Unthreaded
Tomo
You rather make my point.
Entropic man
@EM I said almost $zero
Its a fallacy to say burning FF involves expensive infrastructure cos for renewables infrastructure costs per MWh COST MAGNITUDES MORE
stewgreen
@EM
Joe Romm's track record of unbridled aggressive mendacity makes me really want to shoot the messenger. I came to his outpourings wondering what all the animus/fuss was about and came away feeling that he really wasn't worth the effort of engaging with. So odious are his agitprop tactics and so dense are his mis-statements of verifiable fact that he cannot sensibly be trusted and the consequence of that for me anyway, being that - even if he's right.... I'd wait for corroboration from a more obviously rational individual.
As to the DoE data - there are parallels/similarities with DECC output - where creative and highly selective arithmetic routinely attempted to portray thin, expensive gruel as a veritable banquet. Given that US-DoE sponsored a number of spectacular renewables frauds and failures and have refused to date to either apologise or even fess up to fiscal incompetence with taxpayer's monies makes me regard most of their self promotion as suspect.
I might take a detailed look at the DoE stuff - but given their track record - I might not....
tomo
Error. Should have been "between Spring and Autumn of last year". (third line)
Supertroll
Paul Matthews
From the body of your link.
The thinktank’s analysis found that high carbon infrastructure, which it defines as fossil fuel power stations, airports and road building, was faring little better. For the first time since 2012, high carbon investment had stopped growing, and will be down by two-thirds by 2020.
The new Conservative government is not just cutting renewables spending, it is cutting all energy infrastructure spending.
Stewgreen
Ask Alan Kendall. Fossil fuels do not come free. You have to find them, harvest them, transport them, store them and burn them. All of that requires expensive infrastructure.
TANSTAAFL
Entropic man
Paul Matthews. That Guardian/Green Alliance graph needs to be interpreted with considerable care. What is indisputable is the c1billion £ drops in investment for the periods 2017/18 and 2018/19 announced between Spring and April of last year (and a much smaller drop in year 2019/20). The storyline however is the drop in investment by 95% (of what it is now?). However, to interpret this we need to know if the figures quoted are committed investments (they probably are) and the time period between committment, installation and coming on stream. Although the figures for later years are considerably lower than today's, this would be expected. There may be a host of projects in various stages of approval that have not been finally committed to. With time, many of them may gain final approval. Naturally, the further into the future a project is, the less likely it is to have been committed to. One would therefore expect the amount of committment (in terms of money) to decrease dramatically into the future - as it does..
As I have already mentioned the significant figure is the dramatic £2+ billion decrease in committed investment that occurred last year.
Supertroll
@EM so what EM ?
fossil fuels can still drop to almost $zero cos they often come readily for free out of the ground.
stewgreen
Tomo, golf Charlie
The link works for me. Look at the bottom of the page for PDF downloads.
I gave you the original source because I know your bias against any site wich disagrees with you. I have occasionally posted items from BH elsewhere and got the reaction
linking Bishop Hill? eye-roll / head shake - you'll have to do better than that.
It is always disappointing to see information rejected because of an idealogical objection to its source. Both sides of the climate debate have this bad habit.
am not interested in your politics, but I would be interested to know your reaction to the doe data.
Entropic man
Says a Green lobby group in the Guardian
FFS @PaulM
stewgreen
Tomo
You rather make my point.