>"Is it a matter of presentation? Then what would I have to do to get you to take my argument seriously? And why?"

There's nothing you can do now that you lost credibility. I' don't take any notice of what you write on EROEI, nuclear, renewables, or anything else about energy and policy because of you've demonstrated you are a zealot advocating for a cause. You don't engage honestly, you are devious and cannot be trusted, you don't answer questions honestly. Instead you just repeat your mantra, restating your beliefs ad nauseum. You don't present a cogent case and support it with authoritative sources. It's been the same pattern where you've posted on BNC and the previous OLO thread. So there is nothing you can do to get me to take anything you write as worth spending time reading.

If you are interested in costs of renewables versus costs of nuclear to achieve significant reductions in global GHG emissions, then start studying the links at the top of this thread. If you are interested in the fastest way to reduce global GHG emissions, study the links at the top of this thread.

Of course, I recognise you don't want to know what may undermine your beliefs. So you wont do so.

I hope you can learn something from this response, but I seriously doubt you will. Zealots and deniers of relevant facts, cannot be contacted. Your comments demonstrate you are one of those.

Peter Lang
>>There's nothing you can do now that you lost credibility. I' don't take any notice of what you write on EROEI, nuclear, renewables, or anything else about energy and policy because of you've demonstrated you are a zealot advocating for a cause.<<
That's the second and seventh signs of intellectual dishonesty according to the page you so frequently link to.

And your accusations of zealotry have no basis in reality, but describe yourself very accurately.

>>You don't engage honestly,<<
You're the one who's refusing to engage honestly.

>>you are devious and cannot be trusted, you don't answer questions honestly. <<
What questions have I not answered honestly?

>>Instead you just repeat your mantra, restating your beliefs ad nauseum. <<
So when I repeat a claim that you've refused to engage with even though it demolishes the basis of one of your claims, that makes it a mantra, does it?

>>You don't present a cogent case and support it with authoritative sources.<<
Because you refuse to engage with my argument, I can't tell what part of it you do not find cogent. Is it that I haven't found a link to someone who agrees with me who you consider authoritative? (And is that an oxymoron?) But many of your links are of low quality, yet when I asked you on another thread if you have any evidence the claims on a web page are wrong, you tried to rubbish me by association with that site! The sixth, fourth and second signs of intellectual dishonesty.

"There is nothing stupid about lending to fund renewable energy infrastructure. It serves a very important public purpose"

That purpose would it be a "vibe" thing, the warm, cosey-green feel that's doing little to curb GHG's, as evidenced wherever massive PV installations have been put to practise. These installations rely on fossil fuels to mask the fact that buffering (storage) would make them even less viable.

Furthermore, the possibility that technological advancement in PV's will make them viable for base-load is a chimera, so that even the infrastructure will be useless by the time the penny drops for even the most zealous of zealots.

IMO, anything spent in the cities and regional centres served currently by fossil fueled electricity is money wasted and denied to investment in the nuclear solution. Household rooftop PV's are the worst drain of all, with their feed-in tariffs and infrastructure to accommodate them, all paid for by other energy users (serving the wealthier).

Luciferase,

I agree. The RE advocates are irrational. They simply don't understand, and don't want to understand the relevant facts for policy analysis. Wind and solar cannot supply a significant proportion of global electricity, cannot be rolled out fast enough and, therefore, cannot make a significant contribution to reducing global GHG emissions (or increasing energy security, human wellbeing, life expectancy, etc)

These RE advocates rave on about high rates of growth from 2% and 0.2% proportion of global energy. So what? They are in dream world if they think RE can supply a relevant proportion of global electricity by 2050.

On the other hand, nuclear has proved it can. So, if the RE advocates are genuinely interested in reducing global GHG emissions, as distinct from simply promoting their cult's beliefs, why aren't they promoting nuclear power?

The most critical point of comparison for policy decision analysis is the cost of electricity. For any system to replace fossil fuels the electricity it supplies must be cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels. Apart from the fact that renewables are not sustainable so cannot provide a large proportion of electricity, they are also hugely expensive. The RE advocates don't understand and don't recognise that. They don't want to understand it and don't try. They won't engage on the important issues. They'd prefer to try to divert the discussion to irrelevant side track issues.

If they were interested in an honest debate, they'd look closely at my three posts of 18 March, instead of simply ignoring them.