4 ms·

If we could summon the political will to do that we could already summon the political will to transfer subsidies that go to fossil fuels to renewables instead

by jahnu 5y ago

If we could summon the political will to do that we could already summon the political will to transfer subsidies that go to fossil fuels to renewables instead and that would mostly end the need for nuclear. *slight edit for clarity

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mostertoaster 5y ago
How confident are you that if all the money that went to renewables would not have been better spent simply increasing our efficiencies with fossil fuels? Do you feel like this is something we have the power to stop? I feel it is a runaway train, that will just run out of steam in a few hundred/thousand years. I mean I don’t like to be wasteful, and we shouldn’t pollute the earth for the hell of it, but I’m just like what are we gonna do? What if all those politicians selling the story of renewables, had lots of investments in those companies? Would you still trust that story, that this will somehow stop climate change, and not just pad their bank accounts? Maybe I’m just cynical in this area, and it is easy to just look around and say I’m not as bad as most people, but I just can’t think politicians forcing renewables is a good thing.
throw1234651234 5y ago
Renewables are a feel-good hippy joke (the irony, since nuclear is more environmentally friendly). Including a random source in case you ask for it - there are also cost/energy comparisons available if you google around. "System costs for nuclear power (as well as coal and gas-fired generation) are very much lower than for intermittent renewables." https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  renewables are not a joke. Please don't minimise their contributions in the past two decades. The better way to characterise the problem is that renewables are intermittent - a problem for which we do not currently have a large-scale solution. One solution is to use a non-polluting technology that currently works - nuclear power - while we buy ourselves time to build out and develop renewable capacity.
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    Right - we don't have storage capacity. Batteries are another joke. So that basically leaves gravity-hydro reservoirs, late 19th century style. Nuclear uses far less resources (plastics, metals, etc) per unit of energy over lifetime. Still, it's a good distinction to make for people who aren't familiar with the topic, so ty for that.
    - mostertoaster 5y ago
      If we can get to a point of civilization where we have mini nuclear power plants that power like 20 houses, and mini sewage/water treatment plants for the same, now that would be cool. I wish all the money that went towards renewables research instead went towards nuclear...
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  I think renewables technology has gotten pretty damn amazing though. But that is expected given the massive amount of money funneled to its research. I think the really cool thing that they allow is, imagine solar panels becoming so cheap but still efficient, and huge batteries like Tesla’s power wall, becoming better, you can have like whole small towns pretty easily behave as their own entire power grid pumping energy where it is needed. It makes the idea of lots of small rural villages seem possible which I think is pretty cool. We could probably see the world population double and yet keep similar urban densities.
fallingknife 5y ago
What exactly are all the subsidies that go to fossil fuels? It's always assumed to be true but I just don't see it.
- Heliga 5y ago
  Billions a year for the last hundred years (or whenever the technology became available). [1] This does not represent all of the subsidies, indirect and direct, nor the huge advantage that fossil fuel industry enjoys with millions to spend on lobbying and purchasing senators, that is, when the senators aren't already getting rich in the fossil fuel industry (see Joe Manchin and every 1 in 4 senators)[2]. [1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-S... [2] https://www.salon.com/2021/11/07/one-in-four-us-senators-still-hold-fossil-fuel-investments-even-as-world_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2021/11/07/one-in-four-us-senators-sti...
- cronix 5y ago
  Here's a recent one. Dumping some of the strategic oil reserve into the supply to artificially lower fuel costs, otherwise known as a subsidy (Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest). > Today, the President is announcing that the Department of Energy will make available releases of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices for Americans and address the mismatch between demand exiting the pandemic and supply. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/23/president-biden-announces-release-from-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-as-part-of-ongoing-efforts-to-lower-prices-and-address-lack-of-supply-around-the-world/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    This would be the opposite of a subsidy as it lowers the market price and will actually lower the profits of oil producers.
- standardUser 5y ago
pdonis 5y ago
> that would mostly end the need for nuclear. No, it wouldn't. Renewables are nice, but they are not enough by themselves to build the kind of global wealth we need to adapt to change. We need nuclear as an energy source for that.

by jahnu 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mostertoaster 5y ago

How confident are you that if all the money that went to renewables would not have been better spent simply increasing our efficiencies with fossil fuels? Do you feel like this is something we have the power to stop? I feel it is a runaway train, that will just run out of steam in a few hundred/thousand years. I mean I don’t like to be wasteful, and we shouldn’t pollute the earth for the hell of it, but I’m just like what are we gonna do? What if all those politicians selling the story of renewables, had lots of investments in those companies? Would you still trust that story, that this will somehow stop climate change, and not just pad their bank accounts? Maybe I’m just cynical in this area, and it is easy to just look around and say I’m not as bad as most people, but I just can’t think politicians forcing renewables is a good thing.

throw1234651234 5y ago

Renewables are a feel-good hippy joke (the irony, since nuclear is more environmentally friendly). Including a random source in case you ask for it - there are also cost/energy comparisons available if you google around. "System costs for nuclear power (as well as coal and gas-fired generation) are very much lower than for intermittent renewables." https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

eldaisfish 5y ago
renewables are not a joke. Please don't minimise their contributions in the past two decades. The better way to characterise the problem is that renewables are intermittent - a problem for which we do not currently have a large-scale solution. One solution is to use a non-polluting technology that currently works - nuclear power - while we buy ourselves time to build out and develop renewable capacity.
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  Right - we don't have storage capacity. Batteries are another joke. So that basically leaves gravity-hydro reservoirs, late 19th century style. Nuclear uses far less resources (plastics, metals, etc) per unit of energy over lifetime. Still, it's a good distinction to make for people who aren't familiar with the topic, so ty for that.
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    If we can get to a point of civilization where we have mini nuclear power plants that power like 20 houses, and mini sewage/water treatment plants for the same, now that would be cool. I wish all the money that went towards renewables research instead went towards nuclear...
mostertoaster 5y ago
I think renewables technology has gotten pretty damn amazing though. But that is expected given the massive amount of money funneled to its research. I think the really cool thing that they allow is, imagine solar panels becoming so cheap but still efficient, and huge batteries like Tesla’s power wall, becoming better, you can have like whole small towns pretty easily behave as their own entire power grid pumping energy where it is needed. It makes the idea of lots of small rural villages seem possible which I think is pretty cool. We could probably see the world population double and yet keep similar urban densities.

fallingknife 5y ago

What exactly are all the subsidies that go to fossil fuels? It's always assumed to be true but I just don't see it.

Heliga 5y ago
Billions a year for the last hundred years (or whenever the technology became available). [1] This does not represent all of the subsidies, indirect and direct, nor the huge advantage that fossil fuel industry enjoys with millions to spend on lobbying and purchasing senators, that is, when the senators aren't already getting rich in the fossil fuel industry (see Joe Manchin and every 1 in 4 senators)[2]. [1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-S... [2] https://www.salon.com/2021/11/07/one-in-four-us-senators-still-hold-fossil-fuel-investments-even-as-world_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2021/11/07/one-in-four-us-senators-sti...
cronix 5y ago
Here's a recent one. Dumping some of the strategic oil reserve into the supply to artificially lower fuel costs, otherwise known as a subsidy (Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest). > Today, the President is announcing that the Department of Energy will make available releases of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices for Americans and address the mismatch between demand exiting the pandemic and supply. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/23/president-biden-announces-release-from-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-as-part-of-ongoing-efforts-to-lower-prices-and-address-lack-of-supply-around-the-world/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
- fallingknife 5y ago
  This would be the opposite of a subsidy as it lowers the market price and will actually lower the profits of oil producers.
standardUser 5y ago

pdonis 5y ago

> that would mostly end the need for nuclear. No, it wouldn't. Renewables are nice, but they are not enough by themselves to build the kind of global wealth we need to adapt to change. We need nuclear as an energy source for that.