The Tories know they are going to loose the next election anyway. Obviously they are not going to make it a crime, they rather cash in any built good connections with the fossil fuel industry, as their policy has pissed of most of the other industries really badly already. Since Labour is going to do some unpopular climate related policy, this gives the Tories a strong ally to help them out and finance a massive campaign againt Labour.
MIT's estimate of about $73/MWh for renewable+transmission is low. It appropriately estimates amortization costs, but purchasing from a transmission operator will always come with a markup. Not much (utilities don't usually behave like corporations), but enough to be significant.
MIT's price for renewable+storage at $135/MWh seems high, too. Lazard calculates LCOE for wind+storage at $42-114/MWh and for solar+storage at $46-102/MWh.
I'm still a big fan of HV transmission, as it enables renewable generation to take advantage of cheap land and/or terrain advantages (high wind speed in the Midwest, concentrated solar in the South, geothermal in the West). But I think we'll still see a lot of local utilities just get batteries and call it a day.
I'm surprised the EPA has any teeth to do anything these days with how much the Reds have blocked anything they try to do to improve the health and safety of citizens.
Most of us are not scientists or have a good handle on the latest climate research. We have to trust in what scientists tell us that climate change is real and is something we need to worry about. In that sense, acceptance of science relies on people's beliefs.
This kind of research is just trying to measure the nature of people's climate opinions, which people tend to think of in terms of their beliefs.
The profit margin may be lower, but I don't see how fossil fuels could continue to maintain that margin as renewables undercut them. What utility would run a more expensive generator than a less expensive one, all else equal? Expected profit is higher from a wind farm that can continue to run for decades than a coal plant you have to shutter a partway through its lifespan because new, cheaper energy is available and grid stability functions are taken over by batteries instead of spinning turbines.
Can't really defend against some backwards legislature passing a law that says, "you can only use coal stoves to heat your house" or something, but it seems like a rear guard action that's fighting a fundamental shift in how we generate energy. If renewables are cheaper, much of the world will just go with that, which is what will drive most of the transition.
It is definitely a rearguard action, but it is a big enough deal that it has the potential to slow decarbonization enough to push temperatures outside of the range where we're reasonably assured of a civilization-supporting planet.
I mean, they'll be fucked just as much by climate change as the rest of us. That fact will not change once the real effects of climate change set in regardless of what definition they use.
Yeah, trying to make it about the environment is nice in theory, but all it means is that if it's environmentally friendly, these people will still be happy to abuse animals. I mean, sure, being good for the environment is a plus, but it's not the reason I don't eat meat or milk.
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
Hot