The WEF King ascends to the British throne

submitted by cottoneyejoe from (dossier.substack.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The current California goals are untenable and extremely unlikely to be tenable by the cut-off date.

Even if that's true, it doesn't imply that making all attempts will be "economically crippling". Moving electricity production, and transportation where possible to zero emissions genuinely reduces the costs. The manufacturing of cars has negligible greenhouse emissions compared to the running of those vehicles.

Wind and solar have similar demands and the current market simply cannot sustain that, prices will increase dramatically for cars and electricity

Depending on geopolitics, you might have to ramp up extraction of some rare earths to increase production of PV solar. Wind turbines are made of pretty common materials. Structurally iron, mostly. Fibreglass for the blades. You use a bit of copper in the generator.

But putting them up doesn't hurt the economy. Worst case scenario, you have cheaper power for most of the time, and fire up the fossil fuel plants to fill some gaps, at the same price as now.

Who's modelling are you relying on for your claim that "prices will increase dramatically for cars and electricity"? Or is this fear mongering without basis?

The only power source capable of meeting economic demand is Nuclear which will not be built due to too many hippies in California.

What do you claim is the limit to wind? I'm not a geologist, by my impression of California is that it doesn't have the geological stability for nuclear to be as good a solution there as it is in other places. Although FAIK, there may be sites inland that have sufficient stability.

What will happen to California in the 2030's will be a rampant and flagrant disregard to the rules by anyone in the lower classes as they'll literally be unable to afford cars ...

Color me skeptical. This reads like chicken-little fear mongering. Show me the economic modelling.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Moving to zero-emissions is desirable and should be a goal however, as said it should be done where possible. Moving to zero-emissions too quickly and before the technology and infrastructure has sufficiently progressed to the point where it doesn't create an adverse economic effect or multiple spill over effects increasing emissions in other areas will result in further difficulties decreasing the emissions in the long term.

Limit on wind is wind. Climate change may change wind patterns and make current wind farms irrelevant while shifting the patterns elsewhere. I have nothing against wind energy per say as there are places it should be developed however it's an inefficient use of government resources as nuclear is far more effective and also produces zero emissions. One nuclear powerplant can easily provide the power requirements of a small city where you'd need hundreds of turbines to accomplish the same result.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographic/

Geological stability is not a valid prerequisite for nuclear power plants if they are designed well. I won't lie to you and say the risks of incompetence aren't high. It's smart to build them as far from inhabited areas as is feasible. However. The risk of accident is low provided they are built and maintained correctly. California already has some without incident but I believe they have largely shut due to age.

Prices of energy will increase greatly due to demand increasing. The cost of electric cars and hydrogen cars are both greatly higher than gasoline cars. Increased cost of vehicles and transportation costs will result in increased prices across the board in the same way fuel costs effect prices now.

If we were talking in timescales of, ban gas powered cars by 2050. I'd agree that is a more tenable proposition. To do so in 8 years will not work for California. The state is unable to manage its own failing infrastructure it can't be expected to build new infrastructure in time.

I think ultimately this means the hydrogen fuel cell car will be the car of choice as it's somewhat better than electric for a number of practical reasons and the infrastructure for electric cars won't be there in time. But the hydrogen fuel car is massively expensive in comparison. New models of hydrogen cars have a cost almost double that of traditional gasoline cars at the low end. Eventually the fuel manufacture costs will end up being lower than gasoline but the economies of scale aren't there yet. Plus with how Californians drive they'll be exploding constantly.