Good heavens can these nutters get any more sophist than what they already are?
“Current solar and wind technologies are too expensive, unreliable, and can only replace a small fraction of our energy needs. Since the economy runs on inexpensive energy, in order to grow the economy we will need to use fossil fuels to create that extra wealth. In other words, we will need to burn even more fossil fuels in order to find replacements for fossil fuels.”
That statement sent Nuccitelli on a trip to imbecile land. I’m not sure why the lunatics keep embracing this bizarre equivocation. I think they’re just too simple to understand basic economics and math, specifically, that one shouldn’t compare unlike things.
As per usual warmist MO, Nuccitelli devolves into an irrational argument with imaginary statistics. Here’s his response and proof that Spencer is wrong….
Recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put together a report (PDF) quantifying global fossil fuel subsidies, including indirect costs from climate change damages. They estimated that $480 billion is spent annually on direct fossil fuel subsidies, mostly in developing countries, while an additional $1.4 trillion is spent on indirect subsidies. These include about $800 billion per year in climate change subsidies, and that may be a very conservative estimate.
Sigh. Where to start? Nuccitelli gets just about everything wrong here. First of all, the $480 billion he quoted isn’t uniquely fossil fuels.
Oh, $150 billion of that is electricity. Hmm, now, I wonder what is getting the lion’s share of subsidies in electric generation? Nuccitelli is actually including renewable subsidies in his $480 billion figure! Stupid? Dishonest? You make the call. For fun, please note the coal subsidy.
The paper he quotes is also filled with idiotic sophist and statist assumptions and leaps. For instance we see this in the paper.
For some products, such as coal, post-tax subsidies are substantial because prices are far below the levels needed to address negative environmental and health externalities. The fact that energy products are taxed much less than other products also contributes to the high level of post-tax subsidies. In MENA, for example, applying the same rate of VAT or sales taxes to energy products as other goods and services would generate ¾ percent of GDP.
Good heavens!! Of course, this would be an IMF report. Uhmm, no, you stupid, stupid twits. (Not you Dana, you’re just a sophist climate nutter, you’re not suppose to know better.)
Hey, guess what?! Increase costs of energy and fuels discourages use! Now, even Dana knows this. But, what the IMF should know, as the rest of the rational world knows is that energy and fuel use is what generates wealth. No, really, its true! Increase the cost of energy and fuel and your GDP will drop like a rock reducing your tax revenues.
I won’t address the imaginary global warming costs other than to laugh at them. There’s too many things to laugh at them about this. It will take another post or two to adequately sort through their erroneous assumptions.
Dana goes on to babble inanities about how some unique areas can sell electricity from renewable sources cheaper than from traditional. He also quotes a debunked claim about Australia’s wind energy being cheaper than coal. Which is funny. These really sciency people are basing that claim from a Bloomberg press release. (See here for the debunking.)
But, this brings us to these types of bizarre estimates of costs. And Dana’s idiotic comparisons. Where their thinking flies off the rails is in two places.
Let’s address the first one. They talk about costs, but pretend there are no benefits. In other words, they’re only addressing one part of the equation and leaving out two more important parts. As I stated earlier, we know fuel and energy use is essential to moving an economy, any economy. What’s the cost of not using fuels and energy? Well, let’s see…… there would be very little crops to grow, most of us would die. But, not before an entire global economic collapse. Our entire societal structure would break apart. It wouldn’t matter because unless one works down the block from their home, no one could get to work to produce…. well, nothing because we wouldn’t be using fuels and energy! If one is going to attempt to calculate externalities then you have to weigh them against the benefits. None of the nutters have ever addressed this. It’s as if the computers they’re using to write this idiocy just magically appeared and work without fossil fuel use. What are the externalities of using renewables? Well, I’ll show just a small part of them directly. But, the nutters have never addressed this. Does Dana even know that wind turbines contain huge amounts of REE? What is the process for getting REE, Dana? Does that have any environmental costs? Does Dana know these things and is intentionally not disclosing such, or is he unfathomably ignorant of the things he advocates?
But, that brings us to the second error of such idiocy. What is unstated but implied is that there is a viable alternative available to use. Dana and the rest of the dolts blather on and on about oil and invariably in the very next breath they’ll spew some idiocy about wind and/or solar energy as if they are somehow related. THEY’RE NOT!!! You can plant all the whirlygigs and sun catchers you can dream about and not one jet will fly from that energy generated. Not one boat will steam out of port. Not one combine would be fired up to harvest our crops from that energy. Dana, I’m with you man!!! Gasoline costs way too much!!! But, pretending there’s a viable alternative out there doesn’t help when people need to address reality.
Now, let’s address electricity. Here, we see that one cannot plant all the wind and solar plants they can dream up. Germany has had to scale back their green utopia because of the intermittency of wind and solar energy. I don’t expect Dana to know this because it’s likely he’s never worked with large scale electricity, but grids aren’t set up, and can’t be set up to handle such intermittency. Wind and solar can only be used as an adjunctive to traditional energy until they solve the storage problem. It doesn’t matter if the cost of generating is zero. The cost of facilitating renewables is exorbitant. I’ll trot out my handy picture comparison for the sophists….. Here’s a traditional view of a grid.
Here’s a grid with the idiotic notions of alternative energy sources…..
Even if one was stricken with the phobia of a CO2 molecule, none of this does anything tangible towards reducing CO2 levels. All of this for an energy source which can not supplant traditional electric generation, much less replace natural gas or oil. And Nuccitelli is going to blather about costs, pretending he knows anything about how to do a proper cost/benefit analysis.