international trade of the products.

Wind and solar are not strategic resources, nor are they a major factor in international trade.

Oil can easily be stored and transported. Electricity cannot. That is a big part of why it is such a vital resource in military and other activities where the ability to bring energy with you can be vital.

And while I get the point you're making about oil... the subsidies are not equal, but are instead heavily skewed towards electricity. Although I certainly wasn't around in the early days of IC cars, I am unaware of any multi-thousand dollar (even relative) consumer incentive to purchase an IC car.

Arguments can be made (and are) for many government subsidies... especially those that develop new technology that has meaningful military or scientific applications... Or even for developing new technology or creating jobs.... but at the end of the day, there has to be a military or consumer need being met.

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

You do realize that the federal and state governments receive a HUGE windfall on those subsidies in the form of gas tax and income tax revenue, right?

With large scale energy storage not mature yet, if you have wind and solar you still need baseload sources to cover the cloudy, calm days. That's two sets of generation (wind/solar and other) to pay for: instant double cost.

When large scale energy storage is mature, you'll have wind/solar and the cost of the storage facility.

(07-20-2023 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

You do realize that the federal and state governments receive a HUGE windfall on those subsidies in the form of gas tax and income tax revenue, right?

The true windfall from those subsidies goes to USA drivers, who pay roughly half as much for a gallon of gasoline, compared to their European counterparts.

(07-19-2023 06:39 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  I think space based solar panels might be the thing that eventually does become cheaper though. Putting the panels where they will get sun 24/7 and wont need to be cleaned off. It's expensive to get them up there, but once you do you're good.

You have Nikola Tesla's secret lost "wireless electricity" notebook, or are you borrowing AOC's extension cord she'll use when she drives her Tesla to Honolulu.

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

At least oil works 24/7.

(07-20-2023 09:05 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

At least oil works 24/7.

So does Nuclear.

(07-20-2023 07:46 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-19-2023 08:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same way we subsidize the oil industry, and have for decades?

The government began subsidizing the oil industry because it is a strategic resource (tanks, warplanes, and trucks need oil products to function) and because they wanted a greater say in regulation of the internal and international trade of the products.

Wind and solar are not strategic resources, nor are they a major factor in international trade.

Right

This and green is dependent on non green to work. Once sgain a fabook talking point for the low iq completely based in fantasy

Green has never been free market.