> In some respects this is the worst of both worlds.
> It’s disruptive of the current order but without
> building a better or more viable future one.
How does this make sense? If a previous-order way of doing something is better than some overhyped innovation -- say, coal-fired or nuclear steam plants for base-load electricity generation rather than unreliable "renewable" solar or wind -- how it is *worst* to revert to the better way of doing the task? Even if it doesn't address what the anticipated issues might be in 50 years, it's still better *right now* than the alternative.
Want to follow up on this aspect, which some commenters have brought out:
> Rather than looking forward to a new model, it’s about
> going back to an old 1970s style America of coal plants
> and gas guzzlers.
There's a clever sleight-of-hand going on here: today's coal plants have far fewer emissions than in 1970--even those built in 1970 or earlier which are still operating generally have scrubbers etc retrofitted. Similarly, the Trump administration rollback of fuel efficiency rules did not take them back to 1970 standards, but were instead an elimination of rules set by the Biden administration. In other words, a rollback to 2020, not to 1970.
Trump has taken actions that make a cargo cult out of coal -- ordering decades-old coal plants to keep running that have exceeded their useful life -- just as Democrats have more or less literally demonized coal.
What has been in extremely short supply among politicians: realistically assessing all of coal's tradeoffs and letting economic logic dictate the path forward.
The real question isn't between coal and renewables, but coal and natural gas. There's also a tradeoff in the near-term between operating costs and grid reliability, because natural gas turbines are now on 5-year backorder making it hard to scale up supply quickly and introducing the risk of brownouts, but a new natural gas plant is going to be much more cost-effective than an ancient coal plant.
My understanding is that some European nations have taken a basically suicidal approach to electricity generation, but even deep blue US states haven't gone nearly this far. It's just a question of the degree to which renewables are incentivized, on the margin.
Well... it's hard to know whose account to take at face value (I know--*nobody's*, right?) but this AP wire story is at least up front about how recent some of the standards are (I know II, they can't resist leading with global warming as if Mann's hockey stick weren't a proven fraud):
I am fairly confident in assuming that the ever-tightening standards aren't required for actual human flourishing and instead are intended to drive costs up and curtail supply; remember the similar flap over arsenic-in-water a while back?
Fair enough, but there's nothing remotely comparable to drones-in-warfare in the energy generation and distribution arena, so no--going back to favoring stable, proven steam turbine generation* for electricity base loads is not "fighting the last war" in any way that I can see.
----------------------
*Note there have been plenty of advances *in the particulars* of how coal fired and nuclear plants are actually designed and built. So, too, has there been in the field of directional drilling, so current exploitation of petroleum resources isn't just "the same as the 1980s" either.
Maybe it's better to think of it as different versus same, than new versus old.
For example, drones are new tech, and war at the moment has reverted to basically old trench warfare. The principles of trench warfare are the same as 100 years ago, though the equipment is different. Russia's problem was fighting the war initially with effective post-war tactics, but the situation changed.
So, regarding energy, coal and nuclear are different and better than the tools elites insist on using now, but the situation will change on us inevitably. Russia isn't digging 1915-style trenches and piling artillery at the front.
So, the principles of 1980s energy production are still useful, but it's going to have to look different on particulars than simply 1980s-style power plants and grids.
Coal is yesterday's fuel and we're not going tov run a 21st century economy on it. As someone above pointed out natural gas is more efficient.
Trump is being a Luddite on the matter, acting like it's still 1970. It isn't and it's dumb not to move forward with new technologies and stupid to cede production and development of that tech to China.
> In some respects this is the worst of both worlds.
> It’s disruptive of the current order but without
> building a better or more viable future one.
How does this make sense? If a previous-order way of doing something is better than some overhyped innovation -- say, coal-fired or nuclear steam plants for base-load electricity generation rather than unreliable "renewable" solar or wind -- how it is *worst* to revert to the better way of doing the task? Even if it doesn't address what the anticipated issues might be in 50 years, it's still better *right now* than the alternative.
Want to follow up on this aspect, which some commenters have brought out:
> Rather than looking forward to a new model, it’s about
> going back to an old 1970s style America of coal plants
> and gas guzzlers.
There's a clever sleight-of-hand going on here: today's coal plants have far fewer emissions than in 1970--even those built in 1970 or earlier which are still operating generally have scrubbers etc retrofitted. Similarly, the Trump administration rollback of fuel efficiency rules did not take them back to 1970 standards, but were instead an elimination of rules set by the Biden administration. In other words, a rollback to 2020, not to 1970.
Trump has taken actions that make a cargo cult out of coal -- ordering decades-old coal plants to keep running that have exceeded their useful life -- just as Democrats have more or less literally demonized coal.
What has been in extremely short supply among politicians: realistically assessing all of coal's tradeoffs and letting economic logic dictate the path forward.
The real question isn't between coal and renewables, but coal and natural gas. There's also a tradeoff in the near-term between operating costs and grid reliability, because natural gas turbines are now on 5-year backorder making it hard to scale up supply quickly and introducing the risk of brownouts, but a new natural gas plant is going to be much more cost-effective than an ancient coal plant.
My understanding is that some European nations have taken a basically suicidal approach to electricity generation, but even deep blue US states haven't gone nearly this far. It's just a question of the degree to which renewables are incentivized, on the margin.
Well... it's hard to know whose account to take at face value (I know--*nobody's*, right?) but this AP wire story is at least up front about how recent some of the standards are (I know II, they can't resist leading with global warming as if Mann's hockey stick weren't a proven fraud):
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/trump-administration-eases-limits-on-coal-plants-for-emitting-mercury-other-toxins/
I am fairly confident in assuming that the ever-tightening standards aren't required for actual human flourishing and instead are intended to drive costs up and curtail supply; remember the similar flap over arsenic-in-water a while back?
Fair enough, but there's nothing remotely comparable to drones-in-warfare in the energy generation and distribution arena, so no--going back to favoring stable, proven steam turbine generation* for electricity base loads is not "fighting the last war" in any way that I can see.
----------------------
*Note there have been plenty of advances *in the particulars* of how coal fired and nuclear plants are actually designed and built. So, too, has there been in the field of directional drilling, so current exploitation of petroleum resources isn't just "the same as the 1980s" either.
Maybe it's better to think of it as different versus same, than new versus old.
For example, drones are new tech, and war at the moment has reverted to basically old trench warfare. The principles of trench warfare are the same as 100 years ago, though the equipment is different. Russia's problem was fighting the war initially with effective post-war tactics, but the situation changed.
So, regarding energy, coal and nuclear are different and better than the tools elites insist on using now, but the situation will change on us inevitably. Russia isn't digging 1915-style trenches and piling artillery at the front.
So, the principles of 1980s energy production are still useful, but it's going to have to look different on particulars than simply 1980s-style power plants and grids.
If you're fighting the last war, you're losing.
Coal is yesterday's fuel and we're not going tov run a 21st century economy on it. As someone above pointed out natural gas is more efficient.
Trump is being a Luddite on the matter, acting like it's still 1970. It isn't and it's dumb not to move forward with new technologies and stupid to cede production and development of that tech to China.