Hats off to you, Ellen Barfield... whoever you are! Ellen had the nerve to ask a relevant question during one of "Americans for a Clean Energy Grid's" recent proganda-inars. I haven't been to one of their ridiculous "events" in years, ever since I had the nerve to ask a relevant question myself, which got me deleted from their mailing list and dis-invited to future "events." I'm sure Ellen will find herself similarly blacklisted soon, but I have a feeling she, like me, absolutely doesn't care. I mean, it's not like average Americans actually tune into these events to be educated... it's usually just to have some fun with the schmucks and ask questions they would rather not address.
ACEG might need to tighten up its list though... because random Americans keep getting in. One such American tuned into the recent propaganda-inar for giggles and then sent me a report and screen shot. It seemed like when Ellen asked her rather pertinent question, the chat was subsequently shut down. I guess they were afraid they might get even more questions they didn't want to answer from, you know, Americans?
Ellen asked this:
ACEG might need to tighten up its list though... because random Americans keep getting in. One such American tuned into the recent propaganda-inar for giggles and then sent me a report and screen shot. It seemed like when Ellen asked her rather pertinent question, the chat was subsequently shut down. I guess they were afraid they might get even more questions they didn't want to answer from, you know, Americans?
Ellen asked this:
And when the idiots got to the Q&A part of their propaganda-inar they said something ridiculous and inapt like transmission is necessary to provide renewables from afar when local ones aren't working. So, when offshore wind isn't producing (which is like, never) then solar from California could save the day for east coast states. Idiots, indeed. The narrative goes something like this... when the sun is up in California, it produces more than they need so they could share. But, as soon as it sets, California finds itself in need of imports from elsewhere, like east coast offshore wind. The idiots assure that renewables are producing more than needed somewhere at any time of day. Except when it's night, and California needs a replacement for its solar. The sun has set to the east hours ago, and night is long and dark. It's not like wind generators elsewhere can pick up all this load, plus their own solar-dependent load after sunset. I guess there just won't be any electricity after dark anymore. Adjust, it's the new normal.
Who is even fooled by this silly, swiss cheese narrative? The idiots talk a lot about "resilience," which is a new concept that began happening right about the time fossil fuel baseload power began shutting down. How come "resilience" is a new concept? Why hasn't it become an issue during the past 100 years? The problem is that as we become more renewable dependent, variable renewables simply can't keep up with maximum generation events. When we had plenty of baseload power that could run when called, those generators were there to pick up the slack during weather events. Now we don't have that luxury. It's not like weather has changed much, it's that the new normal generators simply can't keep up when anything out of the ordinary happens. And then they need to "borrow" generation from other regions shipped on new transmission "for resilience." But as more and more baseload generators get priced out of market and shut down, the pool of "resilient" generators gets smaller and smaller. Soon, it could cease to exist at all. What good are "resilient" transmission lines that are not connected to any producing generator? Building new transmission for "resilience" is idiotic.
I was also humored by ACEG's last minute addition of some guy from Google supposedly representing "consumers." Google is about the biggest consumer there is, but it doesn't represent the average American consumer. If I was allowed in the room I might have asked him why he thinks Americans should pay more in their electric bills to build more transmission and renewables so that his company can meet the corporate goals it sets for itself? It's not like the average American consumer had any say in Google's corporate goal setting, therefore they should not pay for it. I might also ask him why Google doesn't site its energy gulping data centers in the Midwest, close to all these renewables it is demanding, and save the rest of us the cost of new transmission? Why junk up the Washington, DC suburbs with a bunch of new data centers and then demand everyone else pay to supply them with renewable energy? I mean, what Google employees would want to live THERE when they could live in Kansas, or Oklahoma, and have wind turbines and solar panels in their own backyards?
The arrogance is simply stunning.
And the idiocy.
How about Americans for Reliable and Affordable Generation of Electricity? Think about it.
Ta-ta until the next propaganda-inar, when Americans will infiltrate and ask pertinent questions.
Who is even fooled by this silly, swiss cheese narrative? The idiots talk a lot about "resilience," which is a new concept that began happening right about the time fossil fuel baseload power began shutting down. How come "resilience" is a new concept? Why hasn't it become an issue during the past 100 years? The problem is that as we become more renewable dependent, variable renewables simply can't keep up with maximum generation events. When we had plenty of baseload power that could run when called, those generators were there to pick up the slack during weather events. Now we don't have that luxury. It's not like weather has changed much, it's that the new normal generators simply can't keep up when anything out of the ordinary happens. And then they need to "borrow" generation from other regions shipped on new transmission "for resilience." But as more and more baseload generators get priced out of market and shut down, the pool of "resilient" generators gets smaller and smaller. Soon, it could cease to exist at all. What good are "resilient" transmission lines that are not connected to any producing generator? Building new transmission for "resilience" is idiotic.
I was also humored by ACEG's last minute addition of some guy from Google supposedly representing "consumers." Google is about the biggest consumer there is, but it doesn't represent the average American consumer. If I was allowed in the room I might have asked him why he thinks Americans should pay more in their electric bills to build more transmission and renewables so that his company can meet the corporate goals it sets for itself? It's not like the average American consumer had any say in Google's corporate goal setting, therefore they should not pay for it. I might also ask him why Google doesn't site its energy gulping data centers in the Midwest, close to all these renewables it is demanding, and save the rest of us the cost of new transmission? Why junk up the Washington, DC suburbs with a bunch of new data centers and then demand everyone else pay to supply them with renewable energy? I mean, what Google employees would want to live THERE when they could live in Kansas, or Oklahoma, and have wind turbines and solar panels in their own backyards?
The arrogance is simply stunning.
And the idiocy.
How about Americans for Reliable and Affordable Generation of Electricity? Think about it.
Ta-ta until the next propaganda-inar, when Americans will infiltrate and ask pertinent questions.
RSS Feed