Wednesday, September 14, 2016

"Alternatives" burn more fossil fuel than conventional energy

As a general rule, given that some 87% or so of energy used is fossil fuel, then the true (no public subsidy) cost of any "alternative" is a fair proportional measure of the fossil-fuel expenditure needed to create and maintain the said "alternative". This means that "alternatives" burn more fossil fuel than the fossil fuel technologies themselves. It ain't rocket science. Logic beats bias.

Furthermore, the fact that there can be public subsidies at all is largely due to the technological ability to harness mechanical work cheaply via fossil fuels, including the ability to militarily maintain global inequality. 

Check out these LINKS to my contributions to the energy debate.

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He practices various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which have been funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, (Research Gate profile), and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

No comments: