grnmtnboy0 t1_ir9tx20 wrote
I'm all for sticking it to the OPEC thugs (see below), but there is no way renewables will have the capacity to replace oil in less than 20 years. We need to produce our own oil, etc. while shifting over. We also need to invest heavily in new nuclear power plants. New designs are hundreds of times safer and more efficient than the ones that gave nuclear power a bad rap.
Before anyone freaks out over what I've said, remember, I agree with getting away from oil. I'm just pointing out near-term infrastructure changes that we have to make for this to work more smoothly
CarboniferousTen t1_ir9ws83 wrote
It would be great if Bernie supported advancing nuclear, but he’s adamantly opposed, and even called for phasing it out entirely in his presidential campaign.
grnmtnboy0 t1_ira6b4a wrote
Yeah, this is why I don't vote for him. He makes good points when it suits him but he's been in politics for too long
MoreGuitarPlease t1_iramvjm wrote
Find me someone better to vote for. He’s generally way more right than wrong.
immutable_truth t1_iratgag wrote
And generally a man of honor which is super rare in politics
MoreGuitarPlease t1_irauzll wrote
At the minimum, you know what you’re getting.
columbo928s4 t1_irbgn9l wrote
yep, this. if you are looking for a politician who is perfect on every single policy point, good luck to you lol
Srr013 t1_irbonl7 wrote
Bernie takes principled stances and sticks with them far more than most other politicians. That’s true whether he’s “right” or “wrong”.
raz0rsnak3 t1_irai7c1 wrote
Perfectly said. People think that we can just "go solar" but fail to consider its limitations, especially in VT.
Traditional_Lab_5468 t1_iraukiq wrote
Yeah, it's a tough sell for a cloudy, northern state to be dependent on a resource that relies on clear skies and long daylight hours.
syphax t1_iraysem wrote
But not hopeless- I’ve produced about 5000 more kWh than I’ve consumed YTD from my solar array.
Twombls t1_irb0omi wrote
Yeah solar actually works pretty well. And you can have standby power plants that operate on natural gas in case of emergency.
Twombls t1_irazm6h wrote
Germany is one of the largest solar producers. And its further north than us.
Traditional_Lab_5468 t1_irb53b0 wrote
Sure, I'm not arguing it's impossible. It's definitely a solution that can work, my take is just that it's not the most efficient solution. If you look at energy sources in terms of comparative advantage, it doesn't really make sense.
If I had to wager why Germany has so much solar energy, I'd guess it's the same reason that Vermont has so much solar energy. We have some of the most expensive energy in the country in Vermont. The only remedy that an individual household has for that is to a) reduce their energy consumption, or b) produce their own energy. For the environmentally conscious consumer, they really only have way to generate their own power. Buy solar panels.
If you do a cost-benefit analysis, it's actually a much better ROI to buy solar panels if you live in VT than if you live in AZ. That's not because the solar panels produce more energy here, it's because even if they produce half the energy of a panel in AZ, it still offsets more cost for the end-user due to our high energy prices. I'm guessing that's exactly why Germans use so much solar energy. Energy is expensive, and solar is the only way they can make their own. Whether it's efficient or not doesn't matter when it's the only game in town.
My "it's a tough sell" take assumes that the end goal is to reduce total consumption, though. It's not enough to just replace the oil and gas industry with a wind/solar/hydro industry, the end goal should be to reduce the total amount of resources required to produce energy and simultaneously reduce the total energy demand.
With that background, I stand by my statement. It's a tough sell, and the reason it's a tough sell is because solar is fundamentally not an efficient means of producing energy in Vermont. In AZ, they might be able to replace one nuclear power plant with 1,000,000 solar panels. In Vermont, though, it might take us 3,000,000 solar panels. In that scenario, we've effectively wasted 2 million solar panels worth of material for no good reason, since the output of the nuclear power plant was constant and didn't change based on climate. I'd share the same criticism of Germany. Solar panels contain heavy metals which are destructive to mine and more destructive to dispose of. Right now, most of them come from Xinjiang where they're manufactured by Uyghur Muslims in forced labor camps. We shouldn't be using them if they're not an efficient solution.
IMO it's easy to make the case "I should buy a solar panel" here, but it's really hard to make the case "Vermont should invest in solar energy". We just don't have the climate for it. There are solutions that are not only more cost effective for our state, but also fundamentally less damaging to the environment.
[deleted] t1_irb9k8z wrote
[deleted]
Zap_Franka t1_irberaj wrote
Subsidies...(Tax benefits).
[deleted] t1_irc7lgz wrote
[deleted]
Traditional_Lab_5468 t1_ircqx4p wrote
Right. But the fundamental question is not which solution has the lowest dollar cost to the end user after subsidies. The question is which solution produces the most energy balanced against the lowest environmental impact.
Private investors don't foot the bill 30 years from now when heavy metals are leeching into the soil around a landfill. What a private investor does today is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand. If it were, well, why aren't we just going all-in on oil and gas? It has by far the largest market share. Private investors love the fossil fuel industry. It must be the future, then, right?
murrly t1_irf9ufi wrote
Yea? How is that working out for them?
They are far more dependent on Oil and Natural Gas than they were 20 years ago before the green party destroyed their nuclear power.
There is no energy future without nuclear getting us there first. Vermont produced LESS carbon before Vermont Yankee was closed, so we went YEARS backwards because Shumlin was an idiot.
ninjamansidekick t1_irbuznc wrote
Germany may not be the best argument for going green. Despite all of there solar generation they are genuinely worried that people are going to freeze to death this winter because of the energy crisis.
Twombls t1_irb07an wrote
We have lots of open unused fields that are perfect for solar arrays. Combined with power storage solar is actually pretty good in vt.
Catatonic27 t1_irbcyfy wrote
What storage are your referring to? The vast majority of solar installations do not include any significant energy storage infrastructure as far as I'm aware. Batteries are very expensive and not very good for the job.
syphax t1_ircmcb7 wrote
Catatonic27 t1_ircwkvw wrote
I certainly hope you're right, but I've been around too long not to be at least a little skeptical of new revolutionary battery startups. I'll believe it when I see it, just like all the other largely theoretical grid level storage solutions. I don't want our strategy be naive trust that currently-intangible technologies will save us sometime in the indefinite future, I would rather see us invest in tried and true solutions like nuclear and offshore wind, and do it NOW.
raz0rsnak3 t1_irbgbef wrote
I just meant we have lack of sun in VT. Also, we don't have great/affordable storage.
Amity83 t1_irb8v9v wrote
What about winter when there is less sun and snow covers the panels? Also battery storage is prohibitively expensive right now. We could put wind turbines on hillside maybe but that means cutting down trees.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_ircimz4 wrote
Precisely. The wind doesn't always blow nor does the sun always shine. We need a reliable grid and the grid needs reliable sources of generation.
alostpacket t1_irc7da3 wrote
What near term infrastructure change is not possible in less than 20 years? Especially in VT?
- VT has lots of hydro power.
- The majority of VT's electricity already comes from renewables.
- Electricity is available just about everywhere thus installing EV chargers is not a major infrastructure change.
- Wind on mountain peaks is already popping up in VT, 150MW currently. And works fine in cloudy or winter weather.
- Geothermal and heat pumps have gotten much better for cold climates. Maine tested residential heat pumps last year without backups.
- Our electricity companies are already testing how to adapt the grid using local storage
Bernie is right, we must move aggressively, not shrug and resign to waiting "20 years"
columbo928s4 t1_irbghlp wrote
> We need to produce our own oil, etc
the united states is already the world's largest producer of oil
alfonseski t1_irba88u wrote
WHY ARE YOU SO RATIONAL!
kidding
we for some reason have problems talking about some topics and they are the topics that need to be talked about the most. We need more grnmtnboy0's out there.
elefantsblue t1_irayvzh wrote
And the waste that last 10,000 years?
Catatonic27 t1_irbd6zr wrote
Goes great with maple syrup on pancakes
chad_bro_chill_69 t1_irbjv59 wrote
Better to make sure our planet lasts 10,000 years than not take action to address it’s most immediate challenge now.
elefantsblue t1_irbsy7h wrote
Planet isn’t in jeopardy, humanity is.
cpujockey t1_irbsd0p wrote
We've figured out safe methods of storing nuclear waste, and even repurpose depleted uranium for other applications.
Nuclear energy is by far the best investment we could make. It actually generates less radiation than coal during operation - unless you're in Chernobyl and russia says - TEST THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR REACTOR!
seriously though, don't discount nuclear energy. It's basically just hydro electric in a closed system. basically fuel rods radiating energy causing water to boil turn a turbine, its really that simple.
elefantsblue t1_irbsvsd wrote
It’s literally ripping apart the universe to satisfy our own wishes. Nah dog, I’ll pass.
cpujockey t1_irbt083 wrote
> It’s literally ripping apart the universe to satisfy our own wishes.
how so?
elefantsblue t1_irbt4ud wrote
That’s what fission is…
cpujockey t1_irbtdq3 wrote
fission isn't required for a reactor. literally the radiation of the element is what boils the water. the fuel rod isn't energized or doing any science fiction - they just put the mother fucker in there.
fission is what happens when nuclear bombs are dropped - that is the reaction of splitting an atom.
ffs - if mr. gunderson was here he could school your ass in this.
elefantsblue t1_irbuac3 wrote
According to the US Energy Administration and I quote, “All nuclear power plants use fission.” Lol
cpujockey t1_irbvae7 wrote
admittedly - I had fission confused for fusion. you are correct. i cannot brain today.
elefantsblue t1_irbvfxg wrote
Nope. Fusion is what the sun does. Bombs are still fission.
cpujockey t1_irbviyw wrote
correct. and I need sleep or more coffee. cant decided yet.
elefantsblue t1_irbw667 wrote
I like to drink a bunch of coffee and then go to sleep to make up extra refreshed. Good luck!
grnmtnboy0 t1_irbdimm wrote
That' a problem, yes, but not insurmountable. We will figure it out in time. I think the benefits far outweigh the costs
elefantsblue t1_irbt1tu wrote
Figure it out in time!? You have that much faith left in humanity? Seriously.
grnmtnboy0 t1_irbx3r9 wrote
Faith in governments? No, not much. But I do have faith in humanity.
elefantsblue t1_irbxdsx wrote
That’s great. I do not. Not in the system we’re currently in. Solutions only happen if the come with profit.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments