Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[MTM98290]

MTM98290, what if the government did the math and found adding solar to the roofs of public buildings
would reduce the need to increase energy production facilities (power plants) and reduced the loads on
power transmission infrastructure (power lines), would that change your thinking?

PS: I may not agree with you, but I enjoy your posts.

If that were actually the case, then It would make sense, but it isn't typically the case. The only way to mitigate this is to use batteries, which aren't sustainable at this point. If we can come up with a better way to extract and recycle lithium then it might be viable. I would guess that Lithium will be irrelevant in batteries before we figure out how to make it sustainable.

Hypotheyical;

A)Imagine a government owned visitor center of a complex of caverns in Arizona, it is 1/2 a mile from the grid. The cost to connect is far more than installing a modest solar setup. This is where the government should be using solar.

B) A school district administration building in Seattle. It needs power during the workday, which is feasible. But it also needs to be climate controlled, and the load is more than is possible in December. It would take more panels than the roof or grounds could accommodate. Now the building will require grid input or another fuel source to keep it warm, which means that it is really just adding to the variability of demand on the grid. If fully electric it will still pull energy from the grid all night. This cost really just contributes energy when it isn't needed.

So I am not necessarily against it altogether, I just don't think we should just accept governments spending our money for projects that make no financial sense.

I enjoy your posts as well, because you bring different things to the table which I appreciate. If everyone is thinking alike, then nobody is thinking as the saying goes.

 

[Checkthisout]

No worries ; -)
If I had a nickle for every time I did that it would pay for my morning coffee.


That idea is based on some pretty solid science whereas none of the other possibilities global warming make sense.
Not sure why some are so quick to dismiss it.


Not seeing that.



Well, two things...first keep in mind those promoting disbelief also have motives. Secondly, most of that funding is what the government throws to keep universities running, not like they have to cry wolf to get funding. They'd just ask for a new collider or something.


If you can't test it and are unsure, then the you also can't disprove it. So why so passionate about it? Why believe only one side of it?


Yes, and other scientists have repeated experiments and verified it. Lots of scientists, and lots of citizen-scientists. But, if you need a hadron-collider to test then yeah, it's difficult for everyone in the world to personally confirm the theory.

But that's not needed for climate change. For example, didn't you do greenhouse experiments in high-school? If you didn't, there are still lots of experiments you can try at home.

Sabine recently did a video on this very topic confirming your position of disbelief.


Indeed. That's why it's important to have concensus of science facts where experiments have been repeated and to see the margins of error and understand how they were calculated.


I know you believe that, yet you have no proof of it.



The IPCC doesn't do "science", that is experiements. They just report on the data assemble data from other scientists all over the world.


Again, I'm not seeing facts to back this up other than "I haven't personally tested tested and therefore disbelief any graph you post as it could be cherry-picked data even it's the last 20 years or 10 million years and it therefore my conclusion is it is false".



Does that not apply to those bamboozling others into believing there's doubt about the actual science?


If you go to homedepot, is the price difference between a new heat pump and natural-gas new furnace really that different? They look like they're about twice the cost per BTU. But for some, despite the natural gas costing them more, that can be a big difference.

Possibly that's why the government did the tax incentive for them. Depends on where you live, but a lot of states have rebates too. So doesn't look like much difference capitol-wise.


Destroying vast swaths of land, like we did in Montana with with strip-mining lignite? Or pretty much anything we've ever done to fuel modern socienty? Remember the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? History is littered with abuses. Can we do better? Pretty sure we can.

But what does less harm over all? Lithium batteries are highly recyclable, so like aluminum, at some point we'll dig less out of the ground just to top-off as we've already got most of what we need. You're never going to be able to say that about fossil fuels unless you start extracting it from air and making green-fuel.

Just focusing on the sins of one and ignoring the worst sins of the other is not good land stewardship. Sounds like you should be for this.


As I recall, Lithium is "mined" from clay deposits and is somewhat toxic. So, wouldn't removing it from surface deposits actually be making the area less toxic?


LFP doesn't use cobalt and won't suffer thermal run-away. A lot of the new ESS tech doesn't use anything rare (e.g., sodium batteries).


LCOEs show Solar & Wind with ESS are currently at parity with the lowest form of hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas) and ESS prices are still falling.


Hell no. We should just add a carbon tax to remove the CO2 emitted by the ICE vehicle to correct the problem it causes. That gives consumers freedom of choice and let economics take it course.


Always has, always will. They don't need to make up a climate change boogie man to accomplish that.


Don't worry now. ; -)

This is a terrible post.

You apparently do not know or understand anything.

 

[svetz]

...There is a theory that cosmic rays can create nucleation sites in the atmosphere which seed cloud formation and create cloudier conditions. ...

You can read more about that here: https://skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm

CO2 is required for plant life..

Like rain, too much or too little of anything is bad. Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Will Help and Hurt Crops - NASA

The electric car thing is interesting....They just flat suck at being a car when asked to do the things a petrol car can do.

Mine is the best car I've ever owned! It also hasn't caught fire. Can't believe people are still bringing up that lie (ref). It is a good example of how you have to look at both sides of the coin to know if something is truly good or bad though.

... is to use batteries, which aren't sustainable at this point...

Why do you think that? Chile, the U.S. and Australia have huge deposits of lithium.

If we can come up with a better way to extract and recycle lithium then it might be viable. ... before we figure out how to make it sustainable.

We already figured out the recyclable bits and recycle it today. Jerry has an interesting video visiting one.

I would guess that Lithium will be irrelevant in batteries

That could be, technology moves pretty fast these days. I suspect we'll see a mix of tech like VHS vs. Betamax for the next few decades.

...It would take more panels than the roof or grounds could accommodate. Now the building will require grid input or another fuel source to keep it warm, which means that it is really just adding to the variability of demand on the grid. If fully electric it will still pull energy from the grid all night. This cost really just contributes energy when it isn't needed....

I'm not seeing your point. If a building can't accommodate enough solar during the day to charge the batteries to last through the night they just pull from the grid where other buildings have enough solar/battery to provide the energy and pay for it. I know, you're worried about all those ugly batteries? Well don't be! They can be wrapped up in sexy EVs. Let's say a town has 50,000 people with 50,000 EVs that each have a 100 kWh battery in them. if each car gave up 1 kWh overnight (~3 miles range), that's 50 MWh of power available. Owners can set how much it's acceptable to drain the battery and they get paid for it.

It's a pretty mobile battery!​

Not a pipe dream, they're called VPPs (virtual power plants) and already operational in a few states (although they use Tesla batteries rather than cars, that's still coming, I'm still waiting for Enphase to deliver their bidirectional charger as a massive free increase to my home battery size). There's a synergy with the grid infrastructure to having a distributed ESS.

I enjoy your posts as well, because you bring different things to the table which I appreciate. If everyone is thinking alike, then nobody is thinking as the saying goes.

 

[TommySr]

If that were actually the case, then It would make sense, but it isn't typically the case. The only way to mitigate this is to use batteries

MTM98290, IMO that would be a true statement if your goal was to replace the grid(off grid).
but IMO the grid makes our economy work, solar on public buildings would augment the grid
keep it viable in to the future, think 1000's localized micro inverters allowing for both increased
residential and commercial expansion without the need for bigger centralized production and transmission
capabilities. seems like a win/win

 

[Checkthisout]

Like rain, too much or too little of anything is bad. Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Will Help and Hurt Crops - NASA

Yeah. We can see you smoke just the right amount of crack before you post on here. Too little and you start making sense, too much and you're a full on commie libtard...just the right amount turns this into a "journey" where get to pretend you're an objective learner, just embracing the science.

Mine is the best car I've ever owned! It also hasn't caught fire. Can't believe people are still bringing up that lie (ref). It is a good example of how you have to look at both sides of the coin to know if something is truly good or bad though.

You don't own an electric car dildo breath. You own a plug-in hybrid.

Svetz, you are truly brain dead. Absolutely zero self-awareness.

Why do you think that? Chile, the U.S. and Australia have huge deposits of lithium.

lithium is already a defunct technology and will be superseded which means gobs of waste and huge battery packs from the retard wagons that will have to be disposed of.

We already figured out the recyclable bits and recycle it today. Jerry has an interesting video visiting one.

We? What role did you play in that? You have tuna fish for brains. You think your plug-in hybrid is an electric vehicle.

That could be, technology moves pretty fast these days. I suspect we'll see a mix of tech like VHS vs. Betamax for the next few decades.

Tee hee giggle. You suspect because vhs tape and windows vs apple. Tee hee hee

I'm not seeing your point. If a building can't accommodate enough solar during the day to charge the batteries to last through the night they just pull from the grid where other buildings have enough solar/battery to provide the energy and pay for it. I know, you're worried about all those ugly batteries? Well don't be! They can be wrapped up in sexy EVs. Let's say a town has 50,000 people with 50,000 EVs that each have a 100 kWh battery in them. if each car gave up 1 kWh overnight (~3 miles range), that's 50 MWh of power available. Owners can set how much it's acceptable to drain the battery and they get paid for it.

It's a pretty mobile battery!​

Not a pipe dream, they're called (virtual power plants) and already operational in a few states (although they use Tesla batteries rather than cars, that's still coming, I'm still waiting for Enphase to deliver their bidirectional charger as a massive free increase to my home battery size). There's a synergy with the grid infrastructure to having a distributed ESS.

Arg. You're supposed to smoke the crack, not the zip lock bag it came in. Seek medical attention immediately.

 

[fpgt72]

fpgt72, in my personal green wet dream energy comes from a mix renewable resources and technologies. (some not even envisioned yet)
IMO Nuclear and Lithium are renewable, keeping with my space theme I see a day when mining asteroids
for resources is a thing

this whole green drive away from fossil fuels is a investment in our future, with limited benefits to people
alive today, I get some would find that unpalatable even immoral to invest in something with no present
return, it may have to fall on governments to make it happen

which brings me to MTM98290's line.

MTM98290, what if the government did the math and found adding solar to the roofs of public buildings
would reduce the need to increase energy production facilities (power plants) and reduced the loads on
power transmission infrastructure (power lines), would that change your thinking?

PS: I may not agree with you, but I enjoy your posts.

Oh so things that don't exist. Will those work or be forced upon users?

 

[TommySr]

Oh so things that don't exist. Will those work or be forced upon users?

fpgt72, Americans are not good at the forced upon, IMO all these pie in the sky innovations are going
to come from businesses(making money), education(collages/universities/labs) or governments that
can make them types of investments without instant rewards.

 

[aenyc]

The Green Energy Myth
​

I don't know if you've been paying attention these last few decades, but the usual cadre of crimatologists, "activists," sustainable enslavement-pushing banksters and corrupt politicians are desperately trying to sell the public on the idea that windmills, solar panels and unicorn farts are a magical pixie dust capable of transforming the human population from greedy, fat-cat crapitalists raping the planet for fun and profit into peace-loving, Kumbaya communists living in perfect harmony with nature.

Believe it or not, they're lying!

Take the latest Oxford study I referred to above, for instance. Bearing the title "Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition," it starts by simply assuming the truth of the fundamental lie that the entire green myth is constructed upon: "Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change."

This is, of course, not true, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. (And again and again and again and again.)

But, after simply stating this bald-faced lie as fact, the Oxfordian boffins then have the gall to urinate on your face and tell you it's raining: "Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy."

As always, I encourage you to read the report for yourself to see how they fabricate the so-called "evidence" for this surprising "conclusion"—though I'm sure you can imagine most of their tricks before you even open the link. First, they abuse blatantly bias-prone models to "estimate" (read: make up) future energy system costs, which, they freely admit, "will change with time due to innovation, competition, public policy, concerns about climate change, and other factors."

Then, after gazing into their magical crystal ball and seeing whatever they want to see with regard to future costs, they use "probabilistic methods" to "view energy pathways through the lens of placing bets on technologies." I kid you not, this "empirically grounded" and totally "scientific" study tells us, in effect, that if we're betting men we should put all our chips on green . . . "green" energy, that is. Go on, read it for yourself.

But here's the rub: these types of "scientific" studies only come off as believable to the most credulous Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms out there, the type who get their news from CNN and believe everything Al Gore tells them. These pithy platitudes promising perfectly painless energy transitions—even when they are dressed up in the language of empiricism and bear the imprimatur of Oxford University—are not credible in the least to anyone with a technical background in these areas.

Indeed, the Oxford study and similar utopian predictions of green energy transitions rely on a stream of untenable assumptions and faulty logic. For example, as Manhattan Contrarian points out in his blog post on "Cost of the Green Energy Transition," the Oxford researchers take the downward price trend of lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries over the past two decades and extrapolate those figures out based on the assumption that they will continue falling indefinitely without limit. As the study even explicitly says, "We know of no empirical evidence supporting floor costs [on green technology deployment] and do not impose them."

This is so certifiably insane it's difficult to know where to begin.

 

[aenyc]

First, let's interrogate the actual economic argument here, shall we?

The researchers tip their hand when they show the current (2020) price of li-ion batteries as being about $100/kWh and "forecast" that it will drop to about $20/kWh by 2050. In actuality, the 2020 price for such batteries is (according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) about $350/kWh (see Figure ES-2), and those prices are predicted to drop to about $150/kWh by 2050. If that forecast is accurate, the actual 2050 price for li-ion batteries would still be 50% higher than the "current" price used in the Oxford study model.

The discrepancy between these figures, Manhattan Contrarian points out, "appears to lie mainly in elements of a real-world battery installation other than the core battery itself, like a building to house it, devices to convert AC to DC and back, grid connections, 'balance of plant,' and so forth." In other words, the study's authors didn't look in any way at the real-world cost of actually installing, connecting, using and maintaining these batteries; they simply looked at the raw cost of the battery itself and ignored the rest.

This methodology becomes even more problematic when you learn that Energy & Environmental Science actually published a study in 2018 estimating the real-world cost of installing and running a lithium-ion battery storage system capable of handling a US energy grid that ran on 80% wind and solar. Their conclusion? It would cost a staggering $2.5 trillion to get such a system up and running! Oddly, the Oxford study doesn't take these costs into account at all. They just tell you that the battery price will fall to $20/kWh and leave it at that.

And what of the materials required to construct these lithium-ion batteries and solar panels and windmills and other green energy components? In case you were under the impression that the components for these technologies just magically materialized out of fairy dust in an environmentally-friendly way and then disappeared back into the ether after these installations break down, here's a 72-minute reality check from Simon Michaux, an associate professor of geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, in which he argues that:

The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels, is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues.

Perhaps this is why, in point of fact, lithium prices are surging right now, with prices tripling in the last year in places like China, not plummeting as the Oxford study predicts.

But the green energy myth goes well beyond the argument from economic impracticality.

It isn't just that, in direct contradiction to the hogwash put out by the Oxford researchers and their ilk, such a transition will not save us trillions of dollars but actually cost us trillions of dollars.

And it isn't just that—as country after country after country is now finding out—the transition to green energy production is pushing people further into poverty as they struggle to pay their increasing energy bills.

It's not even that the green energy transition is provably already putting a strain on power grids that are struggling to keep up with electricity demand.

It's that these "green" energy systems are not really green at all. In fact, wide-scale implementation of these renewable power technologies is actively harmful to the environment.

Take those lithium-ion batteries we examined earlier. The lithium for these batteries comes from a mining process that is wreaking untold havoc on habitats around the world. In Chile, for example, a full 65% of the water in the region surrounding the Salar de Atacama salt flat is being consumed by lithium miners, who require 500,000 gallons of water for every tonne of lithium produced. And in Tibet, a toxic chemical leak from a lithium mine caused a mass die-off of fish and livestock in a nearby villlage, sparking mass protests.

And that's to say nothing about the bevy of toxic materials found in solar panels that leach into the environment and will eventually need to be disposed of. Or the long-known fact that wind turbines "take a toll on birds," contributing to hundreds of thousands of avian deaths every year in the US alone. Or the oft-neglected environmental destruction that will come from clearing the millions of acres of land that will be required to run the solar and wind farms of the Oxfordians increasingly dystopian vision.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, there is much more that could (and should!) be written about the green energy myth, but let's boil it down to a soundbite for those poor souls suffering from today's short attention span: So-called "green" energy is not about saving the planet. It's about controlling the planet.

 

[aenyc]

The Green Energy Reality​

​

I realize a certain portion of the population—having been programmed by half a century of over-the-top, anti-human propaganda—will have a single, predictable, knee-jerk reaction to anyone deconstructing the green energy myth: "You must be a Big Oil shill!"

It's particularly funny when the accusation is leveled at me, since I literally wrote the documentary on How Big Oil Conquered the World.

But even more to the point, I wrote the documentary on Why Big Oil Conquered the World, and those who have seen that documentary will know that the greatest trick the oligarchy ever pulled was convincing the public that all they were concerned with was oil. As those who delve deeply into the subject inevitably discover, the takeover of the world by these well-connected oiligarchs wasn't about oil at all. It was about power.

This is precisely why the Rockefellers have divested from oil and why Saudi Arabia is trying to pivot to their robot citizens and Neom nonsense and why BP and Exxon and all the other members of the oiligarchy are setting "net zero" pledges. It's because the green energy system of the future (and thus the global economy that relies on it) will be even more strictly controlled in the future, and those who are bringing this controlled, technocratic slave state of the future into reality are seeking to monopolize and control the resources of the earth.

To understand what is really happening here, we have to look past the low-level green energy propaganda that is meant for the fluoride-addled normies to lap up and look to the higher-level propaganda that is intended to bring the New World Order middle management up to speed on the new power paradigm. As usual, there's no better place to turn for precisely that type of propaganda than the pages of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a recent article on "The Green Upheaval," they plainly admit what the green energy push is really about: "Talk of a smooth transition to clean energy is fanciful: there is no way that the world can avoid major upheavals as it remakes the entire energy system, which is the lifeblood of the global economy and underpins the geopolitical order."

No, the green energy transition is not going to be a happy clappy cakewalk into a fantasy future, as the activists promise. And that particular rainbow will not lead to a multi-trillion-dollar pot of gold, as the Oxfordians promise. What it will do is radically upend the lives and livelihoods of every person on the planet by taking away the one thing that has done more than anything else in all of human history to empower the population to proclaim their independence from the oligarchs: access to cheap energy.

Yes, the renewable energy grid will utterly fail to provide the energy needed to power our modern postindustrial society. That's precisely the point. By making energy even more scarce, those with their hands on the energy spigot will have the ultimate control over society, deciding when, where and how to allocate scarce energy supplies to the public. Europeans who are wondering how they will be able to afford to heat their homes and businesses this winter are just starting to understand what this new "green" economy will really look like for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

It is not difficult to discern the contours of the world that these energy transition advocates are driving us towards. It is a world in which all of the things we take for granted—the ability to travel freely, to buy and sell independently, to heat our own homes and even to turn on a lightbulb—will be privileges carefully rationed by our neofeudal overlords.

Think you'll be able to control the thermostat in your own home once the new economic overlords have their "smart" "green" energy grid in place? Think again.

Think you'll be able to eat as you normally do once the green mafia is in power? Think again.

Think you'll be able to use your hard-earned digital energy credits to buy whatever you like or travel wherever you want in the technocratic tyranny of the future? Think again.

Welcome to the Green Leap Forward, where you will own nothing, live in a hovel, face the possibility of freezing to death every winter and struggle to make ends meet . . . but you'll be happy! After all, you'll be allowed to eat ze bugs and use the energy ration that the global government doles out for you each day. And if that's not enough, then you can keep warm by vigorously patting yourself on the back for helping protect humanity from the wrath of the weather gods. You're saving the earth!

 

[MTM98290]

fpgt72, Americans are not good at the forced upon,

We have been forced upon, for a long time, it just takes the right pre conditioning to get people to go along. Engineered problem>predetermined action>desired solution.

 

[aenyc]

We have been forced upon, for a long time, it just takes the right pre conditioning to get people to go along. Engineered problem>predetermined action>desired solution.

Spot on.
People are controlled by a false narrative that has been implanted in their mind.

How To Save The World | Minds

by James Corbettcorbettreport.comNovember 21, 2020Pop quiz: What's the most powerful weapon ever invented?The MOAB? you ask, quizzically. No...

www.minds.com

"
Story is the most powerful weapon. Narrative. Ideas presented in such a way as to provoke certain thoughts or actions.

With a gun you can kill a man. With a bomb you can kill a family. With a nuke you can level a city. But with a story you can control the world.

This is how billions of people around the world have been locked up as prisoners in their own homes this past year. Not because there is an inexhaustible supply of police thugs standing on every street corner ready to shoot anyone who steps outside of their home, but because a narrative has been constructed such that the vast majority want to stay home. Give a society the right narrative and they will gladly lock themselves inside their own prison and hand over the key.

This is why billions around the globe are prepared to roll up their sleeves for an experimental, unproven "vaccine" for a disease with a 99% survival rate. The masses have been given a narrative whereby this "vaccine" is going to deliver them from a deadly plague. It doesn't matter what counter-evidence is presented to them; the ones who take the vaccine are the righteous heroes of this story, and those who question the vaccines are the villains. (Like Svetz and the like and cLIEmate change - no matter how much counter evidence you give them they keep parroting the same crap over and over and over)

This is also why—as I'm at pains to point out over and over again in my #PropagandaWatch series—the powers that shouldn't be spend so much time, money and effort propagandizing the public. If the world could be ruled over simply by posting armed guards on every street corner and listening devices in every home, you better believe that those who seek to rule over you would do that instead. But how could they get the armed guards to police their fellow citizens? How could they get the snoops to listen in on their neighbors? Where would the enforcers come from? The population needs to be told a compelling story about why the rulers are ruling and why it is wrong to resist their rule. If such a story is secure in their minds, they will happily police themselves.

There is a flip side to this seemingly depressing insight, however. Yes, people can be tricked into enslaving themselves through propaganda and narrative manipulation. To a large extent, that explains the situation we find ourselves in today. But the inverse is also true. We can be freed by a narrative that helps us to break out of our mental prison. One storyteller with a compelling tale to tell can re-frame our collective reality in an instant, and the world will change all at once.

Sadly, it seems that the powers that shouldn't be are much more aware of this than we are.

This is why the Dutch army is targeting dissenting voices in the Netherlands.

This is why the Canadian military declared that they were going to target the Canadian public in the information war (but don't worry, they totally scrapped that plan).

This is why the British army has an entire cyber brigade dedicated to influencing public behavior online, as does the US military, the Israelis, the Chinese and Russians and every other major government in the world.

It is because the great resetters and the new world order agenda-setters recognize the power of story and they fear the rise of a powerful storyteller. They're afraid of dissenters coming along and disrupting their carefully constructed narrative. In the days of yore they would label those subverting their narrative control a heretic and burn them at the stake. Today they label them as agents of disinformation and seek to censor them out of existence. But the fear that motivates these responses is the same."

 

[TommySr]

it just takes the right pre conditioning to get people to go along

MTMT89290, or in this case the right salesman(the world), if it was just US capitalist or US government
deep state that was pushing the argument(global warming), not sure I would have been sold on the idea.
as we speak all industrial countries are looking at this issue to some degree.

because I'm north of 42nd parallel some global warming would be a good thing for me and mine.
as we seen this winter, we had 70's temperatures in January first time in my life I've seen that
and it was sweet . my heating costs this winter were the lower ever.

 

[aenyc]

MTMT89290, or in this case the right salesman(the world), if it was just US capitalist or US government
deep state that was pushing the argument(global warming), not sure I would have been sold on the idea.
as we speak all industrial countries are looking at this issue to some degree.

So you noticed that national governments are completely subservant to the globalist oligarchy? Congratulations! (As someone who speaks at least 6 languages (and together with ms we speak 10+), it amazed me how during covid the same propaganda was circulated in mainstream media of almost every country, paraphrased almost word for word).

 

[fpgt72]

fpgt72, Americans are not good at the forced upon, IMO all these pie in the sky innovations are going
to come from businesses(making money), education(collages/universities/labs) or governments that
can make them types of investments without instant rewards.

Look around you, americans will have a great many things forced upon them. As long as their belly is full they will grumble and go along with it.

 

[TommySr]

americans will have a great many things forced upon them.

fpgt72, that's one way to read it. myself I wonder what opportunities it offers the young.

 

[Checkthisout]

The idea is to get you paying more for energy.

Just as they have done with "housing".

They can chew up a larger percentage of your income into fixed costs. You either pay the power bill or without heat or necessities.

 

[fpgt72]

The idea is to get you paying more for energy.

Just as they have done with "housing".

They can chew up a larger percentage of your income into fixed costs. You either pay the power bill or without heat or necessities.

They also control you energy. Easy to cut you off, turn up your tstat whatever. In the end it is about control.

 

[D71]

My electric cost $1477 a year should I spend thousands to cut that out? That is about $123 a month. I’m running heat pump with electric emergency.

The UL inverter just by itself cost more

Is Green deal worth it? I have to be 100% code compliant. I still have tto pay electric company minimum of $42 or so for membership every month No matter what pump into grid which they rob me if try. I have to buy and install my own transformer to send power back into grid. Hahahaha Green deal is right shit ton money out of my bank …

How much is your average electric bill?

 

[aenyc]

The idea is to get you paying more for energy.

Just as they have done with "housing".

They can chew up a larger percentage of your income into fixed costs. You either pay the power bill or without heat or necessities.

Money is just means of control.
They do not actually care about it. They have access to infinite money spigot via printing press.