US transmission lines prove problematic | FT Energy Source
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 ноя 2023
- Transmission lines are hugely important to America’s green energy targets. But all across the country battles are being fought that are hindering their progress. And, as the FT’s Amanda Chu reports, sometimes the same environmentalists that support the clean energy transition, don’t support building the power lines that are required for it to take place
#cleanenergy #powerlines #energytransmission
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'
Finding a feather where birds are. Amazing research study.
Yep, he's done the research 😂
LOL. Exactly.
That's at 2:42, then at 10:25 we see dozens of birds roosting on power pylons and lines. I think the birds will be OK.
Moving to renewable energy will require building extreme amounts of new transmission lines. Why? Because the best places for renewable energy generation in the US is in rural regions where there isn't a lot of electricity consumption. So we have to move there electricity from those places to where it's being used, which is closer to both coasts
Also, I love how this video repeatedly notes Horse Shoe Theory without mentioning it. Lol.
It's the typical failure of analysis you see in Western media, which I'm not actually sure is a failure of analysis so much as it is propaganda. That is to say, horse shoe theory is correct in that on either side of the horse shoe sits a right wing partisan. The distinction here is only nominal and by degrees. Because liberals are not leftists. They are moderate right wingers.
It's tough for people who have not previously been introduced to actual leftist discourse to swallow that because their whole lives they've been told leftists = liberals. They have no scholastic context to compare a liberal to a leftist though, because they've never actually studied leftism. The only thing they have studied is anti-leftist right wing propaganda.
"Because liberals are not leftists. They are moderate right wingers." - Thank you, finally someone (hopefully not just you) gets it.@@joshl6275
This is why America cannot move on in most things and other countries will catch it in some niche areas. However America is admittedly starting from a higher technological base than most countries, so once approval is done, things should be done quickly especially if capitalists who profit from it push for it
It is money alright, but the truth is the tightly regulated bulk electric power system in North America is paid for almost entirely by customers. There is nobody profiting much from the power we get, but *lots* of money goes into it.
About 20 years ago NERC (The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a watchdog agency for the US and Canada) estimated the North American transmission and distribution infrastructure need about $1.5 trillion in updates; I shudder thinking how much it is now. Spread among the 370 million people in those countries,. that comes to about $40,000 per man, woman and child.
Don't be embarrassed about not knowing how it all comes together; I blame NERC for failing to educate the public on an ongoing basis. Heck, there are still people who believe critical infrastructure is connected to the internet.
The labor comes with profit, but in North America transmission lines are very slow to pay for themselves. 10-20 years after being put into service there is a break-even point if they are run near capacity, but the service life of most components is in the 30 year range. The steel structures and the conductors are not end-of-life items, but insulators usually are. Transformers are tested for gasses in the oil, each signifying a breakdown of particular materials. Bushing failure produces one gas while insulation produces a different one.
Where does the money come from for the infrastructure? From ratepayers. (They also pay for modernization and capital upgrades.) Ten years ago I identified an ongoing problem in a protection scheme for a 500kV line as a shorted ferrite core "drain" coil that was smaller than a beer can... probably between $50 and $200. The request for replacement of the part - not in my AOR - triggered a review of the history of the structure. It was just about at the end of life, so all three structures were replaced in a week-long line outage. Repair would fall on the company, but replacing the end-of-life equipment was a capital job, paid for by ratepayers rather than the company.
executive vice president should have gone over his "speech" with his own engineers, because there was a lot of dumb packed into his 2/4 lane explanation and wire sizes
Protoss voice: "You must construct additional pylons!"
Electric utilities are allowed to take your land, with "fair" compensation, if they need it for a project that serves the public. This is called eminent domain. However, if you happen to come into this situation, fight it, try to get in front of a judge, and challenge that notion that they don't have another alternative than to use your land, you'll get a lot more money that way 😉
You must construct additional pylons!
High-voltage power lines can be buried underground. In fact, burying power lines has a number of advantages over overhead lines.
We have to pay for them first. It does not have to be done right away; siting new transmission lines is typically a 15-20 year project; the specs are drawn up and the search for a right-of-way begins. When the best prospects are identified, the company goes into negotiations with the landowners... usually all the proposed paths at once. Within 10-15 years there are three sets of best prospects; then the company secures signed bids for the two top routes. One of them is selected and the process of procurement begins. If the local hardware store does not have all the hardware on the shelves (jk) bids are taken from the various vendors. The winning source starts making the materials because nobody want tens of millions of dollars of merchandise sitting on shelves. You get the idea: it is a very time intensive process.
@@allenaxp6259 They can be underground, but the affordability and reliability suffer a lot. The rule of thumb - spread over the entire spectrum of 120/240 volt to transmission level voltages, is UG is about three times the cost per mile compared to overhead lines. Reliability and repair costs strongly favor overhead lines. Usually UG is used where communities demand it.
We have UG in our neighborhood. A few years the electric company (my employer at the time) replaced all the "direct burial" lines here with underground in conduit. The fault rate went down quite a bit after the first 2-3 years.
Aerial transmission lines are cheaper because less excavation, they also use free atmospheric air for both insulation, and cooling. During hurricane events in Florida,
each governor over the past 30 years has commented that 'underground electric lines are problematic during floods'. It has been known since 1970 that, for longer
distances ( past ~700 miles), High Voltage Direct Current transmission lines are somewhat cheaper, because require less conductors than normal three-phase lines.
HVDC lines also transmit electricity cheaper, because less radiation (which wastes energy in transit).
High-voltage power lines can be buried underground. In fact, burying power lines has a number of advantages over overhead lines. We need to electrify as quickly as possible for the environment and to be competitive in the world. Despite the cost, underground power lines are often found in urban areas, where the density of the required overhead wire would cause significant obstructions. Also, nearly all new residential and commercial developments have underground utility infrastructure, often required by law for aesthetic reasons. This is often the least expensive type of undergrounding project, as undergrounding costs are reduced when earthmoving equipment is already being used to prepare a building site.
Underground lines are attractive but notoriously unreliable and hard to repair. We tend to think of the soil as being stable, but it behaves much like a very thick fluid. The more a line is reinforced the harder it is to repair when the earth moves.
@@flagmichael and underground high-voltage transmission lines are WAY more complex (and expensive) than simply stringing up uninsulated aluminum or steel cables mounted atop transmission towers. for fun, google "high voltage underground cable installation standards" and read some of the literature. Moving high-voltage transmission lines underground is not nearly as easy as many people seem to think. I guess they just don't understand the Physics of electricity. 🤷♂
@@flagmichael Despite these challenges, advancements in technology and engineering practices are continually improving the reliability and repairability of underground power lines. Additionally, ongoing research and development efforts are exploring innovative solutions to mitigate the impact of soil movement and heat build-up on underground cables.
The choice between overhead and underground lines depends on a complex evaluation of factors such as cost, reliability requirements, environmental considerations, and aesthetics. While underground lines offer numerous benefits, it's crucial to acknowledge and address the potential downsides to ensure a safe and efficient power delivery system.
@@techcafe0 Undergrounding high-voltage transmission lines requires a deep understanding of the physics of electricity, careful engineering practices, adherence to strict standards, and substantial financial resources. While it offers advantages over overhead lines, it's not a simple solution and should be carefully evaluated and weighed against alternative options based on specific project requirements and context.
5X the cost of overhead lines (at a minimum). What consumer is going to want to see that type of jump in their electric bill??
Could part of it be built underground, along roads? They did the same for internet cables if I'm not mistaken.
Underground high voltage cables are expensive and difficult to maintain. Another option are high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines, which require fewer aerial cables.
@@nathandale3415 HVDC is especially suited for conductive media like water and soil as it doesn't have a changing magnetic field that interacts with those.
Coastal regions can more quickly and cheaply build interconnects using submarine HVDC cables, which are simply laid in place. On land, burying such cables adds greatly to project costs, and often encountering the same barriers of land use permissions as do aerial systems.
@@CTimmerman (Edited for typo: "impractical" not "practical") The problems with HV UG are more on the physical side. We think of soil as being solid and, if we go deep enough, stable. It turns out we only notice major faults, but in reality there are enough slippage and sloughing zones to make anything but the shortest runs impractical. Roads can handle a couple feet per mile per decade creep; power lines can't.
Worse, repairing underground power lines is nearly impossible. In fact, Practical Engineering has a video titled "Repairing Underground Power Cables Is Nearly Impossible" Okay, that does not apply to distribution voltages up to about 12Kv. but those are not the problem anyway.
(Retired after 34 years in the field with a Fortune 100 electric company.)
@@nathandale3415 Another really big advantage of DC at EHV levels is stability. Every second or so generation must equal loss plus load; on an AC system discrepancies lower or raise the frequency and voltage, and the limits on that are tight indeed. People tend to think blackouts are the result of not enough electric generation or too much load, but the most common cause by far is instability. In recent years the rise of Remedial Action Schemes - a virtual network of power plants and large substations to dynamically manage a grid for stability - are improving the stability but DC would be far better. BTW, DC lines are not particularly vulnerable to geomagnetic storms.
YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!
Feel free. It is staggeringly expensive and slow: engineering is just a few months' work; negotiating purchase of land typically takes more than ten years, a few more years to acquire the materials (they are not sitting around, getting old, in hopes somebody will come along with millions of dollars to buy them). Once that is done the job can begin; it is a huge job taking many years. I recently retired from a Fortune 100 electric company; interstate lines that are now being planned can't be completed in my lifetime.
@@flagmichael WHOOSH!!
@@LordSlag Great joke, some are just uncultured swine.
@@aman7196 FOR AIUR!!
fantastic video editing!!!
An important topic commonly overlooked when talking about the green energy revolution. It's not as flashy as the other cutting edge solutions and is just seen as boring. Even the narrator is bored.
Maybe that's just her annoying voice. Solar is great survivalist gear.
Very tricky challenges to solve!
Why not pay the opponents off? It's called collateral, a normal part of any big project
They're idealists. You have to wrap it in faith or facts. Faith that non-nuclear energy will be enough, and facts that the existing solution's pollution and pylons kill more birds.
WTF that will cut into corp profits!
@@GrumblingGrognard Corporate profits are pretty stingy in the highly regulated bulk electric power industry. The public has a very distorted view, perhaps envisioning Mr. Burns from The Simpsons. The company I worked for had better than average performance, with the stock today being almost exactly the same as it was 8 years ago. Google the stock chart for PG&E, the notorious California utility so much in the news lately. The public has _very_ little idea about the complex realities of bulk electric power..
Sometimes that’s an option, sometimes not.
Great content, America is so behind
Most of the world is behind. America and Canada share the same electric system; both countries are governed by NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a watchdog. The problem is that modernization means money from ratepayers or investors: there is no federal money beyond the relatively small contribution from the Bureau of Water Reclamation. As I calculated in a comment above, bringing the system up to snuff 20 years ago would have cost about $40,000 per person in the US and Canada.
Paradoxically, the projects often provide a source of income to rural farms in Red counties, yet the Republicans are against these efforts…
That was a grain and box car train.
Instead of 'transmitting' gigawatts of electricity across hundreds of miles of '160,000 volt, 4-lane highways', why don't cities and suburbs deploy more innovative solutions to generate 'their own' electricity, like local neighbourhood power plants (NPPs we'll call them) and use every green-renewable energy source that's available in the area or region: such as solar on rooftops, especially in sunny locations; and/or wind turbines where it's windy; hydro-electricity wherever that may be available, without disturbing and degrading marine ecosystems. and perhaps controversially, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are quiet and clean, and may be ideal for generating power within a some larger cities or remote locations. But what to do with the spent nuclear fuel?? In any case, separate neighbourhood power plants could all be connected up in a kind of mesh network, enabling a potentially more robust electrical grid with built-in redundancy. so if a neighbourhood power plant went down for some reason, say or for temporary maintenance, then other NPPs would automatically take over and collectively share the electrical load coming from other power plants that have gone offline. it just makes more sense to generate all the electrical energy we possibly can in-situ (including geo-thermal), rather than rely upon monopolistic, profiteering mega-power companies to 'deliver electricity' to our cities, towns and communities; over hundreds or thousands of miles, intruding on nature & wildlife and communities wherever their high-voltage power lines need to be strung up over great distances. We could democratize power by generating our own electricity, in-situ, wherever we live & work, while improving reliability and bringing down costs.
Think about this: 173,000 terawatts of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use. And we're letting most of that solar energy go to waste. Sunny rooftops everywhere should be covered in solar panels, imo.
Totally agree with your idea but "greenfield sites" mean more money for those in denial about Horse Shoe Theory... Both the extreme left and right benefit from the status quo.
I was an architect and there are huge areas of industrial roofs in my country that could host solar panels co located to the areas that use the power for minimal up front additional cost but it's about political power and an investment opportunity it's certainly not bout saving the planet.
@@cameronbridges6365 not necessarily 'greenfield sites' (I had to look that term up, lol), but build and improve upon what's already been developed.
Honestly, you can't have it both ways. The US drastically needs to not only renew and upgrade existing electrical infrastructure but add huge amounts of new transmission line capacity. These groups that oppose everything should be neutered by appropriate legislation.
The gov can't just eminent domain it?
I guess the problem is not private ownership but legally protected natural areas and similarly legal public interests.
@@miguel5785 No problem if Trump is re-elected.
Nope. The system does not belong to either Canada or the USA in North America. It is a single system that spans the continent. I worked on the Western Interconnection; essentially North America west of the Rocky Mountains from the Mexican border to the Arctic Circle.
@@flagmichael If it's on US land, it can be eminent domained. Maybe in China they'll build around it if its owner disagrees.
@@CTimmerman It is an international service; neither the US nor Canada owns the rights-of-way. Just as well; if it were done under eminent domain we taxpayers would pay for it all, but the costs would almost certainly be higher.
This is quite an issue
You're asking locals to take a hit for little benefit. New transmission lines can reduce house prices etc. You'd need to properly sit down with locals and offer reimbursements. It's also a lesson to not politicize energy so strongly. In this case it's hard to push transmission lines on locals who are republicans when you've cancelled pipelines like Keystone.
Better and less expensive home and small business-scale batteries would make big powerlines unnecessary for most Americans. Solar panels have proven to be very cost effective. But Tesla Powerwalls are too weak and expensive to drive any change. A $10,000, residential/small business-scale batteries would allow individuals to generate and store their own energy, and would break the stranglehold that price gouging electricity monopolies have over Americans.
According to This Old House: As of 2023, the Tesla Powerwall costs between $9,200 and $14,200 when purchased directly from Tesla. This pricing does not reflect additional state or federal incentives, such as the federal solar tax credit. Tesla offers purchasing options for inclusion with a solar panel or roofing system or as a standalone purchase. Most homes need only one or two batteries to meet their basic energy storage needs.
This is one of the most realistic recommendations I have seen for distributed solar so far. Systems that backfeed the provider in the afternoon are destabilizing and not really compliant with FERC's "deregulation" regulations. (Yes, that phrase is contradictory.)
Local nuclear can use existing lines, and in many cases eliminate the need for long-distance transmission lines, both existing or new.
Nuke, agreed! But, given that the US House and Senate are now failed institutions, we Americans are no longer capable of implementing big projects. The failure of national and state legislatures has also meant that the legislators owned by big utility monopolies pass every rate hike the utilities propose. The one bright spot is solar panels. The 80% of Americans who live in regions where solar is effective can now break the stranglehold of the utility monopolies by installing solar. The weak point is still storage. Powerwalls are expensive and don’t store much power. A 50 kWh battery for $10,000 would end many of the utility monopolies as huge monopolies just cannot handle innovation and competition.
Local solar, wind, and gas can too, and you won't have nearly the same staffing issues and incident impact potentials that nuclear imposes.
Regulatory considerations make small nukes economically difficult. The regulatory requirements are essentially the same regardless of size; that is why nuke plants are so large. They also need a plentiful water source; lakes, rivers, and ocean fronts are popular. I worked for a while at the Palo Verde Nuclear generating Station west of Phoenix. No lake, no river, but a steady supply of treated effluent from Phoenix.
Most environmental objections are nothing but creative use of already creative laws made to create useless careers for people who couldn’t be bothered to be productive in life. There’s certainly a need to have people who can make the case for environmentally friendly infrastructure, but using constant lawsuits and misusing regulatory power needs to stop.
Disagree, most environmental objections are not! a few like these against transmission lines are a misuse of the law!
@@ecoideazventures6417 It’s fine you disagree, but how about an example or two? Then I think I can show you what I’m thinking.
T-pylons and Y-pylons could help
But Capacitor Banks are needed at Power Distribution Centers with Energy Storage Systems for uninterrupted transmission of electricity ⚡️. I do prefer Underground Cable Lines in Pipes.
Capacitor banks are a whole different thing. They are not for storage, but for power factor correction. When the PF is behaving itself a remotely controlled switch bypasses the cap bank, but when it gets too far afield the capacitors are switched in series with the line.
Speaking from experience in the field with a Fortune 100 electric company, underground is trouble in a tube. Even in my neighborhood, where we replaced direct burial (big mistake!) underground with UG in conduit the troublemen were out hunting down faults within a year. It is amazing how much soil shifts. The neighborhood does look nice without poles and wires, though.
Bloody nimby’s 😂
Imagine arguing for an autocratic society as if it wouldn’t ever make a decision which you wouldn’t agree with 😂. Of course you love it’s speed , if you agree with the policy.
Australia is currently going through the same experience. Our government plans to build 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines and as with those in America they are only necessary due to the roll-out of wind and solar. It makes no sense, wind and solar electricity generating plants are among the lowest density forms of energy available to mankind and on top of that they are weather dependent.
A government report came out in Australia earlier this year stating that the output of total nameplate capacity of wind turbines in our country produced just 30% of that nameplate capacity on average over a year. And for solar it was just 20% of total nameplate capacity. That's pathetic. We could never install enough backup to supply the 70% shortfall. To make this
Coal, gas, oil or nuclear power plants all have a far higher energy density and efficiency and are engineered to supply reliable energy 24/7 without the need for backup or new transmission lines.
I accidentally posted before I'd finished and they won't let me edit. Second paragraph last sentence, To make this even worse, industrial solar projects are only financially viable for around 20 years as they lose efficiency over time. Wind turbines last around 15 years or less and batteries last around 10 years.
Apart from being engineered to provide reliable energy 24/7 without the need for backup or new transmission lines coal, gas, oil or nuclear power plants last between 50 and 80 years.
Renewables are simply not fit for purpose and they are certainly not clean, green, reliable, sustainable or a cheap source of energy. Our native wildlife and birds are going to be decimated for a part-time short-term pathetic output of energy. It isn't a rapid roll-out of energy, it's a rapid destruction of the environment, it's a rapid increase in human degradation including child slavery and it's a land grab, at least here it is. Australia has a total of only 6% agricultural land and that is where this infrastructure is mostly going. What is going onto farmland is being installed on national parkland.
None of this has anything to do with "clean energy". This is a lie. If it's being forced on you, ask who is responsible for the clean-up in twenty years time or less. Ask them who is going to pay for soil testing after a hailstorm damages the infrastructure or a grass fire. Ask them what will happen to the infrastructure at end of life. Ask them how you can fix the generational relationships that have broken down because neighbours were pitted against each other. Renewables will destroy our environment and our economies. We will not have enough energy to survive. Renewables will destroy our society and I believe that is the intention.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 I'm from rural OZ a farmers son. They blame the farmer for the nimby opposition but the architect in me thinks that the rural residential peri urban sprawl surrounding all rural towns and cities are a little more adverse to their property prices being annihilated by transmission lines going through. Especially with in perpetuity environmental covenants all over the place.
How you hang yourself lol but just blame the farmer.
However even my property would be ruined by a just one high voltage power line. They're simply too big unless you have over 20 000 acres...
BTW the architect in the Snowy Mountain is designing his own hydro electric power station with his old man a former electrical linesman
@@cameronbridges6365 Why is it that city people don't think we should be upset at having our sense of place turned into an industrial zone? Our properties will not only be reduced in value, in many cases they will be impossible to sell. What they are doing to us is an experiment that has already failed in the Northern Hemisphere. They are destroying our environment, our wildlife and the very fabric of our society out here for a failed idea.
Fossil fuels are part of limited and diminishing reserves, though. For example, the US has maybe 5 years of proven oil reserves left (if it relied solely on domestic supplies). It's the energy of the past. Also, it's destroying the planet. Would you prefer to live on a planet undergoing an early heat death or one where we have an excess of wind turbines? Or for that matter, would you prefer to live in a country that is riding high on the green economic wave or one that's dying because it's overly dependent on a dwindling natural resource? People need to be more far sighted.
@@joshl6275 I wrote you a lengthy response Josh and it wasn't published. This is the extent that they go to so that people like you cannot easily access the truth. You are absolutely correct Josh people need to be more far sighted, but that includes you. Look up ' Wind and Solar Electricity Generation are the Answer. Seriously? ' We have been researching renewables for nearly five years and have been called as witnesses at two parliamentary hearings. You are being lied to Josh.
America.. if you don't wake up. You'll be left behind..
The only way this can be fixed is if politicians attribute this issue into a war or something.
Yeah! Not like the US just passed the Inflation Reduction Act as the biggest climate policy every...
War on Pollution! The USA might actually win that, unless it counts product chain countries like China, where "green" is literal paint.
It IS a war.
The problem is the public has no idea how the bulk electric power system is paid for in North America. Essentially 100% of the costs are borne by ratepayers... politicians have only some regulatory power, particularly in the matters of security (the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency) and how costs can be charged (FERC). The only way this can be fixed is if ratepayers call for rate hikes. The villain in this is us. (Retired 5 years ago from a Fortune 100 electric utility.)
@@flagmichael Rate hikes? I guess not counting existing infrastructure and pollution does make fossil cheaper in the short run than constructing additional wind, fission, or solar fusion plants.
Of course no one EVER talks about the carbon footprint and the TOXIC METALS pollution required by electrification. Not to mention that battery operated cars are running on coal in m any areas. How is this a good plan - mining, milling, building, transporting, manufacturing - creating an enormous carbon investment to reduce carbon. WTF is wrong with you people?
Sorry but why is the narrator crying?!!!
Dead birds either way?
Funny how they go to great lengths camoflaging cel towers but have no problems draping these ugly things across some of most beautiful landscapes. I live out west and they're constructing these things all over with more planed ruining some of America's most beautiful country it is truly heartbreaking😮
you want to live without electricity?
@@cynicalsuka2463 I personally use very little
@@cynicalsuka2463 I don't need your crap ideas to make electricity
📝 Summary of Key Points:
📌 The video highlights the conflict between local communities and the need for infrastructure development in building transmission lines in the United States to support the transition to clean energy.
🧐 The Cardinal-Hickory Creek project is used as an example of the battle between environmental concerns and the necessity of building transmission lines to connect renewable energy sources to millions of homes.
🚀 The video emphasizes the importance of transmission buildout to achieve America's goals of electrification and decarbonization, including President Joe Biden's goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035.
🚀 The video discusses the political challenges and the urgent need for permitting reform to expedite the construction of transmission lines, highlighting the potential impact of delays and opposition on the country's ability to transition away from fossil fuels and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
💡 Additional Insights and Observations:
💬 "We need to build transmission lines to connect renewable energy sources to the grid and deliver clean electricity to millions of homes."
📊 The video does not provide specific data or statistics.
🌐 The video does not reference any specific sources or references.
📣 Concluding Remarks:
The video emphasizes the challenges and importance of building transmission lines in the United States to support the transition to clean energy. It highlights the conflict between local communities and the need for infrastructure development, using the Cardinal-Hickory Creek project as an example. The video underscores the urgency of transmission buildout to achieve America's goals of electrification and decarbonization, including President Biden's clean electricity goal. It also calls for permitting reform to expedite construction and warns of the potential consequences of delays and opposition on the country's ability to transition away from fossil fuels and achieve net-zero emissions.
Generated using Talkbud (Browser Extension)
I just hope the energy transition is for all the right reasons. Not for nefarious ones.
It's not. Total boondoggle. Attack on humans.
Oh no! We might accidentally clean up our economies and environment because of "nefarious" reasons (whatever that means). What a terrible shame...
@@CausticLemons7 Nefarious - morally bad, wicked or criminal.
Now you know.
@@Derideo You haven't explained anything. If we replace a greenhouse gas producing, pollution emitting, expensive coal power plant with a silent, renewable, cost-effective solar solution but a bad person profits then what is the conclusion? I am strongly against crime and corruption but I'm not seeing this alternative that this opinion offers.
@@CausticLemons7 The fact that you are repeating the big lie that CO2 is harmful pollution is as nefarious as the lie itself. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.
Its the democratic system that is the problem. Ah.... I see.
Question: How are the minerals required for these transmission lines mined, manufactured and transported?
Another question: What materials are used to manufacture all of these "clean energy" sources and how are these minerals mined, manufactured and transported?
The answer is petroleum and petroleum byproducts.
Final question: What ecosystems will be destroyed in all the mining required to acquire the minerals necessary to produce all of this "infrastructure" and how many ecosystems will be destroyed by their installation?
Hmmm... So tell me again how infringing on individual property rights and destroying ecosystems is "progress".
Answer: Its not... so go find another grift.
Yet another news video that highlights problems and provides no practical solutions. Thanks for nothing.
There's no such thing as renewable energy. Just like perpetual motion.