Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd love to see renewables actually work out. But, I'm also an engineer, so I actually deal with facts, math, economics and practical applications, instead of wishes.
Solar PV is great-fairly small footprint, direct power conversion. Costs are slowly coming down. Unfortunately it's not a steady, constant supply of power. The sun goes behind a cloud and output drops. That drop hammers the grid, impacting ability to meet demand. Other sources have to be brought online to make up that demand. Those costs (a reliable duplicate power source) are always ignored when claiming that solar is cost effective. Even more-the output from PV panels is DC, it has to be converted to AC, either by huge inverters or motor/generator sets, all of which cost money and efficiency. The life of solar panels is also finite and they take far more servicing and maintenance (distributed over a larger area) than conventional systems. Oh, not to mention that consumers are actually kind of demanding. Seems as if people actually want to turn the lights on when it's dark out. Maybe we can get them to go back to candles?
Wind-same issues as solar with regards to non-constant output-but worse. Electro-mechanical devices that are expensive and maintenance intensive. Prone to damage in strong winds. No power output on calm days. And an eyesore over huge areas.
The problem with these renewables comes back to energy storage-and we don't have viable solutions. To have battery backup that would last long enough to cover a few cloudy days (let alone panels covered with snow) would take batteries on an unimaginable scale-with the associated mining and processing of toxic substances. There has been work done involving heating molten salt for energy storage, but this is only practical for solar-thermal systems, not PV (which would require an entire duplicate generation source). Pumped water storage is one of the few remotely viable options-but then you have the same investments as a hydro plant, but with less efficiency, since water must first be pumped up to the storage elevation. And massive sources of water for pumped storage doesn't typically occur in the same location as optimal solar loading does. All that on top of the initial cost of the "renewable" plant.
With electric cars and renewables, the story is their cost effectiveness is "just around the corner" or "next year will be the year of the electric car". Yet we always end up with overpriced toys for rich people rather than variable, cost effective daily transportation.
IMO it's going to take "next generation" nuclear plants to address our long-term electricity needs, especially if we increase the load dramatically with electric cars. Little niche sources that make good sound bites I don't see being a viable solution. Sadly we waste far more money subsidizing electric cars and "renewables" than we do in nuclear research.
As the title states...conservatives, what's your opinion on solar and wind energy? Are you ok with it? are you against is? Is it hippie hog-wash? Are you against the tax incentives? Are nuclear energy, coal and oil working so why fix it if it's not broke?
Some conservatives seem to be for renewables while others are against. What's your opinion on renewables and why?
Why would anyone be against renewable energy? I am a libertarian and want the free market to lead the way on this and it is.
So called red states are leading the in charge in wind energy.
I'm fine with them as long as I'm not forced to subsidize them through taxes. If those technologies prevail through the free market, I see no reason to stop them.
Of course the free market has to propel the technologies into the future. But there IS a place for the federal government to stimulate new direction. DARPA/ARPA has been doing this for decades. DOD uses that agency very effectively to identify strategic new technologies to aid in their defensive mission. Where do you think the original ARPAnet and TCP/IP got it's start?
We have to continue funding this agency. Here's an interesting link that summarizes some of the accomplishments, that eventually moved to the open market as profitable new technologies.
It's a little puzzling to me that "conservatives" believe that the corporate world can by itself be the sole creators. You just have to look back at the emergence of new technologies, from the space age through the Information Age, to realize that much of that technology originally came from DOD and DARPA.
As the title states...conservatives, what's your opinion on solar and wind energy? Are you ok with it? are you against is? Is it hippie hog-wash? Are you against the tax incentives? Are nuclear energy, coal and oil working so why fix it if it's not broke?
Some conservatives seem to be for renewables while others are against. What's your opinion on renewables and why?
First .... I get the impression that this is a passive jab at the perceived “anti-science” right-wing crowd, given that the question is directed at conservatives.
As a conservative, I can tell you that those to whom I find myself in substantial agreement with, tend to analyze the individual aspects and merits of a subject, and in this case, of each form of energy production, assessing the pros and cons, which SHOULD BE done by anyone with a lick of common sense, but seems sadly lacking in the reactionary types on the left, who tend to bite quickly on virtually anything that sounds good.
Be that as it may, the very premise of the term “renewable energy” automatically lends credibility to the accepted notion that petroleum isn’t renewable, even though there is a growing body of evidence indicating that it very well may be, as once dry wells are mysteriously replenishing. So I think the better term would be “alternative” energy sources.
From a similarly “common sense” standpoint, all forms of energy production should be measured and assessed, and utilized, if shown to be viable, and superior. The hard part is weeding through the various claims that come from the many competing entities who have vested interests in promoting certain technologies over others.
Energy technologies are quite complex, with the pros being highlighted, while the cons being hidden. Ethanol is a classic case .... a hugely bad idea, with the cons far outweighing any benefit. But that hasn’t stopped the ethanol crowd from making strides forward.
If the free market wants it such that it can be done profitably and reliably without government funding, I am unopposed.
If it requires years/decades of government assistance to even function, profits be damned, then I am opposed to it.
"It" is anything under the Sun, not just renewable energy.
I think what a lot of people oppose is a situation like a Solindra. A company donates huge sums of money to a presidential candidate. What that person gets into office they get huge amounts of taxpayer money and end up going bankrupt despite that. The government is not good at picking the winners.
It's a little puzzling to me that "conservatives" believe that the corporate world can by itself be the sole creators. You just have to look back at the emergence of new technologies, from the space age through the Information Age, to realize that much of that technology originally came from DOD and DARPA.
but with the catch being, as long as those new technologies do not in anyway shape or form, present a threat to existing industry (or authority of the Govt).
Its exactly why Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 was created!!! Its goal was/is to suppress any new technology that could potentially be a threat to existing large industries or threaten the ability of govt to exert authority.
Furthermore, of all the sectors, the energy and transportation industries have suppressed the most new technology using ISA, that should be a big red flag to anyone!
I think what a lot of people oppose is a situation like a Solindra. A company donates huge sums of money to a presidential candidate. What that person gets into office they get huge amounts of taxpayer money and end up going bankrupt despite that. The government is not good at picking the winners.
The Invisible Hand is a few gazillion times better than the government is at picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and has been since the concepts of "marketplace" and "government" have existed.
Government has a horrible track record not just of being wrong when attempting to pick winners, but also by creating additional losers at every level (direct competition, indirect related industries, tangential entities, ever consumer, every taxpayer, etc).
If a thing can be done and is needed/wanted by the free market, then the free market will make it profitable without any input from government whatsoever. The free market has a pretty basic want/need where electrical power is concerned: 1) cheapest price and 2) maximum reliability. When I flip the switch, the light comes on, and when I get my power bill, I don't want to kick puppies. Doesn't get more basic than that.
Now which form of electrical power generation answers both of those two things the best? The ones that mae use of stored energy. Stored in lumps of coal, molecules of LNG, uranium/plutonium and oh yeah, big a_ss lakes formed by dams. We are ~500 nuclear reactor based electrical plants away from power generation that is commensurate with our economy, and it is a mountain of red tape and wildly unfounded fears that keep us from having those reactors. If the market were allowed to work the way markets should work, we'd have the power this nation requires to make things like electric cars far more realistic of a possibility.
I'd love to see renewables actually work out. But, I'm also an engineer, so I actually deal with facts, math, economics and practical applications, instead of wishes.
Solar PV is great-fairly small footprint, direct power conversion. Costs are slowly coming down. Unfortunately it's not a steady, constant supply of power. The sun goes behind a cloud and output drops. That drop hammers the grid, impacting ability to meet demand. Other sources have to be brought online to make up that demand. Those costs (a reliable duplicate power source) are always ignored when claiming that solar is cost effective. Even more-the output from PV panels is DC, it has to be converted to AC, either by huge inverters or motor/generator sets, all of which cost money and efficiency. The life of solar panels is also finite and they take far more servicing and maintenance (distributed over a larger area) than conventional systems. Oh, not to mention that consumers are actually kind of demanding. Seems as if people actually want to turn the lights on when it's dark out. Maybe we can get them to go back to candles?
Wind-same issues as solar with regards to non-constant output-but worse. Electro-mechanical devices that are expensive and maintenance intensive. Prone to damage in strong winds. No power output on calm days. And an eyesore over huge areas.
The problem with these renewables comes back to energy storage-and we don't have viable solutions. To have battery backup that would last long enough to cover a few cloudy days (let alone panels covered with snow) would take batteries on an unimaginable scale-with the associated mining and processing of toxic substances. There has been work done involving heating molten salt for energy storage, but this is only practical for solar-thermal systems, not PV (which would require an entire duplicate generation source). Pumped water storage is one of the few remotely viable options-but then you have the same investments as a hydro plant, but with less efficiency, since water must first be pumped up to the storage elevation. And massive sources of water for pumped storage doesn't typically occur in the same location as optimal solar loading does. All that on top of the initial cost of the "renewable" plant.
With electric cars and renewables, the story is their cost effectiveness is "just around the corner" or "next year will be the year of the electric car". Yet we always end up with overpriced toys for rich people rather than variable, cost effective daily transportation.
IMO it's going to take "next generation" nuclear plants to address our long-term electricity needs, especially if we increase the load dramatically with electric cars. Little niche sources that make good sound bites I don't see being a viable solution. Sadly we waste far more money subsidizing electric cars and "renewables" than we do in nuclear research.
You may find this interesting--it seems you may be a bit behind the curve on this one:
You will note that subsidies play no role here--just common sense business decisions--California is, and has been for some time, moving away from fossil fuels.
"The shift away from fossil fuels in power generation has been pronounced in California, where tougher standards for cleaner air and fuel have become a model for the rest of the country and the world. Gas use dropped to 36 percent of the state’s electricity supply in 2016 from 42 percent a decade earlier, while renewables jumped to 25 percent from 11 percent over the same period, state data show.Renewables are dumping so much power onto the state’s grid -- on some days it can be more than half of all supply -- some generators are losing money because of weak wholesale electricity prices."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
