this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
76 points (98.7% liked)

politics

23594 readers
2975 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] oyo@lemm.ee 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

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.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.