3 ms·
> Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little. Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironi
by rglover 4y ago
> Must have been because we built too much solar and wind, not too little.
Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production.
That led to reliance on third-party producers like Russia for actual baseload energy (because they're well aware renewables can't/won't cut it) and then had the bright idea to place sanctions on Russia who promptly cut them off.
The whole thing is a giant circle jerk to fit into the PCA/ESG scams (which are low-key money laundering operations). The solution to climate change was/is nuclear power (and stuff like this [1]), which go figure, the same malthusian parasites who have found a blood source in government and NGOs continue to ignore in favor of less-viable solutions (wind, solar, and batteries).
The demise of the whole thing is all but booked and it's deeply enjoyable to watch all of the zealots backing it scramble. I only hope that their foolishness doesn't lead to people being hurt/killed.
[1] https://carbonengineering.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/
- Schroedingersat 4y ago> Is that what I said? No. They started turning off fossil fuel power plants—and ironically, nuclear—to precipitate the move to renewables and improve their emissions scores relative to in-country energy production. Yes that's exactly what you said. You didn't say 'the total amount of slack in the system was reduced' or 'old powerplants were turned off before having a full replacement'. You framed it as a consequence of using wind and solar. And keeping the nuclear power plants on wouldn't have helped during the heat wave because they were all failing too.
- rglover 4y agoNo, that’s what you inferred and presented as something I said. They weren’t failing. They voted to phase them out [1]. And France made a similar bonehead mistake: there were regulations put in place by the government after the 2003 heatwave regarding water temperature limits [2] and wildlife which forced them to be powered down. Hilariously enough, they chose to do this not just during a heatwave, but also when there was a massive maintenance backlog due to the pandemic. So, yes, they would have helped immensely. As per usual, the government and their zealots created the mess and blamed it on someone else. These people are halfwits and their destruction will be of great benefit and security to humanity. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_ph... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu...
- Schroedingersat 4y agoSo how does nuclear, gas and coal being vulnerable to politicking making it less reliable relate to the wind and solar which was working just fine? Also being able to have a backlog of maintenance because your power generation is incredibly fragile and centralised sounds really bad. If only there was another way. You're really selling small modular power generation with fewer failure modes quite well here. You're making the other options sound less reliable with each comment. Do you work for the solar lobby?