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.
I have seen a few documentaries which make thorium look promising. But I don't really know enough about it.
There are plenty of reactor designs that look good on paper (or in documentaries) that don't work well in practice. 20 years ago, "pebble bed" reactors were a big fad, but that went nowhere. India and China are both working on thorium salt reactors (both have plenty of thorium), so we'll see where that goes. In theory, thorium salt reactors are inherently very safe, the fuel is plentiful, and they can burn waste from uranium reactors. So there is a lot of promise.
Lots of info here: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
The main problem is that the "Nukes = BOMBZ!" crowd has so poisoned this country's regulatory structure with regards to nuclear power, that you have to have more money than Gates just to talk with them. Let alone starting up a project.
Then you have to set aside millions to defend against lawsuits.
Basically all these "dealing with fucking idiots" costs, NOT the budgeting for decommission and cleanup, is what skews the costs of nuclear so damn much.
Basically we need nuclear to get off fossil fuels in the near term.
If we can rebuild our grid system to accept distributed inputs better, and give battery storage tech another generation or two, it's ENTIRELY possible that renewables like wind and solar, augmented by Hydro and some minimal use of nuclear could supply this entire country.
Some other things that could help.
Adopting newer building codes that go beyond "Well, this worked in 1939!" But adopting codes that would specify mew buildings at least come CLOSE to NetZero standards. Doing so would increase construction price a few percent. But, ultimately, the homeowner would get all that money back when selling the home. Money burnt (literally) on monthly utility bills is cash you'll NEVER get back.
Hell, simply reinsulating and re-facing the exterior of an existing home can DRASTICALLY bump up the energy efficiency of the home.
Better education of builders on newer technologies like SIP panels and ICF (and moving away from pure "stick" construction).
Reducing energy use like this, better than any "green energy bling" is what will motivate people to look into things like rooftop solar and energy storage.
Right now, most homes consume a ridiculous amount of power. Even if nothing's going on.
Decimating power usage, and now people can get away with a modest battery array and an affordable solar setup that begins paying back IMMEDIATELY.
And then, if you have a whole bunch of cloudy days, because your house is running more efficiently, you can stretch your battery usage longer or charge up from the grid during cheap, off-peak times.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Solar cells recoup their energy costs in about 5 years now and become CO2 negative even if coal was used as the primary source. Coal pollutes forever.
****B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T****
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Apparently, they did:
Nearly 139 million Americans voted this year, according to the United States Elections Project. This sets a new overall record, surpassing the all-time high of 132 million Americans who voted in the 2008 contest between Barack Obama and John McCain.
But that total suggests that only 60% of the country's 232 million eligible voters actually voted this year.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Saudi Arabia is modernizing their energy sector. Three years ago, Saudi Arabia announced a goal of building, by 2032, 41 gigawatts of solar capacity, slightly more than the world leader, Germany, has today. According to one estimate, that would be enough to meet about 20 percent of the kingdom’s projected electricity needs
Meanwhile USA is investing in ... Coal? This while Solar is closing in on price parity with the likes of coal — with full-cycle, unsubsidized costs of about 13 cents per kilowatthour, versus 12 cents for advanced coal plants
- 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?