Do you support using more solar and wind energy to power America?
Solar yes, wind no
Why not wind?
Wind is more inefficient. Clean yes, but the amount it costs to build and maintain the turbines doesn't recover the energy generated.
Also they are very effective bird choppers.
I do, but I much much prefer nuclear energy.
To a point.
I don't understand how people think we can live with just solar and wind power. What do you do when it's dark and there's no wind?
Solar can store energy. We can use hydro power too. We can harness power from methane and trash. We can use minimal, and I mean minimal, natural gas and nuclear.
It makes sense if coal and the like are just backups. Not saying we're ready for the transition now; I know for a fact we aren't. But solar actually can generate a considerable amount. So much so that if you have solar panels any extra electricity
generated gets sold back to the power company.
The issue with all those forms of energy is that they either generate a lot or nothing in an area. Transportation is difficult and there are big losses and storage on any meaningful scale is not practical.
Next problem is that people are not ready to pay extra and it will cost a lot more, not just some percent, but multiply by a factor.
True. I agree that large scale operations couldn't rely on these alternate forms. However, I wouldn't be averse to private power companies making it an available option for homeowners. Small scale, privately owned. It could work.
Isn't it already out there? I don't what it is like where you are but I pay for green energy and can opt to pay more.
Idk it might be. I know some people who have solar panels on their houses. But I don't know of any private power companies that do. It certainly isn't widespread, obviously.
I think I pay for wind energy but I cannot say for sure.
Solution: Nuclear Energy
In Kansas there is almost always wind and plenty of it.
Yes but with two stipulations. It should not cost tax payers anything and consumers should be able to decline any cost increase.
Consumers who only have access to one utility should not be forced to pay more than they already do unless they want to of course.
It shouldn't cost taxpayers anything or it shouldn't cost tax payers any more than they currently pay for nuclear or coal power?
It should cost them whatever it costs to run the plants.
But Alek who is going to want to buy wind/solar energy if it costs more than alternative methods? Nobody. That (and also relative inefficiency) is why we aren't totally solar/wind powered now.
As long as we subsidize and tax break for traditional power we ought to do the same for other sources.
But there's just so much coal and it's so easy. We have a ridiculous amount of coal. Wind and solar aren't as easily accessible. And $$$. The govt doesn't feel a need to subsidize alternative energy sources.
No subsidy for anyone at all for any reason. Create something that works and make money.
Wipe out all the subsides and it'll be a more even playing field.
I agree is no subsidies across the board.
Also, there is definitely more wind and sun than coal...