3 ms·

This is great on an individual level for those that already have an exceptional quality of life as a safety net. Unsustainable for everyone else. Some counties

by 90d 4y ago

This is great on an individual level for those that already have an exceptional quality of life as a safety net. Unsustainable for everyone else. Some counties can't even keep a barnes and noble open . Today, I saw a grown man pants-down shitting in a raised concrete garden planter, feet still touching parking lot. In one of the Top 10 Happiest Cities in the USA (TM). Yet the entirety of CALIFORNIA will sustain 100% renewable energy. HAH. They will sustain a 100% interest in the politics and policies surrounding the journey to renewable energy. That much is certain.

arcticbull 4y ago
60% of Canada's population ordinarily runs on 90-100% zero-carbon power. About 24M people. All of Ontario and Quebec. It's really not that big a deal. Not sure what that gentleman's choice of pooping in a planter has to do with the electric grid unless they were like a PG&E employee or something? [edit] refurb: 3 power plants, not 12. But of course yes it's a question of priorities. It's very doable.
- refurb 4y ago
  Exactly all we need is massive hydro-electric projects like Quebec (and somewhere to put them) and a dozen nuclear stations like Ontario. It’s pretty clear California wants neither of those.
  - 90d 4y ago
    "Why doesn't a car company just come out with a new car only focused on performance that i can fix on muh easement and none of this expensive safety or emissions stuff"
- 90d 4y ago
  They can't even do it at 1% of cars being electric without rolling blackouts. The bush-shitter is completely relevant. Who will maintain this 100% renewable electric grid, scale unknown? Forever? Maybe him if that was actually the way California was headed. No, he can just get 600$ a month to shit in bushes instead.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    Huh? Who pays for the existing electric grid? Or petro infra? California has horrible fires, the gulf has terrible floods, etc due to climate change. We’re not pricing in the full cost of oil externalities because it comes in the form of emergency budgets and aid instead of monthly maintenance bills. Beyond California, other states are modernizing their grids. Massachusetts is trying to build massive batteries to sustain themselves when in need (they don’t have any native source of energy), while generating supplemental carbon free energy. It’s sustainable to maintain because it’s less problematic and more resilient and has less externalities. A California where everyone has solar and a battery is a place where the grid demands are smaller (because energy is produce where it’s needed, not transported). It’s a place resilient to crisis (weather, attack, failure, etc) again, because production is localized. Electric cars use more electricity of course, but you’ll save money by not maintaining any petro infrastructure. California can handle their electric cars just fine. Also what’s up with this attack on some poor bush shitter? Getting paid to shit in a bush? I don’t know what that’s about but thankfully $600 a month is a lot smaller tax burden than most rural Americans who might complain about him are.

by 90d 4y ago

arcticbull 4y ago

60% of Canada's population ordinarily runs on 90-100% zero-carbon power. About 24M people. All of Ontario and Quebec. It's really not that big a deal. Not sure what that gentleman's choice of pooping in a planter has to do with the electric grid unless they were like a PG&E employee or something? [edit] refurb: 3 power plants, not 12. But of course yes it's a question of priorities. It's very doable.

refurb 4y ago
Exactly all we need is massive hydro-electric projects like Quebec (and somewhere to put them) and a dozen nuclear stations like Ontario. It’s pretty clear California wants neither of those.
- 90d 4y ago
  "Why doesn't a car company just come out with a new car only focused on performance that i can fix on muh easement and none of this expensive safety or emissions stuff"
90d 4y ago
They can't even do it at 1% of cars being electric without rolling blackouts. The bush-shitter is completely relevant. Who will maintain this 100% renewable electric grid, scale unknown? Forever? Maybe him if that was actually the way California was headed. No, he can just get 600$ a month to shit in bushes instead.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  Huh? Who pays for the existing electric grid? Or petro infra? California has horrible fires, the gulf has terrible floods, etc due to climate change. We’re not pricing in the full cost of oil externalities because it comes in the form of emergency budgets and aid instead of monthly maintenance bills. Beyond California, other states are modernizing their grids. Massachusetts is trying to build massive batteries to sustain themselves when in need (they don’t have any native source of energy), while generating supplemental carbon free energy. It’s sustainable to maintain because it’s less problematic and more resilient and has less externalities. A California where everyone has solar and a battery is a place where the grid demands are smaller (because energy is produce where it’s needed, not transported). It’s a place resilient to crisis (weather, attack, failure, etc) again, because production is localized. Electric cars use more electricity of course, but you’ll save money by not maintaining any petro infrastructure. California can handle their electric cars just fine. Also what’s up with this attack on some poor bush shitter? Getting paid to shit in a bush? I don’t know what that’s about but thankfully $600 a month is a lot smaller tax burden than most rural Americans who might complain about him are.