Trump energy policy key to reviving economy — Biden plan destroys jobs, raise costs

[floridafan]

Only .04% of Americans have died as a result of COMPLICATIONS the virus caused their EXISTING condition. Stop the buffoonish lies and parroting the PHONY media bullshit.

You have a far greater chance of dying from cancer or heart disease dumbass.

If we don't have an economy; many more will die and suffer you willful idiot.

Let me repeat, you couldn't care less just how many people die in the march to a rump re election. Millions? Thats just fine with you.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

But renewables ARE cost effective, as you proved by the fact that Germany had a surplus of energy -thanks to renewables- that drove down the profits for all the energy producers in neighboring countries.

Germany's per KWH cost right now is about .36 cents. In the US the per KWH is about .12 cents. In fact, every leading nation using large amounts of solar and wind generation have KWH costs 2 to 3 times higher than ones that don't use it.
In the US, states with the most solar and wind generation are approaching .20 cents a KWH and their costs are rising. California's electrical grid is becoming increasingly unstable

California is again facing widespread blackouts. Politicians are scrambling to assign blame to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) a heavily regulated utility that can only do what the politically appointed regulators say it can do. In recent years this has meant building a bunch of solar and wind projects, while decommissioning reliable sources of power and scrimping on power line maintenance and upgrades

.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...come-more-costly-and-unreliable/#64bf10251daf

Because more Californians are buying and using or installing portable generators to make up for grid instability, the state is looking at banning these. California also is considering banning natural gas for heating and cooking use in homes.
The whole of what they're doing is utterly insane.

 

[LV426]

If right now, the government backed $1 trillion in loans to energy companies to build 50 new, safe, efficient, nuclear power plants nationwide, we could see all of coal fired plants gone in 10 to 12 years. They would no longer be necessary. Solar and wind could be eliminated entirely. Nuclear is zero carbon output. Coal miners could mine uranium and thorium instead. The US has more than 1,000 years worth of those minerals to run power plants on. Natural gas would supplement the nuclear plants to produce peaking power for variations in load.
The jobs produced would be high paying ones not low paying "Green" jobs like hand assembly work or washing solar panels.
But we have a big segment of the population that has an irrational fear of anything 'nuclear' because idiots and know-nothings have been spewing lies about it for decades.

Nuclear power is dumb, dangerous, and expensive. And no one serious wants it in their backyard.

 

[LV426]

And what do you do with that electricity when there is too much of it? You can't bottle it up for later. Storage like batteries, flywheels, or pumped hydro are all expensive add ons that aren't necessary with reliable generation systems..

Storage is constantly being reinvented and improved upon. Yes, you can store it and bottle it up for use later. That's what the technology is evolving towards, and in some cases is already there. My Prius battery, for instance, has lasted 10 years now. Bought the car new and still have yet to replace that battery, even though I crossed 100,000 miles a couple years ago.

I've already stated there are times when solar and wind are very efficient producers and other times where they're not. That is instability. You need a system that can reliably produce the power you need when you need it. Solar and wind can't deliver on that.

Well, that's why you develop better storage and batteries. Instead of trying to change the market, adapt to it.

Why do some of these companies hate the free market so much? This is their big chance to prove that they're agile and they're blowing it.

I do

You want a nuclear power plant in your backyard? Well, you are depressed and probably suicidal, so I think I do understand why you'd be OK with a Fukushima in your backyard. I just wish you were honest about why.

 

[Truth Detector]

Let me repeat, you couldn't care less just how many people die in the march to a rump re election. Millions? Thats just fine with you.

Let me repeat; you're a mentally retarded lying dumbass who could care less about facts, reality or common sense.

 

[Truth Detector]

Germany's per KWH cost right now is about .36 cents. In the US the per KWH is about .12 cents. In fact, every leading nation using large amounts of solar and wind generation have KWH costs 2 to 3 times higher than ones that don't use it.
In the US, states with the most solar and wind generation are approaching .20 cents a KWH and their costs are rising. California's electrical grid is becoming increasingly unstable

.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...come-more-costly-and-unreliable/#64bf10251daf

Because more Californians are buying and using or installing portable generators to make up for grid instability, the state is looking at banning these. California also is considering banning natural gas for heating and cooking use in homes.
The whole of what they're doing is utterly insane.

Trust me when I type this; you cannot argue with a lying leftist idiot like LyingVagina426. It's best just to point at the lying fool and laugh.

 

[LV426]

Germany's per KWH cost right now is about .36 cents. In the US the per KWH is about .12 cents. In fact, every leading nation using large amounts of solar and wind generation have KWH costs 2 to 3 times higher than ones that don't use it.

Right, but those costs are only high because the energy company is trying to make a profit.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't commoditize energy in the first place, because it doesn't allow you to be agile and flexible when you have to make a change.

That's my point in all this.

You say the cost is high. Well, who's determining that cost? Not consumers. Not governments. Not a public agency. Not even the free market. Instead, that determination is made by a privately-run energy company. And that company says the cost is high. Well, it's only high because they're making it high.

We don't need energy companies because they are artificially inflating the price of energy, as you laid out here.

 

[LV426]

Because more Californians are buying and using or installing portable generators to make up for grid instability, the state is looking at banning these. California also is considering banning natural gas for heating and cooking use in homes.
The whole of what they're doing is utterly insane.

You know what, though? Conservatives constantly screech about California, but they're far ahead of the curve when it comes to most things. If you can generate the same amount of energy from the sun that you can from extracting, processing, refining, and delivering fossil fuels, I think it's pretty obvious what path you will choose to move forward.

The whole thing about the cost is artificial. The only ones who determined what that cost is are the privately-run companies, themselves! So if a company is saying it cannot make a profit by focusing 100% on renewables, that should tell you that business should die in the free market.

We are told over and over that the free market is the greatest thing ever conceived. Well, what are we to make about companies who lack the agility to survive in the free market? I mean, I think they should fuck off and die, but I'm just a capitalist.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You know what, though? Conservatives constantly screech about California, but they're far ahead of the curve when it comes to most things. If you can generate the same amount of energy from the sun that you can from extracting, processing, refining, and delivering fossil fuels, I think it's pretty obvious what path you will choose to move forward.

Except you can't unless you want to pave over huge tracts of land with solar panels and wind farms at incredible expense. I pointed out already that for an Ivanpah-style solar plant you need one about 20 miles on a side (that's a larger area than many cities occupy) at a cost of $85 billion dollars to match the Palo Verde nuclear plant's annual output. One nuke plant on 4,000 acres--the same land as the actual Ivanpah plant occupies-- at a cost of about $12 billion versus 256,000 acres and $85 billion for solar. Solar loses.

The whole thing about the cost is artificial. The only ones who determined what that cost is are the privately-run companies, themselves! So if a company is saying it cannot make a profit by focusing 100% on renewables, that should tell you that business should die in the free market.

Wrong. Most electric utilities have their rates set by government boards. In Arizona, it is the Corporation Commission that approves electrical rates. Companies can't make a reasonable profit off solar and wind because they are cost ineffective--massively cost ineffective. At .25 cents per KWH, it would be cheaper for me to install a pair of natural gas fueled generators in my yard and run them alternately 24/7 than buy that electricity. The natural gas and the cost of the equipment is cheaper over 7 years than buying .25 cent solar electricity from the grid.

We are told over and over that the free market is the greatest thing ever conceived. Well, what are we to make about companies who lack the agility to survive in the free market? I mean, I think they should fuck off and die, but I'm just a capitalist.

There are limits. Utilities are considered a necessary monopoly and are subject to serious government regulation. Others, like SRP (Salt River Project) here in Arizona are run as cooperatives and everyone who uses their power is allowed to vote on rate increases, etc. That doesn't change that solar and wind are uncompetitive because they are so inefficent.

 

[Jack]

For the VIRAL PANDEMIC you blame Trump for idiot. I am convinced that your brain could fit in a thimble.

Are you trying to say 'cymbal'?

 

[LV426]

Except you can't unless you want to pave over huge tracts of land with solar panels and wind farms at incredible expense. I pointed out already that for an Ivanpah-style solar plant you need one about 20 miles on a side (that's a larger area than many cities occupy) at a cost of $85 billion dollars to match the Palo Verde nuclear plant's annual output. One nuke plant on 4,000 acres--the same land as the actual Ivanpah plant occupies-- at a cost of about $12 billion versus 256,000 acres and $85 billion for solar. Solar loses.

There's plenty of viable real-estate in the deserts and Death Valley in CA. It's a pretty big state, if you have never visited.

 

[LV426]

xcept you can't unless you want to pave over huge tracts of land with solar panels and wind farms at incredible expense. I pointed out already that for an Ivanpah-style solar plant you need one about 20 miles on a side (that's a larger area than many cities occupy) at a cost of $85 billion dollars to match the Palo Verde nuclear plant's annual output. One nuke plant on 4,000 acres--the same land as the actual Ivanpah plant occupies-- at a cost of about $12 billion versus 256,000 acres and $85 billion for solar. Solar loses.

Death Valley, which gets constant sunshine, is 5,270 square miles. Plenty of land to build a massive solar farm.

 

[Sailor]

Are you trying to say 'cymbal'?

You do not know what a thimble is?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There's plenty of viable real-estate in the deserts and Death Valley in CA. It's a pretty big state, if you have never visited.

So, you are good with all the negative environmental impacts of solar and wind being scaled up at outrageous cost hum? Do you visit reality often or just live in a Leftist fantasy world?

 

[LV426]

Wrong. Most electric utilities have their rates set by government boards.

Right, but those aren't the ones we are talking about.

In Arizona, it is the Corporation Commission that approves electrical rates. Companies can't make a reasonable profit off solar and wind because they are cost ineffective--massively cost ineffective. At .25 cents per KWH, it would be cheaper for me to install a pair of natural gas fueled generators in my yard and run them alternately 24/7 than buy that electricity. The natural gas and the cost of the equipment is cheaper over 7 years than buying .25 cent solar electricity from the grid.

Why are they not cost-effective for energy companies? Because they can't extract as much profit. So, duh, renewables will not be cost effective for a private-run and profit-driven company. But they will be for consumers. You literally said that the private energy companies have to artifically increase the cost of renewables in order to turn a profit. So instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, you get rid of the square peg altogether?

Like I said before, if an energy company can't do its one job, then it shouldn't exist. Period.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Death Valley, which gets constant sunshine, is 5,270 square miles. Plenty of land to build a massive solar farm.

Death Valley is a poor choice because of its geology. It is a basin in a basin and range topography and has a major series of faults running through it as it is the spreading center of the ranges on either side. It also is sinking. In addition, it is made up primarily of loose alluvial spoil that has two bad characteristics. The first is that it has a poor soil loading so it doesn't take loads well. The second is that it is expansive soil so when it does rain on an infrequent occasion, the ground will shift and heave.

All of that is very bad for putting anything on it in the way of structure.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right, but those aren't the ones we are talking about.

Yes those are the ones we're talking about. In California, ALL utilities are state regulated as one example.

Why are they not cost-effective for energy companies? Because they can't extract as much profit. So, duh, renewables will not be cost effective for a private-run and profit-driven company. But they will be for consumers. You literally said that the private energy companies have to artifically increase the cost of renewables in order to turn a profit. So instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, you get rid of the square peg altogether?

No, because solar and wind are uncompetitive with natural gas, coal, oil, nuclear, biomass, hydro, thermal, you-name-it.

Like I said before, if an energy company can't do its one job, then it shouldn't exist. Period.

Then enjoy life without electricity or pay $500 to $1000 a month for it if you own a home.

 

[Irish]

February was before the lockdowns, and the manufacturing recession article is from January 3rd, also before the lockdowns.

It was already spreading in China. Markets were reacting to a Chinese slow down. Had nothing to do with tax cuts. Tax cuts usually spur the economy.

You'll be hard pressed to find an economic expert who thinks raising taxes will help stimulate an economy.

 

[Sailor]

It was already spreading in China. Markets were reacting to a Chinese slow down. Had nothing to do with tax cuts. Tax cuts usually spur the economy.

You'll be hard pressed to find an economic expert who thinks raising taxes will help stimulate an economy.

Of course Biden has no access to those kind of intelligent people.

 

[LV426]

There are limits. Utilities are considered a necessary monopoly and are subject to serious government regulation. Others, like SRP (Salt River Project) here in Arizona are run as cooperatives and everyone who uses their power is allowed to vote on rate increases, etc. That doesn't change that solar and wind are uncompetitive because they are so inefficent.

There's a world of difference between "inefficient" and "unprofitable". So you say it's inefficient, but to whom? Energy companies, because they can't make a profit off it right now. So since they can't operate it for profit, why should they continue to exist? What happened to bootstraps and adapting to a changing marketplace? Aren't those things the free market can supposedly do so well? Doesn't seem like it. It seems like energy companies are resistant to change because that change threatens their existence. And frankly, fuck them and their existence. We don't need energy companies to deliver energy to consumers. That's something we can do on our own. Hard to see how tying a profit motive to it could result in innovation or better service, since that profit motive is already omnipresent and has been for a while.

It's just like health insurance companies; another extraneous thing society doesn't need, for which institutions and systems are already in place to deliver health care much more efficiently and cost-effectively. Private insurance companies can't figure that out. So they should perish as well. We don't need insurance companies to get health care, and we don't need energy companies to get energy. The companies in those two sectors work against progress and aren't free market friendly or agile.