SCC, SMR Nukes Caught in Energy Wars Deadlock

Available: Lovely Main Street  office space, with views.

by Steve Haner

What the 2023 General Assembly didn’t pass is also an important Virginia energy policy story, starting with failure on its part to fill the two open seats on the crucial State Corporation Commission. This follows its failure last year to fill one open seat on the three-judge panel.

As reported yesterday, advocates for restored SCC authority over utility rates had more success this year than in a long time, largely because Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) was among them. The bills awaiting his signature may not mean much if the Commission itself is barely functioning. A string of major cases for 2023 was created by these new bills, with just one commissioner and perhaps some interim substitute judges to hear them.

The failure to agree on two names was accompanied by a refusal to pass the proposed legislation that would have given both new judges a full six-year term. Otherwise, one of them would be filling out the short remaining tenure of retired Commissioner Judith Jadgmann. She left her seat early in part to create the opportunity for Republicans and Democrats in the divided Assembly to each name one commissioner. Compromise eluded them.

There is one difference this time. This year, unlike last year, the Assembly is fully adjourned. Unless names appear at the reconvened session April 12, it may be possible for Youngkin to name interim commissioners, but anyone so named would have to be confirmed by the next (post-election) General Assembly.

The battle over SCC seats is really another battle over energy policy. How its members will rule on banking, insurance or railroad safety controversies cannot matter to legislators, but how they rule on offshore wind and solar developments are of great concern to many. The idea that commissioners might just follow the law, evidence and precedents seems like wishful thinking.

The deadlock over the SCC is just another result of the overall energy deadlock between the Republicans who control the House of Delegates and Democrats who control the Virginia Senate. Along with other liberal priorities, Democrats defended all the elements of the Green New Deal energy vision they adopted under Governor Ralph Northam. Nothing was rolled back this year, just as nothing was last year.

Once again, the House voted to pass but the Senate killed a bill to decouple Virginia from California’s air pollution regulations which will soon begin to mandate certain levels of electric vehicle sales. The House voted to pass but the Senate killed legislation to prevent Virginia’s local governments from restricting or banning the use of natural gas in homes and businesses.

This year did bring a new issue on that front, however, harder for the Democrats to just reject. Governor Youngkin has revived interest in nuclear power, clearly a no-carbon alternative and one that provides the kind of reliable baseload that can support the intermittent power generation of solar and wind facilities.

No law needs to pass or change for any Virginia utility to propose such a facility, or for the SCC to approve such a facility. It is just another power plant covered by the usual process for building new generation. But two major bills were introduced to give the technology a boost, in particular the small modular reactors (SMRs) likely to replace the standard nuclear designs of earlier decades.

Perceived as threats to the advantages and incentives in place for wind and solar and battery, both bills ultimately failed.

House Bill 2333 seemed to be drafted to ease the path to such a facility for Dominion Energy Virginia, since it required the developer of an SMR facility to have a prior history with nuclear plants. Legislators who elsewhere were voting to restore SCC autonomy seemed quite comfortable with this language that attempted to dictate terms to the regulators, although there was no effort to assert that SMR technology was “in the public interest” or to be “deemed reasonable and prudent.”

But it did include language that such applications would be “liberally granted to facilitate” such a plant. That is where the Senate Democrats had other plans, and they sent the bill back approved, but with the following revision:

The costs of a small modular nuclear reactor approved under this section, other than return on projected construction work in progress and allowance for funds used during construction, shall not be recovered prior to the date such facility constructed by the utility begins commercial operation. In the event a utility abandons a small modular nuclear reactor approved under this section prior to commercial operation, the utility shall not recover any capital costs regardless of whether such costs were reasonably and prudently incurred. The Commission may impose additional conditions it believes necessary to protect customers against unreasonable construction, development, or operational risk.

The first thought one might have on reading that: that would have been a great addition to the bill mandating construction of the offshore wind boondoggle. Of course, Democrats had no interest in imposing such consumer protections in that case. The House Republicans wouldn’t accept it on behalf of the SMR idea either, so the bill died in a conference committee.

House Bill 2197 was a more direct threat to the wind-solar-battery hegemony, and the gigantic global industries getting rich off that near monopoly. It would have allowed nuclear power onto the renewable energy credit gravy train, allowing it and hydrogen-fueled projects to count toward utilities meeting their renewable portfolio standards mandates. More gigawatts from nuclear might mean fewer from wind or solar (and batteries become totally unnecessary.)

When killing the bill in a Senate committee, which Democrats promptly did, the discussion mainly focused on the hydrogen proposal. Even with the use of hydrogen, only a subset of possible sources is favored by environmental purists, because it takes energy to split off and capture the volatile hydrogen atoms. The committee discussion devolved into a debate over blue hydrogen, green hydrogen, or brown hydrogen.

That was a distraction. It is nuclear power that is a real threat to the wind and solar industrial complexes. The bill went away because it wanted to treat nuclear energy as morally and legally equal to those, which under Virginia Democrats’ vision for Virginia’s energy future cannot be allowed.

To top it off, Democrats in the Senate killed a simple House bill to allow a few Southwest Virginia localities to form a local revenue sharing agreement in the event a nuclear plant got built out there. The only reason to kill that was to reinforce that no such plant is coming, not while they rule the Senate.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

64 responses to “SCC, SMR Nukes Caught in Energy Wars Deadlock”

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    What amazes me is how often the government and the main stream media are wrong yet people continue to just accept their theories and analyses.

    Who can forget the “racist right wing conspiracy” that held Covid-19 resulted from a lab leak vs people eating bats? Now, the Department of Energy is leaning toward the assessment that the virus did indeed come from the Wuhan lab (albiet with “low confidence”). The FBI says the same (with “medium confidence”). But those on the left who lick the boots of the government’s so -called experts were having none of that when Sen Tom Cotton came out supporting the lab leak theory a few years ago.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21156607/how-did-the-coronavirus-get-started-china-wuhan-lab

    In 2021, the CDC insisted that the Covid vaccine provided better protection against Covid infection that being previously infected.

    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

    Now, guess what? For Delta, prior infection provided better protection than vaccinations.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/

    Now, we’re supposed to believe the cost and efficiency estimates for the offshore wind farm debacle from Dominion because our government says to believe those estimates? From fighter planes to Metro to Dulles – the government is almost never right when it comes to costs and schedules of major projects.

    I’ll bet anyone willing to take the challenge that this offshore wind farm hallucination will 1) cost vastly more than projected, 2) take vastly more time to complete than projected and 3) will affect greenhouse gasses vastly less than projected.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      The headline I saw said “conspiracy theorists” demanding apology re: COVID origin. Apparently anyone doubting liberal politically correct narrative is a conspiracy theorist.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        well , the ‘conspiracy’ part comes from whether it was an accident or a purposeful thing.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          That many dead Chinese point to accident.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            yep. And not the first time that a deadly disease has “escaped” from a lab and not only just China.

            What is it that China is really guilty of if it was an accident?

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Telling the truth from the get go would have helped. Shutting down travel.

          3. DJRippert Avatar

            The big question is whether China (perhaps with US funding support) was experimenting with gain of function. If so, hey failed to take the necessary protections.

            What was Dow Chemical guilty of in Bhopal?

            What is Norfolk Southern guilty of in East Palestine, OH?

            There are often liabilities for accidents, even if they are accidents.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        But they can”t be wrong about CO2. There is consensus! A hundred GIGO models! And now years and years of stable temperatures they never mention. Do you think the terrible schools are an accident? Educated and skeptical equal unruly.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          They could be wrong – but 100%, no chance what-so-ever they might be right?

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            They could be right. So, at what level of certainty do we go out on the leading edge of offshore wind farms? There is some kind of misunderstanding about the pace of advancement in technology. Moore’s Law applied only to transistor density and thus the price-performance of computer chips. As far as I know, there is no equivalent theory for batteries or electrical storage. Yet there is a belief that if we just pour enough money into green energy technology the costs will dramatically and quickly decline. Wishful thinking.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: moore’s law

            Can you tell me how many EVs there were…say 5 yrs ago?

            but it’s not about technology, it’s about how sure are you that there is no such thing as climate change?

            100%?

          3. DJRippert Avatar

            I think there is such a thing as climate change. I think clean energy will eventually be how the world is powered. I just wonder if the Dominion massive offshore wind farm is too much too soon. I heard today about something in California called CAISO. Apparently it is a public dashboard that discloses lots pf information about Cali’s clean energy production to the public. I haven’t had time to look into it yet.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, we probably agree more than we disagree. We often go further than is feasible on pushing new technologies. Not necessarily a bad thing. The Dominion wind thing is likely a de facto pilot and
            really Dominion does not care as long as they make their guaranteed profit.

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            0.000000000001% that they are right
            Run your decision tree analysis and make a policy decision

            Stop the stupid windmills!
            Have an electric grid that…is stable!
            Nuclear and gas. (But what would Dems do for graft?)

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          It ain’t just hypothesis, it’s known chemistry too.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “Low level of confidence”

      A billion years of zoonosis…. Do you bet 00 everytime?

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        If you understood probability or roulette you’d understand that betting 00 is no different than betting any other number on the roulette table. You have a 1 in 38 chance of winning with a 36 to 1 payout.

        You also overlook the location of the outbreak in China. Wuhan is home to China’s only Level 4 virology lab.

        Pretty big coincidence that the beer battered bats being eaten in China that transferred Covid to humans were eaten in the one city with a Level 4 virology lab.

        Your theory is more like splitting a pair of kings in blackjack.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    I think with the advent of lithium batteries for vehicles, the economics of making a liquid fuel somewhere and then transporting it to “stations” are problematic to using electricity as a “fuel”.

    There are, as of yet, no real cost effective ways of creating hydrogen and the current processes basically just convert one unit of one kind of energy into hydrogen when then has to be transported to stations unless it could be used to generate electricity. The only current way of doing that is to extract it from natural gas so why would it be done?

    If a cost-effective process of using solar energy to crack hydrogen from water is developed then you could burn that hydrogen on the spot to generate electricity and there would be little if any pollution.

    If that were to ever happen, we probably would no longer need fossil fuels nor nukes except as backup, just a lot of solar farms cracking hydrogen and it wouldn’t matter if they were intermittent or not if they created hydrogen when they were available and stored it on site to burn for electricity when they were not.

    SMRs are currently pretty expensive and just as radioactive as big nukes. We’d need more of them than big nukes and if you think people don’t want data centers in their backyard, you can bet they’ll hate SMRs just as much and they likely are going to have just as much or more opposition than solar farms.

    1. LesGabriel Avatar

      I have not seen a long-term analysis of the economics of lithium (or cadmium). What is the projected demand and supply? Where (and how) will it be mined and processed? How much will come from secure (U.S. and Canada?) sources? Appreciate any relevant links.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Pretty easy to give keywords to Google and turn it loose.

        Lithium is found around the world including in the US:

        And most of the car companies are investing billions into building EV manufacturing plants.

        Not everyone will own an EV but the majority of the world does live in urban areas and electricity will be about 1/4 what gas costs and cars will not have the issues that internal combustion engines do,

        1. LesGabriel Avatar

          If lithium is found around the world, it certainly is not evenly distributed. In 2022, 4 countries accounted for 96% of production and 5 accounted for 98%. But I was looking for a long-term projection which accounts for the production of all of those millions of new EV’s over the next 20 years. Where will all of those rare minerals and rare earths come from? Where does the comparison of gas and electricity come from and in what time frame? What issues of internal combustion engines are you talking about? EV’s might not have the same problems but we know already that they have a whole host of new ones.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            The consensus I’ve read seems to be that we actually have more than enough lithium but mining has to expand to get it. Electricity from wind/solar is essentially unlimited but since it is intermittent, we do have to have backup. We will still burn gas just a lot less of it. Internal combustion engines require much more maintenance and are much more costly to operate and maintain over time compared to EVs. EVs don’t need oil changes, fuel filters, carburetors, catalytic converters, etc, etc. Electric engines are relatively simple and trouble-free compared to ICs. Electricity is not going go away, it’s fundamental to civilization. But how we produce it will get better and better and less and less polluting.

        1. LesGabriel Avatar

          These look like consumption figures, not production. The numbers I saw for production in 2022 show 98% coming from 5 countries. The bigger question is where will we get what we need to produce millions of EV’s over the next couple of decades.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Those are current known deposits. The 3-country border region in the Andes is the largest known. The US has at least 4% of the world’s supply, so far.

            I somehow doubt that Bolivia consumes as much as we.

            Recycling.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s not that there are not reserves, it’s more than there has not been demand to drive more mining and production.

            This is said to be the world’s largest mine:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbushes_mine#:~:text=The%20Greenbushes%20lithium%20mine%20is,town%20of%20Greenbushes%2C%20Western%20Australia.

          3. LesGabriel Avatar

            Apparently no one has found any projections on how much lithium, cadmium, and rare earths will be needed to fulfill the dream of replacing fossil fuels by 2035 or 2050 or whatever the goal is now.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            no more or less than we thought there would be as much gas as we have found by fracking, right?

            It’s no dream to replace fossil fuels 100% by 2035. It’s not even a hard goal. It’s working to reduce them just as we have with coal and we’re still using it for 20% and not there yet.

            Same thing with CFCs and the ozone holes.

            What would you do? NOthing>

            just keep burning coal and using CFCs as before?

          5. LesGabriel Avatar
            LesGabriel

            I think it is incumbent on those who want to replace the burning of all fossil fuels by a date certain to present a detailed transition, step-by-step plan on exactly how it would work. Any such massive change in the world economy will involve a great deal of hardship, especially those who are at the lower levels of the economic scale. Citizens need to know the costs and benefits in detail as they make public policy decisions regarding the scope and speed of such a transition.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so, did they do that for when they phased out leaded gas or CFCs or coal plants?

          7. LesGabriel Avatar
            LesGabriel

            No. But only the last of those had a significant economic effect on a large number of people, and even the effect of coal plant phase-out pales in comparison to phasing out all fossil fuels. By the way, China is building more coal plants now than in previous years. What would be the harm in developing cost benefit analysis unless there were something to hide. How can we make correct public policy decisions without complete, accurate information?

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Do you not think going to unleaded gas or phasing out CFCs had a big impact on folks also?
            Consider also the many substances and chemicals that have been restricted and banned over
            the years. How you even do such an analysis, much less figure out over how many years?

            I’m not arguing against it per se but aren’t you using a double standard now that has not been
            in such a way used before?

            Your suggestion would actually cause harm in trying to transition away from harmful substance and pollution if they were required to do what you’re advocating. No?

          9. LesGabriel Avatar
            LesGabriel

            I think the effects of phasing out fossil fuels would be many orders of magnitude greater than any of your examples. I don’t understand your suggestion that weighing the costs and benefits could cause harm. How so? Those who are advocating a deadline of 2035 or 2050 must have already done an analysis to come up with those dates. They just need to show it to the rest of us so we can examine its assumptions and methodologies.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think they do weigh the costs and benefits but perhaps not to the degree you want but again, are you using the same standard or a different one for fossil fuels? This is no drop-dead date for phasing out all fossil fuels 100%. Where is that idea coming from? Is it coming from the folks who are opposed to any phasing out of fossil fuels over time? That’s their boogeyman claim? Perhaps you do not remember the hew and cry when gasoline had the lead removed or coal plants were being more and more tightly regulated and it was characterized as a “war on coal”? How about the “war on incandescent lights”? Remember that? We STILL are using coal BTW, about 20% still … what was the drop dead date for totally not using coal any more? Was there ever one? Is there really one for
            fossil fuels or is just a narrative that is simply not true?

          11. LesGabriel Avatar
            LesGabriel

            Please look at the Green New Deal in Wikipedia. Among its goals were moving the U.S. to 100% renewable electricity and transportation by 2030 and phasing out gas-powered cars by 2040. The goal was for a net-zero emissions world by 2050. This was not just a hare-brained scheme by AOC. This Resolution was supported by hundreds of legislators and many organizations.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you do see the word “goal” as opposed to “drop dead date”, right? You do realize there was a “goal” for phasing out coal plants and we are still not there on the goal. Right? There’s also a goal on CCs and we’re not reached that either… you’re confusing hyperbole from activists from realities from those who are committed to change but pragmatic enough to know it won’t happen on a date-certain basis. At the end of the day, what are you really saying beyond demonizing the efforts to reduce things that we are trying to phase out with the recognition that goals are not drop-dead dates?

          13. LesGabriel Avatar
            LesGabriel

            There are real-world consequences of these goals. Authorities do not issue permits for certain (disfavored) projects and they forego regulations on other, favored projects. Because Germany decommissioned many of its nuclear plants, they are now facing a real world shortage of energy. If you are going to set a goal, you should be responsible enough to develop a transparent plan for achieving that goal. Otherwise, what is the point? Of course, future, unforeseen events might cause a modification in the plans or goals. What I suggest is that these unforeseen future events are really foreseeable, if we dig deeply and transparently into them. As I said before, the people who voted for the GND in 2019 were not just hyperbolic activists, but legislators and other thought leaders who are still making world-changing decisions today. I would like to think that they are pragmatic enough to accept realities, but experience shows that some are so wedded to their ideology, that reality takes second place.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If we did what you say, would we have ever outlawed leaded gasoline? What would we have had to do that you say we should have before we outlawed it?

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Tons of lithium batteries in a vehicle is not an eco-panacea except for US liberals who have political preference for that, and only that. The EV lobby has become the new ethanol lobby, where the ethanol lobby is heading, I do not know. But Iowa is losing its King Corn status already.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        You mean it’s possible we may stop burning our food?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        regardless of politics, most of the car companies are investing billions of dollars into new EV plants. They don’t care about the politics. Conservatives will easily convert to EVs if it saves them big bucks on gas.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          Instead of 100,000 gas stations we just need about 100 million charging stations…yes much more practical

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            less need for catalytic converters, tanker trucks, refineries, pipelines or storage tanks?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            OTOH, while much smaller than virtually any of those things, a battery fire is a spectacular sight.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, fewer unburned hydrocarbons with a charge wire over a hose.

            No Evap system on an EV.

    3. DJRippert Avatar

      This is a good article about lithium and EVs. Once again, our government is working at cross purposes with itself. Biden’s demand for EVs coupled with a domestic sourcing requirement in order to get tax breaks coupled with a long permitting process for opening lithium mines just doesn’t add up.

      Once again, our broken and incompetent government is stumbling and bumbling over its own feet.

      https://insideevs.com/news/609121/lithium-supply-cant-meet-demand-ev-targets/

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Lithium-ion battery recycling company Li-Cycle scores $375 million conditional loan from Energy Department for Rochester plant. PUBLISHED MON, FEB 27 20236:30 AM EST”

    Well, drat the luck! Looks like New York will be the recycling site.

    Thank god, at least Virginia will get the manufacturing site… oh wait.

  4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Seems to me I would not mind to see gov’t military running SMR’s for military bases. And paying for it.

    Anyhow, Virginia is not Pennsylvania with the freedom of choice they seem to have there. We are a captive market and stuck in the mud of guaranteed cost increases, because the state would like to pursue mega -expensive options.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I agree with that especially on more remote bases – and the thing is , if they actually were feasible, why wouldn’t we see them already especially in places in the world where fuel for electricity is not assured?

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The committee discussion devolved into a debate over blue hydrogen, green hydrogen, or brown hydrogen.”

    From a carbon neutrality standpoint, it is a legitimate distinction.

    “That was a distraction. It is nuclear power that is a real threat to the wind and solar industrial complexes.”

    Any evidence to support this claim (i.e., that they killed the bill only because it supposedly threatens wind)?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      To the man with a hammer…

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It is unfathomable to me that the Senate Democrats would not come to an agreement on the SCC appointees, with only a small majority in the Senate, an election coming up, and a Republican in the Governor’s office. Usually legislators of both parties are loath to give up to the governor the legislative prerogative of selecting judges, but perhaps it was the Republicans who scuttled the compromise bills, thereby giving Youngkin the chance to appoint SCC judges, with the hope that Republicans could obtain a Senate majority in the upcoming election and thus protect the Governor’s appointees.

    The Democrats may be counting on the Governor calling a special session to deal an amended budget, when judgeships could also be considered. But, the question is why a compromise on the SCC could be reached in the special session when it was elusive in the regular session.

    Of course, it is obvious why they agreed to adjourn rather than recess and prevent the Governor from making judicial appointments, as has been the custom in the past. The more important consideration is the upcoming primary and general elections and the need to raise money for them. (It is illegal to accept campaign donations while the legislature is in session.)

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      ah politics!

      Very, very little info about how the upcoming elections look since the districts have been redrawn and more than a few retirements.

      I’m quite sure both the GOP and the Dems are intensely interested.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Step one is to watch all the incumbents bail, and stay off the sidewalk with so many jumpers….

        Dick, word is the Senate Dems had a name and the House R’s refused to confirm their pick. Heard a nice rumor yesterday, though, that one of the retiring Dem senators might be considered. Not Saslaw. 🙂

        1. Heard a nice rumor yesterday, though, that one of the retiring Dem senators might be considered. Not Saslaw.

          Thank God. I consider him an extremely unpleasant person.

        2. Heard a nice rumor yesterday, though, that one of the retiring Dem senators might be considered. Not Saslaw.

          Thank God. I consider him an extremely unpleasant person.

        3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I hope that it is not Edwards, but he is the only Democrat that is an attorney that has announced his retirement.

          1. WayneS Avatar

            I hope not, too, but it looks like he may be the only candidate.

    2. (It is illegal to accept campaign donations while the legislature is in session.)

      This makes me suspect that the single most lucrative day for GA members receiving donations is the day after they adjourn.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        It might be the day before the session begins!

  7. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I read an article from UK saying solution is not one-size-fits all. Problem is U.S. politics strongly favors one-size-fits all, for example banning everything except corn ethanol for gasoline blending. Now libs are hell-bent on zero fossil fuels, and only EV’s vs H2, hybrids etc. only solar and wind, etc. We USA are wealthy enough to pay for one-size-fits-all mandates, but it is not the smartest approach nor best for environment. But it is what U.S. liberals demand be mandated.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I thought there were several different blends of gasoline depending on weather and geography.

      I know out west in some places, regular is 85 octane.

      In some places in the east, the gasoline is formulated for summer or winter…

      etc…

      in terms of electricity, we use coal still, gas, hydro, nukes, wind and solar… hardly one-size.

Leave a Reply