[Pants-of-dog]

Right, sometime late this century, when we have extracted so much of them that they cost more than solar or nuclear.

This seems vague.

What do you mean by ”cost more”?

[BlutoSays]

Fact 1) April 25, 1954: Bell Labs Demonstrates the First Practical Silicon Solar Cell

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnew ... istory.cfm

Fact 2) Solar energy provided about 2.3% of total U.S. electricity in 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ele ... the-us.php

[Truth To Power]

Fact 2) Solar energy provided about 2.3% of total U.S. electricity in 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ele ... the-us.php

I'm actually a little surprised it's that high.

[Truth To Power]

This seems vague.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra

What do you mean by ”cost more”?

Have a higher production cost.

[Pants-of-dog]

Solar power is actually at 3.3%.

Wind accounted for 8.3% of US electricity generation, and hydropower at 7.2%

Almost 20% in total.

@Truth To Power

Show that the production costs for solar, wind and hydro are higher than for fossil fuels.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Show that the production costs for solar, wind and hydro are higher than for fossil fuels.

The federal government already showed it by subsidizing the former while taxing the latter.

[Pants-of-dog]

The federal government already showed it by subsidizing the former while taxing the latter.

So your claim us only true for whatever country you are talking about?

Which country?

[BlutoSays]

Here's where the blades for wind turbines end up. Turbines are made of fiberglass to stay light, but they take forever to decompose in landfills.

But hey, at least progressives can FEEWL better. That's what really counts. It's all about the feewls!

Wind turbine graveyard outside of Casper, Wyoming

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

Are those pictures supposed to be an argument?

——————-

@Truth To Power

Since Canada provides billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels, can we then assume that fossil fuels are more expensive than solar and wind in Canada?

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays

Are those pictures supposed to be an argument?

——————-

@Truth To Power

Since Canada provides billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels, can we then assume that fossil fuels are more expensive than solar and wind in Canada?

Those pictures show the NONSENSE that you idiot leftists push. All you ever consider is the positive side of your decisions, never the negative side that comes with your ill-informed tree hugging.

[Pants-of-dog]

Those pictures show the NONSENSE that you idiot leftists push. All you ever consider is the positive side of your decisions, never the negative side that comes with your ill-informed tree hugging.

Oh.

So it is not an argument.

Instead, it seems to be an ad hominem directed at an entire group of people that is probably only true for a small number of said group.

Note that wind makes more sense than fossil fuels, even when you take into account the negative impacts of the different types of electricity generation.

[BlutoSays]

Oh.

So it is not an argument.

Instead, it seems to be an ad hominem directed at an entire group of people that is probably only true for a small number of said group.

Note that wind makes more sense than fossil fuels, even when you take into account the negative impacts of the different types of electricity generation.

That's not an argument. That's an opinion. GFY.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's not an argument. That's an opinion. GFY.

Exactly.

Your claim is an opinion and not an argument, as I said.

My claim, on the other hand, is empirically verifiable.

[BlutoSays]

Exactly.

Your claim is an opinion and not an argument, as I said.

My claim, on the other hand, is empirically verifiable.

Well, if you want to "empirically verify it", stop jerking off and do it.


Show your work.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, if you want to "empirically verify it", stop jerking off and do it.


Show your work.

No, as I do not respond well to rudeness.

Perhaps if you asked me politely.

[BlutoSays]

I called your bluff. You couldn't produce. Bye!

[Potemkin]

Right, sometime late this century, when we have extracted so much of them that they cost more than solar or nuclear.

Realistically, this is correct. Nothing motivates people better than money.

[Pants-of-dog]

Realistically, this is correct. Nothing motivates people better than money.

Yes and no.

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.

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.

This then weakens the financial argument for changing.

[Potemkin]

Yes and no.

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.

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.

This then weakens the financial argument for changing.

Everything you say is true, but it would only weaken the argument for changing if you intended to overthrow capitalism. Absent a revolution and a switch to a socialist mode of production, in which externalities would be accounted for, then I'm afraid you're stuck with the existing capitalist system and the profit motive. The change will only happen when it is sufficiently profitable, and not before.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Potemkin

…..and even then it may not change, if the costs can be offloaded onto the public while the profits are still going into the bank accounts of the people who run oil companies.