• slingstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Yeah, I experience a bit of cognitive dissonance whenever I remember conservatism and conservation have very little overlap.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If you’re falling to the myth of being a strong independent … person …. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, solar and wind are local energy sources without foreign dependencies, and scale both up and down. This should be right up their ally.

    I don’t want to be on the Texas electrical grid because of all their blackouts: Deisel generators are noisy and I have to depend on someone to fill the tanks, but I can put solar on my roof and batteries on the side of the garage and be independent. Zero fuel costs. zero have to depend on anyone. —— why isn’t this their line?

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      I work in municipal development and permitting.

      Texas has had a HUGE surge in solar panel and backup generator installation over the past 4 years.

      But the power companies have taken notice. The biggest part of a lot of power bills now isn’t usage, but fees for being connected to the grid at all. And connection to the grid is required for a Certificate of Occupancy if you’re in a city, and to get insurance or a mortgage even if you’re in the county where permits aren’t required.

      You can’t even create a legal lot in Texas without having electrical service to the lot.

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m not sure if there is a word for fundamentalist in the context of economics the way there is for religion. What ever it is that is the answer to:

      —— why isn’t this their line?

      A fundamentalist needs certain axioms and won’t come back to check if they line up with reality. This makes it nessesary for certain things to just be false no matter what.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Because it is change and visibility they are concerned with. Not the things they claim.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Supporters likes kickback from oil subsidies, fossil fuel deregulation, and supression of competitive technology. That’s the angle.

    …Maybe solar/wind companies should name themselves things like “Exon”

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The “right” aren’t right though, they’re wrong. They should be called “far-wrong” instead of “far-right”, imo, as their stances on many things show.

  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    They like geothermal though, for the simple reason that it’s actually cheaper in the long run. Also solar is nice because you can live off the grid. But otherwise it’s not very popular among conservatives because the cost effectiveness in the long term isn’t quite there. They aren’t motivated by the idea of green energy, it’s a simple cost calculation.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      But that’s completely bullshit. Solar and wind are so fantastically cheap that finding a way to deal with the capacity factor isn’t a big deal.

      The new geothermal solutions are impressive and should open up a lot more possibilities, but don’t assume they’re being honest about any of it. They’ve advocated for nuclear for decades without actually building new nuclear plants.

  • Ricky Rigatoni 🇺🇸@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Tell them that they need to stop using wind and solar or else in 100 yesrs we’ll run out of wind and sunshine. We’re talking about “adults” who have the toddler mentality of “DON’T TELL ME NO 😡”.

  • _____@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 day ago

    wind and solar are not popular for conservatives because they were left talking points first. which obviously means it’s wrong, libtards owned yet again

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Their biggest problem is that there’s not big money in them. Once you have solar power on your house, you don’t need to keep paying them every month. Where’s the fun in that for the rich?

    • hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      If you go far enough right, solar and wind are extremely popular. Very much leads to some weirdness when I was researching solar for my house, and kept stumbling into prepper communities and the like.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 day ago

    To be fair, wind is also a form of solar power. (Wind being caused by the difference in heat between the different hemispheres/poles & the rotation of the earth)

    So wind & solar power are indirect & direct long-range nuclear energy sources, respectively.

        • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          23 hours ago

          That comes from the energy from earth’s rotation. That energy is left over from the formation of the sun.

              • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                59 minutes ago

                Erm, the sun was formed in the center of a nebula and the planets formed out of the remaining mass that didn’t collapse into the sun. Yes, the gravity of the sun influenced how the remaining mass interacted and formed into planets with rotation, but it is not wholly a direct result of the sun itself, rather the angular momentum of the original nebula.

              • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                58 minutes ago

                lol this is so pedantic it’s mindbogglingly fun. I would argue you’re confusing “gravitational effects” with what people are describing as “the sun’s output from nuclear fusion”.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Plus nuclear wouldn’t work without fissionable elements, which wouldn’t be here without supernovae aka dying suns.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              So nuclear power is not like solar at all…… it’s GALACTIC POWER! maybe COSMIC POWER!

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Which is why we need to finally develop fusion, to free us from the tyranny of power of stellar origin!

              …if you ignore the fact that fusion is basically replicating what a star does, that is

              • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                “Watch and dispair, oh mighty stars, how we have enslaved your children to release us from your tyranny!”

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 hours ago

    What if the left “cancels” solar because its power source causes cancer? Also, something something starts fires in blue states.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean Natural Gas is as natural as Iron or Coal. The problem is extracting and burning it is causing issues.

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      They’re both Orbital Fusion.

      We should try to harness the power of the tides, since that’s lunar gravity driven.

      um…

      Moon Rodeo Power?

  • Asetru@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m honestly wondering this. Renewables reduce dependency on foreign countries, so using them can be interpreted as a patriotic act. They make sense, geostrategically, not just for saving earth but also for reducing the leverage other countries have over yours. This could be something that both, green activists and nationalists, can jointly agree on. I don’t get it.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        This. Tbh most conservatives I’ve talked to say shit like “solar would be great if it were viable/cheaper to install,” they’re not against it really, they just don’t think it works well enough yet, which is largely due to the efforts of lobbyists.

        • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I firmly believe that without lobbyists pushing us into red or blue boxes, we’d all find common ground on a lot of important issues.

          I’ve known some conservatives who are very much into solar power in a sort of independent/self-sufficient/pseudo-prepper type of way.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Energy Dominance! is new buzz word. You are right that “energy security” best solution is to never have to pay for fuel again. Such talk is woke radical left climate alarmist talk, even though that was the word the O&G industry told us to reduce reliance on energy imports.

      Energy dominance means the goal is to destroy the planet, but think of the shareholder value created by extorting the planet into US approved energy consumption. War and extortion are just more radial left woke words to distract from achieving energy dominance.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Still, wouldn’t it make sense in their logic to take more like the Norway route? Locally sourced renewables for me, while snaring other countries awith GLOBAL ENERGY DOMINANCE. ( sorry but I can’t write this without the booming evil villain cartoon voice)

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Locally sourced renewables for me, while snaring other countries with GLOBAL ENERGY DOMINANCE.

          Biden used this approach, but US empire plan was always to prefer energy dominance at cost of global destruction. There was just some naive hope that US could dominate clean energy too, no matter how slow it was. Biden’s choice of a war on Russia is purposeful global destruction to enrich US oil industry so that they could fund GOP harder, and have “democracy to blame” for all of the alternate drilling done in world.

          While US made solar/wind and batteries is still cheaper than new FF plants+ fuel costs, subsidizing them to not buy even cheaper Chinese options, is preferring climate terrorism to energy security. War, and warmongering choices for war, is climate terrorism prioritizing anti human massive diesel use and new production instead of considering human sustainability.

          That Americans pay more for energy and insurance and rebuilding, is good for oligarchy and “superficial” (GDP) economy. Genuine American manufacturing and personal cost of living are sacrificed.

          The logic of subsidizing uncompetitive local industry is only valid if it creates a future of competitiveness. Otherwise there is no export potential, though almost competitive status is enough to get legitimate sales with shipping time/cost advantages over imports. The logic of political bribery from oligarchs who prefer to protect the asset values and profits means that “national/human good” has zero relevance to outcomes.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Maybe we never could have competed with the much cheaper cost of manufacturing in China, but clean energy production in the US has been a comedy of errors, a pattern of throwing out our advantages, a habit of outsourcing to China

            • You might think the huge investments from the infrastructure act of 2022 are too little too late to competed with a well established supply chain elsewhere, and you’d be right.
            • You might think Trump’s tariffs are not useful but more out of personal ego and you’d be right.

            But the US funded a lot of research and development in clean energy technology over decades, we funded manufacturing over decades. Then we gave up on domestics manufacturing. We outsourced. Instead of staying the course to build a domestic industry, We threw away our investment and our advantages, leaving it to someone else to build the industry. Now we tried paying for it again, now that the cost is much higher, but oops, we did it again: we throw away the billions that have been spent, the goal that made it worth those billions.

            • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              The key is power of O&G industry over both Electric monopolies who are not interested in lowering consumer prices, and auto manufacturers who both have bribable executives. Goal was always to treat renewables/EVs as a PR stunt, and adopt slowly, and hoping world would look at US for energy leadership and wait for its pace. Hubris that US would always dominate everything no matter how much it sabotaged disruption.

    • vanderbilt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The mistake was applying logic to a position they didn’t use logic to arrive at. Their talking heads say renewables bad. The thought process ended there.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even works down to the state level. My state, Wisconsin, has no coal mines, no oil wells, and no natural gas wells. The closest thing we have to any of it is the best sand for fracking. Otherwise, every dollar of energy we spend ends up leaving the state one way or another.

      Unless, that is, we do something intelligent, like building an offshore wind farm on Lake Michigan. Though I’m sure someone will complain that we’re killing the whales.