Will Solar energy replace traditional energy sources by 2023?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/09/solar-installations-in-us-exceed-2-million-and-could-double-by-2023.html

I have been seeing news like this lately that Solar energy will become very lucrative and become a viable and sustainable source of energy by 2023.

And considering this is considered a Green form of energy, could this help with Climate Change?

Replace traditional energy sources by 2023? Fuck no, no chance whatsoever. The only way I can see that happening is if all the remaining supplies of fossil and nuclear fuel just up and vanished overnight.

As for climate change thing, solar panels don't leak any toxins into the environment while in operation, or they really shouldn't under normal circumstances. Going fully solar most likely won't magically fix the environment, but at least running on solar power won't make it worse. Producing and disposing of solar panels does come with a significant amount of toxic waste, but this can be handled in a way that has little to no effect on the environment.

Somewhere? Maybe. Here in Australia? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Our current PM *loves* coal, to the point where he brought a lump to parliament because, as far as anyone can tell, he thought it disproved climate change.

No. Not worldwide, and not in the US.

As mentioned, nope. There might be a small increase in usage, but currently it's not really an alternative.

Now, plenty of niche areas where the problems of solar (mostly storage) don't apply, but it's just easier to use old-fashioned stuff instead.

No, not that quickly, no country would invest that much money that quickly, at least not for an "invisible" threat like "climate change".

Also, I don't believe that solar alone will be enough to cover the world's energy needs, it needs to be a mixture of solar, wind and hydro-generated, maybe even some geothermal systems.

The sad thing is, investing in renewable energy costs money and the general populus is, to be blunt about it, dumb and it's hard to convince them to stand up against a threat that's not directly biting them in their arse.

No. Solar energy is a terrible idea because you wouldn't be able to power your house and watch Netflix during the night.

Wintermute:
No. Solar energy is a terrible idea because you wouldn't be able to power your house and watch Netflix during the night.

I don't think that is how Solar Energy work.

Will solar replace traditional energy sources by 2023?

Look, I'm all for solar. But one million solar installations three years ago amounted to 27GW, so two million should sit somewhere in the 50-55GW range. Let's take the average of that range, round it out, and that's 460TWh in a year. In 2017, US energy consumption was 4 petawatt-hours.

We're back up to 2007 levels of energy demand (the downturn in demand being attributable to the recession) and that's going nowhere but up in the near future. Solar growth can't even keep apace with increase in demand, let alone take over the market, let alone by 2023.

Protip: national smart grid.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home

Also, I don't believe that solar alone will be enough to cover the world's energy needs, it needs to be a mixture of solar, wind and hydro-generated, maybe even some geothermal systems.

Don't forget nukes.

"Solar installations in the US exceeded 2 million..."

So basically, the 1% has it.

Vanilla ISIS:
So basically, the 1% has it.

If you look at the actual density of solar installation across the country versus actual insolation...yeah, pretty much. Exactly.

My fave are the PNW morons who piss, moan, and spew bile about how the entire country hasn't gone solar yet and how they should follow the PNW's lead by sticking solar panels everywhere...when the PNW is garbage-tier for solar, and the entire thing is basically a naked cash grab.

https://washingtonstatewire.com/windpower-purchasing-rules-sparking-another-fight-in-olympia-green-groups-balk-at-changes/

Washington state produces so much hydroelectric power, the state legislature actually excluded it from its definition of a renewable energy source to manufacture demand for wind and solar. Oh, if that were the end of the stupid, it would be one thing...but it's not. The state does this in part to curtail further hydro development, and won't even allow improvements towards existing hydro's efficiency and production to apply, effectively hamstringing hydro. All of which done to keep solar and wind in business, because otherwise hydro would undercut all of it.

Hardly anyone in PNW is willing to even entertain the notion of geothermal despite being prime real estate for it, because of course they won't. This is one among many reasons I'm on Team Mount Rainier.

It has about the same chance as Mako becoming our primary energy source. As for it being Green? Not really. The manufacturing process and disposal isn't even remotely green.

Wintermute:
No. Solar energy is a terrible idea because you wouldn't be able to power your house and watch Netflix during the night.

Joke or not, this relates to Solar being a bad option as a primary source. To store all that power at night, you need batteries. That's not even remotely green either and for many battery types, particularly for those fans of electric cars, those are rare-Earth metals that tend to come from not-so-nice areas. It's an illusion of being green.

The way I see it, the only three power sources really worth looking at right now are Nuclear, probably Geothermal, and Solar being the third but not as a primary. Wind isn't even in the same solar system for the discussion, for a mountain of reasons.

EDIT: Hydroelectric... yeah, put that in with the three worth caring about.

Leg End:
It has about the same chance as Mako becoming our primary energy source. As for it being Green? Not really. The manufacturing process and disposal isn't even remotely green.

Joke or not, this relates to Solar being a bad option as a primary source. To store all that power at night, you need batteries...

Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run. Industrial-scale photovoltaic is a high-cost boondoggle that'll never, ever work.

Samtemdo8:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/09/solar-installations-in-us-exceed-2-million-and-could-double-by-2023.html

I have been seeing news like this lately that Solar energy will become very lucrative and become a viable and sustainable source of energy by 2023.

And considering this is considered a Green form of energy, could this help with Climate Change?

Probably not.

The days of fossil fuels are numbered, and everyone knows it. However, they're worth a lot: so every country with fossil fuel reserves is basically going to pump tons out to maximise revenue before it becomes almost worthless.

Leg End:
Joke or not, this relates to Solar being a bad option as a primary source. To store all that power at night, you need batteries. That's not even remotely green either and for many battery types, particularly for those fans of electric cars, those are rare-Earth metals that tend to come from not-so-nice areas. It's an illusion of being green.

The entire concept of a "primary energy source" doesn't work in the case of green energy. The only way of feasibly building an energy economy without fossil fuels is to use whatever energy resources are abundant in a given area with greater transnational inter-connectivity (basically an international energy free market).

Solar power wouldn't be a case of building solar panels on your house to power your TV. In the case of Europe, it would mean building huge solar-thermal plants in the sahara desert and feeding the output into a massive energy grid covering Europe and North Africa (which does already exist.. sort of) specifically to meet the greater demand for electricity during the daytime.

This is also why wind power is actually incredibly crucial to a green energy economy, because the wind will always be blowing somewhere. Once the grid gets large enough, the distribution of wind farms tends to even out variable output into consistent output. Unless the planet's weather and air circulation systems entirely shut down for some reason, there will always be regions which can generate wind power.

The main challenges to such a system are neither technical nor financial, but political. It's entirely doable and entirely achievable. The biggest technical challenge would actually be building the grid infrastructure, not the electricity generating infrastructure itself. Even so, it would ultimately be cost effective.

Geothermal, nuclear and hydroelectric power are extremely limited in application. They're all incredibly expensive and require access to very specific sites or resources.

How about the solar wind instead?

The concept for the so-called Dyson-Harrop satellite begins with a long metal wire loop pointed at the sun. This wire is charged to generate a cylindrical magnetic field that snags the electrons that make up half the solar wind. These electrons get funnelled into a metal spherical receiver to produce a current, which generates the wire's magnetic field - making the system self-sustaining.

Any current not needed for the magnetic field powers an infrared laser trained on satellite dishes back on Earth, designed to collect the energy. Air is transparent to infrared so Earth's atmosphere won't suck up energy from the beam before it reaches the ground.

Back on the satellite, the current has been drained of its electrical energy by the laser - the electrons fall onto a ring-shaped sail, where incoming sunlight can re-energise them enough to keep the satellite in orbit around the sun.

A relatively small Dyson-Harrop satellite using a 1-centimetre-wide copper wire 300 metres long, a receiver 2 metres wide and a sail 10 metres in diameter, sitting at roughly the same distance from the sun as the Earth, could generate 1.7 megawatts of power - enough for about 1000 family homes in the US.

A satellite with the same-sized receiver at the same distance from the sun but with a 1-kilometre-long wire and a sail 8400 kilometres wide could generate roughly 1 billion billion gigawatts (1027 watts) of power, "which is actually 100 billion times the power humanity currently requires", says researcher Brooks Harrop, a physicist at Washington State University in Pullman who designed the satellite.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19497-out-of-this-world-proposal-for-solar-wind-power/

Eacaraxe:

We're back up to 2007 levels of energy demand (the downturn in demand being attributable to the recession) and that's going nowhere but up in the near future.

Not if there's a mass die-off of some kind.

evilthecat:
The entire concept of a "primary energy source" doesn't work in the case of green energy...They're all incredibly expensive and require access to very specific sites or resources.

This is the kind of argument I've had for ten years, and gotten nowhere with it least of all to pseudo-environmentalist liberals. Y'know, "there is no global panacea to energy production, solutions have to be regional and based upon comparative advantage balanced against need, and unified by a national smart grid".

This is one of those areas that get me seeing red. When one can divorce the argument from climate change, one can make an entirely independent case for it based upon national security, energy independence, and plain economics, which Republican and Libertarian voters (up to and including climate change deniers) often find surprisingly palatable...and the desired result (a green power infrastructure) is achieved anyways. Alas, no, "environmentalists" get so wedded to the climate change argument they develop severe myopia when it comes to being able to persuade others to their positions, and that failure triggers a built-in tribalist "circle the wagons" response that ends in them being more than happy for the planet to burn just so they can say "I told you so".

Look at the liberal response to the Pickens plan ten years ago. His plan was to phase out petroleum use for transportation in favor of CNG, as a stopgap for developing industrial-scale wind along the wind corridor, and building the infrastructure to support electric transport. Yeah, he's a natural gas man and heavily invested in wind, and therefore had a vested financial interest in his plan. It was still a cleaner plan than maintaining the status quo, relied on developing renewables, and provided a roadmap for the transitional period between now and 100% renewables.

But no, because it still relied upon fossil fuels, it was Literally Satan. No, it's better to externalize the cost of solar PV to former third world countries, stick solar PV panels on everybody's roof, and hope the energy economy underpants gnomes its way to sustainability.

Kwak:
How about the solar wind instead?

The concept for the so-called Dyson-Harrop satellite begins with a long metal wire loop pointed at the sun. This wire is charged to generate a cylindrical magnetic field that snags the electrons that make up half the solar wind. These electrons get funnelled into a metal spherical receiver to produce a current, which generates the wire?s magnetic field ? making the system self-sustaining.

Any current not needed for the magnetic field powers an infrared laser trained on satellite dishes back on Earth, designed to collect the energy. Air is transparent to infrared so Earth?s atmosphere won?t suck up energy from the beam before it reaches the ground.

Back on the satellite, the current has been drained of its electrical energy by the laser ? the electrons fall onto a ring-shaped sail, where incoming sunlight can re-energise them enough to keep the satellite in orbit around the sun.

A relatively small Dyson-Harrop satellite using a 1-centimetre-wide copper wire 300 metres long, a receiver 2 metres wide and a sail 10 metres in diameter, sitting at roughly the same distance from the sun as the Earth, could generate 1.7 megawatts of power ? enough for about 1000 family homes in the US.

A satellite with the same-sized receiver at the same distance from the sun but with a 1-kilometre-long wire and a sail 8400 kilometres wide could generate roughly 1 billion billion gigawatts (1027 watts) of power, ?which is actually 100 billion times the power humanity currently requires?, says researcher Brooks Harrop, a physicist at Washington State University in Pullman who designed the satellite.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19497-out-of-this-world-proposal-for-solar-wind-power/

You stopped right before the idea goes completely out the window.

So far so good, but there is one major drawback. To draw significant amounts of power Dyson-Harrop satellites rely on the constant solar wind found high above the ecliptic - the plane defined by the Earth's orbit around the sun. Consequently, the satellite would lie tens of millions of kilometres from the Earth. Over those distances, even a sharp laser beam would spread to thousands of kilometres wide by the time it reached Earth.

"Two megawatts spread across areas that large are meaningless, less than moonlight," says John Mankins, president of consultancy firm Artemis Innovation which specialises in space solar power. To beam power from a Dyson-Harrop satellite to Earth, one "would require stupendously huge optics, such as a virtually perfect lens between maybe 10 to 100 kilometres across," he says.

He also points out that the wire could burn out due to the huge current coursing through it, although he has not performed the calculations to gauge the probability of that occurring. But he does say that a smaller version of this "clever and interesting" satellite could help power some space missions. "I could imagine uses for this idea outside of the plane of the ecliptic, such as helping generate power for something like the Ulysses spacecraft, which went around the poles of the sun."

It's unfeasible because the Earth's magnetic field protects us from solar wind so the satellite would need to be too far away to be practical.

Drathnoxis:

Kwak:
How about the solar wind instead?

The concept for the so-called Dyson-Harrop satellite begins with a long metal wire loop pointed at the sun. This wire is charged to generate a cylindrical magnetic field that snags the electrons that make up half the solar wind. These electrons get funnelled into a metal spherical receiver to produce a current, which generates the wire?s magnetic field ? making the system self-sustaining.

Any current not needed for the magnetic field powers an infrared laser trained on satellite dishes back on Earth, designed to collect the energy. Air is transparent to infrared so Earth?s atmosphere won?t suck up energy from the beam before it reaches the ground.

Back on the satellite, the current has been drained of its electrical energy by the laser ? the electrons fall onto a ring-shaped sail, where incoming sunlight can re-energise them enough to keep the satellite in orbit around the sun.

A relatively small Dyson-Harrop satellite using a 1-centimetre-wide copper wire 300 metres long, a receiver 2 metres wide and a sail 10 metres in diameter, sitting at roughly the same distance from the sun as the Earth, could generate 1.7 megawatts of power ? enough for about 1000 family homes in the US.

A satellite with the same-sized receiver at the same distance from the sun but with a 1-kilometre-long wire and a sail 8400 kilometres wide could generate roughly 1 billion billion gigawatts (1027 watts) of power, ?which is actually 100 billion times the power humanity currently requires?, says researcher Brooks Harrop, a physicist at Washington State University in Pullman who designed the satellite.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19497-out-of-this-world-proposal-for-solar-wind-power/

You stopped right before the idea goes completely out the window.

So far so good, but there is one major drawback. To draw significant amounts of power Dyson-Harrop satellites rely on the constant solar wind found high above the ecliptic ? the plane defined by the Earth?s orbit around the sun. Consequently, the satellite would lie tens of millions of kilometres from the Earth. Over those distances, even a sharp laser beam would spread to thousands of kilometres wide by the time it reached Earth.

?Two megawatts spread across areas that large are meaningless, less than moonlight,? says John Mankins, president of consultancy firm Artemis Innovation which specialises in space solar power. To beam power from a Dyson-Harrop satellite to Earth, one ?would require stupendously huge optics, such as a virtually perfect lens between maybe 10 to 100 kilometres across,? he says.

He also points out that the wire could burn out due to the huge current coursing through it, although he has not performed the calculations to gauge the probability of that occurring. But he does say that a smaller version of this ?clever and interesting? satellite could help power some space missions. ?I could imagine uses for this idea outside of the plane of the ecliptic, such as helping generate power for something like the Ulysses spacecraft, which went around the poles of the sun.?

It's unfeasible because the Earth's magnetic field protects us from solar wind so the satellite would need to be too far away to be practical.

Oh damn, how embarrassing. Oh well. Maybe the earth's rotational or orbital energy can be harnessed somehow. 107000kmph has to be worth something.

Eacaraxe:

Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run.

image

Please, tell me more about this space magic.

Kwak:
How about the solar wind instead?

I'm getting SimCity 2000 flashbacks.

Leg End:
Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run.

PV production, even the safest and cheapest contemporary processes, still require rare-earths, caustic, and volatile chemicals and highly-controlled environments. Runs up the price, harms the environment twice over (producing rare-earths is incredibly "dirty"), and relies upon non-renewable and scarce resources. That's for something that has to be individually connected to a larger grid, which means infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the size and number of photovoltaic panels.

Meanwhile, solar thermal is versatile, requires basically none of that shit, and can be purpose-built to meet regional needs and limitations. They're just solar-powered steam turbines, for god's sake. Admittedly low-output thus far (the biggest solar thermal plant in the world only generates 510MW), but it's promising tech with lots of room for growth.

Eacaraxe:

Leg End:
Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run.

PV production, even the safest and cheapest contemporary processes, still require rare-earths, caustic, and volatile chemicals and highly-controlled environments. Runs up the price, harms the environment twice over (producing rare-earths is incredibly "dirty"), and relies upon non-renewable and scarce resources. That's for something that has to be individually connected to a larger grid, which means infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the size and number of photovoltaic panels.

Meanwhile, solar thermal is versatile, requires basically none of that shit, and can be purpose-built to meet regional needs and limitations. They're just solar-powered steam turbines, for god's sake. Admittedly low-output thus far (the biggest solar thermal plant in the world only generates 510MW), but it's promising tech with lots of room for growth.

My city tried solar thermal, but decommissioned it because it wasn't very efficient, supposedly.

Drathnoxis:
My city tried solar thermal, but decommissioned it because it wasn't very efficient, supposedly.

I'm no expert in it, but what latitude and did they go for troughs, dishes, or arrays and towers?

Eacaraxe:

Drathnoxis:
My city tried solar thermal, but decommissioned it because it wasn't very efficient, supposedly.

I'm no expert in it, but what latitude and did they go for troughs, dishes, or arrays and towers?

50 degrees and trough. Cost over 10 million and couldn't even manage the expected 1 megawatt.

Drathnoxis:
50 degrees and trough. Cost over 10 million and couldn't even manage the expected 1 megawatt.

I'm no expert on solar thermal, but that'd probably be it. I haven't read or heard of many, if any, successful trough installations that far from the equator. That far north, I'm pretty sure the only real way to go is dish or tower. But, why were your authorities screwing around with solar in the first place, that latitude should be ideal for wind.

Eacaraxe:
When one can divorce the argument from climate change, one can make an entirely independent case for it based upon national security, energy independence, and plain economics, which Republican and Libertarian voters (up to and including climate change deniers) often find surprisingly palatable...

Some might find it surprisingly palatable, but it still won't gain political traction.

Oil and gas (and probably coal) are cheaper at the point of immediate power generation costs; they become more expensive when we factor in pollution and environmental costs. That cheapness is a powerful argument, particularly in a political group that tends to high disinterest or disbelief in pollution and environmental damage.

And it's not necessarily about just economics. Fossil fuels - oil particularly - isn't just an industry, it's a legendary part of the USA's historical development, and there's a lot of emotional attachment to it. Because of its power, the fossil fuel industry is intertwined with government (particularly on the right): oil money pours into politics and people with fossil fuel connections are spread all over political positions.

The simple fact is the US political right is substantially a dead zone when it comes to renewables. There's no point blaming anyone else, because they used the wrong arguments, or because they didn't like an unsatisfactory half-way house that some businessman dreamt up to line his pockets.

Eacaraxe:

Drathnoxis:
50 degrees and trough. Cost over 10 million and couldn't even manage the expected 1 megawatt.

I'm no expert on solar thermal, but that'd probably be it. I haven't read or heard of many, if any, successful trough installations that far from the equator. That far north, I'm pretty sure the only real way to go is dish or tower. But, why were your authorities screwing around with solar in the first place, that latitude should be ideal for wind.

I think it was a bit of an experiment to see whether it would be viable. We have a couple windmills too, like 3.

Eacaraxe:

evilthecat:
The entire concept of a "primary energy source" doesn't work in the case of green energy...They're all incredibly expensive and require access to very specific sites or resources.

This is the kind of argument I've had for ten years, and gotten nowhere with it least of all to pseudo-environmentalist liberals. Y'know, "there is no global panacea to energy production, solutions have to be regional and based upon comparative advantage balanced against need, and unified by a national smart grid".

This is one of those areas that get me seeing red. When one can divorce the argument from climate change, one can make an entirely independent case for it based upon national security, energy independence, and plain economics, which Republican and Libertarian voters (up to and including climate change deniers) often find surprisingly palatable...and the desired result (a green power infrastructure) is achieved anyways. Alas, no, "environmentalists" get so wedded to the climate change argument they develop severe myopia when it comes to being able to persuade others to their positions, and that failure triggers a built-in tribalist "circle the wagons" response that ends in them being more than happy for the planet to burn just so they can say "I told you so".

Look at the liberal response to the Pickens plan ten years ago. His plan was to phase out petroleum use for transportation in favor of CNG, as a stopgap for developing industrial-scale wind along the wind corridor, and building the infrastructure to support electric transport. Yeah, he's a natural gas man and heavily invested in wind, and therefore had a vested financial interest in his plan. It was still a cleaner plan than maintaining the status quo, relied on developing renewables, and provided a roadmap for the transitional period between now and 100% renewables.

But no, because it still relied upon fossil fuels, it was Literally Satan. No, it's better to externalize the cost of solar PV to former third world countries, stick solar PV panels on everybody's roof, and hope the energy economy underpants gnomes its way to sustainability.

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems, they just want an excuse to feel superior and talk down to everybody else. This is why most aren't involved in any way with the research and development of green technologies and just spout off smug and empty platitudes, (conserve! Stop driving smog belching cars! Save our Earth! etc.) and raging against what they think will harm the environment even if in fact it actually won't. All of which that in all likelihood these people are putting no actual thought into and are simply parroting back what they've been told. Platitudes and raging that even if true realistically will never actually get the world especially those actually responsible for most of the environmental damage to do anything no matter how much or how loudly they do it.

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

immortalfrieza:
Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

While there is some truth in that, in my experience it's very common for environmentalists to make a positive contribution, it's just that a lot of them spend too much time patting themselves on the back to stop to ask exactly how big that contribution is. Parroting platitudes they don't bother understanding (and worse, getting angry when challenged) is a real problem, yeah.

immortalfrieza:

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

Agema:
Some might find it surprisingly palatable, but it still won't gain political traction...

And it's not necessarily about just economics. Fossil fuels - oil particularly - isn't just an industry, it's a legendary part of the USA's historical development, and there's a lot of emotional attachment to it.

Not to be flippant, but so was slavery and the corporate depravities of the Gilded Age. The current state of the economy compared to the unprecedented growth and prosperity of the '50s resembles a foot forward and a mile back, and part of the problem is liberals and progressives have a disturbing tendency to let conservatives derail the conversation each and every time, in the rare occasion conservatives get to be the ones to do the derailing to begin with. Liberals and progressives need to end their hubristic obsession with picking hills to die on, and refocus on winning battles.

In one of the threads in the now-defunct R&P, there was a decent conversation going about coal country and how people living in coal country have completely lost their identity in the span of fifty years. Essentially, how the people of coal country went from the hardest-ass, ride-or-die unionists who literally fought armed conflicts against all comers for their right to economic self-determinism, to some of the most broken, impoverished, and shamed people in the country. The entire area used to be death-before-dishonor blue, and it could damn well be again if Democrats would seize the right message, remind these people who they used to be, and harness their unmitigated rage against the system that led them to this point.

That's the thing. Democrats don't want to tap into blue collar rage; they shy away from it. In the wake of that systemic, moral failure, Republicans step right in and deny, distract, and reverse that rage anywhere from those responsible. Because those responsible are the ones cutting the checks that "really" matter to both parties. Fossil fuels among them, and while it's true Republicans are overwhelmingly favored by oil and gas money, you're a goddamned idiot if you think that money doesn't make its way into Democratic coffers as well.

What reframes debates and allows liberals and progressives to win? The fossil fuels industry is the biggest gaggle of welfare queens in the country. The fossil fuel industry is "the swamp". The fossil fuels industry is the whiniest, bitchiest pack of whiny bitches in the country. The fossil fuels industry supports radical islamist terror.

In other words, it's everything the Republicans claim to stand against. The only thing keeping Republicans from having to answer for that, is Democrats won't budge off the climate change hill, despite the fact this is a fight they could win blindfolded and with both hands tied behind their back with the first iota of genuine fucking effort.

That's all shit we already know. That's all shit Democrats piddle-fart about, mentioning it here and there but never making a big stink of it, and run screaming for the hills at the faintest whiff of Republican pushback. That's all shit Republicans will go to the mats to avoid talking about by any means necessary. Start hitting Republicans where they're weak, don't let them change the subject or regroup, and keep hitting them until they have to answer for their own intransigence.

Kwak:

immortalfrieza:

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

How about the fact that "environmentalists" have existed for decades and yet for all the rhetoric we're still dealing with the exact same problems with protecting the environment with little to no actual advancement made to actually fix them. If environmentalists as a whole cared enough to put real effort into saving the environment these issues would have been solved a long LONG time ago.

immortalfrieza:

Kwak:

immortalfrieza:

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

How about the fact that "environmentalists" have existed for decades and yet for all the rhetoric we're still dealing with the exact same problems with protecting the environment with little to no actual advancement made to actually fix them. If environmentalists as a whole cared enough to put real effort into saving the environment these issues would have been solved a long LONG time ago.

You know what really gets my goat. All these 'doctors' curing patients. People still get broken bones, cancer, heart disease, AIDS and diabetes. Clearly, they aren't doing their job. We spend so much money and there seems to be no advancement in outcomes for patients. They should have fixed it by now, they've had plenty of decades to get it right

Becuase, the problem clearly cant be harder than we predict or the economics aren't favourable or there is better information now or that sometimes its some else's fault, not the environmentalists doctors.

immortalfrieza:

Kwak:

immortalfrieza:

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

How about the fact that "environmentalists" have existed for decades and yet for all the rhetoric we're still dealing with the exact same problems with protecting the environment with little to no actual advancement made to actually fix them. If environmentalists as a whole cared enough to put real effort into saving the environment these issues would have been solved a long LONG time ago.

Errm, are the environmentalists the one rolling back regulations and allowing more pollution?
Come on, they're not the ones with the power. They're a small lobby group who gets ignored in favour of capitalists who pay off and put in power politicians who enable them to continue getting away with taking unsustainably from the earth because perpetual growth is prescribed economic law.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/21/18700741/oregon-republican-walkout-climate-change-bill

Don't worry, the Republicans and right wing militias will stop that nasty solar being set up.

Yes, MILITIAS.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here