Irony: Trump’s Forever War boosting Renewable Energy

Dutch Uncle

Dutch Uncle

* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Contributor
Trump’s war with Iran could end tomorrow but the repercussions will be global for months, if not years.

The great irony will be that his war could boost global efforts to increase renewable energy sources even as he tries to shut down US research and cater to the fossil fuel oligarchs.

www.cfr.org

China Is Planning Decades Ahead on Clean Energy. The U.S. Has Other Priorities. | Council on Foreign Relations

China’s national legislature has approved a blueprint for building on its commanding lead in the carbon-free energy sources that are increasingly vital worldwide as the climate warms. It sharply contrasts with the Trump administration’s short-sighted approach that relies on fossil fuels.
www.cfr.org www.cfr.org
 
@T. A. Gardner says it is all folly. Coal, Oil and other fossil fuels are the only way to keep a country secure and having green energy as one of the legs of your energy grid is just dumb. You want over reliance and to give the enemy the easiest path to shutting down your grid or harming you financially as those assets are targeted and knocked off line or chocked.
 
QP! said:
@T. A. Gardner says it is all folly. Coal, Oil and other fossil fuels are the only way to keep a country secure and having green energy as one of the legs of your energy grid is just dumb. You want over reliance and to give the enemy the easiest path to shutting down your grid or harming you financially as those assets are targeted and knocked off line or chocked.
Click to expand...
Like all MAGAts, Terry is a science denier in order to push Alt-Right ideology.

Republicans have spent the past 30 years denying science and pushing a theocratic ideology to the detriment of the United States thus conceding the scientific lead to other nations, including our enemies.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Like all MAGAts, Terry is a science denier in order to push Alt-Right ideology.
Click to expand...

Really? Show me how PV solar, as part of a larger electrical grid, will reduce the cost of energy then Mr. Rocket Scientist.
Dutch Uncle said:
Republicans have spent the past 30 years denying science and pushing a theocratic ideology to the detriment of the United States thus conceding the scientific lead to other nations, including our enemies.
Click to expand...
It isn't Republicans that want all nuclear power eliminated. It isn't Republicans that can't see alternatives to EV's, as but two examples.

It is the liberal arts types on the Left that know no science, parrot whatever some numbskull envirotard group says, and believes that an angry autistic teenager from Sweden has the scientific knowledge to change the universe.
 
QP! said:
@T. A. Gardner says it is all folly. Coal, Oil and other fossil fuels are the only way to keep a country secure and having green energy as one of the legs of your energy grid is just dumb. You want over reliance and to give the enemy the easiest path to shutting down your grid or harming you financially as those assets are targeted and knocked off line or chocked.
Click to expand...
This is gaslighting on your part.

I have never said coal or oil were necessary to keep the country secure. I have said that solar, wind, and EV's won't. My argument has consistently been to move to nuclear backed by natural gas (not oil) and use either hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia as our portable fuel.

The US has over 1,000 years' worth of nuclear fuels like uranium and thorium domestically. Natural gas is plentiful and renewable. We already make mass quantities of ammonia for fertilizer among other uses.

Solar and wind are complete losers as are EV's.
 
Trump is ignorant and hates renewable energy. He is scientifically illiterate. If he kept his nose out of renewables, we would have a lot more energy now. Wind and solar are helping to supply energy. Trump is wasting it. Trump's clumsy mishandling has resulted in a spurt of EV sales. Also, the rising costs of fossil fuels. Everything Trump does dies in shame, corruption, and ignorance.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Really? Show me how PV solar, as part of a larger electrical grid, will reduce the cost of energy then Mr. Rocket Scientist.

It isn't Republicans that want all nuclear power eliminated. It isn't Republicans that can't see alternatives to EV's, as but two examples.

It is the liberal arts types on the Left that know no science, parrot whatever some numbskull envirotard group says, and believes that an angry autistic teenager from Sweden has the scientific knowledge to change the universe.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Terry, I’ve given up trying to talk sense to MAGA morons for Lent.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump is ignorant and hates renewable energy. He is scientifically illiterate. If he kept his nose out of renewables, we would have a lot more energy now. Wind and solar are helping to supply energy. Trump is wasting it. Trump's clumsy mishandling has resulted in a spurt of EV sales. Also, the rising costs of fossil fuels. Everything Trump does dies in shame, corruption, and ignorance.
Click to expand...
Trump has nothing to do with any of my positions on the bullshit of Gorebal Warming.

As for EV's... Anecdotally, I drove to Tucson and back Wednesday and Thursday. Both directions outside of the metro areas at each end, I saw next to zero, just ones and twos, of EV's on I-10 in-between. Essentially, zero EV's making the 150-mile door-to-door drive between those cities done at 70 to 80 mph. EV's are not that popular, and outside urban areas, are rare.
 
AProudLefty said:
Is that comparable?
Click to expand...
Yes. There are lots and lots of things made from oil that we use daily.

This doesn't begin to really show you the whole iceberg.

wsgs-web-oil-uses.jpg


In fact, we probably would end up back in the 1930's without oil in manufacturing.

If you get rid of oil as an energy source and reduce consumption to say 25 to 30% of current levels, you can expect the price per barrel to do something like double meaning the price of virtually everything goes way up as a result. Worse, there are a lot of things that would simply have to cease to exist as they could no longer be made or would become so expensive to make with substitutes that they wouldn't be manufactured.

For example, asphalt likely would be uncompetitive with concrete. Concrete roads are more expensive to construct, but last longer. The other problem is cement is a major source of CO2 generation.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yes. There are lots and lots of things made from oil that we use daily.

This doesn't begin to really show you the whole iceberg.

wsgs-web-oil-uses.jpg


In fact, we probably would end up back in the 1930's without oil in manufacturing.

If you get rid of oil as an energy source and reduce consumption to say 25 to 30% of current levels, you can expect the price per barrel to do something like double meaning the price of virtually everything goes way up as a result. Worse, there are a lot of things that would simply have to cease to exist as they could no longer be made or would become so expensive to make with substitutes that they wouldn't be manufactured.

For example, asphalt likely would be uncompetitive with concrete. Concrete roads are more expensive to construct, but last longer. The other problem is cement is a major source of CO2 generation.
Click to expand...
Plastics and rubber are comparable to the high demand of gasoline, warranting wars and controlling areas?

Comparable, monetary wise?
 
AProudLefty said:
Plastics and rubber are comparable to the high demand of gasoline, warranting wars and controlling areas?
Click to expand...

Not completely. There was a time rubber warranted wars and controlling areas before artificial rubber, like the buna process, existed.
AProudLefty said:
Comparable, monetary wise?
Click to expand...

Yes. Plastics, for example, are essential to modern life. Without them, we're set back close to 100 years with no way forward in that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top