The one relevant fact this guy ignores is that every time one source of energy was abandoned, it was replaced by an energy source that provided more energy at less cost.
Renewables or “green” energy does not do that.
You can’t introduce facts such as you mention, into a discussion about energy with the liberals.
I had a discussion with someone about electric cars recently.
I told him that it’s not all cut and dried that electric cars would cut back pollution and help global warming and all that.
I told him that if we suddenly had millions of electric cars on the road, that we would need to be generating huge additional amounts of electricity to recharge all those car batteries. And that in much of the country, electricity is generated in coal fired power plants.
Well, he got flummoxed about these points. He said that the car itself is pollution free, and that we need to develop new technology to generate electricity, increase battery life, yadda yadda yadda, so that this would no longer be a problem. And then he threw in how Exxon Mobil is the biggest company in the world and has interfered with research into alternative energy.........
The one relevant fact this guy ignores is that every time one source of energy was abandoned, it was replaced by an energy source that provided more energy at less cost.
Renewables or “green” energy does not do that.
..............
agree. that’s why I think this graph is misleading. It won’t be solar or wind that provide base load at much cheaper costs. Likely it will be some form of nuclear.