2283
()            STUPID  S.O.B.  
posted ago by MeSewCorny ago by MeSewCorny +2284 / -1
Comments (120)
sorted by:
75
c_programmer 75 points ago +75 / -0

Well no shit. If it were cheaper companies that did it would be more successful without any intervention.

41
Jujubees 41 points ago +41 / -0

Absolutely this. The only way it can compete is for oil and gas prices to increase until they’re unaffordable.

21
OPsMom 21 points ago +21 / -0

That's the plan.

12
AerialRush 12 points ago +12 / -0

Well with $10/gallon fuel, suddenly it will.

6
Mashiki 6 points ago +6 / -0

Problem for them is that the world will come to an effective screeching halt when gas hits $7.75/Gal(~$2.95/L here in Canada). And in my neck of the woods, gas is already over $2/L, with a few just a bit under at $1.94/L($5.675gal xe adjusted)

2
Oppenheimer_DOW 2 points ago +4 / -2

That's their goal. Bring everything to a screeching halt and starving people out.

1
Mashiki 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bad idea goal for them. Since the people with guns, are the ones most likely to be self-sufficient or build and drive self-sufficient communities fast.

5
keepamericagreat102 5 points ago +5 / -0

main point is we are all getting fucked by this faggot worshipping administration

6
Valiazaner 6 points ago +9 / -3

Green energy is the future. Key word in that phrase is future. Fossil fuels are a finite supply and as supply reduces prices will go up. Technology is becoming more and more sophisticated and renewable/nuclear technology will become the more economically efficient option. The key once again is the word future.

Trying to force the currently inefficient "green" technologies on the world (outside wind on the Orkney Islands and Solar in California) means that the end users will ultimately be worse off. We need these technologies to mature and become more efficient before they can see more widespread use.

In addition certain aspects of the economy does not makes sense to move away from petroleum products. Do we really want the military to run off electricity? How would an electric tank work? The US' military doctrine is to take the fight to the enemy. The enemy however controls their electric grid. Try to invade with an all electric military you will end up like that Russian convoy outside of Kyiv. Best to keep the military petroleum based till we gain substantially larger electrical storage capacity.

6
c_programmer 6 points ago +6 / -0

I definitely agree. I fully expect to live long enough to see electric vehicles become dominant. I hope to see free market capitalism make that and other technologies viable.

5
Valiazaner 5 points ago +5 / -0

That is exactly it. Free market Capitalism will make these techs a reality and as automotive and energy companies see this to be the way of the future they will shift. As the world moves towards renewables for consumer electric vehicles in cities (where the economies of scale would mean it makes sense) the price of rural petroleum and military petroleum would come down.

In addition oil consumption would still be a thing since kerosene fuels (jet and ships) and diesel (transport trucks) are not going anywhere. Plus fossil fuels are only a portion of what is extracted from crude oil. Crude oil is the largest source of Phenol (active ingredient in Aspirin). Other products include components to everything from vinyl, nylon, commercial cosmetics, industrial lubricants, asphalt, plus dozens of other hydrocarbons that make the modern economy a reality.

2
MarcusAurelius 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty much this.

Residential solar/storage puts a price ceiling at about $0.15c/kwhr when it's shining, and $0.30c/kwhr when it's not. Wind varies a bunch based on where it's running.

There are a number of places where this comes in far below what is priced by the electric company, particularly areas where there are transmission/distribution issues, or where the market demand makes central generation/distribution unattractive. Right now these places are mostly are islands, remote areas, places that have reliable amounts of sun/wind, or governmental/corporate dysfunction broke the electric company.

California is an example of the later. If you own your own roof, and you don't have solar/powerwall in SoCal... well... Enjoy paying out of your ass for electricity and dealing with about a week of power outages every year when the wind blows.

For EVs, they will always be cheaper to operate than petroleum cars. It's physics. You can just get an EV to go further per energy unit due to efficiency and the range of available power sources. But EVs still are more expensive upfront.

But, the advantage of petroleum is that it is very energy dense and portable. There will always be situations where the grid simply isn't available or reliable, and having petroleum as an option makes a huge amount of sense.

1
Valiazaner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, take my example of the military. If we were to go to war with China today and land an armored battalion on their beaches would we want that unit to be reliant on the US or China for their energy needs. The answer is of course the US. battery technology simply isn't there for an armored vehicle to sustain military operations for an extended period of time without electrical resupply not dependent on the enemies electrical grid. Fact of the matter is in military situation fossil fuel based energy solutions are the best ones.

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep.

Right now, solar is great for some applications (like my house).

it will get better, but for now we must have oil.

1
The_Emperor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can run a 50 year old hydro plant make electricity at less than 2c /kwh.

0
Bannonmeharder 0 points ago +1 / -1

We have enough “fossil fuels”. Let’s call it Oil and Gas supply to last at least 400 more years. What’s the hurry to transition? Control and money nothing more

27
deleted 27 points ago +27 / -0
26
ed_shaw 26 points ago +26 / -0

Nuclear.

16
deleted 16 points ago +16 / -0
12
FliesTheFlag 12 points ago +12 / -0

Its funny because even that tranny loving faggot Bill Gates is building a Nuclear plant and you don't hear a peep about it being bad from the libshits on the left yet they been fighting them for decades.

Nuclear is the way to go, its by far greener than any of this other shit. Solar and windmill materials and power costs to make them + disposing of them after 10-20 years right into landfills as they make zero sense to recycle due to cost.

11
censorthisss 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yup. Anyone who claims to care about the environment yet is against nuclear can be immediately dismissed.

-9
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -9 points ago +1 / -10

Is retarded as it is by far the most expensive source of energy, even with fuel that doesnt need to be mined or refined as we were just handed it (nuclear disarmament treaties). If we had to re-open the uranium mines in Jeffrey City, Wyoming it would cost twice as much as it currently does. If we had to open new plants it would cost twice that

1
tarballs 1 point ago +1 / -0

witcher 3 is overrated.

3
Valiazaner 3 points ago +5 / -2

Nuclear is great for base load. There is a place for wind and solar in a states energy mix (depending of course on geography and weather patterns) but not as a base load. Until mass energy storage becomes a reality, and this is a long way off, these variable renewable sources of energy are not suited for base load.

3
sanmannight 3 points ago +3 / -0

I have read articles in which they want to use your electric vehicle as battery storage and be able to take power out of it on demand while plugged in. That's their solution.

0
IAmNotAnAutist 0 points ago +1 / -1

The batteries only. Everything else is fine to throw away.

7
Warskullx 7 points ago +7 / -0

Plus Nuclear is more environmentally friendly than solar or wind. You get so much energy out of a single plant. You have to transport the parts for solar and wind, manufacture them, ect.

The left pretends to care about carbon emissions, but when you present that Nuclear power has the lowest carbon per megawatt they completely ignore it.

2
ed_shaw 2 points ago +2 / -0

What does that tell us, really?

1
The_Emperor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hydropower

1
ed_shaw 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hydro power on the Columbia River has worked out very well. Some might say "too well," considering developers went over the red line and wiped out a few fish species, basically threatening the eco-system. Any info on Mississippi or Missouri Rivers?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
16
ihatedemocrats 16 points ago +16 / -0

I hate Democrats.

2
Inquisitor_Corvus 2 points ago +2 / -0

And do nothing Republicans

13
MakeFreedomRing 13 points ago +13 / -0

China is building cheap coal plants as fast as it can to power all the industries we ran out of this country.

3
Geralt_of_Rivia1 3 points ago +3 / -0

China is also having massive coal shortages.

5
Valiazaner 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yup, Indonesia, China's primary source of coal imports, cut off all coal exports to China at the beginning of the year.

6
MythArcana 6 points ago +6 / -0

Biden is the The Big Lie. No foolin'!

3
ed_shaw 3 points ago +3 / -0

Of course it is a big lie. Let's go back to when Thomas Edison had the idea of central electricity, to replace kersosene lamps. He started with a commercial generator and a pilot office building, now a historic landmark. They had to run the lines and wire the building. It was a big ceremony when he threw the switch. People loved it. Twenty years later, the greatest engineering project in history -- The Electrification of America. Biden is not interested in clean energy. He sees a chance to take advantage of the cofusion to make a buck. AOC same.

2
MythArcana 2 points ago +2 / -0

AOC can definitely take a good part of blame for this mess. This is almost word for word her stupid plan that they handed her to push. She really needs to be lambasted online hard to the point where she won't log in anymore.

6
magafren 6 points ago +6 / -0

When you buy green energy you don’t even really buy green energy. You buy Renewable Energy Credits. Then you still get coal power or nuke in some cases to your home.

The credits are then sold to producers of green energy so they have something to do while the sun and the wind contributes about as much to the grid as CNN does to actual news

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am off grid

2
IAmNotAnAutist 2 points ago +2 / -0

So am I.

Any self respecting prepper is already fully solar.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
6
RegisteredDem4Trump 6 points ago +6 / -0

The cognitive decline resulting from his 2 brain aneurysm surgeries in the 80's is unavoidable now.

Biden is failing on the World Stage.

5
Do_u_ev3n_lift 5 points ago +6 / -1

He’s not failing. He’s actively trying to destroy this country

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
2
MarcusAurelius 2 points ago +2 / -0

Correction, the hands up this sockpuppet are actively trying to destroy this country. He's just trying to read the lines on the box, so his son doesn't go to jail forever.

6
NamendaBiden 6 points ago +6 / -0

Which is why the goal of the Biden regime is to bring up the cost of fossil fuels. The only way to convince a switch is to make the costs the same. Renewables can't get any lower so just Jack up the cost of oil.

2
Tejas_Pepe 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not the cost that's the problem, "renewables" just are not up to the task. They can work on a very small basis, but they still are complicated, expensive and unreliable. I've looked into solar power quite extensively, I want to go off the grid, but it would be nigh impossible and require a huge investment. I'd love to be able to power my home from the sun or wind for that matter, but it's just not up to the task yet. Hopefully it will one day, but that's quite a long time from now.

3
Valiazaner 3 points ago +3 / -0

And fact of the matter is US and Canadian Fossil fuel regulations make US and Canadian fossil fuels the cleanest on the planet. By shutting off domestic and Canadian oil production Biden is not only making the US energy insecure and subject to the whims of OPEC, he is increasing the global carbon footprint because nations that don't give a fuck about pollution or carbon just ramp up production. Liberals of course are incapable of this level of thought.

2
endofsilence808 2 points ago +3 / -1

Also shipping it across seas. Not green in anyways Biden also wants rail car shipping. Total idiot. Derrrrr ya that's greener than a pipeline.

As everyone says, it's by design

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure it is. It's just expensive (batteries, at least).

But panels are dirt cheap and charge controllers are dirt cheap.

Fuses, cheap. Breakers, cheap.

Wiring, chea---. OK, wiring can be expensive. But just run a 48 volt system and you can even get wiring cheap.

1
Tejas_Pepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do all that and you can run a few light bulbs. Try using solar to power an entire home. Fridge, hot water heater, washer/dryer, A/C. Then tell me how cheap it is.

Let those batteries drop below a certain level, which ruins then, then you have to buy more and tell me how cheap it is.

5
AlcoholicRetard 5 points ago +5 / -0

When I went to visit Utah I saw a shitload of old decayed wind farms littering the landscape. They said they just weren’t profitable to maintain and would get abandoned shortly after they were built.

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck wind. Although any homestead should have one small turbine as backup, no way in hell should you DEPEND on wind.

Even on a cloudy day your solar panels are still producing, albeit very small yields. Every single day.

But wind turbines can sit idle for weeks at a time.

4
AVeryNakedMan 4 points ago +4 / -0

If "green" energy were cheaper than regular energy, companies and consumers would switch to it by default to save money.

-2
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Not necessarily because the very nature of renewables are that they produce power for decades with minimal additional labor. So their cost is all up front. It is only with massive excess cash flow that people would do something like that even if it was cheaper

1
AVeryNakedMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Renewable is not a reference to how much labor is required to use something. It just means the base resource that is being harvested for energy won't run out.

For example, the sun won't run out, but manufacturing solar panels and installing them is still plenty of labor. And they eventually go bad and need to be replaced with new panels that will require more labor to build.

Same thing with wind power. The turbines eventually wear out and new ones need to be built.

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

And they eventually go bad and need to be replaced with new panels that will require more labor to build.

After 30 years. And similar timeframe for the actual turbines for wind turbines

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Panels dont go bad that often. They work for 20 years in most cases.

What goes bad is batteries.

3
DinosaurAlert 3 points ago +3 / -0

Certain radical liberals think:

-Force oil, coal, nuclear out through regulation, OR artificially make them more expensive so that green energy competes.

-Mandate more expensive, less effective clean energy... but it is only expensive and less effective because big oil is suppressing the development of competing green technologies!!!!

-Energy prices increase, which drives people to use less energy. Just buy a Tesla!

-The Science, freed from the shackles of gas and coal, develops magical new green energy that's even BETTER than fossil fuels!

Yes, that last step defies physics. If we somehow, through impossible science and technology, developed solar panels that sucked 100% of solar energy emitted into them, we still couldn't replace fossil fuels.

-1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yes, that last step defies physics. If we somehow, through impossible science and technology, developed solar panels that sucked 100% of solar energy emitted into them, we still couldn't replace fossil fuels.

...efficiency per panel is damn near meaningless as you arent paying per unit of sunlight, you are paying per solar panel, and land is damn near worthless in the best areas for solar panels.

0
DinosaurAlert 0 points ago +1 / -1

you are paying per solar panel, and land is damn near worthless in the best areas for solar panels.

Nono, people think that you'll somehow make a "better" solar panel, so then you need less of them, which drives the cost down. So in 20 years, the panels you install on your roof will produce 3x the electricity and cost less to make.

You're talking about people who pay $25k+ to install solar panels then get excited that their power bill went down by $80/month.

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am off grid solar. You are the retard here

1
DinosaurAlert 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you "off the grid solar" during a Vermont winter?

Ignoring that part, your "off the grid solar" likely comes with a lot of usage limitations.

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wyoming winter.

None what so ever.

1
DinosaurAlert 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wyoming winter. None what so ever.

Then I'm completely wrong.

3
RyanUpCreek 3 points ago +3 / -0

"Green Energy"

Is one of those made up words for energy control and taxing a made up regulation they have advanced upon so they can line their pockets with those IRS donations

It's all bullshit

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's not ALL bullshit.

My house is powered by solar.

3
Kekintosh2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

The western philanthropists(oligarchy) have decided that prosperity is competition to their feudal rule. They want to go back before the enlightenment, world population and all.

2
BunnyPicnic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Green energy might be sufficient in a community of about 50 people. If the apocalypse comes, green energy would be useful to start over. It cannot support hundreds of millions of people.

The ultimate green energy, nuclear, can. But it's bad for us. Or so I'm told.

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

"""It cannot support hundreds of millions of people."""

Well, if each house has its own independent system, then it certainly can.

1
BunnyPicnic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah. Let's completely redo all existing plumbing and electrical lines. Sounds smart.

-1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Show me the math that says wind energy cant power the USA

2
BunnyPicnic 2 points ago +2 / -0

What if it's not windy?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
BunnyPicnic 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've lived in Kansas my entire life. I know wind. West of Salina, a wind farm went up maybe 20 years ago. I can't tell you how many times I've driven I70 and those windmills weren't turning. It's very very seldom you see all of them turning, usually it's just a handful out of 80 turbines.

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

No wind across the entire USA? Literally cant happen

2
Truglow 2 points ago +2 / -0

I worked at GE under thier green energy projects. Went in thinking what a great place to work and it was as far as money and benifits but i honestly could not continue my tenure there as it was a big scam on the American people . It still is. Big money pit.

2
Photoncounter 2 points ago +2 / -0

A solar panel never generates enough electricity to make itself. Look into the production on slicon wafers. Tremendous amounts of hydrocarbons, principally diesel and natural gas, are used to mine sand (machines), extract the silica (furnaces) and refine into silicon (very dangerous chemicals).

Green energy? Bullshit.

The orgination of the “green movement” was during the late 60’s. The USSR funded “Friends of the Earth” organization which turned into Greenpeace, sole purpose to disrupt the USA way of life and economy. They sure were successful! When the Soviet Union fell China stepped in and bought key industries and politicians.

The is some good about this though. Our local rivers are cleaner as is the air. This is done on purpose to deceive the sheep.

The reality is that we have been in a silent WWIII since Nixon.

2
RusherOfDin 2 points ago +2 / -0

4 to 6 times more profitable you mean. You just got to be on the right side of the Green New Deal.

2
Mises 2 points ago +2 / -0

If it was cheaper we'd all be using it already.

-1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Not necessarily because the very nature of renewables are that they produce power for decades with minimal additional labor. So their cost is all up front. It is only with massive excess cash flow that people would do something like that even if it was cheaper

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

What the fuck are you talking about

2
Cuchulainn 2 points ago +2 / -0

The city I live in is doing a “green energy” plan on electric/gas.

The main problem was that if you didn’t opt out you were automatically opted in. The problem with this was that I WORK for the electric/gas company and I KNOW that we didn’t mail out the letters to all the addresses that pay for our services.

What happened was THOUSANDS of people got automatically opted into a program that would bill them anywhere from $25-$300+ more than what they were paying monthly for their gas/electric. BUT it was GREEN ENERGY, so it’s “good”.

Needless to say the company has been dealing with a lot of backlash for their extremely stupid move in auto signing people to deals that they were never made aware of. And even the people that were made aware of and were told “yOu ArE gOiNg tO sAvE mOnEy” and dropping out as fast as they can

2
Wolf_22 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe it given our current state. If we keep heading in the direction we're going, we're all fucked.

1
Spezz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Spoiler it won’t be more expensive for very much longer

2
SBOJ_JOBS 2 points ago +2 / -0

It will always be much more expensive if you follow proper accounting practices and charge to intermittent energy sources all the costs of working around intermittency. It costs more to store and retrieve electrical power from a battery than it costs to generate it with fossil fuels. Plus millions of "smart" devices, plus increased distribution costs, plus the extra costs incurred by other sources which are forced to follow and make up for the wild swings from intermittent sources.

1
IvankasBathWater 1 point ago +1 / -0

Problem with "green energy" is that it doesn't produce energy.

1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Stop talking bullshit, anal-hat.

My house is powered by solar.

All day, every day.

What it CANNOT DO is power our cars efficiently. Too many problems.

But panels certainly feed electricity into my batteries which then is used by my kids to watch cartoons.

0
Geralt_of_Rivia1 0 points ago +1 / -1

...it does.

0
IvankasBathWater 0 points ago +1 / -1

Not enough. Not efficiently.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
The_Emperor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Most power usage is AC, refrigeration, and heat. Lighting and entertainment use less than thry used to, and LEDs are super efficient.

If you use your house's windows, depending on location, you can go weeks or months without either. Your refrigerator load is your biggest power draw, so going off grid isn't hard...IF you own your own house, land, and zoning allows.

But there are schools, prisons, high rise buildings, hospitals, farms, factories, laboratories and government buildings and server farms that all require power far in excess of local solar/wind resources. Do we end civilization by outpacing our energy production and bankrupting our economy?

1
ubermk3 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s because it’s not about the environment. It’s about crippling us.

1
dagoat4l 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey they can't make money any other way. Well sex slaves.

1
Polander 1 point ago +1 / -0

The fact that has is $5 and rising is a key feature of the green energy economy.

1
JoinTheDiscussion 1 point ago +1 / -0

not new news!.. anyone ever looked how much "carbon" it takes to add that ethanol in the fuel you buy?!

1
Tejas_Pepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hear me out now. This documentary is done by Michael Moore. It has some stupid leftist shit in it. But it's important to watch, it shows in depth what a scam green energy is. Watch it, fortunately you don't have to see or listen to Moore, he just produced it, others are in it. I promise you will not regret watching this.

https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE

1
Bannonmeharder 1 point ago +1 / -0

Green energy is communist

1
azekep 1 point ago +1 / -0

And it's MORE expensive and MORE hamrful to the environment.

1
My2Cents 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unsubsidized solar is cheaper now than coal. Look it up.

Energy cost curves: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/

1
Standorfall 1 point ago +1 / -0

And polluting, damaging the environment and a controlling and money making scheme

1
orange_dit 1 point ago +1 / -0

Grid wide energy storage is simply impossible. The scale for such a battery is millions of times bigger than what we can build. There isn't enough money or raw material to build it. Tesla build the world's largest battery in Australia. I vaguely recall it could power the entire country for a few seconds. Basically useless.

Since the wind can stop blowing on an entire continent in a matter of minutes and the sun doesn't shine at night these "renewable" power sources need 100% fossil fuel backup. Ramping up and down the output of a natural gas plant will decrease its efficiency and lifetime and will therefore increase its CO2 output. We can practically only get about 10% of our electricity from wind and solar and not all energy we use is electricity (heating, car fuel, etc.), so eventually we will hit a wall.

Nuclear energy doesn't rely on geography and can make every country energy independent. The US already was energy independent and doesn't need nuclear for the time being. But in Europe gas prices are going through the roof, so we have little choice.

1
PeoplesGlory 1 point ago +1 / -0

coal is the future. I dont want any of this rainbow fag sun energy. humans been using coal since birth of civilization and we will die with it now with these gay faggy stupid things on roofs and shit. dumb faggots

1
unfourtunate_son 1 point ago +1 / -0

Na he has bigger ones.

1
LawlAndDisorder 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah, Sri Lanka is having great success with 100% organic farming at 30% of their original production yields.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
IAmNotAnAutist 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's not four times more expensive at my house.

At my house, it's free.

If the left gave a shit about 'green energy', they'd outfit every house with a solar system instead of going on billion dollar junkets to sip chardonnay with scandanavian victims of alcohol abuse.

But they would make the population no longer dependent on the government grid for their well being. So they'll never do it.

1
The_Emperor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did your house come with a free turbine and solar power system and inverter?

1
SirBuzzKillingtonVI 1 point ago +1 / -0

You'll be shocked to learned he has an even bigger lie.

1
3dandy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which we could afford if we didn't have corruption...

1
HockeyMom4Trump 1 point ago +2 / -1

Green=green money in the politicians back pockets

1
1823 1 point ago +1 / -0

You will own nothing, but you will be happy. Or else…

1
CATaxSlave 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly. If it was cheaper or better, government wouldn't have to force us to use it or pay to offset the extra expense.

-1
LibtardJesus -1 points ago +2 / -3

Green energy does save money and is awesome, but the issue is with the politics of inefficient and reliable energy that can't actually be considered green. Solar panels and wind energy are all great ideas, but they can't produce energy all the time which means they are merely expensive supplements that can be hybridized into the current infrastructure. If they were considered so instead of permanent replacements then everyone would be fine. After all, why can't my energy be free at times. There's no argument with that.

-1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Wind, over the entire electric grid, produces energy at all times.

1
The_Emperor 1 point ago +1 / -0

How much are intra state losses transmitting that long distances?

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

No wind across an entire state is impossible