Energy - Fossil, Renewable, Nuclear

Sorry, didn't get that from the post. Thought it meant number of blades on the turbine.
 
A windmill with only one blade would not spin, as Patrick said, I meant per blade.
I mean, mono-bladed turbines do exist, but then we're back to that efficiency argument again.
The MUST HAVE MORE POWAH people can try to increase output by building turbines/engines bigger and bigger if they want to, but atoms stay the same (relative) size, so physics dictates that once you exceed a certain volume/mass, your power output scaling can't keep up with the ever-increasing chance for materials failure.

--Patrick
 
On this topic, given recent "news" https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Hit-52-Trillion.html that claims 52 Trillion in subsidies for Oil in 2017, I'm glad people have better responses than I: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/15/fossil-fuel-fake-subsidies-top-5-trillion-in-2017/

Short answer for those unwilling to click through to a "denier" site: the original article counts writing down business expenses as "subsidies." And a number of other things that all businesses in all industries do so that 100% of their revenue isn't considered income and/or profit. Good links there, including to EIA, which some others on here linked themselves for energy mix numbers.
 
On this topic, given recent "news" https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Hit-52-Trillion.html that claims 52 Trillion in subsidies for Oil in 2017, I'm glad people have better responses than I: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/15/fossil-fuel-fake-subsidies-top-5-trillion-in-2017/

Short answer for those unwilling to click through to a "denier" site: the original article counts writing down business expenses as "subsidies." And a number of other things that all businesses in all industries do so that 100% of their revenue isn't considered income and/or profit. Good links there, including to EIA, which some others on here linked themselves for energy mix numbers.

Why would anyone trust a website they wouldn't be willing to visit? And why wouldn't you question why you have to resort to those sort of websites to support your position?

As for tax write-off, yeah, that's how most modern corporate subsidies work.

Also, coal is really dying, isn't it...
 
And the ones unwilling to let it go are either too stupid, too cheap, or too lazy, or all of the above, to try to profit off of the newer sources.
Too selfish, in my opinion.
Here is this thing that currently requires an enormous outlay to operate.
Someone has to dig the coal, drill the oil, pump the gas, whatever.
Then someone has to transport it to where it needs to go.
Then it has to be consumed and converted to electricity, creating pollution and (usually) toxic waste.
Compare that to something like solar, which (for sake of argument) has about the same expenditure/equipment outlay/environmental impact.
...but then you get to use that finished product for ~20 years before it will need to be replaced.

The fossil folks just aren't willing to let go of their $tatu$ quo. Ideally, they should just be like, "Damaging our environment was necessary to get to this point, but now that something has finally came along that's cleaner and less expensive over the long run than what we've been doing, we can finally put this expensive monster to rest."

But nope.

--Patrick
 

Dave

Staff member
The worst part about coal is that a lot of the places were offered free retraining to help them transition to new jobs and they all turned them down.
 
The worst part about coal is that a lot of the places were offered free retraining to help them transition to new jobs and they all turned them down.
And then they were complaining about how it was "threatening our way of life."

THAT IS WHY THIS STATE IS 49TH IN EVERYTHING.
 
Why would anyone trust a website they wouldn't be willing to visit? And why wouldn't you question why you have to resort to those sort of websites to support your position?
All they do actually on this one is link to a government of the USA document from 2016: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

And ah yes, "resort to" a really good aggregator to find this stuff from the USA government.
 
All they do actually on this one is link to a government of the USA document from 2016: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

And ah yes, "resort to" a really good aggregator to find this stuff from the USA government.
Point was, you could just link to it's sources, so we don't see that you visit that type of "aggregator".

....

Also, from the gov doc (pg. 3):

"In FY 2016, nearly half (45%) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy, and 42% were associatedwith energy end uses."

Which implies the rest 55% isn't in renewables. And:

"Among renewable technologies, biofuels received the only incremental increase in FY 2016 subsidy support, driven by greater domestic biomass-based diesel production and foreign imports of these products that resulted in an approximately $1 billion increase in tax credits from FY 2013 levels."

So it's not even clean renewables.

And of course "Coal delenda est!"
 
Also, from the gov doc (pg. 3):

"In FY 2016, nearly half (45%) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy, and 42% were associatedwith energy end uses."

Which implies the rest 55% isn't in renewables.
Umm, no. The last half of the sentence says that the lion's share of your 55% is NOT associated with production at all. So 45+42=87%, so 13% something else. And at least some of that is probably transmission lines for electricity. Or maybe that's part of the 42%. Either way, 45% associated with renewable (despite being a negligible percentage of actual production), 13% with something that isn't renewable, and isn't "end uses" either. Which covers a lot
And of course "Coal delenda est!"
Actually you can credit @DarkAudit with getting me firmly anti-coal from the Mercury emissions alone. So look back, you won't find me defending Coal for many many years.
 
Umm, no. The last half of the sentence says that the lion's share of your 55% is NOT associated with production at all. So 45+42=87%, so 13% something else. And at least some of that is probably transmission lines for electricity. Or maybe that's part of the 42%. Either way, 45% associated with renewable (despite being a negligible percentage of actual production), 13% with something that isn't renewable, and isn't "end uses" either. Which covers a lot

There nothing that requires "energy end uses" to add up to the 45% that are for renewables, since they're different things.

So 55% are not for renewables, and 58% are not for using the "energy".
 
There nothing that requires "energy end uses" to add up to the 45% that are for renewables, since they're different things.

So 55% are not for renewables, and 58% are not for using the "energy".
The only assumption I made was that the 45% on that line was not a part of the 42% on the same line. They actually could overlap, but I doubt one is a component of the other. That's not what I was saying (and I didn't say that). When you said "add up to the 45%" did you mean "add with" as a component of the 100%? That's the assumption I made, which may not be true.

Re-reading it though, any of the above is possible. But 55% "isn't in renewables" is all I was arguing against. If there's a subsidy for a power line that carries both, how would that be counted? It's just not enough information.
 
The only assumption I made was that the 45% on that line was not a part of the 42% on the same line.
Which i tried to point out it's not supported, since end-use can be done for both renewables and everything else.

But 55% "isn't in renewables" is all I was arguing against.
And you where wrong because otherwise the analysis is useless if it randomly mixes and matches what it measures.

If there's a subsidy for a power line that carries both, how would that be counted?
That's exactly why end-use is counted differently, and 45+42=87 doesn't work.

Of course, since it's only 42% for end use, it's unlikely that it's about a power line (unless there's local subsidies for mains electricity, but then it seems excesive that that many people need them), and it's more likely about fuel (which could also include biofuel).
Post automatically merged:

Actually you can credit @DarkAudit with getting me firmly anti-coal from the Mercury emissions alone. So look back, you won't find me defending Coal for many many years.
BTW, that was a joke about how the document is basically showing coal is in bad shape.
 
"This will be catastrophic for Alberta!"
You mean more catastrophic than strip mining the tar sand and setting up facilities to process it?
Color me unconvinced.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The version used in most of the original memes though appears to be some remix with more bass in the EQ that I haven't located yet.
 
The version used in most of the original memes though appears to be some remix with more bass in the EQ that I haven't located yet.
The closest version I've found so found is the Stephan F 2K19 edit, though it still isn't quite same.
It's weird, usually I find these kinds of tracks to have a bit too much bass, and for this all versions I find have a fairly weak bass.
 
I mean, it IS just the "To Be Continued..." Jojo meme with EDM instead of Roundabout.
That's how KYM describes it, too.
The closest version I've found so found is the Stephan F 2K19 edit, though it still isn't quite same.
Closest at short notice is

All from the KYM page linked above. Man I had no idea this thing had been remixed so much before the meme.

--Patrick
 
Top