Why did Democrats not realize that there’s only one green energy that’s not a joke?

[Stoner710]

Nuclear power is the only sustainable green energy windenergy is not sustainable, you need carbon energy in order to build wind turbines regardless if you have a nuclear power or not so we’re energy is complete joke regardless if you have nuclear power or not. The reason why these energy systems are a complete joke it’s because it takes more energy to make windmills and solar panels and then they produce in their entire life stand nuclear energy last for 50+ years so you don’t have to mind new fuel constantly wind turbines last about 10 years I saw the house and they produce less efficient energy then Coal we really need to abandon this stupid idea of green energy because it’s a joke it doesn’t work it’s been proven it doesn’t work time and time again and green energy was really the bees knees Jeremy wouldn’t be opening up coal factories again

[jshm2]

GTFO here you stoner.

Nuclear energy is the worst form of energy, let alone calling it "green". It's like saying human bodies are the best compost, and it's a "waste" to just bury or burn them.

The setup cost and waste of nuclear energy far outweighs any benefits it produces. It's like living on a credit card and then paying only the minimum until it maxes out. Hence why fewer countries are bothering with it. Only those with nuclear weapons are maintaining it, to keep skills in nuclear weapons current.

As for your Green energy assertion: you've got little clue, kiddo. EVERYTHING takes oil in one form or another. plastics and most metamaterials all come from oil. Green energy is about making a circular economy to make less waste in energy. It's not about replacing energy sources. Windmills and solar panels are made of better recyclables each cycle. The first cars were pretty shit compared to modern and even most early power plants were pretty dodgy.

All changes have to start somewhere. Nothing starts off 100% efficient and proper. Green energy is just a part of that process for energy.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is amazing how big an idiot you are. Your claim doesn't even make logical sense. Of course a wind turbine produces more energy than it requires to build. In fact, it pays back the initial investment in less than a year.

Ask Amazon you stupid freak, in Indiana a place I toured has thousands of wind turbines as a source of backup power for their data centers as well as providing energy for 200,000 homes. It is called the Meadow Lake Wind Farm.

https://www.edpr.com/north-america/meadow-lake-wind-farm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/588oJ6NiNjs

Dude you actually need to stop reading internet memes and do actual research. It is amazing how much stupid shit you post. . . and you are not embarrassed about being dead wrong.

[Stoner710]

Except I’ve done the research green energy with the exception of nuclear power produces less energy then in takes to make it. The French use nuclear power 70% of there power comes from nuclear they have 56 nuclear power plants that power the country. Along with fossil fuels. India has 22 nuclear reactors and 3.3 percent comes from nuclear those thousand of wind turbines you site only power 10% of India build more nuclear power plant get more energy. There’s also 1.3 billion people and thousands of wind turbines only power 200,000 homes that literally has proven my points that wind energy is a joke and should be abandoned forthwith and never use or mentioned again unless you are making a joke about how stupid wind energy actually is in reality

[RolandCuthbert]

Nah, dude you haven't done any research at all. I have been to Amazon data centers. One of them uses the wind farm as backup power. Amazon, the state government of Indiana and other private investors all pitched into create this farm. Here you are talking about what is happening France.

Dude, you can go see the wind farm here in Indiana. They will take your goofy ass on a tour. They will supply you all the information on the different turbines in the farm.

The latest wind turbine designs are over 80% efficient in terms of investment/production.

Your best coal plant is only 42%.

No one said anything about nuclear power being less efficient. You lied when you made the claim about coal. And you lied when you claimed it takes more to maintain a wind farm than the energy production coming out of it.

That doesn't even make common sense. Wind is constant for the locations spec'd and all you have to do is send a maintenance crew out every once in a while. And the farm will run itself for 20 years.

A coal mine needs constant maintenance delivery of coal, coal miners, to say nothing of the dangers in the mine itself.

[Anonymous]

Clearly you have absolutely no idea how ridiculous what you believe is.

You are completely wrong and its entirely obvious that you are wrong.

Just think about it for a moment; if it were true that (even an equal amount, nevermind the '100x more energy into a solar panel than you get out of it in its lifetime') it takes as much energy to make a solar panel as will produce in its entire life time, that would necessarily HAVE TO mean that no manufacturer of solar panels was making any money at all, but not just not making any money, it would mean that there was never, ANY possibility that they could EVER make money from selling solar panels and yet there are companies all over the world making solar panels.

So having established that you absolutely dont know what the fuck you are talking about at all, that your sources of information are totally fucking wrong, maybe its about time for you to start listening to different people.

[DryGermanGuy]

Why don't you first try to master the usage of the English language so you could actually inform yourself about this - and other - topics?
Germany managed to increase the share of renewable energy from <10% to ~45% in the last twenty+ years. And it's Germany, meaning we produce a lot of things. Well, how the hell did we do that?

[Stoner710]

really germany got rid of all switched to green energy and then completely reliant on gas from russia now because they decided to sanction and now there re-opening the coal plants because they need the energy from Cole because like I said the beginning green energy is a joke except for nuclear power

[DryGermanGuy]

I have no idea what "energy from Cole" could be, but then again, I don't speak gobbledygook. Learn proper English.

[Stoner710]

Cole coal why is there 2 different spelling in your language. Either way green Energy it is a joke and I’m voting for Marie Le Pen

[RolandCuthbert]

He doesn't have to speak proper English. He claims he is conservative, so he shuns things like knowledge, science, objective fact, etc.

Dude actually claimed a wind turbine costs more energy to maintain than it produces. That doesn't even make rational sense. A turbine can basically operate forever if maintained. The Meadow Lake Wind Farm will have an installed capacity of 801.25 megawatts. Meadow Lake's generation will be equivalent to the consumption of 203,000 Indiana homes. All for the cost of some wind.

[Red_Arrow]

Nuclear plants require carbon methods to create them and to build the protections. If there is an accident, millions are affected (think Chernobyl), much much worse than a wind turbine falling over. And as we were seeing now, eventually the entombed nuclear waste leaks into rivers and ground water, eventually affecting millions. You are right that the damage caused by nuclear is not a joke. Why don’t you realize how dangerous it is?

[Stoner710]

It’s dangerous yes and yes it take carbon energy to build nuclear power plants but you get 1000x the energy out of the nuclear power plants then you put into building the power plants.

You need carbon energy to build solar panels and windmills yet you spend 100x more energy from the windmills and solar panels then they get in the entire life making solar and wind a bad investment Way less efficient and basically making them more worthless then dog poo

[Red_Arrow]

You get much more energy from windmills and solar panels than you spend making them. Where do you get your misinformation? And not only do they give you energy that costs less to generate, but transmission lines are not needed from the generation sight to where is is being used, making is even cheaper. And not only is nuclear extremely dangerous, but it is contaminating the earth and people LONG after its useful life and the costs cleaning up the leakage is extraordinary. And one Chernobyl makes it too dangerous.

[NamerOfStars]

Because there isn't. Nuclear's our best bet in the short and medium term, yes, but don't forget about geothermal- if we could tap Yellowstone, we could meet the energy needs of the entire PLANET. Of course, Yellowstone's in a national park, so that's not an option, but we do have not one but TWO other supervolcanoes here in the US. They're not as big or as active, but they could be a HUGE help in energy independence.

[exitseven]

The tree huggers got rid of all the nuclear power plants 30 years ago and did not plan on the country needing more electricity and not less. Windmills will never replace it. There are windmills that have been built locally that produced far less electricity than the contractors promised. They end up in people's backyards with unhealthy consequences.

[Guy13]

Because Democrats can’t fleece American with taxes…steal money…make money with it. They can with solar and wind. Steal our money, invest it in their companies which they own stock.. and get rich off regular people. Communists ‼️‼️‼️

[Jamesshinobi]

because Democrats are stupid, liers, or both. nothing else.

[Stoner710]

I wish I could leave a funny and a like but I can’t this is far the only thing I agree with democrats on is legal weed. But then again I can actually argue why weed should be legal and conservatives really can’t on this issue this is the one issue where I differ

[Surely]

Because they really had no plans for the future of green energy other than their dream.
With the American people having inventive minds and will come through when things look the darkest. They figured if they forced the issue by eliminating carbon based fuels. Someone would come up with the idea that they could call their own!

[KrakenAttackin]

Nuclear power has a lot of potential, especially with Sodium reactors. The world went with U235 for both power and Plutonium.

[Anonymous]

Because they can use the lack of energy to act as another bar to imprison us with

[Stoner710]

Fair but can liberals explain there position

[1ukazzz]

There is solar panels, wind turbines and water turbines...

[1ukazzz]

by the way nuclear power makes nuclear waste and makes heat, but that is not problem I guess, because you don't believe in climate change. Also where do you get these numbers from?

[Stoner710]

Right but there worthless the nuclear energy or fossil fuels and way way way less efficient. There a joke might as well not use any energy at all over wind and solar. Water is efficient but they kill the fish, for example the chinook salmon use to run up the Columbia river up into Canada they no longer up to Canada because of the dams that were built it’s hurting the wild life population including Orcas and sea lions not to mention the other animals that feed on the salmon

[Stoner710]

I believe in climate change I’m just saying the ways that democrats try to combat climate change is a joke. Also there’s a bunch of evidence that subjects to me climate change we are facing now is a natural cycle of the earth. Example there was a mini ice age between 1300-1870 we are about 150 years out from that of course the climate is going to get warmer coming out of a ice age

[RobEurope]

They want us to go back to the middle ages but gay.

[OddBeMe]

Its not sustainable because there's waste dummy.

[Stoner710]

Now the are wind or solar sustainable, Since it take more energy to make windmills and solar panels then the amount of energy they put out is not a stainable source of energy. Carbon energy and nuclear power are the only forms of energy that put out more energy then it take to mine or pump. Your better no using any form of energy then using solar and wind

[OddBeMe]

So we should stop working on them?

you're right that nuclear is a great stepping stone to alterntive energies. But it produces vookoo waste. An entire lake near me is toxic because its next to one.

[Stoner710]

Yea we should stop working on them. Because there pretty much pointless. Why invest in something where you know you will loose your investment?

And yea we didn’t understand the impact nuclear waste had on the environment I don't know why the lake was polluted but we know way way way more on how to control and store nuclear waste now and can prevent pollution if properly implemented

[OddBeMe]

How do you know alternative sources like solar and wind are useless?

[Stoner710]

My dad was in the Energy sector he knew firsthand the difference between when solar and nuclear and carbon he’s an expert when it comes to Energy and he basically admitted that wind and solar are completely useless we should not be investing in them instead we should be investing in carbon energy or nuclear energy you might as well go back to the caveman era using solar and wind

[Stoner710]

Hydro is another one that would work but they destroy wildlife populations like the chinook salmon use to run up into Canada but because the Columbia river has been dammed so much they no longer run up into Canada

[kinkyoldman]

They lack common sense and ignore facts.