I was referring to solar, not on site nat gas.

Scroll ALL THE WAY UP for context

It’s because you can’t read, LOL. And I don’t think you have any intention of trying based on the effort made so far.

I’m talking about cost inefficiency not line inefficiency. I could hang superconductors all over and it would have very low line losses while being massively cost inefficient. But you’re an attorney you should be at least smart enough to figure that out right?

We have a convenient metric showing the real COST of delivery associated with centralized generation and it’s RIGHT ON YOUR POWER BILL. How is this so hard to figure out.

Read my comment again I did not say generator. I said to heat a home. Direct combustion vs delivered power at market rates.

Then go back and read again and realize I’m using that example because it’s familiar to someone who is allergic to solar, and solar is actually less cost per kWh than market rates for delivered power.

And we haven’t even brought up externalized costs that aren’t represented by market pricing.

It’s literally half your bill, I hope you’re not an actual attorney.

I think you’re just rambling. I actually have a science degree and I’m telling you that whatever base load you offset by generation at the point of production, especially if it can be generated for a lower overall amortized cost at economies of scale (very feasible), is always going to be more efficient than centralized generation and long-distance transmission/distribution. Just look at your electric bill and see how cost-inefficient centralized generation and distribution is.

I guess it’s a whoosh then. Look at the cost of nat gas burned in your home vs burned at a central power plant to generate electricity when used for heating and re-evaluate your comment because it is laughably factually wrong.

I have dealt with trolls since the dawn of the internet and you’re going to have to try harder. Low effort

Still only available to those who own a home and have capital. Not the same as what I’m talking about, but it’s a halfass start.

No one thinks it’s a panacea but talking points like the one you just repeated are a justification for never even trying. We can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce base load and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce peak loads with renewables but we are in a 50 year struggle with big capital who can’t make as much money off of decentralized and green alternatives.

It was inevitable that monopolies would force new centralized infrastructure. Gotta keep the consumers alienated from the means of production, it’s capitalist monopoly 101. Better to cut down all the forests in the state than to allow people to produce their own energy at the point of consumption.

Why would you build something with a 50 year design life that will take 10 years to build if you can only realistically use it for “a decade or so”.

It would be 50 more years of near total reliance on LNG.

Politicians excel at providing false choices

Don’t worry, our leaders have a plan to do nothing until we build another pipeline.

Instead of selling public debt to fund centralized power plants we should be making that same public investment to install solar on every detached single family home on the state.

Otherwise we are fighting against both big capital and economies of scale, while our foes leverage both. And they still can’t beat the cost per watt of solar.

Put it on every roof and we won’t need large scale installations

But then how could we guarantee increased profits for fossil fuel companies?

Think of the oil companies for once /s

You’re not engaging honestly so I don’t feel I owe you a response

You’re trying really hard to be daft aren’t you

You’re missing the point. Your phrasing suggested that because Dems has a majority that they actually tried and therefore sustainable energy is not possible (implying that we should then relent and build more pipelines).

I see the chameleon act though. This is not your first goalpost moving session

The ones referenced in the letter. Scroll up and read the OP.

That’s bait. No thanks.

It’s silly to think that having a blue tie keeps one from having red policies

It reads like a Republican screed from (take your pick of any red state).

Shills gonna shill.

Considering the billion dollars in extra money we are spending, it seems like we could have our own dedicated LNG tanker/local storage facility that does nothing but transport gas from TX/LA export terminals straight to us.

But that wouldn’t provide a long term infrastructure advantage for oil companies to use to prevent competition from renewables, so we know where that idea will go.

I’m gonna guess: a real answer and not shilling fossil fuel company talking points?

Utilities with a performative, captured regulatory structure