Renewable energy costs continue to fall letters dnronline.com gas you up

##

Your groups have bastardized every form of energy….nuclear, then coal, now nat gas. If left to your crowd, we would have rolling blackouts to compensate for the loss of power. You need gov’t subsidies at state and fed level to make your less efficient forms even close to viable.

You dream up social costs which again have been exaggerated like your warming agenda stats were. Do your homework on how many times their figures have proven to be wrong. But again, your spokespeople, Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich,the IPCC, et al, maintain it’s okay to “stretch the truth”, because your intentions are good. They keep their gov’t funded studies secret from other “non believers” for review. Etc, etc, etc.

Other forms of energy will become available and affordable down the road. But the progressive eco extremists are not the type of people I would want, deciding that and getting us to that moment. We have seen your ilk in action in Europe, Cal, and NY. Actually, those might be great places for you and your alarmer buddies to make extended visits. You can se the 20’ sea level rise up close and personal.

One thing you have left out, Bob-the-insurance-guy, is that there is not even a rationale to subsidize fossils, and every reason to place a Pigovian tax on them. There is, of course, a rationale to subsidize renewables, which is that they are needed to reduce traditional pollution and the newer problem of climate change, given that they cannot otherwise compete with cheap fossils. Today, renewables are able to compete with fossils and it could be argued that we could let the market take over. However, the market would almost surely not allow renewables to dominate fast enough to save a habitable earth. Subsidies could be eliminated by placing a Pigovian tax on fossils. Such a tax could be revenue neutral by returning the proceeds of the tax to the public either in the form of direct payment or tax reduction. The result would be to bias the market in favor of renewables and against carbon based fuels. A similar scheme is cap and trade: cap the amount of carbon based fuel and allow producers or users of the fuel to trade the allowable credits of fuel, which worked very effectively for coal and acid rain. For reasons that defy explanation, you and many others oppose anything that threatens carbon based fuel. Imagine what your position would be if people like me were advocating for a switch from electric vehicles and tools to gasoline ones. You would be making jokes about women in their Sunday dress having to gas up their car with the risk of arriving at church smelling of gasoline!

Are you so scholarly that you can say "most studies exaggerate the costs," or do the conclusions of the studies simply conflict with your preferences? The modern age, that is, Industrial Age forward, relied first on hydropower and then on fossil fuels like coal and oil. The nuclear age promised unlimited, cheap energy without minimal pollution, though greenhouse gas emissions was not known as a major issue at that time. Political, cost and safety issues beset nuclear, such that energy production fell back on cheap coal, but the price paid was a myriad of environmental issues—desecration of mountains and streams, nitrogen and sulfur air pollution, acid rain destruction of forests and rivers, health impacts on asthma, heart and lung disease, mercury poisoning of fish, etc., radioactive particulate, coal ash, and mine safety. Climate change forced us to look for non-carbon solutions, but nuclear fission continued to have political, cost and safety issues. Nuclear fusion has yet to be perfected. Wind and solar made surprising gains in efficiency and reduction in costs; battery technology is advancing; such that we now have alternatives to fossils. Natural gas could also form a bridge to renewables if conservatives were willing to adequate regulate fugitive emissions. Nuclear fission, too, could be a major part of the mix if the seriousness of climate change was adequately considered.

So, the plan should be: Stop building new fossil infrastructure; tax fossil fuels; build our wind and solar; properly regulate natural gas; use nuclear fission in safe locations; develop advance nuclear fission; continue working on nuclear fusion; fund advanced battery research; increase energy efficiency; do all the other practices in agriculture and building design that reduce greenhouse gases.