If you’re falling to the myth of being a strong independent … person …. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, solar and wind are local energy sources without foreign dependencies, and scale both up and down. This should be right up their ally.
I don’t want to be on the Texas electrical grid because of all their blackouts: Deisel generators are noisy and I have to depend on someone to fill the tanks, but I can put solar on my roof and batteries on the side of the garage and be independent. Zero fuel costs. zero have to depend on anyone. —— why isn’t this their line?
Because it is change and visibility they are concerned with. Not the things they claim.
Supporters likes kickback from oil subsidies, fossil fuel deregulation, and supression of competitive technology. That’s the angle.
…Maybe solar/wind companies should name themselves things like “Exon”
They like geothermal though, for the simple reason that it’s actually cheaper in the long run. Also solar is nice because you can live off the grid. But otherwise it’s not very popular among conservatives because the cost effectiveness in the long term isn’t quite there. They aren’t motivated by the idea of green energy, it’s a simple cost calculation.
But that’s completely bullshit. Solar and wind are so fantastically cheap that finding a way to deal with the capacity factor isn’t a big deal.
The new geothermal solutions are impressive and should open up a lot more possibilities, but don’t assume they’re being honest about any of it. They’ve advocated for nuclear for decades without actually building new nuclear plants.
The “right” aren’t right though, they’re wrong. They should be called “far-wrong” instead of “far-right”, imo, as their stances on many things show.
Tell them that they need to stop using wind and solar or else in 100 yesrs we’ll run out of wind and sunshine. We’re talking about “adults” who have the toddler mentality of “DON’T TELL ME NO 😡”.
wind and solar are not popular for conservatives because they were left talking points first. which obviously means it’s wrong, libtards owned yet again
Their biggest problem is that there’s not big money in them. Once you have solar power on your house, you don’t need to keep paying them every month. Where’s the fun in that for the rich?
Donald Trump also said that they’ll run out of wind if they start wind power farms.
You might find you can fuel your car with solar. This is America, if you don’t make more money to pay your extortionist, you’re a douchebag.
Ding ding ding
If you go far enough right, solar and wind are extremely popular. Very much leads to some weirdness when I was researching solar for my house, and kept stumbling into prepper communities and the like.
Go far enough left, get your guns back. Go far enough right, get your clean energy back.
To be fair, wind is also a form of solar power. (Wind being caused by the difference in heat between the different hemispheres/poles & the rotation of the earth)
So wind & solar power are indirect & direct long-range nuclear energy sources, respectively.
In the end, all power is solar power
Tides and nuclear power aren’t.
That comes from the energy from earth’s rotation. That energy is left over from the formation of the sun.
Plus nuclear wouldn’t work without fissionable elements, which wouldn’t be here without supernovae aka dying suns.
So nuclear power is not like solar at all…… it’s GALACTIC POWER! maybe COSMIC POWER!
I suppose it depends on the definition, but yeah - GALACTIC POWER
Which is why we need to finally develop fusion, to free us from the tyranny of power of stellar origin!
…if you ignore the fact that fusion is basically replicating what a star does, that is
“Watch and dispair, oh mighty stars, how we have enslaved your children to release us from your tyranny!”
What if the left “cancels” solar because its power source causes cancer? Also, something something starts fires in blue states.
I heard that sunlight causes rainbows.
Woke DEI bs is everywhere!
Gimme some of that refraction parade action
Get the left to protest and Pickett against solar and wind. Say it’s fascist nonsense. The right will jump on it
“Actually Natural Gas” “Orbital Fusion”
I mean Natural Gas is as natural as Iron or Coal. The problem is extracting and burning it is causing issues.
They’re both Orbital Fusion.
We should try to harness the power of the tides, since that’s lunar gravity driven.
um…
Moon Rodeo Power?
That’s why we couldn’t end dst, calling it the sunshine protection act.
I’m honestly wondering this. Renewables reduce dependency on foreign countries, so using them can be interpreted as a patriotic act. They make sense, geostrategically, not just for saving earth but also for reducing the leverage other countries have over yours. This could be something that both, green activists and nationalists, can jointly agree on. I don’t get it.
Energy Dominance! is new buzz word. You are right that “energy security” best solution is to never have to pay for fuel again. Such talk is woke radical left climate alarmist talk, even though that was the word the O&G industry told us to reduce reliance on energy imports.
Energy dominance means the goal is to destroy the planet, but think of the shareholder value created by extorting the planet into US approved energy consumption. War and extortion are just more radial left woke words to distract from achieving energy dominance.
Still, wouldn’t it make sense in their logic to take more like the Norway route? Locally sourced renewables for me, while snaring other countries awith GLOBAL ENERGY DOMINANCE. ( sorry but I can’t write this without the booming evil villain cartoon voice)
Locally sourced renewables for me, while snaring other countries with GLOBAL ENERGY DOMINANCE.
Biden used this approach, but US empire plan was always to prefer energy dominance at cost of global destruction. There was just some naive hope that US could dominate clean energy too, no matter how slow it was. Biden’s choice of a war on Russia is purposeful global destruction to enrich US oil industry so that they could fund GOP harder, and have “democracy to blame” for all of the alternate drilling done in world.
While US made solar/wind and batteries is still cheaper than new FF plants+ fuel costs, subsidizing them to not buy even cheaper Chinese options, is preferring climate terrorism to energy security. War, and warmongering choices for war, is climate terrorism prioritizing anti human massive diesel use and new production instead of considering human sustainability.
That Americans pay more for energy and insurance and rebuilding, is good for oligarchy and “superficial” (GDP) economy. Genuine American manufacturing and personal cost of living are sacrificed.
The logic of subsidizing uncompetitive local industry is only valid if it creates a future of competitiveness. Otherwise there is no export potential, though almost competitive status is enough to get legitimate sales with shipping time/cost advantages over imports. The logic of political bribery from oligarchs who prefer to protect the asset values and profits means that “national/human good” has zero relevance to outcomes.
I think the problem, as it often is, is big businesses lobbying for continued relevancy at the cost of societal progress.
This. Tbh most conservatives I’ve talked to say shit like “solar would be great if it were viable/cheaper to install,” they’re not against it really, they just don’t think it works well enough yet, which is largely due to the efforts of lobbyists.
I firmly believe that without lobbyists pushing us into red or blue boxes, we’d all find common ground on a lot of important issues.
I’ve known some conservatives who are very much into solar power in a sort of independent/self-sufficient/pseudo-prepper type of way.
I agree. I’m sure there’d still be some contentious issues but a large portion of it is entirely manufactured.
Even works down to the state level. My state, Wisconsin, has no coal mines, no oil wells, and no natural gas wells. The closest thing we have to any of it is the best sand for fracking. Otherwise, every dollar of energy we spend ends up leaving the state one way or another.
Unless, that is, we do something intelligent, like building an offshore wind farm on Lake Michigan. Though I’m sure someone will complain that we’re killing the whales.
The mistake was applying logic to a position they didn’t use logic to arrive at. Their talking heads say renewables bad. The thought process ended there.
Does the right like nuclear? I thought they didn’t. It’s pretty clean efficient energy, though it has been overtaken in recent years by wind and solar for cost.
I’m not too big a fan of nuclear due to the cost. I imagine the right salivating at the opportunity to extract billions of dollars per project
They like nuclear and hate regulation, so that’s a match made in heaven for disasters.
free market safe nuclear energy!
The right likes nuclear when they can drop it on someone.
Maggie Thatcher was one of the earliest politicians to talk about global warming. She did it to prop up nuclear, which was losing the narrative at the time to Greenpeace and the like.
They like nuclear in so far as they can use it to beat certain elements of the environmental left over the head. Conservative governments have come in gone in both the US and UK, and they’ve done very little to actually build out nuclear power.
Yeah, they love it and are constantly criticizing the left for chasing renewables as a solution to our energy needs and (for the less extreme ones who accept it’s real) climate change.
At least that’s pretty close, only a 17% difference.
Yeah, attitudes have really cooled about nuclear power over the years. We might be in a different climate position right now if we hadn’t shied away from it decades ago.
Climate, and geopolitical too. Look at France vs Germany in the last few years.
In what world does a 51% approval rating count as loving it? 67% feels like a stretch to even call a consensus.
Well they don’t seem to love it as much as they love coal and oil, that’s for sure, but they have been very loud about their support of nuclear in recent history.
It’s become much more bipartisan too.
In the US I thought nuclear was one of the few bipartisan issues they can agree on.
Bunch of NIMSS types on the right. Doubt they’d go for “far-field nuclear”
Now, something like “Ultra far east super nuclear warhead”…that might work.
