Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
I'm not asking you to argue against your own statement, I'm just saying 'what is a reasonable way of disputing this kind of statement'. What types of things could I even say that would in your opinion be productive to the conversation, short of being in agreement with everything stated? If it's a fault of mine as a poster so be it, but I don't see any way to do that. It's what I refer to as the Circle of Insulation, and it's something that seems to be particularly prevalent on this board, not specific to you by any means. When all reasonable potential paths of criticism are cut off as being invalid, there's no way in.
|
I can certainly empathize with this statement. When two people fundamentally disagree on a topic, even after extensive side-reading, even when trying to respectfully present arguments, it often isn't productive.
I say this as well knowing that of the people who talk about non-sports topics here on a regular basis, my old-school liberal self with a strong dash of fiscal conservatism is simply an anachronism.
I'm going to present three web sites here.
One is definitely zero-carbon leaning - it editorializes in every section. But I think it tries to present an honest picture of world energy production and consumption, not only big-picture but with considerable detail.
Our World in Data
In particular, I find this section illuminating.
Energy mix - Our World in Data
And one of the things I get from this is that we're close to 3% of world energy produced by solar/wind/battery power.
Another is that while this is obviously increasing, the amount of energy production related to fossil fuels is also increasing. Much of that coming from China - and it's likely because they are happy to produce for us what we will no longer produce for ourselves.
You can explore the site to see, in particular, coal use in China - let's get those factories going.
The second web site is one that many here will discount because its mission is more in line with a political approach I'd endorse. I am sure someone could look at its funding and find a source or a connection to someone or some thought worthy of cancellation. I'm not a big fan of the cancel culture, but that's how things work these days. Don't argue the ideas, argue the culture. And I try to ignore that, but it's everywhere these days.
Free-Market Think Tank in NYC | Public Policy, Economics, Education
In particular here, a piece that argues against our massive funding of SWB.
The “Energy Transition” Delusion | Manhattan Institute
You can see where it's going by the loaded headline. I'd urge you to read it anyway.
One thing that stood out, and it's partially sourced by a piece on Bloomberg that counted global SWB subsidies at $750 billion or so in 2021, is that to get to 3%, governments have spent about $5 trillion subsidizing the SWB marketplace over the last 20 years.
So, if you try and connect the cost of electricity alone, about 10 cents per kilowatt hour in the U.S. right now - with the subsidies, and consider that if you look at the first site, you can count essentially how much SWB has produced over the years, you could come up with about 55 cents per kilowatt hour, world-side in subsidies alone.
And this doesn't even begin to address energy stability or reliability.
So, the third site you say doesn't work. I'll try a direct link to the report:
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reli..._LTRA_2022.pdf
This addresses short and long-term reliability isssues with the electric grid in the U.S. and Canada. The NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) was designated the official source within the U.S. for assessing government reliability standards about 20 years ago. So that's under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
All taken together, I think it paints a picture of serious trouble ahead if we do not move away from SWB and toward other sources (Nuclear definitely a key moving forward).