Renewable power surges as pandemic scrambles global energy outlook, new report finds:
The pandemic-induced global economic meltdown has triggered a drop in energy demand and related carbon emissions that could transform how the world gets its energy -- even after the disease wanes, according to a report released today by the International Energy Agency (IEA)[*].
The precipitous drop in energy use is unparalleled back to the Great Depression of the 1930s. But not all energy sources are suffering equally. Efforts to shift toward renewable energy could be hastened, as fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, have borne the brunt of the decline. Use of renewable energy, meanwhile has risen, thanks to new projects coming online, and the low cost of turning wind turbines or harvesting sunlight.
[*] Link to the IEA report.
Prices for fossil fuel have plunged, while the costs of maintaining those supply chains (eg. storage) remain constant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:15PM (15 children)
What is strange? What timing?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:37PM (5 children)
That the left are now attacking Moore for calling out the government subsidized "renewable" green energy scam in a film he released as petroleum futures went negative.
Greens understand thermodynamics about as well as socialists understand economics.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2020, @12:22AM
bout what I figured from you degenerate nutters
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Friday May 01 2020, @02:24AM (2 children)
Guess who really gets the big subsidies?
How much does gas really cost? [fuelfreedom.org] There's a link. I might be more than $6 per gallon.
But yeah, OK, it's the renewable industry that's the scam. Whatever.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @12:14PM (1 child)
From what? The article only mentions almost $11 billion in subsidies over a year (2015-2016). That's peanuts since the US consumes somewhere around 20 billion barrels (a barrel being 55 gallons) of oil in recent years.
And remember, if you're going to throw in things like military expenditures and imagined environmental costs as subsidy, you need to do the same for those other energy sources too. They too depend on the same trade network and the same environment.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 01 2020, @05:44PM
Nope, it's a way more important number than that! [aoghs.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2020, @02:55AM
> Greens understand thermodynamics about as well as socialists understand economics.
Very few people of any political bent understand thermodynamics.
FTFY.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:40PM (8 children)
Michael Moore makes the case that green energy is largely a sham in that its long term environmental cost is no better than fossil fuels
Full rebuttal here https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green-energy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/ [arstechnica.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:49PM (7 children)
That's not a rebuttal, it's an opinion piece.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @12:43AM (2 children)
It's the ritual that matters. The rebuttal is issued, the contrary information can be safely ignored. One wonders what it would take for a "full rebuttal" to not occur.
(Score: 2) by Aegis on Friday May 01 2020, @02:42PM (1 child)
I think it would require an obvious rebuttal.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @03:15PM
Full rebuttal here [soylentnews.org].
Note that I fully quoted the AC's description of the "full rebuttal". They didn't bother to say anything about what was on the other side of that link aside from it being a "full rebuttal". No follow through whatsoever. Such sloppiness is characteristic of the rebuttal ritual. They don't really care what the rebuttal says or how right it is. That it exists is good enough.
And when you click through and find that it wasn't actually a full rebuttal, then what? Not their problem. A couple of minutes of googling and dumping a link without explanation should be enough for anybody! Obvious rebuttal completed!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aegis on Friday May 01 2020, @02:23PM (2 children)
The movie in question is also an opinion piece.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @03:16PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 01 2020, @06:16PM
Rebutting each other's opinions is the subject of about 90% of the comments here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @07:51PM
Sorry, but that is true. Even if one has to burn coal to produce this power generation, once it is constructed, it generates much more power over its life than was used in its production. And doesn't produce any more greenhouse gases. So a net decrease in emissions over the lifetime of the installation as claimed. And anyone making that claim this late, is really out of touch. Now, maybe there are parts of the movie that are recoverable, but this huge whopper isn't one of those parts.