Houston-area residents enter sixth day without power, air conditioning

[flagged]

As a French I agree. In France it is also on a downward trend but there are some differences that makes it a better outlook in my opinion: - per capita consumption seems to be going back up, thanks to some political work on the energy price and renewed Investment/interest in generation - per capita generation is going back up and still better than Germany (has been since the 90s) - France has much less heavy industry and never really relied on them to the same extent has Germany, it also has less peoples, considering France still generate the same amount of electricity or more, it is rather positive.

As a side note, some of the lower consumption can be attributed to efficiency gains in tools/processes.

The way Germany got there is by enabling their eco-fascists that clearly are against any kind of progress, related to science or not. They have a mindset right out of the dark ages where any risk taken for a potentially better life is not worth it; in general, they would rather have humans go back the way of the animals (preferably others before them, like it always is with those type of peoples). Since the 80s they have been fighting nuclear power pushing Germany into expensive but still unreliable renewables that need to be supplemented by heavy use of coal (and energy imports, suddenly France's nuclear seems pretty good when they need it in the winter).

To be clear I am not against renewable, I think they are now a great tool for cheap peak electricity generations to supply some process we couldn't do as cheaply otherwise (like air-conditioning or car battery charging) but they absolutely need to be associated with a reliable energy generation for the hard times to at least meet the baseload demands. The current numbers make any kind of large-scale battery a ridiculous proposition (without even talking about the costs) and overbuilding renewable is not just costly but still is a no guarantee proposition while requiring absurd level of investments. Just as an example, in the winter Germany still use almost 40% (39.56 last January) of fossil fuels for their electricity generation. And that's before talking about heating needs, because Germany always had high electricity prices, very few of their homes use electricity for heat, unlike France wich is pretty much the reverse. What Germany does, is use even more fossil fuel for heating (typically gaz but also fuel) and that's on top of their peaker gaz plant needs for just electricity.

To match just their electricity needs, they would need at least twice their current installed base of wind turbine and it's not even clear they wouldn't have blackouts (at least some hours) if they couldn't rely on neighbor's grid imports.

This costly and unreliable installation base is precisely what got them to those prices and the worst is that they try to politically force everyone into the same nonsense. Until recently where it became clearer to the French that nuclear was clearly not optional considering all the other choices and risk associated (much worse than the nuclear boogeyman) they have dominated EU's political trajectory and enforce some stupid anti-competitive rules, especially against France, to prevent them from winning and dominating with their superior choice.

I really hate Germany for this, they may not have won WW2 technically but with the EU they have very much won in spirit. Leftists are now confused people don't really want EU anymore even though they are some clear indicators of ideological domination by some that lead to pretty bad outcomes in the long term.

Just the other day my grandma told me about some recipe that she doesn't do as much anymore because electricity being much more expensive, they now are pretty costly to do. It's ridiculous and clearly a regression but as long as everything fits the ideological narrative it's alright, I guess. Recently I read about how Germany's future looks pretty bad with their industries leaving or becoming uncompetitive because of various factors (energy price being one, immigration another).

But as you can see, they will fight you for this, with all the ideological power something as close to religion as it can be.

Houston geography is just so so different from San Francisco, it's a goofy comparison to make. Both are major coastal cities, one being slightly higher than other is not really material, and thats about where the comparison ends. The impact to Houston is a drainage matter, no where for massive quantities of water to go.

Ok, try Republican run cities, if you can find them.

Also, compare net federal tax inputs vs outputs for states. Blue states pay for Red states. Massively.

Are you serious about the Dixiecrats? Really? Go read about Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy. Find out what “States Rights” really means.

Direct recording of Lee Atwater on the southern strategy: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...

>Are you serious about the Dixiecrats? Really?

This is what happens when the only "history" you consume is from reddit comments. I'm embarrassed for you. This is top-tier /r/confidentlyincorrect cringe. No, not the Dixiecrats, the Democratic Party. From your GP above: "... traditionally Republican run states."

The South was not "traditionally Republican run", it was solidly Democratic: "The Solid South was the electoral voting bloc for the Democratic Party in the Southern United States between the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[0] Traditionally the "Red" states you opine about were a staunch voting bloc for the Democratic Party.

QED.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South