politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Its not economical yet, especially with renewables being so cheap. With a continental grid filling each other's gaps, renewables are unbeatable.
Renewals cannot sustain industrial energy demand on their own. By all means encourage people to use renewable energy in their houses but industry requires more juice so nuclear it is. And how come it isn’t economical? We used to have way more nuclear power plants and it wasn’t economical concerns that shut them down afaik.
What specifically makes "industrial energy" different from any other energy? I keep seeing this lie about renewables everywhere and it doesn't even try to make sense. Electricity is electricity. Need "more juice?" Install more renewables for the cheapest juice in history.
There are some applications where "industrial energy" isnt electricity or motion but instead simply heat.
AFAIK synthetic fuels would be more dollar-effkcient for many usages than an equivalent electric heater, even if we ignore the tooling cost.
But if its not a blowtorch and instead just motion, electricity is electricity and the only thing really special about "industrial use" is the amount demanded.
Right, I bet no one thought of that.
Industry requires stable energy in very large amounts,so if the sun does not come out for 2 days then you have to stop production. Also at some point you’re gonna run out of space to put solar panels and the maintenance cost might make it prohibitive.
Here’s the bottom line: if at the current level of technology and price renewables were cheaper than fossil fuels, every Corp in the world would be running purely on renewables. This the one nice thing about capitalism, that it only needs one argument to be convinced: lower costs. But that is not the case,” and renewables, or rather the infrastructure needed to harness it, is not yet cheaper than fossil fuel.
The solution is to invest money in r&d that makes renewable infrastructure more efficient and cheaper.
Many of the largest corps are buying and adding renewables in ever increasing amounts. There are some cases where fossil fuel is still a little bit cheaper than renewables plus batteries, if you completely ignore externalities like harmful emissions. Running out of space and maintenance costs? You're grasping at straws. Nearly every industrial facility is on the grid, not requiring any nearby space. And you know what's always more expensive than solar maintenance costs? Fossil plant maintenance costs, not even mentioning a little on-going cost and cost-risk thing called fuel.
More new solar capacity is being installed than any other generation type. I guess heavy industry is gonna collapse due to it being weak girly power! We're doomed!
Since when has capitalism cared about externalities? Harmful emissions are only a problem for a corp if they come with a price tag attached. Otherwise it’s worth it even if it only saves them a cent.
And I’m not disagreeing with you nor arguing against renewables my guy. Im stating what is often cited as the reason for the slow adoption of renewables in industry. Again, if it was clear that it is superior and cheaper than fossil fuel, every corporation in the world would be running on it, there would be no reason not to! But there’s also the reality that renewable energy is dependent on weather conditions that may or may not be right for maximum production. You could install batteries but these batteries are terrible for the environment too. New battery tech is cleaner but not scalable/cost effective. So why shouldn’t we have energy intensive manufacturing on nuclear power while everything else runs on renewable? There’s risks but less risks than the current status. Also nuclear fission promises amazing things, so more money should go into the industry to accelerate the development of that tech.
Many environmentalists and experts agree that the key to solving the climate issue lies in increasing nuclear power, this is not something I’m making up. I’m not an expert on this at all. I don’t understand why you think you’d know better than them.
I think we just need to keep expanding battery farms. 3+ phase power definitely generates more heat, but that's an issue that's been solved many times in our traditional power supply systems.
It is not clear to me that this solves any environmental issues given that mining the minerals and manufacturing batteries with current chemistry and technology is horrible for the environment.
We should find a way to make clean batteries first and then I would agree with that statement.!
I want to make it clear that I don't really agree that nuclear is bad. In any shape or form fusion and fission are the two cleanest sources of energy that we have and are the sources of energy humankind will need to guarantee our survival as a species.
However, there are clean batteries. Battery is just a term for potential energy storage and things like gravity batteries and thermal batteries are feasible right now. Electrochemical batteries aren't the only type of battery that we have. Actually, they are less efficient and less reliable than the others at scale.
I know there are clean batteries but I thought they were inefficient/hard to scale? If that isn’t the case why are large scale battery farms made with lithium batteries?
I’m genuinely asking here as I thought those technologies were still in their early days.
Well, there's obviously going to be a lot of angles to that question but initial cost and the fact that large scale battery farms aren't necessarily needed right now stick out to me.
The grid as it is designed right now is capable of producing power at demand simply by spinning up more generators. There's no cost benefit (really) to generating extra power and dealing with logistics of storage while the extra power is not needed. Not at statewide scale and while the infrastructure isn't built already.
Let's for a second assume that a power company at statewide scale wasn't able to just spin up more generators to meet demand and there IS incentive to provide storage. The company looking at the market today has 2 choices. Buy batteries that provide a versatile/portable solution with no real local consequence OR spend money developing and engineering molten salt or pumped water storage.
Electrochemical batteries:
Gravity and thermal batteries:
We already have some very promising seeming sodium based batteries that are much more environmentally friendly. Afaik, the capital class hasn't been funding it as well as they should because it's unclear if the tech will ever reach the same level of energy density per dollar as the current stuff. In other words, I don't think the problem is the tech. The problem is the owners of the private sector energy companies are more interested in sustainable short term profit than what's best for society, long term.
Yes I agree with what you posit at the end. It’s a huge problem at a systemic level in fact, and I don’t think it’s necessarily inherent to the capitalist system because it wasn’t always like this. And the most ruthless capitalists on earth, the Chinese, do not seem to have this myopic focus in short term gains and are very willing to eat a loss today to end up winning over the long term. I think this is the true downfall of our society.