ZeroGravitas

There was a global agreement to shift ocean transport from oil.

The US killed it.

The US and Israel attacked Iran causing chaos in oil markets and put it back on track.

https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-...

It's like that feeling of power you get from owning a gun that you only bought because you feared all the other people who owned guns.

"closer to the same" except one side has consistently promoted the building and sale of EVs in America.

If you were feeling generous you could credit then with the entire existence of modern EVs given their support of the nascent industry for decades in California.

But sure, let's focus on the mote in Democrat eyes and ignore the insanity across the aisle. That's what got us into this situation, so why stop now.

Some utilities didn't have direct market pressures to close coal because they were regulated and the regulator allowed them to recover costs plus a profit on top.

Putting the planet aside for a moment, the unnecessary death and illness they've inflicted on the human race will be staggering.

For point 6 a UCL study on Wind energy in the UK suggested that over the 13 year period they studied the new wind power had saved 14 billion in electricity costs, because it was cheaper than gas generation.

But it saved consumers 140 Billion by lowering demand for gas and so cutting prices.

So a 10x multiplier.

Apparently China makes 80% of their PVC from coal via the carbdide route. And use coal mine adjacent plants to make the electricity needed.

And that is 3x more carbon intensive than ethylene production.

Sound like a decent use case for a Carbon Border Adjustment to protect local business. But they apparently didn't want to make that argument.

Maybe it's a bad idea for some reason the journalist know and didn't feel like telling us.

Maybe it s a good idea for some reason that they didn't feel like telling us.

Costing less than the most expensive thing they replace is the interesting threshold.

That's evening peaker gas plants in most places. After batteries push gas out of that market they go on to morning peaks and so on.

Am I supposed to believe that a deputy executive editor at the Atlantic, one who was invited as an outside expert to comment on the tough question about what the shared national story might be was unaware that the word "patriotism" has some negative connotations?

They have more utility solar than California as of last year in absolute terms, they're second if you include distributed behind the meter solar which California has more of.

Texas also lead in absolute amounts of wind, gas and coal. They have a lot of generation.

I don't know what weird agenda politico has here but talking so much about how salt is used to make PVC while downplaying the other input of ethylene (made from imported oil and gas) feels really weird.

As does talking about various existing trade policies and carbon markets but not mentioning Carbon Border Adjustments.

What do you think Ellison is failing at?

He's clearly succeeding at destroying the checks and balances of media. And Weiss and Bilton are his tools.

Apparently the algorithm is:

1. Support an anti-intellectual fascist. 2. Have them cancel lots of basic science, run up debt and hand you part of the country's future income as tax cuts. 3. Use the tax cuts to do basic science privately 4. Get hailed as a hero of science

Chart showing predicted solar installs globally out to 2036

https://bsky.app/profile/solarchase.bsky.social/post/3mmypms...

Useful context: China, India and the continent of Africa each have roughly the same amount of people.

Look at the difference in area of solar deployment with that in mind.

Israeli newspaper quoting NYT article with sources within Israel intelligence confirms this:

> The Times reported that Barnea’s predecessor, Yossi Cohen, viewed regime change in Iran as unlikely and deemphasized the Mossad’s work on that project, instead working on ways to weaken the regime through sanctions and targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists.

> But Barnea has adopted the opposite approach, directing the agency’s energies toward regime change over the past year

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-frustrated-that...

From the abstract of your link 2:

> As indicated by the results: (1) Family welfare policies notably boost fertility, and the boosting effect is long-lasting

There appears to be a concerned effort to claim that incentivising raising children doesn't work.

Clearly the people with (control of) the money don't feel like spending it on this.

They claim they would have won even more without the cheating when they win.

There's no downside for them to make these claims and plenty of upside if it enables them to take control of elections, rile up their base, maybe provoke a violent insurrection or two.

Some of the original hype was similar to the solar in space hype and clearly being pushed by people who wanted funding to build rockets and were prepared to sell magic beans to pay for it.

That's fine, but that means the absolute value of all the coal and gas they burn matters more too.

This is their first model that will be rolled out in the EU and the US so they might be more likely to see faster charging EVs including some that would peak at nearly twice that speed.

We'd probably be in a very different world if everyone who worked in management or held a large stock holding in addictive cancer industries was jailed.

Instead the executives went in front of Congress in 1994 and swore under oath that they believe nicotine was not addictive:

https://youtu.be/A6B1q22R438

And all profited personally from that law breaking denial of basic facts that directly lead to pain and suffering for their customers.

From that you can see the future we now live in clearly laid out before you.

I wonder if they killed more people with cigarettes or with the anti-science movements they kick-started so they could kill more people with cigarettes?

The headline is bad for two reasons, for one it continues the trend of catastrophising anything to do with renewables which only benefits fascists who take money from fossil fuel interests to poison their populations in literal and metaphoric ways.

Secondly, time-shifting demand which the article discusses actually increases usage slightly, it just shifts it from peak congestion times to when it's cheaper. A tank of water heated at noon will have lost a small amount of energy by 6pm compared with one heated on demand. Slightly lower efficiency compensated by much lower cost.

As it's part of a general push for electrification again they're wanting people to use more electricity generally (though probably less energy due to the tragic inefficiency of non-electric options).

I saw someone claim recently that this article was part of an AstroTurf campaign by coal to link them to the Internet.

Is that the context on why it's posted?

Some staggering context to this:

> research indicates that emissions from uneconomically dispatched coal plants — coal plants that run when cheaper resources are available — cost communities $13–$26 billion in health costs each year. These costs are 13 times greater than what consumers are paying for that electricity, which is close to $1–$2 billion per year. Between 2015 and 2023, communities have had to pay $236 billion in overall added health costs.

https://rmi.org/resources/how-uneconomic-coal-plants-are-tak...

Your comment, as appropriate for a culture war is both subtly misleading and also just flat out wrong.

Quote from your own article:

> And if we look at the sum of utility-scale and small-scale solar, California remains ahead.

The more subtle misdirection is obvious from the first sentence:

> Texas, which already leads the country in electricity generation from natural gas, coal and wind, has passed California to become the leader in utility-scale solar.

So they lead on gas, coal, wind and (utility) solar in absolute terms. Which points to them being big and/or power hungry rather than particularly green.

Important to call this out as fans of hands off government highlight Texas as their champion for renewables rollout when they are solidly mid-ranking by percentage. And they had government support for wind under previous Republican governers and all but one federal governments.

Not by percentage. They're just bigger and generate more electricity total.

So you could flip the stat and say they produce more fossil energy than any other state.

I can't quickly find 2025 stats but in recent years they've been 50% higher than the next state in both coal and gas fired electricity (in absolute terms).

Wikipedia has tables sortable by column by source by total and percentage from 2022 to get a rough idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...

Texas was 33% or so wind plus solar last year. There are 6 states who had a higher percentage just from wind 3 years ago.

Your existing demand is not flat. Not flat over a single day, nor a single week nor a single year.

So you already have some spare capacity on the system.

If your demand peak was summer air con, then adding the solar makes the system more stable. This can be seen in a few grids that issue less grid warnings in summer now.

That article is from 2011.

Wind power had dropped in price about 70% since then. Notably going from being more expensive than fossil fuels to substantially cheaper.

In Australia conservatives with solar on their own roof continue to complain about renewables generally. It's just a weird cultural thing for some people.

Texas barely scrapes into the top ten red states by percentage of wind and solar, despite its ideal geography.