4 ms·
I mean $500M is something but not that much when it comes to shutting down all coal plants and replacing it with renewable energy. Thats about 500-650 MW of pr
by boringg 3y ago
I mean $500M is something but not that much when it comes to shutting down all coal plants and replacing it with renewable energy. Thats about 500-650 MW of production -- half the size of a standard Nuclear facility (1GW).
It certainly helps though. And I bet that he's getting a pretty sweet tax break ;)
- voisin 3y agoThis is a billionaire tax break I can get behind.
- Greenieee 3y agoI mean, look at what they are spending it on: Apparently not directly on power plants if i follow the article linked. It indicates to me that we talk about an investment with multiplication possibility: "The financing is intended to support research, including studies and analysis to deliver accurate data to partnering organizations and officials for better decision-making. It will also fund local policy and advocacy, along with litigation brought against power companies." Which will lead to even more and faster and better green energy through more investment and more focus and more acceptance and therefore more investment and more research and further cheaper prices for everyone. I will buy this year a little bit of PV too for the first time.
- ipaddr 3y ago[flagged]
- multiplegeorges 3y agoTry reading? > Bloomberg has successfully helped shut down about 70% of all coal plants in the U.S. He can fly around in a coal powered jet for all I care, he has done more to improve emissions than maybe anyone alive?
- Clubber 3y ago>Bloomberg has successfully helped shut down about 70% of all coal plants in the U.S. I find that hard to believe. Did he help shut down 70% of coal plants or did he help shut down 70% of the coal plants that were shut down? If the former, where did the replacement energy come from?
- philipkglass 3y agoCoal power generation reached its peak in the US in 2007 at 2,016 terawatt hours. As of 2022 coal has declined to 829 TWh (41% of peak). The decline in generated electricity is less than 70% because in most cases small coal plants are less economical than large coal plants, so small ones shut down first. The coal output lost since 2007 has been replaced by gas (+792 TWh) and renewables (+560 TWh). You can see all the numbers by hovering over the chart in this report: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
- boringg 3y agoNo way is he responsible for shutting down 70% of the coal plants -- thats a bunch of PR BS. What shutdown coal is the economics became untenable. No way am I giving Bloomberg a shred of that benefit. That he would claim that is concerning.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI also successfully helped shutdown about 70% of all coal plants in the US.
- ipaddr 3y agoThat's pr
- Greenieee 3y ago[flagged]
- coffeebeqn 3y agoYou certainly couldn’t build a small nuclear power plant for $500M and in under some decades of work
- SoftTalker 3y agoI don't know what they cost but the Navy builds small nukes and in less than a decade's time probably.
- SoftTalker 3y agoIt doesn't sound like a lot of money to me. I mean for an individual yes, but how many wind turbines would $500M buy, total installed cost? Might be better spent on research where it could have some leveragable impact, rather than just spent on today's technology.
- ahzhou 3y agoIt’s for buying political capital, which is as important as the underlying tech. Look at how the US gave away its solar industry to China from of lack of political will.
- multiplegeorges 3y agoDid you read the article? Seems not. This is for research, advocacy, and lobbying to get them shut and have the localities favor green energy. They are not building new energy sources, just pushing along and speeding up the transition. In that light, this is a ton of money.