EPA Puts the Nation's Electricity Supply at Risk

Jane Fonda blamed climate change on white men last week. Talk about a nut job. Good thing this idiot is trending on Memorial Day since she denounced American POWs during Vietnam and called for them to be executed. She is proof that only the good die young.

 

So how do you propose we go about getting cleaner air and water? What do you support actionable that will get us there?

I’d also like to see more nuclear, but let’s be clear, it isn’t going to be a big contributor anytime soon, due to cost.

 

And your point to my comment? I mean if you love spotted owls it is okay. I love spotted trout, on a taco

 

Backwards. We’re the one who’s jumping off the economic bridge. China, wisely, isn’t following us.

 

Again, read the article. Battery storage is not required to heavily rely on both of those forms of power.

 

It actually can work the other direction if what you are theorizing is accurate. If France's grid regularly fails, it would put additional strains on a more stable system and likely push up issues in that system. Essentially, it would serve to equalize the issues to some extent.

 

More guns!

 

Not at all. You are preaching to others about carbon footprint but not living it. Much rather have experiences than material things. 2500 sf was plenty for us with 3 kids and we travel frequently with the family instead of having a mini-mansion.

 

Curious what company.
That’s seems like an incredible deal about 650/panel with installation and permitting.
That’s assuming you got a 30% tax credit.

 

I read the article.
They specifically talk how battery storage may not be need if a great deal of things happen, down the road, if advances keep being made and new tech develops.

I’m taking and here and now for individuals.

What they are talking about is a giant synchronized system balance and predicting demand while predicting production from sources that unlike a gas field plant have variable productions many due to atmospheric conditions.

 

It must be Al Gore’s sister you’re taking to.

 

I think I would prioritize doing away with coal before natural gas. It is much cleaner. Building new solar and wind is cheaper than operating coal plants. I would also institute heavy fines on tossing away plastic. Plastic pollution in our oceans we are going to be dealing with for generations. It’s not a giant leap but millions of small steps.

 

A great many things are going to happen down the road. We just don’t know what and when. I foresee an electric grid primarily made of solar and wind generated power with natural gas peeker plants providing the backup for your dreaded cloudy days. Sprinkle in a couple of nuclear plants and that is a 0 carbon future.

Battery technology is growing by leaps and bounds. It really is an amazing time to be alive. Let’s just hope the luddites don’t hold us back.

 

Unfortunately you won’t get serious conversation with her. Belittling comments and juvenile memes are the go to.
For the carbon footprint part, we built a very large home a few years back and even in mid summer our power bill doesn’t exceed $500 very often. Spray foam insulation under the roof deck performs amazingly well.
As far as solar, I’d never install anything that involves hundreds of roof penetrations. That’s asking for trouble.

 

I have no technical expertise. They said, the EPA has been explicit for years that it is trying to disrupt the market and basically put these old generating plants out of business with a sufficient time to convert, especially because most are under a regulated captured cost model.

No doubt it will raise costs to the consumer and disrupt. The question is whether those costs and disruption are worth it in light of the significant emergency we are living under.

But I don't think this is a miscalculation by the regulators. The question is whether we think it makes sense in light of our situation.

 

As they pointed out in the article that you read, fossil fuel plants also have variable production and are often not producing power.

 

The communist run economy didn’t jump off a bridge? That’s a good joke!

China has taken on a large share of our industrial pollution and supplied slaves to service our consumer economy. Not exactly sure that’s a winning economic hand long term, though it certainly has helped the CCP grow in short term. There are strategic aspects to their moves (influence campaigns in Africa and whatnot, monopolies on some vital minerals and metals mining), so I’m not diminishing the overall threat. Esp if they have their eventual sights on Taiwan as they likely do. But at the same time, to claim our barely restrictive energy policy gives them an economic edge is disingenuous. They are still comminists. Most of their stuff is stolen, it’s not an innovation based economy. How many companies actually moved production to China because of environmental rules vs. the cheap labor? Maybe a little of the former, but mostly driven by the latter. One of the neg side effects from all this industrial activity for China has been the smog and pollution, but the impetus was the dirt cheap labor that western corporations demanded. It’s not like that level of pollution is any more sustainable long term for the Chinese than it is for us.