Why do conservatards refuse to invest in renewable resources? Why continue the fossil fuel meme?

Why do conservatards refuse to invest in renewable resources? Why continue the fossil fuel meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/las-vegas/city-las-vegas-reaches-clean-energy-goal
blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/how-opposed-to-nuclear-energy-are-liberals/#.WFiblNgrJhE
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990
usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/11/17/usgs-largest-oil-deposit-ever-found-us-discovered-texas/94013292/
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/more-fracking-lies-from-the-epa-part-deux/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/las-vegas/city-las-vegas-reaches-clean-energy-goal

Xd liocucks
Pizza
/thread

I knew there was good reason for me to stay put here for the last twenty years.

I need energy insurance.

It's essentially a loan but in the form of intellectual property exchange to run an independent company that provides any excess energy to the grid.

Because they hate science. Also, they hate future generations and want them to suffer.

Next question?

>why not both.gif
This is why you lost.

>clean energy goal met in Las Vegas
Still oddly tastes like smog and has a gray tint to it, goals must have not been that High

Because one causes pollution? What kind of question is that?

Wow

Texas has possibly the most total clean energy in the U.S. You're a retard.

I saw this on reddit earlier today on the front page.

Sorry OP but YOU HAVE TO GO BACK!

Isn't like 90% of Nevada empty? The only populated area is las Vegas and the rest is desert.

So you just admitted you browse Reddit. I dont use reddit. YOU need to get the fuck out.

ncie one mate

Because renewable resources are an even bigger meme. You really think we can give 10 billion people a comfy first-world burgerland lifestyle purely on solar and wind?

Isn't conservatives about reducing taxes, government spending, and letting free market drive economy? (At least they were in the past, now it is all confused.). Technologies relaying on taxpayers money when free market alternatives exist obviously don't cut with conservatives.

Came here to say this. Wind farms here have been making a shitload of money for everyone involved. I don't think they're even advertised as being good for the environment.

Wealth distribution and energy independence are clearly conservative beliefs. Renewables in the form of hydroelectric dams, Hell even some kind of seismic alternator would be renewable.

Not to mention kinetic energy using water and wind.

The only way to invest in evolving technology is to take very carefully and precise steps as to ensure progress inertia while we ween off any and all pollutants.

Visualize this: Self driving semi delivering you your homes annual battery pack. That is if you don't live near a generator.

And none of those would exist if it wasn't for the government subsidies. They either get 2.3 cents per kwh (that's almost half of wholesale energy cost, they get to sell the electricity on top of that) for 20 years or they get 30% of the cost of the windmills in tax breaks.

On top of that most places mandate that grid operators MUST take renewable energy like wind and solar when it is produced so any energy they make will be bought no matter how much it fucks up the market even when there's overproduction and prices go negative.

Its a fucking scam and everyone is paying for it, you just can't see it on your energy bill.

you're an asshole

>chief sustainability officer

Oil, coal, and natural gas are clean energy.

...

Because we don't want to revert back to a society where everybody is a subsistence-farming serf with an age expectancy in the late-30s

Only because of subsidies. Natural gas is absurdly cheap and abundant in Texas. The government is doing everything they can to get these companies to stop burning it as a by product in oil production. They are ugly and should not exist.

damn

Our country can't cast off fossil fuels and suddenly embrace green energy- at this stage, it's inefficient and expensive (Obama funding it is a reason why our debt is so high)

The Free market doesnt account for environmental damage, contaminated water, the loss of farm land due to ((global warming))), and a working populating getting sick due to air pollution. You fags think the free market meme solves everything, but plain economics leaves out human factors.

What the fuck are you talking about?

yes we can. Not only can we do it, its doable right now. The reason WHY no one will do it is because there's NO money involved after its done. Don't drink the tainted kool aid that says otherwise. They'll kick and scream until their dead

No said just jump to green energy, but at least continue making progress towards it. Republicans generally dont give a fuck about green energy.

Your post gave me goose bumps.

>Why do conservatards refuse to invest in renewable resources?

Because if a technology is profitable and efficient then it doesn't need to be propped up by government subsidies and protected from competition by regulations.

Take a look at solar. Obama threw billions of dollars away subsidizing US solar companies while the Chinese focused on making solar panels cheaper and ran all the US government subsidized companies like Solyndra out of business.

Kys

This is literally how retarded the average leftist is.

Come on dummy. What time of day does peak demand occur on the power grid and what time of does does the peak renewable output occur? Call me when you solve that problem so I can let the Nobel Committee know.

The same reason liberals refuse to invest in real future of renewable power via nuclear fusion. Wind and Light are extremely inefficient and hydro only goes so far.

No we can't because there's no way to store enough energy for life to go on when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. The idiots who said that WWS works assumed we can put pumped hydro storage anywhere and everywhere while pretty much making a wold wide electrical grid.

And do you think windmills and solar panels last forever? A coal, gas, or nuclear power plant lasts 60 years when windmills and solar panels barely last 20-25.

...

ayy lmao

/thread

Because the rapture will happen in our generation anyways, so who cares about the future you fucking fedora tippers.

Basic income should require a college degree.

hehehe

>we renewable energy now

>electric company: oh shit we losing money!!!
>let's tax people for going solar since we need to "maintain" our grid

>tax people for being green

However, you install solarpanel shingles you might be able to escape taxes all together.

You got to go off grid though. I think they check if you give them energy

With as efficient and effective as these new green energy generation methods you'd be wack not to try to buy out your taxes by contributing extra energy to local the grid

Then you think about homeless people and shit, well they could use that extra energy money sold and/or earned in the form of taxes or tax return.

>renewable resource
Scam.

>Hoover dam is being silted up
>Plow desert tortoises so Reid can get sweet solar project built
>Anything in Nevada getting done that doesn't involve tons and tons of corruption

If I understand correctly, those were investments which, if they paid off, could have put the US several steps closer to energy independence. At that point, how much regulation would have been necessary?

What liberals are against nuclear energy?

Most liberals.

Is that supposed to be an excuse to continue using fossil fuels?

>NO money involved after its done

Are you fucking retarded?
Do solar panels, that have to be replaced often, just grow on trees?
The amount of land/space needed for solar and wind power vs output is exponentially greater than than coal or nuclear.
As energy requirements increase with population sizes so does the amount of space required.
And you cannot build these plants in the middle of nowhere, you have to build them close to where they are needed.

If you read the fucking article you would know that they are only talking about govt buildings and not the business and casinos. So its not nearly as impressive as the headline makes it sound. FakeNews.

>Most
False. blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/how-opposed-to-nuclear-energy-are-liberals/#.WFiblNgrJhE

Nigger

Because nuclear is the only viable energy with the current energy use.

Period.

End of thread.

Why the fuck you lyin'?

>The article literally proves that liberals are much more prone disliking Nuclear energy

It looks easy on a map, do you know how extensive the actual process would be?

>much more prone
Not really. The difference isn't that large.

>clean energy
>Las Vegas
>The single biggest contributor of light pollution on the fucking planet

My sides are in space... maybe Vegas can focus their light up there to find them.

You know, 45% more liberals opposing nuclear power than conservatives sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

It's rather large. I appreciate you finding evidence for me, though. I didn't really want to look to prove my point to you.

It'd be a billion, if not trillion, dollar project. The question is, given the benefits of being energy independent, have a clean environment, safe water, stable global temperature, and clean air is it worth the investment? Especially since fossil fuels will run out some day.

>light pollution
find a better meme

(you)

end my life senpai

fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuu

Not when we have better methods already being researched that would provide to the entire world for literally cents on the dollar.

Because fossil fuels actually work.

Also the US could already be energy independent if we wanted, we just don't want to dig our own oil out.

Because the economy would collapse without the 4 cent kilowatt hour. Because people don't want to pay $20 for a gallon of milk.

Simplistic map to appeal to morons.

What am I lying about exactly? Compare that to the sq mi needed for nuclear and coal to see what a retard you are.

You can't cluster them all in the middle of nowhere, they need to be close to the point of distribution, meaning they will occupy large areas on expensive real estate.

The property costs alone would be astronomical, nevermind building the infrastructure.

>yfw clean energy gets a bump under a full red gov

>I support both, and the transition to lead to green energy down the line
>I do not support the hamfisted efforts of the left to shut down anything that emits smoke because of shit regulations that ruin job creation and thus end any hope of securing the green energy we all desire

Yes, it's cents on the dollar now if you dont factor in the environmental and human costs of using those resources. And again, they'll run out by 2100 if not earlier.

>And again, they'll run out by 2100 if not earlier.
>what is fracking

An entire city is now powered by renewable resources fatass. Does that not work to you? Technology also evolves, and conservatives are slowing down technological progress in exchange of money and memes. Kek shall cleanse you

>Why do conservatards refuse to invest in renewable resources?
Conservatives (by definition) are dragging their feet, kicking and screaming, refusing to accept the future.

l2read.

>An entire city is now powered by renewable resources fatass
[citation needed]

you cant be serious

>meme alarmist infographic
Fracking done safely has a 0% chance of contaminating anything.

>city based around the fact that a giant dam exists
>boasting about being renewable

COME THE FUCK ON. not every place in the world can have a hoover dam

>If I understand correctly, those were investments which, if they paid off, could have put the US several steps closer to energy independence.

You clearly haven't been paying attention.

We are energy independent, we started exporting more oil in than we imported several years ago due to fracking technology, which the government tried to regulate out of existence.

Fracking is the free market making profitable technology that halved the price of oil and took OPEC's boot off our throat. Obama throwing tax payer money at solar companies with no clear goal in mind is just cronyism under the guise of environmentalism. If those investments were worth making then private enterprise would have done invested in the company, the fact that no one wanted to should have been a pretty clear indicator that it was a waste of the tax payer's money.

I'd gladly believe you if you have proof.

>your shitty meme picture
>proof
ok kid

No the border hopper doesn't want to maintain the grid but he does want electricity on the days the sun doesn't shine.

>>what is fracking
It's a desperate measure, an extreme technique to squeeze the last few drops out of your grandfather's energy supply.
All the downsides are a high price to pay to maintain the status quo, which you do because you associate more modern technologies with the LGBT "struggle" and similar social issues.

>conservatives

thats a funny way to spell "jews who run the fossil fuel industry"

>Fracking done safely

this is like the true socialism never tried meme meme

How about a report from the EPA that expresses the same concerns? cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

Wait are you saying that in areas where natural gas naturally occurs in the ground, there's high levels of natural gas in the ground water?!

Somebody should tell Exxon about this. I'd bet they'd get rich.

> all this plebit formatting

gtfo now

It's literally heating the entire country for the next 50yrs, singlehandedly response for the 2008-2016 economic recovery, tanking Saudi Arabia to the point that they're burning down the entire middle East to squeeze a couple more drops of oil into Europe via new pipeline routes and ensuring North American energy independence until we're a fully nuclear power country. All the while being incredibly less environmentally damaging than coal.

[laughs in oil]
usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/11/17/usgs-largest-oil-deposit-ever-found-us-discovered-texas/94013292/

Cite me some proven cases then. There's maybe like a handful of confirmed, unsafe fracking practices at most.

>Data gaps and uncertainties limited EPA’s ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources locally and nationally. Because of these data gaps and uncertainties, it was not possible to fully characterize the severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle.
wew great report there m8.

The problem with you dumb liberals is that you just look at some meme pictures from environmentalists with no understanding of science and shout "fracking is bad." If there are any potential issues, safety measures can easily be taken to avoid problems. We do this kind of shit all the time in society.

>trusting an agency with an axe to grind and that turned hundreds of miles of a river yellow
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/more-fracking-lies-from-the-epa-part-deux/

Technically fossil fuel is renewable.