If there is going to be a continued push for wind, solar, battery, etc. (whatever makes up the non-nuclear, carbon-free energy portfolio), then there should be priority on supplying power to those (largely rural) area closest to the generation and then send the surplus power to the areas further away (namely urban). Can this work in theory or practice? Probably not. But my observation is that those clamoring most for renewables and pushing policies that reduce grid reliability are concentrated in urban areas (and are often wealthier), yet most renewable generation is in rural areas due to the vast amount of land required. Let them reap what they sow. Maybe when their lights are out more than most they will see the error of their ways. Unfortunately, the urban poor would be collateral damage in this scheme (not that the green crowd really cares about the poor anyway).
Yet the renewable community simply does not listen. Compare the higher grades on this map to the areas in the most danger of a blackout. It appears you need to accept unreliable power to be a good RTO in their eyes.
Trying to reason with a subhuman species is known to be futile. Those who know how to comb their hair but fail to comprehend the role of the carbon molecule in life meets the requirement to be classified as subhuman.
Truthfully there are two problems with our electrical system as well as there being two solutions that would solve those problems.
The solution: A free market would focus on only reliability and price, the only factors that matter.
The problem: we are currently ruled by asinine, destructive environmental regulations and the costs are driven by self-severing profiteering.
The FERC commissioner's description of future reliability threats are so intense it's hard to believe it's real life. Buckle up
If there is going to be a continued push for wind, solar, battery, etc. (whatever makes up the non-nuclear, carbon-free energy portfolio), then there should be priority on supplying power to those (largely rural) area closest to the generation and then send the surplus power to the areas further away (namely urban). Can this work in theory or practice? Probably not. But my observation is that those clamoring most for renewables and pushing policies that reduce grid reliability are concentrated in urban areas (and are often wealthier), yet most renewable generation is in rural areas due to the vast amount of land required. Let them reap what they sow. Maybe when their lights are out more than most they will see the error of their ways. Unfortunately, the urban poor would be collateral damage in this scheme (not that the green crowd really cares about the poor anyway).
Agree. It’s all fun and games for wealthy urban liberals.
Yet the renewable community simply does not listen. Compare the higher grades on this map to the areas in the most danger of a blackout. It appears you need to accept unreliable power to be a good RTO in their eyes.
https://www.rtoinsider.com/49346-aceg-transmission-report-card-grades/
ALL CAPS RANT, EXCEPT I WANT MORE MORE MORE!
Thanks bud, next week should be a good one!
Trying to reason with a subhuman species is known to be futile. Those who know how to comb their hair but fail to comprehend the role of the carbon molecule in life meets the requirement to be classified as subhuman.
Truthfully there are two problems with our electrical system as well as there being two solutions that would solve those problems.
The solution: A free market would focus on only reliability and price, the only factors that matter.
The problem: we are currently ruled by asinine, destructive environmental regulations and the costs are driven by self-severing profiteering.