Bias_2012 wrote on May 28
th, 2022 at 2:14pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on May 28
th, 2022 at 11:46am:
Captain Nemo wrote on May 28
th, 2022 at 11:29am:
Not arguing with that. My issue is that renewables cannot cope with peak demand and won't be able to for some considerable time yet.
The experience in California is a prime example.
They can't yet, nobody is arguing that.
Adding more renewables to the mix will drive prices down and as battery storage improves we can soon see renewables cope with peak demand and when the sun isn't shining.
The industry has a long way to go, but every time we try to start down that path it's stopped by the mouth breathers.
Innovation won't happen without starting.
The economic arguments for moving to renewables should be enough to get the conservatives on board assuming they're not simply bought by lobbyists, which is why so much lies are told about renewable to protect their benefactors.
It's just funny, sad but funny that those who complain the loudest about others being sheep can't see they're being fed exactly what to think and are motivated to spread that out there to pretend that it's some sort of grassroots movement for coal and fossil fuels.
Renewables were called upon to reduce emissions, not reduce prices. Reducing prices is only in your fantasy bubble. Privatization was supposed to reduce prices everyone was saying, but what happened?, prices skyrocketed
The companies will come up with all sorts of excuses why prices need to remain the same or increase in the future, with renewables
I won't be falling for any of their BS about lower prices. I'm not falling for your BS either. We've heard enough of all the lies about lowering prices
Industry will want a 60% genuine reduction in power costs before they will say it's a fair price, and they would be right, they pay fortunes for electricity at the current pricing. Renewables would have to ensure they get that 60% reduction, and get reliable supply
Reduced emissions were always about climate change. But the conservatives shifted the argument to one about the economy since they're claiming the science isn't settled.
The problem is they're losing that argument too, despite their unwillingness to admit it.
It makes more sense from an economic point of view as well as national security to invest in renewable now, before China.
The reduced energy costs would allow us to start entirely new industries locally, even if requiring government assistance in the early days to establish, which would go on to support our mining industry, something that we're constantly reminded is the backbone of the nation.
We don't need to do it for environmental reasons, those two alone should have you on board.
At the same time, we need to do it for environmental reasons.
The problem is you're using "the economy" as an excuse because you've already made your mind up about renewables and are just looking for a way to justify it.
And you've only made your mind up for political and ideological reasons at best, at worst you've simply been told what to think and are being good sheep, while of course, accusing everyone else of being the sheep.
You're singing directly from the songbook like a good little choir boy.
Introducing more renewables as soon as possible while we transition more and more onto them in a sustainable way, with efficiencies in not only that technology but also our energy usage would make us world leaders.
Remember when we used to aspire for that...
Our wages have always meant some jobs are just not feasible to do locally when they're much cheaper on the global market, but what if we could keep those wages but compete because of lower energy costs thanks to renewables.
There is a small window of opportunity here, this only works if we're first or very early on in the race.
If China beat us, it's over.
Why are the conservatives again so pro China...