Sounds great, the idea of getting us to an all-electric fleet, doesn't it.
And, it WILL be great for the climate.
But, again, where's the juice coming from, since we will need NINETY PERCENT MORE OF IT in 2050 than today.
I was asking this question rhetorically late last year, and got this moron answer from "Devin Nunes' Lawsuits":
Solar panels, wind turbines and hydropower, you neuron.
— Devin Nunes’ Lawsuits🗃️ (@LawsuitsDevin) December 24, 2021
You might want to look at how sharply the percentage of coal used for electrical generation has dropped in the last 10 years.
You don’t like clean air?
To which I responded:
YOU might want to look at HOW MUCH MORE electricity we'll need for electric cars.
— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) December 24, 2021
YOU might want to look at how much of the fall in cola was due to natural gas, also a FOSSIL FUEL.
I voted GREEN for prez starting in 2004.
1/x
And then part two of the thread, with the link above:
Specifics? We'll need 90 PERCENT MORE ELECTRICITY IN 2050.
— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) December 24, 2021
So, again, Nunes Lawsuits, if you want to be something more than #BlueAnon ... where's that coming from???
https://t.co/NNmiSqmKxU
And, there you go.
And, yes, I saw "cola" in my first tweet and forgot to edit when I realized I would have to break into two.
The link mentions the word "nuclear." People concerned about climate change shy away from it. Greens hate it.
But, that's why I raise this.
Now, not all of that 90 percent increase in need is due to electric cars. Probably, they're about 50 percentage points of it. But, if you want electric heat replacing gas heat, and other green things, we're at 90 percent.
Oh, and hydropower isn't totally green, and in the US, current hydropower is going to fall, fall, fall, as anybody familiar with the Desert Southwest in particular knows.
Right now, renewables are about 20 percent of our power. So, they have to increase to cover all current electricity alone, they need to increase by 4x. For that plus that 90 percent increase, they'd have to go up 7.5 times. And, on the "reliability" issue, add MASSIVE battery storage.
Again, don't see this happening without the "n-word." And, contra Nunes' Lawsuits, growth was a little below 3 percent, about 2.6 percent, before 2005, and much lower since then due to electric conservation. Now, compounded, we might get there, BUT? Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
And, while I don't shy away from nuclear power, we face NIMBY-ism on both plant siting and toxic waste. And, growing up in the Four Corners, I'm quite familiar with uranium mining's dirty legacy.
