Why Is Clean Energy Bad?

[Acidbaron]

Nuclear is going to die because it's very costly to build plants, very costly to maintain safely, produces waste that cannot be dealt with. Purely from an economic sense Nuclear is only considered an alternative due to high power demand sectors, like Metal it will fade out once we come up with more methods to store energy through renewable sources, as Nuclear in this day and age requires tax payer money to remain afloat.

Any Power plant build now will take a few generations of tax payer to pay off by then they are outdated and need big repairs so they'll never get out of the cost and continues to be a strain on society financially and ecologically.

[Deleted]

ITS COSTS SOME GOOD HONEST AMERICAN JOBS

big green is trying to get into your head. They are corrupt liars who have infected our Government. Thank god for Trump. MAGA!

More Americans work in solar power than in coal at the moment.

[Acidbaron]

It's "bad" because consumers can't afford to pay for it. If it could be done at a large scale cheaply, "clean" energy would replace oil and coal as quickly as the infrastructure could support it. Which is, in and of itself, another problem that is tied to consumer wealth. You cannot, for example, tell someone who earns $25k/year they need to buy a brand-new $30k automobile that is either battery-operated or uses some hypothetical exotic fuel, to replace the beater they can barely afford to keep on the road as is, because the economics of it just do not work out.

Subsidies, that's how it's done with everything else. Including the current energy industry, slowly move that money there to somewhere else and gain the same results but with better outcome for us.

[Speaker]

No one said clean energy is bad.

Clean energy makes rich people that are based on fossil fuel, friends of governments poorer, therefor clean energy is bad.

In other words, rich people like their status and influence in the world and are delaying it as much as possible, its not easy changing everything to clean energy.

The opposite is also true. Clean energy is more expensive, and you are passing those costs on to the taxpayer, forcing taxpayers to give more money to other greedy rich people who own the clean energy companies. I prefer choice. You want to buy clean energy then go ahead. No one is stopping you. I'll stick with what's cheapest.

[Aggrophobic]

Keep in mind that while clean energy sounds like a good thing, it may be "clean" to an uncertain extent. TANSTAAFL

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ility-ranking/
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/...n-as-you-think
http://business.financialpost.com/ne...-waste-problem

They can get better though. fossil fuels won't.

- - - Updated - - -

The opposite is also true. Clean energy is more expensive, and you are passing those costs on to the taxpayer, forcing taxpayers to give more money to other greedy rich people who own the clean energy companies. I prefer choice. You want to buy clean energy then go ahead. No one is stopping you. I'll stick with what's cheapest.

Yes, but your choice affects others and they have no choice in the matter.
See the problem?

[Masark]

I'll stick with what's cheapest.

And we will make it so that fossil fuels are not the cheapest by adding the true costs into the dollar cost.

[Zmaniac17]

People like these two students make clean energy SEEM bad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lY-AIhGbU

What I mean is people need to fully understand all the facts before saying one or the other are bad. I'm not saying oil and the like is good nor am I denying the negative effects of them but "Clean Energy" has become such a buzz word these days that people just cling to it.

Of course if the girls were prepared for such a straw man argument they would have pointed out how many birds and animals die in oil spills every year. And how many millions of people are killed by particulate air pollution all over the world.

Also windows kill birds too. Go figure. And thermo-electric power plant cooling systems kill fish and other marine life.

This video says more about the politician than the girls. At least the girls have an excuse for a poorly planned argument. They are young and inexperienced. The politician does not. And it's sad to see that kind of irresponsible portrayal of the facts.

[Sandraudiga]

What troll logic is that? Even if the hydropower plant do flooding a large area of bio-mass that then root its noting compare to the amount of mass of coal a coal plant burn...

One more thing... the bio-mass have taken up greenhouses gases from the atmosphere, it will be release back to the atmosphere then the bio-mass root regardless of it was in water or not, it did not add more greenhouses gases to the greenhouses gases cycle.

Coal do add "new" greenhouses gases to the atmosphere......

It's not troll logic, I will explain to the best of my ability but if you want to research further I will provide some sources. Basically the way a hydro electic power plant works is by using falling water to turn turbines to produce electricity. In the case of a natural waterfall the energy is for the most part clear. However, there are not enough waterfalls of sufficient size and in the correct locations to provide electricity to many locations so most hydro electric require very large man made storage ponds(more like medium to large lakes) to provide water for the plant.

It is these bodies of water that cause issues. There are two main issues. The first is decaying plant matter not only from the original flooding to make the lake and dam, but from growth at the edges when the volume stored changes over time. The second is anarobic bacteria in the water itself, which is the larger of the two factors. Both of these release very large amounts of methane, which is far far worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide with a GWP20 86 times higher than CO2 and a GWP100 of 34 times that of CO2. GWP is global warming potential.

So while we emit far more carbon dioxide than methane(which accounts for 9% of global emissions ish), it is a huge part of the equation. Methane is the reason that the farming of animals for meat, like cattle, has such a large impact on climate change.

Here are some links if you wish to read deeper into the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...e-change-study
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/h...-emitter-18246
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...m-behind-dams/
https://www.ecowatch.com/the-hydropo...882106648.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...as-is-methane/

[Stacyrect]

Clean energy is bad because it won't be cheaper for the consumer, and less people are involved with it's creation which has a negative impact.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES1...a_tool=XGtable

All those people, won't have jobs that produce a livable income. Now apply that to natural gas, propane, coal, etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not troll logic, I will explain to the best of my ability but if you want to research further I will provide some sources. Basically the way a hydro electic power plant works is by using falling water to turn turbines to produce electricity. In the case of a natural waterfall the energy is for the most part clear. However, there are not enough waterfalls of sufficient size and in the correct locations to provide electricity to many locations so most hydro electric require very large man made storage ponds(more like medium to large lakes) to provide water for the plant.

It is these bodies of water that cause issues. There are two main issues. The first is decaying plant matter not only from the original flooding to make the lake and dam, but from growth at the edges when the volume stored changes over time. The second is anarobic bacteria in the water itself, which is the larger of the two factors. Both of these release very large amounts of methane, which is far far worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide with a GWP20 86 times higher than CO2 and a GWP100 of 34 times that of CO2. GWP is global warming potential.

So while we emit far more carbon dioxide than methane(which accounts for 9% of global emissions ish), it is a huge part of the equation. Methane is the reason that the farming of animals for meat, like cattle, has such a large impact on climate change.

Here are some links if you wish to read deeper into the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...e-change-study
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/h...-emitter-18246
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...m-behind-dams/
https://www.ecowatch.com/the-hydropo...882106648.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...as-is-methane/

Poor cows have to be subjected to butplugs connected to a fart bag now.

[Flarelaine]

Educate me, please.

Why is clean energy bad?

Why is learning to harness solar energy, a new limitless source of power once perfected so bad? But coal which is dirty, limited, and can only yield so much in return a protected commodity?

I think this cartoon sums up the answer.

[mittacc]

It being clean isn't bad, it's about the only good about it.

1) It's inefficient as hell.
2) It's unrealiable and dependant on weather
3) There is like zero infrastructure (just a few % of my country's energy is from wind)
4) It takes too much space.
5) Solar energy actually require a shit ton of water and that is bad for the environment since we have to process it again.

This is why nuclear energy is the best option atm. Would prefer fusion though.

[Grimbold21]

ITS COSTS SOME GOOD HONEST AMERICAN JOBS

big green is trying to get into your head. They are corrupt liars who have infected our Government. Thank god for Trump. MAGA!

Too obvious, Genn
Tennistroll is obvious but still manages to be subtle

[Masark]

It being clean isn't bad, it's about the only good about it.

1) It's inefficient as hell.
2) It's unrealiable and dependant on weather
3) There is like zero infrastructure (just a few % of my country's energy is from wind)
4) It takes too much space.
5) Solar energy actually require a shit ton of water and that is bad for the environment since we have to process it again.

This is why nuclear energy is the best option atm. Would prefer fusion though.

1. Inefficient in what regard?

2. So you store it.

3. "We don't have the infrastructure, therefore we shouldn't build the infrastructure"?

4. Yes, because space is one thing the world is severely short of. The amount of space that would be needed to run everything on solar would be tiny, on a global scale.



5. Thermal stations, regardless of fuel source (including nuclear), require even more water, so we're still making gains.

[Mehrunes]

Two words: Soros covfefe. Also, fossil fuels are just much more efficient.

[Barnabas]

Educate me, please.

Why is clean energy bad?

Why is learning to harness solar energy, a new limitless source of power once perfected so bad? But coal which is dirty, limited, and can only yield so much in return a protected commodity?

It boils down to cost to benefit. It's like buying a 1070 and a 1080 to mine coins when you could get 2 rx 480's that are slower, use slightly more energy and cost less to make more money per month. All because nvidia solution costs substantially more of an investment.

[Deleted]

ITS COSTS SOME GOOD HONEST AMERICAN JOBS

big green is trying to get into your head. They are corrupt liars who have infected our Government. Thank god for Trump. MAGA!

And even that is not true on a national scale! It costs jobs in the rust belt, new renewable energy companies are all situated in the more progressive states and generate plenty of jobs to offset the loss in coal etc ...

Also some sources of clean energy (solar/wind) are already cheaper than coal! So it makes perfect sense for people to switch to a combination of that. Which is why the coal jobs will not be returning. But I won't expect Trump supporters to understand that. If they did, they would have seen through his other 'ideas' as well and wouldn't have supported him in the first place.

Nuclear is going to die because it's very costly to build plants, very costly to maintain safely, produces waste that cannot be dealt with. Purely from an economic sense Nuclear is only considered an alternative due to high power demand sectors, like Metal it will fade out once we come up with more methods to store energy through renewable sources, as Nuclear in this day and age requires tax payer money to remain afloat.

Any Power plant build now will take a few generations of tax payer to pay off by then they are outdated and need big repairs so they'll never get out of the cost and continues to be a strain on society financially and ecologically.

Nuclear is the future, if not thorium cycle reactors that China and India are investing research in, than later on Fusion reactors that the EU and the US are researching. The ultimate future of sustainable clean energy is nuclear fusion.

[Damajin]

It generates less revenue on all fronts, mostly.

I just bought an electric car and in 2015 Michigan passed a law that added 100-200 bucks to the license plate renewal fee to make up for the lost gas tax. Every year I'll be dropping roughly 315 bucks to renew my tabs as long as I own this thing, and since it's a 2013 with less than 35k miles I'll own it for quite awhile.

There's been tons of court challenges and legislative duplicity done on behalf of energy companies and the like in order to punish or curtail people going off grid. Everything from rain buckets to fish ponds to greywater recycle systems, and the most egregious is alternate home design styles are put through tons of additional bureaucratic nonsense or outright legislated out of the realm of possibility in certain areas because it cuts into the revenue streams of businesses when people want to break away from it.

The 'clean energy' that is championed by elected officials is ultimately that which is produced by the energy companies themselves, as there will always be revenue and a need for bureaucracy with that.

- - - Updated - - -

And even that is not true on a national scale! It costs jobs in the rust belt, new renewable energy companies are all situated in the more progressive states and generate plenty of jobs to offset the loss in coal etc ...

Also some sources of clean energy (solar/wind) are already cheaper than coal! So it makes perfect sense for people to switch to a combination of that. Which is why the coal jobs will not be returning. But I won't expect Trump supporters to understand that. If they did, they would have seen through his other 'ideas' as well and wouldn't have supported him in the first place.



Nuclear is the future, if not thorium cycle reactors that China and India are investing research in, than later on Fusion reactors that the EU and the US are researching. The ultimate future of sustainable clean energy is nuclear fusion.

Wind is extremely unreliable and a highly regional energy source, also the upkeep on turbines is no joke.

[Deleted]

It generates less revenue on all fronts, mostly.

I just bought an electric car and in 2015 Michigan passed a law that added 100-200 bucks to the license plate renewal fee to make up for the lost gas tax. Every year I'll be dropping roughly 315 bucks to renew my tabs as long as I own this thing, and since it's a 2013 with less than 35k miles I'll own it for quite awhile.

There's been tons of court challenges and legislative duplicity done on behalf of energy companies and the like in order to punish or curtail people going off grid. Everything from rain buckets to fish ponds to greywater recycle systems, and the most egregious is alternate home design styles are put through tons of additional bureaucratic nonsense or outright legislated out of the realm of possibility in certain areas because it cuts into the revenue streams of businesses when people want to break away from it.

The 'clean energy' that is championed by elected officials is ultimately that which is produced by the energy companies themselves, as there will always be revenue and a need for bureaucracy with that.

- - - Updated - - -

Wind is extremely unreliable and a highly regional energy source, also the upkeep on turbines is no joke.

A combination of wind, solar and storage methods to smooth out the unreliability can solve that in many regions. And even though the upkeep is no joke, it's already cheaper than burning fossil fuels.

http://meic.org/issues/montana-clean...-fossil-fuels/

[Damajin]

A combination of wind, solar and storage methods to smooth out the unreliability can solve that in many regions. And even though the upkeep is no joke, it's already cheaper than burning fossil fuels.

http://meic.org/issues/montana-clean...-fossil-fuels/

I'd say that wind is the most likely of the clean energy sources to be discarded as a serious concern for all the upkeep and logistical problems inherent in it. Energy and its' usage relies on predictability and quantifiable levels of which wind is only able to provide in certain regions due to them being highly active.

Solar is really the best, especially as it gets cheaper. The next goal will be to get geothermal into the realm of affordability for communities and citizens, as it stands now it's a rich mans' or upscale community pet project and not altogether viable.

Alternative housing design is also something that needs to come to the forefront. There are many people coming up with incredible designs and ideas for building cheap, efficient homes but because insurance companies are scared to insure them many areas aren't letting them be built unless they fall in the tiny home category of being so small they slip under the domicile codes and regulations.

[zenkai]

Educate me, please.

Why is clean energy bad?

Why is learning to harness solar energy, a new limitless source of power once perfected so bad? But coal which is dirty, limited, and can only yield so much in return a protected commodity?

Because there is money in oil. My step father put solar pannels on his roof, and some assholes drove by and tried to force him to pay higher taxes because it added value to his home. He had to go get it fix that unless he sells the home, it doesn't add value over what he's already paying in taxes.

TLDR government is going to to find a way to fuck it up.