kurtster wrote:
 

.. and the beat goes on...  

So you're 100% sure that it is settled science ?  I'm not.

Here try this ...

Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

Wiki

and lastly ...

The Origin of Crude Oil or Petroleum: Biotic or Abiotic?

It's been well talked about here over 10 years ago.  It was dismissed then as who haw.  Things have changed since then.

https://radioparadise.com/community/forum/topic/5371

 kurtster wrote:
 
Do you play the drums by any chance Kurtster?

So you are saying that all coal, oil, shale, etc, cannot exist without an organic component ?

 kurtster wrote:
 
  Kurtster, let's just stop now. you make me into a worse person than I want to be.

 Go check out where oil ultimately comes from.

 kurtster wrote:
 
  Kurtster, let's just stop now. you make me into a worse person than I want to be.

 Go check out where oil ultimately comes from.

So you're saying that petrochemicals, et al, are indirect solar power ?

 kurtster wrote:
 

oh dearie.. what powers the water cycle? what powers the wind? 

What in the hell are you talking about ?

I thought that you said that, 90% of the world's energy is sourced directly or indirectly from the sun.

 kurtster wrote:
 

double fail on your part:
a) I rounded to the nearest blockhead,
look at 2014 compared to 2015, nuclear accounts for roughly 10% in  2014 and roughly 5% in 2015 - I was actually being generous.

b) you are forgetting hydro

Fail.
 with fossil fuels supplying 86% of the world's energy:

 kurtster wrote:
 
my pleasure

Show me that source, please.

 kurtster wrote:
 

says the man who believes in chem trails..  but point taken, a mere 90% of the world's energy is sourced directly or indirectly from the sun.

So the sun made Uranium and the resulting nuclear radiation / energy ?

And geothermal is solar powered ?

Did AOC tell you this ?  The science party, hah !

Energy is conserved.  It cannot be created nor destroyed.  It can only be converted into other forms.  

As usual, I could be wrong.  I did get my education in public schools.

Ra, Ra, Ra !!!

Solar and wind generated power are ultimately the only sustainable sources. ALL the energy on this planet came/comes from the sun. We need to stop mining the stored solar energy and start using the solar energy that is dumped on the planet on a daily - sustainable - basis.

black321 wrote:

It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic.

If, say, wind power were a completely economically viable proposition all on its own—that is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate it—governments would be looking for a way to tax it. Not because windmills have externalities that need to be compensated for, not because windmills are a burden on the public treasury, but because there's money there that the state isn't getting a piece of. They want a cut. Period.

The word subsidy is used (even when it isn't appropriate) because it's emotionally charged. It implies other people are being taxed to pay for something—that money is coming out of their pockets to prop up something that can't support itself. In some cases that is completely accurate, in some cases it's simply false.

We won't make progress on issues if we don't face them honestly.

Wind farms pay a $1/MWh tax in Wyoming. That's in large part because coal, a much bigger employer than wind, makes the state of Wyoming a lot of money in taxes and thus has a lot of political pull. They see it as only fair.

No other state taxes wind power directly. Is that a subsidy? No?

If Wyoming cut that tax to $.687/MWh would that be a subsidy? If it raised it to $1.178 would that mean that it was being subsidized, but isn't any longer? What if that tax could have been raised to $1.1839, but wasn't—is the difference a subsidy?

When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatement—taxes it promised not to collect—to make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!

So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.

This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.