Bipartisan consensus in favor of renewable power is ending(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Bipartisan consensus in favor of renewable power is ending
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/support-for-renewable-power-is-plunging-among-republicans/
9 comments
It's interesting reading this after seeing red states, namely Texas, absolutely blow blue states out of the water on solar power production. It's also interesting to note that republicans are 18% higher on support for nuclear but I guess that doesn't count as renewable for some reason.
Yep, that's because the entire issue has become ideological and politicized, just like every other idea in the public consciousness nowadays. Politics seem to be the goal for everything, rather than fact-based or informed opinion-based discussion. The only ones who benefit are the bureaucracy and the con artists who need the discourse and the tribalism to get money and power.
Nuclear is not renewable. Carbon free, yes. Renewable it is not.
If we go by this definition, solar is not renewable either, as the sun will eventually go through its life cycle and be extinguished, as are all other stars.
For all practical purposes, both nuclear and solar are renewable.
For all practical purposes, both nuclear and solar are renewable.
1. renewable energy sources are those that are naturally replenished on a human timescale. they are considered renewable because they are continuously available or can be replenished quickly, normally within a huma lifetime.
2. the sun is not going extinct as a result of solar energy production
3. what is the point of your argument? are people really that brainwashed on nuclear power? what the hell does it matter if it's called "renewable", "green" or "carbon free"? it is what it is. it has its pros, its cons, its profits and its risks. trust noone who tries to hide either behind ridiculous arguments like this.
2. the sun is not going extinct as a result of solar energy production
3. what is the point of your argument? are people really that brainwashed on nuclear power? what the hell does it matter if it's called "renewable", "green" or "carbon free"? it is what it is. it has its pros, its cons, its profits and its risks. trust noone who tries to hide either behind ridiculous arguments like this.
1) also resources that are practically infinite. You’re not going to run out of nuclear fuel.
2) No, but the sun will go extinct. Hence it is either that all things that are “practically infinite” are renewable, or they are not. Nuclear fuel is ultra recyclable - most of the “waste” we make in the USA is because (primarily) uranium is cheap and recycling is expensive.
3) just pointing out that nuclear is as renewable as anything else.
Nuclear is badass, but I think it’s probably not going to win over solar… combined with “clean” LNG, which the USA has massive reserves of, which we burn at an alarming rate, and whose load could be totally consumed by nuclear plants.
That won’t happen though. Largest reserves and we make a ton of money burning it and selling it? Nothing will change. We’ll add a ton of solar - and the ~20% addition of LNG peaker plants (from ~1000 to ~1200) will be seen as a “victory for solar” because there will be whole days California is “powered by the sun”. Just ignore all the peaker plants that turn on when we need them and pray for a battery miracle.
2) No, but the sun will go extinct. Hence it is either that all things that are “practically infinite” are renewable, or they are not. Nuclear fuel is ultra recyclable - most of the “waste” we make in the USA is because (primarily) uranium is cheap and recycling is expensive.
3) just pointing out that nuclear is as renewable as anything else.
Nuclear is badass, but I think it’s probably not going to win over solar… combined with “clean” LNG, which the USA has massive reserves of, which we burn at an alarming rate, and whose load could be totally consumed by nuclear plants.
That won’t happen though. Largest reserves and we make a ton of money burning it and selling it? Nothing will change. We’ll add a ton of solar - and the ~20% addition of LNG peaker plants (from ~1000 to ~1200) will be seen as a “victory for solar” because there will be whole days California is “powered by the sun”. Just ignore all the peaker plants that turn on when we need them and pray for a battery miracle.
Nuclear fusion is renewable.
Nuclear fission with breeder reactors is renewable.
Nuclear fission with conventional reactors and U-235 fuel is not renewable.
Nuclear fission with breeder reactors is renewable.
Nuclear fission with conventional reactors and U-235 fuel is not renewable.
Probably based on this article from a day earlier: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/climate/pew-poll-renewabl...
[deleted]