Across America, clean energy production is being banned faster than it is being built

[CitizenVectron]

Across America, clean energy plants are being banned faster than they're being built

WWW.USATODAY.COM

---

The clock is ticking toward a deadline to meet renewable-energy standards. But USA TODAY's analysis finds local governments banning wind turbines, solar plants.

 

 

Quote

A nationwide analysis by USA TODAY shows local governments are banning green energy faster than they’re building it. 

 

At least 15% of counties in the U.S. have effectively halted new utility-scale wind, solar, or both, USA TODAY found. These limits come through outright bans, moratoriums, construction impediments and other conditions that make green energy difficult to build. 

 

Quote

In the past decade, about 180 counties got their first commercial wind-power project. But in the same period, more than twice as many blocked wind development. And while solar power has found more broad acceptance, 2023 was the first year to see almost as many individual counties block new solar projects as the ones adding their first project. 

 

The result: Some of the nation’s areas with the best sources of wind and solar power have now been boxed out.  

 

Quote

“It’s 15% of the most highly productive areas to develop wind and solar,” he said. “Our overall goals are going to be difficult to achieve if the answer is ‘No’ in county after county.”

 

When the political culture war comes for the survival of civilization.

[SuperSpreader]

Y'all Qada

[marioandsonic]

Party of small government 

[Mr.Vic20]

The meek shall inherit the Earth, because their backward ways will have killed off most of us. 

[TUFKAK]

It’s cool, Jeebus is coming back anyway but only if we force more births. Gods plan shall not be questioned ya Heathens!

[Chairslinger]

"Blah blah blah free market. Blah blah blah let the market decide."

 

*Renewable energy becomes economically competitive*

 

"Wait, no, not like that!"

[stepee]

lmao

[Jason]

3 hours ago, marioandsonic said:

Party of small government 

 

Oh this is an extremely bipartisan issue in America. You've got the Hulk out there crusading against nuclear power. Rich people of all stripes hate ocean wind farms because they'll have to see them from their coastal mansions, or even if the wind farm will be too far out for them to see. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Oh this is an extremely bipartisan issue in America. You've got the Hulk out there crusading against nuclear power. Rich people of all stripes hate ocean wind farms because they'll have to see them from their coastal mansions, or even if the wind farm will be too far out for them to see. 

 

Which Hulk are we referring to? Not to put to fine a point on it but anybody against nuclear energy at this stage is a dumb dumb.

[Jason]

Just now, GeneticBlueprint said:

Which Hulk are we referring to? Not to put to fine a point on it but anybody against nuclear energy at this stage is a dumb dumb.

 

 

He's also trying to NIMBY the redevelopment of a church in Manhattan via abuse of historical preservation laws. The church has a tiny membership that can't sustain the building they're in anymore and it needs a lot of repairs, so instead they want to sell it to a developer who'll build a bunch of housing on the site and also build them a new church space in the building as part of the agreement.

[GeneticBlueprint]

43 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

He's also trying to NIMBY the redevelopment of a church in Manhattan via abuse of historical preservation laws. The church has a tiny membership that can't sustain the building they're in anymore and it needs a lot of repairs, so instead they want to sell it to a developer who'll build a bunch of housing on the site and also build them a new church space in the building as part of the agreement.

 

NGL I was suspecting Norton for some reason.

[Chadatog]

1 hour ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

NGL I was suspecting Norton for some reason.

For a moment I mixed up Eric Bana with Jim Caviezel

[Remarkableriots]

Indian Point 2 shuts down; NY's renewable energy transition  - Riverkeeper

WWW.RIVERKEEPER.ORG

---

Environmental groups with Beyond Indian Point campaign mark the shutdown and highlight how renewable energy and efficiency are replacing Indian Point One of...

Quote

An independent research brief by Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy found that recent deployment, current development, and projected growth of renewable generation and energy efficiency will contribute nearly 45,000 GWh annually by 2025, almost three times the 16,000 GWh currently supplied by Indian Point. The analysis shows that New York did not and does not need to build new gas plants to keep the lights on or to meet climate goals as Indian Point shuts down.

 

West Park Presbyterian Church Will Not Be Demolished, For Now - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

The West Park Presbyterian Church has put on hold plans to tear down the landmark building after Mark Ruffalo and Matt Damon rallied to save it.

Quote

“I’m ecstatic,” said Gale Brewer, a City Council member who represents the Upper West Side and who helped make the building a landmark, over the objections of the congregation. She said she hoped the hold could lead to someone else buying the building with plans not to tear it down.

 

[GeneticBlueprint]

You know I can sympathize with historical preservation. But in a crowded city with a housing shortage for a building without much architectural importance that isn't used much... Not really going to spend energy trying to be pro-life for a building. It especially irks me reading that two dudes who have probably never attended a service there are the people who are the face of its preservation while the people who actually use the building are begging to tear it down so they can continue their purposes in a building they're more comfortable in.

[TyphoidHater]

Around me it's solar/windmill farms AND battery installations being bann..........put on moratorium 🙄

[finaljedi]

Ohio lets the counties ban solar farms at their discretion.  I live in one of the more conservative redneck counties in the state, big solar farm going in less than a quarter mile away.

[TwinIon]

I can almost understand not liking wind (even though I kinda like wind farms), but banning solar is outright petty. It's kind of terrible how knee-jerk reactionary American conservatives have become to anything "green." It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

In slightly more complicated news about renewable energy, the "duck curve" in CA is getting pretty deep, to the point that it's causing some problems.

 

The duck curve shows the demand remaining after subtracting variable renewable generation. Midday, when solar generation is at its highest, the whole state is getting close (and occasionally hitting) 0 demand. On the one hand, it's great! It means the state is being run entirely on renewable energy! On the other hand, you can see that most of the time that isn't the case, and as the bottom of the duck gets flatter, the economic realities for the gas and coal plants that provide that variable demand get more and more stark. It's one thing when you have to ramp down your power production in the middle of the day, but we're closing in on not needing them at all during daylight hours, which makes that a much more difficult business.

 

Hopefully we can put more resources into energy storage and other non-variable renewables.

 

In one more bit of CA energy news, it seems many of the same Dems that voted for income based electricity charges are now trying to repeal it before it goes into effect this year. Electricity bills here in San Diego have been a real pain point for many, and I'd personally be happy if that repeal goes through.

[Remarkableriots]

33 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I can almost understand not liking wind (even though I kinda like wind farms), but banning solar is outright petty. It's kind of terrible how knee-jerk reactionary American conservatives have become to anything "green." It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

In slightly more complicated news about renewable energy, the "duck curve" in CA is getting pretty deep, to the point that it's causing some problems.

 

The duck curve shows the demand remaining after subtracting variable renewable generation. Midday, when solar generation is at its highest, the whole state is getting close (and occasionally hitting) 0 demand. On the one hand, it's great! It means the state is being run entirely on renewable energy! On the other hand, you can see that most of the time that isn't the case, and as the bottom of the duck gets flatter, the economic realities for the gas and coal plants that provide that variable demand get more and more stark. It's one thing when you have to ramp down your power production in the middle of the day, but we're closing in on not needing them at all during daylight hours, which makes that a much more difficult business.

 

Hopefully we can put more resources into energy storage and other non-variable renewables.

 

In one more bit of CA energy news, it seems many of the same Dems that voted for income based electricity charges are now trying to repeal it before it goes into effect this year. Electricity bills here in San Diego have been a real pain point for many, and I'd personally be happy if that repeal goes through.

Quote

"AB 205 should have had a very robust conversation," said Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks.

Irwin noted the legislation was part of a budget trailer bill, which is a mechanism the legislature and governor use to quickly pass new laws on a fast-tracked timeline with little to no public discussion. She believes having this be part of a huge trailer bill was not appropriate.

 

"Quite frankly, we're upset," said Zach MacQuarrie, a spokesman for the Predictable Power Coalition, which supports AB 205 and what's known as the graduated income fixed charge rule. "These folks voted for the legislation and now they want to take this immediate financial relief away from these communities."

So Dems say they want to help low-income families until they have to pay more.

[CitizenVectron]

58 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I can almost understand not liking wind (even though I kinda like wind farms), but banning solar is outright petty. It's kind of terrible how knee-jerk reactionary American conservatives have become to anything "green." It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

In slightly more complicated news about renewable energy, the "duck curve" in CA is getting pretty deep, to the point that it's causing some problems.

 

The duck curve shows the demand remaining after subtracting variable renewable generation. Midday, when solar generation is at its highest, the whole state is getting close (and occasionally hitting) 0 demand. On the one hand, it's great! It means the state is being run entirely on renewable energy! On the other hand, you can see that most of the time that isn't the case, and as the bottom of the duck gets flatter, the economic realities for the gas and coal plants that provide that variable demand get more and more stark. It's one thing when you have to ramp down your power production in the middle of the day, but we're closing in on not needing them at all during daylight hours, which makes that a much more difficult business.

 

Hopefully we can put more resources into energy storage and other non-variable renewables.

 

In one more bit of CA energy news, it seems many of the same Dems that voted for income based electricity charges are now trying to repeal it before it goes into effect this year. Electricity bills here in San Diego have been a real pain point for many, and I'd personally be happy if that repeal goes through.

 

It's almost like POWER GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION IS A PUBLIC GOOD THAT SHOULD BE MANAGED BY THE STATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.

 

I think my province might be the last place in Canada/US that has the following all run by the government:

- Landline phone monopoly (and competes in market for mobile)

- Power generation and distribution (hydro, coal, solar, wind, geo, n.gas, and now planning nuclear)

- Energy (natural gas)

- Vehicle insurance (and competes in market for home/other insurance)

- Water

 

It also competes in the market for:

- Internet

- TV

 

It shouldn't be surprising that we have the lowest rates in Canada (and often, the continent) for all of the above, despite being a province of only 1.2 million people in an area the size of Texas. Having government handle large issues for the public good is a very, very good thing. And all of the above places have strong unions and pay well, resulting in a very large public sector.

[TUFKAK]

31 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Godless antifa commie propaganda 

Spoiler

 

[TwinIon]

32 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

So Dems say they want to help low-income families until they have to pay more.

I don't really disagree with this so much in general, but AB205 was not a great way of going about it.

 

For those unfamiliar, AB205 introduced fixed rate electricity rates based on income and power provider. In SDGE territory, it worked out to $24 /month for the lowest group, up to $128/month for the highest. This money would then lower the electricity rate.

 

That seems reasonable enough on the face of it, but it feels predatory to anyone who uses very little electricity, such as those with home solar. We invested a lot of money to get solar in order to lower our monthly bills. Introducing a fixed charge will roughly double our power bill, greatly reducing the ROI and the value of solar systems like ours and greatly lowering the incentive to install new solar or new batteries. Meanwhile, I know wealthy families that spend so much on electricity that the lower rates will greatly lower their bills, even after the fixed charge.

 

I'm fine with a progressive electricity solar pricing scheme, but this just felt like a way for utilities to go after home solar owners like me, without actually affecting those who use the most electricity and without actually saving the lowest income people very much money.