![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Many of them however never could've expanded the way they did without govt. subsidies of some sort though. Either in terms of land, tax deductions, and/or cash payouts from the govt.
The exact opposite is usually true actually.
I don't think it matters. If you're standing up against subsidies for renewables, as Ducman is, then the same should be applied to oil companies. If you're not complaining about that and insisting those stop, then the argument against renewable subsidies rings hollow.
Yeah, no shit we have regulatory capture across many areas of government. That's the whole point. How can you say government is at fault for dictating the actions of private business, like the oil companies, when it's literally oil interests running government? Government is just one more tool for big business to maximize profit. Blaming government is like blaming the gun when you hand it to a murderer. Gee, who could have guessed he would have gone and murdered someone?
Counting wars as a subsidy for fossil fuel, but not renewable rings just as hollow. Pretending that renewables do not receive subsidies, or that fossil fuels are just as subsidized, while in reality fossil fuels are heavily penalized, is willful ignorance.
Read the wiki that was brought up and quoted in thread. It gives you all the specifics you need.
Which isn't a lot of money, when you consider the scale of China's electricity generation, dominated by coal.
As I said, it isn't when compared to the whole of the Chinese electricity system. And given how significant issue curtailment is already, even China may not be able to solve the problem of intermittency.
And that will still probably mean more coal consumed and 12-13 GT of total annual CO2 emissions because China's electricity demand is still growing. And that drop isn't all that special, the US went from 48.5% of electricity from coal in 2007 to 30.4% from coal in 2016.
i am 100 percent against green energy because i know the horrors it brings,.
see that guy?
it's 3 am and he's doing his laundry.
fuck green energy.
That cost is generally disregarded under our modern economic system and calculated as though it doesn't exist. "Externalities" as it were. Sure makes me for some wonderful discussions trying to convince anyone we should do anything differently.
I was thinking of it on a more global problem scale but nice product.
This is the exact opposite of reality. Cheap natural gas and alt. energy were killing coal, not Obama.
Crock.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/242931-study-coal-plant-shutdowns-would-more-than-double-under-epa-climate said:
"Only the US"? I'm afraid that's more than a little absurd. Let's keep in mind that
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the whole "97% of climate scientists agree" line turned out to be a pretty big lie.
Let's assume that you mean "Renewable Energy Infrastructure is an investment" (fossil fuels, after all, are part of the energy industry, too). Based on that, it has proven to be a profoundly unprofitable investment, and will likely continue to be unprofitable for a few years.
By 2040. Decades after Obama had left office. That is not killing coal. That is coal fired power plant operators not upgrading their equipment and shutting them down when they near EOL or aren't profitable enough to make them happy.
