Trump says he will quit the development of renewable energy

Trump says he will quit the development of renewable energy
and use traditional fossil fuel.
Why does he do so though the development of new industry increases our employment?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vV1OTR0mu28
forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/11/10/will-donald-hoffman-be-president-trumps-secretary-of-energy/#660e363d3115
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

its reaching a point where it doesn't need subsidies

This. Renewable energy must stand on its own. Humanity demands it.

Not gonna happen. The market has changed radically in the past few years.

Because throwing out our most valuable resources is retarded.

Tech will continue to advance and in the meantime, we should be using the shit out of our reserves while they're still worth something.

Is there anywhere in the united states producing anything alternative? No lithium, no solar panels. Windfarms and hydro dams maybe. Essentially using alternative energy is just spending money in a different country that isn't ours.

Oil will run out in 50 years and they will be forced to adapt.

renewable energy is a meme

what does this post even mean

nearly every state has a major amount of renewable energy

this, the ROI on small scale home solar is like 10 years now.

subsidies gave us nothing except a bunch of retarded companies making poorly engineered wind turbines.

the VA near me "installed" one 5 years ago. it has not generated a single watt of power, and last time they tried turning it on it spewed gear oil everywhere and killed the grass.

>The largest oil supply in american history was just found below the state of Texas.

>Utah has more in tarsands beneath than all the Oil the US has ever used.

Yeah okay.

why should the feds even be involved in funding energy? leave that shit to the states like the founding fathers intended

He's absolutely right. We tried to go greeen and ended up with a dead solar branche and using coal for energy which makes up 50% of our energy creation.
If you're not willing to spend trillions on setting up renewable energy sources it won't work.

youtube.com/watch?v=vV1OTR0mu28

Yeah let's buy from the Chinese instead and let homegrown companies fall behind.

read a book

throwing money just to make jobs is a waste of tax money and creates a bubble of artificial demand that will invariably burst putting people who got into the field because of the demand in a rather sorry state of unemployment

and as and point out, these subsidies cause shitty renewable energy groups with no reason to exist to cut into the profits of actually good renewable energy companies, ultimately leading to less industry growth and man-hours being wasted

all these government affiliated green energy companies are putting government money in their own pockets.

he's saying we're buying the materials to make the renewable energy generators from elsewhere.

it's obvious you haven't been paying attention to the news in the last half a decade, there's enough oil and natural gas in shale to fuel the world for hundreds of years if not thousands

subsidies are good. tariffs are bad.

t. podesta brothers

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[31]


>mfw we subsidize coal far more than superior nuclear power

Because fossil and nuclear cost a shit compare to all this green shit, hence much more output possible. Trump would win with a landslide, if not shale fracking and 40$ oil.

The problem, of course, is that they cannot. Solar and wind are meme energies that, even with massive subsidies, only work when governments mandate that power MUST be bought from them before any other sources.

Also, the 'fossil fuel subsidies' that the Environmental Cult loves to scream about are a mix of creative manipulation of data and outright fabrication. They compare total fossil fuel expenditures over more than a century, then compare them to the investments in the renewable that they like, in companies that haven't gone bankrupt yet, and act like it means anything.

The government should not be picking winners and losers in industry on the tax payer's dime.

>If you're not willing to spend trillions on setting up renewable energy sources it won't work.

Which you would know from your experience spending billions on failed renewables.

Q: what's cheaper? fossil fuels or windmills or solar?

A: gas and fossil fuels

That is why.

Unless there is major breakthrough in battery technology, and solar technology as well, aside form hydro (which is limited to where water is flowed greatly) all "green" energy production is fucking shit tier if not operating at a loss.

It's one big meme.

Oil, coal, and natural gas are far more sustainable than solar panels.

But nuclear power is radioactive, and that means it's BAD! Greenpeace said so!

Funds need to be spent more on R&D rather than just shitting out Solar Panels then. They need to make a more longer lasting material to work with.

However we should have sustainable energy as a backup in case resources run dry, I can understand that Coal, Gas, and Oil are finite resources though, we should at least have multiple options available in case the worst is to happen.

Government should not be running business. You think it's such a great idea, fine, you go into business, there are plenty of rich liberals who say they care, maybe they can bankroll it, and if it works, congrats, you'll make a fucking ton of money.
Government subsidies is the fucking worst, most inefficient way to do these things.

Geothermal is legit to, but it still has high capital costs and, like hydro, can only be used where you have the right conditions.

Unless you bring in some Cold War Era nuclear drilling schemes, but that;s another matter entirely.

nuclear is the only reliable alternative to our conventional power production.

At least that is still getting a lot of attention even though moral for the tech has completely been obliterated by outrage profiteers.

why does asia get to ruin the world with toxic waste, radioactive material and air pollution and not us? how about fuck em

>However we should have sustainable energy as a backup in case resources run dry, I can understand that Coal, Gas, and Oil are finite resources though

But not to the extent people think. There are a LOT of O&G sites that aren't at all used because, at the current market price, they aren't reliably profitable. Anyone who ever talks about peak oil always pretends that the price of oil won't go to $10/barrel more than it is now before we run out, and thus at the marginal sources won't be brought into play organically.

And the funny part is that those same price increases will also make renewable energy more competitive.

You can't explain that.

So just dump out more grant money to attract more bottom-feeder researchers with no proximate solution in sight. Great plan.

I would have the DoE do everything possible to facilitate the development and deployment of small modular reactors, which would simultaneously provide clean power generation and reduce the load on and fragility of the power grid infrastructure.

It also seems like something Trump would like.

We have a lot of Uranium in this country, and the rest is mostly in Australia and Canada, and all the operation and maintenance jobs would be domestic.

Because they start screaming about colonialism and oppression anytime the question gets asked.

It doesn't matter whether renewable energy itself is effective or not, does it?
Trump's first business should be to increase the job somehow.

>I would have the DoE do everything possible to facilitate the development and deployment of small modular reactors, which would simultaneously provide clean power generation and reduce the load on and fragility of the power grid infrastructure.

While this is a perfectly reasonable solution, it's also an easy target for the Outrage Industry parasitically attached to civilian nuclear power. There are Gen IV designs that could do that very well, but you'd have to convince people that it was safe to have them in their general vicinity.

He is just going to stop subsidizing a bunch of make-work jobs researching energy sources we will never use. It will not prevent anyone from continuing this work or going into those businesses.

Solar energy actually works but only so slightly.

Like I said unless battery tech in particular is improved solar energy is a meme. Solar power is only good during sunlight, it is then that energy companies can reduce fuel consumption, saving fossil fuels used to generate electricity.

However once sunlight is gone, it's back to full speed burning if not more since all the lights at night run.

Our power grids take power on-demand, have no means of storing electricity in the amounts required to run off of solars even if they were much more efficient, which they aren't. They break fucking easily, they wear out like typical chemical battery from the reaction that converts to electricity, they're high maintenance since you must consistently clean off their surface to keep it operating at proper efficiency, etc etc

Solar is right direction for renewable but it is not nearly close to being conventional tier power source.

>"renewable energy" is orders of magnitude more expensive
>people can't afford to do what they want because it's too expensive
>too much of people's resources being spent on expensive power, so they can't invest in hiring, starting businesses, consuming goods and services, and so on
>This damage to the economy massively slows down development of new technology, including "renewable energy"
>most of the cost of renewable energy is in materials, not jobs
>the research is being done in the private sector regardless
By not letting the government "develop" renewable energy, Trump's actually boosting development of renewable energy in the private sector, which is far more productive and has access to far more resources. In effect, he is actually increasing development of "renewable energy"

The most adamant supporters of nuclear power are those who understand it to be safe and efficient with plenty of room to grow. The vast majority of people know nothing at all about nuclear power except "muh chernobyl" and "muh three mile island." If I had to guess, I would say a good 97% of people - politicians included - are just completely uneducated on the matter and unwilling to be educated.

Furthermore - and this is very important - safe nuclear operation is heavily dependent on highly trained, intelligent, actively-thinking operators. The disaster at Chernobyl could be blamed on operators and supervisors who conducted unsafe operations and overrode built-in safety features without thinking of the implications. You cannot employ Joe Smith the layperson as a nuclear operator, not without several years of schooling/training. Nor can you tell Joe Smith to do maintenance on the nuclear plants.

All of this means the average layperson will not support nuclear. Consider, also, the trend of anti-intellectualism so rampant among Americans which makes them distrustful of scientists who -rightly! - say nuclear is a safe option. It's dumb as fuck, but we're decades away from having nuclear energy be as large-scale as it could/should be.

Renewable energy doesn't appear to going where it needs to be going.

They say they're investing, but it doesn't look like the money is getting anything done.

this kills the human

We need more gen IV reactors. Let them use the fuel from old gen I-III

green power has to stand on its own as an actual cost effective solution.

Exactly how kerosene replaced whale/vegetable oils for lanterns and how gasoline/deisel replaced horses and steam. no dictate, subsidy or tax, just people and businesses making logical cost saving decisions.


subsidies only perpetuate crony capitalism and shoddy construction
- just compare 1st and 2nd gen compact florescent bulbs to today.
- 1st and 2nd gen cost $10 & $6 each respectively and last 10+ years (I have a single bar style 1st gen mid 90s CFL that has a minimum of 50K hours on it)
- 3rd gen subsidized mexican bulbs lasted ~3 years
- modern gen subsidized chinese bulbs are lucky to last a year.


taxing carbon is the greens wet dream but the majority of them would rather piss their pants in public on camera then admit it then confront the truth of the consequences of that public policy.

we supposedly make enough power for the whole world in solar farms, what's hard is moving all that power

what we SHOULD be doing is using that power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. then we could use PEM devices to get water, heat, and electricity at any point

>Furthermore - and this is very important - safe nuclear operation is heavily dependent on highly trained, intelligent, actively-thinking operators.
Yeah, this isn't going to work. Reactors need to be passively safe, and routine operations should be fully automated. They should be small enough that they can be built and refurbished off-site, and installed in clusters to allow downtime for replacement.

Not a nuclear engineer, but if you look at something like the Toshiba 4S design it seems totally doable. The regulatory and political environment would have to change drastically, but one can imagine a SpaceX of nuclear energy that really nails down a one-size-fits-all low maintenance small reactor design and puts them into regular production to push the cost down.

fpbp

Invention of necessity

The US could always go for nuclear power.

>Essentially using alternative energy is just spending money in a different country that isn't ours.

Why do you have so little confidence in American industry?
As many people say its competitiveness is still strongest in the world.
I don't think it cannot get good position in renewable energy industry.

BUILD

NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR
>NUCLEAR

Solar and wind cannot even come close to meetings energy demands.

the chinese control these other industries

user, he's already looking at that

forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/11/10/will-donald-hoffman-be-president-trumps-secretary-of-energy/#660e363d3115

Meme him into office

no they aren't

Stop subsidizing green energy and put that money into NASA where renewable energy solutions will be developed for space travel.

china will make solar less expensive than traditional fossil fuels

change will come no matter what Trump does

>Why does he do so though the development of new industry increases our employment?

the creation of all those solar panels is more harmful to the environment. How much coal etc does it take to make one?
How many birds per KW have to die when flocks fly over the solar or wind farms?

The thing is that someone, somewhere, out there really thinks this unironically

The only viable long term energy source is nuclear fission. With breeder reactors we have enough fuel for the life of the Earth. (that is till it's destroyed by the sun turning into a red giant)

Solar and wind are massive wastes of money.

>china will make solar less expensive than traditional fossil fuels
Doesn't help a single bit in the issue of storage.

As someone who lives off grid let's not forget the motor starting across the line on solar inverter is murder for the grid(mirco or not).

>How many birds per KW have to die when flocks fly over the solar or wind farms?

This is the most disengenuous line of anti-windfarm rhetoric i've ever encountered. I say this as someone who is generally anti-renewables (they're inefficient and should continue being developed rather than rolling out shitty sub-par products).

Stop acting like you give a fuck about birds dying. They die by the millions from all sorts of other shit, yet the only time people complain about MUH BIRDS is when its convenient and they can smear something they don't like.

Unless you also protest deforestation, airplanes, feral cats, pesticides, oil spills, high tension electric grids and fucking windows you are being disingenuous as FUCK complaining about birds here.

Private industry is still welcome to do whatever it wants, dummy. He's not going to BAN it.

This isn't tumblr

Got any sources for that OP?

Even if he is, i can imagine it wouldn't be cheap to make america great again. So i don't blame him, he'll try to get rid of some expenditure to give way to other things. This will be a temporary thing.

>Anyone who ever talks about peak oil always pretends that the price of oil won't go to $10/barrel more than it is now before we run out, and thus at the marginal sources won't be brought into play organically.
>And the funny part is that those same price increases will also make renewable energy more competitive.
These are the same economic illiterates that made claims we'd have ran out of coal 100 years ago.

Wtf do you even mean?

It's disengenuous to bitch about birds dying in this one specific case, just because you dislike wind farms.

Birds and Animals of all shapes and sizes die due to human development all the fucking time, if we follow the line of reasoning and ban wind farms because muh birds we also have to pretty much ban any human development that causes harm to animals, aka FUCKING ALL OF IT.

It's retarded.