If you can get it on fox news long enough, then they get behind it.
They would not be able to get behind that.
You need to hurt someone and be gleeful about it to get them on side.
No they wouldn’t. Prices only go up they never go down. The utility would tack on a charge to help pay for whatever green solution they’ve used. Then the price will remain stable. It might remain stable longer than usual but it absolutely will not go down
The problem is the right care more about hurting their perceived enemies than they do actually improving their own lives.
Why would the right get behind this idea? They don’t want the government investing in anything. They just want private companies to assume the entire burden, and offload the expense directly onto the consumer.
No, that’s what they say they want. In practice, they give government resources away or turn a blind eye to rising rates for whatever company gives them campaign contributions.
What burden? It’s not burden, it’s sales. A switch to renewables means your loss on investments in producing and delivering gas and benzene. So you protect yourself by lobbying laws that won’t allow anyone to “get the energy out of the thin air”
Wait. Are you suggesting they would use actual liquid cash as their start-up investment?
The right wants to keep and strengthen hierarchy. The problem with renewables is that they are much harder to control. Solar can be installed on the roofs, balconies and the like, which can be done by a lot of people. So hard to control. Even wind turbines can be easily built by a village or other larger group, like a rich farmer. Compared that to a gas power plant, which takes millions in investment or even more so a nuclear power plant, where we are talking billions. That is also true for things like EVs, which can be charged at home using solar.
There is a lifestyle where you own your own home, have some solar on the roof, charge an EV with it and have a garden producing some food. That is like 2/3 of a normal persons budget. So if you can work a bit to make ends means, that can create a lot of freedom. Especially if it is self employed job and considering that your basic needs are mostly covered that risk is acceptable. That sort of population would be a nightmare to control in a hierarchy.
Note: This ended up being WAY more than I was thinking I’d write when I hit reply. But I had fun writing it up. So /shrug. Imma post it.
… EVs, which can be charged at home using solar.
… have some solar on the roof, charge an EV with it
From the phrasing of these I assume you mean using solar as a sole means of charging an EV, as opposed to using them to offset your grid tied usage. Which might not be what you meant, but in case someone else reads this (I’d hazard a guess you already know this stuff), and makes that same assumption, I felt like adding some clarification.
Depending on your needs, solar is not always practical for charging an EV. An average EV uses 0.35 kWh per mile (0.21 kWh per kilometer if I did my conversion correctly). Say you had a 30 mile/48km daily commute (I further averaged results I found for average American and European daily commute distances to get that number). You would need 10.5kWh (30 * .35) of power to recharge.
Using the low end of a daily kWh generation estimate I found for a 400w panel (1.6kwh a day) you’d need 7 panels. Lots of environmental factors in play for solar so definitely give or take on that one. Said panels are about 80"x40" (2 meters x 1 meter), so fairly substantial.
And solar isn’t good at delivering a predicable and controllable amount of electricity over a long period of time which your EV expects. So you’re going to need batteries attached to your solar system. Minimally enough to hold however much power your system accumulates before peak output, as well as to contain any power generated above what’s being delivered to your car during the peak. And this assumes you can plug your car in for an extended period of time right in the middle of the day. If you don’t have that luxury, say you’re at work in the middle of the day, then you’d want to store that entire day’s worth of power until you could use it.
Then there’s charging. The limit here is probably whatever bottleneck there is in your system. Either the max continuous discharge rate of your batteries or the max continuous output of your inverter. A 3.6kWh charger, which would require a 220-240V inverter rated above 3,600 watts seems ideal as that would be about 3 hours of charging to recover the 10.5kWh I came up with earlier. For 120V countries (or if you want to buy a 120v inverter/ev charger, I suppose) you also have the option of a 1.4kWh charger with a 120v inverter rated above 1,400 watts. It would take about 8 hours to recharge 10.5kWh. Or, if for some reason you wanted an even slower system. I have a Bolt and I know it can do 8 amp charging, which works out to about 960 watts, and about 11 hours charge time.
Of course, if your range needs are lower, the system can be scaled down. Unsurprisingly, the less electricity you need the more feasible it is, right?
Edit: And environmental factors can be a big impact. I have a small solar setup (~1kwh) and something as simple as it being overcast the whole day has a huge impact on how much it generates. Most EV’s have quite a bit range, so not like one cloudy day is going to be a big problem in this scenario I’ve laid out. But a cloudy week? Might start to be a problem.
Eh. That’s how nearly everyone lived up until about 1850 or so.
But does anyone ever consider the oil company CEO’s bonuses?
