'ABC forgets' documentary which ‘absolutely skewers the renewable energy industry’

Sorry, but I'm the one who has been providing evidence. And I avoid the rookie mistake of making categorical claims easily refuted by quoting an earlier post. That's something NOBODY should do.

 

How do deductions related to depletion apply to companies other than those who drill?

And, who is it that makes the guesses at depletion?

How are the tax benefits for profits from wells that are slowing in production applicable to other industries?

 

And so did all the others, at one time or another since at least the 50's and oil even earlier than that.

 

Depletion applies to all extracted resources. Beyond that, I'm not interested in diving into technical details.

 

Nope. Available to all.

 

A better basis in fact will improve this discussion.
Debunking the Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Myth | RealClearEnergy
https://www.realclearenergy.org › articles › 2016/10/23

Oct 22, 2016 — By forcing the petroleum industry to blend so much renewable fuel every year, the EPA's program is impacting a huge transfer of wealth from ...

 

Apparently your interest perks back up if you find something you think supports your preconceived notions!

 

Not really.

 

As I said in my list above - technology is wiping the floor with the denialists

 

It is called “worldview bias” or “cognitive bias” and it is a very real phenomena. It explains why you reference semi technical non academic blogs like “wats up with that” is instead of addressing the science in publications like the IPCC

Admittedly it is easier to read a blog.......

 

Annnnd you know this because??

Have you ever read the Stern report? No? How about the Garnaut Review? Both written by economists - both a little date now but worth really looking at

 

Bottom line for that - it is cheaper to run an electric fleet.

 

Firstly renewable energy (as a sector) didn't exist in the 50s. It didn't start to become a significant player in the market until the late 80s /early 90s, so prior till then it received diddly squat compared to the other big players.

Secondly as far as targeted incentives go yes, renewables have received them and are still receiving them. But as the table clearly shows so did all the other sectors (you know the ones you insist didn't receive any). Now its possible that as of 2021 coal, oil an nuclear etc aren't receiving any further direct incentives, I haven't looked into it. However even if this was the case the point is they DID!

 

Twenty years ago the renewable industry was griping that if it had the same monetary incentives and subsidies coal had it would have had most of the problems sorted long before now

 

Oh! And by the way we ALL have worldview biases - mine is against unscientific twaddle which describes the majority of denialists blogs

 

ROFLMAO!!!!

You're absolutely right, there's NO way to say for sure what tomorrow brings. It's perfectly possible that we could all switch to electric vehicles tomorrow & all the electrical companies could suddenly discover huge googobs of capacity they had NO idea was there (I'm shocked! Literally!).

Then again...

 

You do understand that the IPCC is a governmental org that follows a political adgenda first & a scientific one second. Yeah sure there's some science there but it's our job to verify.

Take global warming. Please. We can pull up all the governmental sites we want, but ultimately we'll need to get back to the basics & look hard at what the observations are. Like, if we say the globe's warming significantly over the past century then what we got to do is look over at what the global temp is today. You happen to know what the global temp is today?

I don't either. It's not there. That should tell us something...

 

And the answer is? (Drum roll) - no.

A turbine blade in one of the generators shattered, breached the combustion chamber and immediately started a fire. The generator concerned went off line and 'tripped' all the others as it did so - as was supposed to happen.

 

Just as a reminder, you still haven't addressed two points I raised earlier;

Firstly you stated that 'renewable" sources are heavily subsidized and the rest our heavily taxed.' I produced evidence that they had in the past both been subsidized AND given tax incentives. Do you acknowledge this is fact the case? And if not why?

Secondly you stated that ' The remaining "renewables" use up the sun which is irreplaceable.' I then replied 'I honesty have no idea what you mean and would like to know.' And I still hasn't received an answer.

Would appreciate a response. Thanks.

 

No it is not a “governmental org”. Anyone who thinks so is sadly mistaken

prove me wrong

 

You are more polite than me I would have awarded that post a “WTF”

 

--and I'll take that to mean u completely agree w/ me on the difference between what is and what may possibly (tho no probably) be in some kind of magical future.

Huh, and here I thot we totally finished w/ all that way back when I explained to u how I was responding to the other guy about all electric cars by what, 2035? What part of that did u not understand?

Somehow that one kind of snuck by me there, it must have been at the end of some long involved rant that I couldn't cover in one post. No prob. You do understand that there's only one sun for the planet Earth? We lack the technology to replace it once it's used up? This means that it's not "renewable"?

 

Whoa, please understand that I'd never in a million years ever dream of attempting to "prove you wrong", my interest is in finding common ground so we can consult. Take this IPCC for example. Do we agree that it's an agency of the United Nations? Do we agree that the United Nations can sometimes find itself in the midst of controversy in its other activities? Political controversy?

 

Such smug self-assurance is usually the precursor to failure.
I suspect (although I'm not going to count) that I post more links to peer-reviewed research than anyone else here.
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. Please see Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin.
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC
Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

 

Unlinked/unsourced chart. It has no standing.