4 ms·
How much of that is because the approach to power generation has been to try and squeeze more out of the existing infrastructure (gas, nuclear, and hydro) inste
by deelowe 5y ago
How much of that is because the approach to power generation has been to try and squeeze more out of the existing infrastructure (gas, nuclear, and hydro) instead of transformation to green alternatives (solar and wind)?
Just as an example, it seems that the Pacific DC and AC Intertie's go through some pretty remote places that could be prime candidates for solar installations.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI will continue to vote against any politician who proclaims wind/solar as the only option a I don't feel they have done any research since they are excluding geo/nuclear sources as well. I refuse to live in a world of constant brown/blackouts and 10X energy costs than we have now.
- pas 5y agoIf energy costs are constantly 10x than now, then it'd be a no brainer to build a lot of new power plants. The problem is that the prices are "artificially" lowered, which of course results in the bad quality of service (bad capacity targets, which directly result in brownouts, but also not enough maintenance on the aging distribution network). If energy prices were 10x, it'd make sense to invest in energy generating capacity (and lobbying for allowing to build it).