[ETH_start]

I personally love carbon credits and while I wouldn't go as far as saying I love EV subsidies - due to the graft that often accompanies subsidies - I am positively inclined toward them.

If you study the history of nuclear power, you will see that environmental groups and green parties have been the singular force stopping its expansion. This criticism is not an exaggeration and justifies my harsh judgment of them.

>>See Michael Shellenberger for example of someone who is obviously lying

What makes it obvious that he's lying?

[ZeroGravitas]

The consistent pattern of everything he's ever said on the topic:

https://www.desmog.com/michael-shellenberger/

Like you he claims to be pro-nuclear but is also scathing about government subsidies and expensive power. Which doesn't add up, not for two decades if you're paying attention, and certainly not for the last five years even if you haven't. Renewables are cheap power.

It's like his audience is a couple of decades behind the facts if they can accept this as a logical argument.

His very pro natural gas stance is also a weird anomaly.

[ETH_start]

>>Renewables are cheap power.

Renewables are not cheap power.

"True cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh"

https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame...

>>His very pro natural gas stance is also a weird anomaly

Natural gas is cheap and cleaner than coal.

[Schroedingersat]

Your 'study' by fossil fuel interest using flawed statistics and outdated data that triple and quadruple counts costs that don't even show up until renewable penetration is 3x the current amounts and are already being internalised by hybrid and internal storage programs means nothing.

It does make for a pretty good demonstration of the type of shilling Shellenberger does though, so props on that part.

[ETH_start]

Plenty of studies look at renewables through rose colored glasses and are funded by groups with ideological agendas and financial conflicts of interest. This study is quite sober compared to them.

The study projects out the costs of going 100% renewable in Minnesota as the current plan calls for, so the assumption of 3x penetration is appropriate. I also don't see the basis for your claim that it triples/quadruples costs.

>>by fossil fuel interest

Which fossil fuel interests?

The study says that Minnesota could achieve the 100% zero carbon goal without unduly burdering the state's residents if it depends on hydroelectric and nuclear, neither of which is fossil fuel.

[Schroedingersat]

If your 'study' is counting costs for storage (which is load balancing), and for curtailment (which is load balancing) and for load balancing and is charging all three on curtailed energy. And is doing at all at double current prices rather than projected future prices. Then maybe 'sober' isn't the best adjective.

[ZeroGravitas]

That's a really bad report.

"We don't need Californian solutions in Minnesota" is not the kind of argument you want to be making if you want to be taken seriously as an objective source.

Why isn't renewables a Texas solution? They got help from someone in Texas to write this and Texas has lots of renewables.