Editor,

Green energy is a very costly proposition for California because we still have to maintain an entire fossil fuel backup system to ensure always on power for when there is no sun or wind. As the Moss Landing Power Plant demonstrated, lithium batteries can’t store utility scale power without catching fire.

Recommended for you

(2) comments

Terence Y

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Kahl, and for highlighting the alternative energy source development in Utah. Ultimately, though, these projects only operate as an additional source but will never scale to replace fossil fuels to any significant degree. Any fossil fuel usage reduction in the US would result in other countries taking up the slack, happily. If greenies were really serious about so-called “green” energy, we would be building nuclear power plants, perhaps 100s. But then the money greenies are siphoning from taxpayers would decrease, perhaps completely. The only green they’re interested in is in cash money.

easygerd

TBot is correct in one area here. Some 20 years ago, when the US and Canada became two of the biggest fossil fuel producers thanks to Fracking, other countries did jump in and used the available capacity replacing their coal and wood burning with oil and gas instead.

Since we are clearly not the smartest species, humans will not stop burning fossil fuels until it's all gone.

The big issue for the US now is that it is falling behind in all these new future technologies that will matter. Whereas other countries are planning on a full electric future, the GOP wants us back in a time when we burned goat fat and coal.

Renewables have been the cheapest form of energy since 2013. Coal has become way more expensive, but the current administration wants to subsidize coal (cough, cough, Fossil Fuel Socialism).

And California Democrats might disagree with Washington DC, but they can't even build one simple high-speed train route or walkable neighborhoods.

PS: Batteries btw. are NOT part of green energy - they turn green energy "grey". That's why EVs - other than eBikes - can never be considered Zero Emission Vehicles.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here