One renewable energy source ignored in this article is hydro. With the melting polar ice caps anticipated by Global Warming-Due-to-Mankind Alarmists, I expected them to propose more power dams upstream from current dams, to take advantage of greater rainfall volumes due to the melted polar ice. Even without the additional water, those new hydro dams would almost always be operational, thus reliable, unlike wind (calm days without wind) and solar (clouds, nightfall) power sources.
How about stop assuming something that isn’t true. Did YOU read the story?
I did, and that’s where I read this: “California and New York are expected to be the most attractive states for developers due to the size of the markets and their government mandates to attain 100% clean energy.”
Go nitpick a Lefty for once. It’s actually easier and it would reveal independent thought out of you for once.
We are reading between the lines; i.e. to press for adoption of ‘renewables’ is equivalent to pressing for elimination of fossil based fuels. And to do so within the context of a “Climate” article is to indirectly press for government control of our lives through taxation for our carbon emissions.
PS OT: how many aspects of the replacement plan for ACA that I previously mentioned in hundreds of posts here were mentioned yesterday in Trump’s announcement of an ACA replacement plan? What is Biden’s plan? M4A?
One renewable energy source ignored in this article is hydro. With the melting polar ice caps anticipated by Global Warming-Due-to-Mankind Alarmists, I expected them to propose more power dams upstream from current dams, to take advantage of greater rainfall volumes due to the melted polar ice. Even without the additional water, those new hydro dams would almost always be operational, thus reliable, unlike wind (calm days without wind) and solar (clouds, nightfall) power sources.
Alternate Headline: “States that Ban Fossil Fuels Surprise Everyone with More Renewable Energy”.
How about this story: “State without electricity mandates everyone buy an electric car.”
How about “read the entire story and comment on something besides the headline”?
How about stop assuming something that isn’t true. Did YOU read the story?
I did, and that’s where I read this: “California and New York are expected to be the most attractive states for developers due to the size of the markets and their government mandates to attain 100% clean energy.”
Go nitpick a Lefty for once. It’s actually easier and it would reveal independent thought out of you for once.
We are reading between the lines; i.e. to press for adoption of ‘renewables’ is equivalent to pressing for elimination of fossil based fuels. And to do so within the context of a “Climate” article is to indirectly press for government control of our lives through taxation for our carbon emissions.
PS OT: how many aspects of the replacement plan for ACA that I previously mentioned in hundreds of posts here were mentioned yesterday in Trump’s announcement of an ACA replacement plan? What is Biden’s plan? M4A?