Whilst Australian based, it's my firm view that our respective countries (the USA & Australia) simply need to adopt a sensible Energy Policy to replace the flawed, anti-competitive version currently in-situ, supposedly to solve a non-problem.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn't any), how about adoption of a sensible Energy Policy that's fair to all (including the unreliables of wind & solar-PV's), is market driven & works from the consumers interests back, NOT from the energy industry’s interests forward that;
• Is Technology agnostic;
• Removes current anti-competitive subsidies favoring the unreliables;
• Requires industry to comply with clearly defined QOS (Quality of Service) standards of reliability & availability (i.e.; 99.98% reliability as per current AEMO specs in Australia & I expect similar QOS standards required in the USA);
• Invites industry to commit by way of auction (a week or a month in advance of the offered opportunity) to provide reliable 24/7, base load power at their best competitive price(s);
• Imposes SUBSTANTIAL financial penalties upon power generators for failure to deliver in accord with their mandatory QOS obligations (Force Majeure notwithstanding eg earth quakes, floods, bushfires, tornados etc);
• Requires a substantial bond to restore the environment (i.e. recycle aged solar-PV’s & wind turbine blades etc as is already commonplace in the coal mining industry);
• Repeals anti-competitive CO2 legislation (i.e., in Australia that would be the Safeguard Mechanism, LRET, RET etc, in the USA probably something similar, but under a different name).
Thus, let market forces prevail on a level playing field.
Doubtless, some Eco-enthusiasts will invest in their perceived market opportunities associated with the unreliables plus ‘firming’ (i.e., back-up by way of batteries etc, but at THEIR cost) to meet mandatory QOS reliability obligations.
Whereas others might be just a titch more circumspect (like me), investing in proven, reliable, base-load (fossil fuel) technology.
Longer term, in nuclear, (assuming the current legislative ban in Australia is repealed) & nuclear is (
of course) cost competitive Vs competing technologies, not least fossil fuel technology.
From the article; “ if the “big earthquake” hit California, and the entire state fell into the Pacific Ocean, there would be less than a 1% reduction in worldwide emissions”. Well let’s just say that would be a damaging loss of good farmland, but the rest of the state is filled with turds.
Whilst Australian based, it's my firm view that our respective countries (the USA & Australia) simply need to adopt a sensible Energy Policy to replace the flawed, anti-competitive version currently in-situ, supposedly to solve a non-problem.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn't any), how about adoption of a sensible Energy Policy that's fair to all (including the unreliables of wind & solar-PV's), is market driven & works from the consumers interests back, NOT from the energy industry’s interests forward that;
• Is Technology agnostic;
• Removes current anti-competitive subsidies favoring the unreliables;
• Requires industry to comply with clearly defined QOS (Quality of Service) standards of reliability & availability (i.e.; 99.98% reliability as per current AEMO specs in Australia & I expect similar QOS standards required in the USA);
• Invites industry to commit by way of auction (a week or a month in advance of the offered opportunity) to provide reliable 24/7, base load power at their best competitive price(s);
• Imposes SUBSTANTIAL financial penalties upon power generators for failure to deliver in accord with their mandatory QOS obligations (Force Majeure notwithstanding eg earth quakes, floods, bushfires, tornados etc);
• Requires a substantial bond to restore the environment (i.e. recycle aged solar-PV’s & wind turbine blades etc as is already commonplace in the coal mining industry);
• Repeals anti-competitive CO2 legislation (i.e., in Australia that would be the Safeguard Mechanism, LRET, RET etc, in the USA probably something similar, but under a different name).
Thus, let market forces prevail on a level playing field.
Doubtless, some Eco-enthusiasts will invest in their perceived market opportunities associated with the unreliables plus ‘firming’ (i.e., back-up by way of batteries etc, but at THEIR cost) to meet mandatory QOS reliability obligations.
Whereas others might be just a titch more circumspect (like me), investing in proven, reliable, base-load (fossil fuel) technology.
Longer term, in nuclear, (assuming the current legislative ban in Australia is repealed) & nuclear is (
of course) cost competitive Vs competing technologies, not least fossil fuel technology.
Easy.
From the article; “ if the “big earthquake” hit California, and the entire state fell into the Pacific Ocean, there would be less than a 1% reduction in worldwide emissions”. Well let’s just say that would be a damaging loss of good farmland, but the rest of the state is filled with turds.