Slashdot Mirror
Two-Thirds of Americans Give Priority To Developing Alternative Energy Over Fossil Fuels (pewresearch.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Pew Research Center: A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources, compared with 27% who would emphasize expanded production of fossil fuel sources. Support for concentrating on alternative energy is up slightly since December 2014. At that time, 60% said developing alternative energy sources was the more important priority. There continue to be wide political differences on energy priorities. While a 2016 Pew Research Center survey found large majorities of Democrats and Republicans supported expanding both wind and solar energy, the new survey shows that Democrats remain far more likely than Republicans to stress that developing alternative energy should take priority over developing fossil fuel sources. About eight-in-ten (81%) Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party favor developing alternative sources instead of expanding production from fossil fuel sources. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are closely divided: 45% say the more important priority should be developing alternative sources, while 44% say expanding production of oil, coal and natural gas should be given more priority. There also are differences in public priorities about energy by age. Americans under the age of 50 are especially likely to support alternative energy sources over expanding fossil fuels. About seven-in-ten (73%) of those ages 18 to 49 say developing alternative sources of energy should be the more important priority, while 22% say expanding production of fossil fuels should be the more important priority. Older adults are more divided in their views, though they also give more priority to alternatives. Among those 50 and older, 55% say alternative energy development is more important, while 34% say it's more important to expand production of fossil fuel energy sources.
Contrast this with the incoming administration which wants to favor fossil fuels above pretty much all else https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html, http://www.nature.com/news/trump-s-next-move-scientists-struggle-with-foggy-future-1.21339.
The majority of Americans will support anything as long as someone else pays for it. If you ask them if they are willing to pay an extra 5 cents per gallon of gas to pay for alternative energy, of course they will say no.
"Perhaps most importantly, this does not mean we believe that polling is no longer accurate enough to be used to predict election results." http://www.pewresearch.org/201...
How much business sense does it make to invest in cheaper and cleaner energy instead of expensive tax-subsidized pollution-heavy energy that can't exist without taxpayer subsidized mining leases on public lands and non-accounting of pollution costs?
I mean Big Government demands we do the worst possible most expensive fossil fuel version!
If we don't Fill The Swamp with massive tax subsidies for old Soviet-style fossil fuels, we might become independent of the Middle East!
And then what excuse will we have to start foreign wars to make billionaires richer at the cost of American blood and treasure?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
To be fair on those affected by the resulting pollution, fuel prices should more than double. That people could care or complain about a measly 1 cent per litre (as you suggest) beggars belief.
And only 5% want to pay more for oil/electricity. Nothing new here, people don't care when spending others money. Government subsides? The more, the better!
As long as they use their own money to pay for it, and don't try to impose penalties on existing fuels.
Welcome to the new dystopian future! The orange clown will make you pay for you foolishness, over and over and over and over ...
I'd put a $1 billion into Polywell tech, supercharge that research.
Honestly, a full 1/3 of us want energy sources that suck when we have amazing ones all fresh and growing right at our finger tips? Why in gods name would they want more of what kinda sorta works (until you factor in how much energy it takes to clean up all the shit caused by making the energy) ?
Sometimes, I just do not want to live on this planet anymore
"...27% who would emphasize expanded production of fossil fuel sources."
So 27% of those polled are invested in Big Oil?
Greed is the only fucking reason to favor the more expensive and dying solution.
Face it, we lost.
The conservative coalition in power (alt-right, "christian", etc.) believes they have been subject to abuse at the hands of the "elite". They are acting like a cornered animal, lashing out at whatever the perceived injustices done to them by the liberal AND conservative elite. We told them their life-long, deeply held beliefs were "out of the mainstream", wrong, and hurtful. They came back and won, but they are still wounded.
Free market conservatives, clean energy conservatives, and basically anyone who is conservative based on pragmatism and principle are sitting in the back of the bus with the rest of us. No matter how many "but the majority of people say"... articles you publish, if it flows contrary to the narrative of the Ruling Powers, will be marginalized, ridiculed, and probably create a backlash against the very thing
Listen to Sean Spicer (Press Sec.) today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef42kffeyr8
You will hear the cries of victimhood and ego that we will hear for the next 180-360 days as the President & team settle into their roles. They sincerely don't know why we don't love them (and, by extension, America). My advice (not that I think anyone is actually going to take it), is to stop trying to influence the administration with these types of "facts" and polls. Instead, find a way to embrace their actual policies but SHINE A LIGHT on their impacts.
Example (I'm not a headline writer, but you'll get the drift).
Instead of saying the "Carrier Deal Was A Failure". Tell the whole truth. "Carrier deal saves 700 jobs, cost tax payers 3M, and 800 people are still going to mexico."
Instead of saying "Trump's Crowds were Smaller than Obama", Estimate the size of Trump's crowd, compare the weather, tell me how technology has changed viewership, and compare to the past 20 years of inaugurations.
Stop trying to "Crystallize" the narrative. It's hurting you. Try to report contextual facts, don't just tell us what we should "believe", even if you want to make a statement. BTW - this is why most conservatives hate you. They don't want to be told what to do, think or believe -- even if it is "true".
I do believe the Media will figure this out. It's going to take a while before they learn to report in such a way that speaks to all America. But they will, we'll survive, and just like Trump is rolling back Obama's agenda we'll have a chance at some point to re-enact some parts of policy that, as the article say, most "Americans" agree with.
If they called it "Smart Energy", the percentage would probably be higher.
People like to think of themselves as "smart", but necessarily as "alternative".
It's a poll not a fact.
JJ
It hasn't been but 3 months since people were slapped with bad polling data. Isn't anyone curios about the poll questions and sample demographics? Maybe you should ask for them before you start even taking a position on this, or any other "poll". Lies, lies and damn statistics.
Poll should be categorized as a trigger word/phrase, just like "nigerian prince".
In general, I would prefer unicorn powered vehicles over the alternatives.
I don't even know what this means. I assume it means they want the government to expend money in those areas. The government should stick to research in areas that are not currently economically viable, like fusion. As for "alternative" energy and fossil fuels, if people want one or the other let the market do the talking. I have panels on my roof, why don't they?
What percentage of Americans own gasoline-powered cars? What percentage of Americans get their electricity from a coal or gas powered electrical plant? What percentage of Americans have furnaces and fireplaces? Gas-powered lawn mowers, too? How many Americans think that the space program should be stopped until they develop wind and solar powered rockets? What percentage of Americans use plastics and other petroleum-derived products? What percentage of Americans are demanding that we stop eating food that is produced with the aid of gas powered tractors? What percentage of them are volunteering to give all that up?
Slashdot readers who take these sorts of stories seriously are f***ing stupid.
976 people who answered the phone preferred expanding alternative energy over fossil fuels. Big deal.
This at a time when private interests have expanded gas and oil production so much that natural gas and oil are cheap and america is a major producer.
Solar power is showing a nice pattern of gradual gains and is becoming quite competitive with fossil fuel. As much as conservatives complained about the bungling of Solyndra, the govt's general investment in multiple solar companies sparked the industry and made solar cheaper.
China's gov't jumped into the field also, creating a kind of solar "space race", which cranked up the rate of R&D. It's a good "fight". (China was later caught under-pricing their solar products to drive out foreign competitors, but that's another story. I took a nasty stock hit due to that.)
Thus, even though Solyndra was a lost battle, it seems Obama won the solar war. Over-focusing on the failures has made many conservatives miss the bigger picture.
Solyndra was a really cool idea: paint the roof white and use regularly spaced solar-collecting tubes. It was especially useful for low sun angles, resulting in fairly even power throughout all seasons . It just didn't pan out because flat panels eventually got fairly cheap due to flat panel R&D such that flat panel INefficiency at low sun angles mattered less.
Table-ized A.I.
The government has little to do with either.
It certainly can't speed up "developing alternative energy sources".
And the only thing it can do with fossil fuel sources is to step out of the way and let companies do what they want to do anyway.
"65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources"
Too bad those 65% don't vote for what they want, apparently.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
... to fossil fuels. Like nuclear. I'm OK with this.
Have gnu, will travel.
Americans, just like any amorphous group, are pretty dumb and easily swayed.
Asking them about specific subjects is also dumb because they have no clue about the subject and their given answer will be so influenced by the wording of the question.
The rest is bullshit.
but you apparently prefer "alternative facts", which, as Merriam-Webster corp. tweeted today, are not, you know, actually, facts.
Just as one easy counter-example, you can build a solar-panel-building factory in the sahara desert, converting local sand into silicon solar panels, using nothing but the energy from the sun to power the factory and the construction vehicles, after a short initial pre-sustainable bootstrapping period.
Also, the environmental cost of just shipping fossil fuels from producing country to consuming country currently dwarfs all of those environmental costs you mention, and that doesn't even count the environmental costs of burning said fossil fuels.
So one has to question the motivation behind your remarks. Are you a driver of an embarrassingly oversized "tru-u-oo-u-uck" used only for grocery hauling, or a paid fossil-fuel industry shill?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
where evolution runs in reverse.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
... how many have noticed that there are few "polls" anymore?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This largely depends on how the survey was worded. I am all for developing alternative energy sources, but I am also realistic about how feasible and financially viable it is. Right now there are a few criteria that need to be met for US power needs:
1. The power must be economically competitive with existing sources. Current solar PV arrays are about on par with natural gas turbines.
2. Power available as it is needed 24/7/365. This is the difficulty that comes with solar PV, wind etc.
If tomorrow someone perfects the ultra high capacity liquid metal battery http://news.mit.edu/2016/batte... or some other way to efficiently store massive amounts of energy efficiently then solar and wind and other alternative power sources become grid wide viable options for baseline generation. As it is, no renewable power source works reliably when the sun goes down/wind randomly stops blowing. I have over 5kW of solar panels myself, because it made financial sense and paid for it'self within about 10 years.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Texas has a lot of wind in West Texas, and some big cities in East Texas, so this is nothing new. The Obama EPA's new regulations on a variety of coal power plant polutants, on arsenic, and other elements, has really screwed over coal power plants. Death by bueracracy, instead of by legislature.
I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.
It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.
As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is extremely expensive and horrible for the environment without considering failures like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island. I find Nuclear to be the best option, but it's a massive investment to bring a plant up and work out the logistics of waste disposal.
Wind and Solar require huge amounts of land resources for roads and cabling. The large amount of cabling needed for them means higher maintenance costs. Making Cable requires huge amounts of heat, and a whole lot more pollution. Geothermal requires killing off rare ecosystems to trap the heat. Tidal plants requires destroying and interrupting large areas of the coast. Each of those has it's own unique maintenance challenges, and are very expensive to maintain as well but for different reasons.
Yes, petroleum has nasty gasses that hit the atmosphere. Is it worse than any others? Yes, but the amount of difference is not as big of a margin as people want you to believe.
Everything has a cost and every aspect of energy can be argued against and for.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I really hope russians somehow come up with mature, commercially viable fast neutron reactor. As an aside, is it really feasible to build a breeder reactor that can burn through most of the high level, long lasting waste?
I guess you didn't watch the video you linked to? Maybe you just figured that since he's a jackass (true), whatever position you think is wrong, that must be what he said?
Here's what he said in the video you linked to:
"We'll get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation so that we can pursue all forms of energy. This includes *renewable* energies and the technologies of the future. it *does* include nuclear and wind and solar, but not to the exclusion of other forms of energy."
(Emphasis his]
Yeah, all these people seem to think such things will happen just by wishful thinking.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I hate the term "alternative" energy. It makes me think of "alternative medicine" or "alternative physics". Energy is either cost effective or it isn't. Some non-fossil energy is cost effective, some isn't. Throwing them together under the label of "alternative" doesn't really do them any good.
Or fracking operation? Coal power plant? Of course not, especially if you can get your lights on and your care cruising on the highway through other means. You would rather have a thousands birds ground by wind turbines per day than get lung cancer from breathing radioactive coal smog.
So why are these things next to your home? Of course, because government has forced you and only the Standing Rock tribe had the cojones to call their bullshit. Fossil fuel industry only still exists because we are spineless.
I wonder if fracking will bring enough money into the region to pay for the damages which will be caused by the major earthquake which is now foreseeably coming their way?
- a thing that is indisputably the case.
- something that actually exists; reality; truth
"the moon is made out of green cheese" is a statement or proposition, whose truth-value is "false". It is therefore not a fact. Get your facts straight.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
They may have voted, but if 65% wanted priority given to alternative energy sources over fossil fuel development, yet half of all the voters, roughly, voted for the candidate who is "Captain Coal", then clearly, a lot of people voted AGAINST THEIR OWN INTEREST.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
... lots of present stuff, like the keyboard I'm typing on, laptop cases, tablets, chairs, clothes etc?
"For example, for methane (CH4), which has a short lifetime, the 100-year Global Warming Potential of 28–36 (x CO2 effect) is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87 (x CO2 effect)." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
Note: Better cache that page before dipshit and deputy disphit EPA guy have it removed.
If the methane clathrates in permafrost regions and arctic seabed etc are released due to GW, it will be the "polar" opposite of irrelevant.
If that happens, almost nothing else will be relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The cheaper energy is, the faster R&D goes. Movement to renewable energy is going to occur regardless, but a thriving economy based on cheaper energy now means we get to a great alternative energy future even sooner.
The previous administration was just helping subsidize solar for rich people. That's nice and all but I want electric cars for everyone, not just the 1% or wannabes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I guess this explains his picks for EPA administrator and the other oil patch connections in his cabinet? You really that stupid to believe anything that man says?
only a small fraction of those care enough to vote.
Greed is the root of all evil.
If you look at the questions and breakdown, Republicans support expanding development of all sources of energy, Democrats only want to expand renewables. Except nuclear, about which both sides are tepid.
We are a nation of many different facts.
This is fake news
This is true news.
At present, 100 percent of Americans want fossil fuel only solutions, go ask Wyoming politicians.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The current problem of alternative clean energy is storage, and it will continue to be a problem until someone find a better way to smooth energy output. If you stop demonize carbon dioxide and hydro-carbon chain for a moment. Instead, think of a way to use it to store energy. The problem is not fossil fuel consumption. The problem is we don't clean up after ourselves.
Do a wiki search, for energy storage capacity. You will find that energy capacity of ethanol is 10x of any type of batteries. If we can revert carbon dioxide into hydro-carbon chain for energy storage. We solve 3 problems simultaneously, global warming, energy storage, and pollution caused by drilling. We even can reuse the existing distribution infrastructure without modification.
The government DGAF about the environment or hippie protestors. DGAF about ruining groundwater and causing earthquakes with fracking, companies that ruin the Gulf of Mexico, pipelines that leak constantly, oil trains that blow up, slurry spills that ruin watersheds, a cities drinking water being poisoned by lead, or opening the arctic and eastern seaboard to drilling.
You don't have new nuclear power plants because their cost is unjustifiable. No nuclear power plant can be built without massive subsidization from the taxpayers, and not just during the initial, decade plus construction. There's the mining, refining, security, containment, disaster preparedness, decommissioning and of course dealing with the waste for hundreds to thousands of years. For less money and in far less time, you can build out a renewable energy grid, while creating more jobs in the process. The only loser here is the the most bloated pig in pork barrel spending - nuclear power.
Why do you keep bringing up the color of his skin?
You just hired a whore for Corporate America. You won't get feasible alternative energy in this country in the next four years.
Oh yeah, enjoy your war with China.
The new administration's energy plan excludes renewable energy and emphasizes oil and gas.
"The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ame...
Not doubting the polling, but my experience is very different. I don't know anyone who's donated *anything* to alternative energy research (though, to be fair, I don't know of anyone who's donated to fossil fuel expansion either). And I couldn't get 50% of my HOA to *permit me* to install solar (I live in a state without solar access laws).
So I think a more accurate assessment is that two thirds of americans want *other people* to use alternative energy *somewhere else*. Just like there's strong support for other people to use public transportation so they won't clog up their daily commute.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
I think many Republicans, including myself, are against the climate change agenda which has other political biases. If you remove this bias and focus on cleaner air and less pollution I am sure many other Republicans would come on board. I am in favor of developing healthier forms of energy, but I am very much against climate change politics that seeks to have more of global governance over the masses.
While wind and solar will never produce more than 10% of USA energy requirements. Let them miners roll 10-4 .......
There currently exists two sources of energy access that do not require the electric company; Solar, and Wind. One the easiest ways to handle a corporate greed brown out is to simulate one. Then go about constructively solving this future PITA problem. It will take some time before there's a dump tower electric company near you, but you can bet your inner breed meth addicted trailer park rent on it; it is coming, for you.
Pew poll asks if shit stinks. In other news, I want cheap fossil fuels now so I can enjoy my lifestyle. In my mind, that has nothing to do with development of alternative fuels. Why can't they happen simultaneously? What am I missing?
So 65% want alternative energy. So what? 65% also believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth the same time as humans. Or that after they die, they are going to some place in the sky. What difference does it make what 65% believe? You want to find out what they REALLY believe, ask them to pay a nickel.
Look, you're ignoring the greater picture. Renewables have been replacing essentially all of our decomissioned power plants for a few years now, and there's no reason to believe that won't continue. We're going to continue using oil anyway since renewables aren't yet able to cover all of our energy needs. Right now that oil is purchased and imported from other countries. We would really like to be producing oil rather than importing it. What the pipelines will mean is fewer oil imports from those foreign countries, lower prices, more jobs, and less debt. The phase-out of fossil fuels will take a while, be patient.
While I appreciate that you aren't screeching incoherently like many liberals, the tone of your post is very patronizing. I agree that the media need to start presenting "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" rather than pushing a political agenda. War between Washington and the MSM will have no victor. MSM loses viewers, citizens get misinformation, and the administration gets dragged through the mud. Nobody is benefited by this adversarial relationship. The last year and a half have been a disaster for people's trust in the MSM and it needs to end. Look, I'm not a Trump cheerleader and I'll criticize the administration when they make a misstep, but they've only been working for a couple days and have already achieved some great things. Why don't we judge the administration by what they do instead of by what the MSM says they might do? I'm troubled by your assumption that everything coming from the Trump administration is terrible and awful, don't give in to the knee-jerk responses. It seems like they have some very valid viewpoints in the Trump administration and I hope that people like you can keep an open mind rather than blindly following what you've been told by CNN & the like. Look at some of the results and fulfilled campaign promises after just 1 working day...
The keystone pipeline will help us become a producer of oil rather than an importer. We're going to be using oil for a while longer until renewables reach the cost and capacity needed to replace fossil fuels. This is just common sense. We might as well be producing instead of importing.
The leader of ISIS is "critically injured" or possibly dead according to many reports following a joint airstrike
TPP is dead
Hiring freeze in place for Federal gov't, respecting the tax payers money
Working with unions and industries to bring back jobs
TLDR; please keep an open mind. Dems aren't right about everything and Trump isn't wrong about everything. Please judge for yourself the results we've seen in just a couple days and be critical of what others tell you. Step out of your echo chambers once in a while.
"Rather than spend $billions on the US war machine to ensure the reliable supply of oil to the country, the US government should be subsidizing the production of batteries to store solar energy."
Mod parent up as insightful! Makes sense now that solar panels are so cheap to focus on other areas -- batteries (or similar energy storage devices like creating liquid fuels from air) being the major limiting factor now (even with many innovations in the pipeline).
Also related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Still, another way to approach this is to make all energy sources pay their true costs up front. For example, Trump talks about millions of jobs to be created by burning more coal, but ignores all the people who will suffer and die from the pollution as an externality. So, by taxing fossil fuels so they are priced correctly in the market up-front (and ideally distributing that tax revenue equally to all citizens) indirectly subsidizes renewables, efficiency, and batteries.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
More like, whatever you think his position shouldn't be, he probably already said it, and if he said something you approve of he'll say something else next week. The White House is rapidly nearing Baghdad Bob levels of credibility. Watch what Trump does, who he appoints, and what executive orders he signs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I voted against trump, twice, because as I said, he's a jackass.
> Watch what Trump does, who he appoints, and what executive orders he signs.
I'll be watching. So far, his executive actions have been:
Keystone XL & Dakota Access pipelines (with US-made steel).
Start undoingTrans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Reduce costs and regulatory burden caused by Obamacare.
The border wall.
In other words, he's been doing *exactly what he said he would do*. No matter anyone's personal opinion of TPP or Keystone or whatever, having somebody immediately set to work doing exactly what they said they would do is certainly a change from the professional politicians.
As my mother (and professors) always told me, "A pie in the sky is easily worth two in the hands.
That's true, it's only been a week. Many of his actions, such as putting pending regulations on hold until they can be reviewed, are in fact the same things that Obama and Clinton did. So indeed those aren't different.
Futhermore, Obama managed to add $850 billion in spending in his first month, so a big first month isn't new.
(ARRA)