Why republicans hate renewable energy so much?

Why republicans hate renewable energy so much?
Even if you're a climate denier you realize that we are gonna run out of fossil fuels eventually right?

Other urls found in this thread:

nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html
m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWrBxNBk4w8
twitter.com/energy_charts/status/800750476970979328
pvoutput.org/outputs.jsp
spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Wind and Solar can't work because the US power grid can't
>store power
>transmit power over long distances
So if there were a cloudly, or still day, there would be massive blackouts. All the time.

The entire US power grid would need to be rebuild from the ground up, which would cost trillions of dollars we don't have.

Nuclear power, with solar power on the municipal level, is objectively the best.

This

>Wind and Solar can't work because the US power grid can't

What does that even? Stop pulling things out of you fat ass

>So if there were a cloudly, or still day, there would be massive blackouts. All the time.

You can still get solar power when is cloudy also what are batteries?

>The entire US power grid would need to be rebuild from the ground up, which would cost trillions of dollars we don't have.

You don't have to rebuilt shit, I don't what you got that from burger
You should be informed about this subject amerifat

Can you even fucking read you dumb turk? Being able to store power for hundreds of millions of people is a bit more complicated than strapping in a few AAs.

Adapting the US power grid to store tremendous amounts of power, or to transmit it hundreds of miles, is currently too costly to be effective.

Wind farms produce so little power that it will take 20-30 years just to recoup the energy cost of building them

>fossil fuels
I got some new for you, son.
nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html

There are enough fossil fuels to last us two thousand fucking years. I think we'll find something better than fucking windmills by then. Fuck off.

>the climate is changing
>wind is eternal and reliable

Pick one.

>solar power on the municipal level, is objectively the best.

IGNORE LIBERAL FAGGOTS

>Can't transmit power over long distances
WTH America?

>(((renewable energy)))

Current renewable energy solutions are nowhere near efficient enough to supplant current fossil fuel methods (which is what the left wants to do), and the areas in which generating electricity through renewable means is efficient (deserts, unused fields, etc.) are often far from where the power is needed. Transferring power long distances further reduces the efficiency of the power generated as most of it will be lost on the way to its destination.

Solar and wind are also not clean energy whatsoever. Each turbine and each panel requires untold amounts of fossil fuels to manufacture and transport. Turbines can wreck havoc on local ecosystems by killing birds, and they often malfunction during storms. All of these systems require regular maintenance and replacement of parts which also impacts the carbon footprint in manufacturing and logistics.

Green energy is not yet sophisticated enough for us to consider replacing fossil fuels entirely or even to begin building green energy power grids; we need to continue the use of fossil fuels until we can find sustainable and efficient solutions. Green energy in its current state is near worthless.

>run out of fossil fuels

gee I can't wait til 5016, when are you fags going to stop spending half of your life working about your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren?

Did you not read the word nuclear? Get back to your shed, the bull needs prepping.
You seem to forget that our country is as big as your whole homo continent.

Oy vey goy, don't you know if we keep burning fossil fuels we're all going to die due to (((climate change)))?

Try efficiently transporting energy from the Nevada desert to the next state over.

Good luck.

The term "fossil fuel" is a misnomer.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWrBxNBk4w8
> m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWrBxNBk4w8
m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWrBxNBk4w8

Oil is completely renewable, clean, and all we need.

>Being able to store power for hundreds of millions of people is a bit more complicated than strapping in a few AAs.

If they produce surplus they would do what they already do now, it makes no difference how the electricity was produced

>Adapting the US power grid to store tremendous amounts of power, or to transmit it hundreds of miles, is currently too costly to be effective.

Grids don't store power and the system is already adapted to transmit power to everyone

You make absolutely no sense americuck
Try writing something cohering next time, after you get educated

>If they produce surplus they would do what they already do now, it makes no difference how the electricity was produced
Generating surplus power is avoided. Power plants will throttle down output specifically because there is no way to store power.

>the system is already adapted to transmit power to everyone
It is not. If the US was completely dependent on wind and solar, and it was CLOUDY in one area, the power grid CANNOT transmit power from areas where it is SUNNY.

THE US POWER GRID CANNOT TRANSMIT POWER OVER EXTREME DISTANCES

>what are batteries?
Son, if we had batteries that could store power like that, we'd have all the places with more than 320 days of sunlight per year stuffed with well maintained solar panels stuffing batteries full of energy, and shipping those batteries around instead of coal and other hydrocarbons to burn in power plants.

Seriously. We were promised super batteries by the nano-materials, but we haven't managed to get anything of any usable scale created yet, after 30 years of intensive research on it.

Once we do, it will change everything, and hydrocarbons will be phased out as the primary, cheap, power supply.

They are also unstable as hell and undependable, so they always have to build a normal power station to supply the power that the wind farms don't. The vast majority of those "backup" power plants are coal burners--- which means every "major" wind farm you see has a hidden coal plant burning coal "just in case" the wind drops off or gets too strong and the wind farm's created power drops off.

Nuclear power is the best for industry in short term, in my opinion, as it fulfills the requirements of 24/7 supply and it's relatively clean, in the sense of not generating as much air pollution as coal or oil centrals or flood lands which would otherwise be usable for both wildlife (and tourism) and agriculture for hydroelectric plants.

About nuclear waste, you have lots of barren lands you can bury those.

The issue with solar and wind power is about using batteries to ensure a constant supply. It might be a choice for cities, because residential zones (not counting hospitals and such) are less sensitive to power shortages than industry, but I see them more as a domestic solution for people who don't want to be plugged to the centralized supply.

Yeah they also give you cancer
How you amerifats manage to become stupider by every day that passes?

>wind and solar
Hey Ontario, how's that working for you? Totally made your nuke plants obsolete right?

Hydro is the only viable large-scale renewable power source.

Sure, solar and wind aren't 100% uptime, but that's why every major windfarm is paired with a traditional plant that runs at capacity only when the windfarm isn't producing (which is usually more when it's too windy, rather than too little wind)

Right, and that power plant always runs at 80% of capacity even when the wind plant is expected to run without issue for a significant time.

80%, burning coal, so people can say their power is "green". Think about that, you stupid bastards.

I'm not against solar, but it needs to be paired with something like a water storage system, pumping water out of the ground into a covered/sealed reservoir, so the power can be pulled out of the system by running hydro. Let the wind move the water back to the high side, rather than directly generating power from it. That would then mean you don't need an external power plant always on standby for it, making it actually GREEN and efficient.

this might be the most retarded thing i've read today, and you probably thought you were being clever

why do liberals hate nuclear power so much, if they are against fossil fuels?

Wind and solar suck. Nuclear is the only currently feasible alternative power source. A cursory comparison of the efficiency and cost of the German and French power grids make this obvious.

wow, there is absolutely no way to make it work, absolutely none.

fossil faggot.

twitter.com/energy_charts/status/800750476970979328

Oh jesus, not this horse shit again.

Look, all we can do for now is build more nuclear plants, build more hydro, and more natural gas while it's cheap in N. America (and natural gas burns quite clean). We can phase out coal, we do have the capability of doing that. Meanwhile, we can incentivize people to use more energy efficient appliances.

Wind and solar? Yeah, keep researching, but wind/solar is nowhere near ready to take over supplying the electrical grid. They're building an experimental fusion power plant soon, so maybe sometime in our lifetimes that will be an option. If not, I guess wind/solar might actually be able to do the job sometime this century.

Because its a scam.

They dont hate it? They just are realistic. except for corporate neocons and lobbyists and shit most my conservative friend are more into alt energy than the lefties

Not all countries can be as efficient and high-energy as Iceland

Republicans hate anything that is stupid and doesn't work, that's also why they don't get many black votes

Democrats dont like facts you racist echo chambering ignorant alt right literally hitler.

Oh give me a break with your propaganda dumbasses
At least gop is taking big money from oil to suck them off but you're doing it for free, how stupid you people are?

Gigafactory, the biggest factory in the world runs 100% on green energy, not only that they produce surplus

Read a book

turns out not the whole world is located in a desert and powering a factory and a country are tiny bit different. who would have thought

>he thinks wind farms are renewable energy

>we will run out of wind

>Republicans hate anything that is stupid and doesn't work,
Then why are they anti-science and pro-corporate welfare?

>Why republicans hate renewable energy so much?

It's a cause of vested interests in the oil market. The US grows very rich through oil revenue yes but it also has built-in benefits like US dolllars being the only valid currency in an exchange. If the world moves away from oil it also moves away from the US dollar.

Also renewable energy has the potential to erase conventional points of attack on a country during peace time. If a country is almost self reliant in term of energy in peace you can't influence the government as easily by exploiting a reliance on imported energy.

Neat.

apparently we will according to Sup Forums climate experts

they don't, they openly support nuclear energy.
The USA and France are the world's leading Nuclear powers.

I don't think many euros in little countries realize how big the US is.

>He fell for the gas burns cleaner than coal meme

Honestly, educate yourselves folks. I know everyone imagines that a coal plant consists of a bunch of orphans shoveling coal into huge furnaces by hand, but fact of the matter is, this is most modern coal plants don't emit the thick black smoke you folks imagine. Sulphur and all the other shit is scrubbed. Its pretty much pure CO2 and some H2O out the stack, you know, the same shit you get with burning gas. Gas emits more H2O because it has more hydrogen, and that is pretty much its only advantage. It makes perfect sense to build new plants running on natural gas based on gas turbines + waste heat boilers (combined cycle), as they reach very high efficiencies, but what they are doing in some places in the US right now - burning oil or coal directly in a boiler is the most stupid thing you could ever do economically. You use far more (about twice as much) gas as you would in a gas combined cycle and you loose the advantage a steam plant has which is the ability to burn cheap fuel (coal and biomass), which cannot be, for obvious reasons, stuck into gas turbines. Fact of the matter is, gas lobbyists in the US especially have been pushing natural gas as a stepping stone towards renewables, meaning it gets all sorts of political benefits despite not making actually being renewable.

Look at pic related, and show me the horrible, thick, poisonous, smoke that liberals cry about. Yes, that plant is fired by coal, and yes, it is working in the pic.

Austria is like 90% renewable.
Having rivers is nice.

>but what they are doing in some places in the US right now - burning oil or coal directly in a boiler
Do you mean gas?

>Why republicans hate renewable energy so much?
Because they're shills for oil and gas corporations.

What is there to love about """""renewable""""" energy? I'll never get this fucking meme.
>expensive as fuck
>takes massive chunks of land
>unpredictable (see for instance this pv output data in FUCKING Australia: pvoutput.org/outputs.jsp >pic related )
>not really as "environmentally friendly" as people think spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think
>increases infrastructural costs due to added redundancy, mostly due to its unpredictable nature (see: the massive difference in efficiency between baseload and peaking power)
>geographically limited alongside with seasonal limitations
etc.
etc.
etc.

The only real use I could see for """""renewable""""" energy is on passive systems. Say, for instance, you have a reservoir and you fill it with water using solar panels, and then use that power when the grid TRULY needs it at demand. Such a system would increase redundancy and lower costs when in comparison to simply connecting """""renewable""""" energy sources into the grid.

If people really gave a fuck about the environment they'd be vouching for nuclear. But instead, you have a bunch of goody two shoes who sincerely believe good intentions are enough to save the world. It isn't.

>Grid Balance
That's the phrase everybody is scared of.
USA grid runs on 60 Hz. Our EU grid 50 Hz.
You have to keep it that way, no less no to much.
What happens when it starts to change?
Engines burn, shit goes crazy, grid goes offline, short circuits, dispatchers loose control of everything, makes mistakes, some of substation devices fail, in some cases transformers burn and millions of people left without electricity for months.
Nobody buys and keeps transformers for reserve in the shed. It's to expensive to buy another one just in case. It takes time to make new one.
Some of substation devices can be brought back to work in hours/ days/ weeks, because those can be easily kept in reserve.
>What all of this have to do with renewable energy?
Renewable energy creates this disbalance.
We here have quotas for wind and solar farms. They can't exceed the maximum energy input in the grid. It's a safety switch on paper. That means our dispatchers can manage the grid frequency easily without problems.
Since some of the cities in merica have blackouts and all sorts of energy shortages, that means USA grid is old and not well maintained. So whole USA grid is more vulnerable to frequency disbalance.
Forget renewable energy for some time, rebuild your grid first.
OR go big on wind farms and hope that your god blows the wind 24/7
^^

This. We desperately need more nuclear fission power.

>changing climate means no more wind

Facepalm.jpg

Ignorant amerifats everywhere

Another screenshot of solar's unpredictability. Now imagine that, but in steroids, and you have wind power.

oy vey. get into solar and wind goyim. you shouldn't burn the coal you have because eventually you'll start to run out and it'll cost as much as solar and wind.

>he thinks they aren't

>not understanding Jews gain the most by sucking big oil cock and without the need for petroleum we can abandon the Middle East and fuck the Kikes

Clearly Nuclear is the answer. France has it right.

this

The only places in the US that have power issues (blacks outs and brown outs) is California. It has issues because its legislature and executive branch have blocked all new power plants being built in that state, and have decommissioned and tore down most of its dams. They are energy starved, and cannot meet their needs. This works out great for their members of legislature and executive branch which are invested in the power producers of adjoining states, which can then turn around and sell California massive amounts of power for extremely high prices over local munipalities in those states, leading to pressure on those nearby states power grid.

Several electricity suppliers in the region have been caught creating runs on electricity to fatten their wallet. All thanks to the crazy Californians not wanting a new power plant in their state because it might have an environmental impact or it might hasten catastrophic man made global warming.

>not understand that coal isn't gasoline and doesn't come from the middle east
>not understanding that natural gas isn't oil and doesn't come from the middle east
>not understanding that shale oil isn't gas and doesn't come from the middle east
pic related. where shale oil comes from

Ties to oil.

This Idiot is srsly fucking stupid

The problem will solve itself when renewable energy gets efficient enough. Meanwhile, focus on the industry that is in demand and creates jobs, not like our moronic liberals are doing by trying to destroy the oil sands.

Comparing the Power supply of 80 Million people in a Small ass country to

The Power supply of about a whole fucking continent with huge cities and Long empty country sides between them.

Also Even Small Germany Can Just supply half of its demand with Natural energy.

How are they... not ?

Holy shit!!!
That's really bad.
Black out is created when dispatcher controls the grid. He/she disconnects ... (in eu it's 3rd category users) low tier users to keep grid balance, because you can't shut off electricity to 1st category users - factories and so on...
And it's the first time I hear about brown outs. Thanks for sharing.

Very good but sadly - quite complicated criticism of wind/solars comes from regulation problems.

Basically you shouldn't have less or more power generated into the grid than you use in said grid. If you have too much power, voltage and frequency will rise, if too little - the other way round. Increased voltage may burn transformers and home installations and devices in them alike while voltage drop can potentially lead to blackout(well, if too many big transformers in important points of the grid will burn there will be blackout as well).

If you have, let's say - coal power plant you can easily regulate power output in numerous ways and most power plants are built so they're normally running at ~70% of their installed power so they can do more if there are special conditions occurring(very harsh winter is one of the better examples of it). Same applies to nuclear or hydro plants.

With solars and wind turbines you have a problem of not being able to regulate it at all. You have to rely on your predictions about energy consumption and have enough storage(usually in form of battery banks) to address peaks and dips of both consumption and production well.

To do so you have to face the same problem that plagued planned economy - the inability of predicting consumption accurately(especially when it comes to motherfucking energy consumption).

No wonder that the biggest retards supporting "green powah" would be useful idiots shilling for Mao 40 years ago.
Generally Hydro>Nuclear>Coal>the rest

With gas being weird thing because you can set up gas turbine in a matter of 20 minutes while coal block requires 2 hours of start-up. So if a natural disaster or some failure takes out some powerplant, setting up short-lasting supplement power plants with gas turbines is perfect backup plan.

Of course hydro power plants are wonderful and great but few countries actually can have them(but the ones that can, do it - see Norway).

>blaming oil sands failure in liberals
>forgets about 10 years of conservative oil sands investment

Have you seen the price of oil recently? Do you realize how innefficient tar sands are? Seriously how dull can you be. Gtfo muh Canada

STOP
WITH
THIS
FUCKING
MEME
The US get's most of it's oil from the US. After that, it's Canada. Open a book or do a fucking google search you goddamn ape.

When in doubt blame the Jews

Nope were close to fusion

Look.
Here how it's done.
>I own huge fucking country.
>I build one wind turbine in the center of it.
>100% renewable
>100% GREEN COUNTRY
But here's the truth, I import 99,9% of energy from other countries.
Try to steal this 100% green country title from me. Impossible.
And in reality it isn't like I described, but concept is the same.

>If you have too much power, voltage and frequency will rise
>frequency
what? I always thought the frequency in cicuits was extremely hard to modify

If you don't shill for nuclear you should probably just kill yourself

Found the jew

We should continue funding alternative energy RESEARCH but we need to wait to implement it until it is economically feasible and won't kill our economy.

Why would we risk our livelihoods on implementing present-day technology when green energy keeps selling us the idea that alternative energy efficiency is rising at an exponential rate. All that tells me is that we can get by using coal and oil and let the free market dictate the transition to renewables.

besides nuclear its all memes and a waste of time.