Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UltravioletClearance t1_iuie1r3 wrote

Maybe we shouldn't have spent the past decade fighting natural gas pipelines in the name of green energy without having said green energy infrastructure in place first.

68

No_Judge_3817 t1_iuieh0s wrote

and buying into anti-Nuclear fearmongering

130

Coolbreeze_coys t1_iuiscdi wrote

My god, anti-nuclear has to be one of the most frustrating opinions

63

septagon t1_iuivr1g wrote

I put my tinfoil hat on tight and have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy not being "green" can only be a masterclasses in social engineering from the fossil fuels industry.

20

RamblinSean t1_iuj44pz wrote

You say that but we can't even keep water lines from deteriorating and damaging populations, you expect me to believe the United States will do the same with an increased amount of long term storage of nuclear waste?

−3

scolfin t1_iuj98d1 wrote

It's because the environmentalist left only stopped seeing science and technology as the military industrial complex in the 1980's.

−3

d3fc0n545 t1_iuj5byq wrote

Here, here!

Yeah that type of opinion is dated and fairly nonsensical at this point. There are too many things that need to go wrong for an emergency to happen and the disasters that are commonly brought up have very explainable issues.

1

scolfin t1_iuj9ds2 wrote

Eh, nuclear still has the local pollution issue you see with heavy metals... and natural gas. We're still paying the Navajo reparations for our current supply.

−5

ajafarzadeh t1_iuiuq47 wrote

Maybe we should have put more effort into the green energy infrastructure rather than sacrificing the climate for short-term practicality

24

psychicsword t1_iujlf87 wrote

I will keep that in mind when heating my home costs more than my mortgage.

4

lazyfinger t1_iujqoev wrote

Renewables are the cheapest form of power

−3

psychicsword t1_iuju874 wrote

Massachusetts uses 389 billion cu ft of natural gas and 89 million barrels of petroleum and only 16.9% of homes use electricity for heating(often the inefficient induction variety).

Renewable sources becoming cheaper is great news for the world a few decades from now when that changes but this year is going to be a cold one for anyone trying to survive on a budget.

Most people won't be able to install a multi-thousand dollar new heat pump furnace that is entirely fueled by pre-negotiated renewable electricity providers. Even the ones with heat pumps would get hit hard by increasing energy demand on the grid(which still heavily used gas and oil for energy production).

6

lazyfinger t1_iujy62g wrote

I don't disagree with you, I just wanted to point that out because the fossil fuel industry is not interested in investing in renewables. So this situation is a consequence of it. Of our lack of energy independence bc their profit come before citizens' wellbeing and our planet.

−2

LiamW t1_iuiz5mn wrote

The gas pipeline from PA to New England was never going to pencil out. The actual cost savings is tiny relative to the capital required to build and maintain such a pipeline (basically the most expensive real estate per-mile in pipeline history).

The price differential between New England and the rest of the country is not much, it spikes right now as both Europe and New England share climate conditions, and is exacerbated by Putin/Ukraine.

New England is going to have some of the highest energy demand per square foot (note: not household) in the continental US due to the realities of: average oldest buildings, highest density most northern settled area, and the most days requiring moderate to heavy indoor temperate adjustment in the U.S.

In New England, the absolute best improvement people can make is insulation, heat pump retrofits, upgrade lights/appliances, and solar/geothermal systems.

Subsidizing wasting more energy is not a good idea, regardless of how you feel about “green” tech.

17