Monday, July 18

"Law of Totally Unpredictable Consequences," part gazillion

"Renewable energy" is, like, so cool, y'know?  An' we reeeally need to stop producing oil and gas and coal and those other icky things cuz, like, they all make CO2.  Which is, like, killing our planet with global warming.  [Hears murmurs of disagreement]  Oh no, wait, sorry!  Global climate change.  Wow, you use one script for years and then they change it!

"Anyway, we need to stop all those other energy thingies and go completely to renewables.  That is just so cool!"
You've all heard this kind of earnest touchy-feely talk from libs and Democrats and damn near every student.  And it's wonderful, really.

Well, until you ask 'em a question or two.  Because when moonbat liberals talk about "renewable energy" they don't mean hydro--which is indeed totally renewable and non-polluting, but which your so-called betters in government and the Left have barred from expanding.

And they don't mean wood--which is indeed totally renewable, but which emits the dreaded CO2.

So for now that leaves solar and wind.  Which leads to the first question:  Since both are intermittent, how do you store energy for times when it's night and there's no wind?

Be prepared for blank stares.

In fact, don't bother asking.  Most of 'em have never considered that problem and will just be upset.

But of course that hasn't kept libs and "watermelons" from ramming renewables down our throats.  Fried and bashed songbirds and eagles are no problem for zealous idealists.

Unfortunately, ideas have consequences.  And in Australia they're finding out:  Jumping on the "renewables" bandwagon, a few years ago liberal pols in the Oz government ordered dozens of coal and gas plants shut down, confident that renewables would take over.

Unfortunately the dumb pols forgot to consult that harsh mistress, reality--who can get pretty cross when that happens.  They ran short of electricity, which left utilities in a bind:  Do we simply turn off the juice to thousands of our customers on a rotating basis (called "the Venezuela solution") or do we pay ten times the usual rate for electricity to snag the last kilowatt to ensure our customers don't go dark in the middle of winter?

They chose Plan B.  And to do that they had to pay up to $14,000 per "MWh."

Of course if you don't know what a "MWh" is, you don't know how big a hit it is to have to pay $14,000 for one, eh?  But knowing how supply and demand work you can probably guess that it's more than the usual rate, right?  So maybe, what, ten times more?

Uh, no.  The usual cost of wholesale electricity is around $100 per MWh.  So utilities that were forced to scramble for supply to keep their customers from freezing had to pay 140 times the usual rate.

Moonbat:  "Eh, they'll probably just absorb that extra cost.  Because all companies--including public utilities--want to be socially responsible!"

Oh certainly, Snowflake.  Companies never pass costs through to customers.  Or taxes either.  Idiot.

But don't worry, citizen--even though your emperor had his EPA pass a rule that forced generating companies to shut down 187 coal-fired powerplants, we can't possibly have a shortage of electricity here.  Because the laws of supply and demand don't apply here, see?  Besides, we've got way more electrical capacity than we need.  [That's sarcasm, btw] 

And anyway, before enlightened Democrats elected the emperor the first time, he promised that "under my plan the cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket," so when the cost of electricity does that--because of his EPA order that killed 187 coal-fired plants--he'll just be honoring his solemn promise.  Who could possibly be upset about that?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home