The Trump Administration has been loosening regulations around coal and nuclear plants with the ostensible idea that they are somehow more reliable in case of an emergency.
Except that if you consider Hurricane Florence an emergency, nuclear and coal turned out to be (dangerously) vulnerable, while wind and solar bounced back almost immediately.
Not that I expect actual evidence to sway the Trump Administration, whose devotion to things like coal is driven by politics, not good policy.
Hurricane Florence crippled electricity and coal — solar and wind were back the next day – CBS News
Renewable energy advocates say it is less vulnerable to severe storms than traditional electric utilities
60 view(s)
Check out this lump. It's holding a piece of coal and it's called Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia (this week). Loving coal and denying climate change is the religion of the parties currently governing Australia. ScoMo brought the coal to parliament for show-and-tell purposes.https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/brgNMri7_UOIP8JBGKOD3A3nXl6jrlEVyp9GsgGY7qeJ3gmDHYVh3GBbxgiQJc7KU_107fSpQw
Well, regardless of the actual power source if you don't harden the distribution grid it won't make much difference.
Wind and solar are not usable or feasible in a power restoration scenario. Usually it is Hydro or some form of steam power (gas or coal). The primary goal (per law) is to get power to any Nuclear plant, and begin to restore power to a plant that can both generate power and regulate frequency, those are not wind and solar:
+Stan Pedzick WRONG. People who have rooftop solar power & properly installed battery storage systems just keep on rolling.
Frequently they're the only family in their neighborhoods with any power at all. Backup generators quickly run out of fuel & the power outages also disable gas stations.