3 ms·
It's hard to take the purported national security justification seriously given that it requires actively buying from coal plants instead of just requiring a mi
by ballenf 8y ago
It's hard to take the purported national security justification seriously given that it requires actively buying from coal plants instead of just requiring a minimum # days' worth of backup energy kept on-site.
A regulation more along those lines would, indeed, seem like a smart move (if it's not already done).
- ghouse 8y agoIf there were only one power plant responsible for the grid, I'd agree with a regulation requiring a minimum number of days of fuel on-site. However, there are many thousands of power plants on each of the three US grids (Eastern, Western, Texas (ERCOT). And many different points of failure. [1] How much more should consumers pay for a regulation to keep fuel onsite to mitigate a risk that has, effectively, never happened? [2] [1] http://fortune.com/2018/01/04/bomb-cyclone-grayson-power-outages/ http://fortune.com/2018/01/04/bomb-cyclone-grayson-power-out... [2] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2011/02/06/freeze-knocked-out-coal-plants-and-natural-gas-supplies-leading-to-blackouts https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2011/02/06/freeze-knoc...