 |
|
I'm no energy expert, but that sounds absurd on the face of
Posted on: July 18, 2025 at 14:38:40 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72922
Member For:
21.64 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
it.
It also appears to me that the authors have a very poor grasp of economics. Indeed, if feels as though this was written by those of a socialist mindset and worldview.
Some glaring issues:
1. They seem to be assuming the false premise that the only change affecting the price of electricity will be the loss of the subsidies and the reduction in renewable energy sources and their replacement by (allegedly) far more expensive natural gas.
2. They ignore the cost of the federal subsidies, as if that is "free money" that has zero cost to consumers.
3. They ignore the cost of batteries or other necessary means of storing excess power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing to be used when the electricity demand exceeds th power being generated by those intermittent renewable sources.
4. They ignore the huge costs generated by the premature closing down of fossil fuel plants.
5. They ignore the likely shifts to more cost effective alternatives, such as the newest generation of smaller, safer nuclear plants that can even help in a huge way with the use of spent nuclear fuel and the savings and safety benefits of greatly reducing or even eliminating the long term disposal and storing of those highly radioactive waste products from earlier generation nuclear plants.
There are more issues to discuss, but that gives a brief outline of just some of the issues with their analysis.
It also appears to me that the authors have a very poor grasp of economics. Indeed, if feels as though this was written by those of a socialist mindset and worldview.
Some glaring issues:
1. They seem to be assuming the false premise that the only change affecting the price of electricity will be the loss of the subsidies and the reduction in renewable energy sources and their replacement by (allegedly) far more expensive natural gas.
2. They ignore the cost of the federal subsidies, as if that is "free money" that has zero cost to consumers.
3. They ignore the cost of batteries or other necessary means of storing excess power when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing to be used when the electricity demand exceeds th power being generated by those intermittent renewable sources.
4. They ignore the huge costs generated by the premature closing down of fossil fuel plants.
5. They ignore the likely shifts to more cost effective alternatives, such as the newest generation of smaller, safer nuclear plants that can even help in a huge way with the use of spent nuclear fuel and the savings and safety benefits of greatly reducing or even eliminating the long term disposal and storing of those highly radioactive waste products from earlier generation nuclear plants.
There are more issues to discuss, but that gives a brief outline of just some of the issues with their analysis.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
I'm no energy expert, but that sounds absurd on the face of - JeffB MU - 7/18 14:38:40