If Green Energy Is So Great, Why Aren't We Using It? 

I don't want to set the world on fire

blackmesa232323 I would like to go as far away from the history of fallout (Gams Series)

blackmesa232323 agreed. it's sad how many uninformed people still think that they are more dangerous than coal plants, and how many more think that they can explode lol. (they can't)

what????

blackmesa232323 Huzzar, nuclear for the win

this.

You think the power people only get money from power (most millionaires and billionaires have very diversified incomes)? And they would immediately switch over to green energy if it meant they could make more money or keep making money from power.

Oh yeah I would say that will happen..When the Oil starts to run dry only..Until then they will just protect there current setup. By the same old means of buying out inventions an ideas that undermine there agenda. Which is to milk the Oil an fossil fuel system as long as it remains feasible. Then perhaps things will start to change a bit more towards better battery an electrical management tech. One can only hope.

Ah yes, because we would not make even more money by guilt tripping you into paying double for solar =) The Bank always wins =D

Oh yes, rich people are making good money in Europe (dunno about America), from windmills that are heavily subsidized by the government. And new windmills are being built everywhere, even in places that are quite inappropriate for them. And the windmills would make heavy losses every month if they weren't subsidized. But now they are making more money for the already rich people, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Mikko Haavisto I agree. Absolutely!

Mikko Haavisto but Very High Risk to do

I hear that nuclear is only risky because most countries cut costs by neglecting safety standards and not investing in the latest, safest technology. New models for reactors cost more upfront.

Nuclear is only high-risk with our current light-water reactors. An LFTR design is literally fool-proof-safe.

In 14.5 secs the sun generates enough energy to power the world for the rest of the day (not claiming we can capture it all). It is the fuel and it delivers itself at no cost. A PV module (hell, an entire solar farm for that matter) produces power with no moving parts, no emissions and no sound. They are made from the second most plentiful element on earth, silicon.

"capacity factor" the main problem of renewables.

exactly.

Renewables + Nuclear + Hydro (Hydroelectricity & Hydroelectric Batteries). not exactly sure what they call it, its not an actual battery per se but they're using hydroelectric dams like batteries. Whenever renewables that are feeding the grid are producing more than demand, they use the extra energy to pump water from the bottom of the dam back up to the top, so whenever they need it they can let that same amount of water flow and turn turbines to get the energy back. Idk how long they've been doing this for, I would suspect that they're not getting the same amount of energy back that they "Stored". If they were then it would be worth it to build ponds and rivers just to build these dam batteries! (I had too lol) Ive always said in the future, once our ancestors have populated this whole Country including the deserts… .so once Las Vegas spreads out all the way across the whole Great Basin lol and Ratifies to become its very own State with its Capital Building obviously going to be the "Circus Circus" because logically where else would the Politicians go? Lol… .anyways, once that happens and the Great Basin, Mojave & Sonoran Deserts are all full of houses & people and towns ands Thunderdomes, Ok seriously, I think we should build hydroelectric dams all the way down the throughout the Grand Canyon. So there would be a dam every 10-15 miles throughout the Grand Canyon, that would be somewhere around 25 Hydroelectric dams in total throughout the entire Grand Canyon, each damn would be a number of feet shorter than the one before it that way once the water has reached the bottom it can be pumped all the way back to the top to make the journey again, they have some dams where the turbines themselves can function just like a pump to move water backwards, if they did it this way then each damn could function as a "Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Dam" but I still think that it would increase the efficiency to have one of the dams provide the power to pump water all the way back up because then that same water would turn turbines at something like 20 more dams. Right now, the numbers for efficiency of the energy stored by "Pumped Storage Hydroelectric dams" is around 60%-70% for older dams and 70%-80% for newer dams. Some even claiming numbers like 87% efficiency, which is pretty good and definitely contributes to a big problem facing energy methods like "Solar" & "wind" , because whenever theres lower demand on the grid but the sun is Gleaming☀lol or the wind is Blowing 💨, a system like ive described, what I like to call a "Hydroelectric Ladder System" could very well be the answer. Especially in a place like the Deserts out west where both "Solar" & "Wind" are well suited for that environment. Now, obviously, converting the Wonderful Grand Canyon into a 277 mile system of energy plants is not something any society is going to want to do if there are still options on the table. Thats why I made the reference to the Thunderdome lol, that particular idea is only for an earth that is running out of room and options and has not figured out Nuclear Fusion yet. I would love to hear some comments, criticism, opinions on it.

Agreed, i work on electric cars and the average person has no clue the depth that is the "all electric future"

@@thetayterminator1436 it takes more energy to pump it back up than it actualy gives in electricity. If you wanted it to be at least as good you would have to make the sistem 100% efficient which is impossible. Only way im seeing this work is by placing a nuclear plant by a river and feeding the water vapor that comes from the plant back into the river. But that water would have to be stored intil it was cool enought. Also it would come with no minerals so it would change the Ph off water and be extremly bad for the ecosistem

If these technologies are on the horizon that means we should have already started decommissioning all the current fission plants. We might not even be able to decommission some in time for rising sea levels let alone if something sudden and cataclysmic were to occur.

We'll still need fision reactors for other things like isotopes for nuclear medicine

+Kurt Coleman Rising sea levels impact entire cities, water rising wont cause any issue for a nuclear plant... The waste is the only thing that can cause issues with water, and even then there are major rules about how to and where to store it until recycling it.

But they cost a lot more. I don't think anyone is going to have their own personal ITER anytime soon...

Ljiljana Krstic Filipovic I guess, but that doesn't mean we need to keep the ones we have. The nuclear medicine can be made in small plants made specifically for it, and energy can be made in the rest of the plants.

You will fist build a nuclear powerplant to generate electricity to power the magnetic field to hold the plasma

@aidenr42 Still 40 years away...

Nah. Thorium LFTR molton salt reactors. That's where it's at.

Lol I said that as well

Madison Meyer No because oil=💶💶💰💰💰

Madison Meyer Who are you calling we simpleton? It's not the general public that buys out the alternative energy companies just to liquidate them.

Oh yeah green energy makes us all feel good. Until the lights go out and the GDP plummets.

Mostly, yes.

james Fra no

wait 4 years

Maybe not. Surprisingly Elon Musk is going to be one of his advisors. So hopefully he gives some good input to this topic.

He doesn't believe in climate change so... yes.

james Fra I finally found one XD. You're an idiot.

You hit the nail in the head. 2 things that need improvement. Cost effective and efficient energy storage, and a better, more efficient recycling program to defray the cost and environmental impact of decommissioning aged assets.

The people who care about their health, tgeir children's health and the planet.

markleyg you mean the one percenters?

The antinuclear and antifossil idea was created to lower people's living standard, bring about poverty, deindustrialize, and regress technologically.

Politicians don’t care what we think or what we want. They’ll just railroad these changes in so they can appear to be saving the planet while flying on private jets and big SUVs and telling us that we need to completely change the way we live our lives while doing absolutely nothing to change their own.

Making a new system work is the easy part of technology. The real breakthrough is when it can be made cost effective. The whole idea is to make energy cheaper. A turbine by itself can produce electricity less expensively than coal on its own, but you have to add the cost of energy storage to make it a continuous, reliable source of power. That really throws a wrench in the cost per kWh of electricity. That needs to be overcome if 100% renewable energy is to be more economical.

🤨

@@Jayismynickname most equal ,comrade !

wdym

Mark SW let the government do the heavy lifting. We're running out of time, the "free market" doesn't see it profitable yet so they're waiting for it to become a viable investment option. It could take decades! But if the government undertook many green projects, it would be faster.

The energy storage, backup for renewable energy and network modifications necesarry (protencion relays, on load tap changers...) is the expensive part.

Your question lies in the green energy. Green energy is the need of the hour. To save on electric bills, you can visit the link*za. gl/5A7naLv*

ACAY Fusion has been just around the corner since I was a boy. 😃😆😄😅😂

ACAY THE FUSION DRRIVVVEEE

I am Nither Goku nor Vegeta!

It's a double entendre. ACAY is referencing both the dance and the energy source.

yall some dumbass nerds

Sad, but true. Follow the money. Renewables will really make inroads, when oil, coal and natural gas become more expensive, and renewable energy becomes less. We're just about there, but the grid scale energy storage necessary to solve the problems caused by intermittency leaves the advantage to conventional sources for now. Give it 5, maybe 10 years, let's see what happens then. Roof top solar and batteries at home are just about there, considering they're competing with the RETAIL cost of electricity. The WHOLESALE cost of electricity is less than half retail, and is much more difficult to compete with.

While animal agriculture is a massive contributor, the 51% number is fairly contentious imo due to the factors attributed to it. I would also recommend everyone to watch 'Cowspiracy'. While I don't believe eating meat (and beef in particular) is the issue,the manner of production most use, and the scale of the situation is clearly unsustainable.

JanjayTrollface I agree I'm open minded to other information too, the UN released an article as well about roughly the same amount percentage wise which is still quite shocking. I agree too the demand for animal products is far too high and unsustainable ☝️️

MeechanTheVegan V On a related note you should look into cultured meat and vertical farming. Both promising technologies over the next 10 years

+JanjayTrollface Methane and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases. According to UN survey only cow farts (methane) account to more pollution than transport. I think the 51% figure is after pigs, deforestation and other factors. (From another UN survey)

Yea,that's right Tom.The 51% number includes alot of other factors,some more relevant than others to animal agriculture.And as you say, the bare bones figure of animal agriculture without these factors is still larger than transport.Personally I think the real issue is over population,sure the earth could sustain far more humans than there currently are,but at what cost to every other living thing on the planet?

I agree, but you also need power plants that can regulate their output power fast (like hydro and gas power plants), because today's nuclear can't do that.

Clean as hell what does that mean, guess what comes out nuclear power, radioactive materials that are then used to build nuclear bombs so how are they clean

@@amrokhalid3632 nuclear is the only source of energy which the pollution is contained and isn't thrown in the atmosphere. And, because of that, it's the cleanest energy source ever developed. The nuclear waste is so small and most people's don't realise it. It's necessary 40 grams of nuclear material per year per person. That means less than 3.5 kg per personal if we consider the life expectancy to be around 80 years. For comparison, the oil equivalent per capita in the US is around 6,800 kg of oil per year. It's simple to notice which pollutes more

Short answer: pretty much,long answer:it's complicated.

JanjayTrollface I'd like the long answer please :D

So would I,so would I....

Dan K The meat industry is worse for the environment. Why, because of all the methane cows produce.

that much is i knew.

LOL The Green Lantern _could_ provide us with unlimited green energy, true.

Minty have to upvote the DC joke

ryanreynolds :/

Energy In (sun) Energy Out (Infrared radiation from heat) Green house gases reduce the amount of energy that gets out. Less energy out means more energy has to stay (in the form of heat). Which means nothing can happen but the Earth warming up. There is no other logical conclusion.

rainick Too bad his father said "Fake news!" like every other Trumpie

Nuclear and hydro will cost them more money. Stop acting like those idiots denying facts to get solar when you can blow it out of the water with these sources.

Eepu you do realize that nuclear power uses uranium, which has to be mined in large facilities which uses large amounts of fossil fuels. also the residual by product has to be disposed of not to mention they use water to cool down the reactor which get contaminated and also takes money to filter out. nuclear energy is NOT a renewable source cause the uranium will run out too and then what.

Emily, you do understand that renewables also require mining? Also, you do understand that the water used to cool the reactors isn't released in to the environment, right? Additionally, generation 4 reactors don't use water to cool the reactor. Furthermore, you do understand that the sun will burnout some day? The important part is if an energy source is going to run out but when, and with more advanced gen 4 reactors we have thousands of years worth of fuel.

lmao, the sun burning out? I say we focus on next 10,000 years, not 100 million. But yes, the molten salt (gen 4) reactors look very promising.

Mining uranium does not require large facilities. Because of the incredible power density of uranium and thorium, you only need to mine a tiny amount compared to coal, oil, gas and the materials needed to build solar cells, wind turbines etc. The amount of waste virtually nothing, the volume equivalent to an 8oz can of drink over your life time, and that is if we don't employ reprocessing to reduce the amount of waste (most of the waste is actually unburnt fuel).

Gen 4 reactors are good

dave freier +

dave freier We're still venting radioactive steam into the atmosphere from Three Mile Island to this day. We're doing a little bit each year. 😃😂😄😅😆

fossil fuel is cheap ⛽, and the machines that use the fuel is very loud 🔊 and vibrate, and make people horny and giggly 😁

fossil fuel is cheap ⛽, and the machines that use the fuel is very loud 🔊 and vibrate, and make people horny and giggly 😁

Luckily those companies are loosing ground quickly due to low oil prices and renewable energy

Simon WoodburyForget Actually, Solar energy prices has fallen alot over the years and might even make it cheaper than coal and natural gas!

Your a simpleton. How did Apple become the most valuable company in the world when they started with almost no money?

Without grid scale energy storage, it can't be more than 20% any more, because the fluctuations on the grid, it would hinder more than it would help.

Because solar and wind energy are not reliable. They relay completely on the weather being merciful.

Lexyvil invest in a real energy source like nuclear

If I were to invest in renewables, I would put my money into recycling programs, and electrical energy storage. Recycling, to recover constituent elements and compounds, which can be used to manufacture the next generation of assets, as well as keep the junk out of the environment. Less fodder for the critics.

Or massive amounts of energy storage. Either way this is very expensive.

then electric bills would increase 1000%. In english, you would have to be a millionare entrepreneur just to pay your energy bill.

No, it wouldn't. Renewable energy would replace it all and everyone would get free energy.

What about the silicon tetrachloride from making solar panels?

There are more expensive processes to produce solar panels.

Then go build your own fucking solar company and sells us panels.Then when you fail come back and cry for us to pay for your failures.

To be fair these are all more valid reasons than other industries working to go against it. A government isnt going to implement more of it until its better than dirtier power, not because they are being bought out by the companies.

+Xaines Sustainable energy IS better in not causing devastating economic destruction from CO2 emissions causing global warming causing sea levels to rise.

Democrats & Republicans accept BILLIONS of dollars annually from the same corporate lobbyists. There is no difference between the parties. The government is a private entity(in fact the "federal" reserve is a private bank). As long as people take sides and listen to the 5 corporations that own every news channel in existence the earth will be destroyed and we will remain enslaved. I'm not holding my breath that the average joe will one day be smart enough to figure this out either.

ENJ4321 What's worse, fewer jobs in the energy field or climate change causing widespread disaster?

ENJ4321 if you don't have to pay such a hefty energy bill you wouldn't need to work so much.

Tanner climate always changes no matter what, it has changed for millions of years. It changes on the macro level and on the micro. So it isn't entirely a "man made" problem. Could we possibly be better to the Earth, sure...we should be taking care of our home. However we have had ice ages, and shifts in major landscapes that had nothing to do with pollution. If the Earth truly got sick of human kind, it would have no problem causing a mass human extinction...shaking us off like fleas.

Long Forgotten the luxuries people like, the trips people take, cars, clothes, jewelry, movies, music, electronics, food, housing, education, innovations, science advancements, deep sea and space explorations, even this very Internet are all things that millions of people with jobs have put time and effort into making. Just by people having jobs and buying things... it makes it so that lots of other things are being created by people. The more money being generated by hard working Americans making purchases, goes into lots of other things. With less people working, unemployed, or lack of consumer confidence, the amount of money being generated and/or made leads to an economy that will be in bad shape...such as what we have now. I know it may be hard for a liberal to understand, but I broke it down for even the most brain dead to follow.

ENJ4321 you make assumptions that I am liberal. There are more types of people on this earth than your silly and stupid squabble. You at sticking to an outdated and traditional way of doing things. What works now will effect the future. In fact it already is.

200 dollars over one year is 16 dollars a month. If you're hard pressed to find that, then there's an issue. And please don't say "prices in Europe" as that denotes all European countries are the same which they are not. On average Europeans pay about 20 cents per kw hour and the average in the us is about 14. So not much cheaper. And again each state is different. Hawaii has about 32 cents per kw hour while Oklahoma only has 8 cents per kw hour. And the Euro is worth more than the USD so even though it is more expensive on average in Europe, it evens itself out. Please stop being so selfish and realize that renewables, whether solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear are in the long run much better. Fossil fuels and coal will NOT last forever. They are a finite resource, and are projected to run out soon. Renewables on the other hand are just that. Practically infinite. There are issues with them including storage capacity and energy output, but we are on the cusp of developing the technologies to perfect these problems. Most of Europe plans to phase out coal usage by the mid to late 2020's while we project to continue using it indefinitely. Eventually, renewables will pay for themselves and the costs will go down, but until then, it just got to be something that the population has to be okay with. People need to look ahead and realize what's at the end of the road instead of only seeing the immediate problem.

klondike444 oil is a fosil fuel

+Mr killer of noobs You don't say. As so often when talking about renewables, there was no clear distinction made between "energy" and "electricity". Not mentioning oil, on which we depend just as much as on coal and gas, leaves a gaping whole in such discussions.

Denmark and a couple other European countries are self sufficient with renewable energy.

+Nathan Ritscherle No European country is "self sufficient with renewable energy". Look for evidence of that. You won't find it.

The point where those sources aren't available anymore will be after those currently in charge are already dead. If you think a rich person won't completely doom humanity tomorrow to make the maximum profit today, you're wrong.

Yonkage You bring up a very valid point. Didn't even think about that

Money (as a concept) is a resources as valuable as joules. Economics can't be ignored any more than thermodynamics.

The reason we stopped the space race with the Russians was because we ran out of money (and we felt pretty good after getting to the moon anyway). Money is imaginary but the resources it represents aren't. It moves raw materials from one place to another, it moves people to go to work on those raw materials, it moves the product of that labor to someone who wants it in exchange for their own labor. None of that happens on its own. Economics is people.

*shrugs* Imagine yourself a corned beef sandwich. lol

+Kevin Brand So why not explain to me how I am "retarded" since I have no idea where that came from. To me this is fairly obvious. Or you misunderstood my op.

Serah Wint Misunderstood. Sry its like 3am for me

These subsidies are a mixed truth. When people attack oil and gas industries for being subsidized, 99 times out of 100, they are referring to the federal government allowing the use of federal land for drilling. They also refer to government research funds to assist in developing more efficient extraction, transportation, and refining processes. The former in particular is an incredibly weak argument seeing as how the federal government owns much of the US's oil reserves, making it impossible to drill without these "subsidies".

Not everyone lives on a volcanic island, unfortunately.

GW of energy? :) Germany has around 100 GW of solar and wind installed. The biggest problems are diluteness and intermittency, scalability is not one of them.

hydro can replace fossil fuels no need for batteries