Raw air and bleach ray collector.
Yeah, I experience a bit of cognitive dissonance whenever I remember conservatism and conservation have very little overlap.
If you’re falling to the myth of being a strong independent … person …. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, solar and wind are local energy sources without foreign dependencies, and scale both up and down. This should be right up their ally.
I don’t want to be on the Texas electrical grid because of all their blackouts: Deisel generators are noisy and I have to depend on someone to fill the tanks, but I can put solar on my roof and batteries on the side of the garage and be independent. Zero fuel costs. zero have to depend on anyone. —— why isn’t this their line?
I work in municipal development and permitting.
Texas has had a HUGE surge in solar panel and backup generator installation over the past 4 years.
But the power companies have taken notice. The biggest part of a lot of power bills now isn't usage, but fees for being connected to the grid at all. And connection to the grid is required for a Certificate of Occupancy if you're in a city, and to get insurance or a mortgage even if you're in the county where permits aren't required.
You can't even create a legal lot in Texas without having electrical service to the lot.
I'm not sure if there is a word for fundamentalist in the context of economics the way there is for religion. What ever it is that is the answer to:
—— why isn’t this their line?
A fundamentalist needs certain axioms and won't come back to check if they line up with reality. This makes it nessesary for certain things to just be false no matter what.
Because it is change and visibility they are concerned with. Not the things they claim.
Supporters likes kickback from oil subsidies, fossil fuel deregulation, and supression of competitive technology. That's the angle.
...Maybe solar/wind companies should name themselves things like "Exon"
They like geothermal though, for the simple reason that it's actually cheaper in the long run. Also solar is nice because you can live off the grid. But otherwise it's not very popular among conservatives because the cost effectiveness in the long term isn't quite there. They aren't motivated by the idea of green energy, it's a simple cost calculation.
But that's completely bullshit. Solar and wind are so fantastically cheap that finding a way to deal with the capacity factor isn't a big deal.
The new geothermal solutions are impressive and should open up a lot more possibilities, but don't assume they're being honest about any of it. They've advocated for nuclear for decades without actually building new nuclear plants.
The "right" aren't right though, they're wrong. They should be called "far-wrong" instead of "far-right", imo, as their stances on many things show.
wind and solar are not popular for conservatives because they were left talking points first. which obviously means it's wrong, libtards owned yet again
Their biggest problem is that there's not big money in them. Once you have solar power on your house, you don't need to keep paying them every month. Where's the fun in that for the rich?
If you go far enough right, solar and wind are extremely popular. Very much leads to some weirdness when I was researching solar for my house, and kept stumbling into prepper communities and the like.
Go far enough left, get your guns back. Go far enough right, get your clean energy back.
To be fair, wind is also a form of solar power. (Wind being caused by the difference in heat between the different hemispheres/poles & the rotation of the earth)
So wind & solar power are indirect & direct long-range nuclear energy sources, respectively.
"Actually Natural Gas" "Orbital Fusion"
I mean Natural Gas is as natural as Iron or Coal. The problem is extracting and burning it is causing issues.
They're both Orbital Fusion.
We should try to harness the power of the tides, since that's lunar gravity driven.
um...
Moon Rodeo Power?
I'm honestly wondering this. Renewables reduce dependency on foreign countries, so using them can be interpreted as a patriotic act. They make sense, geostrategically, not just for saving earth but also for reducing the leverage other countries have over yours. This could be something that both, green activists and nationalists, can jointly agree on. I don't get it.
I think the problem, as it often is, is big businesses lobbying for continued relevancy at the cost of societal progress.
Energy Dominance! is new buzz word. You are right that "energy security" best solution is to never have to pay for fuel again. Such talk is woke radical left climate alarmist talk, even though that was the word the O&G industry told us to reduce reliance on energy imports.
Energy dominance means the goal is to destroy the planet, but think of the shareholder value created by extorting the planet into US approved energy consumption. War and extortion are just more radial left woke words to distract from achieving energy dominance.
The mistake was applying logic to a position they didn’t use logic to arrive at. Their talking heads say renewables bad. The thought process ended there.
Even works down to the state level. My state, Wisconsin, has no coal mines, no oil wells, and no natural gas wells. The closest thing we have to any of it is the best sand for fracking. Otherwise, every dollar of energy we spend ends up leaving the state one way or another.
Unless, that is, we do something intelligent, like building an offshore wind farm on Lake Michigan. Though I'm sure someone will complain that we're killing the whales.
That’s why we couldn’t end dst, calling it the sunshine protection act.
Does the right like nuclear? I thought they didn't. It's pretty clean efficient energy, though it has been overtaken in recent years by wind and solar for cost.
I’m not too big a fan of nuclear due to the cost. I imagine the right salivating at the opportunity to extract billions of dollars per project
They like nuclear and hate regulation, so that’s a match made in heaven for disasters.
free market safe nuclear energy!
The right likes nuclear when they can drop it on someone.
Yeah, they love it and are constantly criticizing the left for chasing renewables as a solution to our energy needs and (for the less extreme ones who accept it's real) climate change.
It's interesting to see people are starting to like the idea of it more, but to me it's useless lip service until they start building new plants. I'd imagine they'd like it a lot less if they started building a nuclear power plant within 20 miles of their house.
Maggie Thatcher was one of the earliest politicians to talk about global warming. She did it to prop up nuclear, which was losing the narrative at the time to Greenpeace and the like.
They like nuclear in so far as they can use it to beat certain elements of the environmental left over the head. Conservative governments have come in gone in both the US and UK, and they've done very little to actually build out nuclear power.
In the US I thought nuclear was one of the few bipartisan issues they can agree on.
If you mean they both agree to shutter old facilities and not replace them with modern nuclear plants, that's correct. The anti-nuclear sentiment in the US is very strong.
The politicians don't like it due to cost and time building, while constituents are still very afraid of nuclear disasters (especially the latter, the view on its safety is 30 years behind).
They don’t mind being under someone’s thumb for basic necessities as long as that someone is an unaccountable business owner.
Bunch of NIMSS types on the right. Doubt they'd go for "far-field nuclear"
Now, something like "Ultra far east super nuclear warhead"...that might work.
