[wat0n]

The ridiculous thing is that environmentalists will protest against oil alternatives (e.g. nuclear, hydroelectric) as much as they protest against using gas and oil. They are part of the problem at this point.

Also, direct profits from generation are not the only criterion to design the electric grid. There is also the issue of hedging against risk, and that does allow for using oil and gas for generation to some extent as having stoppages is the costliest thing to society by far.

[Pants-of-dog]

The ridiculous thing is that environmentalists will protest against oil alternatives (e.g. nuclear, hydroelectric) as much as they protest against using gas and oil. They are part of the problem at this point.

I highly doubt that some fringe protests affect the situation as much as oil company lobbyists.

Also, direct profits from generation are not the only criterion to design the electric grid. There is also the issue of hedging against risk, and that does allow for using oil and gas for generation to some extent as having stoppages is the costliest thing to society by far.

Oil and gas also have to deal with stoppages. Texas had to deal with one a few years ago, if I recall correctly.

[wat0n]

I highly doubt that some fringe protests affect the situation as much as oil company lobbyists.

Yes, they are effectively allied in that regard.

Oil and gas also have to deal with stoppages. Texas had to deal with one a few years ago, if I recall correctly.

Indeed and you also have the example of unreliable providers like Russia or Argentina (the latter is the Chilean case, with gas), but that's an argument for having diversity in generation. That means coal, oil and gas would need to be part of a mix that includes nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc... Which would be less profitable in the short run than just picking the cheapest means of generation and running with it, but is less likely to suffer from serious disruptions and even less likely for those disruptions to be long. Users would be, and are, willing to pay more just to make sure supply won't be disrupted, as those disruptions are just way costlier than anything else.

Unfortunately we haven't figured out a cheap way to store electricity (lithium is way too expensive) so we'll be stuck with this state of affairs for the time being. If that was possible, we could indeed just switch to a full renewables grid without much ado, turning it on whenever the conditions for their operation are the best and storing the electricity we don't use at the time as inventory to be used later when it's at night and not windy (for instance). At most, we'd keep existing alternatives as a backup in case inventory started running too low and the main means of generation were unusable or not productive enough, which is more environmentally sustainable in all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, they are effectively allied in that regard.

No, that makes no sense and makes me think you misunderstood again.

Indeed and you also have the example of unreliable providers like Russia or Argentina (the latter is the Chilean case, with gas), but that's an argument for having diversity in generation. That means coal, oil and gas would need to be part of a mix that includes nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc... Which would be less profitable in the short run than just picking the cheapest means of generation and running with it, but is less likely to suffer from serious disruptions and even less likely for those disruptions to be long. Users would be, and are, willing to pay more just to make sure supply won't be disrupted, as those disruptions are just way costlier than anything else.

Unfortunately we haven't figured out a cheap way to store electricity (lithium is way too expensive) so we'll be stuck with this state of affairs for the time being. If that was possible, we could indeed just switch to a full renewables grid without much ado, turning it on whenever the conditions for their operation are the best and storing the electricity we don't use at the time as inventory to be used later when it's at night and not windy (for instance). At most, we'd keep existing alternatives as a backup in case inventory started running too low and the main means of generation were unusable or not productive enough, which is more environmentally sustainable in all.

There are cheap ways to store power.

And this argument that we need backup systems is always conveniently forgotten when we look at existing systems that only have one source. It seems like an arbitrary extra standard that is only imposed against greener alternatives to fossil fuels.

And none of this addresses my actual argument.

[wat0n]

No, that makes no sense and makes me think you misunderstood again.

Then environmentalists should stop doing the oil companies' bidding.

There are cheap ways to store power.

Not at the industrial level.

And this argument that we need backup systems is always conveniently forgotten when we look at existing systems that only have one source. It seems like an arbitrary extra standard that is only imposed against greener alternatives to fossil fuels.

And none of this addresses my actual argument.

Yes, those arguments are forgotten until there's a disruption or potential for disruption and then they resurface. Short term thinking is pervasive, everyone knows that.

And these arguments also apply to fossil fuels. Case in point: Germany and its choice to rely on Russian oil and gas to replace nuclear, now they are learning the hard way this was a stupid choice. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then environmentalists should stop doing the oil companies' bidding.

I am now more certain that you probably misunderstood,

Not at the industrial level.

…..which is why gas and oil stoppages happen.

Yes, those arguments are forgotten until there's a disruption or potential for disruption and then they resurface. Short term thinking is pervasive, everyone knows that.

So you agree that this standard that you are trying to impose on green electricity is not imposed on fossil fuels.

And these arguments also apply to fossil fuels. Case in point: Germany and its choice to rely on Russian oil and gas to replace nuclear, now they are learning the hard way this was a stupid choice. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

So you agree with my claim that the only intelligent long term solution is to stop using fossil fuels altogether.

[BlutoSays]

Not in the next 100 years. Alternative energy can't meet baseload. Period.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog

Not in the next 100 years. Alternative energy can't meet baseload. Period.

Basically this, good luck meeting demand using solar at night or wind when it's not windy and there are no cheap industrial means to store electricity. Denial of such an obvious fact won't change this, at all.

The priority should be to research cheap ways to store electricity. That would make it far more feasible from a risk management perspective to increase the share of "green" alternatives in electric generation.

And yes, I also impose the hedging standard on fossil fuels. Again, Germany is learning the hard way you can't rely on having half of your grid based on oil based means provided by Putin. Germany did not manage risk properly and is facing the consequences, ironically because of pressure by environmentalists to stop nuclear. It turns out the environmental activists can do Big Oil companies' bidding and they are too stupid to realize it.

[BlutoSays]

Progressives really hate big oil. Joke is on them. Old boss meet the new boss. (both rich and evil)

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog



Basically this, good luck meeting demand using solar at night or wind when it's not windy and there are no cheap industrial means to store electricity. Denial of such an obvious fact won't change this, at all.

I disagree with this premise. One reason I think you are wrong is because you have no evidence for this. It seems like a meme that conservatives tell each other until they believe it.

The priority should be to research cheap ways to store electricity. That would make it far more feasible from a risk management perspective to increase the share of "green" alternatives in electric generation.

Again, this is something that should have been done decades ago, as way of preventing the stoppage problems. associated with fossil fuel use.

It is illogical and ahistorical to pretend these problems only exist in greener technologies.

And yes, I also impose the hedging standard on fossil fuels.

No. You are not arguing that we should not invest in fossil fuels until they have a 100% way of preventing stoppages. That standard is only being asked of greener technologies.

Again, Germany is learning the hard way you can't rely on having half of your grid based on oil based means provided by Putin.

This is a completely different argument from the storing power one. This is exactly why I think you are not applying the same standard: because you immediately ho on to discuss a completely different point.

Germany did not manage risk properly and is facing the consequences, ironically because of pressure by environmentalists to stop nuclear. It turns out the environmental activists can do Big Oil companies' bidding and they are too stupid to realize it.

If Putin is Big Oil, why are you arguing in support of Big Oil?

This seems, instead, like an argument for stopping fossil fuel use altogether: to stop appeasing dictatorships just because they have oil.

[wat0n]

I disagree with this premise. One reason I think you are wrong is because you have no evidence for this. It seems like a meme that conservatives tell each other until they believe it.

Of course there is evidence for what I'm saying. Everyone knows solar doesn't work at night, and best case scenario is that in the future they'll work at 25% of their max at most in nighttime. Likewise, wind power is proportional to the cube of wind speed so yields depend a lot on how the wind blows.

Again, this is something that should have been done decades ago, as way of preventing the stoppage problems. associated with fossil fuel use.

It is illogical and ahistorical to pretend these problems only exist in greener technologies.

No one said that.

No. You are not arguing that we should not invest in fossil fuels until they have a 100% way of preventing stoppages. That standard is only being asked of greener technologies.

I never held green technologies to that standard. I never argued against investing in green energy, I just don't think doing away with not so environmentally friendly alternatives is smart. You can invest on green energy while still relying on alternatives.

This is a completely different argument from the storing power one. This is exactly why I think you are not applying the same standard: because you immediately ho on to discuss a completely different point.

On the contrary, both are intimately related. If it was possible to store electricity cheaply at the industrial level, there would be no need to hedge as much.

If Putin is Big Oil, why are you arguing in support of Big Oil?

I did not, I just don't speak against Big Oil. They are a polluting industry like many others yet for now at least we still need to rely on them even if less than in the past.

This seems, instead, like an argument for stopping fossil fuel use altogether: to stop appeasing dictatorships just because they have oil.

If it were so simple it'd been done ages ago. Do you really think NATO was keen on buying Soviet oil during the Cold War?

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course there is evidence for what I'm saying. Everyone knows solar doesn't work at night,

I see.

You are assuming that hydro and wind also only work in daylight hours.

and best case scenario is that in the future they'll work at 25% of their max at most in nighttime.

So, this claim of yours is not even going to be true in the foreseeable future. This is another reason why it is illogical to assume your claim is correct,

Likewise, wind power is proportional to the cube of wind speed so yields depend a lot on how the wind blows.

Yes, but this does not support your claim.

No one said that.

Yes, but everyone simply assumed this should be true despite never saying it out loud. You are doing it right now: ignoring how your argument shows the failures of the status quo, while using the same argument to stop movement away from the status quo.

I never held green technologies to that standard. I never argued against investing in green energy, I just don't think doing away with not so environmentally friendly alternatives is smart. You can invest on green energy while still relying on alternatives.

This is not about you. Everyone does this. It is simply how the debate is framed. In this particular case, you are merely echoing the uneducated claims of @BlutoSays. More importantly, politicians in the pocket of oil companies use this exact justification to keep subsidising fossil fuels and preventing widespread adoption of greener technologies.

Also, my point is that we use fossil fuels despite their lack of storing power to avoid stoppages.

On the contrary, both are intimately related. If it was possible to store electricity cheaply at the industrial level, there would be no need to hedge as much.

And capitalism decided to not invest in that, and buy oil from dictatorships they appease instead.

So, being able to store electricity is more important than using green technologies, but less important than disempowerment of people like Putin.

I did not, I just don't speak against Big Oil. They are a polluting industry like many others yet for now at least we still need to rely on them even if less than in the past.

In this thread, you are supporting continued use of fossil fuels, even if that means appeasing dictatorships.

If it were so simple it'd been done ages ago. Do you really think NATO was keen on buying Soviet oil during the Cold War?

Yes. They probably thought it was a way of forcing capitalism on the USSR. And their support and tolerance of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait, and other oil rich dictatorships is evidence that they have no problem with supporting dictatorships if they get cheap oil out of it.

[wat0n]

I see.

You are assuming that hydro and wind also only work in daylight hours.

What if there's no wind and there's a drought?

So, this claim of yours is not even going to be true in the foreseeable future. This is another reason why it is illogical to assume your claim is correct,

Currently, solar simply does not work at night

Yes, but this does not support your claim.

How so? It's clear that yield depends on wind speed.

Yes, but everyone simply assumed this should be true despite never saying it out loud. You are doing it right now: ignoring how your argument shows the failures of the status quo, while using the same argument to stop movement away from the status quo.

Nope, not at all. That's why green technologies have been part of the mix for years.

This is not about you. Everyone does this. It is simply how the debate is framed. In this particular case, you are merely echoing the uneducated claims of @BlutoSays. More importantly, politicians in the pocket of oil companies use this exact justification to keep subsidising fossil fuels and preventing widespread adoption of greener technologies.

If that were true, green energy generation would not be a thing at all. That's simply not true.

Also, my point is that we use fossil fuels despite their lack of storing power to avoid stoppages.

Oil can be and is stored. Same for gas. What are you talking about?

And capitalism decided to not invest in that, and buy oil from dictatorships they appease instead.

So, being able to store electricity is more important than using green technologies, but less important than disempowerment of people like Putin.

"Capitalism decided to invest"? What the hell, who's that capitalism who can make decisions?

Anyway, innovation is not as simple as just investing and waiting. And there is quite a bit of investment in finding ways to have cheaper storage of electricity, both for consumers and industry.

In this thread, you are supporting continued use of fossil fuels, even if that means appeasing dictatorships.

Because there are few to no alternatives.

Yes. They probably thought it was a way of forcing capitalism on the USSR. And their support and tolerance of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait, and other oil rich dictatorships is evidence that they have no problem with supporting dictatorships if they get cheap oil out of it.

Or maybe they did so because they needed oil.

[Pants-of-dog]

What if there's no wind and there's a drought?

Feel free to show that droughts and lack of wind are a problem for those locales that already use electricity generated by these forms of electricity generation.

Currently, solar simply does not work at night

And then you pated evidence showing it will in the future, thus contradicting the claim made by @BlutoSays that you are currently championing,

How so? It's clear that yield depends on wind speed.

Yes, but that does not support your argument.

Nope, not at all. That's why green technologies have been part of the mix for years.

This does not contradict the fact that everyone engages in this double standard.

If that were true, green energy generation would not be a thing at all. That's simply not true.

How so?

Oil can be and is stored. Same for gas. What are you talking about?

This does not seem to stop the problem of stoppages.

"Capitalism decided to invest"? What the hell, who's that capitalism who can make decisions?

Anyway, innovation is not as simple as just investing and waiting. And there is quite a bit of investment in finding ways to have cheaper storage of electricity, both for consumers and industry.

None of this contradicts my claim that capitalism decided to buy oil from corrupt dictatorships instead of dealing with the problems associated with fossil fuels.

Because there are few to no alternatives.

Are you now arguing that solar, wind, and hydro do not even exist?

Because alternatives to buying gas from corrupt dictatorships have existed for decades,

Or maybe they did so because they needed oil.

So you agree that capitalism prefers buying oil from corrupt dictatorships than fixing the problems associated with fossil fuels.

[wat0n]

Feel free to show that droughts and lack of wind are a problem for those locales that already use electricity generated by these forms of electricity generation.

No need - we know solar can't work at night, we know electricity generated by windmills is proportional to the cubic of wind speed and we also know droughts impact the generation of hydroelectric dams.

And then you pated evidence showing it will in the future, thus contradicting the claim made by @BlutoSays that you are currently championing,

A fall of 75% of the maximum possible output is not inconsistent with his claim. It's still better than a fall of 100% like nowadays.

Yes, but that does not support your argument.

How so? If wind speed decreases so will the generation of electricity.

This does not contradict the fact that everyone engages in this double standard.

Clearly, those authorities who allowed green energy to join the grid disagree.

How so?

Green technologies enjoy widespread use in places like Europe.

This does not seem to stop the problem of stoppages.

No, but it helps to alleviate it.

None of this contradicts my claim that capitalism decided to buy oil from corrupt dictatorships instead of dealing with the problems associated with fossil fuels.

So who's this capitalism who makes decisions again? It explains why we've been relying on oil, even if less than in the past.

Are you now arguing that solar, wind, and hydro do not even exist?

Because alternatives to buying gas from corrupt dictatorships have existed for decades,

No, but it is true there are few to no alternatives that can be stored like oil. It definitely has its advantages.

So you agree that capitalism prefers buying oil from corrupt dictatorships than fixing the problems associated with fossil fuels.

Sort of. It turns out it's not that easy to replace fossil fuels, even if there has been steady progress to that effect since the 1973 oil shock.

By the way, I don't think communist dictatorships ever attempted to replace fossil fuels either. After all, why bother when you can get cheap Soviet oil?

[Pants-of-dog]

No need - we know solar can't work at night, we know electricity generated by windmills is proportional to the cubic of wind speed and we also know droughts impact the generation of hydroelectric dams.

A fall of 75% of the maximum possible output is not inconsistent with his claim. It's still better than a fall of 100% like nowadays.

How so? If wind speed decreases so will the generation of electricity.

Clearly, those authorities who allowed green energy to join the grid disagree.

Green technologies enjoy widespread use in places like Europe.

No, but it helps to alleviate it.

So who's this capitalism who makes decisions again? It explains why we've been relying on oil, even if less than in the past.

No, but it is true there are few to no alternatives that can be stored like oil. It definitely has its advantages.

Sort of. It turns out it's not that easy to replace fossil fuels, even if there has been steady progress to that effect since the 1973 oil shock.

By the way, I don't think communist dictatorships ever attempted to replace fossil fuels either. After all, why bother when you can get cheap Soviet oil? :?:

All of this is based on you misunderstanding the arguments or failing to provide any new information. I am not in the mood for explaining my argument repeatedly or trying to explain your bad logic to you.

Unless you have clear evidence showing that modern industrialised places cannot get by on electricity from hydro, solar, and/or wind, then you are not supporting the claim. And there is no point replying to my posts unless you have said evidence.

Finally, I know for a fact that no such evidence exists, because there are already industrialised locales running off these greener technologies.

[wat0n]

No one is saying green energy shouldn't be part of the mix, simply that the energy mix - for now - needs to use some not so green sources to hedge risk.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not think that fossil fuels are needed even as a hedge risk. We can use other greener technologies for that too.

And one way to transition away from fossil fuels would be to use greener technologies as the solution for the unaddressed problem of stoppages from fossil fuels.

[Wulfschilde]

Sanctions and attempts to transition from fossil fuel reliance will possibly outlast the Ukraine conflict itself, which means that price volatility will likely be around for awhile.

The elephant in the room here is that there isn't enough lithium on planet earth to facilitate the infrastructure that environmentalists want.

[Truth To Power]

Right now, it actually costs more money to extract, use for generating electricity, and clean up after fossil fuel use than it does to do the same for any other source of electricity.

No, that's just silly, anti-scientific nonsense based on a false and absurd assumption that CO2 emissions represent a more or less infinite negative externality.

But since we do not make fossil fuel companies pay for externalities and subsidise them to a large degree, a lot of the cost is hidden.

No, because what you claim is a cost -- CO2 emissions -- is actually a benefit.

This then weakens the financial argument for changing.

The "argument" for changing is based on objectively false assumptions.