Youre not saying untrue things, but you should see technology connections rant on this and he counters everything you just said hehe.
The word renewable comes from being able to use something more than once.
Oil being burned can only be used once, thats it.
Do you need resources to make renewable energy sources? Why yes, you do. And you also need to ship it etc. But it comes from the fact it can be used multiple times.
If i need , for example, 20l of oil to burn a flame for a year i can do that and i can heat myself for a year. Awesome!
But after that year i cant reuse anything, its all burned up.
Now if i use that 20l of oil to make myself something that can heat myself for multiple years without additional resource consuming ( bad example, i know, but lets go with it ), you are always better off with this.
Thats what the discussion is about. Not that you wont need a non-reusable resource, but that using it should result in something reusable that outlives the other resource and keeps going for longer
Even accounting for prices, renewable sources are nearly always better. Price just determines how fast your saving/year will have gotten you your invested money back, but in the long run its nearly always better. You shouldnt move back to oil for example because that 20l of oil i need is 0.00005 euro per liter and can keep me warm for a year. Its still wasted money because its used once and gone. The pivot to green or renewables is something that started years ago and is now going faster ( but not fast enough ). It has nothing to do with the lng prices now
Examples:
i gotten a solar panel last year that cost me 500 euros. Not little money. However, it has saved me 400 euros on energy bill in the last year too. If energy prices were lower, it would have taken me longer to get my money back. Higher price and it would take less time. Imagine pricing goes nuts and its suddenly 15€/kW of energy, it doesnt matter. Im still getting energy of the panel.
I will admit not everyone can do this, and i got in a nice debate with my previous landlord over this. But its an argument i won because the reasons they didnt allow it was … baked air.
another fun one is nuclear. Nuclear is renewable because guess what, the nuclear waste is recycable. Even if you dont pass the waste from one facility to a more modern facility ( that can then use it because its waaaaay more efficient ), you end up with other materials. This one needs billions and years to build which is why it hasnt been done in many places. Why would a government nearly do economical suicide to build one ? ( their words, i think its worth it ).
But no matter how much it costs, you’ll benefit from it greatly afterwards because guess what : recycable and larger energy output babeh!!
electric cars is also often a big one in this debate. But it costs more and charging is expensive. I am not going to deny that, not even close. I can rant all day long on those 2 arguments and why they are what they are and how it sucks. However, if you have an electric car, and can charge at home with maybe… Some solar panels? Wind turbines? Anyway, if you charge it at home you are basically doing all car stuff without using any fuels. No paying for energy and only using once. You take away the source of the energy the car uses ( from fuel to pure electric ) shove it in a way more efficient way of movement (electric motor vs combustion engine which gives of a lot of energy in the form of heat) and you allow for any way for it to be energised. Want to charge it with an engine? Sure, go ahead. Battery pack? Solar? Kid on a bike? All possible. It means the car is free from whatever fuel making it renewable because it can use renewable energy source.
All of these examples will save everyone time, money, and space in the long run. Going back would never be necessary even if energy would be lower with fuel hehe
Yeah. But you cannot solve today’s crisis by just buying solar panels overnight. You have the capacity to release oil stores and do rebates for gas to save the economy.
Thats thinking too much in the short run. Youre better off investing that oil into production and transport of the renewable energies that is needed for the benefit of everyone in the long run.
That’s true. This is more for the after-crisis thinking. If you can suddenly find 100M$ to face a crisis, you can certainly find these 100M$ to invest in renewable in non-crisis times.
You’d rather spend $1.5T, each year, for no added benefit, just because someone else invested in unnecessary infrastructure? And call everyone else stupid?
This is an ignorant comment if I have ever seen one. Surprisingly, you don’t have to pay for everyone’s energy bill. You would need to harvest about a million people’s lifetime productivity a year to pay for that.
Edit: they editted their comment to be less insane.
This is stupid, not because it’s untrue, but because you cannot manifest those solar panels out of thin air, or install them on a whim.
Refueling existing infrastructure is trivial and expected.
You cannot manifest LNG out of thin air either.
Maintaining a solar panel is even more trivial than refueling.
EDIT: not to mention that maintaining that “existing infrastructure” goes beyond just refueling of course.
Youre not saying untrue things, but you should see technology connections rant on this and he counters everything you just said hehe.
The word renewable comes from being able to use something more than once.
Oil being burned can only be used once, thats it. Do you need resources to make renewable energy sources? Why yes, you do. And you also need to ship it etc. But it comes from the fact it can be used multiple times.
If i need , for example, 20l of oil to burn a flame for a year i can do that and i can heat myself for a year. Awesome!
But after that year i cant reuse anything, its all burned up.
Now if i use that 20l of oil to make myself something that can heat myself for multiple years without additional resource consuming ( bad example, i know, but lets go with it ), you are always better off with this.
Thats what the discussion is about. Not that you wont need a non-reusable resource, but that using it should result in something reusable that outlives the other resource and keeps going for longer
I saw the video. But you must see the context of acutely spiking lng prices. You cannot just pivot on a dime and have the current crisis be solved.
Even accounting for prices, renewable sources are nearly always better. Price just determines how fast your saving/year will have gotten you your invested money back, but in the long run its nearly always better. You shouldnt move back to oil for example because that 20l of oil i need is 0.00005 euro per liter and can keep me warm for a year. Its still wasted money because its used once and gone. The pivot to green or renewables is something that started years ago and is now going faster ( but not fast enough ). It has nothing to do with the lng prices now
Examples:
i gotten a solar panel last year that cost me 500 euros. Not little money. However, it has saved me 400 euros on energy bill in the last year too. If energy prices were lower, it would have taken me longer to get my money back. Higher price and it would take less time. Imagine pricing goes nuts and its suddenly 15€/kW of energy, it doesnt matter. Im still getting energy of the panel.
I will admit not everyone can do this, and i got in a nice debate with my previous landlord over this. But its an argument i won because the reasons they didnt allow it was … baked air.
another fun one is nuclear. Nuclear is renewable because guess what, the nuclear waste is recycable. Even if you dont pass the waste from one facility to a more modern facility ( that can then use it because its waaaaay more efficient ), you end up with other materials. This one needs billions and years to build which is why it hasnt been done in many places. Why would a government nearly do economical suicide to build one ? ( their words, i think its worth it ). But no matter how much it costs, you’ll benefit from it greatly afterwards because guess what : recycable and larger energy output babeh!!
electric cars is also often a big one in this debate. But it costs more and charging is expensive. I am not going to deny that, not even close. I can rant all day long on those 2 arguments and why they are what they are and how it sucks. However, if you have an electric car, and can charge at home with maybe… Some solar panels? Wind turbines? Anyway, if you charge it at home you are basically doing all car stuff without using any fuels. No paying for energy and only using once. You take away the source of the energy the car uses ( from fuel to pure electric ) shove it in a way more efficient way of movement (electric motor vs combustion engine which gives of a lot of energy in the form of heat) and you allow for any way for it to be energised. Want to charge it with an engine? Sure, go ahead. Battery pack? Solar? Kid on a bike? All possible. It means the car is free from whatever fuel making it renewable because it can use renewable energy source.
All of these examples will save everyone time, money, and space in the long run. Going back would never be necessary even if energy would be lower with fuel hehe
Yeah. But you cannot solve today’s crisis by just buying solar panels overnight. You have the capacity to release oil stores and do rebates for gas to save the economy.
Thats thinking too much in the short run. Youre better off investing that oil into production and transport of the renewable energies that is needed for the benefit of everyone in the long run.
Well. How do you mitigate the current crisis effectively with building out renewables? Seems quite difficult.
That’s true. This is more for the after-crisis thinking. If you can suddenly find 100M$ to face a crisis, you can certainly find these 100M$ to invest in renewable in non-crisis times.
If it is true, then the implied cost would at least stand in for the ‘manifest out of thin air’, the cost is for making the panels exist.
Similarly, the LNG price is only about acquiring the fuel, not about the logistics of moving it around and managing it.
Though admittedly, the comparison is flawed in other ways…
You’d rather spend $1.5T, each year, for no added benefit, just because someone else invested in unnecessary infrastructure? And call everyone else stupid?
This is an ignorant comment if I have ever seen one. Surprisingly, you don’t have to pay for everyone’s energy bill. You would need to harvest about a million people’s lifetime productivity a year to pay for that.
Edit: they editted their comment to be less insane.
“stupid”, “ignorant”, “insane”, pro-fossil. Childish insults and the pro-fossil lobby apparently go together now.
I am not even pro fossil fuels.