Firstly, no matter what nation you live in, much of your energy is imported. Its imported in the barrels of oil, the gas pipelines, the coal, the uranium, whatever. That means your nation is dependent on foreign nations for a basic need, and dependent on international energy markets. Ask your parents what happened in the 1970s when the Middle East reduced the supply of oil. Ask countries like Ukraine what happened when Russia decided to stop pumping gas to them. So it makes absolute economic sense to try to produce as much energy as you can domestically.
Secondly, the history of our world has involved conflict over natural resources. We're reaching a point when the global demand for energy will exceed our ability to supply it cheaply. That is bound to lead to a world in which there is greater tension ... oh, the US and Europe and China can afford lots and lots of oil, but the developing nations in Africa can't? And people in those nations in Africa that DO have oil sit and watch rich, fat Americans and Europeans living great lives of plenty while they go poor? You can see how resentment and anger over resources can lead to violence. So being able to produce more energy domestically also reduces the probability of future conflict.
Now, some of the comments so far are grossly misinformed and the standard Conservative arguments about how wind and solar cost them money in taxes and don't work. Utter nonsense. In Europe the cost per kilowatt of wind power is about equal or less than fossil fuel sources. Yes, wind doesn't work ALL the time, but on days that it does, European nations export the additional power through international interconnects if they don't use it themselves. And what these Conservatives forget is that their taxes are used to subsidize petrochemical and nuclear - nuclear has cost them billions and billions in waste management, waste treatment, waste storage, etc charges. The amount we spend on alternative energy is a microscopic fraction of what the average US citizen spends on nuclear!
So, where, exactly is the problem? If the argument is 'they cost me money' that's just dumb and shows people don't actually have a clue where their money is spent or the actual cost of production of energy. If the argument is 'they don't work all the time' well that's also dumb since energy can be stored or exported. If you export energy then you can make money! If the argument is 'we don't need them' then that's dumb because history has shown us how oil prices on international markets can massively affect business and the economy.
Not really, solar is producing a lot of power now in Australia, with a large % of private properties installing solar panels. Wind power generation is also increasing around the world, not all that efficient, but growing in scale, and both solar and wind create jobs, which has to be good for the economy. The biggest and best provider of clean energy though, is not really being pursued enough, geothermal. The technology is there to provide 24/7/365 power at less that the cost of coal, but Governments won't put enough money into exploiting it. The start up costs are high, but will pay off very quickly when in operation, as there are very little on going production costs.
Yes, why you do something and how you measure success really matter. Saving the planet is to broad a goal and measuring the success impossible. There are far better reasons and measurable successes in the pursuit of alternative energy.
It's not just the goals I have a problem with, but the lack of dedication and logic provided by liberal ideas.
The downfall of most civilizations can be associated to natural disasters and a lack of tools to deal with those natural disasters. As civilizations rose and fell we aquired more tools to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, hopefully we''ve reached a point where we will be able to survive even the most devistating of natural disasters. None of these previous disasters can be associated to have been caused by man and I know that is not to say that man cannot be the cause in the future but so far the best evidence for climate change is alarming reports of "bad" weather and predictions of future bad weather and things like rising temperatures, riseing seas, melting ice, droughts, flooding, forest fires, oceans wiped of life due to acidification, famine, pestilance, add in Oh, and we are going to run out of fossil fuels and you've got a real freaking crsis on your hands.
On one hand we are told it's not alarming all we need to do is make a gradual transition off of fossil fuels, to change the compisition of the atmosphere back to what it should be and all of these problems will be avoided. It will be hard but we can do it, the lives of our children and the future of the planet depend on this.
My response: That is clearly an alarming future and the way you present current bad weather, while not significantly different than bad weather in our recent or distant past, I believe most rational people would be alarmed, particularly since your irrationally claiming there is nothing to be alarmed about and the notion that alarmism is something republicans made up to scare everyone is ludicrous. Your solution doesn't seem to address the level of danger you've proposed in your predictions. I will concede alternative energy is a great part of a solution to the doomsday you've predicted but it doesn't sound sufficient and I believe conservation which must involve restrictive bans on the use of electricity is also necessary and that should begin with the ban of nonessentials until we get our atmosphere back to it's natural state. But I really don't buy into your belief system, I think innovative people will come up with alternative energy for reasons far better than saving the planet which I don't believe is in danger because of us or that the consequencies of bad weather can be halted by switching to alternative energy to keep the atmosphere natural and bad weather to a minimum.
Solar is expensive. It only works 12 hours a day. Wind turbines cost money; they harm the environment: everything has to be cleared away for hundreds of feet around them. They can be dangerous. They only work when the wind is the right speed.
Put your brain to good use. Find ways to cut down on the use of all energy types.
nuclear power generation. it works. it,s clean. it takes limited space. it emits no green house gases. breeder reactors can provide all the nuclear fuel we would ever need. the new 3rd, 3rd plus, and 4th gen nuclear reactors are magnitudes simpler and safer than existing 2nd gen plants. even the 2nd gen plants have an excellent safety track record. nuclear waste in recyclable. the only thing wrong with nucs is the public perception. this is constantly stoked by witch hunting editorials from biased media sources. the Japanese public is understandably nuc paranoid. this doesn,t justify shutting down a needed power industry, and going back to the 1950,s.
Solar I know for sure has toxic material in panels. Wind I have to research more but one thing it does is altering wind patterns because wind turbines change wind energy into electrical energy and heat.
It takes 20000 acres of solar to equal one large coal fired station, windmills chops birds and bats, offshore wind farms are incredibly expensive, biomass fuels take up huge amounts of ground, millions of acres of palm oil are planted in Indonesia alone, Hydro floods land and prevents fish migration, and there are limited places where you can have hydro or tidal power, Geothermal seems like quite a good idea though
Cost
Not really. I mean, if nothing else, our fossil fuel reserves *are* going to run out eventually. We have considerably more coal reserves than oil reserves, but if we start transitioning off of fossil fuels now, we will have those reserves if some later emergency means we need to call on them again (nuclear winter-type effect from an asteroid strike or something), whereas if we use them all now, we won't. And, a gradual transition is also likely to be a lot more painless than having to go "cold turkey" when economically recoverable oil and/or coal run out...
Extremely expensive....they cannot stand on their own financially.
Unreliable.
Take up vast areas of land.
Very tough on birds/bats.
Still undetermined as to what extent micro-climates down-wind will be affected (re: windfarms).
I mean lets presume climate change is dramatically less significant than predicted. Surely even in this case we would be better off using wind and solar, due to factors such as general pollution. Let the ranting commence...
The Enterprise uses anti matter.
Well lets look at this, obama gave the solar companies how much of OUR money ??? And how did that work out?? If they cannot make it with us supporting them, it shows it does not work.
