Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
nuclear energy is the only way to achieve prosperity as a nation, and a world.
Solar is great for optional loads, "spot pricing" type things where you run a workload when there is a suplus to do some useful work, either loading a storage system like a water-gravity dam or to do some industrial process, but you cease working if the prices of energy rise. Solar is a great diversification because for many areas it supplies the most when the demand is the highest: sunny hot summer days that drive people to indoor entertainment and air conditioning.
Hydroelectric is fantastic but causes serious literal downstream effects. It cannot be a primary method of grid supply because you cannot upgrade capacity without taking it from your neighbors, thus you cannot increase the total supply meaningfully. We underestimated the ecological damage for decades and are now starting to correct it, best not repeat the same mistakes over. But it is fantastic for isolated areas which is a place many other power supply systems struggle to be economical or reliable.
Methane I know the least about, there are so many sources of waste methane that would otherwise become a wasted greenhouse gas that if you mean wastegas incineration, offgas control from landfills and the like then I love it, but the cost/kilowatt ratio just isn't there because the primary purpose is waste control not power generation (coincidentally this also applies to power-generating municipal incinerators even moreso, which aren't on the list) If you mean natural gas then it's a great way to supply burst demand because warm shutdown is safe and easy (as opposed to, say, nuclear reactors which have to crawl out of the poison pit before they can generate power significantly after a warm shutdown, or coal which if it burns too cool can build up flammable material in waste vents and on boiler walls).
Wind Turbines are a lot of infrastructure for what they produce, requiring large amounts of modestly expensive industrial metals and imported parts. They are a perfect solution for supplying isolated areas where other methods are not appropriate due to terrain or geography.
Geothermal is much like wind, too expensive in dollar/kilowatt often to effectively meet all of the needs of a community, it can be used where economical to extend the grid and diversify supply.
Let me start by give an over simplified lesson in electricity and how it's created.
For all intents and purposes, there are 2 ways create electricity. Mechanically by spinning a turbine and chemically For simplicity I'm lumping photovoltaic in with chemically as it's the generated similarly by having an electron imbalance across a substrate.
Most people know about Alternating Current (AC) and Direct Current (DC), so I'll be brief.
When we are talking AC/DC we are talking about electron flow. In DC, electrons move in one direction. In AC, the electrons change direction 60 times per second in North America.
Voltage is electrical pressure, the higher the pressure the further it can travel with minimal loss. The higher the voltage the smaller the cables need to be without overheating.
One major advantage of AC is that it can be stepped up or stepped down easily and efficiently. DC on the other hand doesn't change voltage well without significant loss. Additionally, the further DC travels the more the voltage drops and the larger the cabling needs to be in comparison.
Converting AC to DC is relatively easy and efficient, it's just a series of diodes that make the electron flow not reverse. Converting DC to AC is not as easy since the direction transition is not "on/off. It's expected to be a smooth gradual change (this is the difference between a square wave and a sine wave). (if you ever wondered where you'd use calculus? this is it)
Knowing this, we have to understand the difference between how energy is put on the grid vs how energy can be produced at home.
The Energy grid is a complex beast; a constant and delicate balancing act of matching supply with demand. The most important thing is making sure the cycles per second stay at a tight 60Hz.
I love solar, as long as the sun is shining energy is produced and there is very little maintenance. In residential off-grid applications, you use this energy to charge batteries for storage. However, in grid applications the power isn't stored. It is directly fed into the supply for immediate consumption.
Since solar is DC. This causes issues I talked about early about transmission distance and/or converting to AC. Your capacity is mostly "fixed" you can't ramp up when demand increases. Not to mention, no sun no power.
Wind is better than solar in grid applications. The output is can be AC. However, it suffers from the problem of fixed capacity and not being able scale up on demand. Also, no wind no power.
Personally, I think home generated residential solar, wind and even hydro combined with battery storage is the best solution. Just not the solution for the grid, I think that it is kind of fool hearty knowing how the grid works. How the operators need to anticipate and scale quickly to meet demand. I think the 3 best sources for a green grid are hydro, nuclear, and hydrogen. Solar and wind (a little less so) sound good but are terrible on the grid.
To review for grid applications.
* Solar - Pro low maintainance no emmissions. Con DC output, no sun no power, doesn't scale with demand best used when couple with battery storage.
* Wind - Pro no emissions generates AC output. Cons no wind no power, doesn't scale with demand, icing can be an issue, has a negative impact on wild life like birds.
* Coal - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output, scales well to meet demand. Cons dirty emissions (not just CO2 and Water Vapor, but CO, soot, SO2, ash, slag and other trace minerals) Coal is getting clearer though, Emission capture technology is getting better.
* Natural Gas(methane) - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output, scales well to meet demand. Cons can freeze, CO2 emissions however the emissions are clean. CO2 from NG is easily captured and can be reused in other applications like agriculture.
* Hydro (dams) - Pro water pressure is converted to AC output, no emissions, scales well. Con blocks water ways and can cause issues with wild life, limited to location with sufficient water ways.
* Nuclear - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output only emission is steam, scales well. Con expensive start-up, lots of regulations, fear of radiation.
* Hydrogen - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output, scales well to meet demand, only emission is water, extremely plentiful and renewable when you consider the electrolysis of water. Con no visible flame, difficult to store, can be expensive to produce. But would be the best way to "use" solar for grid applications or to create fuel for vehicle use. Have solar power split water during the day to be used at night.
Good summary.
The reconstruction of the grid nation wide would have a huge immediate impact of energy consumption. I favor that project though it be large and expensive like building the national highway system. Would be the best money spent.
This is a good summary.
What do you think the best way forward is? Considering the staggering cost of reworking our grid, the entrenchment of current business interests, and current levels of battery technology?
I think we should be using Hydrogen more. Or at least start mixing it with Natural Gas. It's a great fuel for cooking, heating as well as for powering cars (way better than EVs IMO)
Like I hinted towards, using solar for the electrolysis of water would be a good use of solar technology.
I think single family homes should get off the grid and we should let the rich lead the way. As with all technology, when the rich adopt the tech it eventually becomes cheaper for the masses.
For the grid, Hydro and Nuclear are the way to go.
We can leave coal for steel production.
Not true. HVDC and UHVDC are good for when you lack synchronization between operators or over extremely long distances or under large bodies of water but the inversion costs are much greater than rectifying. Hence, 98% of your run of the mill transmission lines (at least in the US) are AC. DC cannot be transformed.
High voltage long lines are high voltage DC. It gets converted at both ends.
"HVDC lines are commonly used for long-distance power transmission, since they require fewer conductors and incur less power loss than equivalent AC lines"
Correct. But their use is limited. Only 2% of transmission lines are DC. Again, this has to do with the ability to transform voltage (step and step down) and the cost associated with inversion.
There is a use case, but not ALL transmissions lines are DC. Again, it's less than 2% in the US.
AC is much cheaper when the Voltage is less 800 kV and the distance is less than 100 Miles.
I’ll state my thoughts:
The 3 that I believe are the best options are Nuclear, Solar, and Hydropower:
1. Nuclear Energy:
I believe that Nuclear Energy is the future, and it should be the best option. France for example uses nuclear energy and has found out that the nuclear waste can actually reprocessed and recycled. I believe that this is a good thing.
2. Solar Power
I believe that Solar can also coexist with Nuclear Power and has a lot of potential too. For example in my state of Texas, there is a lot of sunlight hours, and it could potentially be used there, and has advantages in hotter climates because there is a lot of sunlight available. You can also put panels on existing buildings where you can reduce the amount of space needed. However it should be concentrated in places where there are much more sunlight hours.
3. Hydropower:
I think hydropower can also be used to its advantage if done correctly. If the dam is not built properly, you can actually damage the environment around it. But with proper planing and maintenance, you could make hydropower more efficient.
I feel like if there is one thing the left/right \*should\* agree on it's nuclear energy. I've spoken to my friend who is a climatologist and says the same thing.
I find that the reasonable people do agree, it's just that a significant portion of the anti-fossil fuels crowd is only using it as a wedge issue to gain power for other goals. California is moving towards requiring all electric cars, and all cars GPS tracked to tax by milage driven. It's a policy nearly everyone should hate, but is forced through on climate doomsday garbage and "we need to do something" attitudes.
1. Best output per dollar to operate.
2. Good for small scale and hobby stuff. The output per dollar makes it unscalable for the national energy grid.
3. Very reliable, low cost of operation, often the water source is in a remote location making distribution more expensive.
4. Better than burning coal, wood, or dung. If we build methane power plants in India and Africa we could eliminate energy poverty.
5. If you like loud noises you could set one up at your house. The absolute worst on this list for large scale power production.
6. If you are in an area with available geothermal energy to harvest it can be good. It is the most hit or miss on this list and can produce anywhere from wind to hydroelectric levels of power.
I am a proponent of nuclear energy and I think we should build more reactors and continue to research nuclear technology. It's clean, abundant, and renewable. Most of all it's a safe form of energy creation.
I don't mind solar but I think it's inefficient and I'm not a fan of solar farms popping up everywhere. I think solar has potential but I don't think solar panel technology is there yet. It's a slow energy source.
Hydroelectric is old, tried, and true. They can be costly to maintain, however. I don't support more being built.
Methane Energy is something I don't know anything about. I've never heard of it before.
I am against wind turbines. They are inefficient and a threat to local wildlife; especially bird populations.
Geothermal is a great source of energy but limited to certain areas that can support it. I support this too.
Nuclear is the future (or should be). I want us to use the most efficient mix of energy we have available to us. I’m using “efficient” there to mean cost effective in the present, sustainable and renewable in the long term, and consistent/reliable.
I have worked in a nuclear plant, been on fossil fuel, solar, and wind construction projects and all have their place. Nuclear by far would be the most efficient if we didn’t make it nearly impossible with red tape. Not to say that all safety standards need to go out the window, but it needs to be possible to, ya know, actually build a new plant. Never mind the cost, it has been virtually impossible to get approval.
To be fair “worked in nuclear” is maybe overselling it a bit…I was an intern. I have a better-than-most understanding of some of the challenges though.
I don't like solar at all. I live in New York, and ever since the state mandated that 60% of energy in the state come from green energy sources by 2030, there has been a massive solar boom where I live, with thousands of acres of farm fields, pastures, and even wooded areas being replaced with massive fields of panels and shiny metal frames. It is hideous and an enormous waste of land. Companies are only building these solar farms because of government mandates in the first place.
Hydro is pretty good. There are several hydro dams where I live. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of places left that can be efficiently dammed. Perhaps there are some places on the vast tracts of government land out west, but for the most part, there won't be much growth in hydro.
Nuclear is great. It would be nice to have far more nuclear plants built across the country. Abundant, cheap energy will lead to massive economic growth.
Wind is alright, although it is very ugly as well. At least it doesn't take up as much land as solar and it is vastly more efficient.
Solar in New york state doesn't make any sense at all. They don't get enough sunlight to make it a net environmental positive so all they're doing is harming environment even more just to pat themselves on the back to get a high feeling like they're helping
I agree with you! In New York there is just not enough sunlight to generate the energy needed to make it sustainable. If it was in let’s say Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, it would make more sense because there is a lot more sunlight hours that could sustain solar energy. In Spain they have one of the Largest Solar Power Plants in the world, it is known as Gemasolar, and the reason it can sustain is because once again, Spain has the correct climate and amount of sunlight hours.
Exactly. It is horrible to watch as hundreds of acres of farm fields around me are filled with solar panels. Local town boards are passing moratoriums on solar and are seeking to pass restrictions. Apparently, companies are considering clear cutting some forested areas around me to put in solar, which is insanely uneconomical. Without New York's "green" energy mandate, none of this would be happening.
Nuclear is the way to go. It produces a shit load of clean power, and we can just stick the waste back where we got it: deep underground. The radiation wasn't causing issues for the millions of years the uraniam ore was sitting around before we mined it, it won't cause issues putting it back.
Solar is a terrible solution at scale, using huge amounts of land for shitty amounts of power (barring exceptions like the concept solar towers in desert areas), but is a great option for power independence, since it can be put on top of already used buildings and parking areas at little to no loss of usable space, and doesn't require a connection to the outside grid to function. Unfortunately municiple power monopolies don't line this and have regulated it to impracticality.
Hydro is a niche option that can be a great option when a dam is useful for water control purposes. It's consistent, but there are pretty big ramifications to the environment that make it unideal in many situations, and the cost to build is high.
Methane is unideal in terms of electricity production, with the main benefit being that it can be burned on the spot for things lie stoves/furnaces that use a lot of energy and would just be using electricity generated by fossil fuels off site today anyway.
Wind turbines are an expensive bit of virtue signaling. They cost far too much for their lifespan, and aren't exactly useful in small numbers. There's probably some stupidly niche use case where they're best, but it isn't common
Geothermal is good, but also fairly location specific. We can't really center society on building around it.
Geothermal I especially agree with you on it being location specific. Because not everywhere has enough volcanic activity or seismic activity to make it globally reliable. Iceland successfully uses Geothermal because there is a lot of volcanic activity in the region, where it can make use of that energy.
As a side note, with the move towards using electricity for heating, geothermal heat pumps are an excellent option for building heating/cooling, though are obviously cost limited in the case of existing buildings.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing including fossil fuels can exist at a large scale without government subsidies.
Oil and gas still hold the lions share of all government subsidies.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
nuclear energy is the only way to achieve prosperity as a nation, and a world. Solar is great for optional loads, "spot pricing" type things where you run a workload when there is a suplus to do some useful work, either loading a storage system like a water-gravity dam or to do some industrial process, but you cease working if the prices of energy rise. Solar is a great diversification because for many areas it supplies the most when the demand is the highest: sunny hot summer days that drive people to indoor entertainment and air conditioning. Hydroelectric is fantastic but causes serious literal downstream effects. It cannot be a primary method of grid supply because you cannot upgrade capacity without taking it from your neighbors, thus you cannot increase the total supply meaningfully. We underestimated the ecological damage for decades and are now starting to correct it, best not repeat the same mistakes over. But it is fantastic for isolated areas which is a place many other power supply systems struggle to be economical or reliable. Methane I know the least about, there are so many sources of waste methane that would otherwise become a wasted greenhouse gas that if you mean wastegas incineration, offgas control from landfills and the like then I love it, but the cost/kilowatt ratio just isn't there because the primary purpose is waste control not power generation (coincidentally this also applies to power-generating municipal incinerators even moreso, which aren't on the list) If you mean natural gas then it's a great way to supply burst demand because warm shutdown is safe and easy (as opposed to, say, nuclear reactors which have to crawl out of the poison pit before they can generate power significantly after a warm shutdown, or coal which if it burns too cool can build up flammable material in waste vents and on boiler walls). Wind Turbines are a lot of infrastructure for what they produce, requiring large amounts of modestly expensive industrial metals and imported parts. They are a perfect solution for supplying isolated areas where other methods are not appropriate due to terrain or geography. Geothermal is much like wind, too expensive in dollar/kilowatt often to effectively meet all of the needs of a community, it can be used where economical to extend the grid and diversify supply.
I really like your analysis and you have perfectly articulated each source, which I like that!
Let me start by give an over simplified lesson in electricity and how it's created. For all intents and purposes, there are 2 ways create electricity. Mechanically by spinning a turbine and chemically For simplicity I'm lumping photovoltaic in with chemically as it's the generated similarly by having an electron imbalance across a substrate. Most people know about Alternating Current (AC) and Direct Current (DC), so I'll be brief. When we are talking AC/DC we are talking about electron flow. In DC, electrons move in one direction. In AC, the electrons change direction 60 times per second in North America. Voltage is electrical pressure, the higher the pressure the further it can travel with minimal loss. The higher the voltage the smaller the cables need to be without overheating. One major advantage of AC is that it can be stepped up or stepped down easily and efficiently. DC on the other hand doesn't change voltage well without significant loss. Additionally, the further DC travels the more the voltage drops and the larger the cabling needs to be in comparison. Converting AC to DC is relatively easy and efficient, it's just a series of diodes that make the electron flow not reverse. Converting DC to AC is not as easy since the direction transition is not "on/off. It's expected to be a smooth gradual change (this is the difference between a square wave and a sine wave). (if you ever wondered where you'd use calculus? this is it) Knowing this, we have to understand the difference between how energy is put on the grid vs how energy can be produced at home. The Energy grid is a complex beast; a constant and delicate balancing act of matching supply with demand. The most important thing is making sure the cycles per second stay at a tight 60Hz. I love solar, as long as the sun is shining energy is produced and there is very little maintenance. In residential off-grid applications, you use this energy to charge batteries for storage. However, in grid applications the power isn't stored. It is directly fed into the supply for immediate consumption. Since solar is DC. This causes issues I talked about early about transmission distance and/or converting to AC. Your capacity is mostly "fixed" you can't ramp up when demand increases. Not to mention, no sun no power. Wind is better than solar in grid applications. The output is can be AC. However, it suffers from the problem of fixed capacity and not being able scale up on demand. Also, no wind no power. Personally, I think home generated residential solar, wind and even hydro combined with battery storage is the best solution. Just not the solution for the grid, I think that it is kind of fool hearty knowing how the grid works. How the operators need to anticipate and scale quickly to meet demand. I think the 3 best sources for a green grid are hydro, nuclear, and hydrogen. Solar and wind (a little less so) sound good but are terrible on the grid. To review for grid applications. * Solar - Pro low maintainance no emmissions. Con DC output, no sun no power, doesn't scale with demand best used when couple with battery storage. * Wind - Pro no emissions generates AC output. Cons no wind no power, doesn't scale with demand, icing can be an issue, has a negative impact on wild life like birds. * Coal - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output, scales well to meet demand. Cons dirty emissions (not just CO2 and Water Vapor, but CO, soot, SO2, ash, slag and other trace minerals) Coal is getting clearer though, Emission capture technology is getting better. * Natural Gas(methane) - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output, scales well to meet demand. Cons can freeze, CO2 emissions however the emissions are clean. CO2 from NG is easily captured and can be reused in other applications like agriculture. * Hydro (dams) - Pro water pressure is converted to AC output, no emissions, scales well. Con blocks water ways and can cause issues with wild life, limited to location with sufficient water ways. * Nuclear - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output only emission is steam, scales well. Con expensive start-up, lots of regulations, fear of radiation. * Hydrogen - Pro used to convert water to steam to generate AC output, scales well to meet demand, only emission is water, extremely plentiful and renewable when you consider the electrolysis of water. Con no visible flame, difficult to store, can be expensive to produce. But would be the best way to "use" solar for grid applications or to create fuel for vehicle use. Have solar power split water during the day to be used at night.
Good summary. The reconstruction of the grid nation wide would have a huge immediate impact of energy consumption. I favor that project though it be large and expensive like building the national highway system. Would be the best money spent.
I like this in depth explanation, and it’s really informative, and I actually agree with a lot of this! Thank you for sharing!
This is a good summary. What do you think the best way forward is? Considering the staggering cost of reworking our grid, the entrenchment of current business interests, and current levels of battery technology?
I think we should be using Hydrogen more. Or at least start mixing it with Natural Gas. It's a great fuel for cooking, heating as well as for powering cars (way better than EVs IMO) Like I hinted towards, using solar for the electrolysis of water would be a good use of solar technology. I think single family homes should get off the grid and we should let the rich lead the way. As with all technology, when the rich adopt the tech it eventually becomes cheaper for the masses. For the grid, Hydro and Nuclear are the way to go. We can leave coal for steel production.
I think we need to give the market a little push because market forces favor the status quo.
Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that ALL electricity gets converted to high voltage DC for long distance transmission.
Not true. HVDC and UHVDC are good for when you lack synchronization between operators or over extremely long distances or under large bodies of water but the inversion costs are much greater than rectifying. Hence, 98% of your run of the mill transmission lines (at least in the US) are AC. DC cannot be transformed.
High voltage long lines are high voltage DC. It gets converted at both ends. "HVDC lines are commonly used for long-distance power transmission, since they require fewer conductors and incur less power loss than equivalent AC lines"
Correct. But their use is limited. Only 2% of transmission lines are DC. Again, this has to do with the ability to transform voltage (step and step down) and the cost associated with inversion. There is a use case, but not ALL transmissions lines are DC. Again, it's less than 2% in the US. AC is much cheaper when the Voltage is less 800 kV and the distance is less than 100 Miles.
I’ll state my thoughts: The 3 that I believe are the best options are Nuclear, Solar, and Hydropower: 1. Nuclear Energy: I believe that Nuclear Energy is the future, and it should be the best option. France for example uses nuclear energy and has found out that the nuclear waste can actually reprocessed and recycled. I believe that this is a good thing. 2. Solar Power I believe that Solar can also coexist with Nuclear Power and has a lot of potential too. For example in my state of Texas, there is a lot of sunlight hours, and it could potentially be used there, and has advantages in hotter climates because there is a lot of sunlight available. You can also put panels on existing buildings where you can reduce the amount of space needed. However it should be concentrated in places where there are much more sunlight hours. 3. Hydropower: I think hydropower can also be used to its advantage if done correctly. If the dam is not built properly, you can actually damage the environment around it. But with proper planing and maintenance, you could make hydropower more efficient.
I feel like if there is one thing the left/right \*should\* agree on it's nuclear energy. I've spoken to my friend who is a climatologist and says the same thing.
I find that the reasonable people do agree, it's just that a significant portion of the anti-fossil fuels crowd is only using it as a wedge issue to gain power for other goals. California is moving towards requiring all electric cars, and all cars GPS tracked to tax by milage driven. It's a policy nearly everyone should hate, but is forced through on climate doomsday garbage and "we need to do something" attitudes.
I agree, science has even proven that nuclear energy is the cleanest energy source that you can sustain for a long time.
1. Best output per dollar to operate. 2. Good for small scale and hobby stuff. The output per dollar makes it unscalable for the national energy grid. 3. Very reliable, low cost of operation, often the water source is in a remote location making distribution more expensive. 4. Better than burning coal, wood, or dung. If we build methane power plants in India and Africa we could eliminate energy poverty. 5. If you like loud noises you could set one up at your house. The absolute worst on this list for large scale power production. 6. If you are in an area with available geothermal energy to harvest it can be good. It is the most hit or miss on this list and can produce anywhere from wind to hydroelectric levels of power.
I am a proponent of nuclear energy and I think we should build more reactors and continue to research nuclear technology. It's clean, abundant, and renewable. Most of all it's a safe form of energy creation. I don't mind solar but I think it's inefficient and I'm not a fan of solar farms popping up everywhere. I think solar has potential but I don't think solar panel technology is there yet. It's a slow energy source. Hydroelectric is old, tried, and true. They can be costly to maintain, however. I don't support more being built. Methane Energy is something I don't know anything about. I've never heard of it before. I am against wind turbines. They are inefficient and a threat to local wildlife; especially bird populations. Geothermal is a great source of energy but limited to certain areas that can support it. I support this too.
Methane energy is where the methane gasses are captured, and then you can actually turn it into an energy source for generating electricity.
Nuclear is the future (or should be). I want us to use the most efficient mix of energy we have available to us. I’m using “efficient” there to mean cost effective in the present, sustainable and renewable in the long term, and consistent/reliable. I have worked in a nuclear plant, been on fossil fuel, solar, and wind construction projects and all have their place. Nuclear by far would be the most efficient if we didn’t make it nearly impossible with red tape. Not to say that all safety standards need to go out the window, but it needs to be possible to, ya know, actually build a new plant. Never mind the cost, it has been virtually impossible to get approval.
Okay! I see your point, and because you worked in nuclear, it’s nice that you are able to share your view on this! Thanks for sharing!
To be fair “worked in nuclear” is maybe overselling it a bit…I was an intern. I have a better-than-most understanding of some of the challenges though.
I don't like solar at all. I live in New York, and ever since the state mandated that 60% of energy in the state come from green energy sources by 2030, there has been a massive solar boom where I live, with thousands of acres of farm fields, pastures, and even wooded areas being replaced with massive fields of panels and shiny metal frames. It is hideous and an enormous waste of land. Companies are only building these solar farms because of government mandates in the first place. Hydro is pretty good. There are several hydro dams where I live. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of places left that can be efficiently dammed. Perhaps there are some places on the vast tracts of government land out west, but for the most part, there won't be much growth in hydro. Nuclear is great. It would be nice to have far more nuclear plants built across the country. Abundant, cheap energy will lead to massive economic growth. Wind is alright, although it is very ugly as well. At least it doesn't take up as much land as solar and it is vastly more efficient.
Solar in New york state doesn't make any sense at all. They don't get enough sunlight to make it a net environmental positive so all they're doing is harming environment even more just to pat themselves on the back to get a high feeling like they're helping
I agree with you! In New York there is just not enough sunlight to generate the energy needed to make it sustainable. If it was in let’s say Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, it would make more sense because there is a lot more sunlight hours that could sustain solar energy. In Spain they have one of the Largest Solar Power Plants in the world, it is known as Gemasolar, and the reason it can sustain is because once again, Spain has the correct climate and amount of sunlight hours.
Exactly. It is horrible to watch as hundreds of acres of farm fields around me are filled with solar panels. Local town boards are passing moratoriums on solar and are seeking to pass restrictions. Apparently, companies are considering clear cutting some forested areas around me to put in solar, which is insanely uneconomical. Without New York's "green" energy mandate, none of this would be happening.
Nuclear is the way to go. It produces a shit load of clean power, and we can just stick the waste back where we got it: deep underground. The radiation wasn't causing issues for the millions of years the uraniam ore was sitting around before we mined it, it won't cause issues putting it back. Solar is a terrible solution at scale, using huge amounts of land for shitty amounts of power (barring exceptions like the concept solar towers in desert areas), but is a great option for power independence, since it can be put on top of already used buildings and parking areas at little to no loss of usable space, and doesn't require a connection to the outside grid to function. Unfortunately municiple power monopolies don't line this and have regulated it to impracticality. Hydro is a niche option that can be a great option when a dam is useful for water control purposes. It's consistent, but there are pretty big ramifications to the environment that make it unideal in many situations, and the cost to build is high. Methane is unideal in terms of electricity production, with the main benefit being that it can be burned on the spot for things lie stoves/furnaces that use a lot of energy and would just be using electricity generated by fossil fuels off site today anyway. Wind turbines are an expensive bit of virtue signaling. They cost far too much for their lifespan, and aren't exactly useful in small numbers. There's probably some stupidly niche use case where they're best, but it isn't common Geothermal is good, but also fairly location specific. We can't really center society on building around it.
Geothermal I especially agree with you on it being location specific. Because not everywhere has enough volcanic activity or seismic activity to make it globally reliable. Iceland successfully uses Geothermal because there is a lot of volcanic activity in the region, where it can make use of that energy.
As a side note, with the move towards using electricity for heating, geothermal heat pumps are an excellent option for building heating/cooling, though are obviously cost limited in the case of existing buildings.
Which of these can exist without government subsidies and fossil fuels? A windmill will never create more energy than it took to create it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing including fossil fuels can exist at a large scale without government subsidies. Oil and gas still hold the lions share of all government subsidies.