I'm so fucking sick of seeing this dude's face or gaping mouth wherever I go. Can he just fucking disappear?
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
89 points (92.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7576 readers
107 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 19 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[deleted]
I think you attribute more intent to his actions than he deserves. He “loves” coal, oil, and gas because that’s what his base wants to hear. Defunding the EPA has nothing to do with his pro or anti-climate goals. It has everything to do with the fact that the EPA is a regulatory body that increases costs for industry. Fewer road blocks, better cash flow.
It’s not that he loves or hates any of these things… it’s all in your last sentence. The rest is just a means to an end. He just doesn’t care beyond the fact that it might keep him from him getting what he wants
[deleted]
And the fan base is trained on him. So Trump's verbiage is like a preview of the internet to come: crappy articles written by AI trained on crappy articles written by AI, and reality ever receding.
Not to mention that Harold Hamm, the oil magnate, is one of Trump’s largest donors.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/06/politics/trump-fundraiser-florida-rnc/index.html
I've found Trump's hatred of windmills fascinating. It all goes back to a case against the Scottish government. He expressed his concerns about the wind farm in April 2006 stating that "I want to see the ocean, I do not want to see windmills."Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
Maybe if enough people can point out to him that there's only like 3 letters of difference between "wind power" and "white power", he might have a change of heart and decide it's not so bad after all.
Wind and solar plants should be in areas where they make the most sense. You cannot create a resilient electrical grid with just solar and wind. Sorry, but there is no economical way to do that. Even with gas plants as back up, this is also not economical, because you need redundant power plants to fill in the gaps left by renewables. Take a look at Germany. No more cheap Russian natural gas. They shut down their nuclear power plants, and now they will have to import energy from France's nuclear power plants. Wind and solar are not reliable energy for many places in Europe and North America. Transmission lines need to built which cost a lot of money, and they are a liability that needs to be replaced every 40 years. In the US, a state like Texas does not need solar or wind. It is a state with plenty of natural gas and constant generation is necessary for profitability. Yes, Texas leads in renewables within, but it doesn't need it for energy.
German here. We import power because it is cheaper then nuclear. Also we export more than we import. The majority of imported energy is from renewables from Norway and Sweden.
Germany will be highly reliant on other countries for their energy needs. Wind and solar are intermittent energy. With no cheap Russian piped gas, Germans would be paying higher for peaker plants and backup natural gas plants. Green energy isn't reliable for heavy industry. This is a permanent deindustrialization. Wind doesn't always work and some weeks there is extensive cloud cover. Sure, a desert would be consistent with solar because it has minimal cloud cover all year long, and you plan for that, but Germany is not ideal for that.
Germany does not aim to be energy-self-sufficient, it aims to be integrated into a European grid, which is self sufficient.
Wind and solar give plenty of energy, storage is the trick. The need for huge storage goes down in a European grid, because there are always parts with enough wind and sun.
I would love to understand this better. I have worked in power generation before (writing maintenance software for a nuclear plant, so I picked up a few things). I don't understand the distribution side at all, though.
Can you suggest a book or article on the subject?
This particular detail I picked up at a recent scientific conference on precisely this topic. It was a reoccurring theme across several talks. I am not aware of any general book on this, though.
You cannot create a resilient electrical grid with just solar and wind.
People still saying that, despite entire countries running on it already?
This is not true at all. At best, renewables can manage a streak of 5 hours a day or 10 hours a day if lucky. I am sure you read, "This country ran on 100% renewable energy." The catch is, it is not the norm, but lucky weather. I live in Texas. Texas ran on 100% renewables for several hours. That is no reassurance when a cold snap, cloudy weather, or stagnant wind. With fossil fuels, you can adjust the supply according to forecasted demand. You can't do that with wind and solar. Batteries make a very tiny portion of the grid infrastructure as well. They're not replacing natural gas plants anytime soon. At the same time, government subsidies supplant reliable energy with unreliable energy. I am not against green energy when it is applied correctly, but you can't run an entire grid on renewables and not expect complications.
Renewables are an important part of the mix, but seems like nuclear is more important right now. It's the best way to move industry away from coal and gas in the long run, though it's something we in the US should have started on 30 years ago.
I'm aware that nuclear power has it's own set of complications, but they're more solvable than reducing emissions without it