What’s Good For Generac Is Bad For America
The question that must be addressed is this: why is the grid becoming less reliable? While some recent news stories are pinning the blame on climate change, the reality is that bad policy and grid mismanagement are fragilizing our most important energy network. Over the past two decades, our grid has been fragilized by three things: the headlong rush to add weather-dependent renewables like wind and solar, the closure of coal and nuclear plants which provide baseload power and help keep the grid stable, and mismanagement of the country’s bulk power system by regional transmission organizations like ERCOT in Texas and CAISO in California, which do not provide the incentives needed to assure reliability and resilience.
Ignoring the absolutely horrid made-up word: “Fragilize,” this is exactly what is happening.
The weakening of our grid matters now because climate activists are pushing policies that will make it even weaker. Many of America’s biggest and most influential activist groups, including the Sierra Club, are pushing to shutter all of the coal- and gas-fired generators in the country. Furthermore, groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council have successfully pushed for the closure of nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center, which was prematurely shuttered last year. The NRDC also spearheaded the push to close California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which is slated to begin shutdown in 2024. In addition, many of these same pressure groups are demanding that we rely more heavily (or solely) on renewables and “electrify everything,” including industry and transportation. That’s a remarkable ask given that the grid is struggling to keep up with demand under existing loads.
Anyone care to make the connection? A rational environmental movement would push a zero-emissions nuclear power grid over solar, which gobbles up huge amounts of land and resources, or wind, which does similar damage to the environment. An environmental movement funded by nefarious actors such as Soros (and the Soviets in the 1970s) would push expensive and unreliable energy sources while simultaneously destroying the baseline supply.
Because the goal is not to improve the environment: it is to break down the fabric of American society by degrading our institutions (The Long March), our moral society (abortion, gay marriage and the current tranny/gender/sex insanity) and in this case our formerly fantastic infrastructure. All in service to the ultimate goal of a socialist paradise. Or in reality, a socialistic hell-hole governed by a small group of globalist elites.
The math is simple and unimpeachable; we cannot eliminate nuclear and petroleum from the energy mix without a drastic reduction in our standard of living. Adding a huge baseline load of electric vehicles is enough to overwhelm the current grid. Then add increased industrial demand for electricity while simultaneously decreasing the only reliable source of electricity is a recipe for disaster. It is guaranteed to fail, and anyone who is paying attention knows it. The useful idiots in the lower reaches of the environmental movement are too enamored of their pie-in-the-sky dreams to understand, but their sources of funding know very well what the outcome will be: a sadly diminished America with significant gaps in basic services, skyrocketing poverty, and an angry and unsettled populace.
Paging Antonio Gramsci to the white courtesy phone (if it even works).
[Hat Tip: dhmosquito]
