Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Absolute disaster’ of electricity price spike" video.

It is save, however to keep it save the regulatory costs make it way expensive, much more than renewables.
1
@agentsmithmememe Actually that was a factual account of the Texas power failure.
1
Have you seen the spot price for coal and gas at the moment.
1
You really have no idea of how the national grid works or how the market price of electricity works do you?
1
Where has wind or solar power failed? Specifically which countries?
1
@oldtimers6460 So in none of those circumstances did renewables fail. In the case of Europe they made a decision to purchase gas from Russia (this has proven to have been a poor decision) as they do not have their own gas reserves it has nothing to do with renewables failing, they simply don't have the renewable capacity yet as it is still increasing. Texas failed as gas and coal plants froze. In actual fact during that particular power failure renewables provided more electricity than was expected. Texas has less than 20% renewable capacity anyway. South Australia continuely draws electricity from interstate however this is getting lesser and lesser as more renewable capacity come online. There has been no green failure, you are hopelessly misinformed. Now once again where has renewable energy failed that has caused the price of electricity to increase?
1
@oldtimers6460 Yes I totally agree the price of electricity is rising as the cost of fossil fuel has sky-rocketed. Renewable energy in Australia still is less than a third. It is the increasing cost of oil and gas that has sent your bill up, not solar power in SA. Renewable energy is subsidised however fossil fuels in Australia are subsidised to the tune of $12 billion annually so your point is mute. All energy production requires resources and all the data shows the LCOE for renewables is significant cheaper than fossil fuels. Your understanding of the Texas power failure is just simply wrong and I'll reference the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports all of which blamed fossil fuel failures and the industries failure to winterise their infrastructure. Renewables had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gas supply was plentiful but the infrastructure to deliver it froze. Once again UK and Germany are transitioning to renewable energy and made a poor decision to purchase gas from Russia as in Germany's case it took its nuc power off-line. These were poor management decisions not the fault of renewable energy capacity. Why are solar panels subsidised, why is coal subsidised? Why are EVs subsidised, why was the car making industry in Australia subsidised? China is rapidly building renewable capacity 17.66% in 2008 27.73% in 2021. India has 38% renewable capacity installed as of 2020. So both countries are moving towards their 2030 targets of reducing emissions. My data is publicly available, I don't know where you are getting your info. Renewable Energy India - Indian Power Industry investment The East is Green: China global leadership in Renewable Energy.
1
@hoganhogan952 I also agree with you being clean, as although the waste is incredibly poisonous there is little of it. However all LCOE studies have nuc energy way more expensive than wind and solar.
1
@oldtimers6460 Yeah that 70s ice age scare was a Times magazine article, no science involved, which sums up your fact based argument nicely, and we will leave it there.
1
@oldtimers6460 Actually observable climate conditions have been recorded going back 100000s of years, which once again sums up the limit of you information, magazine articles and news reports. Read some scientific peer reviewed data. Factual data clearly can’t compete with your conspiracy theories or Time magazine, and we will leave it there.
1
It is hugely expensive and takes on average 10 years to build.
1
Not a fan of free market capitalism. Look at the price of coal and gas at the moment.
1
The free market has already made that decision.
1
Musicbox Entertainment Ahh the old no true Scotsman argument. Boring.
1
Musicbox Entertainment jeez that took you all of two minutes to go from illogical vacuous argument to personal insult.
1
Not a fan of the free market capitalism?
1
Fact Menace My question was directed at Alex.
1
Fact Menace How is a question a denial of facts? Your comment about a national regulator, I was already aware of.
1
@rickbart1 That would make sense if we borrowed or owed any money to the World Bank and although we are part of the World bank and contribute resources to it, and the IMF, public utilities are still owned by state and federal governments in Australia.
1
@slug.racing Similarities between ExxonMobil's climate communications and tobacco industry PR: @t and @t The fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions linked to each fossil fuel company (excluding emissions from things like deforestation or methane from cow burps): @t How citizens of 30 countries feel about climate action: @t A pathway to hit net-zero emissions by 2050 from the International Energy Agency: @t How the richest 10% of humanity were responsible for 52% of the emissions between 1990 and 2015: @t
1
@slug.racing Ahh the old carbon footprint shaming argument. Invented by BP in the mid 90s to shift the burden of pollution from the emitter to the consumer. Gets someone every day. Jeez the fossil fuel industry is clever.
1
@slug.racing The idea of a personal carbon footprint was popularized by a large advertising campaign of the fossil fuel company BP in 2005, designed by Ogilvy. It instructed people to calculate their personal footprints and provided ways for people to "go on a low-carbon diet". This strategy, also employed by other major fossil fuel companies borrowed heavily from previous campaigns by the tobacco industry and plastics industry to shift the blame for negative consequences of those industries (under-age smoking, cigarette butt pollution, and plastic pollution) onto individual choices. Benjamin Franta, a J.D. and PhD student at Stanford Law School who researches law and the history of science, called this advertising campaign "one of the most successful, deceptive PR campaigns Maybe of all time.
1
@slug.racing Well that was evidence, a bit of reading on your part wouldn't hurt. What would you accept as proof? Just saying I have no proof when I did provide evidence is just shoving your head in sand, and we will leave it at that with you remaining ignorant.
1
@slug.racing Environmental Scapegoating Fossil fuel contribution to CO2 emissions @t Average plastic use per capita @t Keep America Beautiful Ad @ BP and the "carbon footprint" @t Trump blaming other countries @t Nat'l Resources Defense Council report on emissions by country @t Country per capita emissions @t
1
@oldtimers6460 Right so this discussion had nothing to do with the price or cost of energy, you deny anthropogenic climate change despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. And will will leave it there.
1