Pure energy wins in the bidding budget and alas

Increasing pure energy is in his heart President BidenNew Bays also easily beats the memory effort in California. A second high-ranking official left DHS within a week.With trillion dollars at stake in congressional spending, but somehow at risk, it is easy to lose sight of the policies and ideas of individuals who support them financially. These are the victories and woes of the pure power buried in these accounts. Some actions responsibly reinforce energy goals, while others engage in costly and unproductive activities.

Congress leaders must separate the wheat from the chaff before you can hook up American taxpayers for decades to pay for high-cost packages. Pure energy policies must meet current needs, not the fastest ways to spend billions of dollars.

The biggest success of spending bills is financial support for the construction of new power lines – the cables from the power plant to the power plant. The basic problem for many clean energy projects is the lack of transmission capacity. The best places for wind and solar power are away from public centers that use that electricity. But transferring that power is not as easy as running on existing transmission wires – those lines can only hold a lot of electricity at once, and carrying too much power will cook the wires.

The reality is that the grid in the main wind and solar regions is too congested to accommodate all the electricity generated today, let alone for new projects. This is holding back hundreds of previously proven, low-cost wind and solar projects that could bring dozens of watts of power to the grid — enough to power millions of homes and businesses. Increased transmission capacity will help families and businesses across the country use wind and solar power.

Another important component of bringing new clean energy projects online is the materials needed to build them. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries all use certain minerals and metals known as rare earth elements, of which the United States uses a lot but produces little. Bringing a large number of unconventional elements into the market is a key challenge in clean energy construction.

The United States has a number of unusual earth resources to make the most of it, and expenditure accounts for two key components. One-third of the United States has enough maps for mining, and the accounts provide financial support. So, cautiously, data from Canada and Australia suggest that government map investments cost $ 1 in private mining investments. The accounts also strengthen research funding for mining recycling, which helps keep these materials on the market for a longer period of time.

Expenditures provide partial victory (and partial loss) of the United States’ largest carbon-free power source: nuclear power. On the one hand, it is good that accounts ignore nuclear energy in the construction of clean energy (as some clean energy advocates often do). On the other hand, simply giving money to big, traditional nuclear power plants that are struggling financially will lose the key opportunity to look ahead. The future of nuclear power is small-module stimuli – cheap, safe, small, and innovative in the field. As a candidate, BNN proposed cutting red tape to speed up SMR deployment, but these figures remained silent.

Another policy flaw is the government’s decision to spend large sums of money on energy efficiency improvements, which are routinely overestimated. For example, a study of the federal low-income household energy saving program found that those families spent more than double the cost of energy savings. The cost of reducing one ton of carbon dioxide emissions is seven times greater than the economic cost of carbon dioxide. Reducing household energy costs is a good goal, but instead of wasting money on expensive equipment upgrades, it would be better to follow policies that make electricity itself less expensive.

The biggest mistake in expenditures is the Biden Energy Policy Center – Pure Energy Payment Program (CEPP). When you pay extra taxes on immovable property, the CPP pays extra utilities (out of taxpayers’ pockets) to develop more clean energy. At the same time, this approach is exacerbating one of the major challenges, while neglecting the regression of pure energy.

The cost of clean energy investment and technology – perhaps the target of CEPP – is not going to backfire. Even when there is a shortage in 2020, a record $ 25 billion has been invested in wind power. Key regulatory improvements in grid linking and transfer can open up trillions of dollars in private energy. The biggest obstacle to clean energy is control in nature, but CEPP exacerbates this problem by supporting a more expensive control machine – monopoly resources.

C.E.P.E.E.P.P.P.P.P. Provides monopolistic resources, disrupts distributed generation resources, and deprives their customers of their own clean energy technology by providing funding and methods to set up competitive barriers from competing clean energy suppliers. Better a poor horse than no horse at all.

Finally, Biden’s budget is a mixed bag of clean energy policies. Some solve real challenges by bringing pure energy to market, while others are more counterintuitive than creative. Understanding what is needed to bring more clean energy to the market tomorrow is crucial to finding the right policies that support today.

Jacobc Kate is a contributor and co-contributor to Youth Voice Power Policy. The comments here are his own, not those of another organization.


Leave a Comment