WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050?

by drostdavid

So it seems my troll is not gone but thinks I can respond when he blocks me which I can’t except like this. So Jody if you are going to spam me with your propaganda articles on how awesome coal is, have the courtesy to unblock so I can respond, or just stop please do the latter.
 
So he sends me this blog post linked to a paper self published by “friends of science” a Calgary group getting donations from energy companies and investors in energy companies, so already two flags…self publishing is not peer review and funding from a special interest group about the topic they are related too directly.
 
Here is a link to the actual paper instead of the blog post, which are the same site by the way (Another flag is non-peer reviewed papers are usually easy to get and actual scientific papers properly reviewed tend to be behind pay walls, though this is not 100% way to judge)
So in the summary it assumes we cannot decrease costs nor can we increase production to over come some of the points raised. Here are the number of cars produced in two time periods.
1916 – 1.6 million cars and trucks
2016 – 70 million cars and trucks
So the thought that we can’t find more efficient and cheaper ways to expand solar and wind is nonsense.
As for costs here is the price of cars over 100 years and household income
1915 – $46,879 inflation adjusted care price
1915 – $16,063 inflation adjusted average household income
2015 – $31,252
2015 – $53,046 average household income
So as we see not only did the production ability go up, but costs went down and incomes are up, so the idea of this being expense and impossible to build are just unfounded, cause we aren’t and no one is suggesting trying to replace all this in the next 5 years, which would likely be improbable.
Anyhow Greenpeace did a post on this and a few other myths with sourcing added and here that is I suggest you look into this as well.
Advertisements