Why Is Clean Energy Bad?

[Elim Garak]

What's clean energy exactly?

[Deathquoi]

It's not, its just that there are many factors that people don't understand. Also many "clean" energies aren't actually clean, like alot of hydroelectric plants actually produce as much greenhouses gases as a coal fired plant in the form of methane.

Solar is great, when you can use it. When the sun isn't shining it doesn't produce power, so it can't be used to replace coal. At least until there is sufficient advances in battery technology.

So called clean energy is fantastic, but at the moment its only supplemental to the traditional methods. That being said, it should be taken advantage of far more than it currently is. Every new home built should be designed with passive solar in mind at the very least, and where applicable should have solar panels to help reduce the amount of coal burned to meet base load.

Saying hydroelectric facilities produce methane is disingenuous at best. All bodies of water produce methane because of decomposing plant matter.

[ItachiZaku]

Solar is bad, as when nuclear winter falls upon us, they'll be rendered useless. Wind though, wind is the way to go. There will always be plenty of wind bag politicians to keep those running for centuries.

[unbound]

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?

Short Answer - Because the fossil fuel companies would start losing a lot of money. Seriously.

Long Answer - Politics are a key component, but there are elements of truth (usually missing important context) to some of the complaints against clean energy.

On the political front, this is a story as old as time. The super-rich who have their money due to the existing power sources are fighting tooth and nail to preserve their easy money. It is far cheaper for them to influence the President (doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat) and Congress to help them out than to actually invest in new technologies...this comes in the form of both subsidies for themselves (aka corporate welfare, despite being wildly profitable) as well as minimizing government investment into new energy sources so that competition is severely delayed.

To support that political activity, the fossil fuel industry has set up a number of astroturf organizations (e.g. FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, ATI/E&ELI, CFACT) to help get public support using what is now typical fear-mongering tactics (basically change is scary / bad, new is worse, jobs will all be gone) as well as mis-education and, sometimes, outright lies. Some of the other fossil-fuel funded astroturf organizations focus on climate change denial (which, from reading some comments here, seems to be working just fine).

In reality, the clean energy efforts are still in their early stages where the benefits are not typically slam dunk winners. Some of effects of building the clean energy components are also not particularly environmentally friendly. Some technologies (e.g. wind) do have legitimate challenges that make them more questionable as long-term solutions (no, not the storage issue when there is little wind, but long term maintenance) since they don't seem to be resolving those challenges. Other technologies are far less questionable (e.g. solar) since they have made huge leaps in efficiency and resolving other challenges. Nuclear energy in particular has legitimate concerns (great short term impact to environment, potentially catastrophic long term impact to environment) that needs to be ironed out better. Fusion energy is potentially a great source, but no one really knows if we can overcome the challenges (fusion energy has been 30 years away for about 50 years now...and is still about 30 years away...they think).

Here's the kicker that many people don't understand about oil itself. It wasn't viable initially just like many of the clean energy efforts are today. The government long ago saw the potential and invested in the oil industry which is the only reason they exist today. Initial efforts at getting to and refining oil weren't profitable...period. And no investor was willing to take the risk back then when wood and coal worked just fine for the time. And, you can bet that wood and coal industries were fighting back then too...they just didn't have the lobbying efforts, the astroturf organizations, and insiders working for government that the fossil fuel industry in general has today to influence legislation and confuse (and outright lie to) the public.

The reality is that no matter the timeline, fossil fuels have a finite amount, and we are our energy needs keep growing rapidly with no signs of letting up. We absolutely need to be investing in future energy sources. But the greed of power brokers of today are presenting a barrier that we currently aren't able to shake.

BTW, in terms of jobs, clean energy already employs more people than fossil fuels in nearly every US state. https://www.docdroid.net/G6njmYC/sie...nal-1.pdf.html

[Orlong]

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?

Clean energy isnt bad. Forcing people to pay for clean energy or using taxpayer money to subsidize it is bad. Clean energy (with the exception of Nuclear which the Hippies hate), is not economically viable. So in order for the industry to grow people are forced to pay for it at a rate of 3 to 4 times what they pay for traditional energy. People like to keep their money

- - - Updated - - -

It's not, its just that there are many factors that people don't understand. Also many "clean" energies aren't actually clean, like alot of hydroelectric plants actually produce as much greenhouses gases as a coal fired plant in the form of methane.

They also kill millions of fish

[Swalload]

Covfefe

/10char

[Doomislav]

A viable clean solution hasn't been developed yet. Solar/Wind/Hyro can't sustain enough output to keep up with the energy demand.

[Orlong]

Since the oil/coil companies have a shitton of money they can buy significant political influence and spend tons of money on misinformation, which causes Americans to have record breaking disbelief in scientific concensus on climate change, and other issues as well.

Total bullshit. The oil/coal companies would just switch to being wind/solar companies and make the same money, except they suck and arent profitable, are unreliable, and cost too much for the average person to use

[mittacc]

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.

1) Inefficient as in the definition of the word...
2) And what if you don't get near the expected amount of sun/wind/whatever and run out of electricity?
3) There are significant costs of building infrastructure which could've been more useful for other things like making things more energy efficient, resulting in a bigger net reduction of bad chemicals.
4) You do realise that the world isn't one entity and there are conflict of interests, right? We can't use solar power here in Sweden because we get like 3-4 months of decent sun each year which would mean we would have to rely on other countries giving it to us which threatens our existence.
5) Any numbers to back this up? Nuclear power plants use the same water in a closed loop and use the sea/lakes as a heat sink. There's a differnce between actively using new processed water and having an ammount contained all the time.

[Orlong]

Natural gas is replacing coal in the US and that's why coal is in trouble, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords isn't going to help that.

Except if the Environmentalist Nazis' had their way, Fracking would be banned which would cause natural gas prices to skyrocket

[Seani]

Even renewable energy uses coal to make steel pistons for the windmill parts, think before you post.

[Thepersona]

Except if the Environmentalist Nazis' had their way, Fracking would be banned which would cause natural gas prices to skyrocket

you know that the problem with fracking isnt the enviroment per se, but the earthqua...
oh, its you, i wont even try to educate you

[Louisa Bannon]

This is the wait for old, stupid, bigoted and privileged people to simply die so the world can move on without their bullshit.

And if that doesn't happen, I see pitchforks and torches doing the necessary job.

It is literally the case that some people, already rich beyond the dreams of avarice, still want even more money or power to lead their blinkered, unhappy lives of empty nonsense. And I know they are unhappy because rich people that have a clue give most of it away once they are done being jackasses - like say Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. Not really mad about Buffett's rise, but Gates is really just a thief.

[Masark]

Even renewable energy uses coal to make steel pistons for the windmill parts, think before you post.

And that amount is a tiny rounding error compared to the amount burned for power.

You might as well declare that buggy whip manufacturers aren't obsolete because fetishists still use them.

[Orlong]

you know that the problem with fracking isnt the enviroment per se, but the earthqua...
oh, its you, i wont even try to educate you

Bullshit. I live in Pennsylvania which has been experiencing a boom in natural gas extraction primarily due to fracking and we havent had a single earthquake due too it

[Deathquoi]

Viable clean energy sources should be able to compete without government protection or mandated subsidies.

Why? Fossil fuels don't. Why does mmo c have so many uninformed posters?

[luc54]

Why? Fossil fuels don't. Why does mmo c have so many uninformed posters?

Relatively clean energy fuels get way more subsidies so there's no point even going there.

[Thepersona]

Bullshit. I live in Pennsylvania which has been experiencing a boom in natural gas extraction primarily due to fracking and we havent had a single earthquake due too it

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylv...d-earthquakes/

Reality may have a word with you

and also, lets not forget the problems with water pollution that fracking does

- - - Updated - - -

Why? Fossil fuels don't. Why does mmo c have so many uninformed posters?

Fossil fuels do.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenerg...ever-heard-of/

[prwraith]

People aren't against clean energy unless they work in the coal industry oil industry, or are lobbyists for those oganizations.

There's nothing wrong with switching primarily to clean energy. Though Imo we focus on building a thorium reactor and we're set and good to go, no need to continue this dick waving contest.

[Draco-Onis]

Bullshit. I live in Pennsylvania which has been experiencing a boom in natural gas extraction primarily due to fracking and we havent had a single earthquake due too it

2.3 magnitude earthquake hits Lancaster County

Earthquakes in Pennsylvania

http://earthquaketrack.com/p/united-...ylvania/recent