Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixj5fyb wrote

  1. Cover more than just 30% of solar installations on houses.
  2. Require solar in all new construction
  3. Invest in nuclear.
9

learner77 t1_ixjptgx wrote

Yup, more everything: nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass… and maybe a bit more efficiency/conservation?

1

Money_Whisperer t1_ixl2b8a wrote

The problem with solar in CT is we don’t get a ton of sunlight. I was just in Arizona and it was nutty man, they have literal miles of solar panels set up in the desert. Some places are gonna be better than others at generating renewable energy. That’s fine. There’s plenty of energy for everyone as long as we have the grid for it and the ability to properly store it.

We don’t right now, and it’ll take a century to have the kind of tech that can do it. Nuclear is a stopgap so that we buy ourselves time while we figure out the numerous logistical issues with renewables. It could last us 10,000 years if we needed it. It’s truly a gift that we ignore

0

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixlpvso wrote

Everyone I know with solar in CT is making more than they use or close to that, so pair that with nuclear and I think we have winter/night pretty much covered.

1

ImpecableCoward t1_ixj90qz wrote

The first point is useless. The more financial incentives the gov gives away, the higher the prices companies will charge. Effectively nullifying the incentive.

−1

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixjbh19 wrote

Please provide any data that proves that. From what I have seen, it is the opposite.

0

Aaron351 t1_ixjv1iv wrote

Do you have data to share with your anecdote?

1

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixk25v5 wrote

I don’t think I need an article for common sense. Plus, you are the one making an argument that conflicts with basic economics.

0

Aaron351 t1_ixk4v12 wrote

I’m not making any argument, just find it funny the person demanding data to back a claim is providing counter argument in the form of an anecdote.

1