Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)

[Derideo_Te]

The government has provided funding subsidies for nuclear power since it's inception and still does to this day.

So it is a fallacy to claim that government intervention is not a legitimate market force.

The role of government in developing new markets is essential to their success. The shipping canals where publicly funded. The hydroelectric dams were publicly funded. The interstate highways were publicly funded. Schools, libraries, parks, etc, etc are all part of how we operate as a society and the government plays an essential role in keeping it all regulated and moving forward.

Funding for the next generation of energy is a legitimate role for government.

 

[mamooth]

The free market is not optimistic about fossil fuel electricity.

Barclays Downgrades Electric Utility Bonds Sees Viable Solar Competition - Income Investing - Barrons.com
---
Barclays this week downgrades the entire electric sector of the U.S. high-grade corporate bond market to underweight, saying it sees long-term challenges to electric utilities from solar energy, and that the electric sector of the bond market isn’t pricing in these challenges right now.
---

 

[mamooth]

I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

First, give us DIRECT PROOF the oil absolutely wasn't placed there by faeries.

You don't have such proof? That shows faerie-created oil is a distinct possibility, and that anyone who says otherwise is incapable of rational intelligent discussion.

Now, it would be possible to test the oil, to show it lacks the traces of pixie dust found in faerie-created oil. But nobody will bother with something so pointless and absurd, just as no one will bother with testing oil to show it's not abiotic.

 

[Andylusion]

I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

First, give us DIRECT PROOF the oil absolutely wasn't placed there by faeries.

You don't have such proof? That shows faerie-created oil is a distinct possibility, and that anyone who says otherwise is incapable of rational intelligent discussion.

Now, it would be possible to test the oil, to show it lacks the traces of pixie dust found in faerie-created oil. But nobody will bother with something so pointless and absurd, just as no one will bother with testing oil to show it's not abiotic.

So in your world, erecting a red herring of 'faeries', is a valid argument?

 

[Andylusion]

The free market is not optimistic about fossil fuel electricity.

Barclays Downgrades Electric Utility Bonds Sees Viable Solar Competition - Income Investing - Barrons.com
---
Barclays this week downgrades the entire electric sector of the U.S. high-grade corporate bond market to underweight, saying it sees long-term challenges to electric utilities from solar energy, and that the electric sector of the bond market isn’t pricing in these challenges right now.
---

Ironically, your own article says the very opposite of what you just claimed.

Barclays says bond risk premiums for the electricity sector indicate investors are ignoring these risks for now:
​

So, apparently the free market is optimistic. Only Barclays is not.

Interestingly, it would also appear that even in their own assessment, they have an issue because of government.

We believe that sector spreads should be wider to compensate for the potential risk of regulator missteps and/or a permanent change in the utility business model.
​

What are they saying? Government could screw it up.

Well of course. Government can screw up anything, and usually does. Give government a chance, and they can cause rolling blackouts across California.

 

[mamooth]

So in your world, erecting a red herring of 'faeries', is a valid argument?

No amount of abiotic oil beyond a trace has ever been found anywhere on planet earth.

Faerie-created oil is just as common as abiotic oil. That is, there's none of either.

Therefore, it's a valid comparison, not a red herring, and it showed how your "Can you prove it's not abiotic oil huh huh?" argument was so freakin' stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

So in your world, erecting a red herring of 'faeries', is a valid argument?

No amount of abiotic oil beyond a trace has ever been found anywhere on planet earth.

Faerie-created oil is just as common as abiotic oil. That is, there's none of either.

Therefore, it's a valid comparison, not a red herring, and it showed how your "Can you prove it's not abiotic oil huh huh?" argument was so freakin' stupid.

That was not my argument. The prior poster claimed he knew for a fact, that oil found in oil wells that had run dry, was not of abiotic sources.

His argument. His claim. Not mine.

My asking him to provide the evidence to support his claim.

Can you do that or not?

 

[mamooth]

And we're back to asking you if you can prove faeries didn't create the oil.

The point is that your question is a dishonest red herring.

If it's not a red herring, please inform everyone directly of the point you're trying to make here with your dumb question. Nobody anywhere on planet earth tests oil to prove it's not abiotic. Why are you insisting that it be done in this one single special case?

 

[Andylusion]

And we're back to asking you if you can prove faeries didn't create the oil.

The point is that your question is a dishonest red herring.

If it's not a red herring, please inform everyone directly of the point you're trying to make here with your dumb question. Nobody anywhere on planet earth tests oil to prove it's not abiotic. Why are you insisting that it be done in this one single special case?

I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either. You know that right?

So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?

 

[BULLDOG]

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

Total CRAP.....coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil and oil is not a source for electric power generation. Solar is dependent on environmentally destructive batteries and is dropping like a stone in new investment capital. It's a joke same as you, punk.. Find your MOS yet?

Neither oil or coal are fossil fuels? Did you learn that when you were in the fake special forces?

 

[JoeMoma]

Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells. As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet. Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.

In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?

Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?

If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.

 

[mamooth]

I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either. You know that right?

No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.

So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?

As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.

 

[Andylusion]

I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either. You know that right?

No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.

So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?

As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.

Really?? So the scientific journals that I have read from indicating it is still a theory, they are wrong, and you Mr. Internet Forum poster, know that it has been proven.

So because we don't have another theory.... that automatically means "it's proven".

*sigh*.

Clearly if this is your idea of how science works, then there's no point in us debating anything any further. Good luck with that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either. You know that right?

No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.

So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?

As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.

Really?? So the scientific journals that I have read from indicating it is still a theory, they are wrong, and you Mr. Internet Forum poster, know that it has been proven.

So because we don't have another theory.... that automatically means "it's proven".

*sigh*.

Clearly if this is your idea of how science works, then there's no point in us debating anything any further. Good luck with that.

Oil comes from plants. Peanut oil, olive oil, sunflower oil, coconut oil, flax seed oil, etc, etc.

Algae to crude oil Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have created a continuous process that produces useful crude oil minutes after harvested algae is introduced. This new process does not require drying out the algae, which grows in water, saving time and energy that would be otherwise wasted. The final product can be refined into aviation fuel, diesel, or gasoline.
The process mimics some of the conditions that originally turned prehistoric plant material into fossil fuel deep within the earth – high pressures and temperatures.

Algae, an aquatic plant, has long been considered as a biofuel source, but the steps needed to turn a wet, green plant into clear, burnable fuel have been both expensive and time-consuming. The algae had to be processed in a series of steps, one of which involved drying it out and removing all the water, which might be 80 percent of the biomass. Then solvents were used to extract energy-rich hydrocarbons from the dried material.

The PNNL team created a continuous process that starts with the wet algae and subjects the entire mass – water, algae, and all – to high temperatures and pressures, in this case, 350ºC (662ºF) and 3,000 psi.

"It's a bit like using a pressure cooker, only the pressures and temperatures we use are much higher," said Laboratory Fellow Douglas Elliott, the leader of the research team. "In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We're just doing it much, much faster."

The products of the process include crude oil, which can be further refined into aviation fuel, gasoline, or diesel fuel (in tests, the process achieved between 50 and 70 percent conversion of the algae’s carbon into fuel); ​

Looks like scientists just proved that oil comes from plants...again!

 

[Old Rocks]

I assume that you do know that the theory that oil is created from fossils, has not been proven either. You know that right?

No, because it has been proven. The same biomarkers are present in algae and crude oil. No theory other than the fossil fuel theory explains that.

So given neither theory has been proven, why is your theory divinely inspired and beyond question, and other theories are faeries and unicorns?

As one theory has been proven, you'll need to try again.

Really?? So the scientific journals that I have read from indicating it is still a theory, they are wrong, and you Mr. Internet Forum poster, know that it has been proven.

So because we don't have another theory.... that automatically means "it's proven".

*sigh*.

Clearly if this is your idea of how science works, then there's no point in us debating anything any further. Good luck with that.

Look, fellow, look up what theory means to a scientist. It most certainly does not mean a guess, as it does to people like yourself.

 

[Political Junky]

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.

Fail again.

Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."

Claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"

"Uh..... its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....

No.... *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.

I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere. In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.

YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.

Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong. Again, that's not the scientific method.

Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?

Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected. The left is not for science at all. This is just more inquisition tactics than science. You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong. Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.

No, it's your job to support your own claim. You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.

Your semantic squirming is risible.

And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.

Have a nice day.

Conservatives would have stopped at kerosene or even whale oil.