Scotland 100% Renewable, Almost

[jazz]

Nobody hates Scotland or Denmark or any country but before you make some outrageous claim that they are doing shit so perfect, make an apples to apples comparison. What are they powering that windmaills can handle? With a population the same as Ab and Sk but a GDP 1/3 of the size, small distances, little heavy industry, temperate climate.

All renweables in Europe are heavily subsidized. Evertything is there. And there is no way the oil patch gets 40B in subsidies. Royalty holidays and CCA are not the same as direct cash injection.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

To survive the last cold snap in Alberta you would have had to be able to store enough electricity for 6 days of consumption, I personally think that is logistically impossible. Wind produced virtually no electricity for 6 days.

I have nothing against producing carbon free energy, nuclear and Hydro make sense to me. Wind and solar are fine when they are used for intermittent top ups of the grid but not as a total replacement. The Greens and the NDP foolishly believe wind and solar can replace thermal generation, this is the policy I object to!!!

And according to the graph from the UK, they often produce 0 power there as well, but are on their way to 100%? Apparently their calculators must be able to handle division by zero better than mine.

And I see that the usual suspect is back to claiming that renewables are cost comptetive with reliables. Apparently all of these examples where we have posted evidence to the contrary have been ignored.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here is a very well researched article breaking down what the anti fossil fuel types include when they make outrageous claims about fossil fuel subsidies:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/01/subsidizing-the-epocalypse/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/01/subsidizing-the-epocalypse/

They include such improbable externalities as repairing potholes in roads, fabricated numbers such as the cost of global warming etc etc. And posters continue to repeat this nonsense without any consideration if it is valid or even plausible.

Here is data from the EIA on subsidies by energy equivalent:

[LEP]

Yes. Part of the subsidy argument is that the royalties are lower than they should be therefore that is a subsidy.

I guess the same argument can be used that because our income tax is also lower than their reference coutries all Canadian taxpayers are subsidized. 🤯

[tweety]

Well Tweety still waiting for an answer to my question. What amazes me is the refusal to admit that wind and solar are intermittent sources of power. Tweety your highlighting of Scotland's geographical ability to produce wind energy insinuates that the same thing could and should be done here.

Well, shouldn't we at least do something? Instead, you fold your arms and say, "Nope, nothing to do here, let the next generation worry about it".

Haven't we already screwed over the next generation enough with our excessive greed, overspending and waste? Nice legacy we are leaving. May as well use up all the practically free non renewable energy as fast as possible as well.

Coastal tides and coastal wind are very good sources of power. Scotland could have just as easily been like Alberta and said, screw it, oil companies need the money. Pretty embarrassing - or at least it should be.

[tweety]

Here is a very well researched article breaking down what the anti fossil fuel types include when they make outrageous claims about fossil fuel subsidies:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/01/subsidizing-the-epocalypse/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/01/subsidizing-the-epocalypse/

They include such improbable externalities as repairing potholes in roads, fabricated numbers such as the cost of global warming etc etc. And posters continue to repeat this nonsense without any consideration if it is valid or even plausible.

Here is data from the EIA on subsidies by energy equivalent:

[ATTACH]5523[/ATTACH]

Oh, the article written by a guy with a BA in Psych and a certificate in Massage Therapy? He is also a Climate "Specialist".

[sumdumguy]

Albertafarmer, I like that: renewable versus reliable. Fact in a nutshell.
Scotland, Norway, Finland can go bang there head against a brick wall - the smart money will go with reliable.

[LEP]

Oh, the article written by a guy with a BA in Psych and a certificate in Massage Therapy? He is also a Climate "Specialist".

Is it worse than a BA in Journalism?

[jazz]

Well, shouldn't we at least do something? Instead, you fold your arms and say, "Nope, nothing to do here, let the next generation worry about it".

Why does the energy industry have to take the brunt of your disruption. Don't you have any other Ideas? That's pretty small thinking to make an argument that one industry has to be torn down while other go about their same ways.

You do know that Panamax ships plying the oceans with landfill ready junk has the same emissions as 50M cars. The US Navy has been running nuclear ships and subs for decades. Anything there offend you or its ok? Careful your hypocrisy is showing.

That's the problem with enviro SJW, always looking in the wrong places.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Oh, the article written by a guy with a BA in Psych and a certificate in Massage Therapy? He is also a Climate "Specialist".

Tweety, don't lower yourself to Chuck's level of attacking the messenger or the source. You are better than that and smarter than that and more than capable of checking the numbers and the sources and formulating a mature response. Leave the messenger attacks to the Chuck's of the world who lack the knowledge and credentials to do anything more.