Two-Thirds of Americans Give Priority To Developing Alternative Energy Over Fossil Fuels (pewresearch.org) 333
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Pew Research Center: A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources, compared with 27% who would emphasize expanded production of fossil fuel sources. Support for concentrating on alternative energy is up slightly since December 2014. At that time, 60% said developing alternative energy sources was the more important priority. There continue to be wide political differences on energy priorities. While a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found large majorities of Democrats and Republicans supported expanding both wind and solar energy, the new survey shows that Democrats remain far more likely than Republicans to stress that developing alternative energy should take priority over developing fossil fuel sources. About eight-in-ten (81%) Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party favor developing alternative sources instead of expanding production from fossil fuel sources. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are closely divided: 45% say the more important priority should be developing alternative sources, while 44% say expanding production of oil, coal and natural gas should be given more priority. There also are differences in public priorities about energy by age. Americans under the age of 50 are especially likely to support alternative energy sources over expanding fossil fuels. About seven-in-ten (73%) of those ages 18 to 49 say developing alternative sources of energy should be the more important priority, while 22% say expanding production of fossil fuels should be the more important priority. Older adults are more divided in their views, though they also give more priority to alternatives. Among those 50 and older, 55% say alternative energy development is more important, while 34% say it's more important to expand production of fossil fuel energy sources.
Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll bet you're right there saying that the US should break from middle eastern oil supplies tho. What do you think his policy is going to do? That's right, break the ME stranglehold on supply and distribution. That's good in my book. That only way that things are going to be fixed in that region is if their one-trick source which enables them to have a stranglehold on policy making is broken. Round that out that it will put pressure on them to "modernize" and grant rights to the other half of their
Re:Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:5, Informative)
Saudi Arabia is modernizing their energy sector. [theatlantic.com] Three years ago, Saudi Arabia announced a goal of building, by 2032, 41 gigawatts of solar capacity, slightly more than the world leader, Germany, has today. According to one estimate, that would be enough to meet about 20 percent of the kingdom’s projected electricity needs
Meanwhile USA is investing in ... Coal? This while Solar is closing in on price parity with the likes of coal [eia.gov] — with full-cycle, unsubsidized costs of about 13 cents per kilowatthour, versus 12 cents for advanced coal plants
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how's that environmentalism and nimbyism working in the US for you then? You know the same people who protest against offshore windfarms or nuclear power plants, or hydroelectric. Right. Solar is getting no where near to the price of coal. We're still paying 0.528kWh for solar here in Ontario, the price we were paying for coal when the last plant shut down was 0.043kWh.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but you've got a lot of solar energy production now, and no coal. That's a policy success.
And if the high price makes you conserve energy like a European, so much the better.
Plus there are fun ways of staying warm in the Great White North.
Re:Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess you can tell that to the people who are paying $700/mo for electricity and their kids are bundled up in coats because they can't afford the electricity to heat right? You're basically saying "fuck the poor, it's their own fault that they have electric heat." You really have no scope or scale of size of just how big Canada is and how much colder it gets here. So let's compare with say Germany, where your average winter temperature is 3C or UK? 5C. Where the average winter temperature in Ontario is -4C(the southern part), the northern part hit a balmy -10C...on average. Or how about Alberta? -12C still nice and warm right? That's not going to have an impact. How about when it hits -40C still good?
Re: (Score:3)
Let me toss in. That prices are so screwed up, that even leftwing sites like Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.ca] and the CBC are talking about it. [www.cbc.ca] And these prices are directly related to "green energy" plans and policies. That there are ~600k people who are in arrears 4mo or more. [globalnews.ca] The largest hydro company in Ontario has 1.3m customers and serves 75% of the province to put that in perspective. That it's driving businesses out of the province to anywhere else that's cheaper. [theglobeandmail.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We're still paying 0.528kWh for solar here in Ontario
That's not market value. That a legislated price from five years ago. It's now down to about 35 c/kWh and dropping. [powerauthority.on.ca] Even at this price it is quite lucrative for anyone considering rooftop solar because people are making a profit at just 13 c/kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the pricing for microfit. Just a FYI
http://fit.powerauthority.on.c... [powerauthority.on.ca] Then check the normalized price across the province, it works out to being around 0.528 still. Because if you're a native, you get an extra payment premium on top from the province. Which is around $1.50kWh, across nearly all solar or wind projects. Those prices listed above are the normalized rates for anyone else. I'm talking about the actual and total overall cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much considering who owns most of the stock on those oil companies. Profits are still going to the middle east apart from some of the smaller shale companies (that's if there's any left after the Saudis started a price war).
Re:Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so much considering who owns most of the stock on those oil companies.
Teachers unions and pension companies(divisions)? Because that's who owns most of those stocks in those companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The ME has already been broken of their stranglehold. Oil prices have been halved and they didn't do that out of concern for Americans. There were several reasons, one of which is alternative (green) energy, which el Presidente Tweety opposes. Another is frakking in the U.S. and a few other countries, no Tweety needed there. Another is oil exporters coming back on-line after wars and official stupidity, no Tweety needed there.
New Headline: Tweety claims his policies broke ME stranglehold on oil. Please read
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna try that again without coming across as mentally slow?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop will the liberal propaganda.
Trump is refusing a salary and is working for $1 per year. He has resigned from all positions with his companies. His companies will not do any major international deals. Trump is losing a huge amount of money by becoming the President.
Not that the facts matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
These are fixable problems. Using fossil fuels not so much.
Then do your homework? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.
It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.
As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is ex
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Good to see censors quickly down modding the post. Rational discourse is not allowed.
If I had the points, I'd have modded you back up, even though I think you were quite wrong about Trump. Sad to see the mod system abused like that.
I like alternative energy (Score:5, Insightful)
but you apparently prefer "alternative facts", which, as Merriam-Webster corp. tweeted today, are not, you know, actually, facts.
Just as one easy counter-example, you can build a solar-panel-building factory in the sahara desert, converting local sand into silicon solar panels, using nothing but the energy from the sun to power the factory and the construction vehicles, after a short initial pre-sustainable bootstrapping period.
Also, the environmental cost of just shipping fossil fuels from producing country to consuming country currently dwarfs all of those environmental costs you mention, and that doesn't even count the environmental costs of burning said fossil fuels.
So one has to question the motivation behind your remarks. Are you a driver of an embarrassingly oversized "tru-u-oo-u-uck" used only for grocery hauling, or a paid fossil-fuel industry shill?
Fact: noun (Score:3, Informative)
- a thing that is indisputably the case.
- something that actually exists; reality; truth
"the moon is made out of green cheese" is a statement or proposition, whose truth-value is "false". It is therefore not a fact. Get your facts straight.
Re:Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:5, Informative)
****B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T****
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels at $0.32/wp [sunelec.com] (PDF) retail are rated at 14.5% efficient.
Methane is not irrelevant at all (Score:3)
"For example, for methane (CH4), which has a short lifetime, the 100-year Global Warming Potential of 28–36 (x CO2 effect) is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87 (x CO2 effect)." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio... [epa.gov]
Note: Better cache that page before dipshit and deputy disphit EPA guy have it removed.
If the methane clathrates in permafrost regions and arctic seabed etc are released due to GW, it will be the "polar" opposite of irrelevant.
If that happens, almost nothing else will be relevant.
htt [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
At most, only during the manufacturing phase, and this is more than compensated for by the vastly smaller environmental footprint accumulating over the lifetime of the device.
Re: Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:2)
Why not go directly to fusion power? There are, after all, more fusion reactors around than molten salt reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
The deuterium and tritium for most fusion research and power plant proposals can only be effectively harvested from fission reactors, especially the tritium. It is theoretically possible to harvest deuterium and tritium with solar sails. But solar sails on that scale would be far more effective at harvesting solar energy directly. It could also allow far more efficient and reliable energy collection than covering arable land with wind turbines or solar cells.
The video is only 2 minutes, you didn't watch it? (Score:2)
I guess you didn't watch the video you linked to? Maybe you just figured that since he's a jackass (true), whatever position you think is wrong, that must be what he said?
Here's what he said in the video you linked to:
"We'll get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation so that we can pursue all forms of energy. This includes *renewable* energies and the technologies of the future. it *does* include nuclear and wind and solar, but not to the exclusion of other forms of energy."
(Emphasis his]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this explains his picks for EPA administrator and the other oil patch connections in his cabinet? You really that stupid to believe anything that man says?
Re:Contrast this with the incoming administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Fossil fuels and alternative energy are rather passe. What we really need is ambient, decentralized energy solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where we are heading for a lot of devices. The term is "energy harvesting". Calculators with little PV panels have done it for decades, but now we are also seeing more complex equipment getting low power enough to take advantage of it.
Energy sources include light, heat, RF, and vibration.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope. Trump's plan is to treat all sources of energy equally.
There's a good reason why Trump is right (Score:2)
The cheaper energy is, the faster R&D goes. Movement to renewable energy is going to occur regardless, but a thriving economy based on cheaper energy now means we get to a great alternative energy future even sooner.
The previous administration was just helping subsidize solar for rich people. That's nice and all but I want electric cars for everyone, not just the 1% or wannabes.
Captain, that's illogical (Score:4, Insightful)
"65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources"
Too bad those 65% don't vote for what they want, apparently.
Re:Captain, that's illogical (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, they did:
Nearly 139 million Americans voted this year, according to the United States Elections Project. This sets a new overall record, surpassing the all-time high of 132 million Americans who voted in the 2008 contest between Barack Obama and John McCain.
But that total suggests that only 60% of the country's 232 million eligible voters actually voted this year. [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No.
100% of the people who voted made their decision based on their own interest.
The people who didn't vote decided that a Trump administration would be in their best interest.
So, let's run those numbers again, shall we?
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone calculated the chances of the election being won by a single vote?
And if you are in a safe red/blue state, like the majority of Americans, the chances of your vote making a difference to the electoral college are zero.
Even at the local level, thanks to rampant gerrymandering in the US, [wikipedia.org] you are most likely in a "safe" seat, where the election is predetermined formality.
Bothering to vote is not really a rational choice. You are better off spending your energy on trying to influence others votes.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who didn't vote decided that a Trump administration would be in their best interest.
Not even Kellyanne Conway could claim that with a straight face.
People who didn't vote decided that NONE of the options presented were in their best interest. Abstaining from voting is absolutely not the same as voting for the eventual winner.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They may have voted, but if 65% wanted priority given to alternative energy sources over fossil fuel development, yet half of all the voters, roughly, voted for the candidate who is "Captain Coal", then clearly, a lot of people voted AGAINST THEIR OWN INTEREST.
Right, because Hillary would have totally owned this one <eyeroll>
The Democrats idea for promoting "alternate energy" is giving large sums of money to Democrat donors like Solyndra. It doesn't actually help anybody except the cronies and the party, in case you're wondering.
Re: (Score:3)
|large sums of money half a billion. that's a lot less than the trillions invested in the gulf-oil-wars.
Heck, it's a lot less than what got spend on magically making coal "clean" by spraying some chemicals on it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like people have multiple—often competing—priorities that they have to balance when voting. Certainly, life can't be that complex, right? Can't we just keep assuming every person can be pegged to a single issue that decides everything in their lives?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It wouldn't matter if they did vote, honestly.
The voting public doesn't vote for individuals based upon their merit - they vote for their team, no matter who is put on the ballot, and they stick to the two main parties, no matter what. It could be Stalin (D) vs. Hitler (R) with George Washington as a third-party candidate. Dems would overwhelmingly vote Stalin, Repubs would overwhelmingly vote Hitler, and all of them would consider George Washington a wasted vote.
Re: (Score:2)
they vote for their team
Looks like roughly a 30% growth in the fraction [gallup.com] of independents since 1988.
Re:Captain, that's illogical (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem, and not just in the US, is that you end up with a couple choices in which you have to make the best decision from. When you make your vote you are picking the person or party that best represents* their views on the issues. But no candidate will perfectly reflect what the voter wishes so there will always be some compromises. Unfortunately the source of electricity generation tends to come lower down on the list of priorities and won't prevent a candidate from being elected.
I'd like to see a set of referendum type questions that would guide the elected government no matter who won. I don't know how it would be enforced. There would be questions like ...) ...)
- What should the focus of the government be (Job growth, debt reduction,
- Should the government run a deficit? (No, Small 2%, Med 5%)
- Where should new electricity be generated (Fossil fuels, Nuclear, Wind & Solar,
* - I'm talking about a person that has researched the issues and not one that just votes for a party because they always have or their family always has.
Re: (Score:3)
"65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources"
Too bad those 65% don't vote for what they want, apparently.
The fact is nearly 3 million more people voted for the losing candidate who would have been more supportive of alternative energy than did for the winning candidate so maybe they did but the vagaries of the Electoral College defeated them.
Apparently there are places (Score:2)
where evolution runs in reverse.
Depends who pays (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of Americans will support anything as long as someone else pays for it. If you ask them if they are willing to pay an extra 5 cents per gallon of gas to pay for alternative energy, of course they will say no.
Re:Depends who pays (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to given an example. Iceland has the world's largest geothermal sources currently being exploited. Electricity is so cheap 15% of world's Aluminum is produced there. Aluminum can be only produced
Re: (Score:2)
Some types of transportation are going to stay dependent on fossil fuels for the time being, because there's no good alternative. You're not going to power commercial or military aircraft with batteries or solar panels. Maybe someday ships can be powered by giant batteries, but I'm not so sure that's a great idea for marine vehicles, given their aquatic environment. And obviously, we're not going back to wind-power.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to start with the low-hanging fruit, which is converting
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Depends who pays (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not economical when you take out the subsidies for solar/wind and the targeted overbearing rules that drive up the price of coal.
Put a number on pollution - all pollution including manufacturing those solar cells, not just local burning gas - then we'll talk.
Expensive Green = Brown
... and of course fossil fuels are never, ever subsidized?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Typically, no. What targeted subsidies do fossil fuels receive? There are many that are strictly reserved only for solar and wind, but none that I know of that are reserved only for coal, oil, or natgas.
The damage done by the sequestered carbon that gets released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are released is not factored into the price of fossil fuels. The cost of that damage is born by the tax payer which makes it a form of subsidy. If the cost of damages caused by sequestered carbon release due to fossil fuel use was factored into the price of fossil fuels, renewable energy sources would make considerably more business sense than they already do.
Re:Depends who pays (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have anything to show that it makes sense today and not some undefined time in the future? I'm interested.
Your fuel is ridiculously cheap (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair on those affected by the resulting pollution, fuel prices should more than double. That people could care or complain about a measly 1 cent per litre (as you suggest) beggars belief.
Re: (Score:2)
That people could care or complain about a measly 1 cent per litre (as you suggest) beggars belief.
It is an emotional thing. Americans view cheap gas as a birthright, and see any intrusion on that right as a threat to the freedom of the open road. Taxing baby formula is okay, but not gasoline. Telling an American that their gas prices should be higher is like telling a German that there should be a speed limit on the autobahn, or telling a Brit that the pubs should be closed on Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also an economic thing. Increased gas prices directly correlate with an increase in the price of food and other goods. Also, daily commutes are not exactly something most people can opt out of. And not everyone is fortunate enough to make six-figure-plus salaries that can largely ignore those "minor" cost-of-living increases.
Re: (Score:2)
They have kind of woken up to the fact that if you own underwater front property, easy access to fossil fuels is a bad idea and quite wealthy people live and own in the underwater front zones across the globe, many own in multiple locations. What the sheep want is arbitrary, the eat what they are given and they are shorn regularly, if you can not buy it, you can not buy it (like its going to be a matter of choice, the infernal combustion engine will be banned from city centres globally).
So renewable for do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The majority of Americans will also support anything as long as someone else suffers from the consequence of their pollution. Actually, they suffer too but a large part is exported to other countries so they don't care as much as they should. That's why we need the government to set limits (cap and trade) or taxes to change habits of selfish people who would rather save 5/gallon even if it meant polluting 10x more.
Re: (Score:2)
But renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
How much business sense does it make to invest in cheaper and cleaner energy instead of expensive tax-subsidized pollution-heavy energy that can't exist without taxpayer subsidized mining leases on public lands and non-accounting of pollution costs?
I mean Big Government demands we do the worst possible most expensive fossil fuel version!
If we don't Fill The Swamp with massive tax subsidies for old Soviet-style fossil fuels, we might become independent of the Middle East!
And then what excuse will we have to start foreign wars to make billionaires richer at the cost of American blood and treasure?
Re: (Score:2)
And despite what you think, electric cars are just not viable yet for a significant part of the population. Maybe if you live and drive all the time in warm California, but the rest of the country is damn cold. The most pretentious ones yet will do a short road trip in
$1 billion into Polywell (Score:3)
Stop it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Face it, we lost.
The conservative coalition in power (alt-right, "christian", etc.) believes they have been subject to abuse at the hands of the "elite". They are acting like a cornered animal, lashing out at whatever the perceived injustices done to them by the liberal AND conservative elite. We told them their life-long, deeply held beliefs were "out of the mainstream", wrong, and hurtful. They came back and won, but they are still wounded.
Free market conservatives, clean energy conservatives, and basically anyone who is conservative based on pragmatism and principle are sitting in the back of the bus with the rest of us. No matter how many "but the majority of people say"... articles you publish, if it flows contrary to the narrative of the Ruling Powers, will be marginalized, ridiculed, and probably create a backlash against the very thing
Listen to Sean Spicer (Press Sec.) today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef42kffeyr8
You will hear the cries of victimhood and ego that we will hear for the next 180-360 days as the President & team settle into their roles. They sincerely don't know why we don't love them (and, by extension, America). My advice (not that I think anyone is actually going to take it), is to stop trying to influence the administration with these types of "facts" and polls. Instead, find a way to embrace their actual policies but SHINE A LIGHT on their impacts.
Example (I'm not a headline writer, but you'll get the drift).
Instead of saying the "Carrier Deal Was A Failure". Tell the whole truth. "Carrier deal saves 700 jobs, cost tax payers 3M, and 800 people are still going to mexico."
Instead of saying "Trump's Crowds were Smaller than Obama", Estimate the size of Trump's crowd, compare the weather, tell me how technology has changed viewership, and compare to the past 20 years of inaugurations.
Stop trying to "Crystallize" the narrative. It's hurting you. Try to report contextual facts, don't just tell us what we should "believe", even if you want to make a statement. BTW - this is why most conservatives hate you. They don't want to be told what to do, think or believe -- even if it is "true".
I do believe the Media will figure this out. It's going to take a while before they learn to report in such a way that speaks to all America. But they will, we'll survive, and just like Trump is rolling back Obama's agenda we'll have a chance at some point to re-enact some parts of policy that, as the article say, most "Americans" agree with.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I disagree. I think the left has been too peaceful, too moderate, and too open. If they want to win in 2020, they need to get to work now on being more violent, more extreme and more insular. (2018 is a write-off, and it would be even if they were organized properly today.)
Everyone knows that Hillary's primary win was a sham. The voters wanted Bernie, the Communist, not Hillary, the crook. But Hillary is powerless now, and Bernie probably won't run again. They need to be searching, and searching now,
The ballad of Solyndra (Score:5, Interesting)
Solar power is showing a nice pattern of gradual gains and is becoming quite competitive with fossil fuel. As much as conservatives complained about the bungling of Solyndra, the govt's general investment in multiple solar companies sparked the industry and made solar cheaper.
China's gov't jumped into the field also, creating a kind of solar "space race", which cranked up the rate of R&D. It's a good "fight". (China was later caught under-pricing their solar products to drive out foreign competitors, but that's another story. I took a nasty stock hit due to that.)
Thus, even though Solyndra was a lost battle, it seems Obama won the solar war. Over-focusing on the failures has made many conservatives miss the bigger picture.
Solyndra was a really cool idea: paint the roof white and use regularly spaced solar-collecting tubes. It was especially useful for low sun angles, resulting in fairly even power throughout all seasons . It just didn't pan out because flat panels eventually got fairly cheap due to flat panel R&D such that flat panel INefficiency at low sun angles mattered less.
false dichotomy (Score:2)
The government has little to do with either.
It certainly can't speed up "developing alternative energy sources".
And the only thing it can do with fossil fuel sources is to step out of the way and let companies do what they want to do anyway.
Alternatives ... (Score:3)
... to fossil fuels. Like nuclear. I'm OK with this.
Show of hands ... (Score:2)
... how many have noticed that there are few "polls" anymore?
Call me when renewable beats fossil fuel (Score:2)
This largely depends on how the survey was worded. I am all for developing alternative energy sources, but I am also realistic about how feasible and financially viable it is. Right now there are a few criteria that need to be met for US power needs:
1. The power must be economically competitive with existing sources. Current solar PV arrays are about on par with natural gas turbines.
2. Power available as it is needed 24/7/365. This is the difficulty that comes with solar PV, wind etc.
If tomorrow someo
Re: (Score:2)
This largely depends on how the survey was worded. I am all for developing alternative energy sources, but I am also realistic about how feasible and financially viable it is. Right now there are a few criteria that need to be met for US power needs:
1. The power must be economically competitive with existing sources. Current solar PV arrays are about on par with natural gas turbines.
2. Power available as it is needed 24/7/365. This is the difficulty that comes with solar PV, wind etc.
If tomorrow someone perfects the ultra high capacity liquid metal battery http://news.mit.edu/2016/batte... [mit.edu] or some other way to efficiently store massive amounts of energy efficiently then solar and wind and other alternative power sources become grid wide viable options for baseline generation. As it is, no renewable power source works reliably when the sun goes down/wind randomly stops blowing. I have over 5kW of solar panels myself, because it made financial sense and paid for it'self within about 10 years.
Rather than spend $billions on the US war machine to ensure the reliable supply of oil to the country, the US government should be subsidizing the production of batteries to store solar energy. Batteries are the single biggest expense in providing a reliable supply of energy 24 hours a day. There is plenty of space in the desert to put up the solar arrays, on top of houses, factories, car parks. Solar panels are cheap now. Just need batteries to make it all work.
You already have quality electric cars which
Too bad, none of them bother to vote. (Score:2)
Do you want to live next to an oil pipeline? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Or fracking operation? Coal power plant? Of course not, especially if you can get your lights on and your care cruising on the highway through other means. You would rather have a thousands birds ground by wind turbines per day than get lung cancer from breathing radioactive coal smog.
So why are these things next to your home? Of course, because government has forced you and only the Standing Rock tribe had the cojones to call their bullshit. Fossil fuel industry only still exists because we are spineless.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
So how will we build... (Score:2)
... lots of present stuff, like the keyboard I'm typing on, laptop cases, tablets, chairs, clothes etc?
Re: (Score:3)
While we're talking about the exact same dinosaur squeezings, making petroleum into durable goods makes it a raw material, not fuel. You can believe in fossil "fuel" as a material while wanting to get away from burning it. It might even be because you want to make more stuff out of it instead of burning it.
In related news... (Score:2)
What the poll really says: (Score:2)
The problem (Score:2)
We are a nation of many different facts.
This is fake news
This is true news.
At present, 100 percent of Americans want fossil fuel only solutions, go ask Wyoming politicians.
Re:Any opinions on thorium? (Score:5, Informative)
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
There are plenty of reactor designs that look good on paper (or in documentaries) that don't work well in practice. 20 years ago, "pebble bed" reactors were a big fad, but that went nowhere. India and China are both working on thorium salt reactors (both have plenty of thorium), so we'll see where that goes. In theory, thorium salt reactors are inherently very safe, the fuel is plentiful, and they can burn waste from uranium reactors. So there is a lot of promise.
Lots of info here: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Any opinions on thorium? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not an expert, but as far as I understand, the problem with the molten-salt reactors is in the name: you have really hot, radioactive molten salt you need to deal with, and that's just a hard problem in many aspects.
Many of the presentations seem to come from people interested in the physics, and for that kind of people, it's just a set of engineering problems.
But the thing is that you don't just need to solve them, you also need to do that in a manner that is competitive with traditional nuclear plants and renewables like solar and wind. And renewables are getting cheaper every year.
So it's a really, really tough problem. Don't trust the hype.
Re:Any opinions on thorium? (Score:4, Informative)
The main problem is that the "Nukes = BOMBZ!" crowd has so poisoned this country's regulatory structure with regards to nuclear power, that you have to have more money than Gates just to talk with them. Let alone starting up a project.
Then you have to set aside millions to defend against lawsuits.
Basically all these "dealing with fucking idiots" costs, NOT the budgeting for decommission and cleanup, is what skews the costs of nuclear so damn much.
Basically we need nuclear to get off fossil fuels in the near term.
If we can rebuild our grid system to accept distributed inputs better, and give battery storage tech another generation or two, it's ENTIRELY possible that renewables like wind and solar, augmented by Hydro and some minimal use of nuclear could supply this entire country.
Some other things that could help.
Adopting newer building codes that go beyond "Well, this worked in 1939!" But adopting codes that would specify mew buildings at least come CLOSE to NetZero standards. Doing so would increase construction price a few percent. But, ultimately, the homeowner would get all that money back when selling the home. Money burnt (literally) on monthly utility bills is cash you'll NEVER get back.
Hell, simply reinsulating and re-facing the exterior of an existing home can DRASTICALLY bump up the energy efficiency of the home.
Better education of builders on newer technologies like SIP panels and ICF (and moving away from pure "stick" construction).
Reducing energy use like this, better than any "green energy bling" is what will motivate people to look into things like rooftop solar and energy storage.
Right now, most homes consume a ridiculous amount of power. Even if nothing's going on.
Decimating power usage, and now people can get away with a modest battery array and an affordable solar setup that begins paying back IMMEDIATELY.
And then, if you have a whole bunch of cloudy days, because your house is running more efficiently, you can stretch your battery usage longer or charge up from the grid during cheap, off-peak times.
Re: (Score:3)
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
Okay, I'll bite... Thorium is 20 years away at best.
If we ignore the "nuclear proliferation problem" for the moment, and just look at the technical issues, the engineering problems that need to be solved are quite numerous. Nearly all operational research has been done with MSRs (molten-salt-reactors) which have some potential long-term issues with corrosion and metal embrittlement due to exposure to high temperatures and high neutron flux densities that need to be studied and worked out. Alternative react
Re: (Score:2)
Add a zero to that or anything with Uranium other than 1970s stuff painted green if you are going to limit yourself to US civilian technology. Meanwhile even India is moving ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big gap between "looks promising" and exciting the electrons in high voltage wiring. Like 20+ years of R&D and engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense.
Greed is, in fact, the reason to favor the cheaper solution. And the cheaper solution at this point is still fossil fuels.
In about 10-20 years, the cheaper solution will be other energy sources, but neither surveys nor government are going to make any difference there.
Re: (Score:3)
If oil is more expensive yet large companies stay invested, then why not put your money where your mouth is and create a renewable energy. Surely if you are right you will drive BP out of existence in no time...
Naturally, patents and other legal tools that are used by monopolies to strongarm people from not even being able to compete don't exist.
Oh and of course Big Oil doesn't maintain armies of lobbyists to manipulate and influence lawmakers to essentially legislate away the concept of competition.
Seems people have fucking forgotten what made Oil Big, and what keeps them on top. Greed stays invested in greed because of this corrupt leverage.