this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
948 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59652 readers
4705 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jabjoe 48 points 11 months ago (5 children)

This is economics now, not politics. US can go full crazy Trump, but the grid will just keep getting greener as greener is cheapest. He can rant and rave about global warming being a conspiracy or anything else, but it's unstoppable now.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The infuriating thing to me is, renewable energy is often extremely independent. It means no reliance on foreign oil. That SHOULD be the most American thing, especially for those in the GOP who claim to be anti-government.

Goes to remind you their main product is hypocrisy.

[–] Darkhoof@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, the grid won't get greener if Trump is elected because he WILL go full dictator. And he will revert everything that is being done currently.

[–] jabjoe 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He'll struggle to make states to buy more expensive energy. If he managed, he'd put the state at a global disadvantage. Even then, he'd have to outlaw solar to stop people installing it at home.

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's what tanking the EPA is for. Without any oversight of externalities, dirty energy becomes cheaper.

[–] jabjoe 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yes the Environmental Protection Agency. The Heritage foundation is taking applications and they vet by looking at whether their social media accounts supports Trump: https://www.project2025.org/

Last time Trump did their best to push responsible people out of government jobs, but that was just a test run. This time around it would be a speed run.

Edit: per Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

The plan would perform a swift takeover of the entire executive branch under a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory

[–] jabjoe 2 points 11 months ago

Like a lot Trump stuff, that is a whole bag of crazy! Yet another reason to hope he doesn't get in.

[–] wikibot@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. The agency is led by its administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The current administrator is Michael S. Regan. The EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank. The EPA has its headquarters in Washington, D.C., regional offices for each of the agency's ten regions, and 27 laboratories.The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and the federally recognized tribes. The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. The agency's budgeted employee level in 2023 is 16,204.1 full-time equivalent (FTE). More than half of EPA's employees are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other employees include legal, public affairs, financial, and information technologists.

^article^ ^|^ ^about^

[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Still plenty that can be done to stop it. Preventing transmission lines, giving even bigger subsidies to fossil fuels, putting large tarrifs on imported solar panels and wind turbines. Just look at California the power monopoly is in with Gavin Newsom and they created rules that protect their profits above all else and now solar installs is at 20% what it was before.

[–] jabjoe 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You mean 120% of what it was? 20% of what it was means way cheaper, and I'm sure you mean more expensive.

Sure but it's self defeating, making things more expensive. Putting that whole state/country at a disadvantage against those who use cheap clean power instead of fighting it.

[–] I_LOVE_VEKOMA_SLC@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I think they were referring to installations, not cost.

[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're unfamiliar with California's new policy it doesn't change the cost to install but how much you pay and make for electricity. Basically now you sell electricity to the grid for 3-5 cents and buy it for like 10-15 but then they tack on like 20 cents in transmission fees. So it has made solar not cost effective anymore in most residential cases. So the total number of yearly installs has decreased to 20% compared to last year. But my point was a radical government can do plenty of stuff to sabotage progress in order to keep themselves and friends in power.

[–] jabjoe 1 points 11 months ago

Don't sell to the grid if you can avoid it. Charge a house battery, charge a EV, run all your stuff for the day. Always better to use than sell back to the grid anyway.

But my larger point was that by harming green energy, you harm energy costs and harm the economy. It becomes less competitive to economies who ride reality instead of fight it.

And yes, I don't know California policies. Hand up, I'm a Brit who just champions green energy transitions. I watch https://grid.iamkate.com with glee.