Keep using fossil fuels to save the planet

[Anonymous]

Solar and wind use a massive amount of land, they produce a lot of harmful heavy metals and contrary to conventional wisdom, they are the failed energy sources of the past.



For 30 years, experts have claimed that humankind needs to switch to solar and wind energy to address climate change. But do we really?



Consider the fact that, while no nation has created a near-zero carbon electricity supply out of solar and wind, the only successful efforts to create near-zero carbon electricity supplies didn't require solar or wind whatsoever.



As such solar and wind aren't just insufficient, they are also unnecessary for solving climate change.



That turns out to be a good thing.



Sunlight and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute. As such, adding solar panels and wind turbines to the grid in large quantities increases the cost of generating electricity, locks in fossil fuels, and increases the environmental footprint of energy production.



Renewables Revolution: Always Just Around the Corner



Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. In fact, they are two of our oldest.



The predecessor to Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson, who advocates "100 percent renewables," is a man named John Etzler.



In 1833, Etzler proposed to build massive solar power plants that used mirrors to concentrate sunlight on boilers, mile-long wind farms, and new dams to store power.



Even electricity-generating solar panels and wind turbines are old. Both date back to the late 1800s.



Throughout the 20th Century, scientists claimed — and the media credulously reported — that solar, wind, and batteries were close to a breakthrough that would allow them to power all of civilization.



Consider these headlines from The New York Times and other major newspapers:



1891: "Solar Energy: What the Sun's Rays Can Do and May Yet Be Able to Do" — The author notes that while solar energy was not yet economical "...the day is not unlikely to arrive before long..."

1923: "World Awaits Big Invention to Meet Needs of Masses "...solar energy may be developed... or tidal energy... or solar energy through the production of fuel."

1931: "Use of Solar Energy Near a Solution." "Improved Device Held to Rival Hydroelectric Production"

1934: "After Coal, The Sun" "...surfaces of copper oxide already available"

1935: "New Solar Engine Gives Cheap Power"

1939. "M.I.T. Will 'Store' Heat of the Sun"

1948: "Changing Solar Energy into Fuel "Blocked Out" in GM Laboratory"  "...the most difficult part of the problem is over..."

1949: "U.S. Seeks to Harness Sun, May Ask Big Fund, Krug Says"

Reporters were as enthusiastic about renewables in 1930s as they are today.



"It is just possible the world is standing at a turning point," a New York Times reporter gushed in 1931, "in the evolution of civilization similar to that which followed the invention by James Watt of the steam engine."



Decade after decade, scientists and journalists re-discovered how much solar energy fell upon the earth.



"Even on such an area as small as Manhattan Island the noontime heat is enough, could it be utilized, to drive all the steam engines in the world," The Washington Star reported in 1891.



Progress in chemistry and materials sciences was hyped. "Silver Selenide is Key Substance," The New York Times assured readers.



In 1948, Interior Secretary Krug called for a clean energy moonshot consisting of "hundreds of millions" for solar energy, pointing to its "tremendous potential."



R&D subsidies for solar began shortly after and solar and wind production subsidies began in earnest in the 1970s.



Solar and wind subsidies increased substantially, and were increased in 2005 and again in 2009 on the basis of a breakthrough being just around the corner.



By 2016, renewables were receiving 94 times more in U.S. subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated.



According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016.



Global investment in solar and wind hovered at around $300 billion per year between 2010 and 2016.



Did the solar and wind energy revolution arrive?



Judge for yourself: in 2016, solar and wind constituted 1.3 and 3.9 percent of the planet's electricity, respectively.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#1f71fdede4de">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 71fdede4de">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#1f71fdede4de

[Anonymous]

Continued



Real World Renewables



Are there places in the world where wind and solar have become a significant share of electricity supplies?



The best real-world evidence for wind's role in decarbonization comes from the nation of Denmark. By 2017, wind and solar had grown to become 48 and 3 percent of Denmark's electricity.



Does that make Denmark a model?



Not exactly. Denmark has fewer people than Wisconsin, a land area smaller than West Virginia, and an economy smaller than the state of Washington.



Moreover, the reason Denmark was able to deploy so much wind was because it could easily export excess wind electricity to neighboring countries — albeit at a high cost: Denmark today has the most expensive electricity in Europe.



And as one of the world's largest manufacturers of turbines, Denmark could justify expensive electricity as part of its export strategy.



As for solar, those U.S. states that have deployed the most of it have seen sharp rises in their electricity costs and prices compared to the national average.



As recently as two years ago, some renewable energy advocates held up Germany as a model for the world.



No more. While Germany has deployed some of the most solar and wind in the world, its emissions have been flat for a decade while its electricity has become the second most expensive in Europe.



More recently, Germany has permitted the demolition of old forests, churches, and villages in order to mine and burn coal.



Meanwhile, the two nations whose electricity sectors produce some of the least amount of carbon emissions per capita of any developed nation did so with very little solar and wind: France and Sweden.



Sweden last year generated a whopping 95 percent of its total electricity from zero-carbon sources, with 42 and 41 coming from nuclear and hydroelectric power.



France generated 88 percent of its total electricity from zero-carbon sources, with 72 and 10 coming from nuclear and hydroelectric power.



Other nations like Norway, Brazil, and Costa Rica have almost entirely decarbonized their electricity supplies with the use of hydroelectricity alone.



That being said, hydroelectricity is far less reliable and scalable than nuclear.



Brazil is a case in point. Hydro has fallen from over 90 percent of its electricity 20 years ago to about two-thirds in 2016. Because Brazil failed to grow its nuclear program in the 1990s, it made up for new electricity growth with fossil fuels.



And both Brazil and hydro-heavy California stand as warnings against relying on hydro-electricity in a period of climate change. Both had to use fossil fuels to make up for hydro during recent drought years.



That leaves us with nuclear power as the only truly scalable, reliable, low-carbon energy source proven capable of eliminating carbon emissions from the power sector.

[Anonymous]

Why This is Good News



The fact that we don't need renewables to solve climate change is good news for humans and the natural environment.



[size=150]The dilute nature of water, sunlight, and wind means that up to 5,000 times more land and 10 - 15 times more concrete, cement, steel, and glass, are required than for nuclear plants.



All of that material throughput results in renewables creating large quantities of waste, much of it toxic.

[/size]

For example, [size=150]solar panels create 200 - 300 times more hazardous waste than nuclear[/size], with none of it required to be recycled or safely contained outside of the European Union.



Meanwhile, t[size=150]he huge amounts of land required for solar and wind production has had a devastating impact on rare and threatened desert tortoises, bats, and eagles — even when solar and wind are at just a small percentage of electricity supplies.

[/size]

Does this mean renewables are never desirable?



Not necessarily. Hydroelectric dams remain the way many poor countries gain access to reliable electricity, and both solar and wind might be worthwhile in some circumstances.



But there is nothing in either their history or their physical attributes that suggests solar and wind in particular could or should be the centerpiece of efforts to deal with climate change.



In fact, France demonstrates the costs and consequences of adding solar and wind to an electricity system where decarbonization is nearly complete.



France is already seeing its electricity prices rise as a result of deploying more solar and wind.



Because France lacks Sweden's hydroelectric potential, it would need to burn far more natural gas (and/or petroleum) in order to integrate significantly more solar and wind.



If France were to reduce the share of its electricity from nuclear from 75 percent to 50 percent — as had been planned — carbon emissions and the cost of electricity would rise.



It is partly for this reason that France's president recently declared he would not reduce the amount of electricity from nuclear.



Some experts recently pointed out that nuclear plants, like hydroelectric dams, can ramp up and down. France currently does so to balance demand.



But ramping nuclear plants to accommodate intermittent electricity from solar and wind simply adds to the cost of making electricity without delivering fewer emissions or much in the way of cost-savings. That's because only very small amounts of nuclear fuel and no labor is saved when nuclear plants are ramped down.

[Anonymous]

The dilute nature of the antiquated energy sources of solar and wind mean they will use the most amount of land to produce the least amount of energy. It also produces the more harmful byproducts and waste than natural gas, or coal.



The U.S., for example, currently produces about 3,500,000 PV panels per year. Copper, aluminum, high-quality quartz and rare earth materials are required to manufacture these panels — and if they were to try to get just half of their power from solar panels, they'd need billions of them. However, because they wear out in just two decades (like windmills), they'll need to mine more material and recycle billions of them, which would require more energy. In the ensuing process thousands of tons of toxic byproducts and more CO2 will again be created.



Although some argue that solar and battery storage is getting cheap, they don't reveal that, in the U.S., solar subsidies (tax dollars), according to a 2011 report, exceeded subsidies for safer, 90-per-cent efficient nuclear power by 250 to 1. Furthermore, why don't wind and solar advocates admit that these alternatives are primarily carbon-burners because 70 per cent of their supposed output must be generated by burning carbon-based fuels — usually natural gas — which is largely methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. And even a tiny natural gas leak — and there are millions of them — can make gas-backed wind or solar farms just as bad or worse than a coal plant when it comes to global warming.



In 2016, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported that the cost of federal subsidies for 30-per-cent "carbon-free" renewables like wind and solar is a stunning $250 for each ton of carbon saved. These subsidies shield people from the truth of just how much solar power actually costs as it transfers money from taxpayers to solar farm owners and producers, some of which are foreign companies.



Thanks to our biased and gullible media, we've all read that Germany gets half of its energy from solar panels, but in reality, a survey of Germany's official statistics reveals that the correct figure is ten times lower, only 4.5 per cent.

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6956267-when-going-green-damages-the-environment/">https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6 ... vironment/">https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6956267-when-going-green-damages-the-environment/

[Anonymous]

Renewable energy sources can take up to 1000 times more space than fossil fuels



Different fuel types need different amounts of space, and renewable energies generally need more space than fossil fuels. One way to compare them is to use the concept of power density – the average electrical power produced in one horizontal square metre of infrastructure. For the first time, researchers at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, gathered 177 estimates of U.S. power densities across the scientific literature and compared the power density for nine specific energy types. The results can be applied to other countries as well.



They found that power densities can vary by as much as 1000 times, with biomass the lowest (at 0.8 W/m2) and natural gas the highest (at 1000 W/m2). Solar and wind power needs around 40-50 times more space than coal and 90-100 times more space than gas. "

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewable-energy-sources-space-fossil.html">https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewable ... ossil.html">https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewable-energy-sources-space-fossil.html

[Anonymous]

Solar and wind use a massive amount of land, they produce a lot of harmful heavy metals and contrary to conventional wisdom, they are the failed energy sources of the past.



For 30 years, experts have claimed that humankind needs to switch to solar and wind energy to address climate change. But do we really?



Consider the fact that, while no nation has created a near-zero carbon electricity supply out of solar and wind, the only successful efforts to create near-zero carbon electricity supplies didn't require solar or wind whatsoever.



As such solar and wind aren't just insufficient, they are also unnecessary for solving climate change.



That turns out to be a good thing.



Sunlight and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute. As such, adding solar panels and wind turbines to the grid in large quantities increases the cost of generating electricity, locks in fossil fuels, and increases the environmental footprint of energy production.



Renewables Revolution: Always Just Around the Corner



Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. In fact, they are two of our oldest.



The predecessor to Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson, who advocates "100 percent renewables," is a man named John Etzler.



In 1833, Etzler proposed to build massive solar power plants that used mirrors to concentrate sunlight on boilers, mile-long wind farms, and new dams to store power.



Even electricity-generating solar panels and wind turbines are old. Both date back to the late 1800s.



Throughout the 20th Century, scientists claimed — and the media credulously reported — that solar, wind, and batteries were close to a breakthrough that would allow them to power all of civilization.



Consider these headlines from The New York Times and other major newspapers:



1891: "Solar Energy: What the Sun's Rays Can Do and May Yet Be Able to Do" — The author notes that while solar energy was not yet economical "...the day is not unlikely to arrive before long..."

1923: "World Awaits Big Invention to Meet Needs of Masses "...solar energy may be developed... or tidal energy... or solar energy through the production of fuel."

1931: "Use of Solar Energy Near a Solution." "Improved Device Held to Rival Hydroelectric Production"

1934: "After Coal, The Sun" "...surfaces of copper oxide already available"

1935: "New Solar Engine Gives Cheap Power"

1939. "M.I.T. Will 'Store' Heat of the Sun"

1948: "Changing Solar Energy into Fuel "Blocked Out" in GM Laboratory"  "...the most difficult part of the problem is over..."

1949: "U.S. Seeks to Harness Sun, May Ask Big Fund, Krug Says"

Reporters were as enthusiastic about renewables in 1930s as they are today.



"It is just possible the world is standing at a turning point," a New York Times reporter gushed in 1931, "in the evolution of civilization similar to that which followed the invention by James Watt of the steam engine."



Decade after decade, scientists and journalists re-discovered how much solar energy fell upon the earth.



"Even on such an area as small as Manhattan Island the noontime heat is enough, could it be utilized, to drive all the steam engines in the world," The Washington Star reported in 1891.



Progress in chemistry and materials sciences was hyped. "Silver Selenide is Key Substance," The New York Times assured readers.



In 1948, Interior Secretary Krug called for a clean energy moonshot consisting of "hundreds of millions" for solar energy, pointing to its "tremendous potential."



R&D subsidies for solar began shortly after and solar and wind production subsidies began in earnest in the 1970s.



Solar and wind subsidies increased substantially, and were increased in 2005 and again in 2009 on the basis of a breakthrough being just around the corner.



By 2016, renewables were receiving 94 times more in U.S. subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated.



According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016.



Global investment in solar and wind hovered at around $300 billion per year between 2010 and 2016.



Did the solar and wind energy revolution arrive?



Judge for yourself: in 2016, solar and wind constituted 1.3 and 3.9 percent of the planet's electricity, respectively.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#1f71fdede4de">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 71fdede4de">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#1f71fdede4de

Most people thinks of wind and solar are new technologies, but they predate fossil fuels like natural gas and even coal..



I believe hydroelectricity is the best form of energy provided fast moving water is available.

[Anonymous]

Let's stop politicalizing our electricity supply. Let's eliminate all tax credits for energy production. Let's require that utility scale generators produce firm, dispatchable capacity, and eliminate those that don't.



Wind and solar exist almost solely because the electricity sector has become highly politicized over the last thirty years, a process abetted by



– careless journalists;



– irresponsible economists;



– captured regulators;



– engineers more interested in make work than they are in maintaining the highest standards of their profession; and



– profiteering investment groups, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citibank Credit Suisse, and virtually all of the Big Energy corporations.



Together they have successfully cultivated the idea that electricity is a scarce resource in need of continual husbanding–and that renewables can help replenish the diminishing stores of electrical energy supply.



"Energy," today really means energy converted to produce electricity. It does not mean he other 60% of American energy harnessed to provide heating and transportation.

[Anonymous]

There is no perfect energy source.



Thanks to the anaerobic decomposition of algae and other plant materials in reservoirs, hydroelectric dams can be major emitters of methane, a greenhouse gas several times more potent than CO2.



Environmental campaigner Gary Wockner, who describes hydro as "dirty energy," asserts that some dams, including the Hoover Dam, emit more greenhouse gases than coal-fired plants.

[Anonymous]

Wind and solar are old technology, expensive and will never provide electricity for the world let alone heat it and used for transport.



BIG GREEN LIE

Canada's alternate energy industries lacking growth



For the last decade, Statistics Canada has been studying what I like to call the "magic wand" theory – the belief that if governments merely wave enough taxfunded subsidies over "green" technologies and alternate energy – poof! – a fairyland of carbon-free prosperity will magically appear. And we will all have high-paying jobs in this wonderful new world.



Lack of vision



The underlying belief behind opposition to oilsands and pipelines, coal mining and modern industrial economies is that it will be easy and seamless to transition to a low-emissions future. All that's been missing is a lack of vision and political will.



The latter part of this fallacy is especially untrue.



There has been no shortage of tax dollars thrown at "green" energy and technology. [size=150]The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that over $1 trillion has been spent by governments in the past 15 years on wind power, solar power, bio energy, electric cars, lightbulbs – anything and everything "green."

[/size]

[size=150]In Ontario, before Conservative Doug Ford was elected premier this year, the previous Liberal government had spent nearly a decade and almost $50 billion closing coal-fired power plants and subsidizing the heck out of everything environmental. In addition to all the taxpayer subsidies (that gave Ontario the largest public debt of any non-national government in the world), the province's electrical utility doubled power rates to comply with government eco policies.

[/size]

Yet, Ontario's auditor general has said this big green push has led to no significant reduction in emissions. And while[size=150] it contributed to the loss of more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs, it created at most 12,000 new technology jobs.

[/size]

Now Statistics Canada has released the results of its 10-year study of "environmental and clean technologies" and their impact on the economy.



Despite billions having been thrown at the ecopanic, just 3.1 per cent of the national economy was generated by "green" industries and just 1.6 per cent of jobs.



Bumpy transition



Equally interesting was Statscan's discovery that these were almost exactly the same percentages in 2007, the first year of their study, as they were in 2017. That means that [size=150]for all the money, regulation, taxes and high-minded rhetoric, there has been no increase in the "greenness" of our economy – to say nothing of the "magic wand" belief in the smooth, effortless transition to a "post-carbon" society.

[/size]

It's the same worldwide.



The IEA reports that for all the hundreds of billions spent promoting alternate energy, 87 per cent of the world's power still comes from oil, coal and natural gas. Seven per cent comes from hydro, four per cent from nuclear and [size=150]just under two per cent from wind, solar and other alternatives.

[/size]

Alternate energy sources counted for just over one per cent in 1965, meaning in over 50 years no amount of tax-funded promotion has been able to will the fanciful alternate energy economy into being.



This makes Ottawa's anti-oil, anti-pipeline scheming all the more futile (and infuriating). No other country is beggaring its own energy sector in the name of saving the planet – I mean really, truly cutting off its energy sector – the way Canada is.



And it is all for nothing. The group End Coal counts[size=150] nearly 1,600 new coal-fired power plants under construction worldwide, nearly 1,000 in China and as many as 400 in India.



Even the eco-preachy EU has 27 under construction.[/size]



Yet here is Alberta with an NDP provincial government that is shuttering coal plants and following Ontario down the alternate energy fantasy path, while the federal Liberal government is doing everything it can to shut down our energy sector.



The belief in a carbon-free Canada has become cult-like. No matter how expensive, destructive and impractical, the federal Liberals and their fellow travellers in the Alberta NDP push harder and harder.

[Anonymous]

Interesting to see some of the arguments earth rapers come up with when their livelihoods depend on it.



Peace on earth, good will to all.  



https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2012/4-2/kZyMZacST9-4.png">

[JOE]

Actually one major flaw of the OP's argument is that he doesn't appear to seek the use of alternative fuels as a way of preserving the fossil fuels which we have left.



Lets say for a minute that they don't leave a carbon footprint or cause global warming. Even if this were true, it's senseless to burn up what precious reserves we have left. A better use of fossil fuels is to manufacture recyclable plastics which could be used over and over again. The OP's strategy seems rather profligate. Its akin to chopping down our finest oak forest trees and using them for kindling. Of course the better strategy would be to use such fine wood in high end furniture which could potentially last for hindreds if tears.



We've only got 300 to 500 years of global oil supply left of abundant oil left. It is not an infinite renewable resource like wind water or solar power. So naturally the better choice is to tap in the latter for use as an energy source rather than oil. Oil could be put to better and less wasteful means where its needed

[Anonymous]

Interesting to see some of the arguments earth rapers come up with when their livelihoods depend on it.



Peace on earth, good will to all.  



https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2012/4-2/kZyMZacST9-4.png">

Yep, one and a half trillion dollars of working people's money has been wasted on useless wind solar schemes with nothing to show for it, but higher energy costs, birds shredded in turbines and a lot more tailings ponds across China where the rare earth metal come from.



The green industrial complex is huge. Approximately $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama's first term. This is a wealth transfer from working Americans to biillionaire climate hustlers aided by  their progtard stooges like Sanders in the US and Justine here.



Finally the old faggot sticks pries his mouth from the dicks of billionaire fake greeenies.

[Anonymous]

Actually one major flaw of the OP's argument is that he doesn't appear to seek the use of alternative fuels as a way of preserving the fossil fuels which we have left.



Lets say for a minute that they don't leave a carbon footprint or cause global warming. Even if this were true, it's senseless to burn up what precious reserves we have left. A better use of fossil fuels is to manufacture recyclable plastics which could be used over and over again. The OP's strategy seems rather profligate. Its akin to chopping down our finest oak forest trees and using them for kindling. Of course the better strategy would be to use such fine wood in high end furniture which could potentially last for hindreds if tears.



We've only got 300 to 500 years of global oil supply left of abundant oil left. It is not an infinite renewable resource like wind water or solar power. So naturally the better choice is to tap in the latter for use as an energy source rather than oil. Oil could be put to better and less wasteful means where its needed

If you had read what the Seoul brother wrote, you would see that he opposes wind and solar which is old useless technology. He is  pro nuclear and hydro. The only practical truly renewable energy sources.



As for that peak oil bullshit, that was debunked long ago. Scientists are using algae to create a biofuel that closely resembles crude oil. This's actually not all that surprising given that most of the oil found in shale is thought to come from marine algae that was buried and converted into oil as it cooked underground over time. However, a new process discovered by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has found a way to speed up the cooking process so that it can now convert a small mixture of algae and water into a kind of crude oil in less than an hour.



But, even if you buy the peak oil myth, then wouldn't that also apply to rare earth metals used for wind and solar. China has like eighty per cent of the world's currently recoverable  supply. What about any kind of metal as far as that goes. What about potash essential for mass agriculture. If one is non renewable, than why not all the others.

[Anonymous]

Yep, one and a half trillion dollars of working people's money has been wasted on useless wind solar schemes with nothing to show for it, but higher energy costs, birds shredded in turbines and a lot more tailings ponds across China where the rare earth metal come from.



The green industrial complex is huge. Approximately $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama's first term. This is a wealth transfer from working Americans to biillionaire climate hustlers aided by  their progtard stooges like Sanders in the US and Justine here.



Finally the old faggot sticks pries his mouth from the dicks of billionaire fake greeenies.

As a traditional socialist, our enemy are rich progs and their shills like Peaches. Climate hawk Sanders spent three hundred grand in nine days to berate working class people the sky will fall if they don't change their ways.



Any unionized blue collar person who votes for Sanders in the states or the NDP here, deserves to fry in hell.

[Anonymous]

Actually one major flaw of the OP's argument is that he doesn't appear to seek the use of alternative fuels as a way of preserving the fossil fuels which we have left.



Lets say for a minute that they don't leave a carbon footprint or cause global warming. Even if this were true, it's senseless to burn up what precious reserves we have left. A better use of fossil fuels is to manufacture recyclable plastics which could be used over and over again. The OP's strategy seems rather profligate. Its akin to chopping down our finest oak forest trees and using them for kindling. Of course the better strategy would be to use such fine wood in high end furniture which could potentially last for hindreds if tears.



We've only got 300 to 500 years of global oil supply left of abundant oil left. It is not an infinite renewable resource like wind water or solar power. So naturally the better choice is to tap in the latter for use as an energy source rather than oil. Oil could be put to better and less wasteful means where its needed

If you had read what the Seoul brother wrote, you would see that he opposes wind and solar which is old useless technology. He is  pro nuclear and hydro. The only practical truly renewable energy sources.



As for that peak oil bullshit, that was debunked long ago. Scientists are using algae to create a biofuel that closely resembles crude oil. This's actually not all that surprising given that most of the oil found in shale is thought to come from marine algae that was buried and converted into oil as it cooked underground over time. However, a new process discovered by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has found a way to speed up the cooking process so that it can now convert a small mixture of algae and water into a kind of crude oil in less than an hour.



But, even if you buy the peak oil myth, then wouldn't that also apply to rare earth metals used for wind and solar. China has like eighty per cent of the world's currently recoverable  supply. What about any kind of metal as far as that goes. What about potash essential for mass agriculture. If one is non renewable, than why not all the others.

As part of his troll routine, Joe ignores what people write. This is why I ignore him. And yes, I only support nuclear and hydro as renewable electricity sources. Wind and solar are old, tried and failed technologies. Their huge physical footprint assaults any rational concept of informed environmentalism. Their need for large scale and continuous supplementation increases costs and price. Their raggedy performance decreases the quality of the electricity supply, in the process also reducing its quantity. They will forever remain an expensive novelty.



As for Peaches, he has an agenda that he is always faithful to even though it continues to let him down. Romero was the same. I won't waste reason on people like that.