Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[Old Campaigner]

3.8 trillion dollars.

All spent on magic beans.

I have no idea what this guy's sources are but a quick look at the EIA (the US department charged with keeping track of such things) shows his claims about the % energy use are not correct:



Link: Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020

Look at those nosedive taken by coal lol

I suppose he might have been including transportation (e.g. petrol/diesel used in cars) in his figures. Since EVs are relatively new and there's not many out there yet it wouldn't surprise me if the needle hasn't moved much there. That will likely change pretty quickly with a number of jurisdictions beginning to phase out ICE vehicles over the next decade.

The highest bidder should be bidding vastly vastly lower than they were 30 years ago because, according to you, we've had a massive increase in investment in low cost generation. This means that we don't need any high cost generation.

Here I'll even do the maths for you.

30 years ago we had coal and gas. Because of gas (the highest cost bidder) the price was, say, 10c /kwh.

Now, we have replaced the most expensive generation with ultra cheap renewables generation so the price of electricity is 5c /kwh.

Of course, the price didn't actually fall did it?

So we haven't replaced high cost generation with low cost generation we've replaced the lowest cost generation with much higher cost generation (even higher than gas).

The costs from renewables stem from the fact that you rarely get electricity generation close to capacity and you often can't generation at all. The true cost of renewables is therefore actually the cost of a wind turbine/solar panel plus the cost of storage (or back up gas generation).

No, according to me (and you can go back and check this) the cheaper source of energy have not yet made up the shortfall from the closure of coal fired power stations so the wholesale power prices are tied to the price of gas. The price of gas is going up because it's determined by international energy markets. This isn't hard to understand, I've even posted links/screenshots from the relevant authorities to make it clear it isn't just random stuff I'm making up.

You can see the same thing happening in the chart of the US electricty generation. Coal takes a nosedive as gas steadily increases.

 

[Beerfish]

I have no idea what this guy's sources are but a quick look at the EIA (the US department charged with keeping track of such things) shows his claims about the % energy use are not correct

Apparently his source is the EIA.

Goldman Sachs’ Jeff Currie: ‘$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of Overall Energy Consumption’ in 10 Years

So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent,…

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[Old Campaigner]

Apparently his source is the EIA.

Goldman Sachs’ Jeff Currie: ‘$3.8 Trillion of Investment in Renewables Moved Fossil Fuels from 82% to 81% of Overall Energy Consumption’ in 10 Years

So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent,…

wattsupwiththat.com

That includes transportation which is fair enough, there's been very little renewable energy penetration into that sector. It's arguably a bit of a shifting of the goal posts as far as this the last few pages of this thread goes though since we were discussing electricity generation rather than overall energy consumption.

 

[Beerfish]

It's arguably a bit of a shifting of the goal posts

I'm shocked to be sitting here

 

[IHurley]

the cheaper source of energy have not yet made up the shortfall from the closure of coal fired power

??? Why would the coal plants just stop producing when there's so much money to be made at these high electricity prices? Wouldn't they keep on producing until they are actually obsolete? Why did we literally destroy coal plants instead of just mothballing them?

Astonishingly you admit that gas needed to increase which puts us at the mercy of international gas prices but somehow you think this proves renewables are a good thing even though you know perfectly well that an increase in renewables must be matched with an increase in gas. It never occurs to you that having to build capacity twice over is ridiculous policy.

 

[IHurley]

It's arguably a bit of a shifting of the goal posts as far as this the last few pages of this thread goes though since we were discussing electricity generation rather than overall energy consumption.

Is climate change only affected by electricity rather than overall energy consumption?

What has the 4 trillion bought us?

 

[jmoo wan]

Is climate change only affected by electricity rather than overall energy consumption?

What has the 2.3 trillion bought us?

i respect how you’re not even bothering to quote people any more - you are literally just shouting into the void.

 

[IHurley]

We know that certain meteorites (carbonaceous chondrites) and comets contain amino acids (the building blocks of proteins). These extraterrestrial amino acids have not been formed from biological pathways, and using your logic neither have amino acids on earth (which we know is not the case).

No idea what your point is here.

Are you saying the amino acids that eventually created life on earth had to have been created from living things previously?

 

[IHurley]

Can I please be absolutely clear as to what you're arguing old campaigner?

Is coal being shut down because it's uneconomic or because of current/future government policy?

If the former, why are they shut now even as power prices are high? Do they hate profits?

 

[DERO]

Can I please be absolutely clear as to what you're arguing old campaigner?

Is coal being shut down because it's uneconomic or because of current/future government policy?

If the former, why are they shut now even as power prices are high? Do they hate profits?

Carn man

 

[Old Campaigner]

??? Why would the coal plants just stop producing when there's so much money to be made at these high electricity prices? Wouldn't they keep on producing until they are actually obsolete? Why did we literally destroy coal plants instead of just mothballing them?

Astonishingly you admit that gas needed to increase which puts us at the mercy of international gas prices but somehow you think this proves renewables are a good thing even though you know perfectly well that an increase in renewables must be matched with an increase in gas. It never occurs to you that having to build capacity twice over is ridiculous policy.

A lot of Australia's coal fired power stations were built in the 70s, that makes them approaching 50 years old and well past their effective life. Obsolete if you will. In some cases expensive capital works are needed to keep them running and their owners are not prepared to stump up the cash. In the case of Hazelwood the owner specifically stated that it couldn't compete with the lower power costs at the time.



Link: Hazelwood power station in Australia to close at the end of March 2017 | ENGIE

Is climate change only affected by electricity rather than overall energy consumption?

What has the 4 trillion bought us?

I'm not sure what you're trying to pivot to here. The money invested in renewable energy has seen an increase from negligible renewable energy generation 20 years ago to 20-ish% of our total and from time to time generates 100% of South Australia's electricity. The same is broadly true globally.

No idea what your point is here.

Are you saying the amino acids that eventually created life on earth had to have been created from living things previously?

My point is that your logic is flawed. Badly.

Contrary to your claims the existance of abiotic extraterrestrial hydrocarbons (or amino acids) does not automatically imply that all hydrocarbons (or amino acids) on earth are abiotic also.

Can I please be absolutely clear as to what you're arguing old campaigner?

Is coal being shut down because it's uneconomic or because of current/future government policy?

If the former, why are they shut now even as power prices are high? Do they hate profits?

Really?

As mentioned above, coal fired power stations are being shut down because they're at the end of their useful lives. They are not being replaced because the businesses recognise that they are unlikely to be competitive with renewable energy in the future. To be a viable investment there needs to be certainty that they will be competitive over their 40 year lifespan and this is not the case. Government policy adds further uncertainty.

Take AGL for example. ASX listed company, owner of the Liddell Power Station in NSW. It was (like many other power stations) built in the 70s, is plagued with reliability issues and past it's effective life. AGL wanted to shut it down in 2022 and it took the government stepping in to get them to extend it's operations into 2023. AGL basically has a choice, do they invest in keeping the plant open for a few more years, or decommission it and invest in something else. They decided to shut it down, and rather than build a new coal fired power station they're building a large battery instead. Keep in mind this is an ASX listed entity that answers primarily to it's shareholders who expect it to make money. So they don't hate money, this is just the way the electricity generation sector is heading.

Anyway my dude, I feel like I've been very patient as you've shifted goalposts and avoided addressing any of the links and sources I've provided.

I think it's time for you to shit or get off the pot regarding your claim that coal was formed recently and abiotically. I've asked nicely several times now for you to post a link or whatever but I'm starting to think you might be avoiding the question.

 

[IHurley]

I see.

So all coal fire power stations in Australia were built exactly 50 years ago and 50 years is exactly the age all such stations can exist - no more - and nobody thought to build any new stations or do any refurbishments in any of these stations for the entirety of those 50 years.

 

[IHurley]

Why was there no investment in new coal stations 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30? 40?

Why are they practically all coming to their end right now?

 

[IHurley]

To be a viable investment there needs to be certainty that they will be competitive over their 40 year lifespan and this is not the case. Government policy adds further uncertainty.

You finally got it. There's been no investment because of sovereign risk. Economic viability in terms of electricity prices (current or expected) has nothing to do with it.

But why don't you tell me precisely when we can expect to see electricity prices collapse because of these magical renewables? Your precious experts previously all said these price falls would be apparent by now - hence their continuous calls to speed up the transition - and Albo of course campaigned on it. Now your precious experts admit prices will skyrocket. So when will our renewable utopia come to fruition?

 

[IHurley]

Contrary to your claims the existance of abiotic extraterrestrial hydrocarbons (or amino acids) does not automatically imply that all hydrocarbons (or amino acids) on earth are abiotic also.

It's the default assumption for all hydrocarbons on earth unless given compelling reason to think otherwise for any particular deposit.

Given there's no way to explain the energy contained in a thick coal seam or large oil deposit from any biological source (eg forest) that we know of the probability of there being "compelling" reasons is extremely low.

Zero in fact.

 

[IHurley]

And could you explain why governments need to set low/zero emissions targets?

That part has me confused.

According to you solar and wind are 100× cheaper and more reliable than coal - which means they're 1000× cheaper and more reliable than gas. You also claim that energy companies are purely profit driven. So why did governments need to get involved at all?

This leads to a further question. Why, in the transition, do people say we need gas? If renewables are cheaper and more reliable (and they are certainly more modular and flexible) than coal then obviously they're unambiguously better than gas. So what's the point of keeping gas plants (or converting coal to gas)?

 

[IHurley]

I also love the fact you keep harking back to "experts" but those "experts" are so stupid they didn't even realise domestic gas prices were influenced by world markets.

How did they not know this?

Why should we believe anything they say?

How did they not know that there would be a long lag between coal stations being shut down and renewables being able to cover for them? Why didn't they tell governments five years ago that we were going to run into trouble and they needed to do everything they could to get coal stations to produce for longer? Why did they tell governments that it was perfectly ok to destroy the coal generators rather than just mothball them in case we needed them?

And can I ask? Do you realise that when a business sets a nominal date for their investment to be obsolete, that is all it is don't you? Nominal. Investments can last much longer or much shorter depending on a range of factors. If electricity prices are high (which they are) then even a 50 year old coal generator can be made to work a little longer. There's no law of physics that says that the generator must be shut down on its 50th birthday.

And I love your comment about total energy vs electricity. Car makers have a shorter investment timeframe - less than ten years before they upgrade their models usually - than coal generators (which as you keep saying is multi-decade). Sovereign risk therefore doesn't affect car makers as much as it does coal generators. Car makers could still produce ICE cars knowing that if government decisions made them impossible they could pivot without great cost. Coal generators couldn't do that. So car makers continued to produce ICE whereas coal generators just stopped investing altogether.

IOW, virtually no change in total energy source vs large change in electricity source is what you would expect when this is purely a politically driven thing rather than economic.

 

[IHurley]

Do you agree that investment decisions in new coal generation have, at least in part, been affected by non-economic considerations ie expectations that governments (current or future) will make things more difficult for them?

 

[Old Campaigner]

/yaco

 

[Old Campaigner]

I see.

So all coal fire power stations in Australia were built exactly 50 years ago and 50 years is exactly the age all such stations can exist - no more - and nobody thought to build any new stations or do any refurbishments in any of these stations for the entirety of those 50 years.

I didn't say that, I said a lot were built in the 70s. Loy Yang was completed in the late 80s/early 90s iirc. That one is slated for closure in 2035. It was originally expected to close in 2045 but the owner has bought forward the closure date.

No one has wanted to invest in coal fired power stations for the last 15-20 years. Even the more modern plants are considered worthless. Why would anyone invest more money into something like that?


Source: Australia's newest coal-fired power plant deemed worthless by Japanese owner

Noting these are some of the largest companies on earth and it's probably not a stretch to say they have done a tad more research on the viability of coal fired power stations than you or I.

Why was there no investment in new coal stations 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30? 40?

Why are they practically all coming to their end right now?

Because it hasn't been an attractive investment for the last 15-20 years. The Paris Agreement made it even less so. High coal prices, which are a boon for coal mining companies simply worsen the business case for new (and existing) coal fired power stations. Businesses knew all this was coming 15-20 years ago which was why we needed a bipartisan energy policy to give those businesses the certainty to invest in the future of our energy network. Unfortunately that didn't happen and we've reached the point where the existing generation capacity is old and is being wound down without sufficient investment in the replacement.



Source: New Coal Plants Dwindle Amid Wave of Canceled Projects

You finally got it. There's been no investment because of sovereign risk. Economic viability in terms of electricity prices (current or expected) has nothing to do with it.

But why don't you tell me precisely when we can expect to see electricity prices collapse because of these magical renewables? Your precious experts previously all said these price falls would be apparent by now - hence their continuous calls to speed up the transition - and Albo of course campaigned on it. Now your precious experts admit prices will skyrocket. So when will our renewable utopia come to fruition?

Economic viability has been cited in pretty much all of the links I have posted. Government policy is also a factor but if there was money to be made from it you would see far more businesses lobbying to be allowed to build a coal fired power station. Instead they're trying to make more land available for wind turbines.

Prices will reduce when there's less reliance on gas. The way the AEMO pricing model works the more renewable energy generation there is the more days we'll be getting by without relying on gas generation. Increased storage capacity will add to this, as will grid firming.

And could you explain why governments need to set low/zero emissions targets?

That part has me confused.

According to you solar and wind are 100× cheaper and more reliable than coal - which means they're 1000× cheaper and more reliable than gas. You also claim that energy companies are purely profit driven. So why did governments need to get involved at all?

This leads to a further question. Why, in the transition, do people say we need gas? If renewables are cheaper and more reliable (and they are certainly more modular and flexible) than coal then obviously they're unambiguously better than gas. So what's the point of keeping gas plants (or converting coal to gas)?

I haven't claimed renewable energy is 100x cheaper, I'd appreciate it if you didn't invent claims I haven't made. It reflects poorly on you.

Renewable energy targets give businesses greater certainty when they're working through the business cases for new projects. Less certainty means greater risk, greater risk requires a risk premium which makes it more costly to invest.

Electricity is something we can't afford to go without. Under a normal efficient market model new supply will be created when there is insufficient supply to meet demand. This could be via an increase in demand or a decrease in existing supply (sound familiar?). Because we don't want electricity shortages we don't want the market to wait until there is a decrease in supply before making the decision to invest in a project with a 5 year lead time. Ideally we want new supply to come online as old supply decreases. There's a few mechanisms to achieve this and renewable energy targets are one of them.

In a supply constrained system sources of generation like gas will be used despite the cost. When there is plenty of supply (such as the times when South Australia was powered 100% by renewable energy) the expensive sources such as gas are not used.

I also love the fact you keep harking back to "experts" but those "experts" are so stupid they didn't even realise domestic gas prices were influenced by world markets.

How did they not know this?

Why should we believe anything they say?

How did they not know that there would be a long lag between coal stations being shut down and renewables being able to cover for them? Why didn't they tell governments five years ago that we were going to run into trouble and they needed to do everything they could to get coal stations to produce for longer? Why did they tell governments that it was perfectly ok to destroy the coal generators rather than just mothball them in case we needed them?

And can I ask? Do you realise that when a business sets a nominal date for their investment to be obsolete, that is all it is don't you? Nominal. Investments can last much longer or much shorter depending on a range of factors. If electricity prices are high (which they are) then even a 50 year old coal generator can be made to work a little longer. There's no law of physics that says that the generator must be shut down on its 50th birthday.

And I love your comment about total energy vs electricity. Car makers have a shorter investment timeframe - less than ten years before they upgrade their models usually - than coal generators (which as you keep saying is multi-decade). Sovereign risk therefore doesn't affect car makers as much as it does coal generators. Car makers could still produce ICE cars knowing that if government decisions made them impossible they could pivot without great cost. Coal generators couldn't do that. So car makers continued to produce ICE whereas coal generators just stopped investing altogether.

IOW, virtually no change in total energy source vs large change in electricity source is what you would expect when this is purely a politically driven thing rather than economic.

They did know this. People have been calling for a transition to renewable energy since the early 2000s. People knew our fleet of coal generators were aging and there needed to be a pipeline of new generation capacity to maintain supply. The current situation (effects of the war aside) is precisely what they were hoping to avoid. Politics got in the way for various reasons.

The fact that companies are choosing to shut down power stations at a time of high electricity prices should tell you something. What is driving power prices high? It's the cost of inputs - coal and gas. The fact that prices are high does not mean coal and gas fired power stations are making attractive margins.

The situation with cars is a little different. The technology to enable EVs to be a cost effective alternative to ICEs is more recent and it's really only been in the last 5-10 years that there's been significant investment in them. It looks like it will be changing fairly rapidly though with a number of large carmakers like Ford converting significant production capacity over to EVs. There's a lot of lithium mines coming into production over the next few years which will drive a major input cost down.

Do you agree that investment decisions in new coal generation have, at least in part, been affected by non-economic considerations ie expectations that governments (current or future) will make things more difficult for them?

I think it's probably just one of several factors. The biggest factor being that the forecast price decreases for renewable energy projects as economies of scale develop and technology matures will undercut any new coal fired generation. The most modern coal fired power station in the country was written off as worthless 11 years after it was built. What does that say about the economics of coal?

It's the default assumption for all hydrocarbons on earth unless given compelling reason to think otherwise for any particular deposit.

Given there's no way to explain the energy contained in a thick coal seam or large oil deposit from any biological source (eg forest) that we know of the probability of there being "compelling" reasons is extremely low.

Zero in fact.

Except there is. Our entire hydrocarbon exploration and extraction industry is based on the biogenic theory of fossil fuel formation. Not even the businesses that would be expect to profit greatly from an improved understanding of hydrocarbon formation believe in the stuff you're spouting.

We cans see it happening, from organic rich seafloor sediments, to kerogen in shales, to oil. The chemical pathways can be followed all the way along. I have already posted links (I doubt very much that you've read them) explaining how fossil fuels contain biomarkers that indicate they can only have come from living things.

I note you still haven't provided an explanation for the rapid and recent formation of coal deposits. You're happy to say X is wrong but why don't you post your alternative hypothesis or a link or something? You go through every other post with a fine tooth comb, why do you keep avoiding this?

 

[IHurley]

I didn't say that, I said a lot were built in the 70s. Loy Yang was completed in the late 80s/early 90s iirc. That one is slated for closure in 2035. It was originally expected to close in 2045 but the owner has bought forward the closure date.

Right. So your initial claim that the reason there is a massive deficit now is because they were coming to the ends of their lives is completely and utterly wrong.

Cheers.

No one has wanted to invest in coal fired power stations for the last 15-20 years. Even the more modern plants are considered worthless. Why would anyone invest more money into something like that?

View attachment 1547055
Source: Australia's newest coal-fired power plant deemed worthless by Japanese owner

Noting these are some of the largest companies on earth and it's probably not a stretch to say they have done a tad more research on the viability of coal fired power stations than you or I.

Yes. They saw the writing on the wall when it came to sovereign risk.

Because it hasn't been an attractive investment for the last 15-20 years. The Paris Agreement made it even less so.

Yep. Sovereign risk.

High coal prices, which are a boon for coal mining companies simply worsen the business case for new (and existing) coal fired power stations.

But the high coal prices reflect the (unexpected to you) high demand! Asia is building hundreds of new coal plants.

Note that these are some of the largest companies on earth and it's probably not a stretch to say they have done a tad more research on the viability of coal power stations than you or I.

Businesses knew all this was coming 15-20 years ago which was why we needed a bipartisan energy policy to give those businesses the certainty to invest in the future of our energy network.

If everybody in the parliament- Labor, Liberal and Green - had said coal plants could continue without any obstruction that would have been investment certainty. Instead, everybody in the parliament fell over themselves to punish any coal investment as fast as they could.

Why do I get the feeling that when you say "bipartisan" what you mean is "you have to agree with me otherwise any negative consequences are all your fault"?

Unfortunately that didn't happen and we've reached the point where the existing generation capacity is old and is being wound down without sufficient investment in the replacement.

There was disagreement because the Green policies were abject lunacy, the Labor policies mostly lunacy and the Liberal policies partly lunacy.

Government policy is also a factor but if there was money to be made from it you would see far more businesses lobbying to be allowed to build a coal fired power station.

Oh so it's just a matter of lobbying? So anybody who lobbies gets their own way do they?

What if the environmentalists lobbied too? (Hint: they did).

Prices will reduce when there's less reliance on gas.

There should already be zero reliance on gas given that renewables are 1000x cheaper and more reliable than that.

The way the AEMO pricing model works the more renewable energy generation there is the more days we'll be getting by without relying on gas generation. Increased storage capacity will add to this, as will grid firming.

Have you taken into account the cost of storage when you assess the cost of renewables. I assume you have. How much battery capacity do we need for Australia? How much investment does that require when batteries have a very finite shelf life (say 20 years)?

And solar panels and wind turbines also have a similar shelf life. Have you taken into account replacing every single wind turbine and solar panel every 20 years in your cost of renewables?

I haven't claimed renewable energy is 100x cheaper.

You claimed it was much cheaper and more reliable and that is why nobody wants to invest in coal. Whether it is 100x or 2x makes no difference. You are still left trying to make the extraordinary argument that these renewables have somehow supplanted cheap/reliable electricity purely for economic reasons even as electricity prices have been driven much higher.

Renewable energy targets give businesses greater certainty when they're working through the business cases for new projects.

No they don't. They can be changed on a whim. And they are. Always made higher. How on earth does that give certainty?

Less certainty means greater risk, greater risk requires a risk premium which makes it more costly to invest.

Yes.

Electricity is something we can't afford to go without.

Watch. Even faced with the crisis in Europe there are still people who prefer to virtue signal about unicorn farts than use actual reliable cheap coal generated electricity.

Under a normal efficient market model new supply will be created when there is insufficient supply to meet demand.

You mean one without the government creating sovereign risk like it has with zero emissions targets and renewables targets.

Yes. That is true.

Because we don't want electricity shortages

I don't.

You do.

That's why I wanted to keep electricity that worked brilliantly for over 100 years. You wanted to signal virtue.

we don't want the market to wait until there is a decrease in supply before making the decision to invest in a project with a 5 year lead time.

But, apparently, we do want to blow up coal mines that could have been used - even if only as a spare.

Ideally we want new supply to come online as old supply decreases. There's a few mechanisms to achieve this and renewable energy targets are one of them.

Yes. They've achieved this brilliantly.

Bravo!

In a supply constrained system sources of generation like gas will be used despite the cost.

But supply isn't constrained. We have renewables remember? They're cheap, plentiful, reliable and come with their own puppy hugging machines.

When there is plenty of supply (such as the times when South Australia was powered 100% by renewable energy) the expensive sources such as gas are not used.

There are times when SA was powered completely by fossil fuels. Difference being that time was several decades rather than several minutes.

The ability to provide lots of power at some time is completely worthless. If you can't have it when you need it, then you may as well not have it. The fact that renewables worshippers get so excited by that one second in SA just shows the ignorance of electricity markets.

They did know this. People have been calling for a transition to renewable energy since the early 2000s.

And there's been RETs all that time. All catastrophic. But no matter how much damage caused, always calls for it to be made higher.

People knew our fleet of coal generators were aging and there needed to be a pipeline of new generation capacity to maintain supply.

And we invested squillions into renewables.

Some said these investments were useless and would lead to higher prices and less reliability.

Some called such people "conspiracy theorist denialist anti-science people in the pay of Big Oil". The problem is that the latter people have no shame you see so they kept on making these idiotic "arguments" even when the first group of people were proven correct.

The current situation (effects of the war aside) is precisely what they were hoping to avoid. Politics got in the way for various reasons.

Ok. Tell me the exact number that the renewables target needed to be at every given year for the past two decades to ensure we had reliable and cheap power?

You must know. After all, it was only because of "politics" that other people didn't comply.

The fact that companies are choosing to shut down power stations at a time of high electricity prices should tell you something.

Yes. Sovereign risk.

What is driving power prices high?

Lack of investment in coal generators due to sovereign risk. Also lack of investment in coal mines/gas fields. Not as bad a problem but still significant.

It's the cost of inputs - coal and gas. The fact that prices are high does not mean coal and gas fired power stations are making attractive margins.

Tell that to the governments who have told us that all the generators are evil and they're price gouging and so governments will probably go down the path of price caps.

Blackouts here we come.

The situation with cars is a little different. The technology to enable EVs to be a cost effective alternative to ICEs is more recent and it's really only been in the last 5-10 years that there's been significant investment in them.

It's the exact opposite. Electric cars have faults but are actually quite decent in many ways. Solar panels and wind turbines are hopeless in every respect.

I think it's probably just one of several factors. The biggest factor being that the forecast price decreases for renewable energy projects as economies of scale develop and technology matures will undercut any new coal fired generation. The most modern coal fired power station in the country was written off as worthless 11 years after it was built. What does that say about the economics of coal?

That it is heavily affected by sovereign risk. In countries with less sovereign risk, coal stations are still being built.

Except there is. Our entire hydrocarbon exploration and extraction industry is based on the biogenic theory of fossil fuel formation.

Russia's isn't. They produce more oil than we do. And I know for a fact that Western producers go back to capped wells to produce more later on.

We cans see it happening, from organic rich seafloor sediments, to kerogen in shales, to oil.

What is it exactly that you think you can see?

The chemical pathways can be followed all the way along. I have already posted links (I doubt very much that you've read them)

Correct. If you don't explain it in your own words I don't care.

explaining how fossil fuels contain biomarkers that indicate they can only have come from living things.

explain how (in your own words) that study you linked to showed that.

I note you still haven't provided an explanation for the rapid and recent formation of coal deposits.

??? I didn't think you believed that coal deposits formed rapidly.

You're happy to say X is wrong but why don't you post your alternative hypothesis or a link or something? You go through every other post with a fine tooth comb, why do you keep avoiding this?

I don't source conclusions. It's a terrible method of debating which proves you don't understand and simply regurgitate those who tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Beerfish]

I don't source conclusions

This much is pretty obvious to everyone by now I think.

 

[IHurley]

This much is pretty obvious to everyone by now I think.

Thanks. I use observations that are common knowledge or sourced and then explain the syllogism in a way that it's easy to understand. If I can't explain it myself in my own words I will never argue for it.

 

[Beerfish]

Thanks. I use observations that are common knowledge or sourced and then explain the syllogism in a way that it's easy to understand. If I can't explain it myself in my own words I will never argue for it.

Oh it wasn't a compliment.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Oh it wasn't a compliment.

lol