Cooking Grandma

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I got to thinking about the way that California prices its electricity, which is never a good thing for a man’s blood pressure.

When I was a kid, the goal of the Public Utilities Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric was to provide cheap electricity. The Bonneville Dam and the Shasta Dam were lauded for bringing cheap, renewable electric power to the farms, just like the renewable electricity the Tennessee Valley Authority had supplied earlier. This cheap electricity was seen as liberating housewives from domestic slavery, and supporting business and manufacturing. It was hailed as the wave of the future and the path to success, and rightly so—cheap energy is the reason the developed world was able to lift itself out of poverty. And since we generated our own electric power when I was a kid, and had to live with the results when it went out, I know all about the ability of electricity to lessen even a kid’s load around a cattle ranch.

So … when did expensive energy become the new goal? When did raising the price of energy become a good thing? That’s topsy-turvy thinking.

I started this train of thought when I had occasion to revisit Anthony Watts’ outrageous electricity bill, which he discusses here.

Figure 1. Why California is circling the drain …

Ninety-two cents a freakin’ kilowatt-hour? The utility companies have a monopoly, and they are allowed to charge ninety-two cents a kilowatt-hour? How can that be? Isn’t the California Public Utilities Commission supposed to stop that kind of thing?

The most aggravating part of all of this to me is that so many people see this kind of pricing as being a good thing. Not the ninety-two cents part, most folks find that outrageous.

But lots of folks apparently approve of the part where the higher the demand for the electricity, the more the utilities charge for it. This is called “Time Of Use” pricing, and a lot of well-meaning people think it’s a good idea … not me. I figure that’s because they just never thought it through all the way, they never saw what’s at the other end of the spoon.

Now, the utilities claim that Time Of Use pricing is a good thing because it spreads the load more evenly over the 24 hours … but why should I care? That’s their business, to provide enough power for all conditions when and as needed … but I digress. Hang on, I can likely find an example of their justification style … OK, they say the reason for Time Of Use Pricing is:

“To ensure greater power reliability and a better energy future”.

Impressive, who wouldn’t want a better future. Can I translate that for you?

“Greater power reliability” means so they won’t run out of power. If they were honest they’d say that they have Time Of Use Pricing “to avoid brownouts because we don’t have adequate generation capacity”. And ensuring a “better energy future” means “we hope we can provide future power but only if we raise prices on you today.” I’ll return to this issue in a moment.

But in any case, what kind of heartless bastards charge you more for something when you really need it? Because with “Time Of Use” pricing, when Anthony’s wife and kids are suffering in the scorching heat in Chico and really need the aircon, Pacific Gas And Electric (PG&E) and the California Public Utilities Commission say “Fine, you folks can turn on your air conditioners … but it will cost you almost a dollar a kilowatt to cool down.”

I never in my life thought I’d see electricity pricing used as a weapon against the poor and the old folks like that. That is criminal. What a plan. The seniors can afford to air condition their apartments or their rooms whenever they don’t need to … but when it’s hot, when they really need to air condition them, they can’t afford to. Catch-22, thy name is legion.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. I’m sure the Public Utilities Commission didn’t intend that outcome. I’m not accusing them of deliberately trying to cook Grandma. To do that you’d need some smarts, and anyone implementing a plan like that clearly has no smarts to spare on Grandma. Sadly, it’s just another case of Noble Cause Corruption, where the noble cause of saving the world from Thermageddon™ has overwhelmed native common sense and compassion.

Seriously, folks, this kind of pricing is madness, it’s unacceptable. If we had a water utility, and they charged 5¢ a glass when you weren’t thirsty, and $5.00 a glass when you came in dying of thirst, everyone would scream bloody murder that as a public utility you can’t screw the customers like that. Pick a dang price for a glass of water and stick with it, you can’t be jacking the price through the roof on someone just because they’re thirsty, that’s not on.

But that’s exactly what’s happening with electricity. Air conditioning in Chico is becoming the province of the wealthy, due to the “Time Of Use” pricing policies of the PUC.

However, the PUC are not the villains here. They are caught in the middle because of the stupidity of the voters and of Governor Brown. The voters put in a very destructive “20% by 2020” plan requiring 20% of the electricity supply to come from renewables by 2020 … then Governor Moonbeam had a Brilliant Idea™, so he unilaterally raised it to 33% by 2020. I don’t know how he jacked it by himself, but his daddy was the Governor and he grew up in the state house, so he knows which side of the bread the bodies are buttered on … these things are mysteries to the uninitiated like you and I.

And of course, it’s nearly impossible to build a fossil-fired plant of any kind anywhere in California anyhow. I hear these days when you apply for a license in California to generate electricity from fossil fuels, the State Government just issues you a couple of lawsuits along with the permits, in order to save time …

So you can’t build fossil plants, and renewable plants are few and far between … and as a result the system operators, a company called CAISO, are always balancing on the edge of a “brownout”, when the power doesn’t go out, but you only get 90% of the voltage, or on the verge of rolling blackouts, the next step after brownouts … and we’ve seen both.

And to put the icing on the cake, somewhere along the line, some congenital idiot ruled that hydroelectric power doesn’t count as a renewable energy source. I hope that person roasts in the place of eternal barbecue and HE doesn’t have the money to run the air conditioner. Truly don’t think I’ve heard a more expensive and destructive ruling than that one, especially after the TVA and Bonneville Dam and Shasta Dam have shown that yes, idiots,  hydropower is indeed renewable. Yeah, dams have problems and there’s lots of issues, but last I looked the rain is still working both reliably and renewably …

So by 2020 we’re suppose to get a third of our power from solar, and rainbows, and wind, and hydrogen, and biomass, and methane from the digestive apparati of unicorns, and fuel cells, anything expensive and out of reach will do. The suppliers of these nostrums have the state over a barrel, of course, and demand outrageous prices.

And as you would predict, this unbelievable idiocy has left the state woefully short of power. And as a result, the whole program has gone into reverse.

So now, rather than increasing the amount of cheap electric power available to the consumer like a utility should, we’re going the other way. The PUC and PGE aren’t encouraging people to utilize cheap power in order to better their lives. They aren’t doing their job of ensuring an adequate supply of inexpensive power. Far from it.

Instead, they’re doing whatever they can to push people back into the dark ages, because they are UNABLE TO GENERATE ENOUGH LIGHT OUT OF UNICORN ERUCTATIONS TO FILL THE DEMAND …

So that’s why, when they say the pricing is to “assure greater power reliability”, that’s a lie. They are using that pricing to discourage demand. Have you ever heard a dumber thing than a business working to discourage demand? Who anywhere tells their customers to buy less? Why jack your prices to force them to buy less?

Well, because they don’t have the power generating capacity. And this in turn is because for every two fossil-fueled or hydroelectric power plants you build, you need one unicorn-fueled plant, and those damn unicorns are proving much harder to catch than Governor Moonbeam figured …

But even given that that is the case, and given that the PUC is caught in the middle, there has to be a better plan than cooking Grandma to deal with that problem.

The people pushing these rattle-trap schemes, like “Death Train” Jim Hansen, always talk about the grandchildren … meanwhile, every one of their damn plans, of carbon taxes, and cap-and-trade, and subsidies, and requirements for “renewables”, and regulations, and all the rest, every one of them does nothing but screw Grandma and the rest of the poor.

Those plans do nothing but raise the cost of energy with almost no benefit to the environment.

They don’t reduce CO2. They don’t save the planet. They don’t help the environment. At best, with a following wind they might make a difference of a couple hundredths of a degree in a century. And indeed, because they further impoverish Grandma and the poor, they are actively harming the environment.

And meanwhile in the present, far from the ivory towers where they entertain their century-long fantasies, on the other side of the tracks, out of sight from the houses of the wealthy, the reality of these destructive, ugly policies hit Grandma and the poor of California the hardest. The head of the PUC doesn’t have to worry whether he can afford to air condition his sick child’s room … the CEO of PG&E isn’t losing sleep over his electric bill.

I fear I have no magic bullet to solve this. It will be a slow slog back to sanity. All I can do is to highlight the issues, and trust that at some point people will come to their senses.

So all of you folks that think that fighting CO2 will make a difference decades from now, remember the difference that this pseudo-green insanity is making today. Your actions are cooking Grandma, impoverishing the poor, and harming the environment today, and history will not find your part in inflicting pain and deprivation on society’s weakest members to be funny in the slightest. I truly don’t care if you think the poor in 2050 desperately need help from some imagined tragedy. You are screwing the poor today.

My best Independence Day wishes to you all, and remember, the beauty of America is that you’re all free to air condition your houses … but only when it’s not hot.

w.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

320 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard verney
July 5, 2013 1:50 am

Further to my above comment. The phrase in parenthesis “(ie., it would be about a third lower put for this portion of the bill)”, should have read (25% off, is about 33% on).

July 5, 2013 1:52 am

W. Eschenbach, here is the link to your earlier post and my comment you snipped.
“Yes, Virginia, there is an FOIA
Posted on July 2, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/02/yes-virginia-there-is-an-foia/#comments
My comment reads:
“Roger Sowell says:
July 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm
The FOIA requests for University of Virginia regarding Dr. Michael Mann’s correspondence, data, and other records are not nearly as simple as it may seem. Below is, verbatim, a section of Virginia’s state law known as “Virginia Freedom of Information Act”. This section describes the numerous exclusions to application of this law – meaning that every single record must be compared to each exclusion, and if it matches that exclusion it will not be disclosed.
source: Chapter 37, Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, beginning at Section 3705 and following, found at
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+TOC02020000037000000000000
§ 2.2-3705.1. Exclusions to application of chapter; exclusions of general application to public bodies. … [Scads of legalese snipped. If people want to read it, you have the link. Please don’t post tons of text, folks. It weakens whatever argument you might be making. For example, in this case I have no idea what Roger’s point is, he lost me with the miles of text … – w.]”
I’ll leave it to others to decide if I’m a liar, as you claim. Here is the evidence, in black in white, in your own hand.

July 5, 2013 1:59 am

Robin Hewitt on July 5, 2013 at 1:45 am
“If something is in limited supply and demand rises then so does the price.
Limit supply of anything enough and it becomes a luxury.
Always so. Shakespeare gave us, “The farmer who hung himself on expectation of plenty”.
But if California stopped burning coal to make electricity, you should expect hundreds of smoky choky power stations to spring up just past it’s borders and supply expensive electricity to an unreal market.”
Actually, California law now prohibits importing any electric power from power plants (like coal) that produce more than a very low amount of CO2 per kWh. This effectively erases coal-power from being imported, but does allow nuclear, wind, solar, and natural gas power if it is produced in the very efficient combined cycle gas turbine system. There is a brief time extension for existing contracts with coal-fired plants. Those contracts are not allowed to be renewed when they expire.

richard verney
July 5, 2013 2:05 am

Les Johnson says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:48 am
//////////////////////////////////////
The existence of this fact, the lack of publicity given to it, the lack of governmental concern and lack of action to redress this appallling state of affairs is the biggest scandal and disgrace in UK politics.
Just reflect on steps taken to increase road safety which action may save a handful of lives a year(at most measured in hundreds). Just reflect upon the number of news bulletins where there has been a car crash of coach crash claiming even just a few lives, Yet there is almost no mention of something where tens of thosands of people are needlessly and avoidably dying prematurely and in misery (there is little more misserable than feeling cold in one’s own home, and facing the choice at being uncomfortable and lethargic with hunger pains, or unconfortable and lethargic shivvering in the cold).
I know the missery that this inflicts. I have been there as a student when I have been so cold that I could not pick up a pen to write. I can recall on one occassion setting my jumper alight. I could not afford to run the gas fire in my student digs at a rate that would warm the room, so I ran it very low but had to sit right on top of it to feel any warmth. I was sitting so close that on one occassion my jumber set on fire. This was the only time that I was warm that evenning!
But seriously, this is a public disgrace. The MSM needs to get on the case, and then there may be some political will to address the problem. The only workable solution is one that will deliver reliable and abundant energy at a cheap a price as possible. This should act as an incentive for the UK to push ahead with shale, and to abandon its carbon floor price and all taxes on carbon.

Les Johnson
July 5, 2013 2:09 am

Roger: Nope. Willis posted your comment, and the link to the text he clipped. If the length was excessive, as he suggests, then it is justified in the context of space. There was no censorship, as he apparently left the link for others to read the full text if they wanted to. He also did not clip your words, which also acts against your claim of censorship.
Most blog T&Cs have a “length of post” exclusion. Or a maximum word count when quoting others. WUWT does not, except via the “we reserve the right bla bla”.
But, you were not censored. The link, and all your own words, were still there.

Other_Andy
July 5, 2013 2:12 am

Sowell
“I don’t want energy prices high. That is an assumption by Eschenbach, and others.”
Thanks for the reply.
Please read your comments, there is a reason they make the assumption.
From what I read here you seem supportive of subsidized energy for the ‘poor’. This is very admirable but in this way you seem to tolerate an artificially created problem.
“If you read just one of my blog posts linked above in a comment, you would see that I’m against high power prices.”
Looked but couldn’t find it.
Which blog post?

July 5, 2013 2:16 am

Other_Andy,
Most states have similar assistance programs for low-income customers and their utility bills. California is not alone in this.
Here is a link to my blog, with posts that discuss the harmful effects of high power prices on the poor.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=poor

Les Johnson
July 5, 2013 2:16 am

Roger: I also don’t see where Willis called you a “liar”. He asked for documentation, as I recall.

DirkH
July 5, 2013 2:23 am

Roger Sowell says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:38 am
“California. He also did not know, or chose not to state, that small hydroelectric power is considered renewable in California.”
Small hydro power provides small amounts of power. It is of course subsidized here in Germany. It looks like its major effect are: shredding eels and trout to pieces; providing a living for their owners; ripping the ratepayer off. The power they produce is negligible and is only the pretense needed to achieve the reduction of biodiversity and the redistribution.

Neville.
July 5, 2013 2:25 am

Roger Sowell, what is it you don’t understand about simple kindy maths? The mitigation of CAGW is the greatest fraud and con for the last 100 years. There is zero you can do to change the climate or temp, just check out my numbers in comments above.
Why do you want to hurt the elderly and poor people when you must know that you are wasting money down the drain for a zero return?
You seem to have very ittle grip on reality and certainly don’t seem to understand simple logic and reason.

July 5, 2013 2:33 am

All part of the welfare state, the destruction of traditional values and the erosion of personal responsibility.

Other_Andy
July 5, 2013 2:34 am

Sowell
I read the blog post.
I find your stance somewhat confusing.
What is ‘Environmental Justice’?
Do you support higher energy prices but only if they don’t impact the poor?
Do you think ‘greenhouse gasses’ as a problem?
“Most states have similar assistance programs for low-income customers and their utility bills. California is not alone in this. ”
Just because others do it doesn’t make it right.

Grey Lensman
July 5, 2013 2:51 am

Oh No!!!! Roger said
Quote
Actually, California law now prohibits importing any electric power from power plants (like coal) that produce more than a very low amount of CO2 per kWh. This effectively erases coal-power from being imported, but does allow nuclear, wind, solar, and natural gas power if it is produced in the very efficient combined cycle gas turbine system. There is a brief time extension for existing contracts with coal-fired plants. Those contracts are not allowed to be renewed when they expire.
Unquote
now they dye the electricity to identify it. What insane cobblers, they get coal generated power, the documents show, it was wind transshipped from Texas.
Idiocy of the first order.
Meanwhile Grandma gets Cooked again.

michael hart
July 5, 2013 2:53 am

So, to sum up, the public will be supplied with cheap electricity as soon as they learn to stop using it?

EternalOptimist
July 5, 2013 2:55 am

Rogers notion of getting the old and infirm together in a nice cool building instead of giving them cheap aircon could have some some value. It would be a great opportunity to learn new social skills or hobbies, like line dancing or communal singing. Roger could go along and speak publicly telling them his rags to riches story and explaining that they have never had it so good.
And tomorrow the chocolate ration will be increased from 30 grams to 25

July 5, 2013 3:20 am

Other_Andy
Environmental Justice, in California, is a movement to have polluting industries located in rich neighborhoods as well as in poor neighborhoods. Community organizers in poor neighborhoods obtain great concessions on this basis.
My stance is very well established on my blog posts. I am for the cheapest power prices, that bring safe, reliable power to customers.
I do not think that greenhouse gases are a problem, and have written extensively and made many speeches on this. See my posts at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html
and
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/from-man-made-global-warmist-to-skeptic.html
Perhaps I misunderstand you. You wrote: “Just because others do it doesn’t make it right.”
Providing assistance to low-income customers for their utility bills is not right? If that is your position, I must disagree. Helping those who are in need is a crucial function of society, and an excellent use of taxes.
It is quite interesting to me that people who present a one-sided version of the CAGW science are skewered here on WUWT, (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones, and others), and many posts here bring balance by presenting the skeptic side, the other side. I’m a skeptic and have written a half-dozen posts on WUWT. Yet, when a one-sided argument is made as was done in this post, and some of it is flat wrong, criticism is hurled against the one who points out the flaws in the argument.
Well, I don’t mind the slings and arrows, y’all. Bring it. Take your best shot. I’m quite used to it. But, bring some facts and good logic to your arguments. I regularly get booed and criticized on WUWT for my stances on nuclear power and renewable energy. I also have some supporters. Nuclear is dead in the US, and for excellent reasons. In this, I rejoice. Wind and solar forms of renewable energy will have their day, but only when cheap, reliable energy storage is discovered. Another viable renewable energy is one that is continuous, 24 hours per day. Believe it or not, there are actually a few renewable energy sources that are continuous, but not yet economic.
For the long-term survival of the human race, renewable energy MUST be made affordable and reliable and safe. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.

Cassio
July 5, 2013 3:29 am

Dear Mr Sowell,
You wrote that “Mr. Eschenbach normally censors my comments, so let’s just see if he censors this.”
Later you wrote that “I believe the post was a year ago or more … I posted a comment … and you snipped it ….”
Later you cited that comment, but have yet to mention any other(s) that you have posted on this site and that have been censored by Mr Eschenbach, “normally” or otherwise.
So “my comments” have become “a comment”. This suggests a propensity to exaggeration, and a lack of clarity, which is disturbing, especially when coming from a lawyer cum blogger.

Adam
July 5, 2013 3:34 am

Mr Eschenbach,
I think you’re putting the blame on the symptoms, rather than the cause. Looking at the subject from an economics perspective, using price to ration limited supply (rather than rolling brownouts) is the preferable choice. Regulating consumer prices while purchasing electricity on the open market is what caused the energy crisis in California around the turn of the century, so allowing prices to fluctuate is a good thing.
However, having a price mechanism to regulate demand in and of itself does nothing to cause high energy prices. Indeed, setting a fixed, regulated price (especially a low one to make consumers and voters happy) will usually cause long-term underinvestment into the system, setting it up for complete failure down the road.
Instead, as you’ve pointed out in previous articles, the real cause is a lack of supply, which is caused by California’s incessant regulatory meddling and half-witted “market reforms”.

Grey Lensman
July 5, 2013 3:36 am

Consider “Economies of Scale”
Looking at the above prices,
Low cost loans
It is now cheaper to generate your own individual power than buy from the grid using either natural gas or biodiesel as the fuel.
You just add the work, and grin
Sheesh

Brad
July 5, 2013 3:42 am

Why shouldn’t price track with generation cost. That seems like a great advantage. Now having the generation cost be $$ is unacceptable, but blaming variable rate pricing masks the solution.

Richards in Vancouver
July 5, 2013 3:55 am

Where such problems occur — California, New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and here in British Columbia and most of the rest of Canada — please remember that we elected the dolts responsible for them. And their responsibility is only secondary. The primary responsibility must fall upon us for having elected them.
Somewhere there is the faint glimmer of a possible solution.

Other_Andy
July 5, 2013 3:59 am

“Perhaps I misunderstand you. You wrote: “Just because others do it doesn’t make it right.”
Providing assistance to low-income customers or their utility bills is not right? If that is your position, I must disagree. Helping those who are in need is a crucial function of society, and an excellent use of taxes.”
No, you didn’t misunderstand me. I think it is a stupid idea to hold people to ransom by artificially inflate their power bills and then pretend to be all ‘caring’ and use the ransom money to give assistance to customers who can’t pay their power bills.

john
July 5, 2013 4:08 am

Willis, re “”roger sowell” sometimes it’s better just to ignore the ahole elitists with their unrealistic dreams of “saving the world” and “being a hero”. I do note, however, that if you visit his blog that “Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.” Just seems a little two-faced to me.

July 5, 2013 4:11 am

Janice Moore, thank you kind lady. 🙂
I’ve been bang ill for over 2.5 years now, & unable to work. 🙁
To keep my mind active, I decided to look into Global warming, & was horrified to find that it’s a huge global scam.
I dug further & came to this totally horrifying conclusion:
Global warming is for genocide.
The 1%s, basically are employing dozy, bent or blackmailed politicians & the mad marxists of the “environmental” NGOs: WWF, Greenpeace, etc to force through “Green” policies designed to de-industrialise & impoverish the first world, & depopulate the whole world.
I’ll post further to back up my outrageous conclusions, later when it’s cooler. It’s midday here in the UK, & it’s roasting this grandpa. 🙂
But please beat these facts in mind:
If you pop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it’ll hop right out.
If you pop that frog into a pot of cold water & raise the temperature by degrees you can boil that frog to death.
Well we’re frogs in a global pot & they’re turning up the heat.
The CO2 producers they’re after is you & I, & our kids & grandkids, & the control freak cowards at the govt political & NGO level think it’s saving the planet.
Those above them have the old power & money & personal survival, no illusions there.
As I posted earlier this is neatly summed up at:
http://www.thrivemovement.com
Which also contains the best exposition of UN Agenda 21 I’ve so far seen, by John Anthony.
On thrive, please start with the problem, a fairly lengthy essay. Then see The Movie. 2 hrs 12 mins. John Anthony’s film is 1 hr 23 mins.
All are well worth your time, there is no more important issue on this planet.
All the best,
JD.

Admin
July 5, 2013 4:16 am

Roger Sowell
Environmental Justice, in California, is a movement to have polluting industries located in rich neighborhoods as well as in poor neighborhoods. Community organizers in poor neighborhoods obtain great concessions on this basis.
Why? To force poor people to commute longer distances to work? To trash the value of rich neighbourhoods? What a bizarre idea.
My stance is very well established on my blog posts. I am for the cheapest power prices, that bring safe, reliable power to customers.
Then ditch renewables, or at least force them to compete on a level playing field with other energy sources such as shale gas. Stop cutting them special concessions which are driving up people’s energy bills.
I do not think that greenhouse gases are a problem, and have written extensively and made many speeches on this. See my posts at …
Something we agree on.
Providing assistance to low-income customers for their utility bills is not right? If that is your position, I must disagree. Helping those who are in need is a crucial function of society, and an excellent use of taxes.
If you created the problem in the first place, through artificial manipulation of the market to make renewables more attractive to investors, then its just a job creation scheme for bureaucrats.
You can’t get something for nothing. Rich people can afford to pave their roof with solar panels. Poor people can maybe get some subsidies, if they are prepared to spend enough time begging and researching the paperwork. Someone in between is paying too much for their power.
It is quite interesting to me that people who present a one-sided version of the CAGW science are skewered here on WUWT, (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones, and others), and many posts here bring balance by presenting the skeptic side, the other side. I’m a skeptic and have written a half-dozen posts on WUWT. Yet, when a one-sided argument is made as was done in this post, and some of it is flat wrong, criticism is hurled against the one who points out the flaws in the argument.
Which parts are flat wrong? So far as I can tell you haven’t responded to Willis’ questions. Inquiring minds want to know.
Well, I don’t mind the slings and arrows, y’all. Bring it. Take your best shot. I’m quite used to it.
Perhaps you should work on your communication skills.
But, bring some facts and good logic to your arguments. I regularly get booed and criticized on WUWT for my stances on nuclear power and renewable energy. I also have some supporters. Nuclear is dead in the US, and for excellent reasons.
Which are?
In this, I rejoice. Wind and solar forms of renewable energy will have their day, but only when cheap, reliable energy storage is discovered. Another viable renewable energy is one that is continuous, 24 hours per day. Believe it or not, there are actually a few renewable energy sources that are continuous, but not yet economic.
Sure – some day we’ll be able to deploy self replicating robots to lay deep geothermal power systems without human intervention or effort, for an effective cost of zero. But meanwhile, lets try to stay in the real world.
For the long-term survival of the human race, renewable energy MUST be made affordable and reliable and safe. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.
That hasn’t been in any way established as a fact. For example, an average cubic yard of garden soil contains 60g of Thorium. Thorium is so energy dense, that the energy cost of recovering your 60g of Thorium from your wheel barrow of garden soil is far less than the energy you could extract from it. Its something we shall simply never run out of. Focussing efforts on Thorium would be far more beneficial than wasting time and resources building white elephant renewable schemes.

1 3 4 5 6 7 13