EPA Puts the Nation's Electricity Supply at Risk

I guess that we need to go back to coal.

 

Yep, ideologues choose to live in their ideal world, shrugging their shoulders while China takes over the world. Then when reality settles in they'll probably blame a combination of whiteness, homophobia, transphobia, capitalism, MAGA, DeathSantis, and Republicans.

 

There is zero economic growth without energy, and reducing energy will cause suffering. There is not a good solution without advancement (fusion) or public perception changes (fission). Solar, wind and hydro are not economically feasible and are highly dependent on climate. If the climate changes, those sources will be ineffective.

Partisan bills on energy are not good for the average citizen. The gov should be incentivizing and educating the need to fission and eventually fusion. If there were a Manhattan type project for fusion, it would arrive much sooner. Instead the Dems line there pockets with these green energy deals and the Pubs double down on coal and oil. Neither will work long term.

 

It’s amazing the number of terrified snowflakes who actually believe if we don’t do more to pollute the planet then the Chinese will take over.

 

My electric bill dropped over $400 per month after I had solar cells installed, and last month my bill was $16.00 so don’t tell me it’s not economically feasible.

 

You might be right, especially right after the SCOTUS limited the EPA's power in this latest ruling.



These are another ruling against the EPA. Here's an audio about the 2022 SCOTUS ruling about carbon emissions and the EPA's overreach on climate change "legislation."


Updated June 30, 202210:30 AM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change. The decision by the conservative court majority sets the stage for further limitations on the regulatory power of other agencies as well.

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said that any time an agency does something big and new – in this case addressing climate change – the regulation is presumptively invalid, unless Congress has specifically authorized regulating in this sphere.

"That's a very big deal because they're not going to get it from Congress because Congress is essentially dysfunctional," said Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, an expert on environmental law. "This could not have come at a worse time" because "the consequences of climate change are increasingly dire and we're running out of time to address it."



US Supreme Court rules against EPA in wetlands regulation challenge

Supreme Court Sharply Limits the EPA’s Ability to Protect Wetlands - Inside Climate News

 

I don't know the particulars of this transaction, but all of that is supposed to be factored into the cost benefit analysis that goes into every promulgated regulation since the Reagan administration. And not for any altruistic purposes, but the so-called costs are never neglected or unrepresented.

I suspect you know this. But the omission doesn't necessarily work for those who have even the most basic understanding of administrative law

 

Gates is on it. Not only nuclear but next gen nuclear that will be all the same so much easier, faster to permit, build, and operate

Bill Gates Says New Project is a Nuclear Breakthrough - TheStreet

The plant, which Gates said could potentially open its doors by 2030, was designed by TerraPower, a company Gates started in 2008. It represents an investment in an energy source that he views as vital in the transition to clean energy production.

"The world needs to make a big bet on nuclear," Gates wrote in a blog post Friday. “None of the other clean sources are as reliable, and none of the other reliable sources are as clean.”

However, the risks of severe accidents has virtually halted construction in the U.S. Only one U.S. nuclear plant has entered service since 2000 and the average age of U.S. plants is about 40 years, according to Energy Information Administration data.

The Natrium plant seeks to fix the biggest problems nuclear energy poses. Gates noted the big difference between the Natrium plant and conventional nuclear plants is that the Natrium plant uses liquid sodium to cool its reactor. Unlike the traditional coolant -- water -- the liquid sodium can absorb far more heat from the reactor without increasing in pressure, reducing the risk of an explosion. It also continues to cool even if the plant loses power.

 

how big is your house? How much did solar cost?

We haven't ever had a bill over $250 but no pool.

 

Glad your electric bill is lower, but total energy usage does not equal electric bill for your house.

Every product, from the foundation, to drywall, medications, the curtains etc all use energy and most likely require oil to produce. Solar panels will never replace all that energy.

 

Solar and wind at a utility scale are cheaper than fossil fuels now. Have been for several years, in fact.

 

That is quite some political binary you see the world through. One can highly disapprove of DNC leadership and their policy positions, but also not be MAGA. The two are not one in the same. I am not MAGA despite any claims you might make about knowing me.

I think you are confusing categories, though, with respect to snowflakes. Yes, there are snowflakes, and snowflakes can be idiots. However, there is more than one kind of idiot in the world.

There is also the kid who knowingly slacks off. He knows he's getting outworked by his opponents. He thinks his opponents can outwork him, and he has no concern whatsoever that he is going to lose. Yet, he is cocky. No long term champion in any sport had that mentality and stayed on top, yet he thinks he's different.

There is also the kid who never does his homework. He never studies for any of his tests, and yet he thinks he'll be a doctor or a lawyer one day. And this kind of idiot lives in these kinds of temporary delusions until reality sends a rude awakening one day.

You may not be a snowflake if you have blind faith that you are going to win everything and succeed at everything regardless of your preparation, work ethic, and will to compete, but that doesn't mean you get a pass on being an incompetent idiot.

 

Majority of that was due to ICE cars and the improvements in emissions is why it doesn’t look like that anymore. Not due to coal fired plants.

 

Or they will cheer that big bad evil America isn’t on top anymore.

 

Curious how big of a system did you get and what did it cost?

 

And how much you pay for solar or did you get it cheap from government rebates or incentives? If solar is so great why did the federal government have to prop it up for almost 20 years? I don’t mind solar if it could stand on its own and we spent billions propping it up with most going to China. Thankfully there is tons of research going on that will add lots of new generation possibilities.

 

Just an FYI, Vogel plant in Georgia unit 3 is in final testing soon and unit 4 will fully on line late this year or early next year.

 

Unlikely it would have been purchased without the federal tax breaks.
The ROI just is not there to save $400 a month on a teacher’s salary no less.

I’m curious now as my electric bill in florida is about $300 a month, we use about 100Kw a day.
By my research that would take quite a few panels to consistently produce and store the amount of power to negate a $400/ month bill.
Sounds a bit fishy.
By this calculator you would need 58 panels to produce 3000kW per month..

How many solar panels do I need to power my home?

 

Because they are subsidized by fossil fuels. If an entire community was placed on wind or even worse solar, there would be major problems. The math doesn't make sense unless you have gas or nuclear backing it up.

 

They are lower priced without subsidies. If you are discussing the issue of backstopping, a smart combination of solar and wind takes care of much of the problem, as they are negatively correlated. At this point, some backstop is likely needed, but that need is rapidly diminishing over time.