3 ms·

I think people misunderstand the aggregate conservative position: They just dont want the state to fund the cause and don’t consider it the state’s role or pro

I think people misunderstand the aggregate conservative position: They just dont want the state to fund the cause and don’t consider it the state’s role or problem or the state as a solution to a problem that isnt wholly solved by the proposed expensive solution People outside of that group attribute the disagreement to insanity When in reality as soon as an economical and private sector solution is there, republicans are on board I see a way to bridge consensus so maybe I’ll run for office eventually since this is still too abstract for most

brookst 1y ago
Now do oil. How do Repubkicans feel about subsidies for oil?
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  If it passes and they benefit from it then they wont avoid being beneficiaries of it and they’ll keep it While if they dont know they are beneficiaries of a policy then they’ll proverbially eat their face by removing it
- sremani 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - DarmokJalad1701 1y ago
    > the pervasive petrochemicals in the modern world are not easily replaceable Then let's use the finite amount of oil for that, instead of burning it.
    - sremani 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - rwyinuse 1y ago
        Right now China is meeting all of its increasing energy demand by building more renewables (in fact more than rest of the world combined). Their citizen buy electric vehicles at a record rate. Yet I don't see Chinese people starving. Climate change caused by burning fossil fuels is what has the potential to cause a mass starvation, not getting rid of oil where possible. It should be also noted that all fossil fuel is just sun's energy stored in another form, although I can understand some of you Americans may think it was magically created by a god. Why not use that sun's energy directly wherever possible? There will be no need for fossil fuels in energy generation and transporting stuff. Whatever use cases remain are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and many of those have alternatives too.
        sremani 1y ago
        take a look at coal consumption in China. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361652086/figure/fig5/AS:1172869224636417@1656645222252/Global-coal-consumption-Graph-showing-peaks-of-world-and-China-coal-consumption-which.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361652086/figure/fi...
        defrost 1y ago
        That's a lightweight comment given multiple things can be true. The claim you are responding to is contempory, "Right now China is", and concerns "its increasing energy demand" .. a response about total existing use twelve years past is no rebuttal. Rather than direct link to an untitled graph sans context (the June 2022 paper the twelve year 2013 elicited graph is snapshotted from) perhaps link to a time series graph: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-2000-2025 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-c... and maybe recommend diving into the ongoing series of IEA global energy generation and consumption reports. China's coal consumption is for a purpose, it has a projected wind down, and it represents not just the per capita coal consumption of China's people but also the coal consumption of the world that avails itself of China's solar panel and battery technology. With a small amount of effort you can create a better comment.
      - 1y ago
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Global warming also affects the feasible latitudes for food production.
  - Teever 1y ago
    The US throws away between 30–40% of its food supply. The US has policies that are outright hostile to mass-transit. The US has policies that produce some of the ugliest and grossly inefficient suburban environments that have ever existed. Sure, oil is a critical part of modern civilization, but we could still have modern civilization, and a hell of a better one at that with better policies that end up using far less oil.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      > The US throws away between 30–40% of its food supply. Not just the US, sadly. One of the reasons they do it is: transportation costs, and to avoid the attraction of the homeless as it is "bad for business" ("makes us look bad").
      - ben_w 1y ago
        Beyond that, there is also a good reason: farm output is variable, so a systematic policy of aiming for over-production means people don't starve in the years with bad harvests.
        Teever 1y ago
        buffers in the supply chain don't account for the wastage that goes on in western countries where people let food go bad in their fridge, or farms / grocers throw away cosmetically imperfect food. This doesn't even get into the gross inefficiency of overweight/obesity where people consume extra calories that make them gain weight which requires them to consume extra calories to carry their surplus weight around, or the amount of energy that is expended just to move them around in automobiles because they can't walk or bike even moderately short distances. There's a lot of wastage in how we produce and consume food.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        I agree, and I think this is something we should definitely focus our attention on.
ec109685 1y ago
How is this getting out of the way: “In markets like Texas, the wholesale price of electricity is set equal to the price of electricity from the most expensive generator needed to meet demand, often referred to as the marginal generator.”
- adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
  This is great for renewable energy. It means that solar plants and batteries can get payed at coal/nuclear rates, and during the middle of the day, fossil fuel plants have to turn off since they can't compete with solar prices.
- moooo99 1y ago
  I‘m not sure why people are often confused about this. Electricity is at a basic level a commodity. A kWh from solar isn‘t any different than 1 kWh obtained by burning coal. If the current market situation allows for a price of 12ct/kWh, why should I - just because I have the more effective technology - get less than the fossil guy? Generally this is even beneficial because it could increase margins for renewable and grid scale batteries
energy123 1y ago
One of the roles of the state in a mixed economy is to cautiously intervene when there's market failure. Whether through tax policy or industrial policy. Republicans don't want to stop the market failure because they don't believe there is market failure. It's not only a disagreement in values it's a disagreement about basic scientific and economic facts.
standardUser 1y ago
> When in reality as soon as an economical and private sector solution is there, republicans are on board The leader of the conservative party has claimed that windmills kill whales, cause cancer, are "garbage" and pledged to prevent any being built in his second term.
eigen 1y ago
> They just dont want the state to fund the cause and don’t consider it the state’s role or problem or the state as a solution to a problem that isnt wholly solved by the proposed expensive solution Texas Senate Bill 819 "relating to renewable energy generation facilities; authorizing fees." would have made it the states role to create an expensive solution. > (1) for a solar power facility, ensure that all facility equipment is located at least: (A) 100 feet from any property line, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of property located less than 100 feet from the facility; and (B) 200 feet from any habitable structure, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of the habitable structure; and > (2)for a wind power facility, ensure that all facility equipment is located at least 1,000 feet from the property line of each property that borders the property on which the facility is located, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of property located less than 1,000 feet from the facility Texas Senate Bill 388 "relating to the legislature’s goals for electric generation capacity in this state." would have made it the states role to create an expensive solution. > (a) It is the intent of the legislature that 50 percent of the megawatts of generating capacity installed in the ERCOT power region [this state] after January 1, 2026 [2000], be sourced from dispatchable generation [use natural gas]. are the Texas bill sponsors not part of the aggregate conservative position?
benrutter 1y ago
I think this seems at odds from what I hear from republicans using retoric that's anti-renewable, anti-climate change and pro-oil. Ignoring that though, energy is a market defined by government policy. To give an example, solar assets can't control when they output, so many countries have contracts where solar gets a fixed price. Without that, peak solar times might even have negative pricing. Those are two seperate ways to frame a market, one making renewables profitable and one making them uneconomic. We can shrug and say "make them profitable under the current conditions" but that ignores the fact that fixed prices for output makes energy cheaper and cleaner as a whole. My point is, there is no "true market", its something governments define and control. The question should be what outcomes you want. I'd argue for cheaper, cleaner and more diverse energy, but I'm not in the US.

brookst 1y ago

Now do oil. How do Repubkicans feel about subsidies for oil?

yieldcrv 1y ago
If it passes and they benefit from it then they wont avoid being beneficiaries of it and they’ll keep it While if they dont know they are beneficiaries of a policy then they’ll proverbially eat their face by removing it
sremani 1y ago
[flagged]
- DarmokJalad1701 1y ago
  > the pervasive petrochemicals in the modern world are not easily replaceable Then let's use the finite amount of oil for that, instead of burning it.
  - sremani 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - rwyinuse 1y ago
      Right now China is meeting all of its increasing energy demand by building more renewables (in fact more than rest of the world combined). Their citizen buy electric vehicles at a record rate. Yet I don't see Chinese people starving. Climate change caused by burning fossil fuels is what has the potential to cause a mass starvation, not getting rid of oil where possible. It should be also noted that all fossil fuel is just sun's energy stored in another form, although I can understand some of you Americans may think it was magically created by a god. Why not use that sun's energy directly wherever possible? There will be no need for fossil fuels in energy generation and transporting stuff. Whatever use cases remain are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and many of those have alternatives too.
      - sremani 1y ago
        take a look at coal consumption in China. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361652086/figure/fig5/AS:1172869224636417@1656645222252/Global-coal-consumption-Graph-showing-peaks-of-world-and-China-coal-consumption-which.png https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361652086/figure/fi...
        defrost 1y ago
        That's a lightweight comment given multiple things can be true. The claim you are responding to is contempory, "Right now China is", and concerns "its increasing energy demand" .. a response about total existing use twelve years past is no rebuttal. Rather than direct link to an untitled graph sans context (the June 2022 paper the twelve year 2013 elicited graph is snapshotted from) perhaps link to a time series graph: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-2000-2025 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-c... and maybe recommend diving into the ongoing series of IEA global energy generation and consumption reports. China's coal consumption is for a purpose, it has a projected wind down, and it represents not just the per capita coal consumption of China's people but also the coal consumption of the world that avails itself of China's solar panel and battery technology. With a small amount of effort you can create a better comment.
    - 1y ago
- pjc50 1y ago
  Global warming also affects the feasible latitudes for food production.
- Teever 1y ago
  The US throws away between 30–40% of its food supply. The US has policies that are outright hostile to mass-transit. The US has policies that produce some of the ugliest and grossly inefficient suburban environments that have ever existed. Sure, oil is a critical part of modern civilization, but we could still have modern civilization, and a hell of a better one at that with better policies that end up using far less oil.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    > The US throws away between 30–40% of its food supply. Not just the US, sadly. One of the reasons they do it is: transportation costs, and to avoid the attraction of the homeless as it is "bad for business" ("makes us look bad").
    - ben_w 1y ago
      Beyond that, there is also a good reason: farm output is variable, so a systematic policy of aiming for over-production means people don't starve in the years with bad harvests.
      - Teever 1y ago
        buffers in the supply chain don't account for the wastage that goes on in western countries where people let food go bad in their fridge, or farms / grocers throw away cosmetically imperfect food. This doesn't even get into the gross inefficiency of overweight/obesity where people consume extra calories that make them gain weight which requires them to consume extra calories to carry their surplus weight around, or the amount of energy that is expended just to move them around in automobiles because they can't walk or bike even moderately short distances. There's a lot of wastage in how we produce and consume food.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        I agree, and I think this is something we should definitely focus our attention on.

ec109685 1y ago

How is this getting out of the way: “In markets like Texas, the wholesale price of electricity is set equal to the price of electricity from the most expensive generator needed to meet demand, often referred to as the marginal generator.”

adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
This is great for renewable energy. It means that solar plants and batteries can get payed at coal/nuclear rates, and during the middle of the day, fossil fuel plants have to turn off since they can't compete with solar prices.
moooo99 1y ago
I‘m not sure why people are often confused about this. Electricity is at a basic level a commodity. A kWh from solar isn‘t any different than 1 kWh obtained by burning coal. If the current market situation allows for a price of 12ct/kWh, why should I - just because I have the more effective technology - get less than the fossil guy? Generally this is even beneficial because it could increase margins for renewable and grid scale batteries

energy123 1y ago

One of the roles of the state in a mixed economy is to cautiously intervene when there's market failure. Whether through tax policy or industrial policy. Republicans don't want to stop the market failure because they don't believe there is market failure. It's not only a disagreement in values it's a disagreement about basic scientific and economic facts.

standardUser 1y ago

> When in reality as soon as an economical and private sector solution is there, republicans are on board The leader of the conservative party has claimed that windmills kill whales, cause cancer, are "garbage" and pledged to prevent any being built in his second term.

eigen 1y ago

> They just dont want the state to fund the cause and don’t consider it the state’s role or problem or the state as a solution to a problem that isnt wholly solved by the proposed expensive solution Texas Senate Bill 819 "relating to renewable energy generation facilities; authorizing fees." would have made it the states role to create an expensive solution. > (1) for a solar power facility, ensure that all facility equipment is located at least: (A) 100 feet from any property line, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of property located less than 100 feet from the facility; and (B) 200 feet from any habitable structure, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of the habitable structure; and > (2)for a wind power facility, ensure that all facility equipment is located at least 1,000 feet from the property line of each property that borders the property on which the facility is located, unless the applicant has obtained a written waiver from each owner of property located less than 1,000 feet from the facility Texas Senate Bill 388 "relating to the legislature’s goals for electric generation capacity in this state." would have made it the states role to create an expensive solution. > (a) It is the intent of the legislature that 50 percent of the megawatts of generating capacity installed in the ERCOT power region [this state] after January 1, 2026 [2000], be sourced from dispatchable generation [use natural gas]. are the Texas bill sponsors not part of the aggregate conservative position?

benrutter 1y ago

I think this seems at odds from what I hear from republicans using retoric that's anti-renewable, anti-climate change and pro-oil. Ignoring that though, energy is a market defined by government policy. To give an example, solar assets can't control when they output, so many countries have contracts where solar gets a fixed price. Without that, peak solar times might even have negative pricing. Those are two seperate ways to frame a market, one making renewables profitable and one making them uneconomic. We can shrug and say "make them profitable under the current conditions" but that ignores the fact that fixed prices for output makes energy cheaper and cleaner as a whole. My point is, there is no "true market", its something governments define and control. The question should be what outcomes you want. I'd argue for cheaper, cleaner and more diverse energy, but I'm not in the US.