Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Donate Bitcoin



Donate Paypal

Page added on December 16, 2017

Bookmark and Share

The myth of a fossil fuel phase-out

The myth of a fossil fuel phase-out thumbnail

How the world uses energy is a hot topic for a warming planet, and fears of pollution and resource strain have produced a virtual arms race of energy-efficiency strategies. From the European Union to China, economies are vowing to reduce their energy intensity with the help of technological innovations and legislative changes.

Yet, despite these promises, consumer demand for energy is forecast by the International Energy Agency to rise until at least 2040. With the world’s energy needs growing, how can policymakers guarantee supply?

To put it bluntly, the world has nothing to worry about when it comes to reserves. After 40 years of fearing energy shortages, we have entered an era of abundance. We need to guard against false narratives, not scarce resources.

The culprit of this storyline is the Club of Rome, a global think-tank that, in the 1970s, spurred energy anxiety with its absurd prophecies derived from questionable models. As devoted followers of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich, the club argued that bad things come from exponential growth, and good things from linear growth. This idea fueled the prediction that the world would run out of oil by 2000.

By adopting this nonsense dogma, developed countries enabled resource-rich authoritarian leaders like Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran, to use their oil reserves as tools to oppose the West – and particularly its support for Israel. This contributed to the oil shocks of the 1970s, and reinforced the erroneous perception that hydrocarbon reserves were even more limited, and largely confined to the Middle East.

Rapid advances in technology, particularly in the field of exploration and the ability to extract hydrocarbons in new places, eventually upended such narratives. Today’s energy “crisis” stems not from shortages, but from anxiety over pollution.

But this anxiety has not slowed our exploration habits. On the contrary, politics and international law, like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, have been adapted to enable discovery. Consider, for example, the Rovuma gas field off the coast of Mozambique. Today, a consortium of international companies from countries including Italy and China is preparing production, and one of Africa’s poorest countries is set to reap huge rewards.

Similarly, Israel, once thought to be the only place in the Middle East without hydrocarbons, is sitting on 800 billion cubic meters of offshore gas reserves, more than 130 years of the country’s current annual gas consumption. Once a net energy importer, Israel today faces the very real challenge of exporting its gas bonanza.

But perhaps the biggest technology-driven upheaval for global energy markets in recent years has come from shale gas and shale oil production in the United States. At 8.8 million barrels per day, US oil production is now higher than that of Iraq and Iran combined. US shale gas is being delivered to Asia, Latin America, and parts of Europe. These markets were long locked up by Qatar, Russia, and Australia, but now the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, like the oil market, has entered a period of overproduction.

Taken together, these developments have contributed to lower energy prices, and reduced the strength of OPEC. Furthermore, because LNG is favored by the transport sector (particularly freight and maritime shippers) for environmental reasons, the ability to use oil as a geopolitical weapon has disappeared. Iran was so desperate to ramp up its oil exports that it agreed to abandon its nuclear program (strikingly, the Iran nuclear deal mentions the word “oil” 65 times).

Wind and solar are often presented as alternatives to oil and gas, but they cannot compete with traditional sources for electricity generation. If they could, there would be no reason for the EU to support renewable energy production through legislation. Moreover, while wind and solar technologies generate electricity, the biggest energy demand comes from heating. In the EU, for example, electricity represents only 22% of final energy demand, while heating and cooling represents 45%; transportation accounts for the remaining 33%.

All of these factors help explain why fossil fuels, which currently meet more than 80% of the world’s energy needs, will remain the backbone of global energy production for the foreseeable future. This may not come as welcome news to those pushing for an immediate phase-out of hydrocarbons. But perhaps some solace can be gained from the fact that technological innovation will also play a key role in reducing the negative impacts on air and water quality.

Amid the global conversation about climate change, it is understandable that developed economies would promise significant gains in energy efficiency. But while the EU may be committed to reducing CO2 emissions, other signatories of the 2015 Paris climate agreement do not seem as resolute. It would not be surprising if most of the signatories actually raised their energy consumption in coming years, turning to fossil fuels because they cannot afford any other option.

Energy policy will remain on the agenda for advanced economies for many years to come. But as countries work to balance security of supply with environmental goals, they must also commit to getting their facts straight.



54 Comments on "The myth of a fossil fuel phase-out"

  1. Jef on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:54 am 

    We will use every last drop of FFs in the effort to phase out of FFs.

  2. Ghung on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 9:11 am 

    “The culprit of this storyline is the Club of Rome, a global think-tank that, in the 1970s, spurred energy anxiety with its absurd prophecies derived from questionable models.”

    Lost me at that point since the LTG model has turned out to be quite prescient so far, and didn’t say a lot specifically about energy or oil. It did include resources as a whole, but maybe the author needs to pick on Hubbert if he needs a strawman to beat.

    It’s telling that the source article allows no comments or criticisms of its conclusions.

  3. onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 9:41 am 

    We should have left Oil before it left us. Oh and LTR is grounded in science and is being shown to be credible by events on the ground. Perhaps the author doesn’t like the anxiety this realization is producing

  4. Sissyfuss on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 9:55 am 

    The author agrees in a roundabout way with Monbiot that we have enough FFs to fry us all.

  5. Aspera on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:08 am 

    “Four decades after the book was published, Limit to Growth’s forecasts have been vindicated by new Australian research.”

    “Research from the University of Melbourne has found the book’s forecasts are accurate, 40 years on.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

  6. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:10 am 

    This article has it right from A..Z, but is nevertheless irritating, because it is right with the benefit of hindsight. There is no reason to assume that either the Club of Rome or King-Hubbert or ASPO-2000 were intentionally deceiving the public when they pushed their resp. stories. They were all dealing with the knowledge they had at the time, knowledge that is not written for all eternity but can evaporate overnight by new facts and insights.

    The author, an Italian born in Belgium between the coal mines of Charleroi, who made a career as a Brussels-based EU energy bureaucrat/fossil fuel Heini…

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/samuele-furfari-44653355/

    … makes the point that the world will not run out of fossil fuel any time soon.

    In fact not in thousands of years I might add:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593032/Coal-fuel-UK-centuries-Vast-deposits-totalling-23trillion-tonnes-North-Sea.html

    The limiting factor is not depletion, as most here, including me, thought only 5 years ago (and some resident peak oil fossils like millimind still haven’t got the message), but the capacity or lack thereof of the biosphere to absorb endless amounts of CO2.

    We must hurry. Not because we won’t have enough fossil fuel left to carry out the inevitable energy transition, but because we will be prohibited to use the dregs for much longer.

    The Club of Rome, far from being a “culprit”, played a valuable role in creating awareness for the fact that humans can’t just go about as they please, but are becoming too big for their own environment.

  7. rockman on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:15 am 

    Ghung/Sissy – Or as has been said before: everything is f*cking great…until it’s f*cking terrible. LOL.

    They like to keep spinning the idea that oil is cheap today despite the fact that the global economy is spending about 40% more for oil then it has average for the last 5 decades. And no: ground and marine transport is not making great use of NG…gasoline/diesel are still the rulers.

    So besides the fact that it was high oil prices and not “new” technology that brought about increased US oil production folks like this continue to ignore the huge time lags that exists for various phases of the dynamic.

    Reminds me of the plot of turkey happiness: keeps steadily improving. Right up until the Thanksgiving holiday.

  8. onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:43 am 

    Thanks for the 40% revelation Rock

  9. onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:47 am 

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/The-Global-Economy-is-Now-More-Vulnerable-to-Oil-Prices-than-Ever.html
    A bit outdated but a cogent comment
    “This paper examines the impact of oil price changes on global economic growth. Unlike some recent studies, this paper finds that oil price rises have had significant negative impacts on world economic growth. A time-series analysis of the data from 1971 to 2010 finds that an increase in real oil price by 10 dollars is associated with a reduction of world economic growth rate by between 0.4 and 1% in the following year”

  10. Antius on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 11:11 am 

    ‘The limiting factor is not depletion, as most here, including me, thought only 5 years ago (and some resident peak oil fossils like millimind still haven’t got the message), but the capacity or lack thereof of the biosphere to absorb endless amounts of CO2.’

    And EROI. That old chestnut that Cloggie hates.

  11. Aspera on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 11:14 am 

    Clog: As the recent (2014) work by Turner (www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/files/mssi/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf) documents, the Club of Rome LTG findings did NOT “…evaporate overnight by new facts and insights.”

    In fact, Turner’s work showed that Meadow, et al. were spot on.

    The LTG work did more than create awareness, they showed, using scenario analysis, how a techno-industrial civilization can fail from, not just one big thing, but from a variety of different combinations of small weaknesses, depletions and failures to plan ahead.

  12. onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 11:25 am 

    “The limiting factor is not depletion’
    Not to mention that the ability to via energy keep people alive is now counterproductive to the longer term sustainability of our species on this planet

  13. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 12:37 pm 

    And EROI. That old chestnut that Cloggie hates.

    ??? I love EROI, I have it for breakfast.

    http://m.siemens.com/en/press/pressreleases/pressrelease.php?detail=http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/2014/windpower-renewables/pr2014110070wpen.htm?content%5B%5D=WP

    Siemens, no fools: EROI wind larger than 50

    Central to LCAs is the energy payback time calculation. This is the length of time the wind power plant has to operate in order to produce as much energy as it will consume during its entire lifecycle. In an onshore wind power plant with an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the energy payback time of a Siemens SWT-3.2-113 wind turbine is 4.5 months. This figure is based on a 20-turbine project, including a 13 kilometer grid transmission connection, and all the efforts involved covering material use, manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance as well as dismantling and end-of-lifetime treatment.

    Energy payback time 4.5 months on an absolute minimum life span of 25 years, that’s an EROI of 50 or larger.

    Solar panels have lower EROI, think 11-12…

    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-24/but-what-s-the-real-energy-return-of-photovoltaic-energy/

    …but this value is still very fluent as nobody knows how long panels can survive. Early indicators are that panels still function well after 30-40 year, where EROI calculations are based on 202-25 years. Furthermore is production technology still advancing and especially in thin film solar much higher EROI values are to be expected.

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/energy-problems-what-energy-problems/

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/solar-eroi/

  14. GregT on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 1:23 pm 

    “Wind power has a high EROI value, with the mean perhaps as high as 18:1 (as derived in an existing meta-analysis by Kubiszewski et al., 2010) or even 20:1 (n of 26 from 18 publications) (see Lambert et al., 2012 for references) (Fig. 3). The value in practice may be less due to the need for backup facilities.”

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856

  15. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 1:40 pm 

    2010, that is onshore turbines. At sea with average windspeeds of 10 m/s EROI is much higher. In 2017 large offshore wind turbines have EROI of at least. And even that value is very conservative since a lifespan of 25 years is very conservative.

    So far two offshore windparks have been dismantled were all turbines were still functioning after 23 years, but were too small for the maintenance effort. They wanted bigger ones.

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/nuon-dismantles-offshore-wind-farm-in-the-netherlands/

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/worlds-first-offshore-windfarm-vindeby-decommissioned/

  16. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 1:40 pm 

    In 2017 large offshore wind turbines have EROI of at least 50

  17. dave thompson on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 2:38 pm 

    We are in the midst of depletion of every thing industrial civilization. The volume of oil extraction is at all time highs however, what humans can do with the oil and all things industrial for that matter, is to maintain BAU. On the surface to most it’s all good. Look behind the curtain Toto it is all a scamsham.

  18. Davy on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 3:20 pm 

    4.5 months payback on new wind sounds bogus to me. I would like to see the numbers on that one.

  19. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 3:32 pm 

    “4.5 months payback on new wind sounds bogus to me. I would like to see the numbers on that one.”

    Davy the finance guy, bluffing himself into the world of EROI calculations. “if I only had the numbers”.

    Davy instinctively attacks any notion that goes against his collapse superstition, broadcasted for years to everybody who wanted to listen.

  20. GregT on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 3:52 pm 

    “Most alternative renewable energy sources appear, at this time, to have considerably lower EROI values than any of the non-renewable fossil fuels.

    Wind and photovoltaic energy are touted as having substantial environmental benefits. These benefits, however, may have lower returns and larger initial carbon footprints than originally suggested (e.g. the externalities associated with the mining of neodymium and its subsequent use in wind turbine construction).

    The energy costs pertaining to intermittency and factors such as the oil, natural gas and coal employed in the creation, transport and implementation of wind turbines and PV panels may not be adequately represented in some cost-benefit analyses.”

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856

  21. Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:04 pm 

    Greg, not one article on wind, or even solar, ‘renewables’ covers the entire process of their coming into being. Not one in the years I have been reading about them. The techie dreamers just take any stats provided by the manufacturers as gospel truth.

    A simple thing, like a wind tower or solar panel, would take pages to cover all of the items/people/processes involved. All of them begin in the ground at mines. Perspective is lost on techies like Cloggie.

    http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html

    This is from 2011 and is still true today. Maybe Cloggie should debate with sunweb? Have a nice evening. It is Sunday morning here.

  22. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:11 pm 

    Oh please Greg, not again Charly Hall.

    “appear”, “may”, “some”.

    http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.nl/2017/03/dr-charles-hall-is-still-totally-wrong.html

    The main point of criticism regarding Hall’s EROI treatment is that he smuggles every imaginable energy cost into his calculations. If for instance an employee of a wind turbine factory flies to the Bahama’s, the energy cost is included.

  23. MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:21 pm 

    Cloggie

    Charles Hall has written over 300 peer reviewed scientific papers. And your source isn’t credible you stupid person.

  24. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:25 pm 

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/16/wind-turbine-payback-period-claimed-to-be-within-8-months/

    “US researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest. Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, they conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.”

    Note, this is an onshore, smaller wind turbine. In the North Sea average wind speed is 10 m/, much higher than perhaps 6 m/s on land.

    This 4.5 months for a large offshore turbines is absolutely realistic.

    But our collapsenik trio Davy, Greg and Makati have long ago decided that the world is going to crash, began to prep seriously for that event and hence for them there is no way back to reality. The psychological hurdles are simply too high.

    But on a positive note they can now combine forces and battle against me, rather than each other for a change.lol

  25. MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:28 pm 

    Antis

    Why are the Saudi’s and IEA and HSBC bank all warning about oil shortages in a few years. And there are several more I won’t list..

    IEA Chief warns of world oil shortages by 2020 as discoveries fall to record lows
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-says-global-oil-discoveries-at-record-low-in-2016-1493244000

    Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Warns of World Oil Shortages Ahead
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-minister-sees-end-of-oil-price-slump-1476870790

    Saudi Aramco CEO believes oil shortage coming despite U.S. shale boom
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/07/10/saudi-aramco-ceo-believes-oil-shortage-coming-despite-u-s-shale-boom.html

    I wouldn’t bet against the Saudi Oil Minister if I was you..Big guy! LOL

  26. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:32 pm 

    millimind, Charles Hall and his partner in crime, this Spanish chap Pietro, are notorious for being the #1 outliers in EROI land.

    But by all means, believe what you have to believe, millimind. We in Europe will simply soldier on with our renewable energy vision, undeterred by notorious doomers from the other side of the pond. Why don’t you retreat in your Walden hut and wait for the end of the world. No American belief, no American competition on future energy markets, what’s not to like?

  27. Apneaman on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 4:50 pm 

    The only thing getting phased out is the humans.

    Winds fuel California wildfire, state’s third-largest on record

    “The so-called Thomas Fire has destroyed more than 1,000 structures, including about 750 homes, in Southern California coastal communities since erupting on Dec. 4, the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said in a statement.”

    “Authorities described the current conditions, including returning winds and extremely low humidity, as “critical fire weather.”

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wildfires/winds-fuel-california-wildfire-states-third-largest-on-record-idUSKBN1EA097

    A couple of days ago it was the 5th largest. This fucking thing might still be burning on Christmas day……. but it’s all a hoax that some of us dumb sheeple fell for right?

    All you deniers out there, including the lurkers who never post, can feel free to submit your apologies and admission of wrongness, AKA – manning up, anytime. 1 time is all then it’s over.

    Once that uncomfortable manning up moment is over with you and your friends & family can get to the business of protecting each other while there is still time.

    IMO, this is one of the few choices we have left ourselves. Not an easy choice since it means going against the tribal stance, but it’s going to change one way or another.

    Oh and don’t worry about the oil or NatGas – they ain’t going anywhere and were never under any serious threat. That was all hysterical alarmist politics from both sides.

  28. Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 5:01 pm 

    The sixth largest wildfire in California was in 1932.

    http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Acres.pdf

    The only thing getting phased out is the humans.

    As a bonus that would include you. Don’t hold your breath though.

  29. DerHundistlos on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 5:37 pm 

    The smug author would be well advised to show a little humility toward The Club of Rome. The TCR’s timing may be off, but the analysis is spot on.

  30. Davy on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 5:57 pm 

    “if I only had the numbers”.
    Dutchy, what does the wind turbine project cost and what are the revenues? It is that simple but you don’t have the numbers instead you deflect the conversation to complaining about my dooming. If the windmills really paid for themselves in 4.5 months there would be long lines to build them. Hell I want one, no I want 100. You are a big talker but when pressed on a subject you get shifty.

  31. MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:12 pm 

    Cloggie

    Wind and solar produced less than 1 percent of total world energy last year..Per IEA…Its a total joke its been around for 40 years and trillions have been spent on that junk.. Its a false hope..Just like driver less cars..LOL

  32. MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:14 pm 

    Cloggie is energy illiterate and peak oil ignorant. And it shows!

  33. DMyers on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:04 pm 

    Cloggie has an unassailable position on these things. He argues simply that doomism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there were any chance of a future, it would require believers and doers. So, become a believer and doer and see what the fuck we can do.

    The only opposition to this view is the “doom is preferable” view. This requires a resignation to doom, negating any possible intervening deliverance. No effort is generated by this perspective, so doom ensues as a matter of omission, if nothing else.

    I have no iron in this fire. I’m only delineating the options and thankful for the choice.

  34. dave thompson on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:23 pm 

    DMyers, Cloggie likes to label people doomers when a person like myself points out the realities that humanity face concerning industrial civ. and the limits to growth.
    The reality IS that no matter how many wind mills solar panels and whatever alternative renewable energy schemes humans have come up with say in the past twenty years, FF burning has only gone up year over year world wide. This is a fact that green energy promoters never admit.

  35. onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 10:41 pm 

    Yes, I echo what Dave is saying. The realities are hard to swallow but that does NOT make them any less real. No magic bullet solutions exist to our overshoot situation. That is why what we face are predicaments in which we will have to adapt as best we can to situations already out of our control and/or chose uncomfortable lesser of two evils options

  36. Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 2:35 am 

    4.5 months payback. I am waiting?????

    “if I only had the numbers”.

    Dutchy, what does the wind turbine project cost and what are the revenues?

  37. Cloggie on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 3:07 am 

    If the windmills really paid for themselves in 4.5 months there would be long lines to build them. Hell I want one, no I want 100. You are a big talker but when pressed on a subject you get shifty.

    Davy boy, my finance buddy, nobody says that wind turbines pay for themselves in 4.5 month. We were talking about ENERGY PAYBACK TIME. Which means that after the turbine has produced electricity for 4.5 months, it has paid back the energy necessary to build the damn thing in the first place. Has nothing to do with money. And again, I think that even the EROI of 50 is way too pessimistic. To quote my favorite example… the Eiffel tower was designed to stand for a few years for the occasion of the World Exhibition of 1889. The Parisians initially didn’t like the monstrum. Meanwhile it still stands and engineers predict it can stand for another 3 centuries. Could apply to all these wind towers as well, with their hyper-conservative guaranteed life spans like 20 years. What if they still stand after a century? In that case multiply your EROI with a factor 5. Another one of my favorites, here the oldest windmill in the Netherlands that was build before 1440, that is before America was ever heard off, the corn mill of Zeddam, that still works:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FTE5vNbVgY

    It has a good chance to survive America (in its present shape), but I digress.

    But talking about money, your favorite subject… it didn’t take long for farmers in the northern provinces of Holland and Germany to figure out early that it makes more financial sense to have a wind turbine in your meadows than cows. Since 1999 however the government decided that this practice should stop and the boeren, as farmers are known in the Netherlands, didn’t get permission anymore for reasons of landscape planning:

    http://www.omroepflevoland.nl/nieuws/143770/noordoostpolder-boeren-raken-solitaire-windmolens-definitief-kwijt

    Mind you, that was in the nineties. Nowadays prices of wind power kWh’s have plummeted and most wind parks are placed out of sight at the North Sea, with magnificent wind conditions as a bonus.

    Dutchy, what does the wind turbine project cost and what are the revenues?

    You want prices? Here you have your prices of every imaginable component of the future renewable energy base:

    https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/What-will-the-energy-transformation-cost.pdf

    p71 and beyond (appendix A). Source: IEA

  38. Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 3:37 am 

    “Davy boy, my finance buddy, nobody says that wind turbines pay for themselves in 4.5 month. We were talking about ENERGY PAYBACK TIME.”
    There you go dutchy boy, you finally spit it out. Why not just be upfront and say it was an energy payback. If you are going to populate the planet with your alternative energy devices to satisfy your fantasy obsession of 100% renewables then get down to the basics of affordability.

    “You want prices? Here you have your prices of every imaginable component of the future renewable energy base:”
    No dutchy, give me the cost figures for your wind park in the above thread where you are preaching your 4.5 month payback. Then give me what they expect the revenues generated will be. Your fraunhofer BS is just a longwinded game of abstract numbers. Get real dutchy cost/revenue. How hard is that or are you trying to hide something?

  39. Cloggie on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 3:50 am 

    Why don’t you put on your glasses and slowly and carefully reread:

    Cloggie on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 12:37 pm

    …and verify I quoted Siemens talking about energy payback time.

  40. Cloggie on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 3:56 am 

    How hard is that or are you trying to hide something?

    What would that be we are hiding when you know that in Europe 90% of all new energy generating equipment is renewable. We sure know how to make a buck.

    Only perhaps in Polish Backwardistan they are still building coal plants.

    Renewable energy is now the largest share globally. Because it is the cheapest.

    https://www.ft.com/content/44ed7e90-3960-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

  41. Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 5:49 am 

    “verify I quoted Siemens talking about energy payback time.”

    Why don’t you say that every time then? There is a big difference between the two. BTW, where are the numbers? How many years is the actual monetary payback time on a wind turbine like you are discussing in this thread? Affordability is a key issue for renewables. I am all for wind turbine farms. What I am not for is this bragging with deception to peddle an agenda.

  42. Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 5:56 am 

    “What would that be we are hiding when you know that in Europe 90% of all new energy generating equipment is renewable. We sure know how to make a buck.”
    You are hiding the issue of affordability and you are exaggerating the energy transformation. Your statement about 90% of new generation is renewable masks the fact that renewable are still not the dominant generating source. I am impressed with Europe and I am glad the US is making a good effort too. What I don’t like is the stupid agenda.

    “Renewable energy is now the largest share globally. Because it is the cheapest.”
    Again you are not telling the true story. You are one deception after another. They may be the cheapest within the current fossil fuel complex but it is yet to be proven they will be the cheapest once all the other cost are tallied up especially once the cross a threshold of penetration that involves expensive storage and grid upgrades.

  43. Cloggie on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 6:32 am 

    In every sentence you put words in my mouth I never said.

  44. Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 6:43 am 

    dutchy, you are one big fantasy future based upon history revisions wrapped up in cloak of deception and self promotion.

    BTW, where are your ROI numbers braggart?

  45. Dylan on Mon, 18th Dec 2017 6:32 am 

    FFs don’t have even a theoretical causal link to climate. No physical experiments have been performed to date to test the hypothesis.

  46. Makati1 on Mon, 18th Dec 2017 6:54 am 

    Dylan, we are living the experiment. Physics and chemistry prove the case. No “experiments” required. All denial of reality is just fear of the future.

  47. fmr-paultard on Mon, 18th Dec 2017 8:20 am 

    how can a single supertard takes on both eurotard and aswang. this is like russia’s juche doctrine exemplified by the shogun policy as part of strategy to contain the west. this enabled a primitive soviet bloc to hold off technically advanced western nations. part of this strategy entailed recruiting of supertards for Cambridge Five.

    But real supertards are corporatists who explored and exploited oil fields, flying plane and adopting permacultist practice in later years. this proves formidable for eurotard and SENTAPBs to recruit.

    from the lazy thinker meretard who subscribed to the lazy attribution of chemistry as tedious calculations of the schoedinger equation, here comes the philosophic foundation as to way supertard succeeded.

    because tendency of eurotards and aswang to focus on america alone due to hate. lets not forget self ignorance is part of human nature. this allows them to conveniently ignore their own faltering nations.

    schizophrenitic mindsets also contribute a large part by thinking virtual farming and long range vision of PBMB “confederation”.

    a careful observer, supertard was able to detect weakness in the fraud ladden narrative and snipe off the opponents with ease.

  48. fmr-paultard on Mon, 18th Dec 2017 8:31 am 

    netherlands with very large atheist population and 6% muslims. aswangland very high catholic and 6% muslims while america very high christian population and .9 muslims.

    these analytics should not be taken into consideration for all aspects of policy making because it constitutes lazy thinking. but it seems america will be full of supertards today and in the long future.

    this is where i want to be. i want nice intardweb, indoor plumbing, and safe electricity. i don’t like walking into suicide shower. hello?

  49. Apneaman on Mon, 18th Dec 2017 10:43 am 

    Dylan, it’s a week before Christmas and California is still trying to put out it’s biggest wildfire ever – a week before Christmas.

    Wildfire season in N America is 2 1/2 months longer than when I was a kid in the 1970’s.

    All the scientist prediction have come true and then some.

    2017 has blown the AGW Jacked record book out of the water.

    All the scientist prediction have come true and then some.

    All the scientist prediction have come true and then some.

    All the scientist prediction have come true and then some.

    Better stay frosty retard because it’s coming for you & yours and there is nothing the humans can do to stop it. Too late.

    You & yours will be a victim of AGW consequences one way or another. It’ll rub you out directly or via the knock on effects.

  50. onlooker on Mon, 18th Dec 2017 11:03 am 

    Haha, you are pulling our legs aren’t you Dylan. Otherwise you certainly are Retarded

1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *