Costsof renewable power link may not work

[Hamloc]

Sorry Chuck2 not in the mood for cut and paste. Just give me the highlights. I do see Obama's name mentioned US oil production doubled under his watch, a true environmementalist!

[chuckChuck]

Oneoff and Hamloc are definitely biased towards fossil fuels and are incapable of admitting that fossil energy is indeed subsidized in numerous ways. They are well prepared to ignore any of the direct subsidies and indirect costs and sure to criticize every cent that goes to to renewables except bio-fuel in which they have an interest.

They wage an Agriville campaign to discredit any move towards renewable energy and have decided they can predict the future and any effort to replace fossil energy is fruitless.

Meanwhile world wide adoption of renewable energy continues.

Wait for it, next post, Oneoff or Hamloc will criticize the IMF.

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc read what you want or ignore but some issues need to be explained in more than 3 sentences!

[Hamloc]

First off Chuck2 can you show me where my math is incorrect? I would say the number of posts I have put on Agriville argueing the lack of affordability of solar energy with today's technology are no greater than yours argueing the opposite. The auditor general of Ontario Bonnie Lysyk would agree with my opinion of the cost of solar power. Chuck2 you also ignore the number of new coal plants being constructed around the world and refuse to acknowledge this fact. Am I a supporter of fossil fuels? Absolutely. With the technology that exists today I could not farm as many acres as I do or as profitably as I do without them. Could you eliminate all fossil fuel use tomorrow and still farm? As for your assertion I have a closed mind how many solar companies have you talked to about pricing a system? I got a couple of e-mails today from one company, talked to skyfire energy and I am still waiting for pricing from another. Instead of reading fantasy articles written by the great unwashed left I am trying to find out the real numbers and how they apply in my area. Enjoy the rest of this fricking cold and gloomy day! End of rant.

[Oliver88]

Green options will be utilized when they receive sufficient subsidies to make them feasible.
The global energy production numbers speak for themself.

Do any Agriville members power their homes year round by solar or wind? Would be interested to hear about farms doing this in a cold climate.

[furrowtickler]

[tweety]

Hamloc, if a farmer doesn't pay road tax on marked fuel, did the road tax ever exist?

Or is it a subsidy?

People are good with billions remaining in oil execs pockets but oh no, don't spend a penny on renewable.

[oneoff]

Oliver....this isn't about promoters providing one shred of their evidence to prove sustainability in the near or distant future. That would dampen enthusiasm and admitting a 1% market penetration (even with unhealthy subsidies) isn't attention grabbing for the masses who are meant to receive the message.

Well maybe distant future because they know costs always decrease to point where everything is available in surplus amounts; costs decrease to near zero and there are never more than minor setbacks or temporary problems.

Sooo...ignore that power of doubling theorem and push only your pet utopian theories ( in baby steps...each carefully paced at distances that causes no one to trip or stumble )

[chuckChuck]

So does having a utopian vision apply to Brad Wall and Sask Power who are planning for 1600Mw of wind by 2030?

Where is your public campaign against Saskpower and Brad Wall to stop the insanity? If you are so sure you are right that is the responsible thing to do.

[Hamloc]

In all fairness Chuck I have spent far more time talking about the cost of solar. I think properly located wind has advantages over solar. It produces power at about 35% efficiency as opposed to 20% efficiency for solar. The reason the left likes solar so much is that in theory every person with a house can participate.