Renewables pass coal as leading US Source - More due to come! (Huckabee, companies)
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.
Renewable energy will continue to grow despite opposition from the neo-luddite Trump party and their adherents. Read the posts from these neo-luddite rubes. They're all set to go out to start smashing solar panels.
These people are the descendants of those that opposed the automobile because it would damage the horse and carriage business and those that lamented the passing of the whale oil business
The paradigm is shifting again.
Some are ready for the future. Others are cowering under their blankets.
Here in Massachusetts it's the liberals with their beachfront homes on Nantucket Sound who are fighting tooth and nail to block the wind farms that will blot their million dollar views.
That's quite amazing and I am excited to be a part of it. Coal generation down for about 35% a few years back to 21% and it will continue to fall. Renewables growing by the equiv. of a couple nuke plants per year...and, lets face it, after watching Chernobyl there are probably few Americans pimping for more nukes (ain't gonna happen anyway.
Awesome. I am amazed at how many "conservatives" don't recognize that moving to renewables is about as conservative an approach as you can take. Instead of burning through our natural resources and making our nation more vulnerable, we invest in the future by making our country energy independent.
This should be a natural common ground between Democrats and Republicans, but even with something as obvious as renewable energy, Republicans have to take the opposition stance. Bringing back coal? It is truly pathetic.
Awesome. I am amazed at how many "conservatives" don't recognize that moving to renewables is about as conservative an approach as you can take. Instead of burning through our natural resources and making our nation more vulnerable, we invest in the future by making our country energy independent.
This should be a natural common ground between Democrats and Republicans, but even with something as obvious as renewable energy, Republicans have to take the opposition stance. Bringing back coal? It is truly pathetic.
The underlying true reason the Republicans deny climate change and are against renewable energy is because several red states are oil, gas and coal producers. Climate change action and clean energy are direct threats to the economies of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc., a major part of the Repub's "base."
Most Republicans in Congress are smart people who went to college. Deep inside they know the science behind climate change is rock solid. Publicly they oppose it because in their districts fossil fuel is where the money is. It's all about the Benjamins baby.
Here in Massachusetts it's the liberals with their beachfront homes on Nantucket Sound who are fighting tooth and nail to block the wind farms that will blot their million dollar views.
"Koch, founder of the Oxbow Group and a resident of the Cape, sits on the board of Gordon's nemesis, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. He's reportedly contributed more than $1.5 million to try to stop Cape Wind."
The Kochs have spent vast sums all over the USA fighting Wind Machines.
At least know your memes.
Sure, some "liberals" have fought particular projects here and there. But by and large the big money came from Koch and his friends.
However, since we live in opposite world, let's pretend to not know that.
Awesome. I am amazed at how many "conservatives" don't recognize that moving to renewables is about as conservative an approach as you can take. Instead of burning through our natural resources and making our nation more vulnerable, we invest in the future by making our country energy independent.
This should be a natural common ground between Democrats and Republicans, but even with something as obvious as renewable energy, Republicans have to take the opposition stance. Bringing back coal? It is truly pathetic.
If we said we want good roads and bridges, the current crop of "conservatives" would lobby for potholes and rotting and rusting steel.
They don't think. They don't care. All they consider is whether or not someone is approved of by other Americans...and that's enough to send them into a Grand Funk.
Heck, look at this thread. Look at the top Americans companies capable of completely changing our economy and the world...."conservatives" are against those also.
It's as if they are still taking instructions from the John Birch Society..and in a sense (Kochs founded it) they ARE. They may not know it....tho. That's the only possibly excuse and, as they say, ignorance is not really a valid excuse.
Only reason the Krauts have been even nominally successful with their renewable s is because they are riding Frances Nukers for grid stability............
As a reminder to the OP, ONLY 17% of Americas electrical energy comes from renewable sources with 7-8% of that Hydro
when you say "7-8% of that", you're actually saying 7-8% of the 17%, or roughly 1.5%.
it can be "and 7-8% is Hydro" or "and 40-45% of that is Hydro"
A concerted government effort to demonize coal, block the building of any new coal plants, shut down existing coal plants and rob the taxpayers to subsidize the inherently unprofitable renewables market...yeah, it is surpassing coal. How shocking.
And in the article, it does say not to confuse capacity with actual generation of electricity, and it takes care to only mention Bloomberg's $500 million effort to block coal fired power, and nary a word about the federal government under Obama spending 8 years trying to destroy the coal industry.
But sure, good news.
The coal industry also gets subsidies, so that should not determine how much of an edge renewable has.
"...The coal industry and its allies in the Trump administration have devoted considerable energy to arguing that subsidies to renewable energy have distorted energy markets and helped drive coal out of business ..."
"...Energy analysts have made the point again and again that fossil fuels, not renewable energy, most benefit from supportive public policy. Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview, never seems to sink in to the energy debate in a serious way. The supports offered to fossil fuels are so old and familiar, they fade into the background. It is support offered to challengers — typically temporary, fragmentary, and politically uncertain support — that is forever in the spotlight..."
Moving away from coal is good. Aside from renewables, natural gas is our best bet and burns very clean.
One sore spot for me is the greenie groups that want to have all the dams demolished, when everything and everyone would actually benefit from holding back more water.
The coal industry also gets subsidies, so that should not determine how much of an edge renewable has.
The primary subsidy or tax break for coal is for pollution controls. The primary subsidy for renewable is for production. The subsidies for coal relative to production are relatively minor while they are substantial for renewables. If you removed the subsidies for both industries it would be a blip in the coal industry, the renewable sector would collapse overnight.
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.
