Thank you for your commentary on this subject. I live in Washington state and am in no was a left wing climate activist although I do like breathing fresh clean air. We have 2 tesla’s and a solar panel covered roof. We charge both cars at the house except for long trips. We have gone from 25 to 30 gallons of gas every week and a half to 5 gallons a year for my lawn mower and backup generator.
I agree that solar is not the complete answer mainly due to storage issues and limited production due to cloud cover and night. We have lots of hydroelectric plants here which keep the cost to consumers lower. As much as I am concerned about safety I think nuclear is the best technology we have at this time to provide enough power for what we will be consuming especially with with the increase in ev’s that is going to tax the current energy production. Solar can be a supplemental resource but I agree with you that it can not be a standalone source.
What no one is talking about is one of the unintended consequences of all the solar roofs is that is less money that the power companies are making and even though some power is fed back in to the grid and cost them less then their typical production they will in my opinion need more income in order to maintain and grow their grid.
The fossil fuels industry will need to be around for as long as it takes to have a sustainable technology that will make it viable and affordable to switch, until then we are stuck with it. I hope that I was articulate enough to explain my thoughts on this issue as I am certainly no expert in this subject just providing a different perspective.
Nuclear definitely has to play a major role in decarbonization. And yes, there are a lot of challenges associated with power sector revenue, infrastructure buildouts, etc. Thanks for the comment and reading the post!
“We have 2 tesla’s and a solar panel covered roof. We charge both cars at the house except for long trips.” 1) What do you do “for long trips”? 2) What type of charger(s) do you have at home and how much did it cost to install your charger(s)?
I have the charger the solar company installed but wherever you get them they are around $200 to $500. The installation was done when we got the solar panels and we needed an upgraded panel. I tried to get another charger installed but with hot tub and all the other stuff the 200 amp panel would not allow it. The chargers have a 25’ cord so we really don’t need another but it would have been more convenient. The chargers are 220 volts and 40 amps and our panel is in the garage so wiring was a breeze, 3’ away. Check with your power company, ours offered a pretty good discount on them. As for charging on trips tesla has super chargers all over and walmart and other stores have them as well, only problem is you may have to wait at the busy locations.
That's quite the privileged lifestyle, but on the topic of global requirements, I like to see a breakdown of the different percentages, one side says this is 100% possible and throws out figures no one understands then opposition does exactly the same thing, if there isn't an agreed upon metric to determine actual performance of a given power plant the conversation is allowed to run in circles.
A German friend of mine pointed me to an official energy website that shows the wind sector is producing the vast majority of their grids requirements. This can't actually be true given the information I read from other sources. So what can be universally used as a gauge of how much electricity is being supplied to the grid? When it's supplied with high demand and also when demand is low? Something that's clearly comparable between generation sources.
To be fair, though, McKibben is not an expert. What if we imagined a panel of people who study energy production, transmission and use, as well as those who manage and operate such physical things in physical reality? Considering availability of materials, labor and international security issues related to mineral procurement. So there are experts in all those fields.
There is no reason such a group couldn’t be brought together. McKibben is a preacher.. we don’t expect such folks to operate in or understand physical reality.
Yes, there are a lot of actual experts, but they often don't make their way to positions of leadership and influence. The U.S. Administration is influenced by McKibben and people like him, and that is the dangerous part.
And yet.. the Admin could form a bipartisan commission to work on "a realistic path forward".. and .. don't. Whose interests do they fear would lose out, and why do those interests have such influence?
I was immediately triggered when you referenced McKibben’s use of the phrase “sheer wonder”. People in his realm do this constantly. These so called solutions are always painted as almost effortless. They completely ignore costs as well as all sorts of secondary and tertiary effects.
Here’s none other than Elon Musk doing the same thing as a guest at a PG&E “Innovation Summit” this July. Besides the cringeworthy CEO acting as if she has a schoolgirl crush on Mr. Musk, here’s a quote at the 30 minute mark:
- People ask me all the time about fusion. We have a fusion reactor in the sky that just shows up every day. Why do you need to build one on the ground? -
He then proceeds to predict wind plus solar plus battery storage up is where we’re ultimately going. This is noticeably aligned with Tesla businesses. I’m not shocked.
“I try to read a broad set of writers and experts to ensure I don’t get caught in an ideas echo chamber that just reinforces my beliefs and hardens my position on energy and climate issues.”
This is the recurring problem of “advocacy” versus “expertise”.
Advocates have a point of view, and they argue policy based on that point of view, using the evidence that supports it, while ignoring the contrary evidence.
Experts look at ALL the evidence, and base their policy recommendations on the full body of evidence.
It’s sort of the difference between religion/faith and scientific truth. The one is an unquestioning belief in the “rightness” of a specific world view, while the other is an open-minded acceptance that ideas are postulates, subject to being proven or disproven.
I'd argue that institutional science is now indiscernible from your definition of religion/faith. It has been politicized and now scientists are advocates for certain "truths" while ignoring contrary evidence and stifling any questioning of the Science. Scientist's careers depend on it too, as funding from governments/philanthropies flows to those who toe the line.
Thank you for your commentary on this subject. I live in Washington state and am in no was a left wing climate activist although I do like breathing fresh clean air. We have 2 tesla’s and a solar panel covered roof. We charge both cars at the house except for long trips. We have gone from 25 to 30 gallons of gas every week and a half to 5 gallons a year for my lawn mower and backup generator.
I agree that solar is not the complete answer mainly due to storage issues and limited production due to cloud cover and night. We have lots of hydroelectric plants here which keep the cost to consumers lower. As much as I am concerned about safety I think nuclear is the best technology we have at this time to provide enough power for what we will be consuming especially with with the increase in ev’s that is going to tax the current energy production. Solar can be a supplemental resource but I agree with you that it can not be a standalone source.
What no one is talking about is one of the unintended consequences of all the solar roofs is that is less money that the power companies are making and even though some power is fed back in to the grid and cost them less then their typical production they will in my opinion need more income in order to maintain and grow their grid.
The fossil fuels industry will need to be around for as long as it takes to have a sustainable technology that will make it viable and affordable to switch, until then we are stuck with it. I hope that I was articulate enough to explain my thoughts on this issue as I am certainly no expert in this subject just providing a different perspective.
Nuclear definitely has to play a major role in decarbonization. And yes, there are a lot of challenges associated with power sector revenue, infrastructure buildouts, etc. Thanks for the comment and reading the post!
“We have 2 tesla’s and a solar panel covered roof. We charge both cars at the house except for long trips.” 1) What do you do “for long trips”? 2) What type of charger(s) do you have at home and how much did it cost to install your charger(s)?
I have the charger the solar company installed but wherever you get them they are around $200 to $500. The installation was done when we got the solar panels and we needed an upgraded panel. I tried to get another charger installed but with hot tub and all the other stuff the 200 amp panel would not allow it. The chargers have a 25’ cord so we really don’t need another but it would have been more convenient. The chargers are 220 volts and 40 amps and our panel is in the garage so wiring was a breeze, 3’ away. Check with your power company, ours offered a pretty good discount on them. As for charging on trips tesla has super chargers all over and walmart and other stores have them as well, only problem is you may have to wait at the busy locations.
That's quite the privileged lifestyle, but on the topic of global requirements, I like to see a breakdown of the different percentages, one side says this is 100% possible and throws out figures no one understands then opposition does exactly the same thing, if there isn't an agreed upon metric to determine actual performance of a given power plant the conversation is allowed to run in circles.
A German friend of mine pointed me to an official energy website that shows the wind sector is producing the vast majority of their grids requirements. This can't actually be true given the information I read from other sources. So what can be universally used as a gauge of how much electricity is being supplied to the grid? When it's supplied with high demand and also when demand is low? Something that's clearly comparable between generation sources.
Just askin for a friend 😄
This is an enlightening website. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/IL?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
To be fair, though, McKibben is not an expert. What if we imagined a panel of people who study energy production, transmission and use, as well as those who manage and operate such physical things in physical reality? Considering availability of materials, labor and international security issues related to mineral procurement. So there are experts in all those fields.
There is no reason such a group couldn’t be brought together. McKibben is a preacher.. we don’t expect such folks to operate in or understand physical reality.
Yes, there are a lot of actual experts, but they often don't make their way to positions of leadership and influence. The U.S. Administration is influenced by McKibben and people like him, and that is the dangerous part.
And yet.. the Admin could form a bipartisan commission to work on "a realistic path forward".. and .. don't. Whose interests do they fear would lose out, and why do those interests have such influence?
I was immediately triggered when you referenced McKibben’s use of the phrase “sheer wonder”. People in his realm do this constantly. These so called solutions are always painted as almost effortless. They completely ignore costs as well as all sorts of secondary and tertiary effects.
Here’s none other than Elon Musk doing the same thing as a guest at a PG&E “Innovation Summit” this July. Besides the cringeworthy CEO acting as if she has a schoolgirl crush on Mr. Musk, here’s a quote at the 30 minute mark:
- People ask me all the time about fusion. We have a fusion reactor in the sky that just shows up every day. Why do you need to build one on the ground? -
He then proceeds to predict wind plus solar plus battery storage up is where we’re ultimately going. This is noticeably aligned with Tesla businesses. I’m not shocked.
https://youtu.be/ab8dJ1MIrrc?si=Nc7J9TyLPjhlWdax
His entire article triggered me....
Good rebuttal. You might get a kick out of my short earlier post on solar https://alchristie.substack.com/p/the-most-efficient-form-of-solar
A pragmatic and factual approach, combined with the Math, puts paid to virtually all of the "Green Energy" fantasies.
“I try to read a broad set of writers and experts to ensure I don’t get caught in an ideas echo chamber that just reinforces my beliefs and hardens my position on energy and climate issues.”
Love this
This is the recurring problem of “advocacy” versus “expertise”.
Advocates have a point of view, and they argue policy based on that point of view, using the evidence that supports it, while ignoring the contrary evidence.
Experts look at ALL the evidence, and base their policy recommendations on the full body of evidence.
It’s sort of the difference between religion/faith and scientific truth. The one is an unquestioning belief in the “rightness” of a specific world view, while the other is an open-minded acceptance that ideas are postulates, subject to being proven or disproven.
I'd argue that institutional science is now indiscernible from your definition of religion/faith. It has been politicized and now scientists are advocates for certain "truths" while ignoring contrary evidence and stifling any questioning of the Science. Scientist's careers depend on it too, as funding from governments/philanthropies flows to those who toe the line.
Your advocates vs. experts take is spot on.