First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Renewable energy is becoming so cheap the US will meet Paris commitments even if Trump withdraws
38192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Kavalion wrote:

That doesn't sound laissez-faire. I don't think the political divide is between different socialists deciding what to invest in, is it?


From the OP:


If we spend the money we would have had to pay with the Paris accords on US infrastructure then we would become even greener and our people would directly benefit from a cleaner environment and more jobs.


I'm reading that as a desire to see money directed toward improving the US electrical grid and replacing coal plants with a fleet of nuclear and renewables. Is it not?
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:

If we spend the money we would have had to pay with the Paris accords on US infrastructure then we would become even greener and our people would directly benefit from a cleaner environment and more jobs.


I'm reading that as a desire to see money directed toward improving the US electrical grid and replacing coal plants with a fleet of nuclear and renewables. Is it not?


Perhaps he meant by cutting taxes and letting the US invest in its own infrastructure via the free market. Explain yourself, Wendy's Avatar!
38192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

Why must you guys think in black and white... When you invest you have to spend a large amount of money that will be paid off in 5-30 years and then generate sustainable income. I think with windmills the payoff time is 15-30 years. The long term cost of building new windmills will be cheaper due to not having to buy fuel and only needing to perform maintenance. However current coal plants have mostly paid off their initial build costs and its now revenue - fuel. Windmills also provide most of their power at night when energy is least needed so they aren't a total replacement of coal and neither is solar, they are both too Dependant on uncontrollable variables. They are both part of the solution but neither are the sole solution. The future is mixed energy, until we go full nuclear.

Trump doesn't need to invest in them because they are taking off themselves. Economics will promote those forms of energy far more efficiently than any government incentive. The USA is building a HUGE number of windmills and we will pass the Paris accords without any government intervention. However if you paid attention you would know that renewables only is not reliable. We have to have stable sources of power such as coal or nuclear when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Meaning we have to either keep coal or invest in Nuclear and "environmentalists" seem to prefer coal to nuclear so we might as well get clean coal going.


I'm pretty sure I've told you in previous conversations that I'm not against nuclear power, that I think it does have a role to play in a mixed fleet that transitions away from coal, and that using coal plants that switch on and off as a backup source is a problem that needs to be solved by moving toward nuclear. If I haven't, I have now. We're on the same page there.

Now, Trump has said he wants to invest heavily in coal mining. You're telling me that's something only poorer parts of the world will, per the market conditions you're citing and the trends you're projecting, even need him to do anymore. The US uses 90% of the coal it already recovers for energy generation, and according to you it's moving away from coal power generation all on its own thanks to market forces. So despite the US needing less and less coal itself and having fewer customers to sell it to in international markets in the future Trump wants to increase production. That doesn't make sense to me. He's wrong to do that, isn't he?
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:
So despite the US needing less and less coal itself and having fewer customers to sell it to in international markets in the future Trump wants to increase production. That doesn't make sense to me. He's wrong to do that, isn't he?


Hah, just invest in things that use coal next. The State can never be wrong! (end socialism plz)
4432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them.


Except a lot of politics, at least until recently maybe, were HELPING to push this. But it was to the point that a lot of "renewable" energy companies wouldn't stay in buisness without the government holding their hand. The point is this isn't some conspiracy where if only the government wasn't in the way we'd be pure solar and wind by now.


Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.

This is so false I could almost laught until I cry.

Neither wind nor solar are anywhere close to being a viable replacement for oil and coal. and here are just a few reasons why

1. Solar and wind are highly dependant on weather conditions to operate but rarely if ever does it get close to 100% of their predicted efficency. You can look at charts of math claiming to put out power all you want but the reality is they tend to work far below predicted levels. Especially in areas that don't get good wind or sun for large chunks of the year.

2.The amount of space needed for solar and wind farms is no joke and even if we double or tripple efficiency the amount of land taken up by these things destroys more of the enviroment than any plant would.I'm not talking just a few hundred feel I'm talking spaces you could fit cities in being devoted to solar or wind farms.

3. Solar and wind power had a lot of hidden consequences to the enviroment. For example various toxic chemicals are used and produced while creating solar panels and these solar panels have a very limited life span. The worst part is when solar panels break most of it either isn't or can't by recycled so places like china just strip out the copper wire, junk the rest, and make more. As for wind farms those massive turbines create dead zones where no wind flows. This causes any bird that wanders into these zones to lose the wind they are pushing on to fly and they fall to their deaths. Meaning wind farms can be devastating to local wild life.


Again these are only a few issues. There are other more complicated stuff that I won't bother getting into.

BTW just to be clear I am not saying I am against the concept of renewable energy. I'm just saying don't buy into this pro renewable propoganda. Don't think renewable energy is some kind of pure cause to save the planet. most of the researchers and companies involved are in it for the money. Especially as long as the government keeps giving out money and tax breaks to anyone using "green energy".

The most laughable thing is this

“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.

2020!?! At least try to make yourself sound believable to anyone who knows better! The level to which solar and wind are at are no where close to passing oil and coal in just three years!


And if you want proof on how solar isn't some kind of "magic" solution just waiting to be taped into look into the solar roadways fiasco. It highlight a lot of the short commings of solar power and three years is far from enough to overcomming all that.


In all honesty I hope the US withdraws from that paris farse thing. Creating innovations in technology to do something like reduce polution which we've struggled with for decades can't be forced into a schedule like that. It takes real time and effort as well as inspiration to innovate. Sure MAYBE we'll end up meeting the requirements. But maybe we won't or maybe we'll have to make major sacrifices that won't be worth the gain just to meet the agreement. So the idea of saying "yeah reduce emissions by this much in a few years" is really just an insult to science.
23204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:


Kavalion wrote:

That doesn't sound laissez-faire. I don't think the political divide is between different socialists deciding what to invest in, is it?


From the OP:


If we spend the money we would have had to pay with the Paris accords on US infrastructure then we would become even greener and our people would directly benefit from a cleaner environment and more jobs.


I'm reading that as a desire to see money directed toward improving the US electrical grid and replacing coal plants with a fleet of nuclear and renewables. Is it not?


If were going to spend money on green energy then we should spend it in the USA not other countries. This article has pretty much said even that's not necessary by 2020, which means we can start paying off our vast debts. The thing holding back nuclear is absurd outdated regulations that dont take into account that modern nuclear plants are vastly different from the old military reactor style plants of the past. Most nuclear plants die from over regulation before they ever finish being built. If we changed the regulations then we could get more nuclear plants started, modern plants are incapable of meltdowns due to their non-compact designs.
3723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Near a peach tree.
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17
That's great and more places need renewable energy. I feel sorry for Poland having to pay so much for electricity via coal plants.
runec 
39538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/24/17

zero356 wrote:
I'm studying engineering. I would describe my job, in it's most basic form, as making your job obsolete. The problem is that were getting really good at that and a lot of jobs are becoming obsolete. But society isn't moving fast enough to either make not obsolete jobs or account for there being less jobs in general with a larger population in general.


Little bit of column A and a little bit of column B me thinks. Middle America has been strung along on the pipe dream of a industrial revival for decades. Instead of making any moves towards retraining or investing in new industries suitable to the area. I'm honestly not sure what's worse. That politicians keep doing it or that people keep falling for it.

We're heading towards a universal basic income whether anyone likes it or not, honestly.
21907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/24/17

runec wrote:


zero356 wrote:
I'm studying engineering. I would describe my job, in it's most basic form, as making your job obsolete. The problem is that were getting really good at that and a lot of jobs are becoming obsolete. But society isn't moving fast enough to either make not obsolete jobs or account for there being less jobs in general with a larger population in general.


Little bit of column A and a little bit of column B me thinks. Middle America has been strung along on the pipe dream of a industrial revival for decades. Instead of making any moves towards retraining or investing in new industries suitable to the area. I'm honestly not sure what's worse. That politicians keep doing it or that people keep falling for it.

We're heading towards a universal basic income whether anyone likes it or not, honestly.


Clears throat and says bitterly- aka the poor stay poor and because of government , the poor have a hell of a time even getting to middle class. Which. Is shrinking anyways
Posted 7/24/17 , edited 7/24/17
I got news for yall, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, gas, all obsolete

but you cant have what replaces it, that's only for trillionaires.

*grabs plebes by the shoes and tips them upside down to shake the change from their pockets*
Banned
1273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / O / bendover
Offline
Posted 7/24/17 , edited 7/25/17
The air wont stay clean over your country because of a thing called the Jet Stream!!!!! So when China takes a shit we all smell it!
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 7/25/17 , edited 7/25/17

Metazoxan wrote:


Stopped reading your post after the part where you said wind turbines stop wind and therefore make birds fall to their death. Try to get scientific info from somewhere other than Breitbart or Infowars please.
492 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/25/17 , edited 7/25/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Hmm. Cool.

Well, on the subject of cleaner reusable energy at least, I am currently 10k away from a 15k down payment to buy a Tesla Model 3.

Might even just wait 2 years and save up 30k for a Model S if I have enough monthly revenue by then to afford it. Still undecided.


My dad always told me that if I can't afford to buy a specific car with cash, it is probably not a good financial decision to buy it since there are other more important investments needed than a shiny new car. Not to mention the extra stress of the monthly payments AFTER already putting 15k down.
23204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/25/17 , edited 7/25/17

MadBovine wrote:


Metazoxan wrote:


Stopped reading your post after the part where you said wind turbines stop wind and therefore make birds fall to their death. Try to get scientific info from somewhere other than Breitbart or Infowars please.


Wind turbines do stop normal flow of the wind. Many birds glide on wind currents and if that wind current goes into a wind farm then there is a good chance they can be hit with or almost get hit with one of the blades. When wind hits the turbine the flow of wind gets redirected around the turbines path, which also. causes the cooling of crops that help them grow.

The fact that your angry at Breitbart and Infowars about common science shows how little you know about the subject.
35287 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Online
Posted 7/25/17 , edited 7/25/17

Thrall_GreenJesus wrote:

My dad always told me that if I can't afford to buy a specific car with cash, it is probably not a good financial decision to buy it since there are other more important investments needed than a shiny new car. Not to mention the extra stress of the monthly payments AFTER already putting 15k down.

Right. The deadlines that I had put in the post are not permanent, and they are subject to change. I am currently in a situation where I do not need a car for my career for the next 3 years, so I have decided to save up money as if I was already paying for a car so that I could start off with a nicer one than most people get to start off with.

I will make plans with a financial adviser and my bank once I think I have saved up enough, and will move on from there. But that is a couple of years down the road right now, and, in all reality, it would probably take me 5 or 6 years to save up enough of a down payment for the nicer of the two that I posted, so it may not be my first choice. However, it is a nice goal to work towards, I feel.

The only thing I must disagree with is having to pay off the car with cash entirely. My credit has stagnated at 695-705, and I will eventually have to start making recurring payments on something. The common thing to do that with, in fact, is cars since they are typically so expensive. In the meantime, while I save, I will likely begin my first large purchase with a desktop computer, and when that is paid off I will figure out where I want to move to next.

Thanks for your advice, my fellow crunchy.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.