Why do leftists love funding inefficient forms of energy production?

Why do leftists love funding inefficient forms of energy production?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Woeful inadequacy in the understadning physical sciences coupled with wishful thinking and an ingrained need to look 'progressive' and 'modern'

It's better to dump money into renewable energies than being a cuck and a slave to the evil Saudis

Virtue signalling

We get the majority of our oil from Canada

It's still developing...

By your argument we shouldn't have any technology whatsoever because nothing started out at Max efficiency

a fundamental misunderstanding of basic electrical theory and thermodynamics

Develop nuclear instead

do you actually know anything about either, or are you just talking out of your ass, leaf?

it's not inefficient. Technologies improved a lot.

But it's foolish to sink all that money in such inefficient technology when better alternatives already exist.

This plus they are addicted to their own self righteousness.

I am in no way an expert, but the main problem with solar/wind is storage of electrical power is very hard to accomplish. This is the main issue with these types of generators

Sink? Don't worry, we can print more with just a few keystrokes.

Back when it all started the big oil companies shilled for stuff like solar and wind power because they knew they'd get kicked to the curb by nuclear
now it's become trendy to hate nuclear, so liberals lap it up

We can not store electricity on a large scale. It needs to be produced and used simultaneously. We can not control wind. Wind is most active at night when the lowest amount of power is being consumed. In addition wind is not consistent, so using these for power requires minute changes to the output of other power stations. Wind turbines are not very efficient, and ruin views of countrysides and hills.

For some reason liberals hate the reliable and safe forms of energy that are alternative to coal like nuclear and hydroelectric.

I understand the hate for coal and nuclear, but the hippies that hate hydroelectric power are fucking retarded

How bad was contamination from the fukushima reactor? I can never get a consistent answer from any source ive ever been able to find.

I figure its the worst case scenario of what can happen to a nuclear facility.

We should research it instead of transforming our grid into one that relies on developing technologies.

no, we get the majority of our oil from ourselves, by a large amount. Most of the rest we get from Canada.

You can develop more than one thing you disgusting fat rascal driving burgercan.

especially when scientists discover new and more efficient semiconductors and storage methods and we have to replace the entire system

you don't have to be a hippy to see how fucked up dams make things

wow its literally nothing

Yeah until stuff like graphene supercapacitors become widely available and cheap, good luck.

>leaf so dumb and helpless he can't even google for context

Who cares they flood a bunch of land, release a bit of methane and then that's fucking it. You can use this land to produce power forever without any additional pollution, save for repairing/replacing the dam which is nothing.

And ironically, its using more coal and gas at less efficiently to compensate for the down times.

Id be happy with this and solar, if we were able to store the electricity on our needed scale. But its just not possible.

No battery would even be able to survive more than a few years use, even it were big enough.
Its a pipe dream.

>mart sharter so asshurt and unfamiliar with nature that he thinks this shitty valley is worth saving

There was a pretty big village on a reservoir my lake was. They all go relocated in the nearest town and everyone was happier that way.

Uninformed mostly I guess and the need to be progressive.
But imagine if we put the same money into converting our existing uranium-reactors into thorium-reactors.
That would actually be a feasible alternative for the next 100 years.

But yeah, it's still 'nuclear energy' and it sounds scawy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

"Stop acting like fucking beavers!" Screams the dumbass, Country hating hippies

I thought we've been reserving our oil.

Doesn't help that in high school history class here they emphasize how evil the united states was for using nuclear weapons, and this translates to nuclear energy must be evil in the minds of most uninformed people.

Solar has a 'bright' future as a means of providing extra power durring the day.
Durring the day when everything's running all the AC computers, machines,etc, you could produce say 50GW from a power plant then an additional 20GW from solar. then when everyone goes home and shit gets turned off, you still have your power plant to power the nightlife.

Using it to replace coal/oil is retarded.

Wind energy's fine i guess. but only works in certain areas

Because they are really regressive.

Take old ass technology, give it a new name and suddenly it is progress.

Windmills run through the progressivefier become turbines.
Wood run through the progressivefier become biofuels.
Sunlit fire run through the progressivefier become solar power plant.

If it is a reliable form of energy they are against it.

Because it looks fancy

Because it gives an excuse for more state power

It provides a huge ego boost and helps to virtue signal

They don't understand economics

Becusae it feels good.

The world should switch over to nuclear power, and diligently begin work in making fusion viable, which is potentially the ultimate energy source. I want my jetpacks and flying cars and room sized computers powered by the awesome power of the Atom, here in the World of Tomorrow!

Not windturbines and masturbatory hippy 'lets use the sun for power!' bullshit when we could be building mini-suns that are a million times more efficient.

Learn this thing called
>scale

Nuclear cannot be beat in kw/hr output.

Its like saying we need to spend resources developing better horseshoes alongside automobiles, when those resources could go directly to automobiles.

It's a shame indeed.

But really, it's our only opportunity to bridge the expected 100 year gap where scientists speculate we will be progressed enough to definitely fix this pending problem.