No, really. Why not?
Under Plan A, the federal government would buy or, if necessary, seize under eminent domain all existing U.S. coal plants and close them over 10 years. Such a use of federal authority is well-established and would not be subject to serious legal challenge. (Plant owners could dispute the amount of compensation offered but not the public purpose of federal action intended to protect the environment.) Plan A would include fair, market-based compensation for coal-plant shareholders and generous severance, relocation and job-training programs for employees, who should not be asked to bear the burdens of emissions reductions.
That’s…er, generous. I think.
If I climb the highest ridge to the north of the Lair on a cold morning I can see the condensation plumes from the nearest power plant, coal-fired to a fault, which feeds the town nearest to me and the surrounding area. Pivot to the SE and I can sometimes see another one, much farther away, which does the same thing in another region. Those plants are old, almost comically maintenance-intensive, unprofitable to a fare-thee-well, and absolutely essential to the life of what we could laughingly call the local economy.
As I understand it they’re only notionally attached to the national grid, so if they went down I’d expect to see distant lights go out. Forever. Some voters and taxpayers are going to be very upset. A few of those people have full sets of teeth and legislative influence. For that reason alone our writer’s enthusiastic plan for the destruction of large swathes of flyover country will probably be considered a bad idea in certain halls of power.
Here’s another reason: There’s really no alternative to those nastybad coal-burning power plants, as England has finally acknowledged…
England is not windy enough to justify building any more onshore wind turbines, the chief executive of wind industry trade body has admitted.
Hugh McNeal, who joined RenewableUK two months ago from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, insisted the industry could make the case for more onshore turbines in some parts of the UK, despite the withdrawal of subsidies.
But he said this would “almost certainly” not be in England, as the wind speeds were not high enough to make the projects economically viable without subsidy.
Wind and solar plants are proving, in one place after another, very poor choices for centralized grid production. That won’t stop our would-be masters from pushing them, because the whole made-up furor over ‘the environment’ is about control, and how they want all of it. If they were interested in “clean” “green” energy, they’d do the obvious thing and encourage the development of small, non-centralized power generation. There are plenty of places where solar electric works great, and maybe there are ways to get wind power to work reliably. But solar doesn’t work even as a credible adjunct to grid production and those absurdly massive wind farms have proven unreliable and unproductive.
None of that matters. I expect to continue watching them get it expensively wrong, because it’s not about the environment and it certainly isn’t about the nation’s electrical needs. It’s about control, and who has it.
I really hate these people.