Don’t try to play dummy with me, sonny. I have read your posts here. I know you are one smart cookie and easily astute enough to understand inefficiencies introduced by energy conversion processes.
Do not allow your ideology to eclipse your intelligence.
This new school may be a good idea if comes with more funding for research. It depends on what they are studying. If it’s new battery technology, nuclear power, how to recycle batteries and windmills, it’s a good idea. It’s more climate alarmism and how we are all going to die in 10 years, not so much.
I agree with the potential conversion inefficiencies, but I’m not from NY nor follow their news closely, so I can’t be sure if the other things written in there are factual. Is there a gas stove ban? Does most of NY’s electricity come from natural gas? Do they plan on increasing other sources and reducing natural gas use simultaneously with a gas stove “ban”? Did Mark Mills actually say what the blog post claims he said? I actually tried googling for some of these things and nothing as damning as this article suggests came up. But really it shouldn’t be on me to have to verify everything written on some random website by an anonymous poster.
According to that 2017 article, 44% of electricity came from natural gas. That’s not “most” and definitely not “almost all”. And it describes long-term plans to increase green sources, so it might be even less than 44% now, and will be even less going forward.
This is cool: Real-Time Dashboard - NYISO. But it shows NY state (~26% NG + ~21% for dual-fuel, which can be NG and other sources), can’t find generation breakdown by region, like NYC.
I presume you read the article. If so, why do you feel the need to slant the facts? If your argument is good, you can be honest, and let your argument stand on its own.
Also, I believe the article talked more about NYS than NYC, but I didn’t got too far into it … just far enough to know that your above statements are a lot closer to Algore’s “award winning” documentary than the truth. It’s becoming hard to take anything you say seriously
In other words, your article about NYS did nothing for the original argument about NYC. Right? Thanks for nothing I guess. 
I could not read the article behind a pay wall. But I’m curious how they do their calculation. Do they integrate the power to give energy over the whole year? How do they account for the variability of solar and wind.? Are their numbers averaged over a long enough time period to get decent statistics? Edit. in 2017, the Indian point nuclear power plant was still open. What fraction of the energy was produced by that facility? If it is large, it would skew the statistics and make you think natural gas was lower than it is now since the nuclear power is now replaced by natural gas power.
California had blackouts in 2020 when a heat wavemeant there was insufficient power available as the sun went down and renewable sources shut down. Now California’s energy officials are predicting a repeat this summer if anything unexpected happens.
Time to talk with Generac.
When you’ve barely started and are already running into issues, you need to rethink your plan altogether…
Wrong! Since you can type, I presume you can read. Besides, I picked it because it came form the bird cage liner company. I knew that would tickle your fancy.
Just because you were wrong again, don’t get discouraged. W̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ Most people learn more from failure than success.
An obvious headline, as capital markets find the anti- ESG assets a home with someone who is happy to own them.
Perhaps the number one force behind ESG has been BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager with $10 trillion under management.
Given BlackRock’s prominence in the ESG movement, this headline couldn’t be more welcome: BlackRock ditches green activism over Russia energy fears.
BlackRock has warned it will vote against most shareholder green activism this year for being too extreme, in a significant u-turn by the world’s biggest money manager.
The company said it was concerned about proposals to stop financing fossil fuel companies, including forcing them to decommission assets and setting absolute targets for reducing emissions in their supply chains.
In a stewardship report, the asset manager said: “We do not consider [the proposals] to be consistent with our clients’ long-term financial interests.”
No kidding!
Its update represents a significant volte face for the asset manager which has been at the forefront of Wall Street’s push to encourage companies to shun fossil fuels and transition to greener alternatives.
Others who are not blinded by ideology will offer better results for their clients:
The decision to distance itself from “prescriptive” climate change policies comes as institutional investors face criticism for allegedly pushing political agendas.
There are indications that wokeism has begun to retreat across a broad front. Let’s hope we can drive a stake through the heart of that complex of hateful ideologies.
not green energy but shows the problems with the people hating so-called environmentalists
Isn’t the real problem here that this company has spent 20 years(!!) and $100-million just to get to this vote? How the hell do you spend that much on a building project without yet building anything?
because of all the multiple bureaucratic approvals that they have to get. This is the same problem with the cost of nuclear power plants. The regulators are against actual solutions to our problems. I recall that the Obama administration appointed an anti-nuclear activist to be the head of the nuclear regulatory commission. edit. which regulates the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
This year’s rally in oil prices, fueled in part by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has hurt those betting against oil and gas companies, among the biggest contributors to global warming. At the same time, investors have been pulling cash from environmental, social and governance-labeled funds after plowing cash into them in recent years.
Some of the largest climate-focused exchange-traded funds, for example, have seen steady outflows this year, including the $1.8 billion Invesco Solar ETF, which has had a net $230 million of redemptions, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Musk is a master at Twitter. he is commenting on Tesla being removed from the Standard and Poor’s E.S.G. index
So you can go long instead of shorting an ESG ETF.
The ESG Orphans ETF $ORFN is launching today… Here are the holdings, chock full of all industries shunned by ESG incl oil, tobacco, firearms, gambling and alcohol.
