The Origin of our Energy.

Some guys (retired) have had a look at the cost of wind, solar and storage costs for New York.

The official 'scoping plan' say about $310 Billion, One retired guy says $4 Trillion and another retired guy say $30 Trillion

So which is it?

More Focus On The Impossible Costs Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Battery Energy System – Watts Up With That?

It may have escaped your notie but since about 1970 we have burnt most of the gas in under the north sea, leaving only the slow and expensive to extract stuff. And of course 'tight gas' under shale, that we can only get to by fracturing the rock to connect very small pockets together. Oil tells a similar story where now, instead of it squirting up under its own pressure, we have to force in tons of seawater per second to drive the oil upwards. Slowly  production wells are changed to injectors, and fewer wells  remain producers. At some point soon we will push water down and get water out of all the holes coming up. At that point it is time to pack up and go the North Sea was good while it lasted, and it has paid for the prosperity we have had in the last 50 years, but now the party is coming to  an end.

Note the rally in production when it became cost-effective to start injection in a big way.

Mike. (graphs on some websites like to show revenues from oil but they are misleading as oil costs more now than it did in the last centurey, so this masks the roll-off.)

How do you feel about the clearing in Germany of 1000 year old forest to make way for a massive wind farm.

Assuming you've heard?

One may invoke the views of a major former Australian politician (Deputy PM no less) and an advisor to Rio Tinto (see above) in a "grown up conversation". But one should surely keep in mind that Australia is third in the global emissions that result from its extraction (after Russia and Saudi Arabia), and the fifth largest extractor (after China, USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia) https://www.worldenergydata.org/australias-fossil-fuel-exports/  and so expect that there are smart people to hand to explain how this is OK. Importantly, there are other smart people in Australia available to explain how this is not OK. 

I am not in favor of pollling. I am also not in favor of 60-minute videos in answer to straight questions. I am in favor of straight, direct answers to straight questions. You have one: can you justify whj Point Nmber 2?

The sad fact is successive governments neglected the nuclear option. 

On the money point it may interest you to hear that the companies you highlight are redirecting their funding into energy sources other than fossil fuels because this attracts massive Govt subsidies, whilst Governments are paying, the companies are marching and not fighting, so, it is no mystery as to why your list contains so many.

Sustainable energy? Is that exclusively 'green' energy in your view?

I am not convinced that nuclear is the best option, simply because of the unknown future risks and costs of storing/disposal of waste. Nuclear is not cheap whichever way you cut it, and if our Govt won't fund it I don't want the Chinese involved.

Unfortunately there is little choice if you want green dependable and affordable energy. Burying the waste underground for decades is an uncomfortable byproduct for some, as is chucking spent wind turbines and solar panels in landfill. 

You seriously think that these Top 100 companies are changing their business model to one in which they acquire taxpayer money from governments, rather than selling what they own?

(That would be extraordinary. If I was a shareholder in any company that did this, I'd move to fire the executive and the board; or sell my shares; or both.  So would every other shareholder.)

Exactly what might you think a multiple-trillion dollar company such as Saudi Aramco could get from, for example, the UK government? For anything (let alone foregoing selling it fossil fuel)? 

How about you substantiate whj Point Number 3: Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, BHP, Rio Tinto and Royal Dutch Shell are .....

whjohnson said:

redirecting their funding into energy sources other than fossil fuels because this attracts massive Govt subsidies

I hope we are not going just to continue to collect whj Points without reaching any answers.......

That's the weather.  Climate is not today's weather.

BTW, I should make it clear I am not necessarily negating whj Point Number 3. In Germany currently, per litre of gasoline, 93.2 cents is State-mandated cost and 77.8 cents the price https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/29999/umfrage/zusammensetzung-des-benzinpreises-aus-steuern-und-kosten/ There is good reason why a supplier might wish to partake of that 93.2 cents ..... without necessarily giving up any of that 77.8 cents.

BTW, I should make it clear I am not necessarily negating whj Point Number 3. In Germany currently, per litre of gasoline, 93.2 cents is State-mandated cost and 77.8 cents the price https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/29999/umfrage/zusammensetzung-des-benzinpreises-aus-steuern-und-kosten/ There is good reason why a supplier might wish to partake of that 93.2 cents ..... without necessarily giving up any of that 77.8 cents.