Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Aussie1 said
06:12 PM Mar 13, 2023
TheHeaths wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
smwhiskey said
07:17 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
I only watched the first 2 minutes or so but to be fair, he didn't exactly prove that what he was saying was correct by actual verifiable facts. In the first minute he pulled some numbers about max efficiency out of thin air without saying where they come from or even citing a source and then used those numbers to debunk the whole theory of solar and wind producing enough electricity to support life on earth. Its like a politician pulling budget numbers out of their arse and using them to cost justify their favourite project.
But don't get me wrong, I've been saying for some time now that with current technologies solar and wind generators arn't the permanent solution to our energy crisis. Either we have to develop better more efficient energy collection systems and/or we need to seriously reduce our energy requirements. Problem is, I havn't heard of any startling developments in solar collector technology and with the unrelenting push to get people into electric cars I can't see the 2nd part of that equation happening in the near future (if at all)
Which leave us with a problem for which we currently only have a short term bandaid solution
Simon
Aussie1 said
07:34 PM Mar 13, 2023
Hi Simon, Thanks for your response however, I am yet to see proof of what he is presenting is incorrect. Most who disagree usually simply dismiss what is being presented but fail to give proof of the data included.
Cheers
Perhaps the Heaths will have the answers.
I am always open to other views , provided they are backed up with proven facts.
Cuppa said
07:35 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
The presenter presents claims & statements for the audience he is aiming at, those who WANT to believe what he is saying. Not one solid reference to support his argument. It is he who should be offering proof to show his facts are not just one sided nonsense. He cannot do that
Worse his arguments are flawed because he does not make reference to the costs & pollution & mining & degradation of pristine areas etc from fossil fuel extraction . Add those costs to his claims & he would start to look pretty silly. Just because he 'looks respectable, wears a suit & presents articulately' doesn't make him make sense. This is spin for the fossil fuel industry.
AND even if there is some truth in his claims, he makes no reference to future management of waste solar, wind turbines etc, & pays no attention to sustainable energy production becoming cheaper the more it is adopted. He bases everything on what we are doing today in this time of transition as though that is how it will always be. His claim that wind generator blades cannot be recycled is just about out of date already.
AND of course whilst mining to make batteries etc involves some dubious practices, nothing was mentioned about new & yet to be developed battery technologies, instead he carries on as though we are at the pinnacle of sustainable energy storage right now.
AND he pays no attention to the impact of continuing with fossil fuels on the planet, which will have ever greater financial costs as well as ecological & human costs, none of which are factored in to his presentation.
In short it is slick bullsh*t for the supporters of fossil fuels, climate change denialists & the gullible. Produced for the delectation of those ready to jump up & dpwn saying 'I told you so, without applying anything more than superficial evaluation.
If anyone here wants to go into bat for for his point of view they need to address all of the gaps I've mentioned & probably a whole lot more before thet can even begin to make a coherent argument to support him. Good luck with that. He couldn't do it, because if it were possible he would have done so.
To harp on about proving him wrong is pointless & a waste of energy, because anyone who thinks him correct, just by suggesting he is shows that they have not applie d any critical reasoning to the process, & if unable to do that are hardly likely to be able to participate in a coherent debate about what he has said.
To take him at face value is 'magical thinking'. No one can argue with that successfully.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 07:40:53 PM
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 07:49:22 PM
Aussie1 said
07:40 PM Mar 13, 2023
Mmm, still no facts to prove him wrong mainly emotional commentary on how some feel.
Cheers
Cuppa said
07:53 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Mmm, still no facts to prove him wrong mainly emotional commentary on how some feel. Cheers
Totally wrong. That is an accusation which carries about as much weight as name calling. If you wish to pursue this, then answer the points I made about the many gaps in his presentation. Show us how I am wrong. Point out my mistakes. Use referenced & undeniable facts yourself.
If you persist as you are you ignore the points that have been made - presumably because they don't suit you. Instead of hectoring others to do what you say, because you think it will somehow make this presenter chappie correct, engage in proper & respectful debate by putting up the arguments he has failed to address. Without that then further discussion becomes totally pointless.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 08:00:45 PM
Aussie1 said
08:08 PM Mar 13, 2023
I shall ignore your comments that border on personal. However I simply asked FIRST for someone to prove this guy wrong. No one has. I choose to add nothing further until he is proven wrong.
I will add I have not stated wether or not I agree or not with him, I am simply interested in someone with facts to prove him wrong. please try not to answer a question with a question, that is what is expected from a politician :)
Cheers Cobber
Cuppa said
08:18 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
I shall ignore your comments that border on personal. However I simply asked FIRST for someone to prove this guy wrong. No one has. I choose to add nothing further until he is proven wrong. I will add I have not stated wether or not I agree or not with him, I am simply interested in someone with facts to prove him wrong. please try not to answer a question with a question, that is what is expected from a politician :) Cheers Cobber
Personal? Now there's some mud.
'I asked FIRST' is a schoolyard argument.
I expect it reasonable that as adults we might have a grown up debate.
TheHeaths said
08:21 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Mmm, still no facts to prove him wrong mainly emotional commentary on how some feel. Cheers
Aussie 1,
You assume that he is quoting facts, and others need to provide facts to disprove him. One of the great truths is 86.759% of all statistics are made up to suit the speaker. Without quoted INDEPENDENT sources, his facts are nothing more than some meaningless numbers.
I simply stated that he is no more worthwhile quoting than those on the other side of the argument who make similar unsubstantiated in opposition to this group. The group themselves state the .offers a free alternative to the dominant left wing ideology
If you want to believe what he says, fine. I dont. Nothing emotional about it.
Aussie1 said
08:27 PM Mar 13, 2023
I do not choose to debate, I simply make observations and ask questions. If someone wants to answer what I ask thats great. Wether I accept their reply is completely up to me. No debate from me.
Cheers Cobber.
Cuppa said
08:29 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
I do not choose to debate, I simply make observations and ask questions. If someone wants to answer what I ask thats great. Wether I accept their reply is completely up to me. No debate from me. Cheers Cobber.
Yup, I think we knew that.
Aussie1 said
08:32 PM Mar 13, 2023
As I stated above I have not at any stage said I agree or disagree with the gentleman in question. I just read responses that don't clearly prove him wrong. I don't have time to get emotional on such issues. Cheers
-- Edited by Aussie1 on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 04:07:44 PM
smwhiskey said
08:35 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Hi Simon, Thanks for your response however, I am yet to see proof of what he is presenting is incorrect. Most who disagree usually simply dismiss what is being presented but fail to give proof of the data included. Cheers Perhaps the Heaths will have the answers. I am always open to other views , provided they are backed up with proven facts.
So numbers based on a "theory" developed in 1961 (in this case ShockleyQueisser limit) are "proof" that he's correct? Nope. Its a theoritical number that hasn't been proven to hold true 100% of the time.
There used to be a "theory" that everything in the universe revolved around the earth and anybody who said anything against that specific theory was generally BBQed for heresy. Then Issac Newton came along with his theory of gravitational attraction to explain the universe and that was deemed to be "correct" till Einstein came along 250 years after him and proved him wrong. Now people are starting to suspect Einstein may not be entirely correct either.
The point is, don't be so arrogant to assume that this specific point of view is the one and only correct view because realistically the odds are that it probably isn't regardless of whether we provide the "proof" you like or not.
Cuppa said
08:36 PM Mar 13, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
As I stated above I have not at any stage said I agree or disagree with the gentleman in question. I just read responses that don't clearly prove him wrong. I don't have time to get national on such issues. Cheers
Aussie1 said
09:46 PM Mar 13, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Aussie1 wrote:
I do not choose to debate, I simply make observations and ask questions. If someone wants to answer what I ask thats great. Wether I accept their reply is completely up to me. No debate from me. Cheers Cobber.
Yup, I think we knew that.
We? But very perceptive :)
Cheers Cobber
Aussie1 said
10:02 PM Mar 13, 2023
smwhiskey wrote:
Aussie1 wrote:
Hi Simon, Thanks for your response however, I am yet to see proof of what he is presenting is incorrect. Most who disagree usually simply dismiss what is being presented but fail to give proof of the data included. Cheers Perhaps the Heaths will have the answers. I am always open to other views , provided they are backed up with proven facts.
So numbers based on a "theory" developed in 1961 (in this case ShockleyQueisser limit) are "proof" that he's correct? Nope. Its a theoritical number that hasn't been proven to hold true 100% of the time.
There used to be a "theory" that everything in the universe revolved around the earth and anybody who said anything against that specific theory was generally BBQed for heresy. Then Issac Newton came along with his theory of gravitational attraction to explain the universe and that was deemed to be "correct" till Einstein came along 250 years after him and proved him wrong. Now people are starting to suspect Einstein may not be entirely correct either.
The point is, don't be so arrogant to assume that this specific point of view is the one and only correct view because realistically the odds are that it probably isn't regardless of whether we provide the "proof" you like or not.
Not actually anything to do with "if I like or not" the proof provided. I am just curious about this issue. I have no issue with those that choose to disagree with the guys take on it. But I will say clearly it's a very emotional subject for some eh.
Along with Einstein, even Nostradamus got some right and some wrong
Cheers Cobber.
Aussie1 said
10:53 PM Mar 13, 2023
Anyhow aussie_paul, many thanks for starting this post.
Been some interesting comments (albeit some a tad emotional) but interesting just the same.
So much knowledge on here to appreciate.
Cheers
Are We Lost said
11:22 PM Mar 13, 2023
OK, I watched the video and have to agree it is short on references to back up what he says. And pretty obviously he only talks one side of the argument.
In fact very similar to the videos that are pushing the other side. They also choose to omit important detail because they only want you to hear their side of the argument.
So I am with Aussie on this. If you don't like it, fine, but instead of saying how it falls short of what you think should be included, do you think what he said is wrong?
If you only hear one side of an argument you KNOW you are not getting the full story. If you aren't alarmed by what he said, you should be ... unless you think it is all wrong. If so, what? If only half of what he said is true, surely you find that alarming?
Mind you, as I have said before, I don't think we have much alternative as the supply of oil is not endless.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Monday 13th of March 2023 11:30:17 PM
Gundog said
11:53 PM Mar 13, 2023
From the NEM web site at 2200 EST there is approximatly 24000MW of power produced and consumed at that point in time of that approximatly 3000MW come from wind, 2000 MW comes from Hydro. That leaves 19000MW comming from non renewables, of that 16000MW comes from coal.
In light of these figures when the Liddel coal fired power station ceases operation in a few weeks, the remaining coal/gas and diesal generators need to lift output to take up the slack.
But whats missing from the NEM information is the 100's of community power stations in remote areas of Australia that at night require diesel or gas to provide power for them, nothing to see here as no one wants to know about them. Tonight South Australia need about a 3rd of it power needs to come from the interconnector from Victoria, which has interconnectors with NSW and Tassie to supplement the extra power to SA.
Even if the numbers in the OP's link are 50% correct, considering we have about 3000 wind turbines that could peak output produce 8000MW, so lets discount that by 50% to 4000MW, that being the case we would need to build 12000 wind turbines just to retire the coal and gas generation, if the wind was blowing.
The biggest battery in Australia is 300MW which can power 1 million homes for 30 minutes, bugger we will need a massive investment in big batteries.
All these things mean on thing, power prices will continue to rise just to pay the batteries and renewables, and dont forget the 1 trillion dollars need for the poles and wires to connect them all.
yep I'm a climate realist you have been conned by BS
Tony Bev said
02:21 AM Mar 14, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
I have no idea if what the video from this website below is true or false
Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines (My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)
A very quick search on the net comes up with this website below
Which says that almost 10% of the worlds power is supplied by solar/wind turbines
Below is a screenshot from this website
As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling
My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman
Gundog said
10:17 AM Mar 14, 2023
Tony Bev wrote:
Aussie1 wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
I have no idea if what the video from this website below is true or false
Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines (My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)
A very quick search on the net comes up with this website below
Which says that almost 10% of the worlds power is supplied by solar/wind turbines
Below is a screenshot from this website
As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling
My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman
I think you will find its the renewable side of the picture that is the propaganda.
As at 0900 EST power production is approxamitly 27000MW of that fossile fuel accounts for more than 50% at 15500MW the remainder is from renewables. However 3 states rely on Vic and Qld to get coverage for their energy production shortfall, Tas, SA and NSW often rely on power from the interconnectors.
With Liddell in the hunter valley closing in April, 6000Gwh has to be produced from existing power sources, wind and solar cannot just flick a switch to ramp up production as demand increases.
But what do I know, the evidence I see paints a different picture to the crapola being sprouted by the looney left.
Aussie1 said
02:50 PM Mar 14, 2023
TheHeaths wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines (My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)
As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling
My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman
Very much appreciate your response however, it is difficult to accept a proposition that includes e.g "my gut feeling" re quoted number was wrong or "my gut feeling" the video is a bit of propaganda.
And once again "I will go with my gut feeling" that the quoted number was wrong.
That is hardly providing facts that prove the guy wrong. Even though there is nothing wrong with having a gut feeling, it just lacks facts.
Cheers
Gary and Barb said
03:04 PM Mar 14, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Hi Simon, Thanks for your response however, I am yet to see proof of what he is presenting is incorrect. Most who disagree usually simply dismiss what is being presented but fail to give proof of the data included. Cheers Perhaps the Heaths will have the answers. I am always open to other views , provided they are backed up with proven facts.
Sorry, Aussie, but you seem disingenuous re: being open minded. Your posts clearly show you believe the Prager statements and your defence of it is at conflict with the open mindednes you profess.
There is a stand off here, with neither side having the capacity (on this site) to prove or disprove their stance. Suffice to say that by asking for proof from those who disagree while being unable to provide anything credible yourself, is merely a poorly masked effort at polemics. This feeds the "left/Right" binary which initiates adversarial comments.
As for seeking proof, try credible and actual universities for a start. Discern the difference between fact and opinion and interrogate your source's qualifications more closely.
-- Edited by Gary and Barb on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 03:05:46 PM
Mike Harding said
03:28 PM Mar 14, 2023
Gary and Barb wrote:
As for seeking proof, try credible and actual universities for a start. Discern the difference between fact and opinion and interrogate your source's qualifications more closely.
Sounds like pretentious polemics to me.
Gary and Barb said
03:41 PM Mar 14, 2023
Mike Harding wrote:
Gary and Barb wrote:
As for seeking proof, try credible and actual universities for a start. Discern the difference between fact and opinion and interrogate your source's qualifications more closely.
Sounds like pretentious polemics to me.
Impressive comeback, Mike. Anything constructive?
Gary and Barb said
03:44 PM Mar 14, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines (My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)
As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling
My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman
Very much appreciate your response however, it is difficult to accept a proposition that includes e.g "my gut feeling" re quoted number was wrong or "my gut feeling" the video is a bit of propaganda.
And once again "I will go with my gut feeling" that the quoted number was wrong.
That is hardly providing facts that prove the guy wrong. Even though there is nothing wrong with having a gut feeling, it just lacks facts.
Cheers
Just prove Carlson right instead of dodging the issue..... then finish!
-- Edited by Gary and Barb on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 03:46:12 PM
https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar
Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM
Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?
I only watched the first 2 minutes or so but to be fair, he didn't exactly prove that what he was saying was correct by actual verifiable facts. In the first minute he pulled some numbers about max efficiency out of thin air without saying where they come from or even citing a source and then used those numbers to debunk the whole theory of solar and wind producing enough electricity to support life on earth. Its like a politician pulling budget numbers out of their arse and using them to cost justify their favourite project.
But don't get me wrong, I've been saying for some time now that with current technologies solar and wind generators arn't the permanent solution to our energy crisis. Either we have to develop better more efficient energy collection systems and/or we need to seriously reduce our energy requirements. Problem is, I havn't heard of any startling developments in solar collector technology and with the unrelenting push to get people into electric cars I can't see the 2nd part of that equation happening in the near future (if at all)
Which leave us with a problem for which we currently only have a short term bandaid solution
Simon
The presenter presents claims & statements for the audience he is aiming at, those who WANT to believe what he is saying. Not one solid reference to support his argument. It is he who should be offering proof to show his facts are not just one sided nonsense. He cannot do that
Worse his arguments are flawed because he does not make reference to the costs & pollution & mining & degradation of pristine areas etc from fossil fuel extraction . Add those costs to his claims & he would start to look pretty silly. Just because he 'looks respectable, wears a suit & presents articulately' doesn't make him make sense. This is spin for the fossil fuel industry.
AND even if there is some truth in his claims, he makes no reference to future management of waste solar, wind turbines etc, & pays no attention to sustainable energy production becoming cheaper the more it is adopted. He bases everything on what we are doing today in this time of transition as though that is how it will always be. His claim that wind generator blades cannot be recycled is just about out of date already.
AND of course whilst mining to make batteries etc involves some dubious practices, nothing was mentioned about new & yet to be developed battery technologies, instead he carries on as though we are at the pinnacle of sustainable energy storage right now.
AND he pays no attention to the impact of continuing with fossil fuels on the planet, which will have ever greater financial costs as well as ecological & human costs, none of which are factored in to his presentation.
In short it is slick bullsh*t for the supporters of fossil fuels, climate change denialists & the gullible. Produced for the delectation of those ready to jump up & dpwn saying 'I told you so, without applying anything more than superficial evaluation.
If anyone here wants to go into bat for for his point of view they need to address all of the gaps I've mentioned & probably a whole lot more before thet can even begin to make a coherent argument to support him. Good luck with that. He couldn't do it, because if it were possible he would have done so.
To harp on about proving him wrong is pointless & a waste of energy, because anyone who thinks him correct, just by suggesting he is shows that they have not applie d any critical reasoning to the process, & if unable to do that are hardly likely to be able to participate in a coherent debate about what he has said.
To take him at face value is 'magical thinking'. No one can argue with that successfully.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 07:40:53 PM
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 07:49:22 PM
Totally wrong. That is an accusation which carries about as much weight as name calling. If you wish to pursue this, then answer the points I made about the many gaps in his presentation. Show us how I am wrong. Point out my mistakes. Use referenced & undeniable facts yourself.
If you persist as you are you ignore the points that have been made - presumably because they don't suit you. Instead of hectoring others to do what you say, because you think it will somehow make this presenter chappie correct, engage in proper & respectful debate by putting up the arguments he has failed to address. Without that then further discussion becomes totally pointless.
-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 08:00:45 PM
Personal? Now there's some mud.
'I asked FIRST' is a schoolyard argument.
I expect it reasonable that as adults we might have a grown up debate.
Aussie 1,
You assume that he is quoting facts, and others need to provide facts to disprove him. One of the great truths is 86.759% of all statistics are made up to suit the speaker. Without quoted INDEPENDENT sources, his facts are nothing more than some meaningless numbers.
I simply stated that he is no more worthwhile quoting than those on the other side of the argument who make similar unsubstantiated in opposition to this group. The group themselves state the .offers a free alternative to the dominant left wing ideology
If you want to believe what he says, fine. I dont. Nothing emotional about it.
Yup, I think we knew that.
As I stated above I have not at any stage said I agree or disagree with the gentleman in question. I just read responses that don't clearly prove him wrong. I don't have time to get emotional on such issues. Cheers
-- Edited by Aussie1 on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 04:07:44 PM
So numbers based on a "theory" developed in 1961 (in this case ShockleyQueisser limit) are "proof" that he's correct? Nope. Its a theoritical number that hasn't been proven to hold true 100% of the time.
There used to be a "theory" that everything in the universe revolved around the earth and anybody who said anything against that specific theory was generally BBQed for heresy. Then Issac Newton came along with his theory of gravitational attraction to explain the universe and that was deemed to be "correct" till Einstein came along 250 years after him and proved him wrong. Now people are starting to suspect Einstein may not be entirely correct either.
The point is, don't be so arrogant to assume that this specific point of view is the one and only correct view because realistically the odds are that it probably isn't regardless of whether we provide the "proof" you like or not.
We? But very perceptive :)
Cheers Cobber
Not actually anything to do with "if I like or not" the proof provided. I am just curious about this issue. I have no issue with those that choose to disagree with the guys take on it. But I will say clearly it's a very emotional subject for some eh.
Along with Einstein, even Nostradamus got some right and some wrong
Cheers Cobber.
OK, I watched the video and have to agree it is short on references to back up what he says. And pretty obviously he only talks one side of the argument.
In fact very similar to the videos that are pushing the other side. They also choose to omit important detail because they only want you to hear their side of the argument.
So I am with Aussie on this. If you don't like it, fine, but instead of saying how it falls short of what you think should be included, do you think what he said is wrong?
If you only hear one side of an argument you KNOW you are not getting the full story. If you aren't alarmed by what he said, you should be ... unless you think it is all wrong. If so, what? If only half of what he said is true, surely you find that alarming?
Mind you, as I have said before, I don't think we have much alternative as the supply of oil is not endless.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Monday 13th of March 2023 11:30:17 PM
From the NEM web site at 2200 EST there is approximatly 24000MW of power produced and consumed at that point in time of that approximatly 3000MW come from wind, 2000 MW comes from Hydro. That leaves 19000MW comming from non renewables, of that 16000MW comes from coal.
In light of these figures when the Liddel coal fired power station ceases operation in a few weeks, the remaining coal/gas and diesal generators need to lift output to take up the slack.
But whats missing from the NEM information is the 100's of community power stations in remote areas of Australia that at night require diesel or gas to provide power for them, nothing to see here as no one wants to know about them. Tonight South Australia need about a 3rd of it power needs to come from the interconnector from Victoria, which has interconnectors with NSW and Tassie to supplement the extra power to SA.
Even if the numbers in the OP's link are 50% correct, considering we have about 3000 wind turbines that could peak output produce 8000MW, so lets discount that by 50% to 4000MW, that being the case we would need to build 12000 wind turbines just to retire the coal and gas generation, if the wind was blowing.
The biggest battery in Australia is 300MW which can power 1 million homes for 30 minutes, bugger we will need a massive investment in big batteries.
All these things mean on thing, power prices will continue to rise just to pay the batteries and renewables, and dont forget the 1 trillion dollars need for the poles and wires to connect them all.
yep I'm a climate realist you have been conned by BS
I have no idea if what the video from this website below is true or false
https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar
Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines
(My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)
A very quick search on the net comes up with this website below
https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-top-15-wind-and-solar-power-countries-in-2020/#:~:text=Ember's%20recent%20Global%20Electricity%20Review,TWh)%20of%20the%20world's%20electricity.
Which says that almost 10% of the worlds power is supplied by solar/wind turbines
Below is a screenshot from this website
As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling
My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman
I think you will find its the renewable side of the picture that is the propaganda.
As at 0900 EST power production is approxamitly 27000MW of that fossile fuel accounts for more than 50% at 15500MW the remainder is from renewables. However 3 states rely on Vic and Qld to get coverage for their energy production shortfall, Tas, SA and NSW often rely on power from the interconnectors.
With Liddell in the hunter valley closing in April, 6000Gwh has to be produced from existing power sources, wind and solar cannot just flick a switch to ramp up production as demand increases.
But what do I know, the evidence I see paints a different picture to the crapola being sprouted by the looney left.
Very much appreciate your response however, it is difficult to accept a proposition that includes e.g "my gut feeling" re quoted number was wrong or "my gut feeling" the video is a bit of propaganda.
And once again "I will go with my gut feeling" that the quoted number was wrong.
That is hardly providing facts that prove the guy wrong. Even though there is nothing wrong with having a gut feeling, it just lacks facts.
Cheers
Sorry, Aussie, but you seem disingenuous re: being open minded. Your posts clearly show you believe the Prager statements and your defence of it is at conflict with the open mindednes you profess.
There is a stand off here, with neither side having the capacity (on this site) to prove or disprove their stance. Suffice to say that by asking for proof from those who disagree while being unable to provide anything credible yourself, is merely a poorly masked effort at polemics. This feeds the "left/Right" binary which initiates adversarial comments.
As for seeking proof, try credible and actual universities for a start. Discern the difference between fact and opinion and interrogate your source's qualifications more closely.
-- Edited by Gary and Barb on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 03:05:46 PM
Sounds like pretentious polemics to me.
Impressive comeback, Mike. Anything constructive?
Just prove Carlson right instead of dodging the issue..... then finish!
-- Edited by Gary and Barb on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 03:46:12 PM
In this thread!?
Oh but you're funny :)
You're not. Not in the least, mate.