Posted on 02/24/2021 8:48:56 AM PST by rktman
If you ever watched South Park, ‘blame Canada’ was quite the tune. Well, as Texas has plunged into a deep freeze due to widespread power outages after a historic and brutal winter storm, maybe we should look to Canada regarding how they keep their power grids running amid frigid conditions. It’s not what you think. It actually proves our point about energy production, which is why the liberal media and the environmental Left probably don’t want you to read this thread about Alberta, Canada.
How are they able to keep the lights on? It’s simple coal and gas. The two sectors the Left wants to ax from our production capacity. I’ve seen all the so-called fact checks. Wind power isn’t why Texas lost power. Renewable energy isn’t the reason, except that it is. Sorry, the facts are the facts. This push for heavily subsidized wind energy that’s wholly unreliable is what caused the blackouts. The turbines did freeze up. and the wind was responsible for over 40 percent of Texas’ energy. In short, the California model is a good foundational policy to give your residents unreliable energy. The Wall Street Journal torched this green energy push, aptly noting that this policy has put more people in danger than so-called global climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I experienced -40F in Canada (Quebec) a few years ago. And the natives didn’t seen fazed in the least. If there’s one thing Canada knows it’s *cold*.
Since we harness the natural power of the wind, I wonder if there is some other powerful force in nature we could harness?
Something like gravity and water.
"Heavily subsidized" is only part of the story. The feds subsidize the windmills themselves, but the windmills are only a third or a quarter of the capital investment needed to make them reliable. The other three-quarters or two-thirds of needed capital investment is the batteries required for backup when the wind doesn't blow OR the natural gas fired combustion turbines.
The populace is being completely snookered because people aren't looking at the SYSTEM aspects of energy generation. If you want to install an inherently unreliable energy source like wind, fine, but at least be honest that for every dollar you spend on the wind turbine you need to spend another $3 or $4 for a backup solution. By never discussing that, the feds are telling us a HUGE LIE.
“By never discussing that, the feds are telling us a HUGE LIE. “
We in the STEM business call our freshman flunkouts future politicians and civil servants.
Hydroelectric power is right near the top of the Greenie hit list, right after nuclear and coal.
There is always “the best answer” for our energy needs.
Nuclear Power
Period. Full stop.
Quick. Somebody rush the answer to Biden. He'll get on the phone and order more fracking and additional rush work on the pipelines. Oh, wait....
Wind drives a turbine.
Water drives a turbine.
Ping
All joking aside, if the CO2 concentration ever jumps from 0.042% to 0.045% or even the super dangerous 0.05%, we may as well go live on the sun
500 Million years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere was 20X greater than it is today. Somehow life flourished (sarc.)
Not to mention the birds, some of which are protected, that are killed by windmills. And the fact that the elites don’t want wind farms anywhere they can be seen from their front windows.
Not 20x but 5x.
“There is always “the best answer” for our energy needs.
Nuclear Power”
Nuclear power is reasonably safe, but when it has an infrequent problem, such as at Fukishima, it gets quite ugly. Since the earth is inherently unstable, I’m not certain that nuclear fission power is the answer we need.
Burning fossil fuels creates atmospheric CO2 which promotes photosynthesis and aids agriculture. That’s what we will need during the sunspot-minimum-driven 33 cold years just ahead of us. It’s unfortunate that so many political leaders are believers in the pseudo-scientific CO2-causes-global-warming theory.
DNC: “Curse you, Scientific Method! You’re destroying our narratives!”
There are much safer technologies to utilize nuclear power that have not been fully explored. We are still using the original design in the GE reactors that were built many decades ago.
We can do nuclear “safer and cleaner” than what we have now. The Navy has shown this.
You are right about everything you wrote for certain, but while I do and have promote an “all of the above” approach to energy (if it pays for itself) the one certain answer is nuclear power.
Yeah, trying to overcome the “China Syndrome” ain’t gonna work. Toss in Fukdashima and chance slim down somewhat. Why? Because most folks are dumbasses. And, I too have my dumbassish moments. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.