quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
And Brazil is making a serious attempt for the whole country for 2014.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


By making food for the poor into energy

  Smooth 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The one thing most of these programs settle on though is the use of methanol/ethanol for vehicles which is of course a fossil fuel but at least the cleanest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


By making food for the poor into energy

  Smooth 

No, that's your hamburger. Your hamburger is made of food for the poor, turned into tasty beef for your pleasure while millions die of hunger. And it has been done this since you started eating them.

Also some dictators (many supported with your taxes) have been doing this. Turning food the poor needed into oil for your country, or good cars for them.

Oh, and I almost forgot the food bubble, created by investors fleeing from the financial markets. Guess where do many of those investors come from.

Smooth.

But anyway, do you think that letting the climate change worsen will improve the food production? You did not thought that to the end, did you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
No that is ethanol, and if you refuse to see that there is little use trying to use facts logic or reason trying to debate with you over the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
8% extra cost isnt cheap to the poorer end of the spectrum. Elderly people or those in poverty have a choice in winter, eat or keep warm. prices rising faster than income mean it is impossible to do both.

1. The comparison between a one-time 8% energy cost increase and the income and price rises in general is a fallacy, as the first would happen only one year and the others, not.

2. The 8% extra cost would not be of the whole energy, only the part substituted by renewables. The part which is already produced with renewables would need no substitution.

3. The social costs can be covered by taxes or additional social services - if needed.

4. It is not needed. In no western European country I know, including the UK where you live, are the poor really forced to choose between freezing and suffering hunger. And of course in Germany it is indeed so.

5. Even if it were so, the State could cover the expenses of the poor. Would this be a sensible investment from the State? Yes, they would get that money back with wonderful profit, as these substitution means more R & D in key areas for the long term, cheaper energy production prices due to scale economies in the short and middle term and...

6. ... the fact is, that the real costs of renewable energies are negative compared to traditional ones, because of externalised costs. Actually, I could simply return your argument back with a 50% for the renewables, if the consumers would pay all the damage done to the environment.

7. And the rises of the consumer's costs would decrease waste, reducing that 8% anyway at the end.

Therefore, I really suggest that you abandon this line of argumentation, Politesub.

Best regards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Whole regions and cities in Europe are proving the naysayers wrong and are in the process of eliminating the use of all fossil fuels...some almost entirely.

The costs, one time, the benefits...for all time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The governments own adviser has suggested an increase in bills of up to 30%, so lets not try and suggest otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
No that is ethanol, and if you refuse to see that there is little use trying to use facts logic or reason trying to debate with you over the issue.

Strange, I could say the same about you. I have given you now the real reasons for the increases of the prices of food all over the world, but you refuse to see it. Because you prefer to eat flesh while you criticize people's attempt to control global warming using biofuel with the stupid argument (for a flesh-eater) that they consume people's needed food.
Become vegetarian, stop voting Governments which support dictatorships, stop consuming oil, stop voting governments which allow food future's market speculation... and then you will have some right to criticize that.

But there will be no reason anymore, because when everybody does this, the poor will be swimming on food.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
you might begin by telling us how vast tracts of land are being used to produce energy inefficiently....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am not asking, I am telling you that hyserical mummery does not equal fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The governments own adviser has suggested an increase in bills of up to 30%, so lets not try and suggest otherwise.

The governments adviser. 'nuff said.
Ok, I gave you 7 refuting arguments, mutually independent, so that you would need 7 well founded objections.
And what you give me is an attempt of objection of one, changing magically the numbers, and based on a Goverments adviser. Such an objective, serious, scientific source! And on end cosumers bills, that is, not less. Based on the Governments own policies. I mean... it is getting ridiculous, we can let it be here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Yes, but reduced cleaning costs of buildings, increased longevity of cars, reduced landfill costs, health care costs and minimizing the expense of nuclear waste also reduce costs. Coal has a lot of reach- power production is one of the largest sources of heavy metals in the atmosphere. Reduce the use of coal, and you see a lot of benefits that are not easily quantified because they're so far reaching and are often far removed from the people who benefit directly from the plant. From a UK perspective- does it make sense not to burn coal because France gets the bulk of its pollution? Or do we say that there's only one atmosphere and that national borders aren't respected?

Its very hard to make an argument that by increasing efficiency of transmission lines- which largely is a one time cost- the savings don't pay for themselves over a long enough time period. I suspect that the UK has a similar problem as the US- the power producers get paid for production- but transmission is an afterthought, and there's no economic mechanism to account for losses.

PV panels typically get cleaned about 4 times a year, and newer wind turbine technology with self cleaning blades will be coming on line soon- so maintenance costs moving forward will be dropping- and the percentage of availability will probably be increasing- same as what happened for the nuclear industry- which went from around 50% availability in the 70s to 90% today.

Sam