Yes, wind, solar, tidal generators, etc. are the long term solutions. Costs are slowly dropping and efficiency is rising, and battery technology is improving. No argument.
My concern is the ageing electric grid, capacity issues and security. And maybe my concerns are unwarranted. If that were the case, why are they pretty much universally ignored by those wanting us to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday? When questions are raised about how temporary shortfalls, problems, etc. will be handled the response is crickets.
Regarding no new gas hookups in NYC:
- I wonder how many new subscriptions for steam service we'll see.
- ConEd is the major supplier of electricity. They have zero credibility. Nothing they say will ever be believed by any New Yorker. I wish them luck convincing people that electricity will not skyrocket for everybody as total demand increases.
- Last I checked renewables produced about 15% of the electric supply. While I've no doubt that number will rise, it'll most likely do so slowly. Natural gas supplies the majority of the remainder. So if demand for electricity increases, most of it'll be met by burning gas. With Indian Point out of the picture, the resulting hole is being filled by (again) increased consumption of natural gas... at least according to what I read some time ago. But even that was vague. When questions were asked about the plans to compensate for taking Indian Point out of service, the response was this non-answer that amounted to "It'll be fine."
Nuclear:
If only 2 people died from radiation poisoning as a result of a tsunami hitting Fukushima, doesn't that argue FOR the safety of that particular reactor design?
Chernobyl: IIRC that design was outdated when it was built and even within the Soviet Union many engineers were against building any more reactors of that design. And then of course it wasn't run properly. Point is that it doesn't weigh in the equation at all about nuclear power in the west.
