Quick,...

[Yonivore]

That doesn't really answer my simple question, yet again.
If you aren't going to answer it can you at least have the courtesy to say so?

Yes, and it's becoming increasingly apparent the cost of reducing CO2 far outweighs any benefit to be be gained.

In fact, there's little evidence CO2 is causing any harm at all.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, [I do think costs and benefits should be weighed when considering public policy], and it's becoming increasingly apparent the cost of reducing CO2 far outweighs any benefit to be be gained.

In fact, there's little evidence CO2 is causing any harm at all.

If it is increasingly apparent, one should be able to quantify both the costs and benefits.

One of your main concerns is "ineffective, inefficient, and unreliable renewable energy".

One of the fundamental principles of finance and free markets is risk= return.

New renewable projects for wind and solar tend to get lower finance/loan rates than conventional fossil fuel plants. Those involved in the process don't cite the reason as being government subsidies, or regulation.

Can you tell me the reason for this economic reality? What would make someone involved in loaning billions of dollars think that renewables are less risky?

[RandomGuy]

‘Proven recoverable reserves’ are estimates of the national coal resources that geologists believe are technically and economically feasible to mine. New mining technology and higher coal prices could, in principle, increase the size of those reserves. But the overwhelming global trend, as revealed by national coal surveys over the past few decades, is for the size of countries’ estimated reserves to shrink as geologists uncover restrictions — such as location, depth, seam thickness and quality — on the coal that can be practically extracted.

The first British coal survey, in the nineteenth century, suggested that the nation had enough coal to last 900 years. The current reserves lifetime is only 12 years, and the British coal industry is a tiny fraction of its former size.

Similarly, the first official US coal survey, in the early twentieth century, suggested that the country had enough coal for 5,000 years. That estimate shrank to about 400 years in 1974 and stands at 240 years today. ..., in aggregate, estimates of global coal reserves have dropped at a faster rate in recent years than can be accounted for by mining alone.


...


Applying Hubbert analysis to coal, Chinese academics Tao and Li forecast in 2007 that China’s production will peak and begin to decline long before the simple 62-years estimate, perhaps as early as 2025. During and after the period when production peaks, resource quality will dwindle and mining costs will rise, pushing up coal prices, as is already beginning to happen with Asia-Pacific coal.

...


The current price of more than US$80 per barrel [for oil] is about three times higher than the upper range in official forecasts for 2010 that were being issued in the late 1990s.


...

Coal consumption is accelerating fast, notably in China (see graphic). This renders meaningless reserves-lifetime figures calculated on the basis of flat demand. A 2009 report from China’s Energy Research Ins ute forecast that coal demand would rise by 700 million to 1 billion tonnes by 2020, reducing the reserves lifetime to about 33 years. If coal demand grows in step with projected Chinese economic growth, the reserves lifetime would drop to just 19 years.

---------------------------

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Why-...ing-Years.html


Renewables do not face fuel depletion.

Coal is not something we can, like oil, find and extract from the bottom of the ocean.

The people whose job it is to evaluate the riskiness of loans have factored in the increased risks posed by fuel costs during the loan payback period.

Coal prices have, from what I can gather from the EIA's excel tables risen by about 5% per year for the last decade.


Given the Chinese are building two new coal fired plants every week, and are projected to do this for years, their pace of increasing coal consumption by 3.6% per year looks to also be sustained, even if their economy slows down from it recent torrid growth.

Yoni, what does near-term decreasing supply and increased demand for coal do to your assessment of how inefficient renewables are compared to fossil fuels?