|
Every time I look at something you quote, it's from a group that's dedicated to this goal of zero carbon that simply isn't feasible with today's technology. Of course they say it is.
But their approach is already multiplying energy costs and reducing reliability. That much we see - no study is necessary. Read the NERC site if you don't believe the reliability part.
And adding millions of EVs - it just doesn't make sense - both from a manufacturing perspective and a where will the electricity come from perspective, since current policy changes are already causing instability without a large number of EVs. And the more unreliable pieces you put into the grid, the more backup you need.
Anything I quote will somehow connect to something you won't like, I'm certain. Your source said the Heritage Foundation was simply a front for oil companies. I doubt it is, but there's no sense in playing this game because you're only going to repeat what they repeat, no matter who I quote. I hadn't planned on quoting the Heritage Foundation, but they have written about this issue.
And I'm not going to take seriously studies done by groups created to lobby for these green billions our government throws out there like candy these days.
So, we might as well not argue. I think your side is a religion, and I'm an agnostic on the issue. You have to convince me that it's worth spending trillions to convert something that was already working just fine. I don't have to convince you of anything - you're the one who is adamant that it has to be done this minute at any cost, no matter how many people are hurt.
The US has been close to energy independence in recent years, but the current administration has gutted investment and development and because of that, I worry that our economy will be in full depression within a few years. Mostly because of energy costs and unreliability and China putting the squeeze on when it's time.
|